More and more it has become apparent to me that most, if not all mechanical engineers and architects should be required to spend more time in the field, working as an actual apprentice for at minimum of 2 years prior to becoming licensed in their appropriate fields. Although this is not currently a requirement, it is my feeling that it should be and that it would benefit not only the engineering/architectural communities, but would substantially benefit the trades that are working under the direction of these powers that be.

Recently, I was involved on a large scale commercial/retail project that required the installation of class 3 snowmelt system at the front entrance of the store. The system consisted of 10,000 square feet of snowmelt at the entrance to the store, and 3,000 square feet of snowmelt at the back loading dock of the store. The system was pre-engineered by the retail outlets company mechanical engineer. This engineer had not had any previous mechanical engineering experience as it pertained to class three snowmelt systems. Initially, the retail outlet contacted myself and my company and asked for preliminary budgetary numbers for a snowmelt system for their proposed store. We obliged them blindly because they couldn’t even tell us where exactly the physical plant would be located within the store. We therefore, had to figure worst case scenario. Upper management was shocked to say the least because they had already consulted their engineering department (the same one with no previous snowmelt experience) and had been given an approximate price of what they felt should be budgeted for the snowmelt installation. Funny how that happens, and sad that it happens too often. In any case, we were told that “they’d be in touch”.

After approximately 6 months, their in house mechanical engineer did call me and I gave him a quick 30 minute schooling about recommended installation practices. I then gave him the names of numerous tubing and equipment manufacturers that I had established a working relationships with.

In approximately another 3 months, the engineer sent me a full set of engineered drawings depicting what he wanted performed in the mechanical room, along with a schematic showing the anticipated route and manner that he felt the piping should be run to get from the proposed mechanical room to the proposed snowmelt areas. He did not however give any information as to the proposed method (piping materials) for the main distribution, nor did he provide any direction as to the in slab distribution methods, other than specifying the tubing manufacturer which I had aligned him with. When asked about these glaring deficiencies he stated that it was up to the individual contractors submitting bids to determine the best methodology for main and sub distribution materials as long as they conformed to the canned specifications provided by the architectural firm responsible for the building as a whole. Upon further investigation, it was found that the architectural firm had not taken the snowmelt into consideration and didn’t have any piping specification available for a hydronic based system. This caused a lot of problems for the estimating mechanical contractors because they owners wanted a bid NOW as usual, and in order for the cost to be held down on the project, it was necessary to submit alternate materials to the mechanical engineer for his approval.

The primary concern had to do with the pre-approved materials (type L copper with silver soldered joints) being extremely expensive versus a more conventional method (schedule 40 pipe with grooved connections) that would result in a substantial material and labor savings. The engineer had his tunnel vision glasses on and would not approve of the grooved pipe until we cold prove to him that there was a substantial dollar savings potential to his company. He eventually did roll over, but cost 5 days of critical bidding time, requiring us to bid it both ways “just in case”.

When it came to the in-slab portion of the system, he again deferred to the estimating contractors experience in this area and received 10 different methods of manifolding, manifold box locations, manifold box types and below slab piping methodologies. The methods varied from the use of water resistant plywood to welded steel boxes and included plastic/cement composition traffic junction boxes (our recommendation) and piping methods that varied from fusion welded PE tubing to welded steel pipe and included silver soldered type L copper tubing (our recommendation) and only served to confuse the issues of route, manner and methodology. The poor general contractor was pulling his hair out trying to get a decent price for a system that would meet the intent of the engineers specs, all while satisfying the requirements of the code.

Many of the mechanical subcontractors who were submitting bids had little to no experience in this area, and were depending on the input of their suppliers, who were depending on word of mouth recommendation from other supposed experienced hydronics contractors.

In the end, it boiled down to the contractor with the most comprehensive bid package that was “all inclusive” as it pertained to the scope of work being performed. Our bid included EVERYTHING required of the bid except for providing high voltage electrical requirements, placement of concrete and excavation prior to placement of the snowmelt system.

If the mechanical engineer would have had some “real world” hands on experience as it pertains to hydronic snowmelt systems, he would have known what to specify and how to require the installations to be performed. This in my opinion, would have made the estimation process go much smoother, and would have resulted in a much tighter pricing schedule on this portion of the job.

In many cases, if the designing mechanical engineer were required to actually fit 5 pounds of sugar into a 1 pound bag in the field as opposed to drawing it on his auto cad, he would have a greater appreciation of what the typical mechanical contractor goes through trying to bid and install one of the engineers wonderful conceptions. With this real world work experience, he would then be capable of designing reasonable systems that would go in easy and work efficiently. This would result in a substantial monetary savings for everyone involved.

In lieu of seeking real work experience as an apprentice prior to becoming licensed, it should behoove the engineer to get out of his office and away from his computer screen and get out into the real world to see how things are really done in areas that are not of his expertise. If this designer had spent as little as a week with us, we could have taken him to actual working job sites that we were responsible for the design/ build systems on and shown him the best manner and method to perform this installation.

I can almost guarantee you that the next time he designs and specifies a hydronic snowmelt system that it will look a lot like the system that we built for him.

The soap box is snow available…

ME

Click here for Marks biography and contact information