Improving Design Processes:
Automate, Communicate, Decide
Forest Flager
Reid Senescu
John Haymaker
April 2, 2009
Member Companies
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
CIFE Research Areas
Master Planning
Plot Variable: response (Model.class_cost_2.total_cost)
Parametric Modeling
730872
691764
652655
613547
574438
535330
496221
457113
418004
378896
$720,000
$710,000
$700,000
$690,000
$680,000
$670,000
$660,000
$650,000
$640,000
$630,000
$620,000
$610,000
$600,000
$590,000
$580,000
total_cost
$570,000
$560,000
$550,000
$540,000
$530,000
$520,000
$510,000
Optimization
$500,000
$490,000
$480,000
$470,000
$460,000
$450,000
$440,000
$430,000
$420,000
$410,000
$400,000
$390,000
$380,000
$370,000
20
20.5
21
21.5
22
22.5
23
23.5
24
24.5
25
25.5
26
26.5
27
27.5
28
28.5
29
29.5
30
30.5
31
31.5
32
32.5
33
33.5
34
34.5
35
35.5
36
36.5
37
37.5
38
38.5
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
41.5
42
42.5
43
43.5
44
44.545
45.5
46
46.5
47
47.5
48
48.5
49
49.5
50
50.5
51
51.552
52.553
53.554
2.8 3
54.5
5555.5
56
56.5
57
57.5
58
58.5
59
59.5
60
bldg_length
3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4
5.4 5.6 5.8 6
4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2
6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7
7.2 7.4 7.6 7.88
9.4 9.6
8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9 9.2
num_columns_along_length
Process Communication
Collective Decision Making
Integrated Concurrent Engineering
4D Construction Planning
Design-Fabrication-Integration
Automated Field Instructions
Building Performance Monitoring
feasibility
Reid Senescu
and John Haymaker
design
construction
operation
Outline: How do we improve design processes?
Three Methods, Three Acronyms…One Integrated Idea
AUTOMATE
PIDO
COMMUNICATE
PIP
DECIDE
MACDADI
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
Current Practice
New analysis tools, new demand for sustainability.
BUT, few iterations, lack of design space exploration
PIDO
Improves design process efficiency and effectiveness.
BUT, at large initial investment and narrow scope
PIP
Ensures these improved processes have a global impact
BUT, no way to capitalize on new information
How do we AUTOMATE to improve efficiency and effectiveness?
PROCESS INTEGRATION DESIGN OPTIMIZATION
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
PIDO
Current Practice
g
g
low number of design iterations
significant information management
From a survey of a Arup engineers*:
Duration of Design
Iterations
Initial
Subsequent
(avg.)
7 weeks
5 weeks
Average Number
of Iterations Per
Project
2.8
Management
(58%)
Manage
Information
58%
Spec
Plan
Design
Processes
6%
Execute
Design
Processes
Ex
36%
* Flager, F. and J. Haymaker, A Comparison of Multidisciplinary Design, Analysis and Optimization Processes in
the Building Construction and Aerospace Industries, in 24th International Conference on Information Technology
in Construction,
I. Smith,
Editor. 2007: Maribor, Slovenia. p. 625-630
Reid
Senescu and John
Haymaker
Process Integration Design Optimization (PIDO)
Ex: Hypersonic vehicle design at Boeing
Take-off gross weight ratio
(TOGW)
g
Excess Propellant Fraction
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
Flager & Haymaker, 2007
Proof of Concept Case Study: Classroom
g
Design Variables
Building orientation (0)
Building length (L)
Window to wall ratio (W)
Structural steel sections
W
L
O
g
g
Constraints
Fixed floor area
Structural safety
Daylighting performance
Objectives
Minimize first cost for structural steel
Minimize lifecycle operating costs for
energy
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
steel frame
beam
girder
column
Multidisciplinary Optimization Model
Size of Design Space:
55,000,000 options
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
MDO Runs
Completed:
5600 (0.01%)
RunTime:
34 hours
Impact of Building Topology & Geometry on Structure Cost
Variable: response (Model.class_cost_2.total_cost)
Steel Cost vs. Plot
Building
Length and Number of Columns
730872
691764
652655
613547
574438
535330
496221
