CEE 321: Formal Models For Design

John HaymakerAssistant ProfessorConstruction Eng. & MgmtCivil and Env. Eng.Stanford University

2 Problem: Informal Process

3 Problem: Informal Organization

Problem: Informal Product

Problem: Informal Functions

Room Type Decision Matrix

NSF/Bed (Factor)

Efficiency (Sustainability)

Social Interaction

Future Flexibility Popularity

Fit w/ Campus Housing Plan

Singles 110 (1.0) 2 3 2 4 ? 1 = Worst

Doubles 100 (1.1) 4 5 5 3 ? 5 = BestDivided Doubles 110 (1.0) 2 3 2 4 ?

Triples 95 (1.16) 4 1 5 1 ?

Quads 90 (1.22) 4 3 5 1 ?

Suites 135 (0.82) 1 1 1 5 ?

Mix 110? ? ? ? ? ?

Problem: Informal Function, Behavior Gero, J. S. (1990)

Impact of Lack of Formalization

• Communication– Speed and accuracy

• Integration– Speed and accuracy

• Performance– Single and multi-disciplinary

Drawings

Written Reports

Verbal Accounts

Presentations

HowHow do do youyou definedefine breakthrough breakthrough qualityquality??

Residents

InvestorsBuilders

Engineers

Sustainability

Resident Comfort

Maintainability

Aesthetic Appeal

Energy Performance

Craftsmanship

Need a Need a processprocess and and toolstools for for teamteam consensusconsensus

Decisions

Analyses

Options

Goals

The Big Idea: MACDADIThe Big Idea: MACDADI

Decision Maker Decision MakerStakeholders

Engineers

Decision Maker Decision Maker

Stakeholders

Engineers

MACDADI

Typical Process

Proposed Process

MACDADI,Multi-Attribute Collective Decision Analysis* of Design Initiatives,adapts Management Science tools for the AEC Industry tohelp teams collaboratively choose the best building configurations.

* Keeney R., and Raiffa, H., (1976). “Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs,” John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Identify Project TeamIdentify Project Team

Decision maker tells us which stakeholders to satisfy

Designers provide options and their impacts on goalsMACDADI communicates and integrates these data

Stakeholders tell us what goals the facility can fulfill

Students Eng. Faculty Eng. School University

DesignOptions

Stake-holders

Options’Impacts

Prefer-ences

BestOptions

Stake-Holder Weights

DecisionMaker

DesignTeam

Options’Merits

ProjectGoals

Identify StakeholdersIdentify Stakeholders’’ GoalsGoals

DesignOptions

Stake-holders

Options’Impacts

Prefer-ences

BestOptions

Stake-Holder Weights

DecisionMaker

DesignTeam

Options’Merits

ProjectGoals

StakeholdersStakeholders’’ PreferencesPreferences

Living

Laboratory : 33%

Environmental Performance : 30%

Economy: 9%

Desirable Housing: 28%

Community7%

H20Cycle7%

Material Use9%

Economy9% R: Materials

3%

Indoor Environment

13%

Demonstration13%

R: Process2%

R: Water4%

R: Sensing3%

Learning8%

Zero Carbon14%

R: Structure2%

R: Energy5%

R: Vehicle1%

DesignOptions

Stake-holders

Options’Impacts

Prefer-ences

BestOptions

Stake-Holder Weights

DecisionMaker

DesignTeam

Options’Merits

ProjectGoals

… it will be beneficial

… thank you for the good design of the survey.

Jonas, Stanford Undergraduate Student

Identify Design OptionsIdentify Design Options

This is great!!! Truly integrative design!!!

