I recently attended a conference hosted by ACEC of Utah (American Council of Engineering Companies). The keynote speaker for the event was Michael Leavitt, former Governor of Utah, presidential cabinet member, and founder of Leavitt Partners. His emphasis was on collaborative leadership, which for him emerged in the build-up to the 2002 Winter Olympics and the urgency to develop infrastructure that could support the Nations of the Earth for a few weeks.

As governor, he realized the “shared pain” caused by the specter of hosting an event that would place Utah center stage, before the cameras of every major international news outlet, could provide a “provoking moment”. And it did. The collaborative network that unified in response to this urgent need quickly brought projects initially forecast to greatly exceed available budgets and schedules into alignment with these limitations.

While we may not typically deal in projects of this scale or exposure, there is no shortage of shared pain in our industry. Few professions provide stresses commensurate with ours: deadlines set to pacify owners anxious to bid on projects before the next price escalation, and cold facts that impose real costs when designs fail to conform with hard-edged physical realities. And at the center of all of this is the architect: giving form to a client’s dreams, within the constraints of an energy-efficient, code-compliant design, that also provides a safe, comfortable, and quiet interior environment.

It is in that shared pain, that we, as mechanical engineers, can provide some collaborative synergy. And to undergird the collaboration in which we hope to engage, here are some ways an architect can better understand the enigmatic mind of their mechanical engineering consultant.

Strategic Partnering

As consultants, we seek to understand project goals and capture opportunities to innovate ways to integrate needed systems that support the function of the design without dominating its form. And, contrary to what you might think, mechanical engineers are not trying to negotiate to have the building’s occupied space exist only to serve the needs of our palatial mechanical rooms. In fact, most engineers in architectural consulting, share an appreciation for the process and craft of architecture. We prefer the creativity of this profession to the widget design some of our nerdier classmates pursued. Furthermore, we seek to become more than commodities by becoming trusted advisors. By forming strategic partnerships that add value to the design, we want to help provide a finished product that thrills our client and our client’s client.

Mechanical Space Coordination

Within the candor of those strategic relationships, we want to negotiate reasonable space allocation for the systems that provide for the comfort and health of the occupants but are, nonetheless, best unheard and unseen. Mechanical equipment and systems tend to require the most coordination with the architecture of the building: Structure gets placed where it is needed to prevent the building from tipping over; Civil happens outside the envelope where other consultants are vying for space; and, in comparison, electrical systems require much less of the floor plate and the ceiling cavity (transporting electrons at the speed of light has its advantages).
While it would be very economical, and impact building architecture far less, to size ducts and piping like electrical conduits, there are trade-offs:

• Smaller pipes and ducts mean increased resistance to the movement of the air or water they transport … which means larger pumps and fans and higher energy costs for the fixed amount of heating and cooling needed for the building.
• Increased velocity through smaller ducts and pipes also means potential noise complaints from building occupants (most engineers would rather hear from their doctor that the biopsy was positive than a report of noise on a project).

And, while I’m impressed with the innovative designs seen on YouTube for Van Life Conversions and Ultra-Modern Tiny Houses that pack maximum function into a minimalist form, most facility maintenance personnel do not share that interest when it comes to their mechanical rooms. Here too, trade-offs should be considered.

• The cost of constructing interior mechanical space and subtracting this from the fixed square footage of the building program is a tough sell. But not providing adequate space for maintenance, or a path for the future removal/replacement of equipment causes downstream frustrations for the owner.
• The same is true for equipment and devices located above ceilings. Investing in increased floor-to-floor height and closely coordinating ceiling elevations improve constructability and provide long-term benefits for equipment access and maintenance.
• Also, extremely dense, and congested ceiling cavities reduce the flexibility desired for subsequent remodels.

When coordinating the placement of mechanical shafts, consider the following:

• Having the ability to exit the shaft from multiple sides, reduces the size of the ducts entering the ceiling cavity. For example, if three of the sides are blocked by an electrical room, an elevator shaft, and an outside wall; the ductwork exiting the one remaining side will be much larger than if the airflow could have been distributed from two or more sides. This becomes a more difficult problem when routing ducts for various air types (supply, return and exhaust) and several types of piping out of the shaft.
• Centrally locating shafts results in smaller ducts than shafts placed near the far ends of the floor plate (all the air for the floor originating from one side versus dividing the total airflow near the middle of the floor and sending approximately half each way).

Early Consulting and Coordination

With our focus on building partnerships, early requests for input on mechanical requirements are always welcome, at any time of day and whether we are under contract or not. Helping set reasonable expectations for the owner upfront is preferred over making requests for additional space later in the design.

Our first requests for coordination are likely familiar to all our clients:

1. Window, wall, and roof values
2. Number of building occupants
3. Equipment and lighting heat loads

This information forms the basis of our heating and cooling load calculations and the sizing of all the equipment and distribution systems that follow. Other important coordination has the architect acting as an intermediary with third parties to acquire criteria for equipment or systems needed for our scope. Some of the most painful construction issues we have faced have been when we have “best guessed” these requirements in the rush to complete documents, instead of more effectively communicating to the architect the impact not having this information might have on the project. Here, communication is always more effective with a strategic partner and in the context of a personal relationship. And to facilitate this, we seek to be proactive, available, and quick to respond.

Being asked to address the title of this article is not without its risks, given the intended audience is our primary client base. Much like responding to a spouse asking “so…what could I do better?” the conversation that ensues might greatly improve the relationship or end with a night spent on the sofa. However, it is hoped that the thoughts offered here might be an opening for further dialogue and an invitation for feedback on how we can be a better part of the design team. 

Jed Lyman is a Principal at VBFA, where he has worked for the past 24 years. Over its 50-year history, VBFA has provided mechanical, plumbing, fire protection and commissioning services to clients in the intermountain region and around the world. You can contact Jed at jlyman@vbfa.com or 801.530.3148.