Research Fund for Coal and Steel - EUR-Lex

European Commission

Research Fund for Coal and SteelIntegrated pre-fabricated steel

technologies for the multi-storey sector

B. Döring; M. KuhnhenneRWTH Aachen, Lehrstuhl für Stahlbau und Leichtmetallbau

Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074 Aachen, GERMANY

O. VassartArcelorMittal Esch, R & D

66, rue de Luxembourg, 4009 Esch/Alzette, LUXEMBOURG

C. HarperCORUS UK LTD

Moorgate Road, Rotherham S60 3AR, UK

P. Beguin, S. HerbinCTICM

Espace technologique, L’orme des merisiers — Immeuble Apollo, 91193 Saint-Aubin, FRANCE

A. SeppänenRUUKKI

Fredrikinkatu 51-53, FI-00101 Helsinki, FINLAND

M. Lawson, E. YandzioThe Steel Construction Institute

Silwood Park, Ascot SL5 7QN, Berkshire, UK

F. Scheublin, W. BakensCIB

Kruisplein 25 G, 3000 BV Rotterdam, NETHERLANDS

Contract No RFSR-CT-2004-00042 1 July 2004 to 31 December 2007

Final report

Directorate-General for Research

2009 EUR 23860 EN

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu). Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009 ISBN 978-92-79-11319-2 DOI 10.2777/41420 ISSN 1018-5593 © European Communities, 2009 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Luxembourg Printed on white chlorine-free PaPer

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Final Summary ............................................................................................................................. 6

Scientific and technical description of the results........................................................................ 9

Objectives of the project .......................................................................................................... 9 Comparison of initially planned activities and work accomplished ...................................... 12 Description of activities and discussion ................................................................................. 13

WP 1: Establishment of Open Building Architecture ........................................................ 13 WP 1.1: Technology base............................................................................................... 13

1.1.1 Definition of Open Building ............................................................................. 13 1.1.2 Overview of open building systems .................................................................. 16 1.1.3 Review of Integrated Steel Options .................................................................. 18 1.1.5 Opportunities for OBS in steel in various sectors ............................................. 21

WP1.2: Development of Open Building Architecture ................................................... 22 1.2.1 Criteria for dimensional planning ..................................................................... 24 1.2.2 Protocol for Open Building Systems................................................................. 25

WP 2: Development of Systemised Approach................................................................... 27 WP2.1: Develop Interface Technology.......................................................................... 27 WP2.2: Investigate whole building design..................................................................... 49

WP 3: Investigation of opportunities for Customisation.................................................... 51 WP 3.1: Information Technology................................................................................... 51

3.1.1 Existing protocols for data exchange ................................................................ 51 3.1.2 Investigate customisation (or user input) in the design process through I.T..... 57 3.1.3 Standard component and connection design by using modelling tools ............ 60 3.1.4 Transfer of information from design to manufacture........................................ 63 3.1.5 I.T. requirements for the procurement process ................................................. 63

WP 3.2: Opportunities for Customisation...................................................................... 63 3.2.1 Opportunities for customisation within a standardised product range and inter-face details.................................................................................................................. 63 3.2.2 Design or construction limitations as influenced by the manufacturing........... 67 3.2.3 Applications for typical building forms ............................................................ 70

WP 4: Investigation of Value-benefits and Sustainability Arguments and Case Examples............................................................................................................................................ 71

WP 4.1: Establish Value and Sustainability Criteria...................................................... 71 4.1.1 Sustainability and construction: general aspects............................................... 71 4.1.2 Investigation on sustainability existing systems ............................................... 72 4.1.3 INPREST sustainability table for assessment: focus on 10 criteria .................. 74 4.1.4 Opportunities axes for steel construction.......................................................... 77 4.1.5 Value benefits.................................................................................................... 77

WP 4.2: Case Studies of Innovative Projects................................................................. 79 4.2.1 Short presentation of case studies ..................................................................... 79 4.2.2 Use of Inprest Sustainability Table ................................................................... 80 4.2.3 Extension to Building passport ......................................................................... 82

WP 5: Establishment of Basic Performance Data and Physical Modelling....................... 84 WP 5.1: Performance Criteria ........................................................................................ 84 WP 5.2: Physical Modelling and Testing....................................................................... 86

4

WP 6: Design ‘Tools’ and Design Guide......................................................................... 108 WP 6.1: Design Guide.................................................................................................. 108 WP 6.2: Design Tools .................................................................................................. 108

Exploitation and impact of the research results ................................................................... 111

List of figures and tables .......................................................................................................... 113

List of references...................................................................................................................... 117

Appendix 1: List of documents distributed in the frame of INPREST ................................ 119 Appendix 2: Design Guide................................................................................................... 125

5

Abstract Modern steel buildings require a high degree of pre-fabrication and effective integration of the key components. The concept of Open Building systems in steel is developed, aimed primarily at the multi-storey residential sector. The research concentrated on providing ‘enabling’ or supporting technologies and on basic performance data to assist in the development of these systems. Effort are put into standardisation of interfaces between structural and other components such as clad-ding, services and lifts, and on increasing customisation without compromising manufacturing effi-ciency. Information Technology is seen as a major driver which are investigated. The research will lead to the development of new systems involving skeletal, planar and modular components, including sup-porting design information.

6

Final Summary The INPREST project focuses mainly on two aspects of modern construction systems: The flexibility for the user (internal layout, servicing, internal and external appearance) and the flexibility concerning the suppliers and inter-change of components. Construction systems, that fulfil these objectives, are considered as “Open Building Systems”. However, the definition of Open Building Systems (OBS) in the context of integrated steel technologies is not clear cut, and therefore in WP 1, an approach for a suitable definition was formulated, based on a protocol of essential and optional requirements. Exam-ples of Open Building systems in all materials were reviewed, and possible structural options in steel and solutions for façades were presented. During the development of a systemized approach for OBS (WP2) it became evident that existing pro-ducts and systems have to be considered for further developments as it is not possible to develop a com-pletely new open building technology, except at a concept level. A general categorisation based on 1-, 2- and 3-dimensional elements was introduced and the main elements and existing systems were placed in this scheme. Four parallel types of Open Building approaches were addressed based on existing technologies (coun-try of origin noted) : Nordicon (FIN), Corus Open Building Systems (UK) and PRISM (F) are systems based on existing products and close to the market. Additionally a steel intensive solution by RWTH Aachen (D), which is more on a research level, was also considered. Based on the description of the different concepts and relevant elements, proposals for their incorporation in whole building design are presented. The subsequent WP’s 3 to 5 are essential tasks to bring forward the OBS concept in the building mar-ket: The prefabrication and modularity of components enables and requires extensive use of information technology (WP3). Existing software models were investigated and data structure, that is suitable for OBS was identified. The use of software tools improves the abilities for customised design based on prefabricated and industrialised production. Information on the appropriate levels of customisation that ca be achieved are presented. A new stimulus for developments in the construction sector is sustainability. In the concept of sustain-ability the performance of a building in three levels (environmental – social – economic) over its whole life is assessed according to various criteria, primarily concerned with the energy consumption, choice of materials and the building performance. The basic idea has become accepted internationally, but there is variety of methodologies concerning the indicators and assessment methods. In WP 4, the main indicators are identified. For steel buildings using the open building concept, good sustainability per-formance can be expected, and the main beneficial aspects are: demountable construction, recyclability of materials, flexibility and adaptability concerning long term use and improvements in quality by off-site manufacture. The technical performance of Open building systems was investigated in WP 5, beginning with an analysis of the specific requirements of Open Building Systems. Relevant performance criteria were investigated numerically or by testing. These tests include structural performance, fire resistance and thermal performance, as influenced by possible ‘cold bridging’ and interfaces between the structural components and facades. In WP6, the most important information that has been gathered in the project, is condensed into the essential features in the form of a ‘Design Guide for Pre-fabricated Open Building Systems in Steel. The main principles, technical solutions and examples of technologies that may form part or all of Open

7

Building systems are shown. This design guide is presented as a stand-alone document and could be used by architects, engineers and building owners in the early phases of the design process, when the general decisions regarding structure and floor plan have to be made. In conclusion, this project has resulted in an overview of open building systems in steel and has shown how current steel technologies may be used as part of an open building concept. Ideas for future devel-opment of open building systems are presented, based on use of an integrated range of one-, two- and three-dimensional steel components. No current integrated system exists and there are opportunities to standardise the dimensional requirements, interface details and possible inter-change of components in order to create new opportunities for steel–intensive systems across Europe. The volume of the final report was limited, therefore not all information gathered or worked out during the project is presented within this document. A list of all background-documents is attached as Appen-dix 1, the full documents are provided on a separate CD.

9

Scientific and technical description of the results

Objectives of the project Modern building construction requires a wide range of technologies and materials which have to be integrated to produce an efficient construction process and to create a sustainable building product. Steel construction is well placed to take advantage of the opportunities in many segments of the con-struction market including commercial, residential and educational buildings and also hospitals. The opportunities can be realised because steel construction is highly pre-fabricated and quality controlled and can be delivered to the site in various degrees of completion, from at one extreme, the linear com-ponents of the framework to, at the other, pre-finished modular units. So-called “Open Building Systems” achieve a high degree of customisation and flexibility in applica-tion, but are based on a standardised range of components that allow for common interfaces and inter-changeability. In the past however, building systems have ‘failed’ to meet some acceptable performance standards, and this is the area in which research should be concentrated. The development of the Open Buildings Systems shall consider the following objectives in general: • Customisation – allowing for flexible and individual application of components • Standardisation of dimensions and connections allowing for simplified planning and inter-

changeability of elements • Technological advantages by mixed steel technologies, easy assembly, fast construction, integration

into planning and production chain • Significant improvement of performance (fire resistance, noise and thermal insulation, aesthetical

acceptance) For the practical work these general objectives were splitted into six work-packages (WPs): WP 1: Establishment of Open Building Architecture At the beginning, the existing experience in Open Building Systems has to be established, including the technology base and current developments at a European and international level. It is recognised that the opportunities for steel will arise from an integrated range of products and components that are well researched in terms of their inter-connectivity, standardisation, interfaces with other components, and performance characteristics. All these aspects should be well supported by technical documentation. The second objective is to establish the principles of an open building architecture in steel and to en-gage in dialogue with architects and users as the first step in the optimisation and standardisation of the range of components, comprising frames, panels and modules. WP 2: Development of Systemised Approach to Open Building Technologies The objective of this Work Package is the development of a systemised approach to Open Building technology in steel which involve a primary steel frame, floor and wall panels, and modules that are inter-changeable within the building concept. It is recognised that the interfaces between the compo-nents and with other elements of the building, such as cladding, lifts and services are crucial to the suc-cess of such a system. The secondary objectives will therefore be to evaluate the design and buildability of the various compo-nents in terms of: • Inter-connectivity of the primary components • Interfaces with cladding, roofing and internal partitioning • Servicing strategies and routing

10

• Lifts and circulation zones • Fire protection strategy • Opportunities for standardisation and inter-changeability of components • Opportunities for future adaptability in use The Open Building systems will be extendable to various sectors by establishing a protocol for stan-dardisation and interface details, which will be the first step in international standardisation. WP 3: Investigate Opportunities for Customisation through Information Technology The objective of this Work Package is to identify and investigate the opportunities for increased cus-tomisation or user input at a design level, and for integration of the Information Technology interface and product models in the design and construction process. The secondary objectives are to: • Extend existing ‘product models’ to Open Building Systems, including interfaces with services,

cladding and other components • Provide a high degree of customisation for user input in the design process in terms of:

– inter-changeability of components – geometrical range – product ranges

• Develop protocol for data exchange between design and manufacture for these Open Building Sys-tems

• Demonstrate how the supply chain can be brought into the procurement process. WP 4: Investigation of Value-Benefits and Sustainability Arguments and Case Examples Highly pre-fabricated systems achieve the benefits of speed of construction and improved quality, but there is little information on other value-benefits in terms of increased productivity, reduced resources and site infrastructure. The objective of this Work Package will be to identify and quantify these value-benefits and to develop sustainability criteria by which highly pre-fabricated systems can be assessed. These criteria will in-clude: • Speed of construction and programme benefits, including installation, ‘just-in-time’ delivery • Resource use in terms of materials, recycling and reduced waste • Productivity in terms of factory and site-based labour and logistics • Site infrastructure in terms of facilities, storage and personnel • Environmental benefits in terms of noise, vibration and other measures These sustainability criteria will be related to the Building Passport principles which are mandatory in some countries. WP 5: Establishment of Basic Performance Data and Physical Modelling The objective of this Work Package is to establish performance data on the proposed Open Building Systems, including building physics, fire resistance, connection resistance etc. This performance data will be based on modern standards of acceptability, and will allow for practical use on site. The secondary objectives are to: • evaluate the performance of the systems by modelling and tests

11

• lead to national approvals • make improvements in the systems The work is a necessary step in European Technical Approval for these innovative building design. WP 6: Design ‘Tools’ and Design Guide The primary objective is to provide documentation and information on the design opportunities and on the interfaces between components. It is recognised that the educational process on the use of Open Building technologies must start with a clear definition of dimensional standards, interface details, and design opportunities. It will also be necessary to provide design ‘tools’ illustrating how the ‘building blocks’ of linear, planar and modular components may be used to create various building forms

12

Comparison of initially planned activities and work accomplished The main objectives of the project were reached basically and essentially. In some details deviations between the initially objectives and the work accomplished have to be named: The objective of WP 2 was to present one systemised approach to Open Building Technology. This task was fulfilled by presenting four different approaches in steel. These solutions show flexibility and inter-changeability to a certain degree, but further improvements towards a more comprehensive approach seem to be possible in the future. Concerning WP 3 the opportunities of strong IT-solutions in the field of prefabricated construction sys-tems in steel were shown, whereas the the OBS approach provided by RWTH Aachen was not consid-ered, because this system is in an early phase of the development. In WP 4 relevant criteria concerning value benefit and sustainability were identified. In the field of sus-tainabilty it has to pointed out, that there is currently a very dynamic development, therefore this chap-ter possesses a kind of “intermediate result”.

13

Description of activities and discussion

WP 1: Establishment of Open Building Architecture The first objective of this first Work Package is to clearly establish the existing experience, technology base and current developments in Open Building Systems (OBS) at a European and international level. After a definition of “Open Building Systems” a global overview of Open building systems is given, without regard whether these are steel constructions or not. It is recognised that the opportunities for steel will arise form an integrated range of products and com-ponents that are well researched in terms of their inter connectivity, standardisation, interfaces with other components, and performance characteristics. All these aspects are supported by technical docu-mentation. In principle, it is pre-requisite for Open Building Systems, that they are applicable for various sectors. Nevertheless a table was developed, that identify in which sectors the use of which prefabricated com-ponents is most favourable. The second objective is to establish the principles of an open building architecture in steel and to en-gage in dialogue with architects and users as to the first step in the optimisation and standardisation of the range of components, comprising frames, panels and modules. Drafts for Architectural design based on modular systems are originally foreseen in WP 1, this subtask was relocated in WP 2.

WP 1.1: Technology base

1.1.1 Definition of Open Building A widely accepted definition of Open Building is given by Stephen Kendall and Jonathan Teicher. In their book "Residential Open Building" [1-1], they wrote: “What is residential Open Building? Throughout North America - and increasingly, throughout the world - non-residential buildings are constructed in an Open Building (OB) approach. Office and retail developers, their design and construc-tion teams, and the associated regulators, lenders, owners, tenants, and product manufacturers are reor-ganizing the building process. They routinely work according to principles and methods that have de-veloped over recent decades in direct response to extraordinary and accelerating change in the shaping of environment. Regardless of style, typology or construction, commercial base buildings are now customarily built without predetermined interior layout. Upon leasing, demising walls and then interior partitioning are added, as spaces are fitted out to suit individual tenants. Each tenant may install unique interior spaces, equipment and systems to suit organizational and technical needs. When older commercial buildings are 'revalued', demolition exposes the existing building shell, which is then retrofitted with upgraded facade and interior systems. Even in 'build-to-suit' office facilities, base building construction is made as ge-neric as possible: its long-term value is increased by providing capacity for changing requirements, including eventual tenant turnover and future sale.

14

Developments in commercial construction are now moving into the residential sector. In Europe, Asia and North America, residential Open Building principles, variously known as OB, S/I (Support/Infill), Skeleton Housing, Supports and Detachables, Houses that Grow, etc. - are now spearheading the reor-ganization of the design and construction of residential buildings in parallel ways. In many cases, resi-dential Open Building is based on the reintroduction of principles intrinsic to sustainable historic envi-ronments around the world. These have been reinterpreted and updated to harness benefits of state-of-the-art industrial production, emerging information technologies, improved logistics, and changing so-cial values and market structures. Residential Open Building is a new multi-disciplinary approach to the design, financing, construction, fit-out and long-term management processes of residential buildings, including mixed-use structures. Its goals include creating varied, fine-grained and sustainable environment, and increasing individual choice and responsibility within it. In Open Building, responsibility for decision-making is distributed on various levels. New product interfaces and new permitting and inspection processes disentangle subsystems toward the ends of simplifying construction, reducing conflict, affording individual choice, and promoting overall environmental coherence. Residential OB thus combines a set of technical tools with a deliberate social stance toward environmental intervention. Residential Open Building practices are rapidly evolving throughout the world. As new consumer-oriented infill systems appear and become more widely available, governments, housing and finance corporations and manufacturers are joining developers, sustainability advocates and academics in en-dorsing and advancing a new open architecture. From improved decision-making and increased choice, to standardized interfaces between building systems that are compatible and sustainable, the broadly-shared benefits of the ‘new wave in building’ (Proveniers and Fassbinder, n.d.) are increasingly in evi-dence throughout the world.” Stephen Kendall is founder and coordinator of CIB Working Commission 104, on Open Building Im-plementation. Teicher is a member of this working Commission. In their book they mainly deal with residential building, but most of their definition is also applicable to non residential building. In the definition the focus is on enabling consumers to partition and install their own domain. The Open Building strategy is strongly focussing on building load bearing structures with long spans and a mini-mum of embedded services in the privately owned domain. The open building movement is not only interested in the interior design. Also consumer influence on exterior design and city planning are fields of interest. A strategic field of interest for Open Buildings is the development of standardised connections between the structural elements that form together the base building. This connections are usually referred to as the building knot. Building knots are the connection between load bearing walls and floors, between facades and load bearing walls, between roof and walls. Most suppliers of building systems have stan-dardised the knot in their system. But there are no standards for the connection of elements from differ-ent systems. Building Systems are in this respect closed systems. Modification of buildings is possible, elements can be replaced by others, as long as the client deals with the owner of the system. Buying from other suppliers is hindered by a misfit of connections. Unlike the base building knot, there is in the Open Building movement no special focus on the devel-opment of standardised connections between base building and infill. It is assumed that most infill sys-tems fit to any support system. And this assumption is right. Consumer products like partition systems, inner doors, kitchen equipment and sanitary fixtures are designed to fit in all buildings and under all circumstances.

15

In Open Building there are two interest groups to be observed. On one side there are the home owners and tenants (The clients). On the other side there are the manufacturers of building systems and compo-nents (The suppliers). Clients are interested in internal flexibility. They want in the design stage the opportunity to personalise the lay-out and outfit of their new build house. Later, after some years of occupancy, they need the possibility to modify their home, to adapt it to a new era in their family life cycle or to new technological features. Suppliers want the possibility to supply elements - facades, sanitary modules, attics etc.- to existing houses independent of the system by which the house was build. They need open systems to enlarge their market. Clients may benefit from such supplier independent systems through the competition among suppliers. The interconnection of building elements is not limited to flat elements such as floors, walls and roofs. Also 3-dimensional units containing complete bathrooms, kitchens or even bedrooms should be taken into consideration. Units of different brands and origin should be designed to be stacked together in one building. This is an openess that goes far further than the traditional Open Building philosophy. A real Open Building system is a system that uses standardised connections. Connections that are used by most if not all producers of building units and building elements. The stacking of sea containers is a perfect example of such a system. The connectors are independent of the means of transport. They fit trains, trucks, shipdecks and overhead cranes. And stacking in many stories is possible. One of the major problems in residential Open Building is the place where cables and ducts are located. In traditional buildings the cables are embedded in the walls and ceilings. Future re-arrangement of these cables is hardly possible. The Open Building movement advocates easy accessible cables and ducts. In particular, raised floor systems are considered to allow easy access and re-arrangement. Aim is that consumers should be able to rearrange their systems without expert help. In practice most raised floor systems are to expensive for residential use. Though in non residential buildings these systems are often applied and considered to be feasible. Also connectors for cables and ducts in a Open Building system should be universally standardised. The connections between individual units in an apartment building to the main feaders and risers should be open systems as well. For the INPREST project, it is important to take both the clients, and the suppliers, requirements into account.

16

1.1.2 Overview of open building systems The following images (Figure 1, Figure 2) show examples of previous attempts to provide Open Build-ing Systems in various materials for residential, medical and educational buildings. Most are from Europe, but two are from Japan, where these pre-fabricated systems are widely used.

1. Smart House

2. The 7 Heavens

3. Space Box

4. CD20

Figure 1 : Overview of Open Building Systems (part 1)

17

5. Fort Unit bouw

6. Domino system

7. Ino hospital

8. Next 21

9. Sekisui Heim

Figure 2 : Overview of Open Building Systems (part 2)

18

1.1.3 Review of Integrated Steel Options In the INPREST project, various structural systems were considered. A review of integrated structural options using a primary steel frame work showed 11 basic structural systems (see Figure 3, Figure 4). • Integrated Beam and Composite Slab

C section usedas raised floor

Electrical box

Inside faceof module

150

130

22

60

17

350

Composite slab

280 ASBRebar Plasterboard ceiling

Floor of module

• Inverted Slab and Cellular Beam

Floor200 - 250

Module

Gap

30 - 60

300

100

150dia.350

300

150

• Composite Beam and Composite Slab

Floor200 - 250

Module

150

130-150

100≈

240-350

130 - 150

HE 240 to HE 350

• Precast Inverted slab on Cellular beam

Floor200 - 250

Module10030 - 50

200-250

50

150Gap

Hollow-core slab Pre-cast inverted floor

150 dia.

• Integrated Beam- Precast Hollow-core Slab

Alternative use of precast composite slab

280 ASBFloor cassette

Shims

Module

150

Variable10 to 30

Cross-section through module and infill floor cassette

1501 m typically

60

190

244

68

10

125

22

150 60

Variable

75300 Plasterboard (fire rated) Site infill

Cast in lifting bar

Recessed base

• Pre fab floor cassette

7200

445555

(a) Isometric view of floor

750

220C-220 x 2.0

Mesh reinforcement

C-220 x 2.0

C-62 x 2.0

150 x 150 L

(c) Support by steel beam(b) Detail at light steel beam

150 x 150 LConcrete

70

40 40

Figure 3 : Overview of integrated steel options (part 1)

19

• HE beam below light steel floor

Module

ModuleFloor

HE profile

• Integrated beam - Light steel floor

Floor Module

IFB profile Module

• RHS beam- Light steel floor (e.g. Smart House)

Floor Module

ModuleRHS profile

• SHS Columns – No beams (e.g. Open House)

Floor Module

ModuleSHS profile

• I-core

Figure 4 : Overview of integrated steel options (part 2)

20

The review of façade options which might be relevant for the design of Open Building systems contains 12 possible solutions (Table 1).

Table 1 : Façade options OBS

Form of Façade System Detail of Façade Con-struction

Examples of Technology Size of panel Weight

kg/m2

1. Light steel infill wall • Metallic Clad-

ding eg cassettes

Ruukki (Fn)

Kingspan (UK) and others

Metal panels of 0.5 to 2 m 30-60

2. Light steel infill wall • Insulated render

Weber/Sto/DryvitSite installed render often onto light

steel framing

50-80

3. Light steel infill wall • Brick slips or

clay tiles

Argiton (Fr)

Corium (UK)

Clay tiles on horizontal

rails or brick slips on metal

sheeting

60-100

4. Light steel infill wall • Brickwork (site

construction)

See this project in Manchester (UK)

- Metsec (UK) and

others

Light steel infill wall. Site con-structed

brickwork restrained by

wall

150-200

5. Large pre-fabricated panels • Light steel panels

and lightweight façade material

Skanska (Sw)

Ruukki (Fin)

PRISM (Fr)

Light steel wall panel of 3-6 m width x 2.5 -3 m height with lightweight

facia

40-70

6. Large pre-fabricated panels • Brickwork panels

See this project in Bristol (UK)

Hanson (UK)

Pre-fabricated

brick panel of 3-4 m width

× 2.5-3 m height

100-150

21

Form of Façade System Detail of Façade Con-struction

Examples of Technology Size of panel Weight

kg/m2

7. Large prefabricated concrete panels

Panels attached to primary steel

frame

Pre-cast con-crete panel of

2.5-3.5 m height × 6 m

length

200-300

8. Composite (sand-wich) panel

Kingspan (UK)

Ruukki (Fin)

PAB (Fr)

and others

Composite panel of

0.9-1.2 m width

x 6-12 m in length

60-80

9. Curtain walling (metal/glass)

Schmidlin (Sw)

Gartner (D)

Permasteelisa (It)

Curtain wall-ing

2.5-4.5 m height

70-100

10. Double glass facade

See this project in Deansgate, Manchester

(UK). Examples in

Germany, Swe-den and Finland.

Double glass façade

2.7-3.5 m height

80-120

11. Masonry (site con-structed) − Ground sup-ported

Conventional brickwork often used in housing.

Not applica-ble 200-300

12. Masonry (site con-structed) • Supported on

each floor

Stainless steel angles by Halfen

etc

Can be pre-fabricated

(see 6.) 200-300

1.1.5 Opportunities for OBS in steel in various sectors The potential use of these prefabricated components are illustrated in Table 2 below. A primary steel frame may be designed with light steel infill walls, which may be pre-fabricated as storey-high panels. Modular units may be incorporated as load-bearing or non load-bearing components.

22

Table 2 : Application of open building technologies in various building types

Component Housing Residential Buildings

Hospitals Education Public Buildings

Commercial Building

Primary steel frame

Light steel wall panels

Modular units

Lifts and stairs

Roof units

Balconies

Likely to be used May be used

WP1.2: Development of Open Building Architecture A major step for the development of “Open Building Architecture” is the definition of the main charac-teristics. After an internal review on the different characteristics of an “Open Building”, a questionnaire was defined in order to catch the “Voice of the customer” (architects, users). This questionnaire forms the basis of interviews intended to establish the opportunities and features of a flexible “open” building system aimed at the multi-storey residential sector or mixed residen-tial-commercial developments. It is aligned to a similar questionnaire produced in the Euro-Build in Steel project [1-2]. The different following tables show the results of the questionnaires (5–very impor-tant to 1–not important), see Table 3 - Table 6.