Ken Kortkamp PE, LEED APSherwood Design Engineers

DesignOptions

Stake-holders

Options’Impacts

Prefer-ences

BestOptions

Stake-Holder Weights

DecisionMaker

DesignTeam

Options’Merits

ProjectGoals

Evaluate OptionsEvaluate Options’’ ImpactsImpacts

DesignOptions

Stake-holders

Options’Impacts

Prefer-ences

BestOptions

Stake-Holder Weights

DecisionMaker

DesignTeam

Options’Merits

ProjectGoals

Calculate OptionsCalculate Options’’ Value for StakeholdersValue for Stakeholders

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

100%

Day

lit

Stee

l

Cerif

ied

Woo

d

Fuel

Cel

l

Sola

r H2O

Gre

yH2O

Hea

t

PV A

rray

Dim

mer

s

Even

ing

Dim

Fixt

ure

Opt

imiz

e

Mon

itors

Rai

nwat

er

Gre

y/Bl

ack

H2O

Gre

en F

inis

h

Gre

en R

oof

Trip

le P

anes

Cler

esto

ry

Atriu

m

Students Faculty Department University Developers

DesignOptions

Stake-holders

Options’Impacts

Prefer-ences

BestOptions

Stake-Holder Weights

DecisionMaker

DesignTeam

Options’Merits

ProjectGoals

Choose the Best OptionsChoose the Best Options

DesignOptions

Stake-holders

Options’Impacts

Prefer-ences

BestOptions

Stake-Holder Weights

DecisionMaker

DesignTeam

Options’Merits

ProjectGoals

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

Students Faculty Department University Developers

Desirable Housing Living Lab

Environ. Performance Economy

17 MACDADI: A Methodology for Systematically and MACDADI: A Methodology for Systematically and Transparently Achieving Breakthrough QualityTransparently Achieving Breakthrough Quality

“Wow, this is really great. I

think this really might make the

difference in helping us

decide the final scope, which in my experience

here, is the hardest part of

any project....

Thanks so much for taking this

on- I really hope it can be a model for

making these kinds of

decisions on all jobs.”

Laura GoldsteinProject Manager

Stanford University

CEE 321: Formal Models For Design

http://cgi.stanford.edu/~class-cee321-1072/wiki/pmwiki.php?

The Opportunity

The site of the new E+E building is on axis to the existing quad, in the North West Corner of the SEQ-2. The iRoom will be on the second floor of the E+E building. The space is approximately 70 feet long x 33 feet deep, or 2300 square feet in area.

The Design Problem

A typical AEC workspace A current iRoom Our future project space

Some Possibilities…

Four of many potential configurations for the E&E iRoom space, which could be dynamically reconfigurable.

The Vision

To achieve this goal we propose an integrated R&D and teaching project that is at the intersection of different domains including:

•Architectural and structural design and construction; •Interaction and workplace design.•Mechanical and electrical design•Human Computer interaction design•Robotics, spatial reasoning and motion planning, technologies ofautonomous robots, cooperative robots;•Educational methods to teach and assess teaching of multi-disciplinary design

Project Schedule

CEE 321

Define Goals Design & Analyze Document & Negotiate Fabricate Install

ME 310

Design Team

Contractor

1/07 6/07

12/069/06

6/07 9/07

9/07 12/07

CEE 321 Schedule

Reading

Participation

The Models

Journals

Future Work: Collect, categorize, weight goals

IdentifyDesignOptions

IdentifyStake-

holders

EvaluateOptions’Impacts

WeightPrefer-ences Choose

BestOptions

WeightStake-

holders

IdentifyDecision

Maker IdentifyDesignTeam

ExploreOptions’

Merits

IdentifyProjectGoals

Oswald, T.H., Burati, J., 1992. Identifying customer requirements through Quality function deployment. Phase 1: Feasibility study. Construction Industry Institute

Conjoint analysis (Dolan 1990), cluster analysis (Green et al., 1988), factor analysis (Urban & Hauser 1993)

Hauser, J. and Clausing, D. (1988). “The House of Quality.” Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 63-73.

