SIMULATION http://sim.sagepub.

com/

Designing in complexity: Simulation, integration, and multidisciplinary design optimization for architecture
David Jason Gerber and Shih-Hsin Eve Lin
SIMULATION published online 9 April 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0037549713482027

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://sim.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/09/0037549713482027

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Modeling and Simulation International (SCS)

Additional services and information for SIMULATION can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://sim.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://sim.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 9, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on September 23, 2013

 Simulation

Simulation: Transactions of the Society for

Modeling and Simulation International
0(0) 1–24
Designing in complexity: Simulation, Ó 2013 The Society for Modeling and
Simulation International
integration, and multidisciplinary DOI: 10.1177/0037549713482027
sim.sagepub.com
design optimization for architecture

David Jason Gerber and Shih-Hsin Eve Lin

Abstract
While the overall performance of buildings has been established to be heavily impacted by design decisions made during
the early stages of the design process, design professionals are typically unable to explore design alternatives, or their
impact on energy profiles, in a sufficient manner during this phase. The research presents a new design simulation metho-
dology based on incorporating a prototype tool (H.D.S. Beagle) that combines parametric modeling with multi-objective
optimization through an integrated platform for enabling rapid iteration and trade-off analysis across the domains of design,
energy use intensity, and finance. The research evaluates how the proposed method impacts design simulation processes,
by either enabling and/or disrupting the early stages of design decision making. This simulation technology is presented
through two major experiment sets: (1) a series of hypothetical cases emulating the architecture, engineering, and con-
struction (AEC) design modeling and simulation process using our integrated simulation framework and technology; and
(2) a pedagogically based experiment used for establishing benchmarks. Through these experiment data sets, both quantita-
tive and qualitative data are collected, including human designer and computational analysis speeds, quantity of generated
design alternatives, and quality of resulting solution space as defined by the evaluation metric of this research. The affor-
dances for incorporation of real world design complexity into our computational design prototype and simulation metho-
dology are discussed through both the enabling and the disruptive impact on the early stages of the design process.

Keywords
Parametric design, generative design, conceptual energy analysis, performance-based design, genetic algorithm, multidis-
ciplinary design optimization, decision support, design space exploration, domain integration, design process evaluation,
multi-objective optimization

