Computer Tool for Coordinating MEP Systems Thomas M. Korman ~, C.B.

Tatum 2

Abstract

Determining the spatial configuration (coordination) of building systems such as (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing, MEP) is a major challenge for project teams. This research aims to improve MEP coordination by developing a knowledge base (a collection of reasoning facts) that is useable by a computer tool that will evaluate preliminary MEP coordination schemes. This tool that consolidates preliminary designs prepared by separate specialty contractors, analyzes the composite design using knowledge from each design discipline, construction trade and project phase, identifies problems, and provides advice for possible solutions.
Introduction

MEP coordination is the process of locating and routing components for active building systems, within the constraints of architecture, structure and system function, and in consideration of construction, operation, and maintenance. Decreased building volume available for MEP systems and their diagrammatic definition by engineers create the need for MEP coordination, especially in complex manufacturing plants and institutional buildings. General and specialty contractors currently perform this key process by sequentially comparing preliminary system routing using drawing overlays and light tables. This slow and expensive work process requires extensive involvement of people with expertise concerning each of the design disciplines, construction trades, and project phases.

JResearch Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4020. 2professor and Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4020 1172

Downloaded 24 Apr 2012 to 200.17.203.24. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

COMPUTINGIN ENGINEERING Current literature presents a very limited body of knowledge and understanding of MEP Coordination. There is very little background regarding current practice and most literature that mentions the current process only acknowledges problems and difficulties. The background for this research was sponsored by the Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) at Stanford University.

1173

Computer tool architecture

The tool for MEP coordination includes individual models of building systems, a database defining characteristics and relationships of the objects in the systems, and methods and rules to reason about the objects and their compliance with the constraints related to design, construction, and operation of the system. Using the tool begins with importing the preliminary shop drawings for each system, prepared by each specialty contractor. Therefore, as input, the tool takes AutoCAD files representing each system. Together these files include all the major systems found in the facility - HVAC dry, HVAC wet, plumbing, process piping, fire protection, electrical, and controls. The composite model also includes major structural elements and architectural components to define the facility envelope.

Figure 1: System architecture

Downloaded 24 Apr 2012 to 200.17.203.24. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

1174

COMPUTING IN ENGINEERING

The output from using the tool is a coordinated model that complies with constraints from each design discipline and life-cycle phase of the project. It is most easily described as a coordinated product model of the entire facility with the option of producing separate product models of the various systems. However, the output of the tool is coordinated against more than spatial criteria. Based on the information collected during research, the major criteria and constraints for MEP coordination fall in three categories: design, construction, and operation and maintenance. Therefore, the output provides feedback regarding compliance with criteria from each of these project phases.

Scope of component knowledge database

The purpose of the computer tool is to use the knowledge necessary to perform MEP coordination in order to evaluate the configurations of MEP systems. This knowledge must be represented in a way that can be utilized by the computer tool. Three knowledge bases impact MEP coordination. These are design, construction, and operations and maintenance. The knowledge collected for each of these domains adds value to MEP coordination. The most pertinent aspects in each are identified in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Knowledge bases required for MEP coordination

Downloaded 24 Apr 2012 to 200.17.203.24. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

COMPUTINGIN ENGINEERING

1175

Design engineers and detailers bring design knowledge regarding each type of system to the MEP coordination process. This knowledge is applied during MEP coordination to assure that the systems satisfy performance requirements for the project and comply with codes and standards. The attributes of a component related to design criteria and intent are listed in Table 1. Table 1: Design criteria and intent knowledge

Examples of using this knowledge include locating lighting fixtures to avoid obstructing lighting, giving preference to components based on it location in the facility, considering the standard detailing arrangements of support systems, and reserving space for movement of piping. Construction knowledge is applied during MEP coordination to assure the feasibility of building the systems and to increase the efficiency of field operations. This type knowledge includes installation access requirements, construction sequences and methods, and lead-time for components. Superintendents, foremen, and engineers familiar with field operations provide this knowledge. The attributes of a component related to construction are listed in Table 2. Table 2: Construction Knowledge

