BEST Research Agenda - Modular Construction

Modular ConstructionResearch Agenda

Oregon BEST Agenda Development Series

Table of conTenTs

1 Introduction Oregon BEST Agenda Development Forum Series

2 Summary

4 Common Themes: Threads Across Research Areas

6 Oregon BEST Modular Construction Research Agenda

6 Case Studies

7 Life Cycle Costing and Impact Assessment

8 Streamlining Modular Project Delivery

8 Technical Development of Components

10 Use of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) as a Modular Component

11 Special Note: Additional Research Topics

12 About Oregon BEST

13 Agenda Co-Authors

Oregon BEST convenes this series to provide a forum where industry leaders collaboratively develop a prioritized research agenda. This process provides both improved clarity around what our partners’ innovation needs are, and a succinct method of communicating those needs to the research community.

Expert presentations from practitioners frame the issues at each event, stimulating attendees in facilitated dialogues culminating in a set of research projects that Oregon BEST publishes and works to have funded.

This document is the sixth of these Research Agendas, written to capture the work of the attendees of the March 6, 2014 Forum focused on defining the research that would help bring the promise of modular construction into more widespread practice.

Attendees of this Forum collaboratively articulated a set of research projects that address their fundamental challenges by answering the question, “What

technological innovation or new understanding is needed to support increased utilization of modular construction in building projects?“

The purpose of this report is to represent the approach used through the Forum Series to inform the BEST Research priorities and to briefly present the ideas and priorities suggested at the Forum for further input from our colleagues and allies.

Introduction Oregon BEST Agenda Development Forum Series

What technological innovation or new understanding is needed to support increased utilization of modular construction in building projects?”

“

MODULAR CONSTRUCTION 1

Oregon BEST held the sixth of its Agenda Development Forums on Modular Construction in reflection of the topic’s importance. Prioritization of forum topics is based on input from our Consortium, prominence in the national dialogue, as well as recent programmatic efforts by partner organizations, regionally and nationally, to address the defining issues. As with previous Forums, we reviewed key reports and consulted with several industry leaders in order to frame this discussion. Through our efforts we were able to craft working definitions and identify the key opportunities and barriers to innovation that would help shape discussion during the Agenda Development Forum.

In addition to our usual Forum preparation, we also invited stakeholders and experts to participate in a series of online surveys to help focus the content of the forum. In our initial survey, participants identified the technological needs, knowledge gaps, and institutional barriers that they viewed as most important to the ensuing Forum discussion. After collating and synthesizing responses from the initial survey, we identified 10 overarching technological and knowledge needs and 6 fundamental barriers. In a second survey, participants prioritized and ranked the 10 overarching needs by their immediate necessity and feasibility. Participants also provided feedback regarding the extent to which the 10 identified needs addressed the 6 identified barriers.

The results from our online survey series allowed us to identify 5 research priorities from our initial list of 10 identified needs. Those priorities included: 1. The need to document cases of quality modular buildings in comparable

climates, as well as identify design principles that will inspire design and construction teams, convince developers, and compel code officials.

2. The need to devise assessment tools that allow accurate cost and impact comparison between conventional and modular construction at the project level.

3. The need to generate true project cost comparisons of modular and conventional construction methods from various trade perspectives.

4. The need to explore novel applications of modular components that

Forum SeriesFormat & Summary

2 BEST FORUM

Defining the ProblemNarrowing the modular vernacular down to the most essential working definitions was an important step in framing this discussion. PrefabricationOffsite manufacturing of building parts (e.g., processed materials, assembled components, panelized and modular structures).Permanent Modular Construction Offsite prefabrication and preassembly of volumetric components intended for attachment to a permanent foundation for the entire duration of a building’s lifetime.Relocatable BuildingsVolumetric components prefabricated and preassembled offsite that are either not attached to a permanent foundation, or are intended to be moved during the lifetime of the building. Manufactured HomesRelocatable buildings that are federally regulated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).Industrialized ConstructionAutomation of building construction utilizing advanced equipment and technology to minimize human involvement.Lean ConstructionBuilding methods that reduce overall material and capital waste associated with industrial production.

improve performance (e.g., seismic fittings, building envelopes).

5. The need to develop technologies that will provide the ability to better handle ‘custom’ elements.

These priorities formed the basis for the introductory presentation, after which a panel of experts were asked to present their responses to the framing question: “What technological innovation or new understanding is needed to support increased utilization of modular construction in building projects?” Their responses, along with the Forum participants’ collective interests, shaped the resulting list of research priorities highlighted in this agenda.