Table 3 : Questionnaire – part 1

Aspect of building use 5 4 3 2 1

Flexible provision of internal space for different occupancy patterns

4

Potential for change of use (e.g. residential to commercial) 3.4

Long life and robust materials without cracking and shrink-age problems 4.7

Input of the user/occupier into the design process (customi-sation) 3.3

Flexibility in service outlets and ease of service routing and maintenance 4.3

Private balcony and external space 3.8

Moveable partitions internally within apartments 2.8

Ability to create office space and other mixed uses 3.4

Private, secure access by lifts or stairs 3.5

23


Aspect of building 5 4 3 2 1

Application to multi-storey (6-12 storey) buildings, as well as low-rise buildings

3.2

Ability to create standard floor “foot-prints” and apartment layouts 4.0

Ability to provide car parking below ground 3.2

Provision of balconies and other additional external fea-tures 4.4

Ability to provide a range of façade options and fenestra-tion 4.7

Concentrated highly serviced zones for ease of distribution and maintenance 4.5

High level of glazing in the building facade 3.0

Access to small group of apartments provided by lifts and stairs

3.9


Aspect of building performance 5 4 3 2 1

Higher level of thermal insulation in the external envelope 4.4

Higher level of acoustic insulation between apartments of dwellings

4.9

Special safety measures e.g. sprinklers for fire safety 3.7

Use of renewable energy services e.g. photovoltaic for en-ergy saving

3.25

High level of electric, data comms and security systems 3.3

Special provision for the aged and disabled 4.1

Special ventilation provisions (including heating/cooling) 4.2

Stiff, vibration-free floors 4.2

24


Aspect of building process 5 4 3 2 1

Speed of construction (faster than traditional construction) 4.1

Rapid, vibration and noise free construction process 3.3

Reduced level of materials use and waste 4.2

High level of pre-fabrication (e.g. as in modular units) 4.1

Ability to be constructed using locally available skills 3.3

Reduced time between end of design process and arrival on site 3.8

Certainty of agreed cost and construction programme 4.7

Ability to “match” the completion to the “sales” (important for private developers)

4.5

1.2.1 Criteria for dimensional planning A further fundamental characteristic for the design of an Open Building System is to adopt relevant dimensions as they are common in the different European countries. Therefore two tables were estab-lished gathering the dimensional criteria for residential and office buildings (Table 7, Table 8)

Table 7 : Relevant dimensions – residential buildings

UK France Germany Finland Belgium Luxembourg Netherlands

2.4 m 2.5 m 2.5 m 2.6 m Depending on use Depending on use 2.5 m

2.7 m-3 m 2.7 m-3 m 2.8 m2.9 m-3.3

m2.7 m-3 m 2.7 m-3 m 2.8 m

3.3 m or 4 m typical

2.5 m min. -4 m typical

6 m 3.6 m 3 to 4 m 3 to 4 m6 m (related to

windows)Houses 2-3 2-3 2 1 2-3 2-3 2-3

Residential 4-6 4-84 without lift, 7 with

lift4-8 4 to 6 4 to 6

Houses 8m 12m 9m 12m max 15mResidential 13m 12m 12m 13m 12m max 15m 12 m residential

0.6 m 0.6 m 0.6 m 0.6 m ? ? 0.9 m

0.6 m: also (75 ´ 225 bricks)

0.6 m ?0.45 or 0.6 m

0.6m 0.6m 0.3 m

4.8 or 7.2 m 5.0 or 7.5 m ? 8.1 m 4.8 or 7.2 m 5.0 or 7.5 m 2.4, 4.8 to 7.2 mBrick

dimensions- ? ? ? -

Dimensional Factor

Internal room height

Floor to floor height

Room depth (size)

Typical number of floors

Depth of floor Secondary support to

Planning dimensions

Car parkingControlling Criterion for

Planning

25

Table 8 : Relevant dimensions – office buildings

UK France Germany Finland Belgium Luxembourg Netherlands

2.7m-3m 2.7m 2.7m 2.7m - 3m 2.7m - 3m 2.7m

3.6-4.2m 3-3.7m 3.2-3.5m 3.6m - 4 m 3.6m - 4 m 3.2-3.9m

6m 6m 6m 6m 6m 5.4m

Typical number of floors (fire

fighters)6-8 up to 9

up to 4 with no lift up to 7 with lift

upt to 7 up to 7 5-8

Secondary support to

facade0.6m 0.6m 0.6 0.6 1.2m

Depth of floor plate

13-18m 14-17m 12-14m 12 to 16m 12 to 16m 12-14m

Planning 1.5m 1.2m 1.2m 1.2m 3.6m

- 7.5m 7.2m 7.5m 7.2m

Typical number of floors

(fire fighters)

Depth of floor plate

Parking

Dimensional factor

Room height

Floor-floor height

Room depth

1.2.2 Protocol for Open Building Systems Based on the results of the questionnaires, the particular requirements of open building systems were condensed to a protocol (Table 9).

Table 9 : Protocol for Open Building Systems

Criterion for Open Building sys-tems

Essential requirement

Optional requirement

General requirement

Beneficiary

Flexibility in use of private space (inc. moveable partitions)

Client

Flexibility in architectural solutions (inc. facades)

Client

Flexibility of servicing (and mainte-nance of services)

Client

Familiar technology (design informa-tion and common interfaces)

Client/supplier

Inter-changeability and compatibility of components

Supplier

Wide geographical applications (Regulations/climate)

Supplier

Ability to extend/modify the building in the future

Client

Customisation (input by user in de-sign/design flexibility)

Client

Flexibility in use of floor space (inc. moveable separating walls)

Client

Open construction technology (site installation/skill of workers)

Supplier

Flexibility in application (inc. future change of use)

Client

High level of pre-fabrication in manu-facture

Supplier

Speed of construction Client/supplier

26

Criterion for Open Building sys-tems

Essential requirement

Optional requirement

General requirement

Beneficiary

Effective supply chain – means of delivery (and cooperation of manu-facturers and suppliers)

Client/supplier

Satisfies Building Regulations and functional requirements

Client/supplier

Cost competitiveness Client/supplier

Sustainability (energy and resource efficiency)

Client

This protocol defines the essential and optional requirements for open building systems. Essential re-quirements are those that are fundamental to open building systems. Optional requirements are not es-sential but are desirable. General requirements are those requirements common to all building systems and are not only specific to open building systems.

27

WP 2: Development of Systemised Approach The work in WP2 is primarily concerned with the development of a systematic approach to open build-ing technology in steel. The primary concept of designing one approach was modified towards a paral-lel enhancement of four different approaches based on:

1. Prism (F) 2. Nordicon (Fin) 3. Corus Open Building System (UK) 4. RWTH Modular Research Building (D)

The modular concepts of these approaches are categorized and the correspondence to the protocol are checked. Details for the interfaces of the various components, which have a key role on the way to OBS, are drawn up. In anticipation of WP 2.2 in WP 2.1 some drawings of whole building design are given. In WP 2.2 whole building design based on the various approaches developed, but due to the limited space only a short review of these technologies is presented.

WP2.1: Develop Interface Technology The concept of open buildings has been extensively addressed in WP1 resulting in the protocol for open building systems (Table 9) and this has been used in the assessment and development of the systematic approaches outlined here. The protocol suggests 18 criteria in the determination of an open building but clearly any building system cannot meet all of these criteria fully. Therefore a methodology of scoring any system or part of a system was developed to enable an assess-ment of it against the criteria from the protocol. The essential requirements for open building as defined by the protocol are the most important. These are:

• Flexibility in the use of private space (moveable partitions) • Flexibility in architectural solutions • Flexibility of servicing • Familiar technology • Interchange-ability and compatibility of components • Wide geographical application • Future adaptability • User customisation

These criteria combined with the optional requirement for a high degree of prefabrication form the main drivers for the development of open building systems within the INPREST project. Whilst it is recog-nised that open building is not the sole domain of steel buildings this project is concerned with only steel solutions as the primary material. WP1 identified several existing building systems that may be regarded to a greater or lesser degree as open. It also identified that there are many different building systems involving many methods of build-ing and many variations of main components. Nor can it be concluded that open building systems are the domain of new technologies such as modular construction. In fact many traditional buildings meet many of the criteria defined in the protocol. A system may also be defined by the primary components that it utilises and this analysis is particularly useful in categorising the available systems from WP1 and also the systems analysed and developed in WP2.

28

Generally we may regard the components in a building as 1 dimensional, 2 dimensional or 3 dimen-sional. These are defined in Table 10. These primary components may be combined in many different ways to give different solutions to the building problem. Figure 5 shows the possible combinations in the form of a Venn diagram. The systems identified in WP1 are plotted on this diagram as are the solutions addressed in this work package. Table 11 describes the possible systems that may be created from the components outlined in Table 10.

Table 10 : Definition of elements of a building system

1D These are essentially line elements that link 2 points in space such as beams or columns in a structural frame. They usually occupy small volumes in the completed building and usu-ally support other members.

2D These are elements that essentially connect 4 points in space and have a thickness such as walls and floors. They occupy greater volume than 1D elements and may or may not sup-port other members.

3D These are elements that connect at least 6 points in space but more usually 8 and are some-times called volumetric spaces. Volumetric modules are the main component that fall into this category. They may be designed to support other elements, particularly other volumet-ric modules in typical modular construction or may be designed as non load-bearing, gen-erally only being required to carry their own weight during transportation (often called pods)

Figure 5 : Venn diagram showing the components of a system and their interactions

29

Table 11 : Combinations of components to create systems

1D This approach is typical of traditional approaches where most of the components are brought to site and assembled there. This is not to say that the approach is not open be-cause clearly most of the essential requirements of the protocol can be met. However, the approach does not readily lend itself to off site construction deemed to be an optional but very important characteristic of the INPREST project aims.

1D/2D These may be called frame and panel approaches. They are probably the most common of all systems since these are typical of traditional approaches. The progress in this category is to move the panel items off site so that the frame is erected in a traditional manner and floors and walls are brought to site in varying degrees of completeness. Prism, Corus Open Building System 1 and RWTH Modular Research Building are typical of this approach. The Prism system described below is being developed using this approach.

2D It is possible that only 2D elements are used to create a building. Here the major elements: walls, floors and roofs are fabricated off site and brought together to create the structure of the building very rapidly with most of the elements being finished off site requiring very little on site finishing work. The Nordicon system described later is typical of this ap-proach.

2D/3D 3D volumetric modules are combined with 2D planar elements. The modules are used for the highly serviced parts of the building and the panels are used to construct the open areas of the building. This approach has been called the hybrid approach. Normally both the modules and the planar elements are load bearing and is ideally suited to cold formed steel modules and walls. Example of this type is the Corus Open Building System 2.

3D 3D volumetric modules are used as the primary building blocks for the building. This methodology has become commonly known as modular construction. Modules are usually full room elements often containing inbuilt bathrooms. These are stacked on top of one another to form complete building structures. The external facades are normally completed after the primary boxes are erected although some examples are fully finished including the external parts. The methodology is typical of the hotel, student accommodation and military barrack block sectors where the primary functional unit is the en-suite bedroom. There are many examples of such systems e.g. Space Box.

1D/3D In this combination 3D volumetric modules are combined with traditional 1D elements (frames). Various methods may be used, some of which are suggested in WP1. Modules may have integrated frames as described as one of the options of the Corus Open Building System described later or they may be independent of the frame as described in WP1.

1D/2D/3D All of the components are used together in some way and there are many possible varia-tions. This is the system that was anticipated at the start of the project and is described in more detail later as the Corus Open Building System. It combined a traditional steel skele-tal frame with modules and planar elements.

Study of the many available systems leads to the conclusion that no one dimension is more open or indeed better than another and most practical systems will use a combination such as those outlined above to define the system. The key to the openness of a system is the ease with which the elements may be interchanged and in the case of the INPREST project the degree of off site manufacture possible to give the most efficient production process. It is by no means proven however, that fully offsite manufactured buildings are the most practical or efficient. Nor would they necessarily reduce costs and time for production. Experience would suggest that some aspects of the building production process are more suited to factory production such as modules and large wall and floor panels, whereas some aspects may be better completed on site such as the connection between modules or panels and final boarding and interior finishes. Items best suited to manufacture tend to have a high degree of repeatability, whereas items that do not tend to be best suited to a craft based approach.

30

The most efficient solution is therefore likely to be one that combines a high degree of site technology with highly efficient on site processes where the construction site becomes a highly efficient on site assembly facility rather than a building site in the traditional sense. One of the major elements in achieving this is to learn from the manufacturing facility so that for example materials arrive on site cut to size and labelled rather than being cut on site. The INPREST project has explored these concepts in some detail for floors, walls, modules and facades especially in WP1 and WP2. Examples of such systems are presented here to illustrate open building systems and the approach to developing them. Four systems have been investigated and developed by partners in the project: the PRISM system, the Nordicon system, the RWTH Aachen system and the Corus Open Building System. These are indicated on the Venn diagram in Figure 5. The PRISM system is a French example of how a primarily traditional and inherently open system may be designed to be more manufacturable by using off-site components in conjunction with traditional approaches. This is described in the section entitled PRISM below. The Nordicon system from Finland illustrates the use of large panel construction based on the Ruukki Nordicon wall element with other large panels for the other elements such as floors and roofs. It is combined with steel frames where necessary and uses a degree of on site activities to complete the building. The Nordicon system is described in section entitled Nordicon below. The RWTH Aachen example utilises a regularised steel frame approach with infill panels which may be manufactured on or off site. Its particular focus in this project was the use of all steel floor components and traditional steel cladding panels used as part of the open building system. The system is described in the section entitled RWTH Aachen system. The Corus Open Building System illustrates how 1D, 2D and 3D components may be combined to cre-ate systems for open manufactured buildings. The system is a prototype utilising some existing, some second generation and some newly developed components and is described in detail in the section enti-tled Corus Open Building System. One of the key aspects of the development of any building system is how the main components and assemblies fit together i.e. the interfaces. In each of the systems developed, the partners have carried out work to identify and detail the main interfaces of the respective system. Space allows that only one or two of these can be shown in this document but reference should be made to the respective partners for further details. A pre-requisite of any system is that it must comply with the regulatory framework applicable to the location of the building. Many of the key aspects of compliance have been carried out by partners through documentation, modelling and in some cases testing and prototyping. These include initial de-sign tools for the PRISM system and the Corus Open Building system. Some of these are illustrated in this document and again reference to the appropriate partner should be made for full details. As with any systematic approach to building especially new or evolving ones there will inevitably be a requirement to test new concepts and ideas either by modelling or physical testing and prototyping. The requirements for testing have been identified and in some cases carried out during the project. The Nor-dicon system has undergone significant testing and the Corus Open Building System has undergone some testing and prototyping, both of the individual components and a full scale prototype of a part of a building.

31

A systematic approach to building especially where there is a significant manufacturing content requires the use of supporting ICT. In both the Nordicon system and the Corus Open Building system there has been significant development of ICT tools to support the design and manufacturing processes. The PRISM system uses existing ICT to provide a web portal to information about the system and tools that support the use of the system. The ICT is described in more detail in section 3. PRISM

PRISM is a French system; the word is an acronym for PRoduits Industriels et Structures Manufactu-

rees (industrial products and manufactured structures)

The main objective of the system is to use existing, proven and available components used in the con-struction of buildings and use them in a systematic approach to open building. Solutions are offered for the main building elements - the frame, floors, walls, roof, and foundations, which are then combined to propose whole building solutions. Each of the elements is designed to be compatible with the other components to which it is connected within the system. Many of the elements are supported by design tools which are made available via the PRISM web site (www.acierconstruction.com ) and deal with such issues as beam and column design, facade selection, internal partition selection and the selection of mechanical and electrical systems for a particular build-ing configuration. The main components of the system are shown in Table 12 and the current solutions offered for each. The system is extensible as each sub element can be extended or replaced as long as the performance criteria for the element are addressed and the interfaces with the other components are defined.

Table 12 : Main components of the PRISM system and tools available

Main Frame The structure of the building including all beams columns and bracing sys-tem. Design guidance is given to French Standards and Eurocodes. PrediPrism is an excel spreadsheet for initial design of beams and columns.

Slabs A range of at least seven slabs is available to the system. These are shown in Figure 6

Facades The main families of façade options are available – light facades, double skin, sandwich panels. Detailed documents are available on acoustic, fire safety, thermal behaviour and corrosion. An Excel tool is available present-ing the characteristics of the façade options.

Roofs The main families of roof options are presented including the specifications for each type of roof. . Detailed documents are available on acoustic, fire safety, thermal behaviour and corrosion.

Partitions Information on insulation products, internal partition walls, ceilings is pre-sented together with a catalogue of details for each part. Detailed documents are available on acoustic, fire safety, thermal behaviour and corrosion. Again Excel tools are available for internal partitions, external light skin walls and ceilings.

Energy system Information on electrical heating and cooling systems is presented. Links to other sources of information is available.

32

A - Concrete Slab B- Pre-cast Hollow Core Slab

C - Concrete slab on joists D - Composite slab on steel beams

E - Concrete ribbed slab F - Hollow core slab and integrated beam

30

20

10

40

4 6 8

C-D

A B

E-G

F

Dalle BA sur bac (étais)

Plancher Sec PCIS

Dalle BA sur pré-dalle (étais)

Portée du plancher en m

Epaisseur totale du plancher en cm

G - Composite slab on concrete ribbed beam Comparison of slab systems

Figure 6 : Floor options available in the PRISM system

Figure 7 shows an example of some of the components of the PRISM system and Figure 8 illustrates one of the many interfaces required to be designed for the system. The system is a good example of how a traditional and predominantly open method of building can be redesigned to form modern sys-tems. It also identifies where elements that are traditionally executed on site may be designed for offsite manufacture to provide more efficient solutions.

33

Figure 7 : PRISM in construction Figure 8 : Interface example from PRISM

In common with all systems whether deemed to be open or not the regulatory framework governing in the location of the building must be adhered to. This is achieved in the PRISM system by designing each of the parameters according to the local standards in force and providing technical information to allow the designer to easily provide the required compliance information. Information for the scheme design stage is readily available via the PRISM web site. An example of the beam design tables for initial design and selection is shown in Table 13.

Table 13 : Example of Column design tables from the PRISM system

The PRISM system may be defined as predominantly a 1D/2D system with no use of 3D volumetric elements at present. This is shown on the Venn diagram as described previously. However, there is

34

much information available in WP1 and WP2 to enable volumetric modules to be added to the system should the client demand in France become strong. Table 14 shows how well the PRISM system fits with the essential requirements of the protocol for open building systems developed as part of WP1.

Table 14 : PRISM – fit with essential requirements of open building systems protocol

Flexibility in use of private space (inc. moveable partitions)

This would depend on the floor system used but if long span floors are used then there is no reason why this can not be achieved. The floor and frame design would need to be designed to allow for the moveable partitions.

Flexibility in architec-tural solutions (inc. facades)

This is built into the system by allowing many façade systems to be chosen. Moreover, the system is based on a steel frame built on site thereby allowing many different architectural solutions.

Flexibility of servicing (and maintenance of services)

The current floor options allow for many variations in servicing strategies at the design phase i.e. before build but do not allow for refurbishment without disruption to the occupants.

Familiar technology (design information and common interfaces)

The system is based on current, available technologies so has a string fit with this requirement.

Inter-changeability and compatibility of com-ponents

There is good facility for interchange of components –the components need to be designed to meet the performance requirements and interface require-ments of the system.

Wide geographical ap-plications (Regula-tions/climate)

The PRISM system is a French based system and whilst the system is not currently designed for other locations, the components are generic across the world and could therefore be adapted to any country’s particular standards.

Ability to ex-tend/modify the build-ing in the future

The system results in a predominantly on-site solution. Therefore it would be difficult to modify any of the major components. The internal spaces could be modified as described above.

Customisation (input by user in design/design flexibility)

There is no facility to allow for user input into the design process at the mo-ment.

Nordicon

Nordicon is a Finnish building system for multi-storey residential building projects. These may be apartments or houses depending on the particular requirements of the developer. The system has been developed from the Plus Home system as described in [2-1]. The concept makes use of the Nordicon outer wall element which is used as the primary building element. The Nordicon exterior wall element as its name suggests is used for the outer load bearing walls of a building. There are few internal load-bearing walls leading to a highly flexible internal space which can be configured and re-configured by the eventual owners of the apartment. The external wall elements include any necessary structural ele-ments to perform the function of the wall including structural columns that would traditionally lie out-side of the wall. The walls are used to support all of the floors and roof of the building. The Nordicon walls are manufactured offsite in a factory environment and arrive on site with all of the sub-elements of the walls in place including windows, doors and supports for the facade where this is not part of the Nordicon wall. Figure 9 shows a schematic of the Nordicon external wall element.

35

Figure 9 : The Nordicon exterior wall element

The roof of the system is a long span element that contains all of the structural and other performance based elements such as thermal insulation and weather coverings. They arrive on site with all of the guttering and other rainwater components attached together with flashings and other finishing items to make the assembly on site as rapid as possible. There are currently two floor types to choose from for use with the Nordicon wall element. These are pre-cast hollow core units that are supported by the Nordicon wall elements and fixed in place using a specially developed pin system. The floor units can span the full width of the building giving an unin-terrupted span for the apartment. The other type of floor available is the double layer slab as shown in Figure 10. This is an inverted composite beam with the concrete located at the lower flange of a steel cellular beam. This gives the advantage that the apartment services are accessed from the apartment they serve and may be modified without disrupting the apartment below. The top surface of the floor may be made using suspended timber or steel beamed floors or by using thin precast concrete units.

36

Figure 10 : The double layer floor system as used in the Nordicon system

The interior walls are generally non load bearing; this allows greater flexibility in the use of the interior space both at the initial design phase where the end user may be involved in the layout of his apartment and in the choice of interior materials, fixtures and fittings and after construction when the building is in use and occupied. In fact if the double layer floor system is used the interior of an apartment may be totally reconfigured without affecting any of the other occupants of the apartment building. The system offers several architectural choices such as balconies, window systems, glazing and facade options such as brickwork or render. Many of the facade options described in WP1 are available should the developer wish to choose them. These choices allow the system to offer architecturally diverse buildings from a predominantly manufactured building system. The Nordicon system is supported by a well developed ICT system based on the Finnish modelling package Tekla Structures. This is described in detail in section 3. The system gives easy access for user customisation and enables efficient transfer of information from the design process to the manufactur-ing process. Extensive information is also available for the designer to be able to use the system, an example of a Nordicon design chart is shown in Figure 11.

37

Figure 11 : Nordicon exterior wall element dimensioning curve

The key to the success of the Nordicon system is its high level of pre-fabrication combined with the use of industrial processes applied to building construction. This is achieved by particular attention to detail to work out how everything fits together, calculation of appropriate tolerances both manufacturing and on site and of course designing an efficient manufacturing approach. An example of the many interfaces is shown in Figure 12 which shows the interface at the intersection of a pre-cast hollow core unit and the Nordicon exterior wall element.

Figure 12 : Fitting a narrowed non-bearing Nordicon element on a hollow-core surface

38

The Nordicon system would be generally classified as predominantly planar or 2D and this is where it is shown on the Venn diagram shown earlier. However, depending on the structural requirements 1D ele-ments may be built into the walls to provide greater capacity thus it may also fit into the 1D/2D space. The Nordicon system is a manufacturer specific solution to the problem of applying industrialised proc-esses to building construction and this limits its openness in strict terms. However, since the compo-nents used (other than the Nordicon wall element) are essentially off the shelf, they may be replaced with any available suitable component as long as they meet the performance requirements and interface requirements of the elements. Moreover the concept is open to be copied by another manufacturer who is willing to put the time and effort into developing the necessary design, manufacturing and construc-tion details required of the system. Table 15 shows how well the Nordicon fits with the open building protocol from WP1

Table 15 : Nordicon – fit with essential requirements of open building systems protocol

Flexibility in use of pri-vate space (inc. moveable partitions)

This is one of the design features of the system. The building is designed such that the interior space is very flexible.


Many architectural solutions are available including façade, window de-signs and balcony options.

Flexibility of servicing (and maintenance of ser-vices)

If the double layer floor system is used a high degree of flexibility in ser-vicing is achieved which is very easy to modify and maintain.

Familiar technology (de-sign information and common interfaces)

The Nordicon wall is proprietary and unfamiliar; the double layer floors are new and unfamiliar. Many of the other components are existing avail-able technologies

Inter-changeability and compatibility of compo-nents

Clearly the Nordicon wall is the main feature of the system and is not in-terchangeable. Other elements of the system are.

Wide geographical appli-cations (Regula-tions/climate)

Although the system is Finnish in origin and design there is no reason why the system cannot be adapted to the needs of other countries.


It would be difficult to modify any of the major components. The internal spaces could be modified easily as described above.


This is again one of the features of the system which is achieved by user involvement in the design process from the outset supported by sophisti-cated ICT systems.

Corus Open Building System

The Corus Open Building System is a kit of parts using linear, planar and modular components, that is designed to fit together. It is this kit and its design that make the system powerful because of its flexible and adaptable nature. Some or all of the parts can be used together making it suitable for many applica-tions. It is also extendable, thereby giving it longevity and openness for modern construction. The kit contains several conceptual elements required in buildings but each element is designed to fit seam-lessly with the rest of the components and assemblies. The kit is described in detail below but it is im-portant to realise that many of the components are interchangeable; therefore the description is fluid and will evolve as more compatible parts are added for various uses. Once the basics of the system are de-scribed the many interfaces and connections are described in detail. These are of course specific to the parts chosen and the application. Extensions of the system would need to address these same interfaces to be included into the system.

39

The kit of parts is shown in Table 16 and has options for floors, walls, facades, foundations, skeletal frame, modules, roof and a structural core. In addition architectural variation may be achieved by utilis-ing architectural additions together with variation in layouts as described later. The main work addressed in INPREST has been the development of the second generation light steel composite floor system; Quantum and the development of an open sided corner supported module and applying this and the other parts from the kit to the multi- storey residential sector. The concept is cur-rently undergoing detailed design where many of the parts of the system are being designed to meet the regulatory standards in force. The floor and module of the system are described below.

Table 16 : The Corus Open Building System kit of parts

Building Element Option Floor • Light steel/concrete composite

• Light steel/timber composite Ceilings • Integrated

• Light steel independent • Suspended

Skeletal Frame • SHS Columns with integrated beams • SHS Columns with down-stand beams

Modules • Lightweight • Integrated • Structural

Core • Corefast Roof • Light steel modular Foundations • Traditional

• Small Bore CHS • Screwfast piles

Facades Light steel infill walls (site assembled with external cladding) • Metallic cladding e.g cassette • Insulated render • Brick slips or clay tiles

Large pre-fabricated light steel wall panel systems • Light steel walls and light weight facia material • Pre-fabricated brickwork panels • Pre-cast concrete panels

Brickwork and block-work (site constructed) • Supported at floors • Ground supported

Infill walls • Light steel boarded • Composite panels

Interior walls • Light steel boarded Balconies • Cantilever

• Propped cantilever • Independent

The details of Quantum floor are illustrated in Figure 13. It comprises light steel C sections embedded in a thin concrete slab and is typically 300 mm deep for a 7.2 m clear span. Support is provided by a steel angle fabricated as part of the floor, and the on site attachment is made by bolts to the flange at the supporting beams.

40

7200

445555


750

220C-220 x 2.0

Mesh reinforcement

C-220 x 2.0

C-62 x 2.0

150 x 150 L


150 x 150 LConcrete

70

40 40

Figure 13 : Details of the Quantum floor System from the Corus Open Building System

The main module type used in the system is of the corner-supported type (Figure 14). This gives the advantage that all of the sides of the module can be open including the floor and ceiling if necessary, providing a volumetric space that is very flexible in its use. The major components of the Corus module design are the frame, four infill wall panels, a floor panel and a ceiling panel.

Figure 14 : Corus Open Building System corner supported module

41

Structural design aids have been developed to allow designers to quickly select floor options and beam and column sizes to fit within the current system framework. Examples of these aids are shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16.

Figure 15 : Corus Open Building System initial beam sizing chart example

Figure 16 : Corus Open Building System floor sizing tables

Testing has also been carried out on several of the components to ensure they meet the assumptions used in the design of the system and various aspects have been modelled to prove their performance in areas such as thermal performance and acoustic performance. A full scale prototype of part of the sys-tem was erected to assess the tolerances required to manufacture the system components and assemble these on site. Some details are described in WP 5.2.