457113
418004
378896
$710,000
$700,000
$690,000
$680,000
$670,000
$660,000
$650,000
$640,000
$630,000
L
$620,000
$610,000
$600,000
$590,000
$580,000
$570,000
total_cost
Total Capital Cost of Steel Structure
$720,000
$560,000
$550,000
$540,000
$530,000
$520,000
$510,000
$500,000
$490,000
$480,000
$470,000
$460,000
$450,000
$440,000
$430,000
$420,000
$410,000
$400,000
$390,000
$380,000
$370,000
20
20.5
21
21.5
22
22.5
23
23.5
24
24.5
25
25.5
26
26.5
27
27.5
28
28.5
29
29.5
30
30.5
31
31.5
32
32.5
33
33.5
34
34.5
3535.5
36
36.5
37
37.5
38
38.5
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
41.542
42.5
43
43.5
44
44.545
45.5
46
46.547
47.5
48
48.549
49.5
5050.5
51
51.552
3
52.553
53.554
54.5
5555.5
5656.5
5757.5
5858.5
5959.5602.8
bldg_length
Building Length (L)
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4
5.4 5.65.8 6
4.24.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2
9 9.29.4 9.6
7.88 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8
6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.6
6.2 6.4
num_columns_along_length
Number of Columns
Along Length
Impact of Steel Member Sizes on Structure Cost
Identifying Promising Areas in the Design Space
L
Values for section
types / building
length that yield
best designs
Each line
represents a
single design
Beam Section Type
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Cost
Max
DC Ratio
Building
Length
Girder
Sections
Column
Sections
Beam
Sections
Total Cost
Each point
represents a
single design
Impact of Design Variables on Energy Performance
Total Lifecycle Operating Costs vs. Orientation and Length
Total Lifecycle Operating Costs
($/ 30 years)
Less Efficient
Length
(mm)
Orientation
(deg)
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Most Efficient
Design TradeTrade-offs for MDO
Total Lifecycle Operating Costs
($/ 30 years)
Total Capital Cost of Steel Structure ($)
Building Length vs. Capital and Operating Costs
Building Length (m)
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Building Length (m)
L
Testing the Scalability of PIDO
g
Case Study: Stadium Roof Member Sizing
65,000 seat stadium
Designed my Arup Sport (UK)
Symmetrical steel roof structure
Finite Element Model of Roof
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Case Study: Stadium Roof Member Sizing
g
Rectangular Hollow
Section (RHS)
The Design Problem:
1955 members
150 load combinations
~10-30 sections choices per member
Size of design space: 201953
combinations!
Circular Hollow
Section (CHS)
Universal Beam
(UB) Section
Typical Member Types in the Roof Structure
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Case Study: Stadium Roof Member Sizing
g
Results: Comparision of Process Metrics for
PIDO and Conventional Methods
Time Duration
Iterations*
Design Method
Set Up
Per Iteration*
Completed
Conventional
1 day
4 hours
20 (approx.)
PIDO
15 days
6 min
8,000
* Iteration involves the generation and analysis of a design alternative using model-based methods
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Case Study: Stadium Roof Member Sizing
g
Results: Comparision of Total Steel Weight
Estimated Savings:
$10 M USD
PIDO Design
1146
(-19%)
Baseline Design
1414
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Total Steel Weight (metric tons)
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
1200
1400
1600
Goals of PIDO
g
Improve design knowledge early, maintain
design freedom
Reduced Time to Market
100%
Improved Design
Freedom
Key
Cumulative
Design Freedom
(Conv)
Design Freedom
(PIDO)
Design Knowledge
(Conv)
Design Freedom
(PIDO)
0%
Improved Design
Knowledge
CD
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
SD
Design Timeline
DD
Current Practice
New analysis tools, new demand for sustainability.
BUT, few iterations, ineffective processes
PIDO
Improves design process efficiency and effectiveness.
BUT, at large investment and narrow scope
PIP
Ensures these improved processes have a global impact
BUT, no way to capitalize on new information
How do we COMMUNICATE processes for global impact?