BarriersDetermining the major barriers that must be overcome in advancing modular construction methods was a second important step in framing the discussion. The following challenges in particular warrant need for the research priorities presented in this agenda.

Public Perception Prefabricated and modular housing have held poor reputations in the public eye ever since their early Post-War introduction. The image of prefabricated units as aesthetically and functionally inferior still persists in today’s market. The impact of this misperception is compounded by a muted awareness of the potential cost advantages associated with modular construction. These views erode consumer demand for modular products and impede growth of the industry.

Institutional FitThe low number of designers and contractors with experience in modular construction practices constitutes only part of a major supply-side barrier today. Forum participants suggested that some defining characteristics of the traditional construction industry might hinder the competitive advancement of modular construction approaches. Such resistance suggests that today’s

construction industry overall may offer poor institutional fit for emerging modular technologies.

The labor constraints affecting the modular construction industry may be in large part due to new technical demands associated with modular approaches. Suppliers utilizing advanced manufacturing techniques to produce prefabricated components for onsite assembly require a very low error tolerance. Such manufacturers have stated that they struggle to find the necessary skilled labor for operating the specialized equipment required. The scarcity of modular designers can similarly be viewed as a result of insufficient technical training for this emerging form of project delivery.

Lastly, the traditional design-bid-build project delivery system may also pose some challenge to the expansion of modular construction. The building industry is driven by demands of individual projects, which makes it difficult for individual players to commit to a long-term, large-scale transition in practice. Additionally, the dominant methods in practice are optimized to reduce legal and financial liability, not to promote efficient reorganization of resources and approaches. This imposes disconnects between disciplines across the building supply chain. Such disconnects do not favor the advancement of modular construction practices, which frequently depend on well-coordinated multidisciplinary teams to achieve minimal tolerances on shortened timetables.

Codes & RegulationsSome of the participants in this Agenda Development Forum acknowledged that real or perceived regulatory and institutional constraints (e.g., building codes, unions, procurement SOPs, liability concerns) may keep design teams from embracing a shift to modular construction technology. This reluctance stems demand, which in turn impedes growth and innovation. Where possible, assurances must be made that modular processes and products will meet all legal and financial requirements, including building codes.


Common Themes Threads Across Research Areas

4 BEST FORUM

In addition to addressing the aforementioned barriers, the research priorities presented in this agenda also seek to fulfill common outcomes. The following three themes represent important benefits and goals associated with research outcomes proposed in the next section.

Project approach and teaming As mentioned above, modular construction projects require close collaboration between many disciplines. Teams of designers, architects, manufacturers, and contractors will need to be assembled in order to facilitate such exchanges. Successful modular construction projects will be built on technically skilled labor, designers and architects with experience working on low tolerance projects, and managers capable of coordinating diverse teams on narrow schedules. Achieving this organizational capacity begins with assessing technical training gaps, identifying successful team structures, and utilizing Information Technology tools that simplify cross-discipline communications.

StandardizationThe advancement of modular construction would benefit greatly from some degree of standardization in design, methods, materials and project delivery. At minimum, the standards proposed in this agenda should aid in

overcoming misconceptions of inferior quality and higher costs associated with modular products, as well as potential legal and practical constraints (e.g., regarding union labor, procurement protocols). Standardized protocols should also facilitate important future technological innovations, such as flexible computer-aided manufacturing systems that improve mass customization capacity.

Inspiration and guidance The most necessary and most feasible research gap identified in our preliminary surveys reflected the need for well-documented case studies of modular construction projects. Such studies are an important first step in reconciling the purported benefits with the realized benefits of modular construction, but they may also serve as an important guide to further innovation. Indeed, most of the research priorities described below should not simply aim to prove the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, superior quality and aesthetic appeal of modular products. Rather, the outputs proposed in this agenda should also strive to provide useful information regarding the ideal application of modular approaches, establish suitable design principles, and encourage artistic and technological breakthroughs.

Ph

oto

: Wo

od

Brid

ge at M

on

tmo

rency, C

reative Co

mm

on

s

6 BEST FORUM

Oregon BEST Modular Construction Research Agenda

Case Studies Facilitator: David Kenney, Oregon BEST

Problem Statement: Third party data is needed from built modular projects to provide evidence for how modular methods can be deployed most effectively and for overcoming identified barriers of perception.

