MCDM’23
Download
1 / 30

A Multi-Criteria Decision Support Method for Whole Building ... - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 371 Views
  • Uploaded on

MCDM’23 A Multi-Criteria Decision Support Method for Whole Building Solar Design MCDM-23 was developed within International Energy Agency Solar Heating and Cooling Task 23 “Optimization of Solar Energy Use in Large Buildings” Requirements for Successful Solar Building Design:

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'A Multi-Criteria Decision Support Method for Whole Building ...' - adamdaniel


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Slide1 l.jpg

MCDM’23

A Multi-Criteria Decision Support Method for

Whole Building Solar Design


Slide2 l.jpg

MCDM-23 was developed within International Energy Agency Solar Heating and Cooling Task 23 “Optimization of Solar Energy Use in Large Buildings”


Slide3 l.jpg

Requirements forSuccessful Solar Building Design:

  • Start with a client and design team committed to high per-formance, and willing to alter the normal design process

  • Select a design team with a wide range of technical skills

Integrated Design

  • Add an energy engineer and other relevant specialists to the team

  • Commence with teamwork from the very start of the Pre-design Stage

  • Define performance goals at the outset and referring to them throughout

  • Use new methods and tools throughout the process


Slide4 l.jpg

MCDM’23 seeks to facilitate some ofthe challenges of integrated design:

  • Application and integration of knowledge and judgements from a range of experts from different disciplines

  • “Balanced” specification and integration of design criteria that are incommensurate and may be conflicting (e.g. economics vs. environment, aesthetics, etc.)

  • “Balanced” integration of both quantitative and qualitative performance criteria (qualitative criteria tend to be under-valued or poorly documented)


Slide5 l.jpg

Problems in doing tradeoffs:

  • Criteria have different units (kWh, $, kg of SO2, percent satisfied, score on a scale of ten, etc.)

  • Some are quantitative, some are qualitative

  • For some, smaller is better (resource use), for others, bigger is better (quality issues)

How to picture diverse criteria together so we can decide between alternatives?


Slide6 l.jpg

MCDM-23 isa structured approach to:

  • Make judgements and values explicit to promote learning and cooperation across disciplines and to reach a common understanding of the overall design problem

  • Handle values and judgements alongside quantitative assessments in order to clearly see the overall goodness of the design

  • Help organize and select relevant information and to focus on the most important issues


Slide7 l.jpg

WHO should use MCDM’23?

  • In the building design process: All members of the design team, including the client

  • In a design competition: The competition organizers and the judging committee

  • A person needs to be appointed to organize the work with the method and to take care of the mechanics of aggregating the information


Slide8 l.jpg

WHEN should MCDM’23 be used?

  • For selecting and specifying design criteria in the pre-design phase, and for prioritizing among design criteria

  • For evaluating alternative design strategies and solutions at various stages in the design process


Slide9 l.jpg

WHAT is MCDM’23?

A method and tool based on CRITERIA, WEIGHTS AND SCORES that is a means to encourage the members of the design team to make their knowledge, values and judgements EXPLICIT

- so that the other members (and the outside world) can better understand, learn and interact!


Slide10 l.jpg

STEPS in MCDM’23

Step 1: Select and describe main criteria and sub-criteria

Step 2: Develop measurement scales for sub-criteria

Step 3: Weight the main criteria and sub-criteria

Generate alternative solutions

Step 4: Predict performance

Step 5: Aggregate scores

Step 6: Analyze results and make decisions


Slide11 l.jpg

STEP 1

DESCRIBE, SELECT, AND STRUCTURE CRITERIA

  • Top-down approach: Start with overall objectives, then go into details

  • Bottom-up approach: Test the criteria on relevant alternatives (cases)

  • Start out wide (use check lists), then narrow in

  • Document the reason why a criterion is important:

    • Irreversible consequences?

    • Wide ranging consequences?

    • Far from fulfilling national goals?


