Phase VI · Engineering Design Studio · Week 7–10
Design Alternatives and Optimization Studio
Compare feasible alternatives on cost, constructability, performance, sustainability and risk, then justify selection.
Alternatives
0
Criteria weight total
1.00
Open warnings
0
Weighted ranking
| Rank | Alternative | Weighted score | Cost | Recommended |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No alternatives scored yet. | ||||
Sensitivity note
The recommended alternative can flip if a criterion's weight changes meaningfully. For example, raising the weight on "Capital cost" from 0.20 to 0.35 (redistributed from other criteria) will favor the cheapest option even if it scores lower on performance or resilience. Always report the base-case weights used and re-run the ranking with at least one plausible alternative weighting (e.g. owner prioritizes life-cycle cost over capital cost) to show the recommendation is robust, or to disclose that it is weight-sensitive.
No alternatives yet
Add at least two feasible alternatives to build a real comparison.
Learning objectives
- Define alternatives
- Score against weighted criteria
- Justify the selection
Engineering judgment
- Two alternatives is a comparison; one is a preference.
- Weight criteria before scoring.
FE Civil connection
Engineering economics
Handbook section: Engineering Economics
Practice this FE topicModule activities
Design warnings (1)
- Fewer than two alternatives defined — a real comparison needs at least two feasible options.
Recommended next step
Verification, Validation, and Independent Check
Run independent checks, quantify differences and close out every discrepancy before submission.
Continue