1. Introduction and research objectives
With growing global concerns for sustainability, the
anticipated performance of buildings is rapidly becoming
a subject of intense interest and research as the built envi-
ronment accounts for 48.7% of energy consumption in the
United States.1,2 While it has been established that the
overall performance of buildings is greatly impacted by
design decisions made during the early stages of the
design,3 design professionals are often unable to ade-
quately explore design alternatives and their impact on
energy consumption upfront.4 Issues, such as tool intero-
perability among different expert domains, intensive anal-
ysis time requirements, and limitations of design cognition
and complexity can be considered as contributing factors
to design uncertainty, poor performing designs, and design
cycle latency.5–7 Consequently, performance assessments
are typically made after the initial design phase, where the
analysis is performed on a very limited set of design alter-
natives rather than to support early stage design decisions
where a broader range of possible more optimal solutions
may exist.8,9 Furthermore, design decisions are not typi-
cally made to satisfy a single objective, but are rather
made to seek out a ‘‘best fit’’ compromise between com-
peting objectives from the various expert domains.
Research precedents have demonstrated the potential of
adopting multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO)
methods to provide a performance feedback loop to better
School of Architecture, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
CA, USA
Corresponding author:
David Jason Gerber, School of Architecture, University of Southern
California, 316 Watt Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0291, USA.
Email: dgerber@usc.edu
2 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 0(0)
support early design stage decision making.10,11 However,
precedents exploring MDO have typically employed sim-
plified geometry10,11 while precedents involving more
complex geometry have limited themselves to single
domain optimization.12 The few precedents which have
explored both MDO and complex geometry have not
included the energy performance domain as a domain of
interest.13 Where the energy performance domain has been
included for optimization, the relationship between the
design form and the energy performance has been largely
excluded. Instead, the optimization process has focused on
mechanical systems14 and simple geometric modifications
such as window sizing and placement.15,16 Furthermore,
the application of these precedents’ subject of interest to
the overall design process remains largely unexplored.
Considering the impact of early design decisions on
the overall building performance and the interest in under-
standing the applicability of MDO in assisting design deci-
sion making, a new early stage design and simulation
methodology was in need of development. As a response,
we proposed and developed an integrated simulation
framework which uses our proprietary prototype tool
(H.D.S. Beagle) enabling the coupling of parametric design
with multi-object optimization to be applied to the early
stages of the design process.17–19 The objective of this
paper seeks to explore the applicability of this proposed
framework for the architecture, engineering, and construc-
tion (AEC) design process through a series of design sce-
narios, hypothetical and pedagogical, as a means of
observing the impact of this integrated simulation approach
on the early stage design process. During this exploration
the impact factors of the overall simulation process were
divided into two categories for further analysis: computa-
tion and automation affordances and human design process
affordances.
While there is a definite correlation between these two
categories,11 the focus of this paper will be on comparing
the qualitative and quantitative measurements available
through the technology and thereby exploring the design
computational affordances to both enable and disrupt the
complex human design process and the complexity of real
world design and trades offs. Once the baseline of the
technological impact has been established, the ability to
identify the impact factors on the human designer provides
the research with the means of observing the affordances,
enabling and disruptive, of both categories of the our
MDO framework to fundamentally ‘‘design-in complex-
ity’’ and close the performance feedback loop for early
stage design decision making.
2. Background and review
This research is built upon the precedent of four research
domains: parametric design and design exploration,
performance simulation and feedback, evolutionary or
genetic algorithms for design, and multi-objective optimi-
zation (MOO) and MDO.
2.1. Parametric design and design exploration
Essential to this research is the understanding that increas-
ing design iteration can improve the possibility of identify-
ing higher performing designs through the exploration of
both geometric and non-geometric variables according to
established design objectives and constraints.20,21 It has
been previously established that parametric modeling can
facilitate rapid changes of geometric and non-geometric
variables according to a pre-rationalized design
logic.20,22,23 Therefore, a primary building block of the
research is the utilization of parametric design and model-
ing for the purpose of providing rapid design iteration.24
The use of parametric design is becoming increasingly
common due to the acknowledged advantages and inherent
ability to quickly generate design alternatives through the
parameterization of geometry.24,25 Once a parametric
model is formed, design alternatives can be rapidly gener-
ated through parameter value manipulations. Also, the cre-
ation of a parametric model requires rigorous definition of
the relationships between geometric objects which enables
associative and relational design, i.e. correlative, integral,
and explorative design process.26 Furthermore, once
design intent has been defined through parametric relation-
ships, the automation of the exploration process becomes
possible.27 The automation of the design exploration pro-
cess not only can shorten design exploration cycle time
(i.e. latency) but also provides the opportunity for relation-
ally incorporating performance criteria as part of the pro-
cess. This provides an opportunity to integrate more
criteria including performance objectives and constraints,
and thereby more extensive feedback by which to evaluate
and identify potentially optimal design alternatives. Aish
and Woodbury’s work28 demonstrates how the automation
of parametric design can significantly reduce the time
required for change and reuse. Another precedent, the gen-
erative performance oriented design model (GenPOD), uti-
lizes the parametric form generation process to generate
various performance envelopes and demonstrates promis-
ing support for design decision making.29 Rolvink et al.,30
in a practice setting, also demonstrated the effectiveness
of using parametric modeling techniques in rapidly explor-
ing design alternatives and associative structural perfor-
mance. However, the essential component of parametric
modeling with regards to this research is the ability to pro-
vide ranges of potential parametric values that can be used
to generate solution populations of bounded though expan-
sive variation similar to biological genomic models. These
solution populations can then be accessed through automa-
tion as a means for identifying potential better solutions
that meet complexly competing MOO criteria.
Gerber and Lin
2.2. Performance simulation and feedback
One such objective is that of estimated energy performance
through design and analysis simulation. With the continued
advancement of computational tools for building design,
the notion of anticipated performance has gradually been
allowed to claim a more prominent role as a driving force
behind design decisions.31 It must be noted that the term
‘‘performance’’ for this paper is bounded by the objectives
of energy usage, program constraints, and financial esti-
mates. It is furthermore used in terms of design processes
and metrics, i.e. the performance of the system to enable or
disrupt predominant early stage integrated design and per-
formance analysis practices.
Environmental simulation is not new to the field of
architecture, but when and how it is incorporated into the
design workflow can be problematic.32 Conventionally
adopted performance-based analysis methods have been
shown by prior studies to be ill suited in their ability to
support early stage design decisions due to time limita-
tions.33 In addition, there is often the issue of environmen-
tal simulation software needing to be operated by experts
due to the typically specialized nature of these tools.34 As
a result, the designer is left with the need for coordination
between the input of multiple experts and therefore an
increase in design cycle latency. Another contribution to
the issue of design latency is the lack of integration
between tools used for different environmental simula-
tions.35 Restricted data exchanges and multiple interfaces
required for multidisciplinary design problems are ongoing
issues still in need of resolution.36 Augenbroe states, ‘‘the
role of simulation tools in the design and engineering of
buildings has been firmly established over the last two
decades.’’ Critical for our research, Augenbroe continues
to credit energy simulation ‘‘with speeding up the design
process, increasing efficiency, and enabling the compari-
son of a broader range of design variants, leading to more
optimal designs’’ and in summary providing better under-
standing of trade-offs in the multidisciplinary design pro-
cess.6 However, despite the established use of simulation
software, there are still issues persisting regarding
increased design cycle latency and lack of integration
across other domains and their analysis environments.
This research proceeds to explore our previously estab-
lished methodology18 to observe if these issues were
addressed and to determine if the tested methodology was
an efficient means of integrating estimated energy perfor-
mance and financial performance during the early stages
of design as part of the MDO process.
2.3. MDO
Design is a multidisciplinary process by nature that is akin
to evolution, a balancing act between competing objectives
all vying for the greatest influence. Furthermore, with the
3
advancement of technology and the increase in information
fidelity and availability, the process of design has become
more complex as opposed to less so. Consequently, multi-
disciplinary design considerations have become more and
more unavoidable. In order to deal with the increased com-
plexity, and the increase in competing objectives, a sys-
tematical problem solving technique is needed. In
numerous design and engineering fields, MDO methods
have been explored as a potential approach to tackle and
manage these problems. MDO refers to methods to solve
design problems which have several objective functions
and incorporate a number of disciplines, the normative
case for design.37 As defined by Poloni and Pediroda,38
MDO is achieved through ‘‘the art of finding the best com-
promise’’. Previous building design precedents have inves-
tigated the application of a multi-objective genetic
algorithm (MOGA) for finding the optimal in the trade-
offs between capital expenditure, operation cost, and occu-
pant thermal comfort in building design.39 Flager et al.10
adopted a MDO method to perform a study on a simple
classroom optimizing structural and energy performance.
Magnier et al.40 used a MOO algorithm to optimize the
energy consumption and thermal comfort of a residential
building. The ‘‘CATBOT’’ project utilized MDO to link
complex geometry to structural analysis.41 These prece-
dents all demonstrate the potential abilities of MDO to
assist in identifying higher performance solution sets
among multiple competing criteria. At present, however,
most of the precedent work have either had singular
domain emphasis on structural performance, detailed
mechanical systems, or have been applied to simplified
geometric settings. As well, the application of preliminary
energy performance feedback to support complex geome-
try has not been fully understood and therefore developed.
Our review of the literature and practice in fact enumerates
this significant gap given the contemporary need for better
incorporation of energy related factors into design simula-
tion of complex geometry or in other words contemporary
designs.
2.4. Genetic algorithm for design
Genetic algorithms (GAs) are based on the evolution by
natural selection model formulated by Charles Darwin42
and have recently drawn the attention of design computing
researchers interested in optimizing multiple performance
criteria.43–45 Since the pursuit of design alternatives within
the design process is often nonlinear, stochastic approaches
such as GAs are typically considered suitable.46 The GA
was first introduced by John Holland47 in the 1970s as a
heuristic search method with the capacity to have broad
applicability, ease of use, and the capacity to explore
numerous variables from a global perspective.48 Frazer43
proceeded to apply this theory to the field of building
design where the ability of GAs to generate a large
4 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 0(0)
solution pool addressing multiple variables seemed suit-
able. Gero49 is also credited for the application of GAs in
design research for his introduction of utilizing environ-
mental performance for multi-objective design problems
and Pareto optimization for enabling design decision
making. In addition, GAs have been researched in the
application of optimizing overall energy performance, by
Tuhus-Dubrow and Krarti,50 who developed a simulation-
optimization tool that couples a GA with building energy
simulation in order to optimize building shapes and envel-
opes. In another study a multi-objective GA method was
applied to focus on economical optimization by minimiz-
ing energy consumption.51 All of these studies support the
need for a continued development of systematic optimiza-
tion algorithms that can handle large solution sets with
multiple competing objectives in order to generate a more
optimum solution set. This research builds upon the use
and integration of a GA for design optimization with the
ability to generate a set of better-fit solutions. The intent is
not to identify an optimal solution, which is often not pos-
sible, per se, but to provide an environment in which
informed trade-off decisions can be made more rapidly
and with more certainty by the computational and human
multidisciplinary design team.
3. Research method
In order to effectively evaluate the MDO framework estab-
lished by precedent research and by our own prior
research,18 and the impact this has on the simulated perfor-
mance feedback loop during the early stages of design,
evaluation metrics needed to be established. In response,
after the development phase of the prototype tool, the
research proceeded to determine measurement metrics to
be used as a standardized guideline to provide a means of
evaluating and analyzing collected data. Our methodology
includes the following: precedent review, prototype specifi-
cation and building, implementation and experimentation,
re-running and re-designing of experiments in a controlled
and more measurable fashion, metric establishment, data
collection and comparison, and finally review of next steps.
In this section, the prototype tool is summarized, followed
by the basis on which the evaluation metrics are built.
Finally, the data sets from both the hypothetical cases and
the pedagogical benchmark cases are described.
3.1. Summary of the prototype tool (H.D.S. Beagle)
In order to explore the research objectives, a MDO design
framework utilizing prototype tool (entitled H.D.S. Beagle)
was developed through prior research.17–19 H.D.S. Beagle
associates parametric modeling, design domain integration,
and a GA-based MOO algorithm with specific focus on
energy use intensity (EUI), financial performance net pres-
ent value (NPV) and spatial programing compliance
(SPC). To this end, conceptual geometric designs were
integrated through the prototype with energy use estimates
and preliminary economic appraisals into an automated
optimization routine by means of parameterization, plat-
form integration, and MOO. Through the enabling of auto-
matically generated design alternatives in accordance to
user defined parameter ranges, combined with concurrently
generated energy analysis results of each design alterna-
tive, H.D.S. Beagle allows for an automated calculation of
three objective functions that are then utilized by a custo-
mized GA-based MOO algorithm to search, rank, select,
and breed the solution space as defined by the GA off-
spring scoring and parameter settings.
3.1.1. Tool description and platform process integration. To
achieve the desired research objective, the software plat-
forms AutodeskÒ RevitÒ and AutodeskÒ Green Building
StudioÒ (GBS) were selected based on existing interoper-
ability capabilities to be combined with MicrosoftÒ
ExcelÒ into an automation and optimization routine. The
overall system architecture is illustrated in Figure 1.
AutodeskÒ RevitÒ is a building information modeling
platform with some parametric capabilities enabling
designers to define their geometry and provide a series of
parameters that impact the development of varying geo-
metric configurations. This platform also serves as an
insertion point for the energy settings necessary for a con-
ceptual energy analysis through GBS. This approach
avoids the hurdle of geometry and parameter translation
between the design and energy simulation domains. GBS
is a web-based energy analysis service that serves as the
energy simulation engine for H.D.S. Beagle. The Beagle
also uses MicrosoftÒ ExcelÒ 2010 to provide, not only a
means of containing the financial parameters and formulae,
but also as a user interface (UI) proxy in which designers
can set up design parameter variation ranges, constraints,
spatial program parameters, and the SPC formula. In order
to integrate these three expert domains and platforms, the
Beagle was developed in C# as a plugin for AutodeskÒ
RevitÒ by using the Revit API, GBS SDK, and Excel API,
as shown in Figure 2.
3.1.2. Parameterization and problem formulation. The
research requires parametric models to be designed to gen-
erate a large pool, i.e. a solution space of alternatives. In
order to automatically generate a solution space, it is nec-
essary to first formally define the design problem into a
series of design objectives, variables, and constraints.
These definitions are then used to generate an associative
parametric design model, which implicitly describes a
bounded and a topologically fixed solution space. In order
to create a flexible yet defined design workflow, there are
a total of four parametric categories used within the
research framework: design geometry parameters, energy
Gerber and Lin 5

Figure 1. The system architecture overview of H.D.S. Beagle 1.0.

