Korman, T M; Fischer, M A and Tatum, C B (2003) Knowledge and reasoning for MEP coordination. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(6), pp. 627-634. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The coordination of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems is a major challenge for complex buildings and industrial plants. The process involves locating equipment and routing connecting elements for each building system. This multidiscipline effort is time-consuming and expensive and requires knowledge regarding each system over the project life cycle. Current practice requires representatives from each MEP trade to work together to identify and resolve interferences. Effective MEP coordination requires recalling and integrating knowledge regarding design, construction, operations, and maintenance of each MEP system. Currently, designers and constructors use tailored CAD systems to design and fabricate MEP systems, but no knowledge-based computer technology exists to assist in the multidiscipline MEP coordination effort. The paper describes results from a research project to capture knowledge related to design criteria, construction, operations, and maintenance of MEP systems and apply this knowledge in a computer tool that can assist designers and builders in resolving coordination problems for multiple MEP systems.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; design criteria; electrical systems; structural; mechanical systems; structural; plumbing |
| Index terms: | designer, building system, reasoning, plumbing, coordination, life cycle, mechanical system, builder |
| Subjects: | cognitive psychology, management, practitioner, profession, engineering systems, mechanical systems, value management |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Organizational Design, Design Practice, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here