42

The system may be applied to any building layout but to illustrate its use it has been applied to two common layouts in current use in the multi-storey residential sector; the shallow plan form and the deep plan form. The shallow plan form shown in Figure 17 uses a cluster of apartments around a stair or lift core. This functional unit usually comprises 4 - 8 apartments per floor, each block being repeated on a site. The deep plan form, where apartments are arranged along a central corridor is typical of the hotel and student accommodation sector but not exclusively so. The deep plan form is shown in Figure 18.

1590

0

4800 720039

00

6000 7200 6000

720050

0070

0035

0035

00

Span offloor

Quantum

300 PFC

300 PFC

280 ASB 136

280 ASB 100

Module 4

Module 1 Module 3

Module 5

2 Bed 4 Person Flat 2 Bed 4 Person Flat1 Bed 2 Person Flat

Module 2

Figure 17 : Residential building with apartments around a stair/lift core – shallow plan form

2 Bed Flat 2 Bed Flat

Module 1 Module 2

Module 3Module 4

7500 5400 7500

4800


Span offloor

Span offloor

Quantum

Quantum

2100

2100

2500

280 ASB 136

280 ASB 136 280 ASB 100

280 ASB 100

300 PFC

300 PFC

Module 5Module 6

6500 7400 6500

5000

1650

0

Figure 18 : Residential building with apartments either side of a central corridor – deep plan form

43

Moreover the system components may be combined to fit into any of the categories within the generic open building framework established earlier. For example a 1D/2D system may be created by utilising the planar elements of the system together with a conventional structural frame. A 1D/2D/3D variant may be created by combining the open sided module with the planar floor and wall elements and a skeletal framework. A 2D/3D variant may be produced by combining the open sided module with the planar elements. An example of the 1D/2D/3D variation is shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19 : Layout for 1D/2D/3D variation of the Corus Open Building System

One of the most important aspects of the design of such a system is the effort applied to the detailing of the system components and the interfaces between those components. The main interfaces between the primary components have been identified and detailed - one of these is shown in Figure 20. The full list of interfaces is shown in Table 17.

Figure 20 : Interface at the module to module to panelised area in the Corus Open Building System

44

Table 17 : List of interfaces identified for the Corus Open Building System

Floor to core Floor to beam Beam to column Floor to cladding Floor to module Floor to separating wall Service integration Cladding to frame Balconies Walkways Fire details Acoustic details Roof to building Frame to foundations Core to foundations Wall panel to frame Floor to floor Wall to support beams in main frame Wall Panel to External Façade Frame to Foundation Floor panel to module Module to foundation Floor to floor at module/room interface Party Wall to Party Wall Module to module Roof to module Roof to Building Service holes Roof to Façade Module to ceiling The system components are currently limited to those identified in Table 16 above but this does not preclude future additions. Any replacement component will need to meet the performance requirements and interface requirements appropriate to that element to be included in the system. In this way the sys-tem is very open even though the concept is manufacturer specific. Table 18 shows the fit of the Corus Open Building System with the open building system protocol.

45

Table 18 : Corus Open Building System – fit with essential requirements of open building systems pro-tocol


The interior space can be easily modified especially in the planar i.e. non module based areas.


Whilst the system is essentially modular in its approach flexibility in archi-tecture is achieved by allowing many different layouts and combinations of parts to be used.


The servicing strategy for the building is based around central cores for the main distribution runs and specific service paths within the apartment. This allows for very simple design and maintenance of the apartment services.


The technologies used are generally familiar although some of the compo-nents are new and unfamiliar.


This is one of the specific design features of the system. All walls compo-nents and floor components are fully interchangeable and there are many options for facades and foundations.


The concept does not have any specific geographical base although some of the current components are specific to the UK. The methodology could be easily extended to a wider geographical base with the addition of design to other standards and regulations.


The system is designed with future modification in mind both at the inte-rior space level as described above and at the building level where inter-faces have been defined for current and future building needs. A selection of user extensions has been defined to be included in the system such as new interior wall panels and modular extensions.


As with the Nordicon system the Corus Open Building System is sup-ported by a sophisticated ICT system that allows user customisation of the building or apartment at any stage in the design process.

The Corus Open Building System, like Nordicon is supported by a sophisticated ICT system: Model Manager, which is a parametric, hierarchical building information manager developed by Corus. The module and interface diagram above were output from the ICT system which is also illustrated in WP 3. RWTH Aachen Building System The RWTH Aachen modular research building is an example of a modular approach to building in the wider sense. It falls into the 1D/2D space of the Venn diagram shown earlier. Primarily the purpose of the building is as a test facility aimed at improving the performance of pre-fabricated building compo-nents used in modular type buildings. The building is cubic in shape and the frame is shown in Figure 21. The concept allows for a very flexible approach to building in that all of the panels to the frame are infill. This means that the floors, walls and roof can be replaced by other items and there can be a mix of component types in the building. This is clearly important for a test facility but it also illustrates how this approach may be used in a real life system.

46

SouthSouth

Figure 21 : RWTH Aachen research facility – schematic of steel frame

One of the first test components for the facility has been the I-Core floor system. This is an all steel floor panel which is composed of top and bottom plates connected together with intermediate webs. Figure 22 shows the finished I-Core panel.

Figure 22 : Finished I-core panel

Table 19 shows how a system based on the RWTH Aachen test facility would fit with the essential re-quirements of the open building protocol.

47

Table 19 : RWTH Aachen research facility – fit with essential requirements of open building systems protocol


Since all of the interior panels are infill panels the interior space would be easily modified. However, with the current design this would be encum-bered with columns from the structure.


The building is designed with the flexibility to attach any façade system although the structural form is fixed.


Services can be easily modified and maintained as they are separate from the structure and other elements of the building.


The structural frame is common technology with standard interfaces. The other components may be new and unfamiliar or existing and available and therefore familiar.


The frame is fixed but the infill panels are interchangeable


The system could be used anywhere in the world subject to regulatory controls.


The system results in a predominantly on-site solution. Therefore it would be difficult to modify any of the framing components. The internal spaces could be modified as described above.


There is no facility to allow for user input into the design process at the moment.

Stairs and Lifts Specific regard is required for modules with stairs and lifts; independent from the chosen system (see before). Modular stairs are more difficult to design and install than fully enclosed modules and often have some additional strengthening members. The features of modular stairs that should be addressed in their de-sign are as follows: • The stair module has a partially open top and base, which means that the top of the module is not

restrained, and the module is torsionally more flexible. • The external width of the module is typically 2.4 to 2.8 m and its length is 4.2 to 5 m, depending on

the floor-floor heigth and landing size (see Figure 23). • The top of the module provides a ”false” landing and the base of the module above provides the

actual landing. The ”false” landing supports the stairs from below (see Figure 23). • The loading on the stairs and landings are higher than in other residential applications and the load-

ing on the wall studs and floor joists is concentrated.

48

2.4 ext.

1.0 1.00.2

4.2 ext.

1.1

1.7

1.2

0.1

0.1 0.3 0.9 1.2

Half landing

Up

Figure 23 : Modular stairs, dimensions of module (left), use of “false landing” of intermediate mod-ule(right)

Lifts have become essential for all residential buildings more than 3 storeys high and should include for disabled access. Modular lifts may be designed as separate units including guide rails and doors, and may also be include in a larger module which comprises a lift lobby. Features of such lift modules are: • The external size of such a module is minimum 3.2 m x 3.4 m (lift-lobby module, medium rise resi-

dential building, see Figure 24). • Depending on the type of lift, a further lift base module (1.4 m depth) and a capping module incor-

porating the lift motor, are required (Exception: hydraulic lifts do not require capping module). • Guide-rails are pre-installed in the storey-high module (Figure 26).

1.2

0.1

0.1 0.9

3.2 ext.

0.2

0.1

3.4 ext.

1.9

1.6

Lift2.0

0.3 2.0

Front wall and floor construction

Entrance H frames

Ancillary equipment

Lift guide bracketGuide backing

Lift guide railCill adapter plates

Lift door frameand cill

Figure 24 : Lift module, dimensions of module (left), structure of light lift module (right)

Building services The approach of “Open buildings” demands specific solutions for building services. This aspect has been worked out in the mid-term report.

49

WP2.2: Investigate whole building design Various proposals for whole building design using the modular systems as shown above have been pre-sented in the mid term report. Due to the limited space the following pictures show a “short story” of the development of OBS architecture starting by 1D- and 2D-elements towards drafts of various whole buildings (Figure 25 to Figure 27).

Step 1 Assembling of modules on one level (basic and stiff module)

Step 5 Mounting of facade insulation / clad-ding

Step 2 Stacking of mod-ules

Step 6 Windows

Step 3 Further assembling of modules

Step 7 Floor

Step 4 Adding of facade panels

Step 8 Finishing of facade

Figure 25 : Assembling of Components

50

Figure 26 : Measurement system

Figure 27 : Variation of size and floor plan

51

WP 3: Investigation of opportunities for Customisation

WP 3.1: Information Technology

3.1.1 Existing protocols for data exchange In this chapter typical different existing solutions and needs for data exchange in design have been de-scribed. All considered and introduced ways are used widely and it was noticed that the actual data exchange format is highly dependent on the used design solution or design environment. Generally can be stated that more sophisticated data exchange needs also more complete data exchange formats. This means that if all aspects of open building systems (structure, services, components, manufacture etc.) have to be taken into account in exchange data, only techniques based modelling can be utilised. In the first sub-chapter will be described general data exchange practices regardless from the data content itself. The second sub-chapter is giving more profound view to formats and their implementation from the viewpoint of the model data e.g. object orientated data. General data exchange practices In this review following basic classification of existing data exchange practices (see Figure 28) between different software applications were identified: • application specific data exchange • between applications • all-in-one applications • standardised (open) data exchange • industry standards • international standards

Figure 28 : General data exchange classification

Application specific means that no generally approved protocol or standardised format is used for ex-changing data between applications. Data exchange needs are either solved case by case or also in very sophisticated way by using internal build in logic and database supported solutions.

o Direct link between applications has been used for several decades. It is always based on case by case programmed import functions in receiving application and export functions in sending application. Typically this type data exchange is in most cases one-way only and it is based on

52

ASCII format file transfer. This practice is very suitable for solving special and/or limited data exchange cases.

o All-in-one applications have been available and used for long. They are based on high level of

integration of all (or most) needed design features in the same application environment. Typi-cally different applications are able to use e.g. the same database(s). In this type applications design (code checking) option or bi-directional link to external design software suitable for di-versified design companies is often included. External data exchange is done via industry stan-dards and/or international standards. As representatives of typical application ArchiCad, All-plan, Revit, Triforma, Tekla Structures can be mentioned.

Standardized data exchange solutions are the other main type which can be based on either so called industry standards or on internationally accepted data exchange standards.

o Industry standardised (open) data exchange has been used for long. They are based on com-monly used application specific but commonly accepted file formats. These kinds of formats are suitable for low level data exchange and typically only graphical information (geometric) information is exchanged. Typical use is for checking compatibility of different 2D drawings or e.g. combining different 3D models for e.g. clash checking purposes. Examples of these for-mats are DXF, DWG, DGN/OpenDGN, SDNF, DSTV etc.

o Last recognised but may be most remarkable data exchange protocols from OBS point of view

are standardised (open) data exchange formats based on international standards. They are based on common international exchange data format definitions and they are very suitable also for high level data exchange. Most commonly they are used to combine different 3D product models i.e. so called BIMs (= Building Information Models). Approach differs totally from ge-ometry oriented (points, lines, surfaces) data and it is based on object data, where every object can have attributes, and visual graphical information is just one way to view the model. Most widely used format are CIS/2, IFC and at the moment IFC format developed very actively and supported and most widely implemented.

Exchange protocols from the viewpoint of model data Most sophisticated data exchange level is based on exchanging building model data. Main reason for quite recent (within less than 10 years) utilisation of model based design in accordance with standard-ised data exchange formats seems to be the underdevelopment of both hardware and software. There have not been available software products for Building Information Modelling (BIM’s) and also the processing capacity of existing PC workstations has been insufficient until last decade. Building proc-esses based on modelling techniques and effective IT is also young. Below figure illustrates the wide usage of building information models. ProIT was Finnish national technology program for guidance and definitions where developed for model based construction.

53

Figure 29 : Model data in building process (ProIT ©)

During the review numerous advantages of using data exchange between BIM’s compared to using drawing files or only geometric data were found. At least following general advantages were recog-nised:

• possibility to get exact and reliable quantity estimation already in early stage • possibility to make exact and reliable cost estimations in early stage • customer can get reliable visualisation of what will be the result • customer can get reliable information and analysis of performance and life cycle cost of the

building • compatibility of design between different design domains (architectural, structural, HVAC, etc.)

can be improved greatly and the amounts mistakes reduced dramatically • speed up design and construction productivity

Industry standardised data exchange format can be used for exchange model data (export and import) between different software packages. Two examples of quite commonly industry standards are PDMS format used widely in plant design applications and SDNF format used for transferring steel design data between different designers. Figure 3.3 illustrates the basic idea of these isolated exchange formats.

Figure 30 : Data exchange based on independent solutions

Software 1 Software 2

Software 3

Export format 1

Export format 2

Import format

54

Even though this method has benefits compared to exchanging only drawing files (2D data) due to great amount of different software products it cannot be the solution for common data exchange demand or interoperability. Second protocol for data exchange between building (information) models is based on common interna-tional standards. From the few existing ones IFC (Industrial Foundation Classes) format developed by IAI (International Alliance of Interoperability) seems to be the most widely accepted to be the basis of model data exchange implementations. Figure 31 illustrates what the basic idea of model data exchange using standardised formats means.

Figure 31 : Data exchange based international (IFC) standard

Third possible and most sophisticated way to utilise model data is the usage of model servers. By using model server techniques the model itself exists in model server and different software products used by different designers communicate only via model server interface (set of commands). Example of exist-ing model server technique definition is introduced in the results SABLE project (Simple Access to Building Lifecycle Exchange, [3-1]). Figure 32 illustrates the basic idea of model server utilisation in data exchange.

Figure 32 : Data exchange using model server technique

Although using model servers is probably the future solution for model based design and building main focus has been in research of data exchange between collaborating designers to utilisation of IFC defini-tions. Current IFC version seems to be comprehensive enough to describe practically all needed data exchange cases. Only in case of exporting data from the models to NC machines in workshop special output format (typically DSTV or DXF) is needed. Also in this case data can be exported directly from building modelling data.

Software 1 Software 2 Model server

Software 3

Software 1 Software 2

Software 3

IFC model

IFC model

55

Detailed case example of data exchange from UK In the following section more detailed case example of how data transfer from design and detailing to manufacture in light steel and modular construction typically used in UK is presented. In UK the light steel framing and modular supply chain is normally part of a building process in which the architect is the originator of the design and the contractor is responsible for management and on-site building. The light steel or modular supplier is a specialist sub-contractor in this case, who may be ‘nominated’ by the architect but employed by the contractor. Data transfer from the architect’s design into the light steel or modular manufacturing process and then to site installation, is a complex process with manual inputs at various stages. Figure 33 illustrates the complexity of data exchange demands, typically used application and work / data flows. The typical steps in the process are as follows:

1. Architectural drawings are produced by AutoCad or its derivatives and are delivered in .dxf or .dwg form to the light steel manufacturer. These drawings give overall dimensions and materi-als, and the key dimensions are transferred into the detailing package of the light steel manufac-turer. For modular construction, a further earlier stage is required, where the overall building concept must be conceived in regular modular form.

2. The detailing package of the supplier places the wall studs and floor joists at regular spacing according to in-built detailing rules within the software, which allows for windows, openings and other changes in geometry. Manual intervention is required to re-position members, to add strengthening members, e.g. double studs or hot rolled steel posts and other components.

3. A 2D and possibly 3D assembly of the structure is created using the light steel manufacturer’s detailing package which can be over-layed with the architect’s drawings to check the geometry and interfaces with non-structural elements of the building.

4. The structural design is carried out manually in parallel with steps 1 to 3, and the design is then modified by the manufacturer to reflect the requirements of the structural design, which will in-clude stiffening members, bracing, etc.

5. The final design concept is reviewed by the architect and the design team and some up-dates/connections are made, particularly of the interface components.

6. Having agreed the 2D or 3D model, the data is transferred to the manufacturing process. Some manual input is required to divide the model into suitable sizes and components for manufactur-ing. A schedule of the components is produced, including secondary attachments and this is linked to a bill of quantities and to ordering of the steel and other components, such as the fab-ricated steel elements.

7. The frames and components are manufactured in the correct order for delivery to site. All parts are numbered and a list is attached to the ‘bundle’ of panels and components delivered to site.

8. For modular construction, the same process applies, except that the manufacturing and module assembly is fully completed in the factory. Modules are delivered ‘just in time’ to site, with their connection plates and bolts. The modules are protected by weather-resisting shrouds be-fore they leave the factory. Module-module connections are made on-site by bolts and plates.

9. For light steel framing, the 2D panels are assembled using the delivery schedule and drawings listing the various components. Attachments and boards and services are fixed on-site. Geo-metric control depends on the accuracy of foundations and ‘line and levelling’ on-site.

56

Figure 33 : Steps in light steel design and detailing process in UK

Design and detailing packages used in data exchange The main software packages used in design, detailing and manufacture used by the light steel framing and modular industries in the UK is presented in Table 20. In all cases, some manual input of data is required and the structure design is independent of the detailing process.

57

Table 20 : Status of electronic data transfer in manufacture of light steel framing and modular units

Company Products Design & Detailing Manufacture

Metsec Metframe building system SFS infill walls using light steel components

Strucad with modification to include Metsec products

Data transfer from Strucad for cutting and hole punch-ing of the components

Fusion Light steel framing with bonded insulation. Modules with concrete base

Autocad drawings of frames and modules

Manual input to create panel drawings and data transfer for manufacture

Kingspan Light steel components – manufactured by others into frames

Automatic cutting and hole punching to schedule

Metek Light steel framing using ‘Framemaster’ roll-forming machines

X-steel for detailing of 2D and 3D modules using Metek C sections

Data transfer to Framecad for cutting and hole punch-ing

Advance Housing (Bar-ratt/Terrapin)

Light steel panels and modular kitchens and bath-rooms

Autocad drawings link to HSB software to produce 3D model

Data transfer from HSB software to Bautech ma-chinery for manufacture

Framing Solutions (Corus/Redrow)

Light steel framing Vertex works for design and detailing of 2D-structures

Some data transfer to manufacturing

Banro Light steel framing and components

Ayrshire Framing Light steel components and Ayrframe modules

Living Solutions (Corus) Modular units Autocad to Inventor, a 3D graphics/detailing package

Manual drawing and detail-ing of panels for data trans-fer to manufacture by Weinman machinery

Unite Total Solutions Modular units HSB software for detailing of modules

Data transfer for HSB soft-ware to Bautech machinery for manufacture of modules

Terrapin Modular units

Yorkon Modular units – open sided units

Caledonian Modular units – open-sided units

3.1.2 Investigate customisation (or user input) in the design process through I.T. By utilising modern I.T. tools customisation and user input can be taken into account in many different ways. Because of very wide scope of objective only a few applications could be examined and estab-lished during this project. Possibilities were anyway recognised to be huge and utilisation of I.T. tools is having a lot future potential. Two different possible and promising approaches were investigated during this project and are presented here. The first application was done by utilising general Geometric Description Language (GDL) basically developed by company named Graphisoft. Because the major aim was to increase user input selection of piloting building type was not so important and it was done by using standardised steel hall concept but approach is totally universal and can be adopted generally for any other type constructions (multi-storey). Application uses ArchiCad’s GDL parametric objects, that can be edited and building can be extended in fixed modules. Buildings consist of office blocks and hall blocks and customer can choose the colours and surface materials and get quick and direct quantity and cost information of used compo-nents. Building consists of steel frame structure with rectangular hollow section columns and trusses.

58

Exterior walls are made of sandwich panels. All changes and selections can be viewed in 3D. It is also possible to get all main drawings directly. Figure 34 and Figure 35 are illustrating the graphical user interface and visualisation possibilities of used developed software tool.

Figure 34 : GDL object user interface

Figure 35 : GDL object 3D ‘bird eye’ view

In another application standard building offering and design process by software integration was exam-ined. Basic idea in here was to provide sales persons with tool (client application) that can be run in their laptop computers when they are in direct customer contact situation. Developed I.T. concept de-scribes a general approach how different application are able to exchange data and how strategically most important application can be managed safely even communication is done by using internet. Used piloting environment is totally irrelevant and only the systematic I.T. approach is what matters. In this application the target was to develop as quickly as possible software tool for certain type of stan-dard building composed using standard prefabricated components. Demands were both to decrease offer making time dramatically and enable direct visualization and customisation and customer input. High

59

security demand was covered by placing all strategic applications in one server behind the firewall. Also software integration and data exchange was studied by both developing XML based data exchange file format using existing COM interfaces of used software components. In Figure 36 is a schematic presentation of developed environment and used software components.

Figure 36 : Software integration environment used in pilot

Basic conclusion and finding in here was the need having special parser application (called here the Designer) which can act as some kind of crossing point for different application and make all needed conversions for each. The other is that in this kind of special purpose (company specific) software in-teroperability environment specification for structured exchange file format seems to be useful if no common standardised exchange file format is available. Possible formats could be either ASCII text format or XML text format which was piloted in this project. Figure 36 shows the possibility for hierar-chic approach to building data content by using XML format.

60

Figure 37 : Used XML description file content in XML file editor

Systems and approach proved to be very successful in practice. To describe the achievable benefits and the potential of utilising IT tools with standardised structures and as final results here is the list of most important goals which has been achieved so far. Execution time for average size of building is at the moment about 5-10 min (depending highly the used PC and size of the model) which can be compared to starting point which was 12 man-hours. Despite of that still full analysis, code checking and general optimisation of the structure is made.

3.1.3 Standard component and connection design by using modelling tools Another example to improve standard solutions in connections and more generally in designing compo-nents by using IT tools is to improve efficiency of design by develop basic connections and modelling components. In this application Tekla Structures modelling program was used. First example is called NorTS where light weight Nordicon thermo purlin wall elements are designed with Tekla Structure Custom Component application. As a final result a complete product model of Nordicon wall element including drawing and bills of material can be generated. Figure 38 shows the basic user interface Nordicon custom component application.

61

Figure 38 : Final Nordicon light weight wall element product model

Second example is a simple connection which is standardised and modelled very detailed including every bevel needed for welding. It’s a basic structural hollow section spliced connection including eve-rything. It is again a Tekla Structure Custom Component application. Figure 39 shows the basic user interface hollow section splice connection custom component.

Figure 39 : Structural hollow section spliced connection

62

Table 21 summarizes the generally published design ‘tools’ that exist for the structural and building physics design of components of open building systems. Besides these there exist a great amount of local (national) application for different components and different national codes.

Table 21 : Design ‘tools’ for Open Building Systems

Aspect of Design Type of Design ‘Tool’ Example of Design ‘Tool’

Software for steel and composite beams and columns to Eurocodes 3 and 4

Cobec from Arcelor BDES from Corus/SCI Cellbeam from Westok

ComBeam and ComCol from Ruukki

Structural Design - steel frame

Design Tables to EC 3 and 4 SCI publications for beams and columns to EC3 and 4 Arcelor ACB design tables

Composite column capacity tables from FCSA

Software for light steel walls PurCalc from Ruukki Structural Design – light steel walls

Design Tables to EC 3-1-3 See following tables for load capabilities of C sections

Design tables from Ruukki

Software for composite slabs Comdek from Corus

ComSlab from Ruukki Structural Design - composite slabs

Design Tables to EC 4 Available from deck suppliers

Structural Design- light steel floors

Design Tables to EC 3-1-3 Available from light steel suppliers

Acoustic Performance Standard details for floors and walls, based on site tests

See typical details given in WP5

Standard details for external walls and roofs

See typical details for U-values < 0.25 W/m2°C

3D thermal analysis ‘tools’ for U-value and cold bridging calculations

Commercial FEM- software for thermal analyses

Thermal Performance

Thermal analysis of whole building (En-ergy, indoor climate)

Commercial building simulation tools (e.g. TRNSYS, TAS)

Standard floor and wall configurations based on R30 and R60 fire tests

Standard details, for example,. from plas-terboard suppliers

Fire resistance analysis ‘tools’ for mixed structural systems to EC 4-1-2

Specialist software ‘tools’ such as Ozone, FDS

Fire Resistance

Design Tables Slimdek from Corus

Sustainability Assess-ments

Methodologies based on ‘point scoring’ for various sustainability and energy saving measures

Ecohomes in the UKHQE and Bilan carbone in France

63

3.1.4 Transfer of information from design to manufacture It has been a common practice for years to exchange design information of steel frame structures (the skeleton of building) directly to manufacturing process. Anyway transferring design information of light weight structures is less widely used. During this project it was tested successfully how detailed product model data of Nordicon light weight wall element studs data can be exported from building model, processed and used then to control thermo purlin machining tool.

Figure 40 : BIM to production (CAM) data flow

As final result and going through automation line it is now possible to get ready cut purlins, pre shaped connections, machining and holes, holes for electricity, holes for assembling parts, holes for fixings and types printed to purlins, all ready for final element assembly work. Figure 40 illustrates the BIM to pro-duction data flow.

3.1.5 I.T. requirements for the procurement process Due the selected approach based on structural product modelling rather than more traditional design tool concepts, all requirements for the objects used in above application including e.g. dimensional, constructional, schedule etc. demands can be added to directly structural objects. This information can be also read directly from the attribute data of the object and utilised in material alternative selection, quantity estimations, material ordering, production planning and management. More specific require-ments are not possible to be described in here because they are so totally dependant of the case and the process. In this project it was anyway recognised that tools used in piloting are having available the possibility to store all relevant requirements directly in building components and is it more question utilising and of taking these features to action.

WP 3.2: Opportunities for Customisation

3.2.1 Opportunities for customisation within a standardised product range and inter-face details In this project term ‘customisation’ relates to the ability of the user or client of a building to influence directly the choice of components and the basic layout and dimensions of the building during the design process. Generally, this choice is exercised by the architect acting for the client. It was concluded that

64

the architect would normally have some knowledge of the chosen manufacturing technology, but the precise details of the components would not be fixed until the manufacturer / supplier had been engaged under a formal contract. This would occur generally after planning approval for the project and after the main contractor had been appointed. Therefore in a more traditional contract, when the manufacturer / supplier is chosen, some elements of re-design would be required in order that the building design is aligned closely with the particular com-ponents and manufacturing technology of the supplier. This is the case particularly for modular units. Based on these facts one of the basic conclusion here is that the opportunity for customisation is limited if the manufacturer / supplier is not involved early in the decision making process. It follows that user choice potentially increases if the manufacturer is involved early in the design proc-ess, and conversely, the later the manufacturer is involved in the design process, the lower the possibil-ity of user input. This is true of an industry in which the components are unique to a particular manufac-turer. In an industry where components are highly standardised in terms of dimensions and interfaces, there are more opportunities for user choice. This is the case for fabricated steelwork where standard sections and connections are used, but much less so in the light steel framing and modular industries. In Table 22 is an example from steel beam selection of PRISM system.

Table 22 : 6 level building, urban collective housing, 3PM system (Main beams)

Basic table for beams = Build-up beams, pinned supports, deflection design, buckling check,

active loads =150 daN/m² Span (m) Width (m) Beam section : see below

A B C D E

6 6 5 4 3

5 6 5 4 3

4 6 5 4 3

3 6 5 4 3

65

Build-up sections : Basic dimensions: Upper flange > 120 mm, Lower flange 300 mm, Web height: 215 mm. These data are deduced from technological consideration from the slab (sound insulation, thermal, etc.).

