prefabrication - woodworks · 4. attendees will be able to distinguish digital workﬂows in wood...

PREFABRICATION: Ryan E. Smith, Associate Professor Director ITAC, University of Utah Chair of the Off-Site Construction Council, National Institute of Building Sciences March 11, 2015

Disclaimer: This presenta1on was developed by a third party and is not funded by WoodWorks or the So=wood Lumber Board.

OFF-SITE STUDIES

Discoveries in Off-Site Construction Techniques

Photo Credit: MKD

“The Wood Products Council” is a Registered Provider with The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems (AIA/CES), Provider #G516. Credit(s) earned on completion of this course will be reported to AIA CES for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for both AIA members and non-AIA members are available upon request.

This course is registered with AIA CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product. __________________________________

Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

Course Description

Off-site construction techniques, including both light-frame and solid wood solutions, are continually evolving—with prefabrication at the forefront of the trend. In this presentation, different types of prefabrication will be discussed, along with key considerations—such as site, cost and schedule to determine which option, if any, is right for a project. Case study examples will be used to illustrate key principles of practice, benefits of prefabrication and current challenges.

Learning Objectives 1.  Attendees will be able to understand the various prefabricated wood systems

available for specification and when is most appropriate given site, location, labor, cost and schedule considerations in today’s construction market by evaluating construction performance parameters and examples of case studies.

2.  Learners will be able to understand and apply knowledge of solid timber wood solutions (i.e. CLT, LVL, SCL, etc.) to architectural projects through examples of details and case studies.

3.  Participants will be able to identify the benefits and challenges of factory produced light wood frame panel construction with integrated insulation, services, and finishes.

4.  Attendees will be able to distinguish digital workflows in wood design and fabrication and how to properly collaborate and partner with timber fabricators to achieve desired results through a demonstration of the landscape of digital options in timber that make the bridge between ideation and production.

Photo Credit: R.E.Smith

Photo Credit: Interface Architects

WHY WHAT HOW WHEN

WHY WHAT HOW WHEN ARGUMENTS

WHY WHAT HOW WHEN ARGUMENTS CATEGORIES

WHY WHAT HOW WHEN ARGUMENTS CATEGORIES ASSEMBLY

WHY WHAT HOW WHEN ARGUMENTS CATEGORIES ASSEMBLY TRADE-OFFS

Paul Teicholz, Stanford CIFE Excerpted from: R.E.Smith Prefab Architecture (Wiley 2010)

SITE BUILDING LABOR

Source: ITAC UofU

MANUFACTURING CONSTRUCTION

Source: US Bureau of Labor and Sta0s0cs Graphic: ITAC UofU

!20%%

!15%%

!10%%

!5%%

0%%

5%%

10%%

15%%

2005%

2006%

2007%

2008%

2009%

2010%

2011%

2012%

2013%

2014%

2015%

2016%

Annual % Change - Construction Volume vs. Skilled Labor (National)

Construc6on%Volume%Percent%Change% Construc6on%Labor%Percent%Change%

Courtesy: Cumming Corp.

ELEMENTS USED IN LAST 12 MO?

Source: NIBS OSCC

NEXT 12 MO?

WHAT ?

NORTH AMERICA Manuf housing Site efficiency 3D modeling Modular SFR CONTEXT: Cost driven Immigrant labor Small companies Fragmented

SWEDEN Optimization Appropriate tech Building science Panelized SFR, MFR, COM CONTEXT: Performance driven Weather restricted Medium companies $$$ labor & product Integrated

JAPAN Lean manuf Kaizen Precision/Perfection Modular SFR CONTEXT: Expensive land Expensive labor Manf mind set Large companies (5)

SCOTLAND 90% panelized Affordable Low carbon Sole source MFR CONTEXT: Government driven Weather restricted Large companies Integrated

GER/AUS/SWISS CNC tools Software integration MMC & Skills Quality SFR, MFR, COM CONTEXT: Quality driven Technology oriented Medium companies Fully integrated

HOLLAND Open building Quality of life Rational Shell & infill MFR CONTEXT: Weather restricted Schedule driven Adaptability Aging in place Fragmented