PROCESS INTEGRATION PLATFORM
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
PIP
Scale beyond PIDO with design process communication
g
PIDO
g
Toolvis
Tools shown below = 197
8
Campus
Whole Building
85
Concept Design Dev.
www.duncanwilson.com/toolvis
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Scale beyond PIDO with design process communication
g
PIDO
g
Structural Skills
Search returned 189 software items
This page has been accessed 13297
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Case reveals struggle to SHARE processes
Consider environmental impact for
Steel vs. Concrete structure decision
Successful Process Existed
Actual Process
Create
Revit Structure
Model
Ask Forum,
Colleagues, and
Search Internet
Export
Model w/ LCA tags
to IFC 2x3
Unable to perform
model based LCA
Embodied
Energy
Create
Revit Structure
Models
? ?
Steel Concrete
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Analyze
Model w/ LCA tags
Embodied
Energy
g
Steel Concrete
Case reveals struggle to SHARE processes
g
Consider environmental impact for
Steel vs. Concrete structure decision
Sharing Today
Actual Process
Name
Create
Revit Structure
Models
Link
Description
Ask Forum,
Colleagues, and
Search Internet
Arup contact
Unable to perform
model based LCA
Embodied
Energy
Contact location
Frequency of use
? ?
Steel Concrete
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
QA status
Added value
LCADesign
0
Sophisticated LCA tool
that integrates with 3D
models and produces
environmental impact
evaluation of material
assemblies and buildings
Henry Anning
Brisbane
None
N/A
High
Case reveals struggle to SHARE processes
g
Consider environmental impact
Steel vs. Concrete Structure Decision
Successful Process Existed
Actual Process Failed
TakeCreate
away from this case study:
Ask Forum,
Colleagues, and
Search Internet
Revit Structure
– I could
not find a design process
Model
to meet stakeholder goals
– Even though this process had
Export
already
Model been
w/ LCAused
tags in my firm
? ?
Steel Concrete
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Analyze
Model w/ LCA tags
Embodied
Energy
Unable to perform
model based LCA
Embodied
Energy
to IFC 2x3
Steel Concrete
Case reveals struggle to UNDERSTAND processes
g
Use model for Dayligting analyis to design
Louver Configuration
Export from
Revit Architecture
Model
Time Per Design Task
– Options Considered :
2-3 Louver Configurations
– Total Design Time Per Option:
30 hours
– Non-Value Added Time Per Option:
15 hours
Use Radiance
To Create
Daylight Video
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Case reveals struggle to UNDERSTAND processes
g
Use model for Dayligting analyis to design
Louver Configuration
Export from
Revit Architecture
Model
Time Per Design Task
– Options Considered :
2-3away
Louver
Configurations
Take
from
this case study:
–
Design
Time
Per Option:
– Total
Process
is often
repeated
30 hours
– Process is inefficient.
– Non-Value Added Time Per Option:
– No
investment in improving
15 hours
process
Use Radiance
To Create
Daylight Video
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Improving design process by catalyzing emergent behavior
g
Ingredients required:
– SHARE better practice with others
– UNDERSTAND current practice to improve it
SHARE + UNDERSTAND = COMMUNICATE
g
How can we improve design processes through
improved communication?
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Students prototype Process Integration Platform
Stanford Graduate School of Business Library
g Team: Five student design consultants
g Options: Two atriums
g Goals: Be Beautiful, Provide Good Light,
Minimize Net Energy Use….
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Legend: Narrative convention (Haymaker, 2006)
Process Integration Platform
Tool Used
Barrel color indicates the status
of the source information.
Green = up-to-date
Red = not updated
What does the information
look like?
Haymaker, J., (2006). Communicating, Integrating and Improving Multidisciplinary Design and Analysis
Narratives,
inJohn
J. Gero
(ed), Design Computing and Cognition, pp 635-65
Reid
Senescu and
Haymaker
Designer browses project via PIP web tool
Process Integration Platform
Arup: 130676-Stanford GSB/Library
Senescu R and Haymaker J (2008). Requirements for a Process Integration Platform, 7th Workshop on Social
Intelligence
December 2-5, 2008, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Reid
Senescu andDesign,
John Haymaker
Designer adds daylight analysis process
Process Integration Platform
Arup: 130676-Stanford GSB/Library
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Designer searches for context appropriate process
Process Integration Platform
Arup: 130676-Stanford GSB/Library
SEARCH RESULTS
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Community shares, understands, and automates process
Process Integration Platform
PROCESS INFO
Arup: 130247-Green House/Day Light Analysis
Project: Green House
Projects With This Process
Process Type: Day Light
Software Required
Developer: Robert Cole
Process Used: 57 times
Links Copied: 31 times
Used Most By: Engin Ayaz
Other Users of this Process
More Usage Details
SEARCH RESULTS
COMMENTS
jrogers: Should we invest in automating this
process?