Figure 2. H.D.S. Beagle automation loop developed through C# as a plugin for Revit, using Revit API, Excel API, and GBS SDK.
6 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 0(0)
setting parameters, spatial program compliance para-
meters, and financial pro forma parameters. Among these
four parameter groupings only design geometry parameters
and energy setting parameters can be considered as geno-
type parameters to be used as ‘‘genes’’ later while spatial
program parameters and financial pro forma parameters
are used as a means of calculating the phenotype objective
functions used in the evaluation of offspring during the
optimization process. This is due to spatial program para-
meters and financial pro forma parameters being directly
dependent on design geometry parametric settings and
energy settings, thereby possessing no driving parameters
of their own. Design geometry parameters are treated as
design problem-specific parameters to be specified by the
designer. This requires designers to provide a basic geo-
metrically variable model in AutodeskÒ RevitÒ that is pur-
posefully built to enable configuration generation. Energy
setting parameters are determined by the designer and are
available through the AutodeskÒ RevitÒ’s conceptual
energy analysis built in settings. Spatial program para-
meters are the parameters used for calculating the SPC
score, e.g. the amount of floor area per program type, that
are also set by the designer. Financial pro forma para-
meters are based on a financial calculation model in order
to determine the NPV of each design offspring.
3.1.3. GA-based MOO. In H.D.S. Beagle, genes are equal
to modifiable parameters as bounded continuous variables,
and chromosomes correspond to individuals that are com-
posed of these genes. The customized GA then optimizes
an initialized set of individuals (population) using three
main steps: (1) evaluation, (2) selection, and (3) popula-
tion. These solutions are then evaluated based on a series
of ‘‘fitness criteria’’. The ‘‘fitness criteria’’ are defined in
H.D.S. Beagle by the objective functions of the design
solution defined below.
Sobj = Max. SPCS
Eobj = Min. EUI
Fobj = Max. NPV
where
Sobj = SPC Objective Function
Eobj = Energy Performance Objective Function
Fobj = Financial Performance Objective Function
SPCS = Spatial Programming Compliance Score
EUI = Energy Use Intensity
NPV = Net Present Value
The closer to fulfilling all ‘‘fitness criteria’’ the more
‘‘fit’’ a design solution is considered. The more ‘‘fit’’ a
solution is, the higher the probability that the solution will
be selected to ‘‘survive’’ in the next generation, using a
tournament selection method.52 The next generation is then
populated by these ‘‘survivors’’ through a recombination
of genes and mutation. Through this recombination and
mutation, the population is able to generate more diversi-
fied offspring. This three-step process is then repeated,
with each cycle representing one step of the evolution, i.e.
a new generation. The process is cyclical and continuous
until the algorithm converges or other stopping criteria are
reached. Currently, the population method, crossover ratio,
mutation rate, selection size, and maximum iteration num-
ber are set manually by the designer in the Beagle in order
to accommodate for user preference and due to varying
complexity, coupling – i.e. interaction of parameters, and
scale – i.e. number of parameters of design problems.
The ‘‘fitness criteria’’ of the offspring is determined by
H.D.S. Beagle based on compliance with defined objec-
tives, i.e. targets and constraints, from the three integrated
design domains: design compliance, energy performance,
and financial performance. The categories are then used to
rank design solutions and identify design solutions with
the potential for optimization or trade-off analysis in all
three categories. The definition of the objective functions
used in determining ranking within these three categories
is deliberately bracketed within H.D.S. Beagle in order to
evaluate the effectiveness of this simulation and evaluation
methodology. For example, the aesthetic of the design is
subjective in nature and therefore does not possess the
ability to be ranked quantitatively in a convenient, accu-
rate, and effective fashion. In response, H.D.S. Beagle’s
determination of ‘‘Spatial Programming Compliance
(SPC)’’ was constrained to the use of meeting specified
design program requirements. In order to determine energy
performance, the EUI provided by GBS was chosen as the
objective function representative of the energy perfor-
mance category. The objective is to identify and explore
the potential design solution with the lowest calculated
EUI. The financial performance’s primary goal was to
reflect the expected initial cost of different geometry con-
figurations, potential returns, and maintenance costs. To
provide this information, the program extracts relevant
information from proposed geometry and translates it
into an expected financial cost generated by provided
material costs. For the purpose of the initial experiments
a simplified version of the NPV formula is utilized to
provide broad estimates regarding the cost of construc-
tion, operation costs, and expected revenue values.
However, when more detailed information is integrated,
a more accurate estimate of costs and revenues can be
generated. In the current version of the H.D.S. Beagle,
there are two mechanisms that will stop the GA; the first
is defined by the user as the maximum iteration number
when initializing the GA, and the second is defined when
the GA reaches the convergent criteria. The convergence
criteria are defined when there are three generations that
have the same optimal result, i.e. there no longer is a
quantifiable improvement or difference. At this point,
the GA will determine the design has reached the opti-
mal solution.
Gerber and Lin
Figure 3. The six step process for integrating design and energy simulation independent of platform or tool use.
3.2. Process evaluation
To measure the effectiveness of the MDO framework in
the early stage of design process, an evaluation metric is
needed in order to isolate the means by which our simula-
tion framework can be measured against existing simula-
tion frameworks. A broad spectrum of disciplines has
taken an interest in dissecting, analyzing, and measuring
the design process in order to identify possible means of
improvement. The work of Eastman,53 Akin,54 Cross
et al.55 and Gero et al.56 are the early representative efforts
in the architectural design field that attempted to measure,
describe, and analyze design protocol and activities.
Following this work, Kalay57 and Stoyell et al.58 started to
address the performance-based design aspect of design
process by measuring the impact of design activities on
the building lifecycle performance. There are also research
that evaluate robustness and the flexibility of the early
stage design exploration process.59 Recently, the work of
Clevenger et al.60,61 emphasized the need of providing a
metrics by which to assess design guidance. However, as
summarized by Clevenger et al.,
‘‘In general, limited real-world data exist to evaluate
the exploration performance achieved by actual designers.
This is due, primarily, to the fact that parallel or redundant
explorations are not performed across strategies in the real
world due to limited project resources.’’61
In addition, the majority of these studies examine the
design process from a macro scope approach, attempting
to link individual activities with overall design results.
However, the subjective nature of the design process is
highly reliant on individual preferences and thereby resists
these top-down measurements as a means of providing
clarity regarding the process evaluation. The subject of
interest for this research is on the integration processes
between geometric design and energy performance feed-
back for the purposes of early design decision making.
Therefore this research proceeded to establish metrics
7
specifically for the purpose of evaluating these processes
and their enabling or disruptive properties on the early
design process.
In order to consider both the quantitative and qualita-
tive values in application to the integration of design and
energy simulation process, while maintaining consistent
results across different project activities, this study nar-
rowed the scope of design activities of interest to six steps,
as illustrated in Figure 3.
The identified six steps for energy simulation are as
follows:
1. Generate design configuration
2. Transfer design model to energy simulation model
3. Modify energy model and apply energy related
attributes
4. Run analysis
5. Evaluate results
6. Execute design decisions based on available
feedback
These steps can either be manually implemented or
implemented automatically depending on the user’s
selected tools and platforms.
These six steps are applicable even within the context
of platforms which combine the design geometry and
energy simulation domains. When such a platform is uti-
lized, steps 2 and 3 can be considered as being completed
through an automated process rather than a manual one. In
order to evaluate the effectiveness of the six step process,
various factors must be taken into consideration.
Referencing Atman et al.’s categorization method,62 this
research proceeded to categorize the types of measure-
ments to be collected into four categories: design problem,
process, product, and actor domain and experience, as
listed in the Table 1. The purpose was to provide a basis
by which to observe the impact of both technical and
8 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 0(0)

Table 1. Evaluation metrics used in our study.

Categories/Measures Record Unit/Method Hypothetical Cases Pedagogical Benchmark Cases

Design Problem Measures

Project complexity
Project size Sqft O O
Space type number Number O O
Design complexity
Energy model surface count Number O O
Explored parameter numbers Number/descriptive O O
Process Measures
Speed
Time spent to create design geometry Minutes O O
Time spent to run energy analysis Minutes O O
Time spent to calculate three objectives Minutes N/A O
Feedback method measures
Performance feedback time per result Hour O O
Manual/Automated M/A O O
Simulation process observation
6 step implementation Diagram, Descriptive O O
Exploration process measures
Decision making patterns Diagram O O
GA Settings Number O N/A
Product Measures
Feedback quantity measures
Feedback number per day (8 hours) Number O O
Feedback quality measures
Feedback solution quality EUI, NPV, SPC O O
Output information for each result Descriptive O O
User Experience
Parametric model experience Descriptive O O
H.D.S. Beagle experience Descriptive O N/A