Downloaded 24 Apr 2012 to 200.17.203.24. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

1176

COMPUTINGIN ENGINEERING

Examples of using this knowledge include reserving required for installation for construction craft persons, materials, and construction equipment, providing adequate space for electrical cable pulling, and selecting preferred locations for the placement of component connections to assist in the ease of construction. To minimize the cost of operation and maintenance or to decrease the difficulty and cost of system renovation, MEP coordination must also consider the phases of the facility lifecycle that follow construction completion. The knowledge to add these constraints to the coordination of MEP systems comes from facility managers, building engineers, and the maintenance staff. The attributes of a component related to operations and maintenance are listed in Table 3. Table 3: Operations and Maintenance Knowledge

Examples of using this knowledge include reserving space for personnel to access individual component of building systems such as valves, drain clean-outs, and access doors, selecting preferred locations for the placement of pipe connections to assist in the maintenance, positioning system components based on expected access times per year, and likelihood that the component will be renovated or replaced. Operation and demonstration of the tool As shown above in Figure 1, the required input for the tool is preliminary shop drawings for each building system. The integration of these individual models results in a composite, but uncoordinated model of the MEP systems for a project. Coordination requires analyzing each system and area to identify physical interferences and coordination problems. Table 4 defines the types of intereferences and problems identified that the MEP coordination tool. The research identified these factors as important in resolving conflicts encountered during MEP coordination.

Downloaded 24 Apr 2012 to 200.17.203.24. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

COMPUTINGIN ENGINEERING Table 4: Type and description of interferences identified in the tool

1177

Most current computer tools are able to identify actual interferences, only a few computer tools are able to identify extended interferences. Functional, temporal, and future interferences are unique to this research and must be considered during MEP coordination. Upon the identification of physical interferences and coordination problems, the tool allows relocation of components and reanalysis until each of the interferences and problems are resolved and all the constraints are satisfied. The reasoning structure assists the user by providing the critical feedback necessary to accomplish this. The reasoning structure uses the knowledge about components and their relationships described above. Heuristics form the basis for the reasoning structure by abstracting measurable data and relating it to a predefined potential problem. The types of heuristics used in this tool are defined in the Table 5.

Downloaded 24 Apr 2012 to 200.17.203.24. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

1178

COMPUTING IN ENGINEERING

Table 5: Heuristics used in reasoning structure

The heuristics are derived from the knowledge domains. Various component attributes from design, construction, and operation and maintenance are utilized to form each heuristic. Heuristics are used in the tool to identify each type of interference - actual, extended, functional, temporal, or future. The type of interference is then used to determine the attributes of the components to vary and solve the problem. Conclusions The importance of MEP systems, the need to improve current process of coordination, and the many disciplines, trades, and project phases involved, make MEP coordination an interesting and beneficial application of computing and information technologies. The division of responsibility for design and installation of MEP systems and the geographical dispersion of the key participants gives this activity major potential for improvement using collaboration and coordination technology. Progress to date on a tool for MEP coordination indicates that it is possible to capture and apply the knowledge needed to produce coordinated MEP designs. Acquiring and formalizing the many types of knowledge required for complete coordination present a major research challenge. An effective tool and improved work process for MEP coordination will result in improved product models of active building systems for use in construction planning and in all phases of a facility life-cycle.

Downloaded 24 Apr 2012 to 200.17.203.24. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

COMPUTINGIN ENGINEERING

1179

References
Aalami, Florian B., Raymond E. Levitt, Martin A. Fischer, "A Customizable Representation for Construction Method Models, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University, Working Paper #5 l, September 1998. Fischer, Martin A., "Using Constructibility Knowledge During the Preliminary Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures," Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1991. Tatum, C. B. and Thomas Korman, "MEP Coordination in Building and Industrial Projects," Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, Working Paper #54, March 1999.

Downloaded 24 Apr 2012 to 200.17.203.24. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org