Stage 1

Project Profit Evaluation Node

This node allows one to input the value (ie. rent, $/SF) for each floor in the building as well as the cost (both base cost and cost per level) to determine the costs and profits associated with the building.

PV Panel Energy Generation Potential Evaluation Node

Summary Table

Stage 2

The Single-Objective Optimization scheme compares the project profit and PV energy generation potential to find the project that is the most profitable and generates the greatest amount of solar energy. Both parameters are maximized while the base rotation (the parameter I have opted to vary from Module 5) changes to achieve this. Below is the ranking produced from the Single-Objective Optimization Scheme. As shown by the ranking, the first design with a base cost of $0.30, cost per level of $6, and panel efficiency of 17% is the best design alternative, as it produces the highest profit of approximately $185M and generates 12B units of solar energy. It’s interesting to me that this ranked first despite it having the highest cost per level. Notably, it also has the lowest base cost, which demonstrates that minimizing base cost has a larger effect than the cost per level.

• Your answers to the Points to Ponder questions for each stage of the assignment that you completed.

Points to Ponder

Do the new evaluation metrics that you’ve designed capture the meaningful differences between the building form alternatives?

I do believe the evaluation metrics I have designed capture the meaningful differences between the building form alternatives. This is because the two I have designed are very telling about what a building form can do for the occupants and the owner (renewable energy generation) as well as how much it will cost. In the construction industry, money talks, so being able to minimize costs to maximize profits is one of the most impactful ways to consider different design alternatives.

What other metrics would be useful to compute to help understand and make the case for which alternatives are truly better than others?

Other metrics such as LCA, carbon footprint, energy performance, or aesthetic considerations (such as biophilic design) are other helpful measures that may help one further distinguish which alternative is the best.

What overall strategy do you feel best captures the relationship between the evaluation metrics?

It is important to determine which evaluation metrics are more important and which ones should be weighted more.This requires This will result in alternative rankings that best reflect stakeholder interest.

What propelled the recommended alternative to the top of the list?

The highest profit and greatest energy generation potential propelled the recommended alternative to the top. This is the best option because it is the cheapest and will allow the building owner and occupants to utilize a space that continues to save money compared to natural gas- or coal-powered buildings. This also decreases the carbon footprint of the building, which is important as climate change becomes increasingly exacerbated.

There are certain nuances with cost that are lost in single evaluation. For example, optimizing both cost and value, rather than just cost, will allow one to gain a clearer picture of how profitable each design alternative may be