human factors together so as to determine the effective-
ness or potential value of our simulation framework. One
issue to note is that the developed evaluation metric was
limited to the available measurable items collected
through the exploration of our hypothetical design scenar-
ios and pedagogical benchmark case.
Measurements falling into the design problem category
are values collected regarding the physical aspects of the
design and are further divided into two subcategories: proj-
ect complexity and design complexity. Project complexity
refers to the project size as measured in square feet and the
number of types of program spaces, such as parking, com-
mercial or residential, that are included within the design
problem. Design complexity refers to the amount of sur-
faces required to be included in the energy model along
with the number of available parameters as provided by
the design problem. Process based measurements are
divided into four subcategories: speed, feedback, simula-
tion process observation, and exploration process. Speed
measures times experienced during the specified activities
of creating the design geometry, running the energy analy-
sis, and calculating the three objective scores. The feed-
back category records the time taken for all three objective
scores to become available for feedback purposes, i.e.
enabling a design decision or choice and whether the
method of obtaining the objective scores was either manual
or automated. Simulation process observation describes
the implementation method used when completing the pre-
viously described six step energy simulation process.
Exploration process provides diagrams illustrating the
decision making patterns used by the hypothetical case
studies and the pedagogical benchmark cases. Product
measures focus on evaluating the resulting design alterna-
tives of each process of interests. These include the num-
ber of design alternatives generated during an eight hour
work period and the solution quality as defined by EUI,
NPV, and SPC. The user experience section documents the
users’ background experience in utilizing parametric mod-
eling and the previous experience using H.D.S. Beagle.
3.3. Data collection
In order to evaluate our simulation framework, the
research conducted two types of experiments: hypothetical
and pedagogical case scenarios. Hypothetical cases are
composed specifically for use by H.D.S. Beagle with
Gerber and Lin
Figure 4. Implemented prototype, i.e. computational, and pedagogical, i.e. manual, simulation process outlines.
varying degrees of geometric complexity. These serve as a
means to capture the simulation process implemented
through the design methodology utilizing the Beagle. A
series of pedagogical experiments are then run in a class-
room environment to use as a means of establishing
benchmark references regarding the following: run time,
geometric complexity, feedback analysis, and quality of
the solution space. The benchmark cases are also used to
observe how our design methodology enabled or disrupted
the conventional manual design process simulated in the
pedagogical case.
4. Case studies and data analysis
As previously discussed in Figure 3, there is a six step
design simulation process for integrating the design geo-
metry and energy simulation feedback. When applied to
our MDO methodology, the resulting simulation process
for the prototype is illustrated in Figure 4. Also illustrated
9
in Figure 4 is the adjusted simulation process used for the
pedagogical benchmark experiments. The significant
simulation process difference is predicated on the fact that
the pedagogical experiments were run in a classroom set-
ting where students were not granted access in real time
and in parallel to the automation characteristic of the
Beagle. The last three steps are performed manually as
opposed to automated through the GA-based MOO pro-
cess provided though the Beagle.
The following outlines the experimental parameters,
data of interest, simulation and exploration process, col-
lected data, and observations for the two sets of experi-
ments contained in this research.
4.1. Hypothetical cases
4.1.1. Experiment description. In order to explore the proto-
type’s functionality, limitations, and applicability to real
world scenarios a series of hypothetical design problems
10 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 0(0)
are generated then run in accordance to each problem’s
specifications. These 12 case studies are developed by the
authors to be implemented through the use of H.D.S.
Beagle. These experiments are designed to test computa-
tion and automation affordances and to emulate the early
stage simulation process as used by our framework in
order to observe the enabling and disruptive properties of
the overall process.
4.1.2. Simulation process. The simulation process of H.D.S.
Beagle as applied to the previously defined six step simula-
tion is illustrated in Figure 4. The resulting detailed work-
flow for the hypothetical cases is described below.
Step 1 Generate design. For this process there are two
subcategories: the generation of the initial design and the
generation of the design alternatives. The initial design is
developed through the preparation of the initial executable
design and the constraints file according to the designer
driven project requirements. At this point, each hypotheti-
cal case is provided a specific site, weather and climate
information, and overall program objectives to simulate
real world design problems. This step is also where para-
metric ranges are set. These ranges are set once per GA
run. The generation of design alternatives is then produced
through the automated process of exploring combinations
and mutation percentages of parametric values within their
set ranges and subsequent performance results calculated
by the GA. A total of 12 distinct design scenarios are pre-
sented in this paper. They range from single program type
to up to four mix–use program combinations. These sce-
narios were also generated using varying levels of geo-
metric complexity. A summary of the 12 scenarios is
provided in Figure 5. Each case has further been defined
through a series of site constraints, program requirements,
and geometrically driving, fixed, and driven parameters,
and formal, i.e. geometric complexity. The geometric
complexity of each problem has been measured through
the surface count of the initial design’s energy model as
provided by the energy simulation software. Figure 6 pro-
vides a sample example of the components and attributes
of these scenarios. The acquired quantitative measure-
ments through the established metrics are summarized in
Table 2.
Step 2 Transfer model. The integrated platform enables
the direct translation of the design geometry and related
energy settings into the energy simulation engine provided
by GBS. As a result, an analyzable energy model can be
obtained directly thereby proceeding with the energy
simulation without additional modification of geometry or
energy related attributes. In this process, the prototype
automatically converts and sends the design alternative to
the GBS server to request and obtain a conceptual energy
analysis.
Step 3 Modify energy model. The step is bypassed since
the model transfer to GBS is automated by Revit, which is
unavailable through most non-integrated platforms.
Step 4 Run analysis. This step has two stages. The first
stage is to send the automatically translated energy model
of the design alternative to GBS for analysis and obtain
the results. This part is executed through Revit by the
Beagle after a design alternative is generated. Once the
energy analysis results are available the Beagle then pro-
ceeds with extracting the relevant information from the
results and the design model to automatically calculate the
SPC score and the financial performance score of the
design alternative. These scores are then put with the EUI
score provided by GBS for the next evaluation step.
Step 5 Evaluate results. Performance of design alterna-
tives within each generation are automatically evaluated,
ranked, and scored before candidates for the following gen-
eration are selected by the GA. Figure 7 illustrates an exam-
ple of the Beagle’s genetically driven evaluation process
where the initial user defined population of 10 was popu-
lated followed by three subsequent generations bred based
on the performance of the previous generation. Once the
user requested number of generations has been reached then
the results are provided to the user for manual evaluation.
At this point, the GA run is considered to be completed.
Step 6 Execute decision. Once the results have been
generated there are two ways to proceed: (1) a designer
manually implements changes in the initial design of the
executable design file based on the acquired simulated
results, which would also suggest another optimization
run; or (2) a design alternative is selected based on the
multi-objective trade-off analysis provided by the Beagle
and the design proceeds to the next stage of development.
For the purpose of these experiments, step 6 was executed
through identifying the higher performing design alterna-
tives and their performance ranges for the SPC, EUI, and
NPV scores as provided by the Beagle.0
4.1.3. Experiment results and observations. A summary of
the collected data from the 12 hypothetical scenarios is
provided in Table 2.
During the course of running the 12 hypothetical sce-
narios, several observations were made. When utilizing the
prototype there is a direct correlation between the run time
and the surface count of the energy model. This linear rela-
tionship is described in Figure 8. Currently, the averaged
time for each surface to be calculated was approximately
.0036 seconds. While the correlation between the surface
count and the run time is evident, there is no observed cor-
relation between the time required for the energy analysis
and the quantity of parameters, e.g. the scale of the design
problem intrinsic to each design scenario. However, there
may be a correlation between the quantity of the para-
meters and the overall time necessary in reaching the
Table 2. Summary of the hypothetical cases measures.

Categories/Measures Scenario No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Gerber and Lin

Design Problem Measures

Project complexity
Project size (sq ft) 16768 84680 167680 16500 30310 51000 3000 86000
Space type no. 4 4 4 4 1 2 4 1 1 3 1 1
Design complexity
Energy model surface counta 794 1587 1042 824 7517 2451 270 1060 28 2086 197 338
Explored parameter no. 6/61 12/3 16/3 23/3 7/27 8/0 10/3 13/3 0/12 7/4 9/1 6/21
(Design/Energy)
Process Measures
Speed
Time spent to run energy 1.46 3.25 2.95 2.96 28.64 8.36 1.01 2.90 0.53 4.15 0.91 1.70
analysis (minutes)b
Feedback method measures
Performance feedback 2 7 8 8 41 40 2 3 1 6 1 4
time per result (minutes)c
GA setting
Initial population 20 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 40 10 10 20
Crossover ratio 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Mutation ratio 0 0 0 0 0 0.006 0 0 0.006 0 0 0.006
Population size 40 20 20 20 40 10 40 20 40 20 20 40
Selection size 30 20 20 20 30 10 30 20 20 20 20 10
Maximum iteration 20 0 0 20 1 10 40 20 20 6 5 10
Product Measures
Feedback quantity
Feedback number per day 240 34 30 30 5 6 120 80 240 40 240 60
(8 hours)
Feedback quality: (Initial/Solutions’ range)
NPV (Million Dollars) 528155~754 7116~71 92N/A 13274~525 538142~555 (-94)(-516)~84 73876~741 565113~769 (-73)(-74)~(-71) (-41)(-40)~834 (-3)(-4)~(-2) 34(-57)~178
EUI (kBtu/sq ft/yr) 5545~68 5651~77 63N/A 6243~83 6555~88 5752-67 4842~88 6149~79 5653~104 17356~233 6451~99 5447~99
SPC 7524~94 60~50 3N/A 55~88 8838~99 54(-76)~71 3131~95 833~100 100N/A 10(-404)~88 9946~100 9948~99
a
The surface count is according to the energy model of the initial design geometry. During the GA process, varying design options will have varying surface counts.
b
These time measurements were according to generating the initial masses’ energy models and include the time required to both transfer to and receive results from Green Building Studio through the
Internet.
c
These recorded times include time needed by H.D.S. Beagle to update new design options, calculate three objective functions evaluating each design option, and proceed with tournament selection.
11
12 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 0(0)

Figure 5. Summary of the 12 hypothetical design scenarios including program complexity, parameter scale and coupling, and
geometry.

mathematical converging optimal design solution pool. the run time; we believe this is also in need of further
This possible correlation is in need of further explora- observation.
tion. Furthermore, according to the present data, there There are also some technological limitations observed
was no observed correlation between the project size and during this set of experiments. First, the complexity of the
Gerber and Lin 13

Figure 6. Example of hypothetical design scenario composed of site attributes, program requirements, and the three parametric
categories, driving, driven and fixed.

