Engineers are helping colleges and universities modernize campus buildings with flexible, resilient and energy-efficient designs.
Learning objectives
- Explore how colleges and universities are balancing decarbonization, electrification and resilience goals while managing aging infrastructure and budget constraints.
- Identify engineering strategies for integrating HVAC, electrical, life safety and building automation systems in future-ready campus facilities.
- Understand emerging trends such as campus microgrids, AI-assisted design tools and resilient infrastructure that are shaping higher education projects.
Higher education insights
- Colleges are repurposing existing buildings and designing adaptable spaces to support changing academic programs while reducing costs and carbon emissions.
- Campuses are investing in electrification, microgrids and phased infrastructure upgrades to improve energy resilience and prepare for future growth.
Respondents:
- Cindy Cogil, PE, FASHRAE, Vice President, SmithGroup, Chicago
- Matthew Goss, PE, PMP, CEM, CEA, CDSM, LEED AP, Infrastructure Services Group Director, CDM Smith, Latham, New York
- Ferdinand Martija, PE, LEED AP, Electrical Department Facilitator, Affiliated Engineers Inc., Chicago
- Todd Thayer, PE, Electrical Business Class Lead, HDR Inc., Bellevue, Washington
What is the biggest trend in college and university buildings these days?
Cindy Cogil: Many colleges and universities remain committed to decarbonization, but recent headwinds โ policy uncertainty, frozen federal funding and rising material costs โ have shifted the conversation from ideology to economics. Institutions are prioritizing long-term value by modernizing aging infrastructure to reduce costs, improve resilience and enhance energy independence.
Some are quietly extending carbon neutrality timelines rather than abandoning them, while others are focusing investment on renovating and repurposing existing buildings, reducing life cycle carbon and lowering upfront costs while simultaneously addressing student well-being and engagement.
Matthew Goss: The biggest trend I see in college and university buildings is the integration of energy-efficient and decarbonization technologies into existing facilities. This often involves replacing or renovating aging systems with next-generation equipment that incorporates the latest technologies.
Ferdinand Martija: Many of our higher education clients have an interest in cross-collaboration among various departments. There has been an effort to place different disciplines of study within the same building, which requires the engineer to be nimble regarding the needs of each discipline. For instance, one client has colocated its fine arts, sciences and computer science departments within the same building. The mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) infrastructure needs for each department can vary significantly.
Todd Thayer: Electrification, without question. A decade ago, the design basis of service was set by gas-fired heating plus a code-minimum electrical load. Now, we are sizing services against a fully electrified end-state (heat pumps, electric domestic hot water, sometimes an electrified central plant) even when phase one keeps a gas boiler in place.
That means larger service entrances, more transformer and switchgear space than the initial program anticipates and load studies that account for diversity across a heat-pump-dominant load profile rather than the resistive/motor mix we used to design around. The other trend is programmatic flexibility: fewer single-purpose lecture halls and more multi-use assembly spaces, which pushes panel and branch circuit design toward reconfigurable zoning rather than fixed room-by-room allocation.
What future trends should engineers anticipate for such projects?
Ferdinand Martija: Higher education is always adapting to the needs of the marketplace. The Day 1 anticipated use of the space may be very different from the use of the space in 10 years. Understanding and collaborating with the owner to anticipate its needs for Day 1 versus 10 years or 20 years from now is important to provide a level of flexible adaptive use. However, the idea of flexibility is always challenged with the reality of project budgets.
Todd Thayer: Three trends typically stand out. First, campus-scale microgrids with islanding capability are moving from research department curiosity to a facilities department priority, driven by compliance with NFPA 110: Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems, NFPA 111: Standard on Stored Electrical Energy Emergency and Standby Power Systems and real resiliency demand.
Second, we expect greater adoption of low-voltage direct current (DC) distribution, 24 or 48 volt (V), in classroom and laboratory environments because LED lighting, USB-C charging and other low-voltage systems are native DC loads and operate more efficiently than conversion from alternating current to DC.