Research Questions

• When and where does modular make sense? Explore feasibility along various criteria, including but not limited to:

• Building type; building size; climatic condition; and whole building vs. component modularity.

• What kind of evidence exists for the following?

• Health/indoor air quality;

• Safety

• Maintenance costs

• Energy – including applicable incentives

• Envelope performance – including water tightness, acoustic and thermal performance

• What is the impact (of the duration of time on-site in terms e.g., cost, disruption, environmental damage, safety)? Research should consider how these impacts differ across various market sectors with different attributes.

• What processes do design and construction teams use to achieve a successful result? Who is involved in the decision-making?

• What hidden costs or cost benefits arise in modular construction projects over the life cycle of the building? Consider flexibility of the building

• What are the trends among schools and their use of modular and conventional construction?

• What are the conditions and drivers leading to increased use of modular in rural areas, for example?

Research Projects

1. Identify a set of built projects that incorporate a variety of types of modularity, both domestically and internationally, to explore the research questions identified above. Working with the owners, occupants, and design teams, utilize the case studies to describe the conditions that led to the resulting project. Where international examples are used, identify places where climatic, political, or cultural context played a role in the project feasibility, and develop recommendations for changes necessary to support market uptake in North America.

2. Conduct side-by-side longitudinal comparisons of similar or identical buildings built conventionally and modularly.

a. Lake Washington School District built 13 building projects simultaneously, only one of which was modular, providing an ideal foundation for a longitudinal study.

b. Any study should examine cost, schedule, performance, energy efficiency, learning and/or health outcomes.

Potential Resources & Collaborators

• Retailers with modular stores among their franchises (e.g., Starbucks, Taco Bell)

• Lake Washington School District

Life Cycle Costing and Impact AssessmentFacilitator: Michelle Anderson, DIRTT

• Problem Statement: Anecdotal evidence of the total cost or environmental benefits of modular construction has neither been qualified nor substantiated through rigorous study. Achieving a holistic comparison between construction approaches is difficult due to the variability in costing assumptions from industry to industry, as well as to environmental impacts that are externalized (hidden from consumers and not reflected in the cost). As a result, debunking common misconceptions about the quality and cost of modular construction demands that we design non-proprietary tools that can be used to demonstrate the life cycle costs or benefits of implementing modular construction, on a project- and site-specific scale, and within a competitive contract-bidding environment.

Desired Outcomes

• Studies and decision-making tools, informed by life cycle cost and impact data, generated and licensed by a third party.

• Education of Industry – made possible through industry collaboration (for example, in the form of third party guidance on key questions to ask when comparing options for project approach, as well as identifying the resources and expertise needed to answer them).

• Standardized guidelines and techniques that could allow more effective comparison of vendors, or between vendors and their conventional construction counterparts.

Research ProjectsInvestigate and compare the costs and impacts of classrooms in Utah’s Jordan School District, which are 28x60 site-built but akin to modular units. The opportunity to compare these classrooms with their factory-built modular counterparts offers a unique advantage for research. Classrooms are being built to similar specifications all over the country, making the proposed comparison study especially useful.


• USLCI and proprietary Life Cycle Inventory Databases

• LCA assessment software (e.g., Athena Institute, NIST’s BEES)

• Jordan School District, UT


Photos (Left and Right): Kah San Chako Haws, Portland, OR. Emmons Modular. NAYA Family Center, Guardian Real Estate Development, Blazer Industries

8 BEST FORUM

Streamlining Modular Project Delivery Facilitator: Stuart Emmons, Emmons Modular

Problem Statement: Conventional project delivery methods are inefficient and ineffective at delivering modular buildings and integrating modular components.

This problem stems from design and construction professionals not being proficient in the required methods, or not having appropriate incentive to expand their practice beyond their given specialty. These issues present a significant barrier to achieving the cost and impact savings promised by modular.

Desired Outcomes

• Design and construction industry professionals are equipped with the knowledge and tools necessary for streamlined project delivery utilizing modular approaches to construction.

• Incentives exist for design and construction industry professionals to broaden their roles and share responsibilities with an integrated team.