Future Work: Evaluate Options’ Impacts

Stanford Green Dorm

MACDADI Matrix

Sens

e of

priv

acy

Dyn

amic

soc

ial l

ife

Goo

d ne

ighb

or

Acce

ss to

rese

arch

and

ed

ucat

ion

Faci

litat

es s

usta

inab

le

lifes

tyle

Ther

mal

com

fort

Ligh

ting

qual

ity

Acou

stic

qua

lity

Hea

lthy

mat

eria

ls &

air

Preferences 1 2 1 2 5 4 3 1 1

Baseline GreenShared "Information Center"(foyer) and entry -1 2 2 3 3 0 0 -1 0Solar orientation for passive solar design 0 0 -1 0 0 2 3 0 0Radiant slab heating 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0Optimized. 24" O.C. wood framing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Natural ventilation for passive cooling 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 -1 3High-performance light and water fixtures 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0Fly ash or slag, low-cement concrete 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0First floor location for building systems lab -1 0 0 2 1 3 0 -1 0Large roof deck at second level -1 3 1 2 1 2 2 -1 0Electric car garage 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 180% daylit interior 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0

Living Laboratory100% daylit interior 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 0

Steel structure w/concrete-filled metal deck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FSC-certified wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 kw fuel cell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Solar hot water system 0 0 -1 0 1 0 0 0 0Greywater heat recovery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 Kw Photovoltaic array 0 0 -1 0 1 0 0 0 0Dimmed lighting in dorm rooms 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 0Evening lighting setback 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0Highest-performance lighting and water fixtures 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0

Building systems monitors 0 1 0 3 3 1 0 0 2Rainwater collection 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Greywater and blackwater collection 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Stormwater Features and Native Landscaping 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0Sustainable finish materials (interior and exterior) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2Extensive green roof, 2 to 4 inches of soil. 1400 sf 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0Triple-paned, double low-e windows 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0Three foot clerestory pop-up at upper, north-facing rooms 0 0 -1 0 1 2 2 0 0Ventilation atrium on first floor 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 1

The Most Desirable Housing

Community LearningIndoor environmental

quaility

Des

ign

and

cons

truct

ion

proc

ess

Sen

sing

(mon

itorin

g sy

stem

s)

Bui

ldin

g en

ergy

Veh

icle

ene

gy

Bui

ldin

g st

ruct

ure

Bui

ldin

g m

ater

ials

Wat

er

Influ

ence

at S

tanf

ord

Pro

ving

gro

und

for

build

ing

tech

nolo

gy

Not

ewor

thy

("W

ow" f

acto

r)

Red

uced

ene

rgy

use

Low

/no

carb

on p

er k

Wh

Low

em

bodi

ed e

nerg

y

Wat

er e

ffici

ency

Wat

er c

aptu

re a

nd

recy

clin

g

Red

uced

ear

thqu

ake

loss

es

Mat

eria

l effi

cien

cy a

nd

sust

aina

ble

sour

cing

Des

ign

for a

dapt

abilit

y an

d de

cons

truct

ion

2 5 5 1 4 2 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 3 4 1 2 2 16 5 1

2 3 2 1 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 01 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 01 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -1 1 02 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 01 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 01 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 02 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 -1 0 00 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 -1 * 3 2 1 00 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 -1 0 01 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 01 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

01 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 2 02 2 0 0 3 3 0 1 3 3 0 0 -2 0 0 3 1 3 -2 1 21 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 -1 0 02 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 2 -11 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 3 02 1 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 3 01 1 2 1 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 3 -1 0 0 0 0 1 -3 3 01 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 01 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 01 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 -1 1 01 3 3 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 -1 2 01 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 -2 1 02 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 -2 1 -11 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 01 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 -1 0 01 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 01 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 1 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 1 -11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0

Measurable Environmental PerformanceA Living Laboratory for Research

Com

plet

ion

date

Firs

t Cos

t

Economically Sustainable

Life

cycl

e C

ost

Zero carbonDemonstration Closed

water cycleMaterial

resourcesExperimentation

IdentifyDesignOptions

IdentifyStake-

holders

EvaluateOptions’Impacts

WeightPrefer-ences Choose

BestOptions

WeightStake-

holders

IdentifyDecision

Maker IdentifyDesignTeam

ExploreOptions’

Merits

IdentifyProjectGoals

3000 ft2

PV sizeand type

3000 ft2

PV sizeand type

John Scofield paperon monitoring a solar academic building

John Scofield paperon monitoring a solar academic building

Energy Supply and Demand Narrative

John Scofield paperon performance forJasper Ridge

John Scofield paperon performance forJasper Ridge

Heat Recovery From Gray Water Narrative

Monthly Water FlowMonthly Heat Flow

Water flow Diagram(p1)