Third, climate resilience is becoming standard practice rather than a special design consideration. Institutions are increasingly asking engineers to design for more severe and less predictable weather events, with strategies that may include microgrids, onsite water treatment and passive survivability.
Cindy Cogil: Institutions are not just renovating buildings on their main campus. The convergence of post-pandemic commercial real estate opportunities and the impending enrollment cliff are leading universities to expand into urban environments through satellite campuses and adaptive reuse of commercial buildings to diversify student populations and provide physical proximity to various industry sectors.
These building conversions introduce several engineering challenges including increased structural loading, life-safety upgrades and higher ventilation rates, plumbing fixture counts and power needs associated with higher occupant densities. However, these challenges present opportunities to innovate as part of the MEP/fire protection infrastructure upgrade.
Matthew Goss: Engineers should anticipate the challenges of working with aging equipment and existing buildings. Space for replacements or upgrades may be limited and designs must accommodate new systems while maintaining required clearances, functionality and safety. New technologies may also introduce utility needs that were not part of the original infrastructure.
What are the considerations for integrating fire and life safety, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical and other engineered systems?
Todd Thayer: One of the most common challenges occurs when disciplines develop their designs independently and attempt to reconcile during the clash detection stage. In campus buildings with dense above-ceiling congestion, this is often too late. We advocate for single, federated building information modeling from schematic design onward, with fire alarm, controls and electrical distribution all coordinating against the same level of development 300+ geometry. Typically, a smoke damper actuator, variable frequency drive and junction box are all competing for the same limited ceiling space, making early coordination essential.
Equally important is the sequence of operations matrix โ what sheds on the alarm, what stays on the life safety and equipment branches per NFPA 70: National Electrical Code (NEC) Article 700/701/702 and how the building automation system (BAS) interfaces with the fire alarm control panel. These decisions are most effective when developed collaboratively as an integrated holistic system rather than stitched together from each disciplineโs independent submittal.
Cindy Cogil: SmithGroup recently completed a fast-tracked transformation of a 400,000-square-foot Class A office tower (1983) with 11-foot 9-inch typical floor-to-floor heights for a private university. The design infilled one of two large slab openings to create a more flexible, visible event space at the main lobby while resolving life safety and fire separation issues. Envelope thermal upgrades were calibrated to offset increased sensible loads, avoiding additional supply airflow and ductwork depth.
The team integrated post-event smoke purge and stair pressurization โ requirements not in the original construction. Smoke purge operates floor-by-floor using the air handling units for makeup air. Two of the three egress stairs are โwell stairsโ such that the stair wraps all four sides of a central void. A round duct was routed centrally within the stair void, delivering supply air for stair pressurization at alternating floors.
Ferdinand Martija: Higher education clients are often challenged with understanding the operational needs of many buildings on their campus, each with its own purpose. Facilities teams typically manage these buildings through a central monitoring system. HVAC equipment, metering data, equipment status, lighting controls and fire alarm systems all contain data that can be pulled into the monitoring system. These systems are often built around a certain set of manufacturer-specific equipment. The engineer must understand the clientโs broader goals within the context of the immediate project.
How are colleges and universities balancing decarbonization and sustainability goals with budget constraints and aging campus infrastructure?
Ferdinand Martija: We find that higher education clients have a high amount of interest in understanding options for technologies related to decarbonization strategies. The consulting engineer can advise these clients with a study of return on investment (ROI) of technologies and the various pros and cons of a menu of strategies. The decision to pursue certain technologies is often more than a simple financial consideration. Available land for geothermal, roof space for photovoltaic, existing infrastructure constraints and staff capability are some considerations for the adoption of decarbonization-based solutions. The ROI can often prove disadvantageous if a broader infrastructure upgrade is required to accommodate such technologies.
Cindy Cogil: The gap between deferred maintenance and facilities renewal funding is well known and continues to compound every year. Institutions are taking a phased approach to decarbonization to manage costs and avoid spending capital twice. For campuses that rely on district heating and cooling plants, upgrading electrical infrastructure and modernizing central plants first to operate with low-temperature hot water (LTHW) and incorporate thermal energy storage allows aging building systems to be upgraded incrementally at the time of their natural renovation and equipment replacement cycles.
