Immersive VR versus Desktop for Spatial Understanding of Complex MEP Systems in 3D Coordination Training

Three-dimensional (3D) coordination is a critical process that ensures an effective integration of various building systems, such as architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP). Spatial understanding of MEP systems can be particularly challenging for students with limited industry experience due to their 3D geometry complexity and tight integration with other building systems. Effective training in understanding MEP systems is essential for equipping students with the skills needed to resolve system conflicts and propose solutions in the 3D coordination process. In this study, controlled experiments were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of immersive virtual reality (VR) environments compared to desktop-based building information modeling (BIM) tools in enhancing students’ comprehension of MEP systems. The experiment compared two head-mounted display VR setups: a three-degrees-of-freedom (3DOF) VR utilizing smartphones and viewers and a six-degrees-of-freedom (6DOF) VR using a headset, to a desktop configured with matching degrees of freedom, using a BIM coordination program. The evaluation criteria for spatial understanding were based on system component geometry and the user’s self-awareness, as assessed through questionnaire-based subjective feedback. The results showed that 3DOF VR improved students’ understanding of object depth, component location and position, and user orientation compared to desktop. However, 6DOF VR provided the most support for navigating and spatial knowledge of MEP systems, leveraging its walkthrough capabilities. Participants found 3DOF VR to be an effective tool for enhancing comprehension of MEP systems, given its affordability and feasibility for simultaneous use by all students in a classroom environment. For educators seeking to integrate VR technologies in the classroom, 3DOF VR can be an affordable and practical solution, while 6DOF VR provides a more realistic experience for deeper spatial understanding that requires headsets and dedicated space for exploration.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Architectural Engineering
Published
2026-02-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1061/jaeied.aeeng-2052
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Spatial Cognition and Navigation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
23.73
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Immersive VR versus Desktop for Spatial Understanding of Complex MEP Systems in 3D Coordination Training

Bita Astaneh Asl, Tanmay Zakaria Tuscano, Wazahat Ali Z. Attar
1 citations
Journal of Architectural Engineering
Spatial Cognition and Navigation
23.73
article

Immersive VR versus Desktop for Spatial Understanding of Complex MEP Systems in 3D Coordination Training

Bita Astaneh Asl, Tanmay Zakaria Tuscano, Wazahat Ali Z. Attar
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) coordination is a critical process that ensures an effective integration of various building systems, such as architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP). Spatial understanding of MEP systems can be particularly challenging for students with limited industry experience due to their 3D geometry complexity and tight integration with other building systems. Effective training in understanding MEP systems is essential for equipping students with the skills needed to resolve system conflicts and propose solutions in the 3D coordination process. In this study, controlled experiments were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of immersive virtual reality (VR) environments compared to desktop-based building information modeling (BIM) tools in enhancing students’ comprehension of MEP systems. The experiment compared two head-mounted display VR setups: a three-degrees-of-freedom (3DOF) VR utilizing smartphones and viewers and a six-degrees-of-freedom (6DOF) VR using a headset, to a desktop configured with matching degrees of freedom, using a BIM coordination program. The evaluation criteria for spatial understanding were based on system component geometry and the user’s self-awareness, as assessed through questionnaire-based subjective feedback. The results showed that 3DOF VR improved students’ understanding of object depth, component location and position, and user orientation compared to desktop. However, 6DOF VR provided the most support for navigating and spatial knowledge of MEP systems, leveraging its walkthrough capabilities. Participants found 3DOF VR to be an effective tool for enhancing comprehension of MEP systems, given its affordability and feasibility for simultaneous use by all students in a classroom environment. For educators seeking to integrate VR technologies in the classroom, 3DOF VR can be an affordable and practical solution, while 6DOF VR provides a more realistic experience for deeper spatial understanding that requires headsets and dedicated space for exploration.

Journal of Architectural EngineeringVol. 32(2)
California State University System (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Spatial Cognition and Navigation
23.73
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.