Water tank Capacity(p84)

Shower DrainTemperature

Daily water Volume per tank(p54)

Well capacity

Seasonal ground water temperature

Capacityfactor

Fuel Cell Narrative

Energy from fuel cell (p20)

Fuel cell size

Solar Hot Water NarrativeArea of solar water Array(p68)

EfficiencyInsolation

Photovoltaic Array Narrative

64,431 kWh/yr

Jasper RidgePV PerformanceSince 10/2002

Elect: 404 MMBtuHeat: 296 MMBtu

NatGas: -389 MMBtu

Energy from Solar Hot Water(p68)

Number of tanks = 1Size = 2,000 gal

NEED gal/min

35 MMBtu/yr

Pump 1: NEED °FPump 2 NEED °F

NEED gal/min

680 gal/day

Cf = 90%

5KW CHP

Energy Balance(p67-68)

0 = Supply – Deman[BTU/yr]92 MMBtu/yr

5kWh/m2d40%

475 ft2

Building Geometry

Energy Supply Narrative

80-90ºF

(1000 ft2)

Back of EnvelopeArray Size

Energy from Photovoltaic Array

~1.4 [m3/day]

Bioreactor

SiteSite

Building layoutBuilding layout

Equest energy analysis

Building geometry

Equest simulationassumptions

Comparison for consistency

Back of theenvelope energyconsumption

Back of theenvelope energyconsumption

Energy Demand Narrative

Total: 54,423 kWh/yr199 MMBtu/yr

Building Energy Demand(p60)

Heat Pump

Energy Conversion(p66)

Energy from building graywater(p66)

ElectricitySupply(p67)

54,423 kWh/yr

ElectricitySupply(p67)

54,423 kWh/yr

HeatSupply(p67) 120 MMBtu/yr

(85+35)

HeatSupply(p67) 120 MMBtu/yr

(85+35)

Natural GasFrom Utility(p67)

79 MMBtu/yr(80.1 MMBtu) source

Natural GasFrom Utility(p67)

79 MMBtu/yr(80.1 MMBtu) source

35 MMBtu/yr- 2,188 kWh/yr

HeatNot used(p67)

7 MMBtu/yr

HeatNot used(p67)

7 MMBtu/yr

BioGas production

ExcessElectricityback to grid(p67) 7820 kWh/yr

(80.1 MMBtu)source

ExcessElectricityback to grid(p67) 7820 kWh/yr

(80.1 MMBtu)source

eQuestNatural GasDemand

79 MMBtu/yr

eQuestNatural GasDemand

79 MMBtu/yr

eQuestElectricityDemand

54,423 kWh/yr

eQuestElectricityDemand

54,423 kWh/yreQuestHeatDemand

120 MMBtu/yr

eQuestHeatDemand

120 MMBtu/yr

Utility Balance

Haymaker et al (2004).

Bas

elin

e G

reen

Livi

ng L

abor

ator

yFuture Work: Calculation & Visualization

IdentifyDesignOptions

IdentifyStake-

holders

EvaluateOptions’Impacts

WeightPrefer-ences Choose

BestOptions

WeightStake-

holders

IdentifyDecision

Maker IdentifyDesignTeam

ExploreOptions’

Merits

IdentifyProjectGoals

Tufte, E. R. (1997).

Conclusions

AEC projects lack formal design and analysis processes

Simple, well-designed and implemented methods can helpcommunicate goals, options, analyses, decisions

Can they improve quality ?

More research required on how to:-design and communicate these methods-optimize the design using these methods-educate and transform organizations to adopt them

IdentifyDesignOptions

IdentifyStake-

holders

EvaluateOptions’Impacts

WeightPrefer-ences Choose

BestOptions

WeightStake-

holders

IdentifyDecision

Maker IdentifyDesignTeam

ExploreOptions’

Merits

IdentifyProjectGoals

ObservedProblem

in PracticePoint of

Departure ResearchQuestions

ResearchTasks

ResearchResultsContributions

to KnowledgePracticalSignificance

CIFE Horseshoe Process