Some degree of hybrid generation and distribution may be necessary along with local steam generators, distributed gas boilers and high-temperature heat pumps to boost LTHW to help bridge the transition. Institutions should start with a comprehensive campus energy master plan to establish the full transition roadmap across all phases.
Todd Thayer: Colleges and universities are often balancing decarbonization goals with budget constraints through capital plan phasing tied to existing renovation triggers. One example is when a reroofing or envelope project becomes the opportunity for a service upgrade and heat pump conversion, rather than a standalone electrification project competing for its own budget line.
While that approach may not be the most efficient sequencing to achieve a carbon target, it is often the most practical and financially viable strategy. The infrastructure constraint underneath all of this is real: Many campuses are running 15 kilovolt distribution and switchgear that are more than 40 years old and often at or near nameplate capacity. Any meaningful electrification load addition forces a distribution capacity study before the building-level design can even proceed.
How are engineering teams designing campus buildings to improve resilience against power outages, extreme weather events and other disruptions?
Matthew Goss: Engineering teams are increasingly incorporating climate resilience into their designs by evaluating risks from extreme weather, power outages and other disruptions, then adding appropriate contingencies where needed.
Todd Thayer: Emergency and standby power scope now regularly exceed NFPA 101: Life Safety Code and NEC life-safety branch minimums. We are commonly asked to extend generator coverage to support optional standby loads, such as a dorm wing, research freezers and intermediate distribution frame closets. This results in increasing the genset kilowatt rating, fuel storage and automatic transfer switch configuration.
On newer work, we are specifying load-shedding sequences in the BAS so noncritical loads drop automatically under generator operation, rather than tripping breakers on an overloaded emergency bus. Envelope performance also factors into sizing. A tighter envelope with a longer passive survivability window allows us to right-size standby capacity instead of overbuilding it.
Cindy Cogil: Designing for extreme events and disruptions starts with incorporating passive survivability strategies like a high-performance building envelope, passive solar design and shading as well as coordinating the use of future weather data with your client to inform equipment sizing and selection. Campuses should identify which buildings are required to be designed with a high level of resilience versus those that can be allowed to go offline.
Critical shared utility systems must be protected and designed for redundancy using looped or networked configurations and have an equally resilient fuel supply chain. The campus microgrid can offer energy resilience at scale and allow institutions to operate independent of the electric grid for an extended period. Generation sources might include combined heat and power, on-site solar photovoltaics, battery energy storage systems, fuel cells and conventional backup generators.
How are engineers designing these kinds of projects to keep costs down while offering appealing features, complying with relevant codes and meeting client needs?
Cindy Cogil: Resilience has historically been perceived as a cost add. The design team may need to reframe the decision-making approach by evaluating resilience strategies against the cost of not being resilient, especially for critical applications. Engineers should proactively discuss topics such as resiliency, redundancy and future expansion with clients so that owners are informed, decisions are explicit and requirements can be documented. Further, during the value engineering (VE) process, engineers have an obligation to help clients understand the implications of their decisions in terms they can understand, including what is being given up, not just what is being saved from a first-cost perspective.
Todd Thayer: One of the most effective ways to control costs is through standardization. Colleges and universities with established electrical and lighting design standards across a building portfolio often see significant savings in both design and operations. Repeatable panel schedules, vetted fixtures, control sequences and consistent short circuit/coordination study templates help reduce engineering hours and provides facilities a common spare parts inventory across buildings.
Beyond standardization, it is important to protect infrastructure that is expensive to retrofit later. Items such as service capacity, conduit/raceway fill and switchgear room size should be protected even when projects face budget pressure. When VE is required, it typically focuses on features that can be easily upgraded over time, such as treating visible finish items such as decorative fixtures.