Figure 7. Illustrates the GA driven evaluation by H.D.S. Beagle of hypothetical scenario 10 and a subset of the resulting solution
pool.

project is limited by the GBS’s energy simulation engine.
The selected energy simulation engine can currently only
analyze 8192 exterior surfaces, 8192 interior surfaces,
8192 underground surfaces, 1024 shade surfaces, 8192
openings, and 4096 spaces.63 As a result, if the energy
model of the designed geometry exceeded any of these
limits the automation loop is disrupted. Also, there was an
issue experienced with regards to the process of transfer-
ring a design model to an energy model. In the prototype
tool, this process was done automatically. This means that
when a designer designated a geometric element as an
exterior wall in the design platform, the exterior walls’
attributes were preserved and transferred into the energy
model without further manipulation. However, when a
design model possesses higher degrees of curvature, such
as scenarios 2 and 3, there is the possibility of a mistran-
slation. For example, a curved roof surface might be
recognized as an exterior wall surface during this transfer
14 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 0(0)

Figure 8. Illustration of the relationship between the geometric complexity and the analysis runtime. Geometric complexity is
defined as the energy model surface count of the initial parametric model design.

process. This means that in the energy model the surface
would have the attributes of the exterior wall instead of the
attributes assigned to the roof material. This mistransla-
tion, in turn, affects the accuracy of the analyzed results
that are dependent on these attributes to execute the energy
performance calculations. The occurrence of these types of
mistranslations can be manually identified and corrected
by examining the resulting energy model. However, during
the automated GA process it is impossible to manually
correct any identified issues in the generated energy mod-
els for each design alternative. The extent of the impact
this type of error has on the accuracy of the generated
results and how this inaccuracy affects the GA process is
in need of further investigation, though we believe it to be
statistically not significant as the number of surfaces this
mistranslation effects is normally small and only in the
complex geometry scenarios. Despite these issues the
Beagle is able to successfully enable the exploration of
more complex geometry, as shown through scenarios 2, 3,
and 5, than typically modeled in common energy
simulation programs. Also, most significantly H.D.S.
Beagle is able to successfully provide a design solution
pool with an improved performance over the initial design
for all 12 scenarios. These results have been further dis-
cussed in section 5.3.
4.2. Pedagogical case
4.2.1. Experiment description. In order to observe the impact
of the proposed simulation methodology on design cycle
latency and performance feedback latency, a pedagogical
experiment was developed to generate a series of bench-
marks for comparison purposes. 27 students participated in
this study after receiving seven weeks of Revit training.
The study group was composed of 18 master of architec-
ture candidates, 8 master of building science candidates,
and 1 undergraduate student pursuing a minor in architec-
ture. For this experiment, hypothetical design scenario 10
was provided to the students with the following design
objectives and constraints:
Gerber and Lin
Figure 9. Initial parametric model provided to each student for the pedagogical experiment.
Site location: 8782 Sunset Boulevard West Hollywood,
CA 90069
Site Area: 22,500 Sq. ft. (150’ x 150’)
Design Requirement:
Retail Area 11,000 Sq. ft.
Office Area 20,000 Sq. ft.
Hotel Area 20,000 Sq. ft.
Design Goal/Objectives:
a. Maximize the SPC Score
b. Minimize EUI
c. Maximize NPV
4.2.2. Simulation process. At the beginning of the experi-
ment, each student was provided an identical Revit model
with predefined parametric options to start with. Ranges
for each parameter setting were also provided. Students
were then asked to explore multiple combinations of these
settings in order to generate a potential design solution
with the lowest calculated EUI, the maximum financial
performance (NPV), and the maximum SPC. The EUI was
calculated through the service provided by Revit which
automatically translated the conceptual mass into a sche-
matic energy model. Financial performance and SPC were
calculated through Excel files provided to the students
which were identical to those used by H.D.S. Beagle to
generate similar calculations. According to the previously
described methodology, the students were asked to follow
these six steps:
Step 1 Generate design. In this experiment, the initial
design was provided so the generation of design alterna-
tives was based on the manual manipulation of the pro-
vided parameters within their set parametric ranges.
15
Students were given nine parameters by which to explore
potential design alternatives; five parameters drove the
overall building form and geometry and four parameters
were built in energy parameters available through the
Revit conceptual energy analysis platform. The provided
model and parametric ranges are illustrated in Figure 9.
Figure 10 provides a sample of the worksheet given to stu-
dents to record their progress.
Step 2 Transfer model. Once a design alternative has
been generated students are asked to analyze the perfor-
mance of their new design option. Students are instructed
to generate an energy analysis through Revit using the
conceptual analysis tool that sends and retrieves the
energy analysis from GBS.
Step 3 Modify energy model. This step is bypassed as
the model transfer is automatically provided by Revit to
GBS.
Step 4 Run analysis. Energy use analysis results pro-
vided by GBS are provided automatically once the con-
ceptual energy analysis is requested through Revit. Once
acquired, students then record the EUI levels in the pro-
vided Excel worksheet along with other design attributes
as explained in their experiment set up and illustrated
Figure 11. The input from the students is then used to
score their design alternative according to the three previ-
ously defined objectives; EUI, SPC, and NPV.
Step 5 Evaluate results. Design attributes and the result-
ing scores are then documented in the provided Excel
worksheet to allow for comparison against previously gen-
erated results, as illustrated in Figure 12. This analysis is
then available for students to review before proceeding
with any changes in the design that is of interest.
Step 6 Execute decision. Modifications of the design
are made according to the designer’s interpretation of the
16 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 0(0)

Figure 10. The worksheet provided to students to record their decision making process.

Figure 11. The Excel worksheet calculator provided to students used to calculate the performance of their generated design
alternative according to the three objective functions.

generated results. During this period, students are asked to
record their progress along with the time spent during
each process stage:
1. Updating the design option: time recorded to mod-
ify geometry, level settings, and space settings.
2. Energy analysis: time recorded to request the con-
ceptual energy analysis for the design alternative
through Revit and to receive the analysis results
from GBS.
3. Objective calculations: time recorded to manually
input the necessary data into the Excel calculator
in order to obtain the objective calculations
(including the time previously recorded for the
energy analysis).
4.2.3. Experiment results and observations. This study col-
lected data from 27 students who generated a total of 118
different design options through the provided parametric
model with a minimum of three iterations per student.
Table 3 presents each student’s maximum iteration num-
bers, time spent on the overall process, and their resulting
solution space range. Lastly, Figure 13 illustrates the stu-
dent’s resulting data points and their exploration samples.
For this experiment, the students were asked to opti-
mize the design according to the same three objectives
used by the Beagle: minimize EUI, maximize NPV, and
maximize SPC. As summarized in Table 3, the average
exploration time recorded was three hours with approxi-
mately five generated iteration numbers. There was no
observed correlation between the solution quality, iteration
Gerber and Lin 17

Figure 12. The worksheet provided to students to allow them to compare multiple design iterations.

Table 3. Summary of pedagogical iteration numbers, exploration times, and the explored ranges of generated solution space.

Student Iteration Exploration NPV (Million Dollars) EUI (kBtu/sq ft/yr) SPC
ID No. Time (Hour)
MIN MAX RANGE MIN MAX RANGE MIN MAX RANGE

S1 4 5 − 41.0 − 8.8 32.1 70.4 174.9 104.5 9.6 35.2 25.5

S2 4 4 − 29.9 138.8 168.7 81.0 246.8 165.8 18.1 97.9 79.9
S3 4 3.5 53.7 138.1 84.4 66.8 137.2 70.4 57.4 85.7 28.3
S4 4 1 − 32.9 60.9 93.8 79.4 173.0 93.6 16.1 89.3 73.3
S5 4 4.5 − 22.1 114.4 136.5 91.9 195.3 103.3 23.5 98.0 74.5
S6 4 3 − 45.0 118.5 163.5 70.2 175.3 105.1 7.0 90.2 83.1
S7 4 3 − 13.2 414.4 427.6 69.4 147.4 78.0 − 151.3 28.6 179.8
S8 12 3 − 46.3 758.4 804.7 56.0 226.7 170.7 − 415.2 35.2 450.4
S9 4 2 − 10.0 196.8 206.8 95.1 180.2 85.1 10.6 96.5 86.0
S10 3 2.25 − 46.1 18.9 65.0 101.7 209.9 108.2 5.8 56.1 50.2
S11 13 5 − 46.3 758.4 804.7 56.0 226.7 170.7 − 415.2 35.2 450.4
S12 4 4 − 39.3 120.0 159.3 83.7 154.3 70.5 13.0 40.6 27.6
S13 4 7 75.5 84.6 9.1 82.4 152.2 69.8 82.6 95.0 12.4
S14 3 3 − 35.4 − 30.6 4.8 108.9 248.5 139.6 14.5 17.4 2.9
S15 3 4 75.7 101.4 25.7 79.3 125.8 46.5 85.4 98.5 13.1
S16 5 6 − 40.9 108.0 148.9 70.2 173.8 103.6 9.7 77.7 68.1
S17 5 2 66.6 85.3 18.7 75.9 89.9 14.0 80.0 91.9 11.9
S18 3 2.5 74.6 79.3 4.7 68.0 75.4 7.3 96.9 97.7 0.9
S19 4 3.3 − 21.1 152.5 173.6 74.8 123.5 48.8 25.5 96.7 71.2
S20 4 0.33 − 48.8 − 12.5 36.2 166.8 250.5 83.7 3.9 33.6 29.7
S21 3 1.5 − 45.0 − 36.3 8.7 157.2 229.9 72.7 7.0 13.2 6.2
S22 3 3 − 21.8 81.9 103.7 94.9 128.7 33.8 25.1 96.9 71.8
S23 3 0.58 − 44.3 44.6 88.9 95.2 292.3 197.1 7.4 41.6 34.2
S24 4 3 − 47.0 27.7 74.7 112.4 217.1 104.7 5.5 60.7 55.3
S25 3 2 − 48.0 340.6 388.5 116.0 227.8 111.8 − 116.1 29.8 145.9
S26 3 1 − 32.6 − 9.1 23.5 71.5 133.2 61.7 16.9 34.9 18.0
S27 4 1 78.7 99.5 20.7 65.0 119.0 54.0 84.7 99.3 14.6
MIN 3.0 0.3 − 48.8 − 36.3 4.7 56.0 75.4 7.3 − 415.2 13.2 0.9
MAX 13.0 7.0 78.7 758.4 804.7 166.8 292.3 197.1 96.9 99.3 450.4
AVERAGE 4.6 3.0 − 10.4 161.0 175.4 89.1 179.4 92.4 − 24.5 65.0 90.2
STDEV P 2.4 1.6 45.8 199.3 210.3 26.3 53.3 46.2 124.6 30.6 112.7
18 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 0(0)