Table 23 : Specific data main beams (e1: minimum thickness where local plate buckling is taken into account, according to CM66 [3-2])

e web [mm]

e lower flange [mm]

e upper flange [mm]

A e1 e1 16

B e1 10 25

C e1 12 30

D 10 16 40

E 10 16 50

In this project the named main steel construction components or building elements for a multi-storey residential building are a load-bearing steel frame, walls and partitions, cladding and roofing, windows, doors and services, and possibly also modular units. The inter-relationship between the design decisions and the choice of these components for a multi-storey building is illustrated in Figure 41, which indi-cates also the primary and secondary building components. In this case, the primary structure is fabri-cated steelwork and the walls are in light steel framing.

66

Figure 41 : Primary and secondary components and the interrelations of design decisions

It was also recognised that in this context some parameters need to be set as ‘fixed’ as others may be set as ‘variables’. The ‘variable’ and ‘fixed’ parameters in the structural system, and the opportunities for customisation, are presented in Figure 42. Some of the ‘fixed’ parameters are dependent on the particu-lar manufacturing technology and others are related more to the practicability of transport and installa-tion. Most fitments that are installed on site can be chosen by the client, but those that are included as the pre-manufactured components are essentially ‘fixed’ and not subject to significant user choice.

67

Structural componentsStructural design Optimising of structural design

Standardisation of dimensions

e.g. 150 mm stepsBuilding geometry

Choice of room sizes within manufacturing

limits

Manufacturing process and componentsServices & fitments Choice of internal

fitments

M & E services and sanitary units

Interfaces and details

Choice of bathroom fitments

Robust standard details for acoustic, thermal &

fire performanceLocation of service

outlets

Cladding and roofing components

Location and size of windows and doors

External appearance Form of wall and roof profile

Design Parameters ‘Fixed’ parameters Opportunities for customisation

Figure 42 : ‘Fixed’ and ‘variable’ factors in opportunities for customisation

3.2.2 Design or construction limitations as influenced by the manufacturing The overall design process is explained in Table 24 in terms of the overall geometry, façade types and performance parameters. The opportunities for user choice are defined. The ‘fixed’ parameters are iden-tified, especially if influenced by transportation or installation. This is the case for the maximum size of modular units and the dimensions of openings, for example. Some design parameters are dependent on national regulations, which is the case for loading, acoustic and thermal insulation. The user can specify stricter design parameters, but this may require a change to the choice and detailing of the components, which leads to additional costs.

68

Table 24 : Overall design parameters

‘Variable’ Parameters ‘Fixed’ Parameters

• Building geometry

- Primary structure • Wide range of structural options and member sizes

- Planar components • Limited to the capabilities of the light steel framing technology and to installation – suggested maximum of 3.5 m high × 8 m long

• Manufacture of planar light steel components and their in-ter-connections

- Modular components • Modules limited by transportation to 4.2 m width × 11 m length

• Standard connections between modules and other interfaces

• Façade types

- Brickwork • Site-intensive technology – limited to 12 m free-standing wall height, except where supported at each floor by a primary frame

- Insulated render • Site-intensive technology, but insulated render can be ‘modelled’ to suit the façade

- Clay tiles, etc. • Fixed on site to supporting rails which are attached to panels or modules

- Boards and fascias • Fixed on site but can be pre-attached to panels or modules

• Openings • Variable sizes of openings but to 3.6 m wide, typically dependent on the supporting framework

• Performance characteristics

- Loading - Imposed - Wind - Services, etc.

1.5 to 3 kN/m2 0.5 to 1.5 kN/m2 0.2 to 0.5 kN/m2

- Fire resistance o R30 to R90 for load-bearing and separating functions. R120 for the primary structure.

- Thermal performance (envelope) o U 0.15 to 0.35 W/m2BC

- Acoustic insulation (airborne) • DnTw 54 dB (excluding Ctr) or 45 dB (including Ctr) for airborne sound reduction of walls and floors

Table 25 and Table 26 extend this explanation for external walls (supporting the façade) and for internal separating walls.

69

Table 25 : Overall design parameters Example of customisation - external walls


• Spacing of C sections 600 mm

• Limited range of C sections, e.g. 70, 100 and 150 mm depth in 1.0 to 2.4 mm thick

• Wall height 35 × depth of C section

• Wall height and width

• Plasterboard sizes 12.5 and 15 mm thick × 2.4 m long

• Use multiple C sections next to windows

• Window width 35 × depth of C section depth

• Window sizes

• Window height 25 × depth of C section depth

• Closed-cell insulation boards of 30 to 100 mm thickness placed externally to wall panel

• Inter-stud mineral wool insulation as a preferred option

• Vertical ‘rail’ to support brick ties. Ties at spacings 375 mm verti-cally and 600 mm horizontally (2.5 per m2)

• Insulated render applied to external sheathing board, e.g. cement particle board

• Type of cladding

• Cladding may be pre-attached but joints are ‘made good’ onsite

• Standard details for the inter-connection between components to satisfy the required performance characteristics

• Attachment of wall panels to the supporting structure at not less than 600 mm spacing

• Allow for relative vertical movement in non load-bearing applica-tions of beam span/500 but not less than 10 mm

• Interface connections

• Provide consistent fire protection to the wall and to the supporting structure, based on standard details

‘Variable’ parameters are those that may be subject to some degree of ‘customisation’ in the design process. ‘Fixed’ parameters are constraints on the degree of customisation, mainly due to the manufac-turing technology.

70

Table 26 : Example of customisation - separating walls


• Spacing of C sections 600 mm

• Limited range of C sections, e.g. 55, 70, 100 and 150 mm

• Wall height 45 × depth of C section

• Wall height and width

• Plasterboard sizes 12.5 depth and 15 mm thick × 2.4 m long

• Depends on performance data but 55 dB airborne sound reduction is achieved

• Acoustic performance

• Use double leaf separating walls with inter-stud insulation

• Depends on performance data but R30 to R90 can be achieved

• Use single layer fire resistant boards for R30

• Use double layer of 12.5 mm fire resistant boards for R60

• Fire resistance

• Use double layer of 15 mm fire resistant boards for R90

• Attachments of the walls to supporting structure at not less than 600 mm spacing

• Allow for relative vertical movement in non load-bearing applica-tions of beam span/500 but not less than 10 mm

• Interface connections

• Provide fire protection to the supporting structure based on stan-dard details

3.2.3 Applications for typical building forms Arabian Kotiranta, Residential Building Helsinki In "Kotiranta", the structural solution with its load-bearing external walls and interior materials enable the modification of apartments throughout their life cycle. The residents have participated in the design of apartments on the internet, already at the building stage. Vanajanranta 4, Residential Building Hämeenlinna Building site was built in four construction phases. Steel based components and systems were versatility used in frame, facade, balconies and roof constructions. First housing unit was delivered in early spring 2001 and the last ones in autumn 2005 according to an agreement between City of Hämeenlinna and Peab-Seicon. Asunto-osakeyhtiö Oulun Hellinniitty, Housing Company Oulu The Housing Company Oulun Hellinniitty is located four kilometres from the centre of Oulu in a town block that provides a complete service structure and good public transport connections. The apartment building was the first one in the area, and realised utilising dry construction methods. Three further apartment buildings as well as a low-rise densely built residential estate are to be built in the future.

71

WP 4: Investigation of Value-benefits and Sustainability Arguments and Case Examples The objective of WP 4 is to develop sustainability criteria by which highly prefabricated systems can be assessed. A first survey of existing schemes, systems and/or tools for assessing sustainability of build-ing products, construction processes and whole buildings resulted in a rather exhaustive list including dozens of options that has been worked out.

In Subtask 4.1 criteria for sustainability and value-benefits have to be established, the different national approaches should be considered. A short introduction regarding “green building” concept was given and a proposal of a tool for sustainability assessment is introduced. Subtask 4.2 contains the summary of relevant case studies in different European countries, more detailed presentation in Annex 4. In addi-tion, there is an application of “Table for Sustainable Assessment”.

WP 4.1: Establish Value and Sustainability Criteria The present chapter is an attempt to investigate some of the well established schemes and tools in order to narrow the options and precise Sustainability aspects that are most relevant for INPREST. Another task of this WP was to prepare a value assessment of open building technologies, which is presented in section 4.1.4 (worked out by SCI). Various Case Studies have been prepared of open building systems from the UK.

A substantial element of “sustainability” is the assessment of the environmental impact. A suitable method to work out the environmental impact offers the “Life Cycle Assessment” (LCA). This method is explained in annex 4. The most known advantages of steel construction and highly pre-fabricated systems are speed of con-struction and lightness, but it exists less information about others value-benefits in terms of increased productivity, resources control and site infrastructure. After having pointed out the stakes of sustainability approach, the objective of WP4 is to identify and quantify broad value-benefits in order to work out a sustainability criteria list by which pre-fabricated systems can be assessed.

4.1.1 Sustainability and construction: general aspects The construction sector is one of the most important parts of economical activities in many countries. For example in European Union, it means about 7% of the work force and a turnover of approximately € 1 000 billion. From the sustainable point of view, the use of the buildings and all construction related activities gener-ate more than 40% of all CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions, use about 40% of the produced energy and consume more than 40% of the material resources used in the society. These estimations might differ slightly between European countries. In Brussels (September 2007) the European Council of European Union reaffirmed its intention to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over the next 12 years (until 2020). Just before, during the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) meeting organized in

72

Paris in February 2007, the experts claim that the reduction must be 50% over 50 years in order to avoid large-scale climate changes. The usage of energy during the building’s service, called operational energy, is one of the most impor-tant sustainability issues for the construction sector. Energy primarily affects the environment due to the mining, production and distribution of energy in its various forms and water for heating and cooling. The thermal performance and overall energy efficiency have an effect on the economical and environ-mental performance of the building, and thereby its competitiveness. Construction needs much material input: as natural resources and as recycled material. Materials pri-marily affect the environment through the refining processes from raw materials to building compo-nents, and also by transports. Natural resources are not infinite and recycling leads in most cases to improved environmental performance. The construction sector generates an enormous amount of waste and the demands for improved recycling are increasing. Therefore, in many countries the sustainability focus is on recyclability. Sustainable construction does not have to mean new big investments or inventing new materials, just to use “the right materials in the right combinations in the right place”. Sustainability improvements will often generate economical benefits, e.g. lower costs for heating and maintenance, skill and market ad-vantages, and also a future world where we can live. For all those previous arguments, steel, as well as material as a way of building, is seen like a good solution; but now these advantages have to become reality due to the development of systems integrat-ing all the products (steel and related) and into the precise analysis of the environmental aspects to lead to practical solutions.

4.1.2 Investigation on sustainability existing systems In a first step, the project consists to collect information on each national approach or standard related to sustainability, across the European community to obtain an overview of existing systems about sus-tainability. Our research in particular took support on a preceding European project named CRISP to summarize following information for each system:

• the country developer,

• the aim and a short description of the system,

• the construction category : urban, building products, new buildings or refurbishment,

• the sustainable development issues : economic, environmental or social,

• the target of users: designers, contractors, producers,…

• the process phase: from planning to demolition.

Those information have be compared with others international sustainability systems, as LEED (USA) or Green Building Challenge (Canada), see Table 27.

73

Table 27 : Summary of Sustainable system of Assessment for Building

Thus, 451 indicators were identified starting from 31 sustainable systems of 16 different countries or entities. In order to choose suitable indicators for an application in steel construction, we have proposed to establish some relevant characteristics for our INPREST indicators by presenting this following defi-nition:

74

Definition of an indicator “A parameter or a value derived from parameters, which points to describe the state of a phenomenon, environment, area with a significance extending beyond that directly associated with a parameter value.” – OECD Definition. According to us, an indicator must be relevant and effective. It could be presented as a synthetic vari-able, giving indications or describing a situation; in another way, it could be expressed in clear and pre-cise terms, measuring unit through which monitoring can be assessed (we have proposed some charac-teristics for an indicator): • Permit to define a sustainability criteria, • Relevant to every specific project or program, • Permit to measure an appropriate data concerning the building environment or the construction site, • Understandable for project team and to be easy for use by actors, • Measurable by a standard method (quality control). In addition to present a way of choice for sustainable criteria, a summary of each following sustainabil-ity assessment methods can be find in annex 4. • VTT Prop Building – Finland • CIB Agenda 21 – Netherlands • BRE ECO Home Criteria – United Kingdom • Carbon Balance – France • HQE method - France

4.1.3 INPREST sustainability table for assessment: focus on 10 criteria Recommendations for INPREST Even sustainable building methods, materials and technologies are slowly but surely changing the building industry, the practitioner faces several questions which can be summarized thus: “who will use environmental criteria related to the building act, and for which purpose?”. To answer that, contrac-tors, architects or owners could waste their time in the mass of information. Because actors in the field are many, because elaborating a building is a multi-step process, because every building is a prototype, several answers are valid to that question. Design for Disassembly should also be highlighted as a rather obvious element in Open Building Sys-tems as defined within the INPREST project. Towards a sustainable assessment tool INPREST could collect part of the data required for assessing construction materials in most SATools readily from the LCI Checklist provided by the IISI LCI Study. The checklist provides a framework that can help to select relevant sections from any of the most common Sustainability Assessment Tools. The main components include the following: • Goals • Scope • Quality of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Data

75

• Energy • Allocation for co-products • Transportation • Recycling • Life Cycle Impact Assessment • Interpretation • Reporting • Critical review In the case of the components and systems relevant to INPREST, it is appropriate to highlight the as-pects of Integrated Design which integrates material, component, and structure design and considers selected relevant criterions for technical solutions from a wide range of sustainability criteria sorted in the three basic groups: environmental, economical and social. (Due to the character of the research pro-ject the social aspects will only be considered sketchy). Now, 48 criteria are defined in the “sustainable criteria table for assessment” and distributed according to the three classical topics: • Environmental with 6 items (energy, climate, resources & raw materials, water, soil & landscape, waste), • Economic with 2 items (cost & development, access & integration), • Social with 1 items (comfort). Criteria linked to urban issues were not retained in the continuation of this project and the social aspect could however be excluded as being outside the scope of the INPREST project. In general, the capacity to gather information remains the principal difficulty, particularly in connection with economy. Because the more there are actors, the more information is dispersed, the first questions may be: “Which information is available? Near which?” As the sustainability approach may concerning all the life of a product, from natural resources to the recycling, the intention of INPREST partners is to focus on the construction period. Taking account that each country can have different approaches of the stake of sustainability, the final table for assessment can introduce the common part and also consider local requirements for sustainability. By the end, INPREST partners have chosen to focus on a selection of criteria dealing with steel as ma-terial or impacts of construction site. The selection was operating from two main criteria: • Importance: the relationship between the definition and actors of steel (steel industrials or fabricators, designers, clients) and the influence, • Effect: impact of this criterion on project process or what is significant on ecological balance. Table 28 shows the final selection of 24 criteria for sustainable assessment in INPREST.

76

Table 28 : Global view of final draft of Sustainable Table for Assessment (environmental issues) SUSTAINABILITY TABLE FOR ASSESSMENT draft number 5

From the 24 original criteria selected by INPREST partners

FOCUS ON THOSE ONE RELATED TO MATERIAL AND CONSTRUCTION SITE

Topic LIST OF CRITERIA IMPORTANCE EFFECT COMMENTS

GENERAL Commitment to a sustainable approach

ENVIRONMENTAL

ENERGY Heat energy High Neutral Quality Control / Air tightness ?

Electrical Energy High Neutral

Total Consumption of energy High Neutral

Consumption of renewable energy High NeutralCan be designed with renewable energy systems

Transport Energy (all modes) Medium High Transporting large elements / less materails

CLIMATE Climate change Potential of building products High Medium Opportunity for renovation

Emissions of CO2 / Greenhouse Gases High Med / HighLow embodied energy / controlled environment

RESOURCE Use of Natural resources High High fewer materials / efficient ordering

Use of Recycled materials High High Steel = 100% recyclable

Consumption of non-renewable material resources

High Neut / Poor

WATER potable water consumption Medium Neutral Industrial Production : Water is recycled

Storm water management Medium Neutral

SOIL Plot Ratio (building land area) Med / High High Adaptable Building

WASTEAvoidance of waste resulting from process (Factory)

High High factory waste

Building Waste High High less waste on site

ECONOMIC

COST Cost of building High High Economy of scale in manufacture

Cost of refurbishment High High Open systems can be refurbished

Ease of access to elements and systems for maintenance and replacement

High High Easier to maintain

INTEGRATE Basic services proximity High Neutral

HUMAN & SOCIAL

COMFORT Acoustical comfort - Noise conditions High High Quality control - Better detailing

Ventilation - control of smell ? Neutral

Thermal Comfort - Temperature High High Quality - reduce cold bridges

Light conditions - Illumination High Neutral

In the last draft of Sustainable Assessment Tool, all the actors are identified as they have influence or control on each topic (see background-document In108).

77

4.1.4 Opportunities axes for steel construction Concerning sustainability, several opportunities for steel have been yet identified, but a large part of those ones are still challenges. Nowadays, some of the work in the sustainability area concerning con-structions are based on voluntary undertakings or related to financial questions. Nevertheless, in the near future, the sustainability will have probably become a dominant criterion. So, in the subjects of the previous list, here are some examples of opportunities and challenges.

Table 29 : Summary of opportunities for steel construction

OPPORTUNITIES CHALLENGES LIFE PERFORMANCE (Resources Management) • An increased lifecycle perspective is advanta-

geous for steel as steel constructions have long life with high quality and flexible solutions.

• To emphasise the low maintenance of different steel constructions.

• Steel enables the use of modular buildings for temporary locations.

• Steel structures have long design life and the high quality remains

• Steel constructions can give flexibility to the use of the building providing long spans.

• Composite structures are a challenge to recy-clability. Therefore efforts to design composite systems that can be dismantled in a cost-effective way.

• To provide systems with an architecture and func-tion with no “best before date”.

• Further improvement of coatings. • To provide industry with information on material

as to documentation for buildings and as basis for decision-making

WASTE REDUCTION • Prefabrication can significantly reduce waste at

building site. • Prefabrication can significantly increase the abil-

ity to handle waste in a good way, increasing the possibility to recycle.

• Steel is a very good material as to recycling. There should not be material for deposition.

• Steel products for construction purposes always contain recycled material.

• Larger prefabricated units, i.e. modules, might be reused in other constructions. Especially as to temporary constructions this is a great benefit

• To increase the use of prefabricated units will en-hance the benefits for steel as to waste reduction, thus increase the market for steel.

• To facilitate separation of composite constructions in order to increase the recyclability of these con-structions.

LAND USE • Prefabrication reduces need for space at the build-

ing site. • Waste reduction as waste is reduced by an in-

creased prefabrication. Also a well functioning system for recycling significantly reduces the need for deposits.

• Vertical extension reduces the need for land for e.g. new dwellings.

• Steel is an excellent material to use as to high-rise buildings.

• Low weight constructions enable the use of poor grounds to new buildings

• To increase the use of prefabricated units will en-hance the benefits for steel as to consumption of ground, thus increase the market for steel

4.1.5 Value benefits A value assessment of open building technologies has been prepared, which is presented below. Vari-ous Case Studies have been prepared of open building systems from the UK. The value-benefits of open building systems may be presented under various financial and tangible benefits, as well as other intangible but important social benefits. These open building technologies are

78

generally highly pre-fabricated and lead to benefits both in the construction process and in improved quality and in-service performance. The overall financial benefits depend first on the ‘economy of scale’ in production and also, on the size and location of the project. These overall benefits and poten-tial financial gains are summarised below: The value-benefits of open building systems may be presented under various financial and tangible benefits, as well as other intangible but important social benefits. These open building technologies are generally highly pre-fabricated and lead to benefits both in the construction process and in improved quality and in-service performance. The overall financial benefits depend also on the ‘economy of scale’ in production and on the size and location of the project. These overall benefits and potential financial gains are summarized below (Table 30).

Table 30 : Value benefits of open building systems

Financial or Value-Benefits To the Client To the Constructor • Economy in multiple repeated

manufacturing units • Potential cost savings of up to

20% depend on size of project • Savings in design costs

• Efficiency gains in manufacture depending on scale of produc-tion and use of standardized components

• Savings in materials use due to efficiency in manufacture

• Reduced site infrastructure and personnel

• Savings of 3 to 5% due to re-duced site costs (Site prelimi-naries)

• Reduced personnel and associ-ated site facilities

• Less dependence on local labor • Speed of installation on site • Savings due to faster construc-

tion (see above) • 1 - 2% savings in interest costs

due to early completion • Earlier return on investment due

to early completion (depends on the business)

• Savings in site costs and higher productivity on site

• More reliance on specialist sub-contractors for construction

• Safer construction due to mechanization on site

• Reduced delivery and storage of materials and waste

• Less impact of the construction process on the locality

• Pre-fabrication is important when extending existing build-ings

• Less space required on site for storage of materials and equip-ment

• Components can be delivered ‘just in time’

• Reduced costs of waste disposal • Higher quality construction • Fewer problems in service

• Equipment can be installed and commissioned before delivery to site

• Approvals by Regulating au-thorities

• Pre-installation tests can be performed in he factory

• Reduced risk to the contractor • Performance test data may be

established in the development of the technology

• Energy savings • Higher levels of energy effi-ciency and air-tightness achieved by factory production

• Future adaptability • Space can be used for various purposes in the future

• Asset value is maintained • Buildings can be extended and

modified easily

• Components can be re-used, if necessary

• Future repeat orders for the design and construction team

79

Study of Life Cycle One way to estimate the impact of a building on the environment is to make a Life Cycle Assessment. A possible definition of Life Cycle Assessment could be a compilation and evaluation of the inputs and outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system through its life cycle. Three differ-ent phases are considered during Life Cycle, as follows: construction – Use – End-of-Life LCA cannot be analyzed independently from the cost questionnement and cost analysis shall in any case be regarded as the major key point. According to the ISO 15686, Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is defined as “the total cost of a building or its parts throughout its life, including the costs of planning, design, acquisition, operations, maintenance and disposal, less any residual value”. LCC is a more technical approach which enables to compare cost assessments to be made over a speci-fied period of time, taking into account all relevant economic factors, both in terms of initial capital costs and future operational costs. In construction sector, applications of LCCA are particularly suited for the evaluation of building de-sign alternatives that satisfy a required performance level (as occupant comfort, safety…). Buildings energy efficiency remains one of the most frequent applications of the LCCA. There are abundant op-portunities to improve the thermal performance of building envelope components

WP 4.2: Case Studies of Innovative Projects Several sustainable developments in Europe have been analyzed to focus on targets for INPREST and can be considered as case studies. We have also researched for case studies on buildings that are seen as possible example for sustainabil-ity assessment. All this material is available in project documents listed in the references of the project.

4.2.1 Short presentation of case studies The main characteristics of following case studies are just listed in this chapter; a longer description including pictures is available (see background-document In108). La Fenetre in Den Haag (Netherlands) This residential building (16 storey of apartments) is supported on a myriad of inclined tubular legs and steel structure is completed by a novel structural system, called INFRA + (I beams and inverted con-crete slab), thus offering great span. Services are located on the slab. Main positive aspects regarding sustainability: use of steel as recycled material, structural system is permitting flexibility on each floor, fully glazed façade offer natural light, excellent acoustics, free ac-cess for maintenance Plus Home building system (Finland) The building system is based on precast hollow-core slabs spanning between the façade walls and stairs and supported by Z sections placed over the prefabricated load-bearing walls with light steel elements. Main positive aspects regarding sustainability: use of steel as recycled material, structural system is permitting flexibility on each floor, use of prefabricated elements, reduction of transport,

80

Open House Modular System (Sweden) This modular construction system is based on a 3.6 m planning grid in which modules are supported on steel columns: Square Hollow Section (SHS). Any types of façade system can be used. PRISM, customable construction system (Reims, France) This construction system is based on a steel frame and light steel walls and used for 3 to 8 storey resi-dential or commercial buildings. The objective of PRISM is to use common and available industrial products (steel, mineral wool, plasterboards). Common spans are from 5 to 10 m ; depth of slabs and walls is adapted to requirement. Main positive aspects regarding sustainability: use of steel as recycled material, structural system is permitting flexibility on each floor, use of prefabricated elements, reduction of transport and waste, thermal and acoustic insulation are adapted for each type of building Social Housing (Evreux, France) a steel-intensive dry construction approach was the main idea of design process. The whole building is lightweight and potentially extendable and demountable. In this objective, the structure consists of a primary steel frame, supporting deep decking and floor boarding, a curved metallic roof and externally expressed stairs and bracing. The insulation is placed in front of the edge of the slab into the external wall. Thus, the thermal behaviour is very good and gives a coefficent of losses from -20 to -30% with regard of the reference Main positive aspects regarding sustainability: use of steel as recycled material, structural system is permitting flexibility on each floor, use of prefabricated elements, reduction of transport and waste, reduction of thermal bridges, good acoustic performances (Rw+Ctr < 55dB)

4.2.2 Use of Inprest Sustainability Table The following table is just an example of application of assessment with previous case studies.

81

Table 31 : Assessment of previous case studies with INPREST Table (presented in Table 28)

SUSTAINABILITY TABLE FOR ASSESSMENT draft number 5

From the 24 original criteria selected by INPREST partners

FOCUS ON THOSE ONE RELATED TO MATERIAL AND CONSTRUCTION SITE

Topic LIST OF CRITERIA IMPORTANCE EFFECT COMMENTS

GENERAL Commitment to a sustainable approach High High X X X X X

ENVIRONMENTAL

ENERGY Heat energy (petroleum / gas / coal / wood...) High Neutral Quality Control / Air tightness ? X X

Electrical Energy High Neutral

Total Consumption of energy High Neutral X

Consumption of renewable energy High NeutralCan be designed with renewable energy systems

Transport Energy consumption (all modes) Medium High Transporting large elements / less materails X X

CLIMATE Climate change Potential of building products High Medium Opportunity for renovation

Emissions of CO2 / Greenhouse Gas High Med / HighLow embodied energy / controlled environment

RESOURCE Natural resources High High fewer materials / efficient ordering X X X X X

Recycled materials High High Steel = 100% recyclable X X X

Consumption of non-renewable material resources

High Neut / Poor

WATER potable water consumption Medium Neutral Industrial Production : Water is recycled

Storm water management Medium Neutral

SOIL Plot Ratio Med / High High Adaptable Building X

WASTEAvoidance of waste resulting from process (Factory)

High High factory waste

Building Waste High High less waste on site X X

ECONOMIC

COST Cost of building High High Economy of scale in manufacture X

Cost of refurbishment High High Open systems can be refurbished

Ease of access to elements and systems for maintenance and replacement

High High Easier to maintain X X X

INTEGRATE Basic services proximity High Neutral X

HUMAN & SOCIAL

COMFORT Acoustical comfort - Noise conditions High High Quality control - Better detailing X X X X

Ventilation - Olfactory comfort ? Neutral

Thermal Comfort - Temperature High High Quality - reduce cold bridges X X

Light conditions - Illumination High Neutral X

Evr

eux

CASE STUDIES

La F

enet

re

Plu

s H

om

e

Op

en H

ouse

Rh

eim

s

82

4.2.3 Extension to Building passport The assessment of sustainability is a substantial basis for the development of a building passport, which gives a short but profound information on a building. Such building passports are under development in various countries and organisations. Two examples illustrates the current state (Table 32, Table 33). Mainly the ongoing progress in the field of sustainability assessment will lead to improved drafts of these building passports short term.