Credit: ITAC UofU

ELEM

ENTS

COMPONENTS

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

+

-

PANELS

MODULES

MATERIALS

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

MAN

UFAC

TURE

ELEM

ENTS

COMPONENTS

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

+

-

PANELS

MODULES

MATERIALS

parts

sub-assemblies

assemblies

point of final assembly

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

5000

Source: Bensonwood

50 TO

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

COMPONENTS

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

GLT SCL CLT

DLT NLT CNLT ICLT

GLUE

D NO

N-GL

UED

POST & BEAM SOLID WOOD (mass timber, mass wood) HYBRID COMPONENTIZED WOOD SOLUTIONS

Credit: COCIS Edinburgh Napier University & ITAC UofU

SOLID-WOOD BARRIERS SOLID-WOOD UPTAKE

Credit: COCIS Edinburgh Napier University & ITAC UofU

= 15,300 houses

766,943 Units

by ~2030

Source: A.C. Nelson, ‘The Boom To Come, America Circa 2030’.Architect, 95, no. 1

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Source: U.S. Census Data 2000 – 2010

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Adapted from Utah State Environmental Regula0on 2008 data

30% = 15%

Concrete/Mixed

Rubble, 40%

Wood, 30%

Drywall, 10%

Asphalt Roofing,

8%

Metals, 4% Bricks, 4% Plastics, 4%

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

C&D Waste = 940,264 Tons

20-30% yield = 235,066 Tons

Feasibility Rate 30% = 70519.8 Tons Typical CLT House = 60-70 Tons

# of potential houses = 1085 Homes

C&D Waste = 940,264 Tons

20-30% yield = 235,066 Tons

Feasibility Rate 30% = 70519.8 Tons 2700 S.F. House = 6,921 cu ft. wood

Density of pine wood = 33 lbs / cu ft.

# of potential houses = 617 Homes

=

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

= 2 million acres

2006 2007 2008

1.0

1.5

2.0

Source: Colorado State University Report No. 5.528

44%

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Area = 1,000,000 acres

Trees (50 / acre) = 50,000,000 trees

Board feet = 1695 B.F. / tree

Board feet total = 84,750,000,000 B.F.

B.F. / House = 40,000 B.F.

# of potential houses = 2,118,750 Homes

80’

3’

Adapted from DOA U.S. Forest Service Data +

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Ashby, Materials and the Environment

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

2 Ply: 5.5”

3 Ply: 8.25”

4 Ply: 11”

5 Ply: 13.75”

Credit: Euclid Timber +

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Credit: Euclid Timber +

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Credit: Brigham Young University & Acute Engineering +

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Credit: Sam Glass, USDA Forest Products

Laboratory +

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

3-PLY ICLT WITH EXTERIOR INSULATION

Exterior to interior: •  Composite wood siding •  Drainage cavity/ventilated air space •  R-10 insulation •  Vapor-permeable air barrier membrane •  3-ply ICLT with no interior finish

Vapor-open Mineral wool

Vapor-tight Extruded polystyrene

Credit: Sam Glass, USDA Forest

Products Laboratory

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Credit: Euclid Timber

Credit: Euclid Timber & ITAC UofU

Credit: Girl Scouts of Utah & ITAC UofU

Credit: Euclid Timber & ITAC UofU

Credit: Girl Scouts of Utah, ITAC UofU, & AJR Al0er

TITL

E

SIZ

EC

AG

E C

OD

E

SC

ALE

ES

T. W

GT

DR

AWIN

G N

O.

SHEE

T

REV

OF

I-TA

CD

ES

IGN

ED

BY

DR

AWN

BY

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y

AP

PR

OV

ED

BY

OTH

ER A

PP

RO

VALS

CA

D F

ILE

NAM

E

JR 1305

27_C

abin

Des

ign

1/4"

= 1

'-0"

Inte

grat

ed T

echn

olog

y in

Arch

itect

ure

Cent

er, S

choo

l of

Arch

itect

ure,

Uni

vers

ity o

f Uta

h

Erin

Car

rahe

r

410

562

5311

Jörg

Rüg

emer

8

01 6

62 8

727

Ryan

Sm

ith

ARCH

ITEC

TRE

VISI

ONS

Girl

Sco

uts

of U

tah

Lisa

Har

din-

Reyn

olds

Chie

f Ope

ratio

ns O

ffice

r(8

01) 7

16 5

122

www.

gsut

ah.c

om

CLIE

NT

No.