Figure 13. Raw data and 3D visual representations of pedagogical generated solution space.

number, and time. However, the two students, S8 and S11,
who recorded the largest quantity of iterations, also
recorded solutions with optimal performance in NPV and
EUI when compared to the results from other students.
This suggests that while there is no observable guarantee
that increased iterations yields higher performing results,
there does appear to be an increase in the possibility of
identifying higher performing solutions.
Students were also asked to document their exploration
and decision making process. Of the 27 students observed,
the resulting individual approaches can be divided into
two broader categories: random and linear. Random explo-
ration can be defined here as students who began their
optimization process by randomly selecting parametric
values with little consideration of given objectives before
comparing the results. After a few iterations, students who
took this approach would then proceed to select their high-
est performing model based on the available feedback.
The other approach employed was linear based. Students
using a linear method would begin with analyzing an
Gerber and Lin
Figure 14. Illustrates an example of a linear ‘manual’ exploration process as mapped through the pedagogical benchmark case.
initial design alternative of interest before varying para-
meters with the intent of improving performance regarding
the three overall objectives; then, they would analyze their
new model, review feedback, and proceed with a new var-
iation based on the results. Figure 14 provides an illu-
strated example of a linear exploration process. In this
case, it is observable that there is a shift in the design
intent after each iteration analysis. For example, after the
first stage, the intent shifts from maximizing the SPC
score to adjusting for the improvement in energy perfor-
mance. However, it can be noted that these adjustments
were heavily reliant on the user’s intuition combined with
the previously generated results. As a result, due to the
project’s complexity, the fruition of the user’s adjusted
intent was not always realized, as illustrated in Figure 14,
through subsequent iterations. We believe this to be an
important observation for further study as it suggests the
importance of design cognition memory, e.g. computa-
tional approaches for managing design complexity.
5. Comparative study and summary
5.1. Complexity and speed
As previously observed during the hypothetical cases, the
run time necessary for analysis and design complexity
have a direct correlation. However, in the case of compar-
ing the prototype driven hypothetical scenario 10 with the
pedagogy experiment set, this correlation no longer
applies. This is due to the design scenarios being identical
and therefore possessing identical levels of complexity. As
a result, differences in times recorded can then be attrib-
uted to the human factors of the manual process necessary
to both analyze and implement the desired changes in the
geometry. During the pedagogical experiment, students
averaged 16.4 minutes per iteration compared to the proto-
type’s six minutes per iteration. In this regard, the pro-
posed methodology and prototype technology can be
19
considered as enabling the design process to explore more
design iterations, as there is a measurable decrease in the
time accrued between manual and automated design alter-
native generation. Given Moore’s law we would expect
this affordance provided by the system too only get better.
5.2. Accuracy
During the pedagogical experiment set, we observed an
issue regarding the manual transfer of information from
the parametric model to the provided Excel worksheet calcu-
lator. During the validation process it was discovered that
errors were present in approximately 50% of the student
recorded data due to calculated values being placed in the
wrong fields in the provided Excel worksheet to miscalcu-
lated values being used as a basis for decision making. One
error in particular that was repeated was the failure to prop-
erly associate new floor levels in the parametric model with
their proper program occupancy type. This resulted in invali-
dated results for all three optimization scores that were then
used to drive design decisions resulting in invalid design
alternatives. Considering the simplification of this experi-
ment, it can be extrapolated that more opportunity for human
based error would be found when applied to real word sce-
narios possessing significantly more complexity than experi-
enced during this bounded experiment. In comparison, by
automating this process the opportunity for human based
error is significantly reduced. In this regard, the automated
prototype is arguably enabling the design process by provid-
ing more consistently dependable analysis results for the
generated design alternatives.
5.3. Solution space comparison
With regards to the comparison of the solution pool there
are two areas of interest. First is the quality of the solution
space generated by our methodology using the Beagle
under the same time constraints as experienced on average
20 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 0(0)

Table 4. Performance comparison of the solution space for hypothetical scenario 10 between the pedagogical experiment results
and the prototype generated results after a runtime of three hours, seven hours, and six generations.

INITIAL DESIGN SOLUTION SPACE

Pedagogical H.D.S. Beagle
3 HR 7 HR 6th Gen

NPV (Million $) − 40.9 MIN − 47.9 − 40.9 − 40.9 − 40.9

MAX 340.6 432.1 584.1 834.5
Improvement 381.5 473.0 625.5 875.4
EUI (kBtu/sq ft/yr) 173.8 MIN 66.8 58.7 58.7 56
MAX 292.33 233.4 233.4 233.4
Improvement 107.0 115.1 115.1 117.8
SPC 9.7 MIN − 151.27 − 134.4 − 266.3 − 404.4
MAX 99.3 81.2 82.7 87.5
Improvement 89.6 71.5 73.0 77.8
Pareto Solution (%) 3 OBJ 26.9/36.7 22.4/40.0 19.4/37.2
(Pedagogical/H.D.S. Beagle)