Normanrock: Yes, I’ll send a meeting request
to divide up the work.
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
PROCESS USAGE
Ave. Iteration Time
22 hrs
# of Iterations
3.3
Community shares, understands, and automates process
Process Integration Platform
PROCESS INFO
Arup: 130247-Green House/Day Light Analysis
Project: Green House
Projects With This Process
Process Type: Day Light
Software Required
Developer: Robert Cole
Process Used: 57 times
Links Copied: 31 times
Used Most By: Engin Ayaz
Other Users of this Process
More Usage Details
SEARCH RESULTS
COMMENTS
jrogers: Should we invest in automating this
process?
Normanrock: Yes, I’ll send a meeting request
to divide up the work.
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
PROCESS USAGE
Ave. Iteration Time
22 hrs
# of Iterations
3.3
Designer copies another process module
Process Integration Platform
PROCESS INFO
Arup: 31347-Atrium Apartments/Day Light
Project: Atrium Apartments
Projects With This Process
Process Type: Day Light
Software Required
Developer: Andy Key
Process Used: 2 times
Links Copied: 5 times
Used Most By: jrogers
Other Users of this Process
More Usage Details
SEARCH RESULTS
COMMENTS
jrogers: Does anyone else use this process?
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
PROCESS USAGE
Ave. Iteration Time
5 hrs
# of Iterations
6
Designer pastes and combines process modules into GSB
Process Integration Platform
Arup: 130676-Stanford GSB/Library
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Designer uses arch. model and executes process
Process Integration Platform
Arup: 130676-Stanford GSB/Library
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Energy consultant knows daylight analysis is complete
Process Integration Platform
Arup: 130676-Stanford GSB/Library
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
PIDO automated and PIP communicated…..
Process Integration Platform
Arup: 130676-Stanford GSB/Library
How do we DECIDE on a design?
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Current Practice
New analysis tools, new demand for sustainability.
BUT, few iterations, ineffective processes
PIDO
Improves design process efficiency and effectiveness.
BUT, at large initial investment and narrow scope
PIP
Ensures these improved processes have a global impact
BUT, no way to capitalize on new information
How do we DECIDE among these options?
MULTI-ATTRIBUTE, COLLABORATIVE DESIGN,
MULTIASSESSMENT, AND DECISION INTEGRATION
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
MACDADI
MACDADI
Multi-Attribute, Collaborative Design, Assessment, and Decision Integration
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
MACDADI: Team Model
Eric Holder
Yoko Matsu
Sudhip Chaudri
Matt Clough
Ricardo Pitella
Facility Manager
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
MACDADI: Goal Model
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Metric
-3
0
Operating Cost
Per Year
$20k $15k
3
$10k
MACDADI: Preference Model
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
MACDADI: Options Model
Building Program
Structural Systems
Atria
4 Story Atrium
3 Story Atrium
Mechanical Systems
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
MACDADI: Analysis Model
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
MACDADI: Value Model
Value
-32
-52
Benefit = Analysis x Preference
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
Current Practice
New analysis tools, new demand for sustainability.
BUT, few iterations, ineffective processes
PIDO
Improves design process efficiency and effectiveness.
BUT, at large initial investment and narrow scope
PIP
Ensures these improved processes have a global impact
BUT, no way to capitalize on new information
MACDADI
Creates collborative rationale decision making.
BUT…..
We would like to hear what YOU think?
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
Acknowledgements
g
Arup for research support
– Especially: Cole Roberts, Key Anderson, Jake Wayne,
Engin Ayaz, John Worley, Shruti Narayan, Martin
Simpson, Chris Field, Stephen Burrows, and Jim Quiter
g
g
Grant Soremekun at Phoenix for PIDO support
Ben Welle for PIDO energy analysis results
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
© 2009 Forest Flager, Reid Senescu, John Haymaker
PIDO
PIP
MACDADI
Integrated Concurrent Engineering session to
Automate, Communicate, and Decide
Reid Senescu and John Haymaker
QUESTIONS?