Research Projects

1. Creation of educational and process tools that prepare professionals throughout the supply chain to utilize advanced methods and streamline delivery by:

a. Identifying the necessary tools available (e.g., BIM applications) and how to use them to their best effect in an integrated project delivery approach.

b. Providing actionable examples of successful team structure and communication models, based on a detailed consideration of existing contractual arrangements (eg: AIA & ConsensusDocs) and lessons-learned from their implementation (how to structure a project team, what to look out for and address early, etc.).

c. Identifying how other industries have met similar challenges (automobile, high tech, etc.) and providing lessons learned to inspire innovative approaches to project delivery.

2. Developing tools to help build bridges across the entire integrated project team, such as protocols to help transition design and construction documents (BIM) into construction phase tools like Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBie).

Technical Development of Components Facilitator: Steve Clem, Skanska USA

Problem Statement: Many of the barriers identified by participants, even if perceptual or outdated, have some basis in real experience. Furthering technical development of modular construction is one avenue to overcoming those barriers. Take for example:

• Overcoming a lack of awareness of potential cost advantages associated with modular construction by resolving known quality problems at connection points, or in material selection.

• Overcoming a general misperception of the cost impact associated with modular construction by identifying elements of modular construction that present the greatest challenges to first cost or installed cost, developing innovative alternatives, and demonstrating life cycle cost and value advantages over conventional construction.

• Overcoming the barriers presented by the traditional design-bid-build project delivery system by creating standardized connection points and design tools.

Desired Outcomes

• Standardized connection points that can be utilized for improved quality construction.

• Material solutions for balancing first cost and construction quality.

• Technically robust design tools to facilitate industry adoption of modular design.

Research Questions

• What components of modular buildings are challenged by current code requirements? Perform testing to demonstrate code compliance of more sustainable alternatives.

• How can modular buildings be better designed for delivery?

• Hoisting

• Supply logistics – acceptable dimensions for

highway transport are determined by local and state jurisdictions.

• Can standard regulations be developed to improve interstate trade, where it impacts competitiveness?

• (e.g., Oregon’s width limit is set at 16’, where elsewhere in the country, the limits are often set at 20’.)


• Industry organizations, unions, and government agencies such as: NIST/NSF, MCA, AGC, NECA, ASHRAE, NIBS, CSI, AISC, NFPA, UL, ASTM, ICC, Building Codes Division, Departments of Transportation, and AIA.

• Companies innovating in shipping: CSX, FedEx, UPS, MAERSK, Amazon


Left: Building Information Modeling is a critical tool for effective communication across the design, fabrication, and construction supply chainCenter: A building being assembled with cross-laminated timber panels, photo provided by Structurlam Products LPRight: Interior of the SAGE classroom on display at Greenbuild - the Smart Academic Green Environment was designed by Portland State University in collaboration with the Oregon Solutions Green Modular Classroom Team

10 BEST FORUM

Use of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) as a Modular ComponentFacilitator: Renee Loveland

Problem Statement: There is an opportunity in the Cascadia region for in the modular industry to utilize a growing Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) resource that has yet to be seized. Multiple entities are exploring opportunities for this technology in the United States. Oregon State University is one such entity, having initiated a CLT demonstration project, with 14 manufacturers on board to provide support and funding. The potential benefits from CLT are its low environmental impact and aesthetic appeal. However, the technology is nascent and penetration into the modular construction industry is potentially limited by a lack of performance data associated with CLTs made with North American wood species. An additional lack of access may arise from tendency among builders in the region to rely more heavily on Canadian timber products in lieu of Oregon CLT.

Research Questions

• What is the real market potential for CLT in North America?

• What environmental and economic implications are there in a scenario of widespread CLT use?

• What are the roadblocks that are preventing the widespread use of CLT in North America [lack of ICC-ES evaluation report (ESR) etc.]?

Research Projects

• A survey of components of modular construction that could be replaced with CLT, and where the market could embrace CLT most readily.

• The following aspects must be compared, at a minimum:

• Structural performance

• Thermal performance – including moisture

• Acoustic performance

• Economical performance/cost-effectiveness

• For greatest success at market adoption as industry slowly invests in the capacity to manufacture CLT domestically, the modular market should be surveyed to identify CLT panel dimensions that would be most readily adopted at scale.

• Feasibility and impact study of the scaling of a North American CLT market.

• Can supply support demand? At what scale?

• What environmental/downstream impacts would result from market adoption at various scales?

• What net economic impacts would result from broad adoption? What other industries might experience a negative impact?


