Connection constraints
Fix inverts, connection points and the levels the whole system has to work back from. Everything else is downstream of this.
The only discipline on the project that cannot be rerouted around a problem, because gravity is not negotiable — which makes it the one that should be routed first and almost never is.
Public health
A soil stack has one place it can be. A drainage run has a required fall, a maximum length before an access point, and a fixed invert at the connection. None of those are negotiable in the way a cable tray route is. On projects where drainage is routed after mechanical and electrical, the resolution is almost always a pumped solution nobody budgeted for, or a dropped ceiling nobody wanted. We route the gravity systems first.
A drainage run drawn flat with a note saying "1:80 fall" cannot be coordinated. It does not clash where it will actually be, and it does not tell you that the invert at the far end is below the slab. Modelling the fall is more work at authoring and very much less work at coordination, which is the same trade the rest of this practice is built on.
Public health is where broken connectivity hides most easily: a run that looks continuous in a 3D view but is three disconnected segments to the software. Authoring with connectivity intact is what lets a routine follow a run from appliance to connection and tell you it does not actually get there.
Deliverables
Any of these can be appointed on their own or combined. Nothing here depends on buying the intelligence layer, which is not for sale in any case.
How it runs
Sequence is not a formality on this kind of work. Most of the expensive rework we are asked to fix was produced by doing step four before step two.
Fix inverts, connection points and the levels the whole system has to work back from. Everything else is downstream of this.
Agreed with the architect early, because they are the hardest thing on the project to move.
Above and below ground, modelled with true falls and access points at the required intervals.
Domestic water, boosting and hot water return, routed and sized against the gravity systems already fixed.
Federated testing against structure and the other services, with access chamber and rodding access clearance included.
Drawings, schedules and calculations, QA rule set run, engineer signs.
What we need to start
Missing any of these is survivable. Not knowing which of them are missing is not, so we establish it at enquiry stage rather than at forty per cent.
Automation
Every line carries its real status. Three of the four states on this site mean "not yet", and we use them.
Scope boundary
Published because a scope boundary discovered at month three is a dispute, and the same boundary stated at enquiry stage is just information.
FAQ
Yes, as a matter of course. A flat run with a fall annotation cannot be coordinated and will produce a coordination report that is wrong in the one discipline where being wrong is most expensive to fix.
Yes. It is part of the federated rule set rather than a separate exercise, and invert-against-foundation is one of the checks that most often finds something.
Discharge unit or loading unit methods to the standard the project names, with the method and the assumed simultaneity stated on the output rather than implied.
We model to a stated assumed invert and flag it as an assumption on the issue. What we will not do is pick a level quietly, because every run in the building is dimensioned back from it.
Related
Engineering enquiry
Send a scope, a drawing set or the workflow you want this applied to. You will get a technical response on approach, disciplines, deliverables and what is realistically automatable — from an engineer, not a sales desk.