MEP on every sheet
Ducts, pipework, cable trays and the structure that carries them are drawn by different disciplines, and the conflicts between them sit across several sheets.
Data center construction AI: MEP coordination and revisions
Data center construction AI, as Mirage runs it, checks the drawing set your team builds from rather than drawing it: clashes between structure, architecture and MEP, equipment schedules against the plans and the specifications, and what each new issue of the drawings changes, every finding marked on the sheets it comes from. Your coordinators decide on each one. Mirage has no data center project to publish; the same drawing workflows run in production at OCBM and John Cockerill.
Where the time goes on a data center package
A data center is mostly building services: cooling, power distribution and the routes that carry them, drawn by several disciplines on separate sheets and changed while the job runs.
Design changes after issue
Layouts and equipment selections change after the set is issued, and each change has to reach every discipline that draws it.
Long equipment lists
Every tag on an equipment schedule has to match a position on the plans and a line in the specification, and nobody checks thousands of them twice.
Questions that pile up
Each conflict found late becomes an RFI, and every RFI and submittal has to be followed to an answer before it holds up the work.
What Mirage runs on data center drawings
The construction workflows Mirage deploys, applied to a data center set. Each one is configured on your drawings and conventions, and none checks the design against building codes.
Clash detection across disciplines
Structure, architecture and MEP put on one grid: ducts, pipes, cable trays and equipment that cross beams, slabs and walls, penetrations with no opening, levels that differ between sheets, each flagged on the sheets involved.
Equipment schedules against plans and specifications
Equipment listed on a schedule and missing from the plans, or the reverse, and a size or product on the drawing that the specification describes differently.
Design changes and RFIs
Two issues of the set compared in full: what was added, removed or modified, where, and what it changes in the quantities. RFIs and submittals tracked to an answer, each with the document it came from, overdue items flagged.
Piping and electrical take-off
Material take-offs from piping isometrics and from electrical layouts and schedules, each line tied to its sheet and revision, in the import format of your estimating or procurement system.
What each check reads on a data center package, and who decides
The five workflows as they apply to a data center set. Every finding carries its source; a named person on your team accepts it before it is used.
| Workflow | Reads | Returns | Your team keeps |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clash detection | Architecture, structure and MEP sheets in PDF or DWG, IFC where a model exists | Each conflict with its grid reference, level and sheets, a severity set by your rules, repeats grouped | Whether it is a real issue, the RFI to the designer |
| Schedules against plans and specifications | Equipment schedules, plans, specifications | Tags on a schedule with no position on the plans, or the reverse; sizes or products the specification describes differently | Which document is right |
| Revision comparison | Two issues of the same drawing set | What was added, removed or modified, where, and what it changes in the quantities | What the change does to cost and schedule |
| Piping and electrical take-off | Isometrics, electrical layouts, panel and cable schedules | Quantities with line number, size, spec, tag and sheet, in your import format | Pricing, procurement, supplier choice |
| RFIs and submittals | RFI log, submittal register, email or Procore | Status, assignee and days open, the document each answer came from, overdue items flagged | The answers themselves |
Illustrative of the work, not of any client's project. Mirage does not check drawings against building codes and does not verify the engineering itself, such as cooling capacity or redundancy: your designers keep that judgement. No BIM model is needed; where a federated model and coordination meetings exist, they stay.
No data center project published: the drawing work in production
Mirage has no data center client or deployment to show. The checks on this page run on construction drawings, and these are the published drawing deployments, on other kinds of projects.
100%
Of OCBM's quantities traceable to a source drawing
80-90%
Less piping takeoff time at John Cockerill
- OCBM
- A Moroccan general contractor. Three agents in production: quantity takeoff, bid pricing, and a dedicated agent that checks consistency across drawing revisions and between the tender documents.
- John Cockerill
- An industrial engineering group. Isometric drawings turned into separate MTO and BOM outputs, with the fabrication BOM produced ten times faster. Piping runs in production; boilermaking and structural steel are being rolled out.
- Data centers
- Nothing published. The checks are configured on your own drawings, starting with a proof of concept one week after the first meeting.
Every result can be checked against its source.
A quantity your team cannot verify is a quantity nobody will use. Each result Mirage returns carries the reference it came from, and your estimators and engineers review it against the original before it reaches a bid, a cost system or a project workflow.
- Quantity
- The drawing, sheet, element and revision it was measured on.
- Conflict
- The specification clause and the drawing that disagree.
- Revision
- The two sets compared, and each element added, removed or modified.
- Bid line
- The quotation line and the scope item it is compared with.
- Sign-off
- The person who validated it before it was used.
Questions from data center contractors
No. No data center project is published. The nearest published deployments are on other construction drawings: OCBM, a general contractor, runs three agents including a consistency check across drawing revisions and tender documents, with 100% of quantities traceable to a source drawing; John Cockerill runs piping takeoff in production, with 80 to 90% less takeoff time.
Clashes between structure, architecture and MEP, penetrations with no opening, levels and references that disagree between sheets, equipment schedules against the plans, and drawings against the specifications. Checks are configured per deployment around the ones your coordinators already do by hand.
No. Mirage does not check drawings against building codes and does not verify the engineering, such as cooling capacity or redundancy. It checks the set against itself and against its specifications; your designers keep that judgement.
Each new issue of the set is compared with the last: what was added, removed or modified, where, and what it changes in the quantities. Confirmed issues are checked again on the next revision, and RFIs and submittals are tracked to an answer with the document each one came from.
No. Mirage reads PDF and DWG sheets, scanned or vector, and IFC where a model exists. Where a federated model and coordination meetings exist, they stay: Mirage checks what is actually issued, sheet by sheet.
A fixed-price pilot on one workflow first, such as clash detection on a live set, which you can stop after. Then an annual subscription priced by volume, quoted in the first conversation.
A proof of concept on your own documents one week after the first meeting, then the first workflow in production in 4 to 6 weeks. The pilot is fixed-price and you can stop after it.
Project management and document control platforms such as Procore and Autodesk Construction Cloud, estimating spreadsheets, ERP and accounting systems such as SAP, Oracle and Sage, and scheduling software. Where a documented interface exists, Mirage connects to it; where none exists, our engineers build the connector during deployment. Nothing is migrated.
Bring us the operation you need to improve.
Mirage will map the workflow, identify what can be automated and define the fastest path to production.
Start with one workflow
Leave your work email, then pick a time for a 30-minute call on the workflow where your team loses the most time. You leave with a written plan to automate it. No commitment.