• Lech Muszynski, Oregon State University, [email protected]


Special Note Additional Research Topics

Products and MaterialsThis agenda’s exploration of CLT is intrinsically product-specific as a result of the State of Oregon’s interest in exploring the potential applications and benefits of value-added wood products, and as a result of Oregon BEST’s identification of wood sciences as a research area of excellence in the state.

The respective session within the Forum explored one specific material, but a similar process of exploring the material needs of modular construction generally would be of interest to in future discussions. Take, for example, the following fundamental questions: “What materials are most needed by modular construction? What properties must those materials have?” Such a dialogue can and should explore products that might not yet exist, or which cross multiple material categories. In this approach, any number of strategies - concrete, bioplastics, glass, wheatboard - might generate comparable benefits.

Code BarriersAlthough not a central topic of discussion, several Forum participants addressed the need for code changes that would streamline the delivery of high-performance, safe modular buildings. Participants identified issues for possible exploration, either to allow for emerging technologies, or to ensure that certain issues unique to modular construction were adequately addressed by code. Those issues included, but are not limited to:

• Cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) plumbing

• Performance testing

• Performance-based specs

• Progressive collapse

• Fire-resistance

12 BEST FORUM

About Oregon BEST

Oregon BEST is the nexus for clean technology innovation. We build capability, convene collaborations, and accelerate the solutions to environmental challenges that deliver prosperity in all corners of Oregon.

We work in a unique role, exercising a powerful lever outside of, but connected with, existing programs and systems to promote the effective expansion of renewable energy and resource conservation, as well as green buildings and communities.

We make targeted, strategic investments in facilities, projects, and people positioned to have maximum impact on Oregon’s green economy and meet our state’s most important public needs. We build intellectual assets through investments and networking; we convene experts to promote informed innovation; and we accelerate business success by mentoring startup businesses and investing in projects that help them move closer to private investment and customer revenue.

We serve the people, the environment, and the economy of Oregon — a state leading America in green job creation by tackling the nation’s biggest energy and environmental challenges.

By cultivating the commercialization of sustainable built environment products and services and renewable energy generation Oregon BEST has made great strides toward helping Oregon realize some of our enormous potential. Oregon BEST exemplifies the pioneering spirit and commitment to innovation based on Oregon’s competitive advantages that will continue to drive Oregon’s economy while contributing to the greater good.” Tobias Reed, sTaTe RepResenTaTive disT. 27, chaiR, house

commiTTee on TRanspoRTaTion and economic developmenT

“

Agenda Co-Authors

ATT

END

EES

Michelle Anderson, DIRTT Environmental SolutionsMartin Anderson, American Institute of Steel ConstructionPam Armstrong, Environments Leilanie Bruce, BrightworksRichard Burnham, RF StearnsDerek Burres, ModSpaceKaren Chase, Oregon Housing & Community ServicesSteve Clem, SkanskaAlan Duer, M SPACEStuart Emmons, Emmons ModularRoss Farland, DeZine Works!Kimberly Gibb, EnvironmentsPat Humphrey, Bent Level ConstructionMike Iannone, DIRTT ManufacturingRenee Loveland, Gerding EdlenJeff McDonald, Daily Journal of CommerceAmy Nagy, Portland Development CommissionMark Perniconi, Charles Pankow FoundationJim Rasmussen, Modern Building SystemsJohn Roth, Blazer IndustriesJohn Seaver, Stratford Building Corp.Scott Semrau, CH2MHILLElin Shepard, PECIRock Shetler, Blazer IndustriesRobin Wengert, Green Rising Construction

RES

EAR

CHER

S

Daniel Borello, Oregon State UniversityJohn Gambatese, Oregon State UniversityJeff Kline, University of OregonH.W. Chris Lee, Oregon State UniversityDale Northcutt, University of OregonSergio Palleroni, Portland State UniversityErick Polk, Oregon Institute of TechnologyRyan Smith, University of UtahJason Stenson, University of Oregon

Report prepared by:

Johanna Brickman Director of Collaborative Innovation Oregon BEST

Email: [email protected] Phone: 503-725-9641

and

Pablo BarreyroAgenda Development Intern Oregon BEST


Oregon BEST Agenda Development Forum Series Sponsors

1600 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 122 Portland, Oregon 97201503-725-9849 oregonbest.org

Modular Construction Research Agenda Forum Co-Hosts

COver PHOTO courtesy of Woodworks showing Sherpa brand timber connector

Documents

BEST Research Agenda - Modular Construction