Date

D

escr

iptio

n

ITA

C-In

tegr

ated

Tec

hnol

ogy

in A

rchi

tect

ure

Cen

ter,

Uni

vers

ity o

f Uta

h ex

pres

sly

rese

rves

its

com

mon

law

copy

right

and

oth

er p

roje

ct r

ight

s in

thes

e pl

ans.

The

se p

lans

are

not

to b

e re

prod

uced

, cha

nged

, or c

opie

d in

any

form

or

man

ner

wha

tsoe

ver,

nor a

re th

ey to

be

assi

gned

to a

third

par

ty w

ithou

t firs

t obt

aini

ng th

e w

ritte

n pe

rmis

sion

and

con

sent

of I

TAC

. In

the

even

t of

unau

thor

ized

reus

e of

thes

e pl

ans

by a

third

par

ty,

the

third

par

ty s

hall

hold

ITA

C h

arm

less

. c

201

2 - 2

013

ITA

C

Con

trac

tor

and

all s

ub c

ontr

acto

rs w

orki

ng o

n th

is p

roje

ct t

ake

full

liabi

lity

of t

hese

pla

ns a

nd s

hall

t hor

ough

ly r

evie

w a

nd v

erify

all

dim

ensi

ons,

loca

tions

, no

tes,

etc

. pri

or t

o st

artin

g an

y st

age

of

cons

truc

tion

.

All

cons

truc

tion

to c

onfo

rm t

o cu

rren

t un

iform

bui

ldin

g co

de,

unifo

rm e

lect

rica

l cod

e,un

ifor

m m

echa

nica

l cod

e, u

nifo

rm p

lum

bing

cod

e.

AR

CH

ITEC

TUR

AL

DET

AIL

S

Con

stru

ctio

n D

ocum

ents

11x1

7

Ele

ctric

al C

hase

s (ty

p)

Met

al S

crew

1"x3

" Fu

rrin

g S

trip

14 G

auge

A60

6 S

teel

Vapo

rshi

eld

Mem

bran

e

Inse

ct S

cree

n

1/2'

Gap

EP

DM

Rub

ber G

aske

t

14 G

auge

A60

6 S

teel

Cor

ner

x"x3

" Fu

rrin

g S

trip

Inse

ct S

cree

n

5 1/2

3 1/

2

5 1/2

24

Met

al S

crew

1"x3

" Fu

rrin

g S

trip

14 G

auge

A60

6

Ste

el C

orne

r Pie

ce

Inse

ct S

cree

n

2-La

yer

ICLT

5 1

/2"

Inte

rior

expo

sed

and

sand

ed

Inse

ct M

esh W

ood

Scr

eww

ith W

ood

Plu

g12

" O.C

.

3 1/

2

3-La

yer

ICLT

8 1

/4"

Inte

rior a

nd E

xter

ior

expo

sed

and

sand

ed

8 1/

4

Woo

d S

crew

with

Woo

d P

lug

12" O

.C.

1-La

yer 3

1/2

"

Exp

osed

and

sand

ed

Sol

id W

ood

Floo

r Sla

b

Woo

d S

crew

s12

" O.C

.

Sol

id W

ood

Floo

r Sla

b

(4) 1

3/4

x9

1/4

LVL

unde

rnea

th W

all

Atta

ch W

all t

o Fl

oor

with

1/4

" Log

Scr

ew12

" Lo

ng 1

2"O

.C.

