# Yuan Tang - Module 6

Journal Entry For
Module 6 - Evaluate Your Alternatives

Here is my original building form in Module 5, in which I want to make a “water bottle shape” high-rise building with 4 base geometry.

Here is my recommended building form in conclusion:

# Part 1: Create two custom nodes and integrate them into the testing node logic (2u)

Since I want to focus on my design in module 5 which is a Dynamo geometry instead of Revit mass element, I need to set up my custom node with the metrics and test functions. Here the two testing parameters I used are the two radius on the middle two bases of my high-rise building, i.e. middle1radius and middle2radius.

My evaluation custom node overview: (upper left is the basic of high-rise building, middle parts are metrics, right purple parts are outputs).

The first custom node is to evaluate the cost since one of our goals is to minimize the construction cost. I set the linear relationship from \$700 per SF at the ground level to \$1500 per SF at 750’ above the ground.

The second custom node is to evaluate the directness of view because the hhigh-risebuilding is close to the world-famous Golden Gate Bridge. To simplify the real situation, I set up an column with 1.7 mile to simulate the bridge and put it in North-western direction about 3 miles away from our site.

The list of values from the new testing node for two cases is attached below:

From results it seems that the directness of golden gate bridge view varies little among diffrent testing groups. This make sense because the bridge is 1.7 miles long and the building is so close to the bridge.

 middle1 radius middle2 radius Gross Volume Gross Surface Area Gross Floor Area Directness of View Cost Estimation 80 50 9050419 246342 916836 48 890236679 80 60 8918643 248244 903666 48 893234424 80 70 8848208 250668 896631 48 904758665 90 50 10688457 267060 1080598 48 1051391484 90 60 10553053 268836 1067063 48 1053626386 90 70 10465111 270931 1058271 49.8043447 1063516921 100 50 12428103 288078 1254525 48 1223663871 100 60 12312482 289896 1242965 48 1227311867 100 70 12224327 291824 1234149 49.83675642 1236697643

# Part 2: Design a Single-Objective Optimization Scheme (3u)

Next step I need to consider how to choose “the best case”. In this example, as I analyzed above, since the building is so close to the long bridge, the directness of view metric is less distinguished and less important than the cost estimation metrics. In addition, if we are on the developers’ side, the cost of construction is a key factor in design.

Here in this case the two testing metrics are not strongly related to each other and they don’t seemly have an obvious tradeoff. However it is reasonable to make a guess that if we want to set more areas/windows with a view if Golden Gate Bridge, the most cost we may have on facade or something else.

If I have to think about a single measure to incorporate the two metrics, I will try to set up a new metric which focuses on calculating the extra cost to be spent for a better view of Golden Gate Bridge exclusively.

Then I used single-objective optimization scheme and made a plot. I linked the best decisions and because the metric values of the view are so close, it might not be that obvious on the plot.

In this case we can get the top three alternatives: [80,50], [80,60], and [90,70]. I think the best option is [middle1radius, middle2radius] = [80, 50], since this testing group has the least cost as well as not bad directness of Gloden Gate Bridge view.

# Part 3: Recommended Design and Visual Feedback (4u)

Lastly, I want to provide some visual feedback on the appearance of the panels. I changed the wallThickness and Colors of adaptive panels according to the directness of Golden Gate Bridge View.

Because the directness of view values are a bit close, the color and panel size changes are not so obvious, but this still reflects how good the view is on different sides and levels of this building.