Table 32 : Building Certification (Ref.: Extract from Sustainability Guideline, Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing, Germany [4-1])

83

Table 33 : Building Certification (Ref.:IISBE, Canada [4-2])

Issues Active

A 3 1.3 8.1% 0

B 5 3.6 22.5% 4 M

C 5 4.3 27.0% 5 M

D 4 2.9 18.0% 4 M

E 3 2.6 16.2% 3

F 3 0.9 5.4% 3

G 3 0.4 2.7% 0

Categories (note that some categories are only operational in certain phases)

A Site Selection, Project Planning and Development

A1 3 9.0 33.3% 0A2 3 9.0 33.3% 3A3 3 9.0 33.3% 3

.B Energy and Resource ConsumptionB1 5 2.0 18.2% 5 MB2 3 0.6 5.5% 3B3 3 1.2 10.9% 3 MB4 3 6.0 54.5% 3B5 3 1.2 10.9% 3 M

.C Environmental LoadingsC1 5 1.7 15.6% 5 MC2 3 1.5 14.1% 3C3 3 1.0 9.4% 3C4 3 1.5 14.1% 3C5 3 2.5 23.4% 3C6 3 2.5 23.4% 3

.D Indoor Environmental QualityD1 5 8.0 48.2% 5 MD2 4 3.2 19.3% 4 MD3 3 1.2 7.2% 3D4 3 1.8 10.8% 3D5 3 2.4 14.5% 3

.E Service QualityE1 3 0.5 4.8% 3E2 3 1.0 9.7% 3E3 3 2.0 19.4% 3E4 3 2.5 24.2% 3E5 2 0.3 3.2% 2E6 3 4.0 38.7% 3

.F Social and Economic aspects

F1 3 10.5 58.3% 3F2 3 7.5 41.7% 3

.G Cultural and Perceptual Aspects

G1 3 4.5 100.0% 3

Design Phase

Generic

Weighting of Issues and Categories for Ottawa, Canada

Select your own nominal

weighting values. M

anda

tory

Use SBTool Defaults

Instructions:First decide if you want to use the defaultsIf you want to set your own weights1. First set relative importance for highest level Issues2. Then set values for Categories within each Issue area3. To set lowest level weights, go to WtB

Values range from 0 (not applicable) to 5 (most important), with the value 2 representing the normal default or null value, except for Mandatory parameters, which range from 3 to 5.Click on box at right to select Default or your own weighting values.

Nominal weights

adjusted for number of

active Categories

Weighted percent

Suggested Default values

Weights adjusted for active Criteria

Weighted Percent within Issue

Use your values

Suggested nominal default values

Cultural and Perceptual Aspects

Energy and Resource Consumption

Environmental LoadingsIndoor Environmental QualityService QualitySocial and Economic aspects

Project PlanningUrban Design and Site Development

Total Life Cycle Non-Renewable Energy

Site Selection, Project Planning and Development

Site Selection

Electrical peak demand for facility operationsRenewable Energy

Commissioning of facility systems

MaterialsPotable Water

Greenhouse Gas EmissionsOther Atmospheric EmissionsSolid WastesRainwater, Stormwater and WastewaterImpacts on Site

Noise and Acoustics

Safety and Security During Operations

Flexibility and Adaptability

Other Local and Regional Impacts

Indoor Air QualityVentilationAir Temperature and Relative Humidity

Culture & Heritage

Maintenance of Operating Performance

ControllabilityFunctionality and efficiency

Cost and EconomicsSocial Aspects

Daylighting and Illumination

84

WP 5: Establishment of Basic Performance Data and Physical Modelling The objective of this Work Package is to establish performance data on the proposed Open Building Systems, including building physics, fire resistance, connection resistance etc. This performance data will be based on modern standards of acceptability, and will allow for practical use on site. The secondary objectives are to: • evaluate the performance of the systems by modelling and tests • lead to national approvals • make improvements in the systems The work is a necessary step in European Technical Approval for these innovative building design.

WP 5.1: Performance Criteria The basic question in this work package is, what the specific requirements for Open Building Systems are. Generally, there are no specific technical requirements that are valid for OBS, but the potentially weak points have to be considered very carefully. According the definition of an Open Building System (see WP 1) the flexibility of floor plan and the possible change of use are major characteristics of OBS. Some requirements are strongly effected by the OBS concept, others are not. In Table 34 the various aspects and the impact of OBS is listed. The requirements regarding escape routes and regarding the internal climate resp. HVAC-system are very sensitive regarding change of floor layout and change of function. Aspects like thermal perform-ance and air-tightness are more or less independent regarding change of floor layout and (with reserva-tions) concerning change of function.

85

Table 34 : Performance criteria affected by Open Building approach Change of floor layout Change of function Comments

1 - independent 1 - independent5 - strongly dependent 5 - strongly dependent

1 StructuralChange of use - office / residential (variation of service loads)

1 3

Stability -horizontal loads 2 2

2 AcousticAcoustic properties of walls including interfaces withfloor and ceiling

3 4

Acoustic properties of floors 13

3 Fire safety

Fire resistance of building components1 3

Means of escape5 5

4 Thermal performance Heat transfer, including thermal bridging

1 3

5 Air-tightness

Air-tightness of joints and junctions and whole building performance

1 1

6 Internal climate

Design of building services and expected thermal comfort

4 5

7 Energy efficiency

The aspects mentioned above (thermal performance, air-tightness, internal climate) determine the energy efficiency

3 3

A change of floor plan and use (if temperature level remains) does not change the air-tightness requirements. In general, prefabricated, light-weight construction needs proper design, manufacturing and assembly to achieve air-tight construction. The function and the internal partitioning of the building has a strong impact on the design of the HVAC-system. Therefore optional changes in the future should be considered during the design of the HVAC-system (Positioning of inlets and exhausts, metering of energy consumption etc.)The national regulations implementing the EPBD are the major requirements. Consider refurbishment to meet future requirements.

Change of floor layout (e.g. re-arranging of apartments on one level, or open-plan-office converted to cellular offices) does not change the design loads, but a change of function (e.g. residential into office) possibly does. Stability is affected by bracing and cores, which generally remain fixed in location. Robustness to explosions or seismic events is independent of building use.

The requirements regarding thermal performance mainly depend on the internal temperature & building envelope. In general, change of use does not change the thermal requirements. In general, prefabricated, light-weight construction needs proper design, manufacturing and assembling of the components to avoid thermal bridges.

Change of floor layout, possibly transforming internal walls into partitioning walls. Therefore the acoustic requirements of the walls change. Floors are less affected by change of use, except where stricter acoustic requirements are made (eg office to residential).The fire resistance requirements are mainly independent from the floor layout, but possibly change if the function varies (e.g. office to assembly room etc).The escape routes are very sensitive regarding change of floor layout (length of esacape routes, redundant staircases etc.)

86

Identify key areas where physical modelling or testing is required e.g. in façade interfaces Beneath the sensitivity regarding the flexibility of floor plan and function the prefabricated, modular construction is of specific interest. These aspects have to be investigated in detail: Fire safety The fire safety requirements have to be fulfilled, otherwise this is a “knockout” criterion. Therefore a detailed analysis of some interesting systems will be performed. Heat / Energy In the regular area, prefabricated, light weight constructions are very capable concerning heat transfer and air-tightness. Mainly the joints of elements have to be designed carefully (thermal bridges, air-tightness, acoustic bridges). Indoor climate The indoor climate of light-weight buildings is more critical than of other buildings to the reduced heat and moisture capacities. Design for acoustic and thermal insulation The proper design of an Open Building System for a wide range of requirements can be solved by thinking in layers. Acoustic, thermal and also fire safety properties can be customized by adding layers with particular properties. The RWTH approach (see p. 45 and p. 49) is based in this concept conse-quently: The stability is provided by a stiff steel frame, the thermal insulation is realized by sandwich elements, which possess low thermal bridge effects, the acoustic and fire requirements can be fulfilled by an internal cladding, an external cladding for various outlooks can be added.

WP 5.2: Physical Modelling and Testing Structural performance of connections In development of the Corus Open Building System several of the key connections and interfaces have been identified and tested and prototyped. Figure 43 shows a prototype built at full scale in the labora-tory at Corus RD&T, Rotherham, UK. The purpose of this prototype was to evaluate the buildability of certain components within the building system and to identify where further testing might be required.

87

Digital prototype Physical prototype (one storey)

Figure 43 : Corus Open Building System Prototypes

Figure 44 shows a few the most important interfaces in the system: • The connection of the beam ring to the columns • The interface of the light steel floor system with the supporting beams • The connection of the light steel joists to the encasing channel of the the light steel floor used in the

modular part of the system

Figure 44 : Interfaces at the corner of the Corus Open Building System module

Analysis and testing has been carried out on these elements for example the connection of the joist to encasing channel has been tested for pull out under various conditions. Table 35 shows the results of the tests to pull out.

88

Table 35 : Results of pull out tests on the Corus light steel joint

Test Specimen Q.A. Number Basic Description of Failure

Max Load kN

75mm Stud/ 78mm Encasing Channel (loaded to failure) 6SB20 ripping and bowing encasing channel 12.5675mm Stud/ 78mm Encasing Channel (loaded to failure) 6SB21 ripping and bowing encasing channel 13.3675mm Stud/ 78mm Encasing Channel(7.5 kN cycled load (3 x), then to failure) 6SB22 ripping and bowing encasing channel 12.7175mm Stud/ 78mm Encasing Channel(7.5 kN cycled load (3 x), then to failure) 6SB23 ripping and bowing encasing channel 14.0475mm Stud/ 78mm Encasing Channel(7.5 kN cycled load (3 x), then to failure) 6SB24 ripping and bowing encasing channel 13.80single 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel (loaded to failure) 6SB25 ripping and bowing encasing channel 19.64single 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel (loaded to failure) 6SB26

ripping and bowing encasing channel(mainly at 1 side) 18.46

single 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel (loaded to failure) 6SB27


single 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel (10 kN cycled loaded (3 x), then to failure) 6SB28


single 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel (10 kN cycled loaded (3 x), then to failure) 6SB29 ripping and bowing encasing channel 19.80double 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel (loaded to failure) 6SB30


double 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel (loaded to failure) 6SB31 Grip slipage re-test as 6SB31A 29.81double 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel (loaded to failure) 6SB31A ripping and bowing encasing channel 33.62double 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel (20 kN cycled loaded (3 x), then to failure) 6SB32


double 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel (20 kN cycled loaded (3 x), then to failure) 6SB33 ripping and bowing encasing channel 33.60double 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel (20 kN cycled loaded (3 x), then to failure) 6SB34


One of the products of the development work was a new connection of two light steel components simi-lar to that used in Figure 44. This can be used for the connection of any two light steel elements such as the floor joist to encasing channel shown above or for studs to encasing channels in walls. The joint in each case requires different configurations and several of these have been prototyped and tested. A pat-ent for the joint has been applied for. One of the design aspects for the building system is how the stability of the building may be achieved. The joint between the beam ring and the column shown in Table 35 is semi-rigid and gives some con-tribution to the overall stability of the system. Another aspect are the infill wall panels; if they can be attached to the surrounding frame in an acceptable way, then they too potentially provide some contri-bution to the stability system of the building. Testing of the racking ability of light steel walls has been carried out before but usually on walls with steel frameworks that in themselves have some resistance to racking. With the Corus Open Building System the infill wall panels have no internal bracing; therefore it was necessary to establish the racking characteristics of a wall panel where the steel framework has no resistance to racking. Table 36 shows the results of racking tests on such a wall panel using several different coverings.

89

Table 36 : Wall panel racking tests for Corus Open Building System

Test Make-up Load at 4.8mm deflection

kN

Residual def

mm

Failure Load

kN

1 Frame only 0.03 3.14

2 One side boarded with 12.5mm fireline plasterboard

3.01 1.49 3.7

3 Both sides boarded with 12.5mm fireline plasterboard

6.06 2.12 9.6

4 One side boarded with 15mm fireline plas-terboard

3.07 1.45

5 Both sides boarded with 15mm fireline plasterboard

5.79 0.80 13.8

6 One side 12.5mm fireline plasterboard, one side 12mm plywood (structural grade)

6.83 0.35 18.7

7 One side 12.5mm plasterboard, one side galvanised steel sheet

6.36 0.20 15.9

8 One side 15mm fireline plasterboard, one side 11mm oSB

7.10 0.60 14.5

Acoustic performance of completed buildings Most countries specify levels of requirements within the Building Regulations or associated guidance documents. Despite reference to EN-ISO standards, there are important differences between countries in the criteria used to describe acoustic performance, including methods of measurement and the appli-cation of different reference curves or spectrum adaptation terms. The varied acoustic criteria mean that it is difficult to compare requirements, but many of the differences are probably barely perceptible. The greatest differences are in levels of requirements for impact sound. Precompletion testing of buildings is the most demanding and expensive implementation procedure (testing equipment see Figure 45, Figure 46). In practice, noise control must rely on the use of construc-tions that are known to satisfy the requirements, but this does not guarantee as-built performance.

Figure 45 : Basic material used for airborne acoustic testing

90

Figure 46 : Basic impact sound generator

In future, EN 12354 may be adopted as a way to justify the choice of construction. Noise control is a topic that is relatively impenetrable to non-experts, and it appears that the design standards are increas-ingly the domain of specialists (see [5-1]). The Nordicon System is based on prefabricated wall elements using thermo profiles. For these wall constructions the acoustic performance were calculated and measured.

Figure 47 : Façade: Thermo Profile, no brick cover Figure 48 : Façade: Thermo Profile, brick cover

Table 37 : Acoustic performance of external walls for Open Building Systems

Nr. Structure Rw +Ctr [dB]

Window Rw +Ctr [dB]

Calculated EN 12354-3 D2m,n,w + Ctr

[dB]

Measured EN 140-5

Dn,w + Ctr [dB]

1 175 mm Termo Pro-file, no brick cover

43 40 36 38

2 200 mm Termo Pro-file, sheet metal cover

49 40 37 36

3 175 mm Termo Pro-file, 135 mm brick cover (Room 1)

56 40 39 40

4 175 mm Termo Pro-file, 135 mm brick cover (Room 2)

56 40 41 41

91

Details are given in “Research of façade airborne sound insulation with calculations and field measure-ments” [5-2]. Fire resistance of components Meshing in the FEM Software SAFIR The assessments of fire resistance are made by numerical investigations using the FEM Software SAFIR in order to calculate the evolution of the temperatures inside the components. The investigations shown below focuses on deck systems, which are one of the key components for Open Building Sys-tems. Investigation of laser welded double sandwich panel (DSP) Diamond 2004 for SAFIR

FILE: IcoreNODES: 1017ELEMENTS: 1302

SOLIDS PLOT

STEELEC3

Diamond 2004 for SAFIRFILE: IcoreNODES: 1017ELEMENTS: 1302

SOLIDS PLOTFRONTIERS PLOT

STEELEC3

F20

FISO

Figure 49 : Section I-Core for SAFIR Figure 50 : Boundary conditions

The radiation inside the cavity is taken into account for the thermal calculation. The section is exposed to a temperature following the ISO 834 curve of Eurocode 1-2 on the lower face and to a flux corre-sponding to a cold environment on the upper face. The FEM software calculates the evolution of the temperature inside the steel profile during 7200sec. The following figures show different temperature values inside the section at given time steps: Diamond 2004 for SAFIR

FILE: IcoreNODES: 1017ELEMENTS: 1302

SOLIDS PLOT

STEELEC3

Node 407

Node 478

Node 602

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 6600 7200

Time [sec]

Tem

pera

ture

[°C

]

Node 407Node 478Node 602

Time - Temperature Plot

Figure 51 : Reference points for temperature Figure 52 : Development of temperature at reference points

92

The following graphs show the evolution of the temperature at different points in the steel section. Fol-lowing an analysis of this graph, a conclusion can be directly drawn that a problem of thermal insula-tion will occur on the upper face because the average temperature of the upper face cannot be higher than 140°C. In order to solve this problem, glass fibre and Fermacell flooring element shall be added onto the upper face. It will be studied during the next period. A 2d structural model is built in SAFIR in order to assess the thermo-mechanical behaviour of the I-Core system:

D

ispl

acem

ent[m

]-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

-0.0

0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800

Time [sec]

Node 18

Time - Displacements Plot

Figure 53 : Statical system Figure 54 : Development of displacement

Investigation of Quantum Floor Meshing in the FEM Software SAFIR A numerical thermal model is built in the FEM Software SAFIR in order to calculate the evolution of the temperature inside the steel slab.

Diamond 2004 for SAFIRFILE: QuantumC1NODES: 912ELEMENTS: 1466

SOLIDS PLOT

STEELEC3STEELEC2SILCONCEC2

Diamond 2004 for SAFIRFILE: QuantumC1NODES: 912ELEMENTS: 1466



FISO

F20

Figure 55 : FEM-model Figure 56 : FEM-model, boundary conditions

This section is exposed to a temperature following the ISO 834 curve of Eurocode 1-2 on the lower face and to a flux corresponding to a cold environment on the upper face. The FEM software calculates the evolution of the temperature inside the steel profile during 7200sec. The following graphs show the evolution of the temperature at different points in the section:

93

Diamond 2004 for SAFIRFILE: QuantumC1NODES: 912ELEMENTS: 1466SOLIDS PLOT


Node 311

Node 328

Node 7170

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 6600 7200Time [sec]


Time - Temperature Plot

Tem

pera

ture

[°C

]


Following an analysis of this graph, a conclusion can be directly drawn that a problem of thermal insu-lation will occur on the upper face because the average temperature of the upper face cannot be higher than 140°C. To solve this problem, different systems can be used and will be presented later. A 2d structural model is built in SAFIR in order to assess the thermo-mechanical behaviour of the Quantum system:

Diamond 2004 for SAFIRFILE: Icore_struct_3,1NODES: 71BEAMS: 35TRUSSES: 0SHELLS: 0SOILS: 0BEAMS PLOTIMPOSED DOF PLOT

Beam Element6m span

-1. 4

-1. 2

-1. 0

-0. 8

-0. 6

-0. 4

-0. 2

-0. 0

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000

Time [ sec]

Node 21


Dis

plac

emen

t [m

]


Time [sec]


The first simulation takes into account the load combination in case of fire (3.25kN/m2). The following figure shows the deflection in function of the time at mid span of the slab system: Second Meshing in the FEM Software SAFIR A new numerical thermal model is build in the FEM Software SAFIR in order to calculate the evolu-tion of the temperatures inside the steel slab by taking into account a gypsum board fixed at the lower part of the slab. This section is exposed to a temperature following the ISO 834 curve of Eurocode 1-2 on the lower face and to a flux corresponding to a cold environment on the upper face.

94

Diamond 2004 for SAFIRFILE: Qua_gips_void_oliNODES: 2277ELEMENTS: 3679

SOLIDS PLOT

STEELEC3STEELEC2SILCONCEC2INSULATION

Diamond 2004 for SAFIRFILE: Qua_gips_void_oliNODES: 2277ELEMENTS: 3679



F20

FISO

Figure 61 : FEM-model Figure 62 : Boundary conditions

The FEM software calculates the evolution of the temperature inside the steel profile during 7200sec by taking into account the radiation inside the internal cavity. The following graphs show the evolution of the temperature at different points in the section: Diamond 2004 for SAFIR

FILE: Qua_gips_void_oliNODES: 2277ELEMENTS: 3679

SOLIDS PLOT


Node 1006

Node 1091

Node 1366

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 6600 7200

Time [sec]


Time - Temperature PlotTe

mpe

ratu

re [°

C]


Analysing this graph, we can directly conclude that the thermal insulation will not be a problem. More-over, we can also add insulation between the gypsum board and the concrete. A 2d structural model is built in SAFIR in order to assess the thermo-mechanical behaviour of the Quantum system. The first simulation takes into account the load combination in case of fire (3.25kN/m2). The following figure shows the deflection in function of the time at mid span of the slab system:

95

Diamond 2004 for SAFIRFILE: Icore_struct_3,1NODES: 71BEAMS: 35TRUSSES: 0SHELLS: 0SOILS: 0BEAMS PLOTIMPOSED DOF PLOT

Beam Element6m span

-0.09

-0.08

-0.07

-0.06

-0.05

-0.04

-0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0.00

0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 6600 7200

Time [sec]

Node 20


Dis

plac

emen

t[m]


This calculation takes into account a simply supported beam and the horizontal displacements are com-patible with the support system. But local instabilities in the web of the C sections are not taken into account. In order to assess the fire resistance in real practice, a 3D SHELL model must be built in the software SAFIR. Thermal performance of facades and roofs Airtightness Testing General Clients and building users demand energy efficient buildings, and governments have introduced strict regulations to minimise the energy demand in buildings. In consequence buildings become more highly insulated, thus the effect of air leakage through the envelope on energy consumption becomes relatively more important. New regulations all over Europe demand therefore air tight buildings. Following advantages of air tight structures are well established: • Avoidance of unnecessary space heating and cooling demand • Improved sound insulation • Improved thermal protection in summer • Improved comfort quality through avoidance of draught and uncontrolled intake of dry air (winter)

and bad smell • Protection against pollution • Enabling the effective performance of ventilation systems • Prevention of moisture and corrosion Steel structures are well qualified to perform air-tight envelopes through the combination of prefabri-cated components. It is important to consider, that the steel cladding system is only one of the parts of the building envelope that may contribute to the leakage. Junctions and openings such as doors, win-dows, rooflights and penetrations may contribute significantly to the leakage. That means architects and engineers must pay attention at junctions to realise air tight buildings and need performance data of several steel systems. At the moment few measured data regarding the airtightness of joints and whole buildings are available to compare them to the requirements. Joint leakage - Testing in laboratory Physical testing of several joints between composite panels was performed at the testing facility of RWTH Aachen. Figure 67 shows the air-tightness test rig of RWTH Aachen and Figure 68, Figure 69 the joint of sandwich elements. This equipment is used to measure the so called “a-value” (how much air flows through 1 m joint at a given pressure difference).

96

Figure 67 : Air-tightness Test Rig of RWTH

Figure 68 : Joint with sealing tape Figure 69 : Joint without sealing tape

The main result of the laboratory test is, that the air-tightness of the joints is extremely differing de-pending on the type of the sandwich element, the width of the joint and the properties of the sealing band.

97

Measurement air leakage

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

10 100 1000pressure difference [ Pa ]

air l

eaka

ge [

m³/(

h*m

) ]

requirements 6mm Fugetest specimen Figure 70 : Result Air-tightness Test, test specimen: Sandwich panel

A similar characteristic is expected for other prefabricated elements. These results show, that on one hand, air-tight constructions are possible, but on the other hand a good design and a proper realisation is needed to achieve sufficient results. On-site testing – whole building The building envelope of the Modular Research Building was build by using 4 different types (produc-ers) of sandwich elements for the facades and 1 type (producer) for the roof. Figure 5 shows the joint of one type (east façade) with sealing tape and Figure 6 shows the joint of the south façade without sealing tape. For this building air leakage tests were performed. Air pressurisation/depressurisation testing must be undertaken in accordance to EN 13829:2001 - Thermal performance of buildings – Determination of air permeability of buildings – Fan pressurization method. The document specifies the use of mechanical pressurization of a building. It describes techniques for measuring the resulting air flow rates at given indoor-outdoor static pressure differences. From the rela-tionship between the air flow and pressure difference, the air leakage characteristics of a building enve-lope can be evaluated. Figure 71 and Figure 72 show the test equipment for whole building air leakage tests in the Modular Research Building at RWTH Aachen.

98

Figure 71 : Depressurisation Test Figure 72 : Pressurisation Test

The following values are described in EN 13829:

Table 38 : Relevant quantities for air-tightness acc. EN 13829

Air flow at 50 Pa pressure difference between inside and outside ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡•

hmV

3

50

Air flow at 50 Pa pressure difference between inside and outside re-lated to the interior heated volume of a building ⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎣⎡=

•

hVV

n 15050

Air flow at 50 Pa pressure difference between inside and outside re-lated to the net space area (all levels) of a building ⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⋅

=

•

2

350

50 mhm

AVw

F

Air flow at 50 Pa pressure difference between inside and outside re-lated to the interior envelope surface area of a building ⎥

⎦

⎤⎢⎣

⎡⋅

=

•

2

350

50 mhm

AVq

E

Figure 73 shows the test results of one pressurization test of the Modular Research Building in Steel according to EN 13829. The result is described as test curve showing the air flow at different pressure differences between inside and outside. Using this curve the air flow at 50 Pa pressure difference can be evaluated.

99

Air flow[ m³/h ]

Pressure difference [ Pa ] Figure 73 : Air flow at different pressure differences – Test curve of Modular Research Building

By using the following data of the Modular Research Building Interior Volume: V = 332 m³ Interior Envelope Surface Area: A = 289 m² Net space area (both levels): AG = 108 m² the values n50, w50 and q50 according to EN 13829 can be calculated. Table 39 shows all requirements according to EN 13829 and two measurements of the whole building air-tightness of the modular re-search building.

Table 39 : Requirements and test results of whole building air-tightness

Requirements acc. to EN 13829

Measurement 30.05.06

Measurement 12.06.06

n50 [1/h] 3,0 1,21 1,31

w50 [m³(h·m²) 7,8 3,73 4,05

q50 [m³(h·m²) 3,0 1,39 1,51

Beneath the estimation of the air-tightness of the whole building the “Blower Door” is also useful to identify local weak points. For this objective a fogger or infrared camera have to be used additionally. These investigations were performed for the modular research building.

100

Thermal performance and thermal bridges Improvement of the energy performance of buildings is of growing importance. Because of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) and new national requirements in several European coun-tries the thermal protection of the building envelope with steel elements must be improved to be more competitive. Main objective in this process in optimisation of building envelopes regarding transmission heat losses by intelligent solutions including not only increasing the thickness of thermal insulation for saving heat-ing energy but in particular reducing thermal bridges and thermal irregularities. Joints of composite panels – numerical investigations For example joints between composite panels lead to higher transmission heat losses through plane elements. Table 40 shows the factor, to be multiplied with the U-value calculated without thermal ir-regularities, for additional heat losses through two kinds of joints of sandwich panels. These factors are evaluated by numerical FEM-calculations of heat fluxes in the area of joints between sandwich panels.

Table 40 : Factor for additional heat losses over joints of composite panels

Composite panel Joint Type A Joint Type B

Thickness [ mm ]

60 1,04 1,16

80 1,04 1 ,10

120 1,03 1,06

160 1,03 1,05

Junctions of façade – numerical investigations To compare numerical investigations with infrared surveys, several details of the Modular Research Building will be investigated. Figure 74 show one corner of the building assembled with composite panels. Figure 75 show the temperature distribution as result of two- and three-dimensional FEM-calculations.

101

Figure 74 : Corner Figure 75 : Temperature distribution - 2D- and 3D-Modelling

Infrared surveys During winter infrared surveys of the of the modular research building were carried out.

Figure 76 : Use of the Infrared Camera at

the Modular Research Building in Steel Figure 77 : Infrared Survey of the Modular Research

Building in Steel

Cold bridging through edge beams A thermal analysis of the local heat loss at the horizontal line of the edge beam has been performed, which adds to the general heat loss through the façade. These design cases are considered for the brick-work support by three different solutions:

1. ASB edge beam in Slimdek 2. I-section edge beam supporting a composite slab 3. PFC edge beam supporting Quantum floor

The first case is considered to be the ‘conventional’ case in modern design, and so the results for Quan-tum floor should be compared to this case. ASB edge beams supporting a deep composite slab are closely analogous to the PFC edge beam case. For the thermal analysis, the brickwork support angles are located at either 600 or 900 mm centres along the beam.

102

Thermal Analysis of ASB Edge Beam Supporting Slimdek In this analysis an ASB edge beam was used, as illustrated in Figure 78. Two cases were analysed with or without mineral wool between the flanges of the ASB. Stainless steel brackets were attached at 400 mm or 1 metre centres in this case, and so the results for 600 or 900 mm centres can be interpo-lated. The same thermal parameters as for the previous cases were studied.