1303

01_D

etai

ls_0

12”

=1’-0

”A

D-0

2

Wal

l Det

ail a

t Pat

ioS

cale

2”=

1’-0

”02

Wal

l T-S

ectio

nS

cale

2”=

1’-0

”01

Credit: Euclid Timber, Girl Scouts of Utah, ITAC UofU, & AJR Al0er

Credit: Euclid Timber, Girl Scouts of Utah, ITAC UofU

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Credit: Scob Hedges via Linddbeck

PANELS

CLOSED VS. OPEN ENHANCED VS. STANDARD HYBRID SUBASSEMBLIES

- Wall panel - Floor cartridge - Roof cassette

Credit: Campbell Construc0on Group, Glasgow, UK & COCIS Edinburgh Napier University +

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Image Credits: Weinmann HOMAG

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Credit: Campbell Construc0on Group +

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Credit: Bensonwood & Unity Homes +

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

MODULES “VOLUMETRIC”

DE

GR

EE

OF

PR

EF

AB

RI

CA

TI

ON

RESIDENTIAL / COMMERCIAL TEMPORARY / PERMANENT IN-LINE / STATIONARY DEALERS / MANUFACTURERS

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Credit: Simplex Homes, Zeta Communi0es & Pacific Mobile

Credit: Interface Architects

DE

GR

EE

OF

PR

EF

AB

RI

CA

TI

ON

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

First Green building in the Temple University Area LEED Gold rating Client – Templetown Realty Architect – Interface Studio Architects, Philadelphia PA Contractor – Equinox MC Fabricator – Excel Homes Site Area – 16,000 Sq. Ft. Building Area – 70,000 Sq. Ft.


DE

GR

EE

OF

PR

EF

AB

RI

CA

TI

ON

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON


DE

GR

EE

OF

PR

EF

AB

RI

CA

TI

ON

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON


Credit: Excel Modular, PA

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Credit: Excel Homes

Credit: Interface Architects +

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Credit: Interface Architects +

-

2 Bedroom, 1 Bath Unfurnished = $1300/ Month 2 Bedroom, 1 Bath Furnished = $1380/ Month 3 Bedroom, 1 or 1.5 Bath unFurnished = $1950/ Month 3 Bedroom, 1 Bath Furnished = $2070/ Month

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Image Credit: Interface Architects Source: ITAC UofU +

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Credit: KYA Architects +

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Credit: KYA Architects, Mspace, Britco

Credit: Simplex Homes

+

-

EX

TE

NT

O

F

CO

MP

LE

TI

ON

Source: ITAC UofU

Source: ITAC UofU

Modular Factory Sequence

Credit: Simplex Homes, Irontown Homes, Blazer Industries

OFF-SITE BARRIERS

Source: NIBS OSCC

!!

Source: RE Smith, Prefab Architecture (Wiley 2010)

Source: Kullmann Design Guide

Standard Flatbed 8.5’ wide x 8.5’ high x 54’ long

Single-drop Deck 8.5’ wide x 10.5’ high x 50’ long

Double-drop Deck (low-boy) 8.5’ wide x 15.5’ high x 40’ long

Source: R.E. Smith, Prefab Architecture (Wiley, 2010)

Image Credit: Egoin

Credit: BluHomes, Vallejo, CA

Credit: Scob Hedges

Source: R.E. Smith, Prefab Architecture (Wiley, 2010)

WHEN ?

TEAM

TYPE

PLACE

Experience Control Repetition Manufacture Financing

Source: RE Smith. Prefab Architecture (Wiley, 2010)

OFF-SITE BARRIERS

Source: NIBS OSCC

STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION

Source: NIBS OSCC

STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION

Source: RE Smith, Prefab Architecture (Wiley 2010)

DOES OFF-SITE AID IN MEETING THE COST, TIME, LABOR, SITE AND PROGRAMMATIC GOALS FOR THE PROJECT?

Credit: ITAC UofU

IS THE PROJECT DESIGNED IN AN INTEGRATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS FOR OFF-SITE MANUFACTURE, TRANSPORT, ASSEMBLY AND DISASSEMBLY?

Credit: ITAC UofU

IS THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT DEVELOPED SO THAT WORK IS STRUCTURED FOR WHAT IS DONE ONSITE AND WHAT IS DONE OFFSITE?

