prefabrication - woodworks · 4. attendees will be able to distinguish digital workflows in wood...
TRANSCRIPT
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
WHY ?
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
+
-
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
Credit: Euclid Timber
Credit: Euclid Timber
Credit: Euclid Timber & ITAC UofU
Credit: Euclid Timber & ITAC UofU
Credit: Euclid Timber & ITAC UofU
Credit: Euclid Timber & ITAC UofU
Credit: Euclid Timber & ITAC UofU
Credit: Euclid Timber & ITAC UofU
Credit: Girl Scouts of Utah & ITAC UofU
Credit: Girl Scouts of Utah & 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
Credit: Euclid Timber, Girl Scouts of Utah, ITAC UofU
Credit: Euclid Timber, Girl Scouts of Utah, ITAC UofU
Credit: Euclid Timber, Girl Scouts of Utah, ITAC UofU
Credit: Euclid Timber, Girl Scouts of Utah, ITAC UofU
Credit: Euclid Timber, Girl Scouts of Utah, ITAC UofU
Credit: Euclid Timber, Girl Scouts of Utah, ITAC UofU
Credit: Euclid Timber, Girl Scouts of Utah, ITAC UofU
Credit: Euclid Timber, Girl Scouts of Utah, ITAC UofU
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.
Credit: Interface Architects
DE
GR
EE
OF
PR
EF
AB
RI
CA
TI
ON
+
-
EX
TE
NT
O
F
CO
MP
LE
TI
ON
Credit: Interface Architects
DE
GR
EE
OF
PR
EF
AB
RI
CA
TI
ON
+
-
EX
TE
NT
O
F
CO
MP
LE
TI
ON
Credit: Interface Architects
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
HOW ?
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)
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
Source: ITAC UofU
Source: ITAC UofU
TYPE
PLACE
Duration Unique Procurement Repetition
TEAM
McGraw Hill 2011
Source: RE Smith. Prefab Architecture (Wiley, 2010)
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!
CONSTRUCTION!INTEREST!SAVINGS! INCOME!GENERATION!
!$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!
CONSTRUCTION!INTEREST!SAVINGS! INCOME!GENERATION!
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
Source: RE Smith. Prefab Architecture (Wiley, 2010)
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.