Ferdinand Martija: Incorporating strategically placed connection points intended for temporary means at various points within an infrastructure is a way to leverage infrastructure that may be already purchased without adding significant cost.
For instance, adding a larger breaker within an electrical distribution panel or switchboard to serve as a back-feed connection is a simple yet valuable way to temporarily refeed a switchboard should any upstream component require downtime that may affect that aspect of the infrastructure. Providing additional labeling at those components to indicate their purpose as a temporary connection is where the rubber meets the road as far as providing facilities staff the knowledge of the intended purpose.
Matthew Goss: Engineering teams need to stay informed about the latest technologies. Manufacturers are coming out with new ways to use existing and new technologies, improving user experience while maintaining a competitive cost model. For example, wireless lighting controls that use Bluetooth mesh systems are increasingly being adopted by owners because of their implementation flexibility and cost savings.
How have you incorporated artificial intelligence (AI) into design?
Cindy Cogil: To date, individuals within our firm have generally been using AI as a powerful assistant โ performing research, training on specific technical topics, brainstorming ideas and creating checklists from client design guidelines. However, we have begun to leverage AI through individual pilot applications in the pursuit of deeper integration into our standard workflows. For example, we are experimenting with creating calculation workbooks based on published research, articles and white papers that match firmwide branding standards, provide guidance and cite sources.
We are also leveraging AI to develop new master specifications, run load calculations and create a database of envelope loads for thousands of envelope material combinations and aggregate information and build out multiscenario planning tools. Our near-term focus is to connect these individual pilot applications into integrated workflows that reduce manual effort across the project life cycle. Industry adoption of AI is happening at warp speed โ faster than any previous technology wave. This is a question for which the answer will continue to evolve and scale rapidly year over year.
Matthew Goss: Our subsidiary Trinnex developed a tool called Raini (rapid AI network intelligence) that can be installed on a supervisory control and data acquisition system to assist operators and building managers when certain alarms or conditions occur. By using operations and maintenance and product information, the AI will give the operators or building managers checklists and procedures based on their inquiries.
Todd Thayer: We have used AI-assisted tools to iterate load calculations and preliminary short circuit/coordination scenarios across multiple program options faster than manual iteration allows, which is useful during early programming before the load is locked.
Concurrently, on a science building renovation, we ran a machine-learning-assisted daylighting and lighting layout tool against measured campus solar data to converge on a compliant, sub-code lighting power density design faster than iterative Radiance software runs would have allowed. We do not rely on AI output for safety-critical engineering without independent verification. In electrical design, a plausible yet incorrect number in a coordination study can create a real hazard, not just a design error.
What are the considerations for designing accessible and inclusive engineering features in university buildings?
Cindy Cogil: As someone with single-sided hearing loss, I believe acoustical design is fundamental to educational equity. Sound is the primary medium of instruction in higher education and poor acoustics can negatively affect a wide range of the student population including those with hearing or neurological differences. The move away from traditional acoustical ceiling tile systems toward exposed structure and specialty ceilings requires additional design considerations.
In these instances, engineers will endeavor to position variable air volume boxes over corridors rather than directly above teaching spaces; line downstream ductwork; increase box inlet diameter and specify maximum radiated and discharge sound power levels by octave band; increase the straight run length upstream and downstream of the box; specify pressure-independent controls with static pressure reset; and consult an acoustician to review equipment schedules and design in any noise-sensitive environments.
Todd Thayer: Designing accessible and inclusive university facilities starts with meeting code requirements, such as Americans With Disabilities Act/International Code Council A117.1 mounting heights for devices and controls, visual notification appliances per NFPA 72: National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code throughout accessible routes (not just where minimum coverage requires this), adequate illuminance and contrast ratios for low-vision users and accessible power availability at workstations distributed through a room, not concentrated at the instructor station. It is also important to verify emergency lighting coverage on accessible egress routes and two-way communication at areas of refuge that is tested, not just installed to satisfy plan review. Additionally, there should be direct input from the universityโs disability services office, rather than relying on the architectโs assumptions alone, to help consistently impr