30≥ A142 mesh

20 mm bolt hole

Mineralwool infill

End diaphragmASB cut away by 55 mm (if necessary)

L-bar (10 mm) at 300 mm centres

Figure 78 : ASB edge beam supporting Slimdek

Table 41 : Results of thermal analyses of ASB supporting Slimdek

Case Mineral wool Linear bridging Ψ Min surface temp ºC FRSi

Brick supports at 400 mm cs

Between flanges 0.246 18 0.90


None between flanges 0.260 18 0.90

Brick supports at 1 m centres

Between flanges 0.126 18.5 0.927

Equivalent U values for a 3.6 m high wall are increased by an additional U value of 0.06 W/m2ºC for stainless steel supports at 400 mm centres, which is lower than that for a PFC edge beam. Thermal Analysis of I Beam Supporting Composite Slab The attachment of brickwork to an edge beam in composite construction is considered to represent con-ventional construction practice, and this case was analysed first. The details of this construction are presented in Figure 79 in terms of the thermal model.

103

50.000

50.000

14.700

14.700

1.500

0.770

0.402

0.207

0.207

0.160

0.160

0.057

0.026

0.026

[W/mK]

Figure 79 : Model configuration and materials used for I beam

In addition, the surface resistance of the cavities was calculated from R = 0.13 m2K/W at 0ºC and 0.04 m2K/W at 20ºC. The analysis for linear thermal bridging was compared to the case without a stainless steel brickwork support angle in order to calculate the additional heat loss. Three cases were then considered: • Stainless steel angles at 600 mm spacing. Mineral wool between flanges of I beam.

• Stainless steel angles at 900 mm spacing. Mineral wool between flanges of I beam.

• Stainless steel angles at 600 mm spacing. No mineral wool between flanges of I beam.

The results are presented in Table 42 in terms of the heat loss through linear thermal bridging Ψ, the minimum surface temperature on the wall (relative to a room temperature of 20ºC) and fRSi which de-fines the temperature variation over the surface, given by:

fsi = extint

extmin

θθθθ

−−

where minθ is the minimum internal temperature extθ is the external temperature (0ºC in this analysis) intθ is the internal temperature (20ºC in this analysis)

A maximum temperature variation of 3ºC is considered acceptable to avoid ‘ghosting’ on the surface.

104

Table 42 : Results of thermal analyses of I beam supporting brickwork







None between flanges 0.348 17.6 0.884

The linear thermal bridge occurs at each floor at approximately 3.6 m vertical spacing. Dividing the Ψ value by 3.6 m shows that the average heat loss through thermal bridging is equivalent to an additional U value of 0.09 W/m2ºC in comparison to the basic U value of 0.22 W/m2ºC for the brickwork façade with its light steel infill walls. Therefore linear thermal bridging represents 40% additional heat loss for brickwork supports at 600 mm centres and approximately 30% for brickwork supports at 900 mm cen-tres. The internal and external temperature distributions are illustrated in Figure 80 and Figure 81 for support angles at 600 mm spacing.

Figure 80 : Internal temperature distribution in the region of the brickwork support angle – I beam sup-

porting composite slab

Figure 81 : External temperature distribution in the region of the brickwork support angle – I beam sup-

porting composite slab

Thermal Analysis of PFC Beam Supporting Quantum Floor In the proposed Open Building System using Quantum floor, the PFC edge beam may represent a linear cold bridge at the façade, depending on the location of the insulation and type of cladding used. Figure 82 shows a typical detail of attachment of brickwork to the PFC using a stainless steel angle attached at approximately 0.9 m centres. A basic U value of 0.22 W/m2ºC of the light steel wall is achieved by 100 mm of inter-stud insulation within the light steel infill walls and by 50 mm of closed cell insulation board in the brickwork cavity.

105

100

70

200 x 100 x 10 L

2x12.5

2x12.510

180

380 x 100x 54 kg/m PFC

102 4050

Inter-stud mineral wool insulation

200 mm x 10 mm thickplate welded to PFC at 600 mm centres

Quantum floor

2 x 12.5 mm plasterboard

Strainless steelbrick support system

Brickwork

20 gap

Closed cell insulation board

Figure 82 : Detail of PFC edge beam and brick support system in Quantum floor

The details of the thermal model for this configuration are presented in Figure 83, based on the cross-section in Figure 82.

52.000

52.000

52.000

14.700

1.553

1.552

1.500

0.770

0.204

0.179

0.160

0.065

0.038

0.037

0.025

0.025

[W/mK]

Figure 83 : Model configuration and materials used for PFC edge beam

As previously, brickwork support angles are located at 600 or 900 mm spacing along the PFC edge beam. The analysis for linear thermal bridging was compared to the case without a stainless steel brickwork support angle in order to calculate the additional heat loss. The results are presented in Table 43 in terms of the heat loss through linear thermal bridging Ψ, the minimum surface temperature on the wall (relative to a room temperature of 20ºC) and fsi (see earlier definition).

106

Table 43 : Results of thermal analyses of PFC supporting Quantum floor







None between flanges 0.343 17.1 0.859

Equivalent U values for a 3.6 m high wall and increased by an additional U value of 0.09 W/m2ºC, which is similar to the case of an I section edge beam supporting a composite slab (see earlier). Increas-ing the spacing of the brick support angles by 50% decreases the linear thermal bridging by 19%. The influence of mineral wool between the flanges of the PFC is negligible. The temperature factor FRSi is within the limit of 0.5 for offices and 0.75 for residential buildings. In-ternal and external temperatures are illustrated in Figure 84 and Figure 85.

Figure 84 : Inside temperature distribution in the

region of the brickwork support angles – PFC edge beam supporting Quantum floor

Figure 85 : External temperature distribution in the region of the brickwork support angles – PFC edge

beam supporting Quantum floor

Thermal performance of deck system Beneath the building shell also the thermal inertia influences the internal climate and the energy de-mand of a building, in particular for cooling. A detailed analysis of prefabricated deck systems in or with steel (including thermo-active systems) was presented in the EEBIS project. The laser-welded steel sandwich panels offers the opportunity to implement a piping system and / or PCM as additional thermal capacity. A main challenge for this and other deck systems discussed for the OBS is the to combine the contrarious demands of acoustics, fire safety and thermal inertia for prefabri-cated and light weight elements.

107

5.2.5 Interface attachments The performance of prefabricated systems is concerning various criteria a question of the interfaces. The stability, thermal performance, airtightness and (partly) acoustic is mainly influenced by the solu-tions for the interfaces. Details to these aspects are described above. Aspect of the design of interfaces were presented in principle in WP1 and WP2 and the corresponding background documents, therefore no additional information are presented in this section.

108

WP 6: Design ‘Tools’ and Design Guide

WP 6.1: Design Guide A Design Guide for pre-fabricated “Open Building Systems” in steel was extracted. The main princi-ples, technical solutions and exemplary ground plans for Open Building are shown. This guideline is edited as a stand-alone document (see Appendix 2) and could be used by architects, engineers and building owners mainly in the early phases of the design process, when the general decisions regarding structure and floor plan have to be made.

WP 6.2: Design Tools Design ‘tools’ for open building systems depend on the construction technologies that are used. For steel constructional systems, a high level of design information exists, which assists in the design proc-ess. Many specialist systems use supporting physical test information in order to develop specialist de-sign software for general applications. Structural design may be based on the requirements of the rele-vant parts of Eurocodes 3 and 4 for steel and composite construction. In the INPREST project, it has not been possible to develop these design ‘tools’, but simplified load tables can be prepared for the various components, such as the primary steel frame, and load bearing or infill walls in light steel framing. An example of the simplified design tools for light steel walls is pre-sented in the following section. Other examples of the design tools that are available were presented in WP3. Example of simple design tools Load bearing light steel walls The compression resistance of light steel walls using C sections is dependent on their buckling resis-tance as modified for the eccentricity of load application and the stabilising effect of boards attached to them. For most C sections, it is major axis buckling which controls, when a mid-height restraint is manufactured within the wall or when restrained by plasterboards in the minor axis direction. Data for the compression resistance of single C section studs are presented in Table 1. Where loads are applied at an eccentricity (e.g. floors are supported on a Z section on the wall studs), a reduction factor should be made to account for combined moment, and compression. In this case, the compression resistance is modified as shown also in Table 44, taking into account an eccentricity of half the section depth in the major axis direction.

109

Table 44 : Example of compression resistance of load bearing walls using C sections

Effective height of wall

Moment capac-ity Mcx

Load capacity - no buckling

Pcs

Load capacity - buckling

Pc

Load capacity - buckling and eccentricity

P'c,red

Wall stud C section (Depth x Width x

Thickness)

(m) (kNm) (kN) (kN) (kN)

70 x 45 x 1.2 2.50 32.3 18.2

70 x 45 x 1.2 2.75 1.38 57.9 27.5 16.5

70 x 45 x 1.2 3.00 23.6 15.0

100 x 45 x 1.2 2.50 32.7 19.2

100 x 45 x 1.2 2.75 2.27 58.9 30.0 18.5

100 x 45 x 1.2 3.00 26.8 16.8

100 x 45 x 1.6 2.50 53.2 28.9

100 x 45 x 1.6 2.75 3.13 88.8 47.5 27.0

100 x 45 x 1.6 3.00 40.0 24.4

(Note: Modified buckling resistances in Table 44 includes the effect of eccentricity of the load applica-tion acting at the face of the C section) Infill walls subject to wind loading Infill walls are non-load bearing external walls that are designed for wind resistance and to support the weight of the cladding. Brickwork is generally ground supported, or located on stainless steel angles attached to the primary frame. Wind pressures are determined according to basic wind speed and the building location, height and orientation. South or west facing panels at the corners of the buildings are the most critical for design. Data for external walls may be presented as a function of the design wind pressure and the deflection limit for the type of cladding , as follows: • brickwork (deflection limit of height/500) • lightweight cladding (deflection limit of height/360) Typical data for various C sections are presented in Table 45.The top of the wall panel is restrained by a bracket attached at not more than 600 mm centres, which allows for relative vertical movement of up to 10 mm.

110

Table 45 : Design tables for infill (non load bearing walls) supporting brickwork

(a) Maximum height (m) of wall using 150 × 1.6 C wall studs

Wind pressure (kN/m2) Stud Spacing (mm)

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

600 4.6 4.2 3.9 3.6

400 5.2 4.7 4.4 4.1

300 5.7 5.2 4.9 4.6

* Height based on deflection limit of height/500

(b) Maximum height (m) of wall using 100 × 1.6 C wall studs


0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

600 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.6

400 3.8 3.4 3.1 2.9

300 4.2 3.8 3.5 3.2

(c) Maximum height (m) of wall using 100 × 1.2 C wall studs


0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

600 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.3

400 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.6

300 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.7

111

Exploitation and impact of the research results The project has investigated pre-fabricated solutions in steel to create “Open Building Systems”, which offer high flexibility concerning the use of the building and also concerning the elements and the pro-viders. In the design guide a concise compilation of the general concept and of various technical solutions for “Open building systems” in steel is given, that is helpful for architects and engineers to realise their own project using existing systems. Furthermore, results of this project are fed in the FP6 – Project “Manubuild” (2005 – 2009). As a practical exploitation of the project, CORUS achieved a patent on an invention, that was devel-oped as a result of this project. The solution is called “DippleClick” joint. The development and errection of the “Modular Research Building” (RWTH Aachen) got scientific support by the INPREST project, this building is now relevant for further research in the field of modu-lar light weight construction in steel (e.g. RFCS-project ETHICS, since 2008).

113

List of figures and tables List of figures

Figure 1 : Overview of Open Building Systems (part 1) 16 Figure 2 : Overview of Open Building Systems (part 2) 17 Figure 3 : Overview of integrated steel options (part 1) 18 Figure 4 : Overview of integrated steel options (part 2) 19 Figure 5 : Venn diagram showing the components of a system and their interactions 28 Figure 6 : Floor options available in the PRISM system 32 Figure 7 : PRISM in construction 33 Figure 8 : Interface example from PRISM 33 Figure 9 : The Nordicon exterior wall element 35 Figure 10 : The double layer floor system as used in the Nordicon system 36 Figure 11 : Nordicon exterior wall element dimensioning curve 37 Figure 12 : Fitting a narrowed non-bearing Nordicon element on a hollow-core surface 37 Figure 13 : Details of the Quantum floor System from the Corus Open Building System 40 Figure 14 : Corus Open Building System corner supported module 40 Figure 15 : Corus Open Building System initial beam sizing chart example 41 Figure 16 : Corus Open Building System floor sizing tables 41 Figure 17 : Residential building with apartments around a stair/lift core – shallow plan form 42 Figure 18 : Residential building with apartments either side of a central corridor – deep plan form 42 Figure 19 : Layout for 1D/2D/3D variation of the Corus Open Building System 43 Figure 20 : Interface at the module to module to panelised area in the Corus Open Building System 43 Figure 21 : RWTH Aachen research facility – schematic of steel frame 46 Figure 22 : Finished I-core panel 46 Figure 23 : Modular stairs, dimensions of module (left), use of “false landing” of intermediate module(right) 48 Figure 24 : Lift module, dimensions of module (left), structure of light lift module (right) 48 Figure 25 : Assembling of Components 49 Figure 26 : Measurement system 50 Figure 27 : Variation of size and floor plan 50 Figure 28 : General data exchange classification 51 Figure 29 : Model data in building process (ProIT ©) 53 Figure 30 : Data exchange based on independent solutions 53 Figure 31 : Data exchange based international (IFC) standard 54 Figure 32 : Data exchange using model server technique 54 Figure 33 : Steps in light steel design and detailing process in UK 56 Figure 34 : GDL object user interface 58 Figure 35 : GDL object 3D ‘bird eye’ view 58 Figure 36 : Software integration environment used in pilot 59 Figure 37 : Used XML description file content in XML file editor 60 Figure 38 : Final Nordicon light weight wall element product model 61 Figure 39 : Structural hollow section spliced connection 61 Figure 40 : BIM to production (CAM) data flow 63 Figure 41 : Primary and secondary components and the interrelations of design decisions 66 Figure 42 : Fixed’ and ‘variable’ factors in opportunities for customisation 67 Figure 43 : Corus Open Building System Prototypes 87 Figure 44 : Interfaces at the corner of the Corus Open Building System module 87 Figure 45 : Basic material used for airborne acoustic testing 89 Figure 46 : Basic impact sound generator 90

114

Figure 47 : Façade: Thermo Profile, no brick cover 90 Figure 48 : Façade: Thermo Profile, brick cover 90 Figure 49 : Section I-Core for SAFIR 91 Figure 50 : Boundary conditions 91 Figure 51 : Development of temperature at reference points 91 Figure 52 : Development of temperature at reference points 91 Figure 53 : Statical system 92 Figure 54 : Development of displacement 92 Figure 55 : FEM-model 92 Figure 56 : FEM-model, boundary conditions 92 Figure 57 : Reference points for temperature 93 Figure 58 : Development of temperature at reference points 93 Figure 59 : Statical system 93 Figure 60 : Development of displacement 93 Figure 61 : FEM-model 94 Figure 62 : Boundary conditions 94 Figure 63 : Reference points for temperature 94 Figure 64 : Development of temperature at reference points 94 Figure 65 : Statical system 95 Figure 66 : Development of displacement 95 Figure 67 : Air-tightness Test Rig of RWTH 96 Figure 68 : Joint wiht sealing tape 96 Figure 69 : Joint without sealing tape 96 Figure 70 : Result Air-tightness Test, test specimen: Sandwich panel 97 Figure 71 : Depressurisation Test 98 Figure 72 : Pressurisation Test 98 Figure 73 : Air flow at different pressure differences – Test curve of Modular Research Building 99 Figure 74 : Corner 101 Figure 75 : Temperature distribution - 2D- and 3D-Modelling 101 Figure 76 : Use of the Infrared Camera at the Modular Research Building in Steel 101 Figure 77 : Infrared Survey of the Modular Research Building in Steel 101 Figure 78 : ASB edge beam supporting Slimdek 102 Figure 79 : Model configuration and materials used for I beam 103 Figure 80 : Internal temperature distribution in the region of the brickwork support angle – I beam supporting composite slab 104 Figure 81 : External temperature distribution in the region of the brickwork support angle – I beam supporting composite slab 104 Figure 82 : Detail of PFC edge beam and brick support system in Quantum floor 105 Figure 83 : Model configuration and materials used for PFC edge beam 105 Figure 84 : Inside temperature distribution in the region of the brickwork support angles – PFC edge beam supporting Quantum floor 106 Figure 85 : External temperature distribution in the region of the brickwork support angles – PFC edge beam supporting Quantum floor 106

115

List of tables

Table 1 : Façade options OBS 20 Table 2 : Application of open building technologies in various building types 22 Table 3 : Questionnaire – part 1 22 Table 4 : Questionnaire – part 2 23 Table 5 : Questionnaire – part 3 23 Table 6 : Questionnaire – part 4 24 Table 7 : Relevant dimensions – residential buildings 24 Table 8 : Relevant dimensions – office buildings 25 Table 9 : Protocol for Open Building Systems 25 Table 10 : Definition of elements of a building system 28 Table 11 : Combinations of components to create systems 29 Table 12 : Main components of the PRISM system and tools available 31 Table 13 : Example of Column design tables from the PRISM system 33 Table 14 : PRISM – fit with essential requirements of open building systems protocol 34 Table 15 : Nordicon – fit with essential requirements of open building systems protocol 38 Table 16 : The Corus Open Building System kit of parts 39 Table 17 : List of interfaces identified for the Corus Open Building System 44 Table 18 : Corus Open Building System – fit with essential requirements of open building systems protocol 45 Table 19 : RWTH Aachen research facility – fit with essential requirements of open building systems protocol 47 Table 20 : Status of electronic data transfer in manufacture of light steel framing and modular units 57 Table 21 : Design ‘tools’ for Open Building Systems 62 Table 22 : 6 level building, urban collective housing, 3PM system (Main beams) 64 Table 23 : Specific data main beams (e1: minimum thickness where local plate buckling is taken into account, according to CM66 [3-2]) 65 Table 24 : Overall design parameters 68 Table 25 : Overall design parameters Example of customisation - external walls 69 Table 26 : Example of customisation - separating walls 70 Table 27 : Summary of Sustainable system of Assessment for Building 73 Table 28 : Global view of final draft of Sustainable Table for Assessment (environmental issues) 76 Table 29 : Summary of opportunities for steel construction 77 Table 30 : Value benefits of open building systems 78 Table 31 : Assessment of previous case studies with INPREST Table (presented in Table 28) 81 Table 32 : Building Certification (Ref.: Extract from Sustainability Guideline, Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing, Germany [4-1]) 82 Table 33 : Building Certification (Ref.:IISBE, Canada [4-2]) 83 Table 34 : Performance criteria affected by Open Building approach 85 Table 35 : Results of pull out tests on the Corus light steel joint 88 Table 36 : Wall panel racking tests for Corus Open Building System 89 Table 37 : Acoustic performance of external walls for Open Building Systems 90 Table 38 : Relevant quantities for air-tightness acc. EN 13829 98 Table 39 : Requirements and test results of whole building air-tightness 99 Table 40 : Factor for additional heat losses over joints of composite panels 100 Table 41 : Results of thermal analyses of ASB supporting Slimdek 102 Table 42 : Results of thermal analyses of I beam supporting brickwork 104 Table 43 : Results of thermal analyses of PFC supporting Quantum floor 106 Table 44 : Example of compression resistance of load bearing walls using C sections 109 Table 45 : Design tables for infill (non load bearing walls) supporting brickwork 110

117

List of references [1-1] Kendall, S., Teicher, J., Residential Open Building, E & FN Spon, 2000 [1-2] European Commission - Technical Steel Research, Euro-Build in steel - Evaluation

of client demand, sustainability and future regulations on the next generation of building design in steel, Final report EUR 22959 EN, Luxemburg, 2007

[2-1] www.pluskoti.com [3-1] Eurostep, SABLE (Simple Access to the Building Lifecycle Exchange), Research

Project, , Finland, 2003 - 2005 [3-2] CTICM, Regles CM 66 et additif 80, Eyrolles, Paris, 2005 [4-1] Federal Office for Building and Regional Planing, Guideline for Sustainable Build-

ing, Berlin, 2001 [4-2] IISBE (International Initiative for Sustainable Built Environment),

http://greenbuilding.ca/iisbe/start/iisbe.htm [5-1] Visscher, H., Meijer, F., Building regulation for housing quality in Europe, Confer-

cence: ”Housing in an expanding Europe: Theory, policy, participation and imple-mentation", Ljubljana, 2006

[5-2] Promethor, Research of façade airborne sound insulation with calculations and field measurements (research report, not published), Turku, 2006

119

Appendices

Appendix 1: List of documents distributed in the frame of INPREST (full documents are provide on CD “INPREST background-documents”)

InX Date of

distribu-tion

Title, partner, date

In001 25.10.04 “Case Studies on Innovative Construction Technologies in the Residen-tial Sector”, hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the Kick-Off-Meeting in Aachen, 25./26.10.2004

In002 25.10.04 “Open Building Systems in the Netherlands”, hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the Kick-Off-Meeting in Aachen, 25./26.10.2004

In003 25.10.04 RWTH presentation, Agenda 1st Meeting, Administrative matters, 25/10/04

In004 25.10.04 RWTH presentation, Review of technical annex, Future works, 25/10/04In005 25.10.04 CORUS presentation, 25/10/04 In006 25.10.04 RUUKKI presentation, 1st part, 25/10/04 In007 25.10.04 RUUKKI presentation, 2nd part, 25/10/04 In008 25.10.04 CTICM presentation, 25/10/04 In009 25.10.04 RWTH presentation, 25/10/04 In010 25.10.04 SCI presentation, 1st part, 25/10/04 In011 25.10.04 SCI presentation, 2nd part, 25/10/04 In012 25.10.04 SCI presentation, 3rd part, 25/10/04 In013 22.12.04 Minutes 1st Meeting, RWTH, 22.12.04 In014 09.11.04 “What is residential open building?”, Frits Scheublin, 09.11.04 In015 16.02.05 "Database of buildings pre-fabricated buildings - Case examples from

UK", hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005

In016 16.02.05 "Sustainability criteria", hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005

In017 16.02.05 "Light steel framing and modular suppliers", hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005

In018 16.02.05 ECSC-project "Steel in residential buildings for adaptable and sustain-able construction": "New way of building for urban residential pro-jects", hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005

In019 16.02.05 "Structural options for medium to high-rise buildings using 'mixed' tech-nologies”, hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 2nd Meet-ing in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005

In020 16.02.05 "Existing solutions of Open Building in the Netherlands - Smart House", hard copy distributed by Frits Scheublin, CIB, on the 2nd Meet-ing in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005

In021 16.02.05 "Existing solutions of Open Building in the Netherlands - The 7 Heav-ens", hard copy distributed by Frits Scheublin, CIB, on the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005

In022 16.02.05 "The INO Hospital Bern Switzerland", CD, distributed by Patrice Goudenou, CIB, on the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005

120

In023 16.02.05 "Open Building and Sustainable Environment", CD, Proceedings Con-ference CIB 104, Paris, September 2004, distributed by Patrice Goude-nou, CIB, on the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005

In024 16.02.05 "Market survey on Standardised Solutions for Steel in Low-Rise Build-ings within Europe", Final report, December 2003, VRC Project 0213 -Standardised Solutions for Steel in Low-rise Buildings, hard copy dis-tributed by Olivier Vassart, Arcelor, on the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005

In025 16.02.05 Example UK, distributed by Andy Stevens In026 16.02.05 "Structural Steel Contributions toward obtaining a LEEDTM rating”,

hard copy distributed by Stephane Herbin, CTICM, on the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005

In027 16.02.05 "Guideline for Sustainable Building", Federal Office for Building and Housing on behalf of Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing, Ger-many

In028 02.03.05 "Existing solutions of Open Building in the Netherlands - Space boxes", e-mail Frits Scheublin, 02.03.2005

In029 16.02.05 RWTH presentation, Agenda 2nd Meeting and Administrative Mat-ters,16/02/05

In030 16.02.05 SCI presentation, 2nd Meeting Rotterdam, 16/02/05 In031 16.02.05 Arbed presentation, 2nd Meeting Rotterdam, 16/02/05 In032 16.02.05 Corus presentation, 2nd Meeting Rotterdam,16/02/05 In033 16.02.05 Ruuki presentation, 2nd Meeting Rotterdam, 16/02/05 In034 16.02.05 Ruuki QuickPlace quick info, 16/02/05 In035 16.02.05 CTICM presentation, 2nd Meeting Rotterdam, 16/02/05 In036 16.02.05 RWTH presentation, 2nd Meeting Rotterdam, 16/02/05 In037 18.02.05 Minutes 2nd Meeting Rotterdam, 18/02/05 In038 15.06.05 “Les Cahiers D’Acier Construction”, hard copy distributed by Philippe

Beguin and Stephane Herbin, CTICM, on the 3rd Meeting in Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005

In039 15.06.05 “PRISM – Produits Industriels et Structures Manufacturées – L’acier dans le résidentiel”, hard copy distributed by Philippe Beguin and Ste-phane Herbin, CTICM, on the 3rd Meeting in Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005

In040 15.06.05 “Review of Integrated Structural Options for Open Building Systems”, distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 3rd Meeting in Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005

In041 15.06.05 “Sustainability – General Presentation of the approach for INPREST project”, hard copy distributed by Philippe Beguin and Stephane Herbin, CTICM, on the 3rd Meeting in Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005

In042 15.06.05 “Sustainability - The CRISP – European Thematic Network – Sum-mary”, hard copy distributed by Philippe Beguin and Stephane Herbin, CTICM, on the 3rd Meeting in Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005

In043 15.06.05 “Sustainability – Presentation of sustainable systems”, hard copy dis-tributed by Philippe Beguin and Stephane Herbin, CTICM, on the 3rd Meeting in Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005

In044 15.06.05 “Sustainability - The LEEDTM Rating System”, hard copy distributed by Philippe Beguin and Stephane Herbin, CTICM, on the 3rd Meeting in Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005

In045 15.06.05 “Sustainability – Sustainable Issues and targets”, hard copy distributed by Philippe Beguin and Stephane Herbin, CTICM, on the 3rd Meeting in Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005

121

In046 15.06.05 RWTH presentation, Agenda 3rd Meeting and Administrative Mat-ters,15/06/05

In047 15.06.05 CORUS 1st presentation, 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 15/06/05 In048 15.06.05 CORUS 2nd presentation, 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 15/06/05 In049 16.06.05 CTICM presentation, 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 16/06/05 In050 16.06.05 PARE presentation, 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 16/06/05 In051 16.06.05 RWTH 1st presentation, 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 16/06/05 In052 16.06.05 RWTH 2nd presentation, 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 16/06/05 In053 17.06.05 Minutes 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 17/06/05 In054a 22.06.05 “Protocol for Open Building Systems”, e-mail Marc Lawson,

22.06.2005 In054b 11.01.06 New Version “Protocol for Open Building Systems”, produced on the

4th Meeting in Ashorne Hill, 11.01.06 In055 22.06.05 “Questionaire for “Voice of the customer” in Open Building Systems”,

e-mail Marc Lawson, 22.06.2005 In056 31.03.05 “1st Six-monthly Report 01.07.04 – 31.12.04” In057 30.09.05 “2nd Six-monthly Report 01.01.05 – 30.06.05” In058 23.09.05 “Façade Systems for Residential and Mixed Use Buildings”, distributed

by Mark Lawson In059 23.09.05 “Residential Building Form – “Mixed” Residential and Commercial

Building using Slim Deck”, distributed by Mark Lawson In060 02.01.06 “Technical criteria for assessment of facades”, spread sheet distributed

by Aarne Seppanen In061 11.01.06 “Case Studies on Residential Buildings using Steel”, hard copy distrib-

uted by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 4th Meeting in Ashorne Hill, 11./12.01.2006

In062 11.01.06 “Use of Quantum Floor in Open Building System”, hard copy distrib-uted by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 4th Meeting in Ashorne Hill, 11./12.01.2006

In063 11.01.06 “Benefits of Modern Methods of Construction (MMC)”, hard copy dis-tributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 4th Meeting in Ashorne Hill, 11./12.01.2006

In064 11.01.06 “Social housing in Evreux”, distributed by Olivier Vassart In065 European light Social housing in Evreux, will be distributed by Olivier

Vassart In066 11.01.06 “Façade Systems for Collective Housing in Multi-storey Steel Building

in France”, hard copy (1st draft) distributed by St. Herbin and Ph. Be-guin, CTICM, on the 4th Meeting in Ashorne Hill, 11./12.01.2006

In067 11.01.06 “Sustainability Table for Assessment”, hard copy distributed by St. Her-bin and Ph. Beguin, CTICM, on the 4th Meeting in Ashorne Hill, 11./12.01.2006

In068 11.01.06 RWTH presentation, Agenda 4th Meeting and Administrative Mat-ters,11/01/06

In069 12.01.06 SCI presentation, 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 12/01/06 In070 12.01.06 RWTH 1st presentation, 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 12/01/06 In071 12.01.06 RWTH 2nd presentation, 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 12/01/06 In072 12.01.06 Ruukki presentation, 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 12/01/06 In073 12.01.06 CTICM presentation, 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 12/01/06 In074 12.01.06 CIB presentation, 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 12/01/06 In075 13.01.06 Minutes 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 13/01/06 In076 31.03.06 Midterm Report, March 2006

122

In077 27.06.06 “European Lightweight Steel-framed Construction”, hard copy distrib-uted by Olivier Vassart, PARE, on the 5th Meeting in Paris, 27./28.06.2006

In078 27.06.06 “Modular Construction in France”, distributed by St. Herbin and Ph. Beguin, CTICM, on the 5th Meeting in Paris, 27./28.06.2006

In079 27.06.06 “Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Sustainability”, hard copy distributed by St. Herbin and Ph. Beguin, CTICM, on the 5th Meeting in Paris, 27./28.06.2006

In080 27.06.06 “Cold bridging through Brick Support Angles at PFC edge beams in Quantum floor”, hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 5th Meeting in Paris, 27./28.06.2006

In081 27.06.06 “COREFAST as part of integrated construction system”, distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 5th Meeting in Paris, 27./28.06.2006

In082 27.06.06 RWTH presentation, Agenda 5th Meeting and Administrative Matters, 27/06/06

In083 27.06.06 Inprest Midterm TGS8 Presentation In084 27.06.06 CORUS 1st presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06 In085 27.06.06 PARE presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06 In086 27.06.06 CTICM 1st presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06 In087 27.06.06 RWTH 1st presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06 In088 27.06.06 Ruukki presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06 In089 27.06.06 CTICM 2nd presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06 In090 27.06.06 CTICM 3rd presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06 In091 28.06.06 RWTH 2nd presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 28/06/06 In092 28.06.06 CORUS 2nd presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 28/06/06 In093 28.06.06 “Sustainability Table for Assessment”, distributed by St. Herbin and Ph.