during the pedagogical experiment. The second area of
interest is in comparing the quality of the solution space
generated by the methodology using the Beagle when
allowed an extended time period or 6th generation of design
alternatives. Table 4 provides the performance ranges of
the solution pools generated by the validated student results
and the results generated by the prototype during the three
designated time periods. The three hour period was selected
for comparison against the pedagogical results as this was
the average time recorded by the students.
According to these results the prototype was able to
provide a solution pool with a 26.8% increase in the mea-
sured NPV and a 13.7% reduction in the calculated EUI.
However, the pedagogical solution pool was able to pro-
vide a 22.2% more compliant spatial programming set.
This was in part due to instant feedback available regard-
ing the SPC while exploring their design options through
the Revit platform. Overall, when ranked according to
their performance for all three objectives 36.7% of the
design alternatives generated by the prototype were des-
ignated as Pareto optimal solutions while only 26.9% of
the students generated design alternatives received this
designation. It should be noted that the ranked solutions
provided by the students included all 67 results gener-
ated by all 27 students excluding only the previously
designated invalid results. In addition, it was observed
that there was an uneven distribution of designated
Pareto solutions among the student generated results.
When a student was able to produce a highly ranked ini-
tial design, as shown in Table 3 and Figure 13, then
there was typically a more often observed incremental
improvement over subsequent iterations. This resulted in
some students being able to produce multiple Pareto
solutions while others did not produce any. This obser-
vation implies that the probability of generating Pareto
design alternatives is highly dependent on a combination
of factors of the individual’s initial design, exploration
method, and their exploration strategies. In contrast, the
use of the Beagle is able to consistently enable the gen-
eration of higher performance design alternatives and
also enable the exploration of the full spectrum of poten-
tial parametric variables without being restricted by indi-
vidual preferences.
Overall, the prototype was able to provide a more con-
sistently higher performing solution pool than the pedago-
gical solution pool when given the same exploration time
period. However, the quantity of iterations and generations
available during a specified time period is directly depen-
dent on the capacity of the hardware, software, Internet,
and simulation engine used. Therefore another point of
interest is to see if there was observable improvement over
extended generations as will become available during the
same time period with improvements in computational
affordances. For this purpose, the prototype was asked to
run for the extended time period of seven hours and then
again to reach six generations. When applied to the
hypothetical case study 10 the prototype was able to pro-
vide 10 iterations per hour. The findings are described in
Table 4. As shown in Table 4, the prototype was able to
continue to improve the performance of the solution space
through increased generations. For example, with regards
to maximizing the NPV, the 6th generation reached $834.5
million while the 7 hr solution pool reached only $584.1
million and the 3 hr solution pool only reached $432.1
million. Improvements in this fashion are observable
across all three objectives. Therefore, with increases in
computational affordances, the measurable improvements
on the solution pool provided by the proposed MDO
design methodology within a designated time period will
continue to expand.
Gerber and Lin
6. Conclusion and discussion
The affordances for incorporation of real world design
complexity into our computational design prototype and
simulation methodology are discussed through both the
enabling and disruptive impact on the early stages of the
design process. To explore this impact this research com-
pared two specific simulation processes based on a novel
MDO framework, one using the automation developed
through H.D.S. Beagle (hypothetical cases) and the other
using the same platform but with human designer driven
decision making (pedagogical benchmark cases).
Measurements of particular interest included the time nec-
essary to generate design options and the quality and quan-
tity of the resulting solution pool through each simulation
process. Through the 12 presented hypothetical scenarios,
H.D.S Beagle repeatedly demonstrated the ability to pro-
vide more design alternatives with continually improved
performance for consideration than typically available
through conventional methods or when compared against
the pedagogical benchmark case. This result was espe-
cially noticeable for geometrically complex design prob-
lems. Thereby, this research demonstrates that our
framework using H.D.S Beagle successfully improved
design cycle latency between the design, financial, and
energy analysis domain by automating and integrating the
platform with the design, energy simulation, and financial
models. The analysis for these three domains provides the
means by which to perform an extensive trade-off study
otherwise unattainable at the early stage of design. The
availability of these simulated trade-off studies between
rapidly generated design alternatives allows the design
framework to enable more informed design decision mak-
ing during the early stages of design while incorporating
arguably more design complexity.
During the comparison of the pedagogical experiment
with the use of the Beagle in its full automation form, it
was observed that when instant feedback was available to
understand the coupling between parametric manipulation
and performance the human driven pedagogical experi-
ment was able to provide design alternatives with superior
SPC calculated scores. This can be observed in the
increased SPC scores where instant SPC levels were pro-
vided through the Revit platform. However, since the calcu-
lations for the other objectives of interest required a
multistep process, an uneven focus on maximizing the SPC
score instead of all three designated objectives equally was
developed. This result implies that there was a single objec-
tive optimization approach tendency during the pedagogical
design exploration process where priority was given to indi-
vidual objectives separately rather than a true MDO
approach. This situation was not the case with Beagle,
which gave equal value to maximizing all three designated
objectives among the generated design alternatives.
21
In addition, the proposed methodology using the Beagle
is able to negate the issue regarding human based error
observed in the manual calculation of the objective scores.
It can be extrapolated, then, that with increasingly complex
design problems there is a greater potential for human error
and therefore an increased benefit to the automated process
available through the proposed simulation methodology
using the Beagle. This would enable more informed early
stage design decision making for even more complicated
design projects.
One element that defies parametric translation is that of
aesthetic preference which differs widely between individ-
uals. As a result, resources will typically be expended on
optimizing only potential design solutions that satisfy this
first element. As the prototype possesses no aesthetic pre-
ference, equally it possesses no aesthetic prejudice. While
it may spend time analyzing solutions that will ultimately
be dismissed by the designer, equally it analyzes solutions
potentially overlooked by the designer. The result is a
broader based design solution pool with overall improved
multi-objective performance levels to enable more
informed design decision making inclusive of a more
expansive simulated aesthetic and formal range. We
believe the work to be a successful demonstration of an
improved simulation technology, one that integrates
design complexity and improves a designers’ ability to
manage complexity within the simulation enabled early
stage design decision making process.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the University of Southern California (USC)
Dean of Architecture, Qingyun Ma, and the junior faculty
research grant program; Ms Bei ‘‘Penny’’ Pan, our initial lead
software developer; Junwen Chen, Ke Lu, Shitian Shen, and
Yunshan Zhu for their continued software development; Prof
Kensek and her class; research scholars Xinyue Ma and Ryan
Conover; Laura Haymond for her review and participation; and
Autodesk, Inc. for their generous support within the IDEA Studio
program.
Funding
The work was in part supported by funding from the USC School
of Architecture Junior Faculty Research Fund and in part by
Autodesk, Inc.
Reference
1. DOE. Building energy data book. http://buildingsdatabook.
eren.doe.gov. (2011, accessed 16 April 2012).
2. Architecture 2030. Energy – buildings consume more energy
than any other sector. http://architecture2030.org/the_problem/
problem_energy. (2011, accessed 18 April 2012).
3. Bogenstätter U. Prediction and optimization of life-cycle costs
in early design. Build Res Info 2000; 28: 376–386.
22 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 0(0)
4. Crawley DB, Hand JW, Kummert M et al. Contrasting the
capabilities of building energy performance simulation pro-
grams. Build Environ 2008; 43 (4): 661–673.
5. Oxman R. Performance-based design: current practices and
research issues. Inter Arch Comp 2008; 6(1): 1–17.
6. Augenbroe G. Trends in building simulation. Build Environ
2002; 37: 891–902.
7. Attia S, Hensen JLM, Beltrán L et al. Selection criteria for
building performance simulation tools: contrasting archi-
tects’ and engineers’ needs. Build Perf Sim 2012; 5(3):
155–169.
8. Radford AD and Gero JS. Tradeoff diagrams for the inte-
grated design of the physical environment in buildings. Build
Environ 1980; 15(1): 3–15.
9. Hensen JLM. Towards more effective use of building perfor-
mance simulation in design. In: 7th international conference
on design and decision support systems in architecture and
urban planning, St. Michielsgestel, The Netherlands, 2–5
July 2004.
10. Flager F, Welle B, Bansal P et al. Multidisciplinary process
integration and design optimization of a classroom building.
Info Tech Construct 2009; 14(38): 595–612.
11. Welle B, Haymaker J and Rogers Z. ThermalOpt: a metho-
dology for automated BIM-based multidisciplinary thermal
simulation for use in optimization environments. Build Sim
2011; 4(4): 293–313.
12. Yi YK and Malkawi AM. Optimizing building form for
energy performance based on hierarchical geometry relation.
Automation Construct 2009; 18(6): 825–833.
13. Turrin M, von Buelow P and Stouffs R. Design explorations
of performance driven geometry in architectural design
using parametric modeling and genetic algorithms. Adv Engr
Informat 2011; 25(4): 656–675.
14. Pantelic J, Raphael B and Tham KW. A preference driven
multi-criteria optimization tool for HVAC design and opera-
tion. Energy Build 2012; 55: 118–126.
15. Fesanghary M, Asadi S and Geem ZW. Design of low-
emission and energy-efficient residential buildings using a
multi-objective optimization algorithm. Build Environ 2012;
49: 245–250.
16. Hamdy M, Hasan A and Siren K. Applying a multi-objective
optimization approach for design of low-emission cost-effec-
tive dwellings. Build Environ 2011; 46(1): 109–123.
17. Gerber DJ and Lin S-HE. Designing-in performance through
parameterisation, automation, and evolutionary algorithms:
‘H.D.S. BEAGLE 1.0’. In: Beyond codes and pixels, 17th
international conference on computer-aided architectural
design research in Asia, Chennai, India, 25–28 April 2012.
18. Gerber DJ, Lin S-HE, Pan BP et al. Design optioneering:
multi-disciplinary design optimization through parameteriza-
tion, domain integration and automation of a genetic algo-
rithm. In: 2012 symposium on simulation foraArchitecture
and urban design, Orlando, FL, USA, 26–30 March 2012,
pp. 23–30.
19. Gerber DJ and Lin S-HE. Synthesizing design performance:
an evolutionary approach to multidisciplinary design search.
In: 32nd annual conference of the association for computer
aided design in architecture, San Francisco, CA, USA, 18–
21 October 2012.
20. Shea K, Aish R and Gourtovaia M. Towards integrated
performance-driven generative design tools. Automation
Construct 2005; 14(2): 253–264.
21. Akin Ö. Variants in design cognition. In: Eastman CM,
McCracken WM and Newstetter WC (eds) Design knowing
and learning:cCognition in design education. Oxford:
Elsevier Science, 2001, pp. 105–124.