Credit: ITAC UofU

IS DETAILING DEVELOPED IN COLLABORATION WITH THE DESIGN TEAM, GENERAL CONTRACTOR, FABRICATOR AND INSTALLER?

Credit: ITAC UofU

ARE DESIGN CHANGES REDUCED AND ARE ORDERS PLACED IN A SHORT TIME FRAME TO REDUCE COST?

Credit: ITAC UofU

IS FABRICATION PERFORMED WITH PROTOTYPES AND LEAD TIMES REDUCED IN COORDINATION WITH THE PROJECT TEAM?

Credit: ITAC UofU

ARE SITE DELIVERIES MADE JUST-IN-TIME, LOADED AND DELIVERED TO MINIMIZE HANDLING?

Credit: ITAC UofU

ARE ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS DESIGNED COLLABORATIVELY AS CONTINUOUS FLOWS TO ENSURE SAFETY, QUALITY, TIME, AND COST PARAMETERS ARE MET?

Credit: ITAC UofU

Source: ITAC UofU

TYPE

PLACE

Duration Unique Procurement Repetition

TEAM

McGraw Hill 2011


OFF-SITE BENEFITS

Credit: NIBS OSCC

Source: R.E.Smith Prefab Architecture (Wiley, 2010)

!$29,822!!!$74,245!!

!$134,030!!

!$335,074!!

!$-!!

!$50,000!!

!$100,000!!

!$150,000!!

!$200,000!!

!$250,000!!

!$300,000!!

!$350,000!!

!$400,000!!

!$450,000!!

0%!REDUCTION! 25%! 50%!

36,000!SF!CHARTER!SCHOOL-!$7!M!

CONSTRUCTION!INTEREST!SAVINGS! INCOME!GENERATION!

!$52,214!! !$78,147!!

!$293,333!!

!$440,000!!

!$-!!

!$100,000!!

!$200,000!!

!$300,000!!

!$400,000!!

!$500,000!!

!$600,000!!

0%!REDUCTION! 25%! 50%!

40,000!SF!OFFICE!SPACE!-!$7.66!M!


!$5,187!! !$10,350!!

!$29,333!!

!$58,667!!

!$-!!

!$10,000!!

!$20,000!!

!$30,000!!

!$40,000!!

!$50,000!!

!$60,000!!

!$70,000!!

!$80,000!!

0%!REDUCTION! 25%! 50%!

8,000!SF!RETAIL!SPACE!-!$1.55!M!


SCHEDULE ROI

Credit: ITAC UofU

Site

SS6.1

H2O Energy

EA1

Resource

MR2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6, 7

Air

EQQ 1,2,3, 4

habitat

Credit: ITAC UofU

Source: Quale et al. Construc0on Mabers: Comparing Environmental Impacts of Building Modular and Conven0onal Homes in the United States. JIE 2012.

TEAM

TYPE

PLACE

Geography Manufacture Material Install Labor Regulation


NIBS Offsite Construction Council

Ryan Smith, Chair, University of Utah Sue Klawans, Vice-Chair, Gilbane Building Co. Tom Hardiman, Secretary, Modular Building Institute Martin Anderson, American Institute of Steel Construction Ian Peter Atkins, KPF Architects John Erb, Deluxe Building Systems Brad Guy, Catholic University of America George Lea, Army Corp of Engineers Dan Nyce, Oldcastle Allen Post, Perkins and Will Architects RJ Reed, Whiting Turner Construction Laurie Robert, NRB Inc. Greg Rohr, PIVOTek Stacy Scopano, Autodesk Staff: Ryan Colker, JD, NIBS

www.nibs.org www.wbdg.org •  Whole Building Design Guide •  Core Glossary of Terms •  Case Studies •  Metrics Survey •  How-To Guide •  Research Needs Assessment

Questions? This concludes The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems Course

OFF-SITE

Ryan E. Smith, Associate Professor Director ITAC, University of Utah

STUDIES

Disclaimer: This presenta1on was developed by a third party and is not funded by WoodWorks or the So=wood Lumber Board.

prefabrication - woodworks · 4. attendees will be able to distinguish digital workﬂows in wood...

Documents