TABLE OF CONTENTS - The Professional Green Building Council

Theme B: Creating a livable, healthy and environmentally viable citiesComparison of Optimal Design 17 with Design 18 (Table 3): Design 17 has lowerinitial investment and operation costs, whereas Design 18 has lower PD and CO 2concentration, indicating that both designs are non-dominated Pareto solutions toeach other.By cross-comparing all of the 18 optimal designs as explained above, it was foundthat all optimal solutions are non-dominated.The second validation method is to validate propriety of the Pareto optimalsolutions by varying design variables (ventilation method, size and location ofdiffusers and grilles, the amount of outdoor airflow rate, heat recovery method).By changing supply diffuser location: The diffuser location of Design 1 in Table 3(hybrid, supply diffuser located in the dining room) was varied to the living roomand the bedroom for the purpose of comparison. As shown in Table 4, the solutionbecomes a non-dominated Pareto when the supply diffuser is located in the diningroom. Installing supply diffuser in the living room or the bedroom requires higherinitial investment cost because an additional diffuser should be installed. Althoughthe actual CO 2 concentration level differs according to the supply diffuser location,the CO 2 levels are identical for all three cases in Table 4. As described earlier, thisis due to the fact that the CO 2 values were rounded up to the nearest hundred PPMfor the sake of GA computation time. The calculation resolution can be adjusted bychanging the degree of rounding. But, for the purpose of this study, accuracy levelof CO 2 concentration in order of less than 100 PPM is considered acceptable inventilation simulation.Table 4: by changing supply diffuser locationDesignNon-dominatedSolution(Design 1)Supply diffuserlocationDining RoomInitialInvestmentcost(KRW)710,000Operationcost(KRW/Yr)151,230PDCO 2(PPM)B 1100405