Slide12 l.jpg

STEP 1

DESCRIBE, SELECT, AND STRUCTURE CRITERIA

Advantages of a hierarchical structure:

main goal

(optimal housing area)

  • Lower-level criteria explain the concrete meaning of upper-level criteria

  • Helps sorting out redundancies and double counting

  • Allows keeping the overview as well as going into the details

Main criteria

(e.g: resource use, functionality, comfort)

Sub-criteria

(e.g. energy use)

Indicators

(e.g. kWh/m2)


Slide13 l.jpg

Example of criteria set for main criterion Resource Use

Sub-criteria Sub-sub-criteria Indicators

Energy Net use of energy MJ/m²/person

Land Net area of land used m²/occupant

Change in ecological value judgement

Water Net consumption of water m³/year/person

Materials Retention of existing building % of floor area

Use of recycled materials % of cost

Re-useable materials % of cost

Re-cyclable materials % of cost


Slide14 l.jpg

STEP 2

DEVELOP MEASUREMENT SCALES FOR SUB-CRITERIA

Score Judgement

10 excellent

9

8 good

7

6 fair

5

4 marginally acceptable


Slide15 l.jpg

Example of measurement scalefor quantitative criteria

Annual Electric Use


Slide16 l.jpg

Example of measurement scalefor qualitative criteria

Adaptability

Score

Judgement

10

excellent

Different clients without change

9

Different clients by moving

a

d

justable partitions

8

good

Different clients by rebuilding non-

load bearing part

i

tions

7

Different clients by rebuilding some

non-load bearing partitions

6

fair

Different clients by rebuilding

mostly non-load bearing part

i

tions

5

Different clients by rebuilding all

load bearing partitions

4

marginally accep

t

able

Not adaptable to different cl

i

ents


Slide17 l.jpg

The value of creating scales

  • Generates a concrete discussion about how the building should perform

  • The process of setting end-points leads to an active search for alternative options: “Can we not do better than that?”

  • Facilitates interpretation of criteria: the same words may have different meanings for different individuals

  • Helps define the general nature and context of the problem - may lead to restructuring of the model

  • Allows each member of the team to express his or her own expertise to the group as a whole


Slide18 l.jpg

Grade

Relative importance

(compared with the most i

m

portant criteria)

Of equal importance

10

9

Somewhat less important

8

7

Significantly less important

6

5

Much less important

4

STEP 3

WEIGHT THE MAIN CRITERIA AND SUB-CRITERIA


Slide19 l.jpg

Example of weighing using the tool

Pie chart button displays graphic


Slide20 l.jpg

The value of weighting

  • Make values and hidden judgementsexplicit to the group as a whole

  • Generates discussion and visualizesdifferent viewpoints

  • May lead to a redefinition of the scales

  • Helps focusing on the mostimportant issues



Slide22 l.jpg

STEP 4

PREDICT PERFORMANCE

using

  • computer simulations

  • databases

  • rules of thumb

  • experience

  • expert judgement


Slide23 l.jpg

Enter the number in the program

Click the button to plot the value on the value graph


Slide24 l.jpg

STEP 5

AGGREGATE SCORES


Slide25 l.jpg

STEP 6

ANALYZE RESULTS AND MAKE DECISIONS

After entering all the values for all the schemes, there are four results options:

1) Worksheet for each scheme

2) Star diagram for each scheme

3) Summary bar graph showing all schemes

4) Summary table showing all schemes

Tables can be exported as comma-delimited files. Diagrams can be copied to the clipboard. Both can be printed.


Slide26 l.jpg

Worksheet

Provides documentation of the process

Scheme B is not so good ( 5.6 out of 10 )


Slide27 l.jpg

Star Charts

Functionality

Functionality


Slide28 l.jpg

Bar Graphs

Functionality


Slide29 l.jpg

Summary Table

This table was generated automatically in MCDM-23, copied directly from the screen, and pasted into this presentation.

It can also be exported as a csv file.

Scheme A is the best ( 8.98 out of 10 )


Slide30 l.jpg

CONCLUSION

MCDM’23 is a means to organize the multi-criteria design work and to understand and learn about what’s important

NOT to produce the “right answer”!


ad