Beguin, CTICM, on the 5th Meeting in Paris, 27./28.06.2006 In094 18.09.06 Minutes 5th Meeting Paris, 18/09/06 In095 30.09.06 “Six-monthly Report 01.01.06 – 30.06.06” In096 10.01.07 “Nordicon exterior wall element – Design – Installation”, distributed by

Aarne Seppänen, Ruukki, on the 6th Meeting in Esch-sur-Alzette, 10./11.01.2007

In097 10.01.07 “Corefast as part of integrated construction system”, distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 6th Meeting in Esch-sur-Alzette, 10./11.01.2007

In098 10.01.07 “Large Pre-fabricated Façade Panels in Light Steel Framing”, distrib-uted by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 6th Meeting in Esch-sur-Alzette, 10./11.01.2007

In099 10.01.07 “Hybrid Buildings using Modular Stairs and Lifts”, hard copy distrib-uted by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 6th Meeting in Esch-sur-Alzette, 10./11.01.2007

In100 10.01.07 “Tall Residential Buildings using Corefast and Modular Construction”, hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 6th Meeting in Esch-sur-Alzette, 10./11.01.2007

In101 10.01.07 RWTH presentation, Agenda 6th Meeting and Administrative Matters, 10/01/07

In102 10.01.07 CTICM presentation, 6th Meeting Esch-sur-Alzette, 10/01/07 In103 10.01.07 Ruukki presentation, 6th Meeting Esch-sur-Alzette, 10/01/07 In104 27.03.07 Minutes 6th Meeting Paris, 27/03/07 In105 31.03.07 “Six-monthly Report 01.07.06 – 31.12.06” In106 31.03.08 Minutes 7th Meeting Ascot, 25/10/07

123

In107 31.03.08 Minutes 8th Meeting Aachen, 12/12/07 In108 31.03.08 Sustainabilty – Methods and Case Studies, CTICM

125

Appendix 2: Design Guide

INPREST: Design Guide

Design Using Pre-fabricated ‘Open’Construction Technologies

Introduction The use of highly pre-fabricated and lightweight forms of construction is increasing for residential buildings, for mixed commercial/housing projects, educational and health sector buildings, where the benefits of off-site prefabrication and improved quality in manufacture can be realised.

‘Open’ construction technologies combine a range of construction systems which achieve the benefits of flexible, adaptable and easily maintainable space through a highly pre-fabricated and rapidly assembled series of inter-changeable components. Steel technologies comprise linear, 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional components, and it is the modular or volumetric units which are highly pre-fabricated and which may be combined with linear or planar elements to create a more accessible and flexible construction system. The main sectors of application are in: • Private and social housing • Apartments and mixed use buildings • Educational sector and student residences • Key worker accommodation and sheltered housing • Public sector buildings, such as military accommodation • Health sector buildings

This Design Guide reviews the principle forms of construction using pre-fabricated steel technologies and their key design and interface issues.

House built using a modular and panel system (Openhouse , Sweden)

Modules supported by inclined tubular columns (Unite, Plymouth, UK)

KEY BENEFITS The characteristics that influence the choice of a highly pre-fabricated construction technology, are as follows:

• Economy of scale through repetitive manufacture of pre-fabricated components

• Speed of construction • Improved quality control and

reliability • Flexibility in building use • Disruption to the locality is to be

minimised during construction • Future extensions and adaptations

are envisaged later in the building’s life

• Involvement of the supply chain in the design process

Steel-intensive apartment buildings, Evreux, France (Dubosc and Landowski architects)

This Design Guide is part of RFCS project: RFCS-PR-03088

126

Bernd

Rechteck

Bernd

Textfeld

RFSR-CT-2004/00042


Design Guide – Mixed 2 Dimensional and 1 Dimensional Components

This Design Guide reviews the range of pre-fabricated steel technologies that may be used in 'open' building systems comprising the mixed use of linear (1 D), planar (2D),and modular (3D) components. The following sections present the various combinations of 1D 2D and 3D component that are possible. Mixed floor cassettes and primary structure Form of construction Floor cassettes or panels may be prefabricated and supported by a primary steel structure of various forms. Examples of this technology are:

• Rectangular Hollow Section beams supporting light steel floor panels – SMART House

• Inverted precast slab with steel beams – INFRA Plus and Kvantti floor

• Slim floor or integrated beams supporting precast concrete slabs or prefabricated composite slabs

• I beams or [ beams supporting prefabricated light steel composite floor cassette - Quantum floor

These forms of construction are described separately.

Application Residential buildings and commercial buildings requiring a primary steel frame and a prefabricated ‘dry’ construction system often incorporating services, as in INFRAPlus and Kvantti. Quantum floors may also be used as the base of a module.

Technical details – Smart House Smart House is a novel system based on the use of Rectangular Hollow Sections (RHS) as beams and Square Hollow Sections (SHS) as columns. The RHS beams support a pre-fabricated floor cassette using light steel C sections. A demonstration building using this technology is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Smart House project in Rotterdam

An innovative 'hidden' connection detail is used to attach the RHS beams to the SHS columns. The light steel wall panels use C sections with insulation between the wall studs. Any type of façade material may be used.

The beams are 200 × 100 RHS beams with a wall thickness selected depending on the beam span. The floor grid is designed for 6 m × 5.4 m and the RHS beams are designed to span up to 6 m. The beam – column connection detail is shown in Figure 2.

The columns are 100 × 100 SHS. Stability is provided by X-bracing in the form of tie rods placed in selected walls.

The 200 mm deep light steel floor joists are placed at a spacing of 400 mm and are pre-fabricated as a floor cassette, which is attached onto brackets over the RHS beams. An in-situ thin gypsum screed is placed on the floor boarding to improve the rigidity and acoustic insulation of the floor.

The non-load bearing light steel walls use 100 mm C sections that are pre-fabricated as panels with an external weather-resisting board. In the Rotterdam project, painted marine grade plywood was used, as an exterior 'rain-screen'. Walls are re-locatable and can be moved o suit the spatial use of the building.

The kitchen, bathroom and services are concentrated in a central core, which is independent of the structure and all services are passed through the floor zone.

Figure 2 Hidden connection detail of RHS beams to SHS columns

127



Technical Details – Kvantti Floor The Ruukki system uses a variety of steel components in the primary structure and cladding as follows:

• Kvantti floor consisting of an inverted floor using C or I steel sections and with an exposed concrete ceiling (Figure 3)

• Nordicon wall consisting of light steel C sections and SHS sections embedded in the insulated wall panel

• Tubular columns that may be concrete-filled for fire resistance

• Integrated floor beans (using “top hat” sections) that support the flooring elements

Nordicon panels can be finished with a variety of cladding and internal materials.

2035

250

60

Floor boardsBattens

Service zone

Insulation

Pre cast slab

(a) Kvantti floor (b) Wall panel

Kvantti floor

Figure 3 Kvantti floor and attachment to wall panels

The Kvantti floor system consist of light steel C sections or I beams of up to 300 mm depth and an inverted concrete slab of 50-70 mm depth, which provides the necessary acoustic insulation and fire resistance requirements. Spans of up to 10 m can be achieved in residential buildings.

The flooring system may be supported by fabricated “top hat” steel beams (HQ profiles) and square or circular hollow section columns. The bottom flange of the beam and the hollow sections may be fire protected by intumescent coating for up to 60 minutes fore resistance

The Nordicon panels consist of slotted thermo-profile C sections and are insulated to achieve a U value of 0.2 W/m2 0C. The wall panels are load-bearing up to 4 storeys height and can support the floor panels directly by a recess in the top of the panel. Any type of façade material may be directly attached to the wall panel and effectively acts as a “rain screen” rather than a water-tight façade.

Nordicon panels can also support the Kvantti floor by use of a heavy Z section placed over the wall panel, as illustrated above. It has been used in a recent major housing project called Plus Home in Helsinki, shown in Figure 4.Services are integrated in the structure, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 4 View of 6 storey buildings at Arabianranta project,

Helsinki

Figure 5 Inverted beams showing integration of services and support by prefabricated walls

128



Technical Details – INFRA PLUS

INFRA+ is a prefabricated flooring system based on pairs of I beams at 1.2 m spacing, in which a concrete slab is pre-cast around the bottom flanges of the beams. The slab cantilevers 0.6 m and so the coverage of the inverted slab is 2.4 m, which is suitable for transportation and installation.

The slab is typically 70 mm thick and is exposed on its underside. The joints are filled on site. Services are located on the slab and provide for under-floor heating and cooling. The floor system attached to the top flange spans 1.2 m between the beams, and may use a gypsum screed on floor boarding on shallow decking.

A recent example of INFRA+ in a residential building is called La Fenetre in Den Haag (NL) which is supported on inclined tubular columns - see Figure 6.

Figure 6 Residential building, La Fenetre, Den Haag

A variety of steel beams may be used depending on their span and loading. Although the top flange is not laterally restrained, torsional restraint is provided by the slab cast around the bottom flange, A typical beam span : depth ratio is 20 and so a 450 mm deep I beam can span up to 9 m. The form of construction is illustrated for the La Fenetre project in Figure 7.

The INFRA+ precast floor panels may be supported by perimeter steel beams placed below the floor panels. The slab is cast 100 mm short of the edge of the beams. Ideally, the supporting beams should align with internal walls. Heating / cooling pipes may also be cast into the slab, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Under-floor servicing in INFRA+

Technical Details – Integrated Beams Integrated beam construction comprises various components in an essentially “dry” construction process:

• Integrated steel beams • C section edge beams • Hollow core precast concrete slabs • In-situ concrete screed The integrated steel beams are fabricated either as “top hat” sections of 200 to 300 mm depth or as double C sections with a welded bottom plates. The beams can span up to 6 m. The hollow-core concrete slabs are generally 200 to 320 mm deep and span from 7 to 11 m. Installation of a hollow-core slab is shown in Figure 8.

The edge beams are often thicker C sections bent from steel plate. The columns are small diameter circular hollow sections often with an embedded steel cruciform section for additional fire resistance. Water pipes for heating are often incorporated in the screed.

Figure 8 Installation of hollow-core precast slab on integrated

beams and perimeter C sections

129



Technical Details – Quantum Floor Quantum floor comprises light steel C sections embedded in a thin concrete slab and is typically 300 mm deep for a 7.2 m clear span. Details are shown in Figure 9. Support is provided by a steel angle fabricated as part of the floor, and the on-site attachment is made by bolts to the flange at the supporting beams.

7200

445555


750

220C-220 x 2.0

Mesh reinforcement

C-220 x 2.0

C-62 x 2.0

150 x 150 L


150 x 150 LConcrete

70

40 40

Figure 9 Details of Quantum Floor and its support beams

For general application of this technology, the target floor grid is 6 to 7.5 m square, which is applicable to residential buildings, office buildings and health centres, and a typical configuration with a central corridor.

The Quantum floor can also form the base to a module, which spans the longer direction between support beams. In this way, the module can be used in a wider range of applications that may require partial or fully open sides.

The ‘target’ range of building heights if 3 to 6 storeys. The columns may be Square Hollow Sections (SHS) of 200 × 200 or 250 × 250 section for 5 or 6 storey buildings, or alternatively a group of two or four 100 × 100 or 120 × 120 SHS posts.

In the floor configuration shown in Figure 10, the Quantum floor is orientated along the building axis, which is suitable for highly serviced modular units, such as toilets or kitchens. In this case, ASB beams support the Quantum floor, which spans typically 5.4 to 7.5 m.

ICORE is also an innovative double skin floor and walling system that may be supported on a steel frame and also used to support the modules directly . It also effectively integrates services (see page 17).

6 - 7.5 m 6 - 7.5 m

6 - 7.5 m

300 x 100 x 46 kg/m PFC 300 x 100 x 46 kg/m PFC

300 x 100 x 46 kg/m PFC

Span of

floorQuantum

280

ASB

136

Corridor

Module

Module

Module

Module

Figure 10 Plan form of a building with Quantum floor orientated

along the building

Other integrated flooring systems Other flooring systems may be used, which integrate modules effectively within the structural zone. Precast concrete slabs may be placed on the bottom flange of I section or integrated beams, so that the floor of the module and of the floor cassette are of consistent depth, as illustrated in Figure 11 and 12.

200 approx.

Floor200 - 250

Gap

150

225

Shallowdecking

130 - 150

Module

3000 - 3500

Deep decking

SFB or ASB beam

75

Figure 11 Mixed use of modules and integrated beams

Floor200 - 250

Module10030 - 5

200-25

50

150Gap

Hollow-core slab Pre-cast inverted floor

150 dia.

Figure 12 Mixed use of modules and cellular beams

130


Design Guide– 3 Dimensional Components

Modular construction The following types of modules (3 Dimensional units) may be used in the design of fully modular buildings or combined with other forms of steel construction to create more adaptable buildings : • Four-sided modules • Partially open-sided modules • Open-sided (corner supported) modules • Modules supported by a primary structural frame • Non-load bearing modules or “pods” • Mixed modules and planar floor cassettes • Special stair or lift modules Recent applications are illustrated.

Four-sided modules Form of construction Modules may be designed to transfer loads continuously through their longitudinal walls. In this form of construction, modules are manufactured with four closed sides to create cellular-type buildings. The maximum width of the module that is suitable for transportation and installation limits the cellular space that is provided. The modules are designed for combined vertical load due to the modules that are supported above and in-plane loads due to wind action. The maximum height of buildings is 6-8 storeys, depending on location and exposure to wind loading

Application: Cellular buildings, such as hotels, student residences and key worker accommodation.

Technical details Modules are manufactured from a series of 2D-panels, beginning with the floor cassette to which the four wall panels and ceiling panel are attached. The walls transfer vertical loads and therefore the longitudinal walls of the upper module are designed to sit on the walls of the module below. An example of this type of module is illustrated in Figure 3.

Modules are essentially 4-sided volumetric units with openings in their ends for windows and doors. Their external size is limited by transportation to approximately 4 m (3 to 3.6 m are typical internal module widths for most applications). The module length is typically 6 to 10 m.

Special lifting frames are used, which allow the modules to be unhooked safely at height. Examples of these types of lifting frame are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15.

Figure 13 Typical four-sided module (by Terrapin)

The light steel walls typically use 70 to 100 mm deep C sections, and the maximum height of a modular building is limited by the compression resistance of these members and also the bracing in the walls. The floor joists are typically 150 or 200 mm deep, and the combined floor and ceiling depth is in the range of 300 to 450 mm.

Additional steel angle members may be introduced in the recessed corners of the modules for lifting and for improved stability. These generic details are illustrated in Figure 16. Module-module connections are usually in the form of plates that are bolted on site.

Figure 14 Module being lifted into place showing protective 'cage'

Figure 15 Module being lifted in the factory (Corus)

131

Design Using Modules

Design using modules – 3 Dimensional Components

Stability The stabilising system depends on the geometric form of the building, but various solutions may be used:

• For low-rise buildings, in-plane bracing or diaphragm action of the board materials within the modules provide sufficient shear resistance, assisted by the module-module connections which transfer the applied wind forces to the group of modules

• For buildings of 6 to 8 storeys height, a vertical bracing system is often located around an access core, and assisted by horizontal bracing or diaphragm action in the corridor floor between the modules

• For taller buildings, a primary steel podium frame may be provided on which the modules are stacked (see later), or a concrete or steel core

The maximum height of a group of modules is dependent of the stability provided under wind action, and various cases are presented in Table 1 for scheme design .Details and dimensions of particular module types differ, and so precise guidance is system-specific.

Insulation150

18

300 mm

(b) Cross - section through floor and ceiling

(a) Isometric view of 4-sided module

65 x 1.2 C ceiling joistsat 400 mm centres

100 x 1.6 C wall studsat 600 mm centres

Recessed cornerwith angle section

150 x 1.6 C joistsat 400 mm centres

Floor cassette screw fixed tostuds in wall panel

Overall depthof floor

Ceiling joist1 or 2 layers of fire-rated plasterbaord

10

30

6520gapInsulation

Floor surface

300

Figure 16 Details of 4-sided modules showing recessed corners

with additional angle sections

All walls are insulated, and are usually boarded externally for weather protection. Additional external insulation can be attached on-site.

Modules can be manufactured with integral balconies, and a range of cladding materials can be pre-attached or installed on site, as shown in Figures 17 and 18.

Table 1 Limiting building height depending on stabilising

system of 4-sided modules

Limit on size in concept design

Form of Modular Construction

Bracing Requirements

Max. number of storeys

Min.number of modules in

a group Single line of

modules No additional bracing

3 5

With additional bracing in gables

6 8

With additional stabilising core

8 No limit

Double line of modules

Central corridor

No additional bracing

6 2 × 8

With additional bracing in gables

8 2 × 10

With additional stabilising core

10 No limit

Figure 17 Modular construction with metallic facade

Figure 18 Integrated balconies manufactured within the modules

132


Design Guide – Adaptable 3 Dimensional Components

Partially open sided modules Partially open –sided modules can be manufactured so that when two modules are placed together, larger open spaces may be created , leading to more adaptable buildings that may be re-configured to different uses.

Form of construction Four-sided modules can be designed with partially open-sides by introduction of corner and intermediate posts and by using a stiff continuous edge beam manufactured in the floor cassette. The maximum width of opening is limited by the bending resistance and stiffness of the edge member. Additional intermediate posts are usually Square Hollow Sections (SHS) of small cross-section, so that they can fit within the wall width.

Two modules can be placed together to create larger rooms, as in Figure 19. The compression resistance of the posts controls the maximum height of the building, but 6-8 storeys can be achieved, as for fully modular construction. Additional edge beams are required for wider openings, which can be bolted to the posts. Modules can also be re-orientated at the internal posts to permit design of more flexible building forms.

Long modules can also be designed to include an integral corridor, as shown in 20. This can improve the speed of construction by avoiding weather-tightness problems during installation and finishing work.

Application: Key worker accommodation, small apartments, hotels with corridors, communal areas in student residences etc.

Figure 19 Partially open-ended module used in Barling Court (see

opposite)

Technical details The form of construction is similar to that of 4-sided modules, except for the use of additional posts, generally in the form of 70 × 70 to 100 × 100 SHS members.

The edge beams in the floor cassette can be designed to span 2 to 3 m to create openings in the sides or ends of the module. Additional strengthening members may be required for larger openings, which can be bolted to the posts.

Figure 20 Long module with a central corridor (Kingspan)

Modules may be placed side by side to create larger spaces and modules can also be re-orientated at the internal posts. Balconies or other components can be attached to the corner or internal posts. Overall stability is provided by additional bracing located in the walls of the modules. Longer modules may also be constructed with integral corridors (see Figure 20). Temporary bracing for stability during lifting may be required in the open sides.

A typical building form in which larger apartments are created using partially open-sided units is shown in Figure 21 (and completed in Figure 22). In this case , the stairs are also constructed as a module –see also page 17.

Use of an intermediate post to provide support to the edge beam of an open-sided module is shown in Figure 23. In this case, additional stiffening of the edge beam is required to transfer compression forces through it to the edge beam and post below.

Stability of these modules is affected by their partially open sides, and also additional temporary restraints may be necessary during transport and installation.

Partially open-sided modules may be used effectively in the renovation and extension of existing buildings by addition of new bathroom and balconies, as illustrated in Figure 24. The modules are designed as load-bearing, but are stabilised by attachment to the existing structure.

133



BedroomLiving/Dining

BathroomHallKitchen

Storage

BathroomKitchen

Living/Dining

Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2

Balcony

Storage

One

bed

room

uni

t

Two

bedr

oom

uni

t

Figure 21 Layout of apartments using partially open-sided modules

(by PCKO Architects) – alternate modules are shaded.

Figure 22 Completed building (above), Barling Court, Stockwell, London

Ceiling span

Floorspan

Open side

Open side200

2.8 m

3.0 m max.

3.0 m max.

3.0 m max.

Corner angle

SHSpost

200

200

150

100

20

90 x 90 SHS post

Stiffener

Edge member

Edgemember

(a) Open-sided module using modified C section edge member and SHS post

(b) Detail on floor-ceiling showing modified C edge members

(c) Detail on SHS post with internal stiffeners

Figure 23 Mid-side post to provide intermediate support to the

edge beams of modules

Figure 24 Open-sided bathroom modules attached to an existing

building (Courtesy Ruukki)

134


Open-sided modules Form of construction Fully open-sided modules are designed to transfer loads to the corner posts by bending of the deep longitudinal edge beams. The framework of the module is often in the form of hot rolled steel members, such as Square Hollow Section (SHS) columns and Parallel Flange Channel (PFC) edge beams, which are bolted together, as shown in Figure 25.

A shallower PFC section may be used to support the ceiling, but in all cases the combined depth of the edge beams is greater than for 4-sided modules. However, modules can be placed side by side to create larger open plan spaces, as required in hospitals and schools etc.

The stability of the building generally relies on a separate bracing system in the form of X-bracing in the separating walls. For this reason, fully open-ended modules are not often used for buildings more than 3 storeys high. The walls of the module are non-load bearing, except where they provide in-plane bracing. Lighter wall studs may be used than for 4-sided modules.

Smaller modules up to 5.5 m length may be manufactured by re-orientating the floor and ceiling joists to run longitudinally, as in Figure 26. The joists may be of lattice form to facilitate insertion of services.

Figure 25 Primary steel frame used in an open-sided module

(Kingspan)

Technical details Open-sided modules comprise a primary steel framework and the longitudinal edge beams supporting the floor cassette are typically 300 to 450 mm deep, depending on their span of typically 5 to 8 m. Some systems use heavy cold formed sections, and others use PFC sections. The edge beams supporting the ceiling cassette are shallower, but the combined depth of the edge beams the ceiling and floor can be as high as 600 to 800 mm.

Design flexibility is provided by the open-sided modules and 3 to 3.6 m are typical widths, which can create rooms of 6 to 12 m width by combining modules.

The corner posts provide the compression resistance and are typically based on 100 x 100 SHS. The edge beams may be connected to these posts by fin plates which provide nominal bending resistance. End plates and Hollobolts to the SHS may also be used. The corner posts possess sufficient compression resistance for use in buildings up to 4 storeys in height.

Open-sided modules are only stable for one or two storeys, unless additional bracing is introduced. For open plan buildings, the modules are stabilised by both a vertical and horizontal bracing system. In-plane forces can be transferred by the floor and ceiling cassettes and suitable connections at the corners of the modules.

Details of the internal framework of an open-sided module using PFC beams and SHS posts are presented in Figures 27 and 28. Installation of an open-sided module is shown in Figure 29.

Figure 26 Smaller open-sided module using longitudinally

spanning lattice joists

135


Design Guide– Adaptable 3 Dimensional Components

External wall

3600

200

100

250

200 x 90 PFC

300 x 90 PFC

100 x 100x 6 SHS

Inset C

3000

150

Figure 27 Structural frame of a corner supported module – end view

300 x 90 PFC

Internal wallOpen side

200 x 90 PFC

3600

100 x 1.6 C

150 x 1.6 C

400

600

7500 max.

100 x 100x 6 SHS

300

Figure 28 Longitudinal edge beams of a corner supported module

Figure 29 Modular school building during installation of

open-sided modules

An open-ended module is a variant of a 4-sided module in which a rigid end frame is provided, usually consisting of welded or rigidly connected RHS sections. The rigid end frame provides for overall stability and creates a fully glazed façade, as bracing in the plane of the façade is not required.

A modular system using a rigid end frame permits design of a fully open-sided façade. The rigid end frame provides for overall stability of the modules under horizontal loads and also attachment points for a full width cantilever balcony or walkway. A possible end frame design using 250 × 150 RHS sections welded with mitred corners is shown in Figure 30(a). This form of construction may be used for buildings up to 6 storeys, as the end frame is designed to resist both horizontal and vertical loads.

The rigid end frames are manufactured as part of the module or can be assembled as separate components. Light steel walls may be used for the internal walls to create the required window and door openings. The module-module attachments are made on site by plates and bolts, which are tightened through 70 mm diameter holes in the RHS, as shown in Figure 30(b). The holes are capped later. The overall floor depth is typically 450 mm.