22. Shah JJ and Mäntylä M. Parametric and feature-based CAD/
CAM: concepts, techniques, and applications, 1 ed. New
York, NY: Wiley-Interscience, 1995.
23. Gerber DJ. Parametric practices: models for design explora-
tion in architecture. Dissertation, Graduate School of Design,
Harvard University. Cambridge, MA: 2007.
24. Gerber DJ. The parametric affect: computation, innovation
and models for design exploration in contemporary architec-
tural practice. Dissertation, Graduate School of Design,
Harvard University. Cambridge, MA: 2009.
25. Burry M and Murray Z. Computer aided architectural design
using parametric variation and associative geometry. In: 15th
eCAADe-conference, Vienna, Austria, 17–20 September,
1997.
26. Menges A. Integrative design computation: integrating mate-
rial behaviour and robotic manufacturing processes in com-
putational design for performative wood constructions. In:
31st annual conference of the association for computer aided
design in architecture, Banff, Alberta, 13–16 October, pp.
72–81.
27. Kilian A. Design exploration through bidirectional modeling
of constraints. Dissertation, Department of Architecture,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA: 2006.
28. Aish R and Woodbury R. Multi-level interaction in para-
metric design. In: Butz A, Fisher B, Krüger A et al. (eds)
Smart Graphics, Vol. 3638, Berlin / Heidelberg: Springer,
2005, pp. 924–924.
29. Grobman YJ, Yezioro A and Capeluto IG. Building form
generation based on multiple performance envelopes. In:
25th PLEA international conference on passive and low
energy architecture, Dublin, Ireland, 22–24 October.
30. Rolvink A, Van de Straat R and Coenders J. Parametric
structural design and beyond. Inter Arch Comp 2010; 8(3):
319–336.
31. Kolarevic B and Malkawi AM. Performative architecture:
beyond instrumentality. New York: Spon Press, 2005.
32. Hensen J, Djunaedy E, Radošević M et al. Building perfor-
mance simulation for better design: some issues and solu-
tions. In: 21st PLEA international conference on passive and
low energy architecture, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 19–
22 September 2004, pp. 1185–1190.
33. Flager F and Haymaker J. A comparison of multidisciplinary
design, analysis and optimization processes in the building
construction and aerospace industries. In: CIB W78 24th
conference on bringing ITC knowledge to work, Maribor,
Slovenia, 26–29 June 2007, pp. 625–630.
34. Aish R and Marsh A. An integrated approach to algorithmic
design and environmental analysis In: 2011 symposium on
simulation for architecture and urban design, Boston, MA,
USA, pp. 61–67.
35. Malkawi AM. Developments in environmental performance
simulation. Automation Construct 2004; 13(4): 437–445.
Gerber and Lin
36. Holzer D, Tengono Y and Downing S. Developing a frame-
work for linking design intelligence from multiple profes-
sions in the AEC industry. In: Computer-aided architectural
design futures (CAADFutures) 2007 (eds Dong A, Moere
AV and Gero JS), 2007, pp. 303–316. The Netherlands:
Springer.
37. Coello Coello CA, Lamont GB and Van Veldhuisen DA.
Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective prob-
lems. 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 2007.
38. Poloni C and Pediroda V. GA coupled with computationally
expensive simulations: tools to improve efficiency. In:
Quagliarella D, Périaux J, Poloni C et al. (eds) Genetic algo-
rithms and evolution strategy in engineering and computer
science: recent advances and industrial applications. West
Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, 1997, pp. 225–243.
39. Wright JA, Loosemore HA and Farmani R. Optimization of
building thermal design and control by multi-criterion
genetic algorithm. Energy Build 2002; 34(9): 959–972.
40. Magnier L and Haghighat F. Multiobjective optimization of
building design using TRNSYS simulations, genetic algo-
rithm, and artificial neural network. Build Environ 2010;
45(3): 739–746.
41. Keough I and Benjamin D. Multi-objective optimization in
architectural design. In: 2010 symposium on simulation for
architecture and urban design, Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 5–12.
42. Bäck T. Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice: evo-
lution strategies, evolutionary programming, genetic algo-
rithms. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
43. Frazer J. An evolutionary architecture. London: Architectural
Association, 1995.
44. Miles JC, Sisk GM and Moore CJ. The conceptual design of
commercial buildings using a genetic algorithm. Comp
Struct 2001; 79(17): 1583–1592.
45. Wang W, Zmeureanu R and Rivard H. Applying multi-
objective genetic algorithms in green building design optimi-
zation. Build Environ 2005; 40(11): 1512–1525.
46. Wetter M and Wright J. A comparison of deterministic and
probabilistic optimization algorithms for nonsmooth
simulation-based optimization. Build Environ 2004; 39(8):
989–999.
47. Holland JH. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an
introductory analysis with applications to biology, control,
and artificial intelligence. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: A Bradford
Book, 1992.
48. Goldberg DE. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization,
and machine learning. Reading, Massachusetts, USA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, 1989.
49. Gero JS, D’Cruz N and Radford AD. Energy in context: a
multicriteria model for building design. Build Environ 1983;
18(3): 99–107.
50. Tuhus-Dubrow D and Krarti M. Genetic-algorithm based
approach to optimize building envelope design for residen-
tial buildings. Build Environ 2010; 45(7): 1574–1581.
51. Znouda E, Ghrab-Morcos N and Hadj-Alouane A.
Optimization of mediterranean building design using genetic
algorithms. Energy Build 2007; 39(2): 148–153.
52. Goldberg DE. A note on boltzmann tournament selection for
genetic algorithms and population-oriented simulated anneal-
ing. Complex Systems 1990; 4: 445–460.
23
53. Eastman CM. Explorations of the cognitive processes in
design, Department of Computer Science Report, Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1968.
54. Akin Ö. An exploration of the design process. In: Cross N
(ed) Developments in design methodology. New York: John
Wiley, 1984, pp. 189–208.
55. Cross N, Christiaans H and Dorst K. Analysing design activ-
ity. New York: Wiley, Chichester, 1996.
56. Gero JS and McNeill T. An approach to the analysis of
design protocols. Design Studies 1998; 19(1): 21–61.
57. Kalay YE. Performance-based design. Automation Construct
1999; 8(4): 395–409.
58. Stoyell JL, Kane G, W. Norman P et al. Analyzing design
activities which affect the life-cycle environmental perfor-
mance of large made-to-order products. Design Studies
2001; 22(1): 67–86.
59. Simpson TW, Rosen D, Allen JK et al. Metrics for assessing
design freedom and information certainty in the early stages
of design. In: 1996 ASME design engineering technical con-
ference and computer in engineering conference, Irvine,
California, 18–22 August 1996.
60. Clevenger CM and Haymaker J. Metrics to assess design gui-
dance. Design Studies 2011; 32(5): 431–456.
61. Clevenger CM, Haymaker JR and Ehrich A. Design explo-
ration assessment methodology: testing the guidance of
design processes. Journal of Engineering Design 2013; 24
(3): 165–184.
62. Atman CJ, Cardella ME, Turns J et al. Comparing freshman
and senior engineering design processes: an in-depth follow-
up study. Design Studies 2005; 26(4): 325–357.
63. Autodesk. Best practices for conceptual energy analysis,
http://wikihelp.autodesk.com/Revit/enu/2013/Help. (2012,
accessed 30 July 2012).
Author biographies
David Jason Gerber, MArch, MDesS, DDes, was appointed
as an assistant professor of architecture at USC in 2009. He
has since been awarded a courtesy joint appointment at USC’s
Viterbi School of Engineering. Since joining the USC faculty
he has developed and taught curriculum in the civil and envi-
ronmental engineering graduate sequence and primarily as a
design studio and design technology professor in architecture
for both undergraduate and graduate core and electives. Prior
to joining the USC faculty, he was a full-time faculty member
at the Southern California Institute of Architecture from 2006–
2009. Dr Gerber has also taught at the University of
California, Los Angeles’s school of architecture and urban
design, the Architectural Association’s Architecture and
Urbanism March (DRL) graduate program as a technical tutor,
at the Laboratory for Design Media at the École polytechnique
fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Lausanne Switzerland, at
Stanford University’s Civil and Environmental Engineering
Department as a guest instructor, and at the Tecnologico de
Monterrey School of Architecture, Mexico. Professionally, he
has worked in architectural practices in the United States,
Europe, India, and Asia, including Zaha Hadid Architects in
London, England; Gehry Technologies in Los Angeles; Moshe
Safdie Architects in Massachusetts, and The Steinberg Group
24 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 0(0)
Architects in California. Dr Gerber managed research and
development for an AEC technology startup company as vice
president of innovation and subsequently began consulting for
architecture, engineering, and construction firms on global
digital practice, advanced uses of associative parametric design
tools, building information modeling, simulation and design
optimization technologies and was subsequently a vice presi-
dent for Gehry Technologies. He has since sat on advisory
boards for AEC technology startups. Dr Gerber spent two years
as a research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology’s Media Lab working on smart cities with Bill
Mitchell. His research focus is on design and computation and
the development of innovative systems, tools, methods, and
theories at that intersection. Dr Gerber currently advises and
co-advises PhD students from architecture and engineering on
topics including domain integration, interactivity and system
intelligence, digital media and fabrication, and multi-objective
design optimization and design optioneering. His work is sup-
ported by industry grants and by the National Science
Foundation. David Gerber received his undergraduate architec-
tural education at the University of California, Berkeley
(Bachelor of Arts in Architecture, 1996). He completed his
first professional degree at the Design Research Laboratory of
the Architectural Association in London (Master of
Architecture, 2000), his postprofessional research degree
(Master of Design Studies, 2003) and his doctoral studies
(Doctor of Design, June 2007) at the Harvard University
Graduate School of Design.
Shih-Hsin (Eve) Lin, LEED AP BC + D, hails originally from
Taipei, Taiwan. Spending her undergraduate years at the National
Taiwan University focusing on civil engineering, she acquired
her master’s in construction engineering and management at the
same school. During her school years, Eve Lin gathered a spec-
trum of experience working at various construction and develop-
ment companies such as the Century Development Corporation.
There she assisted in the development of the Nankang Software
Park by providing the green building evaluation. She also aided
in the subsequent implementation of the ISO9000 standard.
During her first master’s, Eve discovered her interest in green
building and sustainable design. Thus, she pursued her develop-
ment in this field by concentrating on sustainable related research
after her graduation. Fortuitously, she had the opportunity to
expand her studies by pursuing a second master’s through the
USC Building Science Program. By concentrating on emerging
technology with regard to building energy-simulation, Eve Lin
continued to push the boundaries of her contribution to sustain-
able design. In particular she focused on using her knowledge to
push the implementation of the environmental management sys-
tem for Watt Hall to acquire a more energy-efficient profile for
the prominent building of the School of Architecture at USC.
Merging her broad background and knowledge in civil engineer-
ing, construction management, building science, sustainable
design, and energy simulation, she believes building information
modeling technology is the solution for more efficient, higher-
performing, and sustainable building. While current design tool
and technology has not been mature enough to achieve the goal
she believes in, she continues her research in design technology
and energy performance feedback in the PhD in Architecture pro-
gram at USC. In the future, she hopes she can continue to devote
herself to the ever-expanding and ever-important world of build-
ing information technology for sustainable design.