2700

6000

3600

Ceiling panelusing 100 x 1.6 C

Wall panelusing 100 x 1.6 C

20 gap

100Floor(200 x 1.6 C)

95

20 mm dia.bolt

250 x 150RHS

70 Ø opening

150

600

600

250 x 150 RHSas welded frame

(a) Isometric view of module and welded end frame

(b) Detail at RHS frame at connection (c) Side view of RHS and module floor and ceiling

22 mm chipboard

10 mm CPB

2 x 12.5 mmplasterboard

Ceiling(100 x 1.6 C)

Overall depth 450 mm ≈

300 x 150 x 20connector plate

Figure 30 Rigid frame used to create an open end in a modular unit

136



Mixed modules and floor cassettes Form of Construction In this ‘hybrid’ or mixed form of construction, long modules may be stacked to form a load-bearing serviced core, and floor cassettes span between the modules and load-bearing walls, as illustrated in Figure 31. The floor cassettes may be attached to the walls of the module usually at the corner or intermediate posts. Because of the combined depth of the floor and ceiling of the module, it is advantageous to design the floor cassettes to be relatively deep and therefore to achieve spans up to 6 m.

The form of construction of the modules is similar to that described for open-sided modules, but the loading applied to the side of the modules is significantly higher. Therefore, this form of construction is limited to buildings of 4-6 storeys high.

Application: Residential buildings, particularly of terraced form. Modular “cores” as for stairs, and highly serviced areas, such as bedrooms, arranged in a “spine” - see demonstration building in Figure 32.

Figure 31 ‘Hybrid’ building by Corus Living Solutions

Figure 32 Demonstration building using the modular and panel system (by Corus)

Technical details The modular core of the building can be designed efficiently to accommodate the highly serviced and higher value parts of the building, such as lifts, stairs, bedrooms and kitchens. This core provides the primary load-bearing and stabilising function to the whole building. Modules are usually arranged so that they occupy the full depth of buildings of terraced form. Floor cassettes can be designed to span 4 to 6 m between the modules or load-bearing walls, and the space between the modules can be partitioned independently of the structure in order to create more flexible space. This concept was used in the design of the Corus demonstration building, shown in Figure 32. The overall depth of the floor cassette (and the combined floor and ceiling depth of the module) is 300 - 450 mm. Thefloor cassette spans up to 6 m. Additional SHS posts are introduced in the modules to transfer the higher load adjacent to the open sides of the modules. The walls of the modules are braced to provide overall stability to the building. The façade walls can be designed as non-load bearing and can be installed as large pre-fabricated panels with their lightweight cladding attached. A recent project in Fulham used load-bearing bathroom modules that supported the floor cassettes, as illustrated in Figures 33 and 34.

Figure 33 Mixed use of modular bathroom modules and wall panels

Figure 34 Completed (above) building at Lillie Road, Fulham

137



Mixed modules and columns- OpenHouse Form of Construction Modules may be constructed with recessed corners and attached to columns that are installed on site, as in Figure 35. The column-grid that is adopted means that modules can be re-orientated at the column positions. This system was developed by OpenHouse in Sweden, which uses a column grid of 3.9 m in both directions. Modules are produced in 3.9 m widths and multiples of 3.9 m length (typically 7.8 m). Modules can be manufactured with partial open sides.

Application: Social and private housing, where more flexible space is provided using a regular column grid. A 500 apartment project in Malmo is shown in Figure 36.

Figure 35 Assembly of modules on SHS posts

Figure 36 OpenHouse system, Malmo

Technical details The OpenHouse system uses modules with recessed corners and sides which accommodate Square Hollow Section columns that are installed first. These columns provide the compression resistance, and edge beams manufactured without the modules create the opportunity for partially open sides. The layout of a typical apartment using this technology is illustrated in Figure 37.All the internal space is adaptable as open-sided modules can be manufactured and combined, as shown.

BedroomBathroom

Kitchen/Living roomBedroom

BathroomKitchen

Living room

Balcony

Balcony

Store Store

Figure 37 Plan form of apartments using OpenHouse

The OpenHouse system is based on a 3.9m planning grid with 100 x 100 Square Hollow Sections as posts at the corners and intermediate positions. Balconies can be attached to the posts. The edge beam in the floor cassette is able to span 3.9m to create an open side. The internal module width is 3.6m. Open plan space can be created, if required using modules of the form of Figure 38.

The building height is not limited by the compression resistance of the SHS posts, but by overall stability and an additional bracing system is required. This building system is targeted at buildings of 3-5 storeys. A variety of façade materials can be used, including metallic cladding.

Figure 38 Open-sided module (with temporary posts)

138


Design using modules – Mixed 3 Dimensional and 1 Dimensional Components

Modules supported by a primary structure Form of construction Modular units may be designed to be supported by a primary structure at a podium or platform level, in which the columns are designed as a multiple of the width of the modules (normally 2 or 3 modules). The beams are designed to support the combined loads from the modules above (normally a maximum of 4-6 storeys).

The supporting structure is designed conventionally and provides open plan space at ground floor and below ground levels. This form of construction is very suitable for mixed retail, commercial and residential developments. Modules can be set back from the façade line. An example of a mixed development is in Manchester in which the ground floor and below ground car parking is a conventional composite structure. The completed building is shown in Figure 39.

Alternatively, non-load bearing modules can be supported by a primary frame, and are installed as the construction proceeds. Modules can be disassembled in the future to leave the floor cassette supported by the beams.

Application:

For podium structures such as residential units above commercial areas or railway lines, etc., particularly in urban projects.

Below ground car parking can also be introduced in the supporting primary steel framework. An example of this type of podium structure in east London is shown in Figures 40 and 41.

Figure 39 Typical podium structure in which 7 storeys of

residential units are supported on a composite frame below

Figure 40 Mixed use of stabilising frame and modules in a project

in Shadwell, East London by Rollalong

Figure 41 Completed building (above) at Shadwell

An external steel structure may also be used which consists of a façade structure that acted to stabilise the building. Modules are placed internally, as shown in Figure 42. The completed building is shown on page 19.

Figure 42 Installation of modules behind external steel framework

at MoHo, Manchester

139


Design Guide – Mixed 3,2 Dimensional and 1 Dimensional Components

Technical details Four-sided modules can be designed to be supported by steel or composite beams and the typical line load per supported floor can be 15 kN/m. Columns generally align with every 2 or 3 modules (i.e. at 6 to 10 m spacing) The depth of the podium-type structure can be 800 -1000 mm, and spans of 6 to 12 m can be created below the podium, which are suitable for commercial applications and car parking. A possible example of a podium using cellular beams is shown in Figure 43

The beams are designed to align with the ends of the modules i.e. at 3.5 m – 4 m spacing, which dictates the grid of columns (i.e. at 7.2 to 8 m). A grid of 7.2 m is very suitable for below-ground car parking.

The podium structure is generally braced to resist wind loads and a separate braced core is often used to stabilise the group of modules above the podium level. The module design is similar to that described earlier for 4-sided modules. Wind loads can be transferred horizontally through the corridors.

2 m 4.5 m4.5 m

6 m

2.8 m

3 - 3.6 m

3 mModules

Core forstairs/lifts

300

300Span of 12 - 18 m

Figure 43 Modules supported by long spanning cellular beams to

create open plan space at the lower levels

In a second approach, the modules may also be designed to be supported by a primary steel framework at each or alternate floor level. In order to minimise the width of the modules, they should be constructed with recessed corners, which allows them to fit around smaller SHS columns as in Figure 44

Figure 44 Recessed corner module supported by a steel structure

An application of modules in combination with a steel structure is illustrated in Figure 45. In this case, the highly serviced zones of the building are concentrated into the modules and the open plan space over long span floor cassettes. The use of long spanning floor cassettes supported on asymmetric beams is another example of ‘hybrid’ construction


Module 1 Module 2

Module 3Module 4

7500 5400 7500

4800


Span offloor

Span offloor

Quantum

Quantum

2100

2100

2500

280 ASB 136

280 ASB 136 280 ASB 100

280 ASB 100

300 PFC

300 PFC

Module 5Module 6

6500 7400 6500

5000

1650

0

Figure 45 Mixed use of modules and long spanning floor with a

primary steel frame

140


Design Guide–Mixed Use of 3 Dimensional Components

Modules supported by a concrete of steel core Form of construction Modules may be designed to be stabilised by a concrete or composite steel core wall in which the modules are placed around the core. In this way, vertical loads are resisted by the modules, which are usually manufactured with corner posts, and horizontal loads are transferred to the cover. The maximum height of these core supported buildings is 12–15 storeys, unless the modules are specifically designed to resist high compression forces. An example of this system for a multi-storey residential building is shown in 46

Figure 46 Concrete core used to support 17 storey modules, Paragon, West London (by Caledonian)

Application Tall residential buildings often used in combination with an additional steel frame for compression resistance. The building form is such that the modules are directly attached to the core, which also provides lifts and stairs.

Technical Details The structural arrangement of a concrete core with directly attached modules is shown in Figure . In this case, additional corner posts are also used to provide the required compression resistance.

Some of the modules are constructed with internal corridors, which provide access around the core. This means that the internal wall has to provide fire resistance and acoustic separation functions. For buildings over 8 storeys, it is generally necessary to provide 90 minutes fire resistance although a fire engineering analysis may be used to provide stability in the event of one module being subject to fire. In this case, the core structure should be designed for 120 minutes fire resistance.

Corewall

3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

Internal corridor

Internal corridor

0.2

0.2

1.2

6.0

1.2

2.5 2.51.5

6.6

1.7

Module

Module

Module

Module

3.3

3.3

Figure 47 Arrangement of modules and concrete core

The layout of the 6.0 × 6.5 m concrete core is presented in Figure 48. The same dimensions may be achieved using Corefast, a Corus product which comprises a double skin steel structure, as shown in Figure 49.

2.5 1.5 2.5

6.0

0.2 0.2

1.8

0.1

0.1

0.1

Services

0.3

1.2

1.2

2.4

0.6

Lobby Stairs

Lift

Lift

Lift

Infillwall

Figure 48 Detail of core structure

Figure 49 Corefast core wall during construction

141


Design Guide–Variants of 2 or 3 Dimensional Components

Double skin wall and floors Form of construction ICORE is a product which comprises laser welded steel plates that may be used for planar walls and floors. The space between the plates can be filled to increase the thermal capacity or stiffness of the component.

Application: Planar walls and floors, especially where increased resistance to impact or blast loading is required. ICORE can also act as the stabilising core of the building.

Technical details ICORE is a specialist product which is produced by laser welding to exact dimensions. Its structural capacity is very high and so it is thinner than equivalent wall or floor components. An example is shown in Figure 50.

Figure 50 Double skin steel plates (ICORE)

Stair module Form of construction Stairs may be designed as fully modular units and by their nature, comprise landings and half landings. A primary steel frame may be used to support the stairs, in which case the light steel components are used as infills.

Application: Modular stairs may be used in buildings using fully modular construction up to 4 storeys in height.

Technical details The modules rely for their stability on a base and top which leads to use of a false landing. The walls may require additional strengthening members at the half and full-landing positions. The open top and base of the wall may also be strengthened by a T, L or similar members to transfer out of plane loads to the landing. The stairs can be fully or partially finished before delivery to site. Square Hollow Section posts and bracing can be introduced in the walls to provide for overall stability.

Details of a typical light steel modular stair system showing use of a 'false' landing to provide stability at the roof of the module are shown in Figure 51.

Figure 51 Detail of light steel modular stair system showing use of

a ‘false’ landing to module

Non-load bearing pods Form of construction Non-load bearing modules are not designed to resist external loads. They are supported directly on a floor, and are designed to be installed either as the construction proceeds or slid into place on the completed floor.

Application: Toilet/bathroom units, plant rooms, other serviced units.

Technical details The structure of the non-load bearing module is lighter than in fully modular construction, but the module (or pod) must still be sufficiently rigid to be installed. The walls and floor of these ‘pods’ are relatively thin (typically less than 100 mm). An example of a pod used in a light steel structure is shown in Figure 52. The depth of the floor is relatively shallow, and it is usually necessary for its floor depth to be level with the rest of the floor in the building.

Figure 52 Toilet pod used with light steel framing (by RB Farquhar)

142


Design Guide – Technical Issues

Technical Issues The following design issues are reviewed as follows: • Stability and structural integrity • Cladding types and thermal performance • Acoustic performance • Balcony attachment

Stability and robustness Stability is provided through the modules or by an external structure. Robustness is provided by the ties between the modules, whose action is illustrated in Figure 53. A minimum force equivalent to half the loaded weight of the module is normally assumed (minimum value of 30 kN).

W /2

W /2

W /2

W /2

W /2

W /2

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

T

T

T

T

H

H

H

H

FV

VF + (W /2)

Figure 53 Tying forces in modular construction

Cladding Various forms of cladding may be used, such as: • brickwork, generally in-situ • metallic fascia • insulated render • board materials Typical details of various cladding systems are shown in Figures 54 to 57. Lightweight cladding can be pre-attached to the modules.

Figure 54 Pre-attached cladding to modules at the Royal Northern

College of Music, Manchester

Brick external cladding

Light steel studs withmineral wool between

Wall ties

1 or 2 layers of plasterboard

Insulated sheathingboard with foil faceor breather membrane

Figure 55 Brick cladding attached to light steel walls

Plasterboard

Mineral wool insulation

Insulationboard

Verticalrail

Figure 56 Metallic cassette attached to light steel walls

Polymer modified render

Rigid board insulation

Breather membrane

Supplementary insulation

Light steel frame

Sheathing board

Fire resistant plasterboard

Figure 57 Insulated render cladding attached to light steel walls

143


Design Guide – Technical issues

Acoustic performance The double layer floor and ceiling, and separating walls in modular construction achieves excellent airborne and impact sound reductions. The off-site manufacture and quality control also ensures that air gaps do not occur and so all aspects of the building physics performance is more reliable. Airborne sound reductions of over 63 dB (without low frequency correction factor and 57 dB (with low frequency correction factor) are achieved, which are up to 10 dB better than in national Building Regulations.

Impact sound transmissions are also low (less than 30 dB). In some applications, a concrete screed can be introduced, although this adds to the floor weight.

Thermal insulation Thermal insulation is characterised by the heat loss per m2 of the façade or roof (its U-value). Low U-values of 0.2 W/m2°C and excellent air-tightness can be achieved by the cladding details shown earlier. External insulation boards are normally placed on site, but sheathing boards are pre-attached.

Fire resistance Fire resistance is provided by multiple layers of fire resisting boards and by mineral wool placed between the C sections. Two 15 mm thick fire resisting plasterboard layers internally plus 100 mm thick mineral wool achieves a fire resistance of 90 minutes. Sheathing board also assist in preventing passage of smoke into the cavity between the modules. Regular cavity barriers in the form of mineral wool ‘socks’ in metal gauze are provided horizontally and vertically, as in Figure 58.

External brickwork fixed to moduleusing stainless steel ties

Two layers of plasterboardgiving a total thicknessof 25 mm

22 mm T & G chipboard

Two layers of plasterboard with acombined thickness of at least25 mm with staggered joints

Insulation board (in cavity)

Light steel studsCavity fire barrier

Mineral wool insulationbetween studs

Light steel joistsat 400 mm centressized to suit the span

Mineral wool insulating quiltbetween floor & ceiling joists

Sheathingboards

Corner anglein module

Figure 58 View of floor and wall in modular construction showing fire protection and cavity barriers

Balconies Balconies may be attached to modules in various ways: • Self-standing steel structure to support the balconies that

is ground supported • Balconies attached between adjacent modules • Balconies that are attached to corner posts in the module • Integrated balconies within an open sided module.

These applications are presented in the following figures.

Figure 59 Self standing balcony structure

Module

Existing facade

Balcony

Figure 60 Balcony attachments between modules

Figure 61 Balcony attachments to external structure (MoHo,

Manchester)

144


Design Guide – Dimensional planning

Dimensional planning The factors that influence the dimensional planning of pre-fabricated steel systems in general building design may be summarised as: • Planning grid for internal fit-out, such as kitchens • Transportation requirements, including access • Building form, as influenced by its functionality. • Alignment with external dimensions of cladding • Repeatability in modular manufacture

Cladding requirements Brickwork design is generally based on a standard unit of 225 mm width and 75 mm depth. Therefore, it may be important to design a floor-floor depth to a multiple of 75 mm in order to avoid non-standard coursing of bricks. The multiple of 225 mm in horizontal brickwork coursing width is more difficult to achieve in combination with the window sizes and at corners or brickwork returns.

Other types of cladding, such as clay tiles or metallic finishes, have their own dimensional requirements, but generally they can be designed and manufactured to fit with window dimensions etc. Many types of lightweight cladding can be pre-attached to wall panels or the modules, but it is generally necessary to install a cover piece over the joint between the pre-fabricated components on site, which should allow for geometrical tolerances and alignments.

Standardisation of planning grid Standardisation of the planning grid is important at the scheme design stage, as the planning grid will be controlled mainly by other building components and fitments. A dimensional unit of 300 mm may be adopted as standard for vertical and horizontal dimensions, reducing to 150 mm as a second level for vertical dimensions, i.e. a multiple of either 2 or 4 bricks. Typical dimensions for planning in open construction using modules and other pre-fabricated components are presented in Table 2.

Typical wall and floor dimensions are illustrated in Figure 62, although actual dimensions are system specific. For planning, a combined wall width of 300 mm may be used.

External walls are detailed according to the type of cladding as illustrated earlier. Again, a 300 mm total wall width may be adopted as a guide for most cladding materials. The actual width will vary between 200 mm for insulated render and board materials to 320 mm for brickwork.

25 100 50 100 25

Boards

Optionalboards

Gap300 overall

b) Floor dimensionsa) Wall dimensions

25

10

Insulation

Ceiling joist

Optional boardBoard

100

140 (typ.)

25-30Boards

150 - 200Floor joist

450 overall

Figure 62 Typical wall and floor/ceiling dimensions in modular

construction

Internal walls Internal walls may be designed for a standard 300 mm face-face overall width, which incorporates the various boards and insulation (see Figure 62(a)). The gap between the walls is a variable, depending on the number and thickness of boards and size of the wall studs.

For internal planar walls, a planning dimension of 150mm may be used.

Table 2 Typical dimensions for planning using modular construction

Application Internal wall height (mm)

Internal module width

(mm)

Internal module length

Ceiling-floor zone (typical)

Study bedrooms 2400 2500–2700 5.4 to 6 m 300 m

Apartments 2400 3600 6 to 9 m 450 mm

Hotels 2400–2700 3300-3600 5.4 to 7.5 m 450 mm

Schools 2700–3000 3000–3600 open-sided 9 to 12 m 600 mm

Offices 2700–3000 3600 6 to 12 m 600–750 mm

Health sector 2700–3000 3000-3600 open-sided 9 to 12 m 600–750 mm

Transportation The following basic requirements for transportation should be considered when designing large pre-fabricated units: • Components exceeding 2.95 m width require 2 days police

notice • Components exceeding 3.5 m width require a driver’s

mate and 2 days police notice • Components exceeding 4.1 m width require police escort • The maximum height of the load (including the lorry)is

4.95 m for motorway bridges.

These limits may vary in different countries and stricter limits may be required for local roads, particularly in urban areas. Standard container vehicles are typically 6.2 m or 12.2 m long.

It follows from these dimensions that in modular construction, a 3.6 m internal module width (or approximately 3.85 m in external dimension) does not require a police escort and may be considered to be the optimum width for many applications.

145


Design Guide – Dimensional planning

Floor zone Floors and ceilings in open construction systems using modules are deeper than in more traditional construction. The three structural cases noted earlier will require different overall ceiling-floor dimensions for planning purposes, as follows:

• Floor and ceiling zone 450 mm • Corner supported modules 600 mm • Frame supported modules 900 mm

In most cases, 450 mm may be adopted as a standard for the floor-ceiling dimension as in Figure 62(b), although many systems provide shallower depths. A floor and ceiling zone of 300 or 375 mm is feasible in some systems and aligns with brick coursing.

The details of a corner supported module are illustrated in Figure 63. In this case, a standard overall floor and ceiling depth of 600 mm may be used, depending on the depth of the edge members. The gap between the floor and ceiling is a variable depending on the number of boards and the joist size.

Floor

Ceiling200

600Cor

ner p

ost

Gap 80

400

60

≈

≈

Figure 63 Detail of corner supported module

Actual dimensions of the modules will be less than these planning dimensions to allow for gaps (by 50 mm for walls, and up to 150 mm for floors). Windows and doors may also be incorporated as standard conventional dimensions.

300

3600

1200

900

600

1200/1800

33003300

2400/2700

Wall zone = 300 mm

Floor zone = 600 mm

Figure 64 Standardised module dimensions in a building use

Attachment points The generic forms of attachment using angles at the corners of modules are presented in Figure 65. The angles are built into the recessed corners of the modules and provide for lifting and attachment points.

100 x 100x 10 L

Bolt hole

Elevation

(a) Re-entrant corner with bolted end plate

100 x 100x 10 L

Elevation

Lifting point

Plan

Plan

Bolt andconnector plate

(b) Re-entrant corner with welded nut

Connectorplate

Figure 65 Corner posts using hot rolled steel angles

Square Hollow Sections (SHS) provide the highest compressive resistance and may be used for open-sided modules. However, although these sections are compact, their connections can be more complex. Figure 66 shows a welded fin plate to which the edge beams are bolted. This may also be used when the edge beams are placed inside the line of the walls. Access holes of 50 mm minimum diameter in the SHS allow bolts to be inserted through end plates to provide for vertical and horizontal attachments.

100 x 100x 10 SHS

Welded fin plateor angle

C sectionElevationPlan

End plate

Connecting bolt

Connecting plate

SHS

50 dia. accesshole

Figure 66 Other forms of corner post using SHS or special

sections

Attachments between modules are made in both horizontal and vertical directions, primarily to transfer in-plane forces, but also for structured integrity. A minimum tie force of 30 kN between modules is recommended.

146


Design Guide – Servicing Strategy

The servicing strategy is very important to the use and future adaptation of open building systems comprising pre-fabricated components. Services are mainly installed in the factory and service attachments are made on site.

Servicing Strategy In fully modular buildings, services attachments are usually located in designated zones, generally adjacent to and along corridors, in order to facilitate horizontal distribution. Water and drainage services are distributed vertically, and these services can be accessed from the corridor for maintenance. The ceiling of the corridor is often lower (by 100 – 200 mm) than the adjacent rooms in order to provide for electrical distribution and other services.

Various strategies may be employed for the location of the service risers in modular construction, dependent on the size of the module and provision of corner posts. They influence the design and manufacture of the modules, and the generic options are illustrated in Figure 67, as follows: • corner recess built into the module and its floor • internal void within the module • external void with a separate enclosure

900 approx.

100

2700

300 approx.

Post (dependant on building form)

1200

400

(a) Service riser in corner of module

(b) Internal service void w ithin the module

(c) External service void and w all Figure 67 Typical service riser options in modular design

The corner recess is the most common approach, but has the disadvantage that the corner posts may interfere with the servicing and maintenance access, and bracing action of the walls is also affected. An internal void requires effective fire compartmentation in the floors, and is more problematical in the design and manufacture of the modules.

The external service zone is easier to design, and its size can be adjusted to suit the services requirement. It requires that the corridor joists span longitudinally, and that the corridor provides effective fire compartmentation. This approach is becoming more common for taller buildings as it simplifies the design and manufacture of the modules.

Service distribution Although the main services within the pre-fabricated component are generally installed in the factory, provision must be made for the vertical and horizontal distribution of services throughout the building. This may result in service ducts penetrating separating walls and floors. The detailing of such openings must ensure that the performance of the separating elements is not compromised in terms of fire resistance and acoustic insulation.

The final service connections between modules are made on site. These activities are time consuming in traditional construction and often on the 'critical path'.

Vertical service ducts are often incorporated in the corners of modules as shown in Figure 68. The on-site module-to-module connections that are required can often be made within this duct via access covers provided in circulation spaces or storage areas.

In some types of building, it is possible to provide multiple services risers, which eliminate the need for horizontal distribution of services. Alternatively, services can be distributed within the roof space to vertical service ducts. Figure 68 shows a typical service routing with its fire-stopping.

Access door

Electrical trunking

Hot water pipeCold water pipe

Cavity barrier

Soil & vent pipe

Air duct

Site fixed infill panel

Walls to adjacent modular units

Fan to bathroom

Figure 68 Typical service riser between modules

147


Design Guide – Servicing Strategy

Enclosure taken downto structural floor

Light steel floor joist

Flexible firestopping

Plasterboardceiling

Floating floor

Mineral wool

Fire stopping betweenservice enclosureand floating floor

Figure 69 Typical vertical service routing showing fire-stopping

Bathroom ‘pods’ can be manufactured with thin wall and floor dimensions (as little as 50 mm) and installed on the floor of the modules so that the depth of the acoustic floor aligns with the floor of the pod (to avoid ‘stepping’ into the bathroom).

A further modular option, shown in Figure 69, is to manufacture modules comprising a pair of bathrooms. Servicing can then be common to the pair of bathrooms, which reduces the on-site service attachments. In other ‘hybrid’ forms of construction, it is efficient to manufacture bathrooms as load-bearing modules and to construct the rest of the structure from panels. In this case, the bathroom modules are stacked vertically and are self-supporting.

Figure 70 Use of pairs of modules of bathrooms

Within individual modules, provision must be made for routing services vertically and horizontal to points of use. Where possible, services should be designed to run parallel with the primary-framing members. However, in some cases openings in joist and studs may be required. Lattice joists give maximum opportunity for service routing, but regular perforations can also be provided in standard C sections used as wall studs and floor joists.

In the case of modular construction, services should not compromise acoustic insulation and, where necessary, electrical services may be located in a raised floor. Any electrical elements penetrating the plasterboard ceiling should be detailed to prevent direct air paths through the plasterboard by sealing around any penetrations with flexible acoustic sealant.

The use of the corridor between two modules can be advantageous in terms of servicing. The structural depth in the corridor area is shallower than the adjacent modules as only one layer of structure has to be accommodated. This additional zone can then be used for the horizontal distribution of heating, ventilating, electrical and other services, as illustrated in Figure 70. A ceiling, which can easily be removed for maintenance, is then suspended below the services. This may require a lower headroom in the corridor zone (2.2 m is the minimum floor-ceiling depth).

200

450

100

Floor

Roof

Services zone

Suspended ceiling

Cassette floor

Angle pre-fixedto module

Figure 70 Corridor service zones below a cassette floor

connecting two modules

In terms of maintenance, all major services should be accessible from outside the modules and, ideally, the ‘wet’ area should be sealed or water-proofed in case of leakage.

148


Design Guide – Sources of Information

Sources of information and Publications The following publications may be referred to for more details on design in modular construction.

Gorgolewski M T, Grubb P J and Lawson R M Modular construction using light steel framing: Residential buildings The Steel Construction Institute P 302, 2001

Case studies on steel in residential buildings The Steel Construction Institute P-328

Lawson R M and Hicks S J Steel in multi-storey residential buildings The Steel Construction Institute P-332

Way A Acoustic detailing for multi-storey residential buildings The Steel Construction Institute, P-336

Way A Guidance on meeting robustness requirements on Approved Document A The Steel Construction Institute, P-341. This publication was prepared with support from DTI through Partners in Innovation, and by Corus Strip UK.

Wright C et al Insulated render systems used with light steel framing The Steel Construction Institute P-343

Energy efficient housing using light steel framing The Steel Construction Institute P-367

149

European Commission

EUR 23860 — Integrated pre-fabricated steel technologies for the multi-storey sector

B. Döring, M. Kuhnhenne, O. Vassart, C. Harper, P. Beguin, S. Herbin, A. Seppänen, M. Lawson, E. Yandzio, F. Scheublin, W. Bakens

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2009 — 149 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm

Research Fund for Coal and Steel series

ISBN 978-92-79-11319-2

DOI 10.2777/41420

ISSN 1018-5593

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 20

Research Fund for Coal and Steel - EUR-Lex

Documents

Transcript of Research Fund for Coal and Steel - EUR-Lex