C.I.T.A MODERN METHODS OF

CONSTRUCTION SERIES 2020

Cogent Associates

4 February 2020

AGENDA

Central Bank HQ Google HQ

Google, Bolands Mill Shelbourne Hotel

Adamstown SDZ SIG

• Cogent Associates – Who we

are

• Modern Methods of

Construction

• Definition

• History

• Latest Developments

• Some comparisons

• Decisions Factors For

Developers & Designers

• Conclusion

• Founded in 1999 in Dublin

• MBO in Q2 2016

• Currently employ c.50 staff

• Construction consultancy

services for all types of

clients and organisations

• Services delivered in Ireland

and throughout EMEA

INTRODUCTION TO COGENT

RECENT EXPERIENCE

Google HQ

Google, Bolands Mill Shelbourne Hotel

Adamstown SDZ SIG

• 2 D Panelised D&B for DCC

• Students Accommodation Bathroom

pods

• True 3 D Volumetric for Hotel Project

• Timber Frame Construction (several

housing schemes)

• Insulated Concrete Forms (Housing

Scheme)

• Techrete Façade Panels

• Precast Structures

• Traditional Cavity Wall Construction

• In-situ Reinforced Concrete

• Steel and Composite Floors

• Modular 3 D Housing

DCC 2 D Panelised

Montpellier Hill – Precast and Bathroom pods

Cluid Fortfield- Tralee- Timber Frame

Cardiff Lane-Techrete and

unitized glazing facade

Aldi – Precast walls

Cluid Sruthan Na Saili- Killarney -ICF

DCC – 2 D Panelised

Modern Methods of

Construction

MODERN METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION - DEFINITIONS

3 D Modular – Volumetric

2 D Panelised

Precast

Steel and Precast Slab

Steel and Composite Floor

Twin Wall

In-Situ Reinforced Concrete

In-Situ Post –Tensioned Reinforced Concrete

In-Situ Columns and Beams and Pre-cast Slabs

Timber Frame

Cross Laminated Timber Buildings

Insulated Concrete Form (ICF)

3D Printing

Precast Twin Wall

PrecastCLT

In-Situ Reinforced

concrete

Steel and composite

floor

Steel and Precast

3D Volumetric

ICF

NOT SO NEW…

3 D Modular over 100 years old–The House that Came in the Mail 1908

In-situ reinforced concrete since 1853

Precast Concrete Since 1900’s

Steel and concrete composite since late 1880’s

Timber frame – Since the beginning of time

ICF – Evolve from 1940 to 1960 from timber based forms to foam blocks

3D Printing – Only a few years old, not yet mature, in development

HISTORY

1910 Woolworth

BuildingMiddle Ages Building -

Britany

Habitat 67 Montreal

REST OF THE WORLD

Most countries looking at improving construction methodology and attempting to replicate a “Fordism” approach with assembly line productivity and quality

APPEARANCE

Increased Flexibility from previous solutions

MATERIAL TECHNOLOGY

Components available now for example unitised façade panel.

DESIGN TECHNOLOGY

3D and BIM

DESIGN STANDARDISATION

BIM

Regulation

Value

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

UK – 44 Storey high 101

George Street Croydon

Singpore – 40 Storey high

Modular houses factory -

Japan

PROGRAMME COMPARISON FROM GREEN FIELD START ON SITE TO OCCUPATION –INCLUDES ALL SITE WORKS

Timber Frame: Three scheme completed recently or completing in the next 3 months:

• Redwood Tralee: 17 Houses – 47 weeks – Equates to one house every 14 working days

• Pairceanna na Glas - Dingle: 20 Houses – 54 weeks – Equates to one house every 14 working days

• Fortfield Tralee: 15 units – 52 weeks – Equates to one house every 17 working days – Irish Water delays

Traditional Cavity Wall – 2 Schemes Housing completed

• Sleaty Street Carlow: 26 units – 58 weeks – Equates to one house every 11 working days

• Friary Walk Callan: 15 Units – 67 weeks – Equates to one house every 22 working days – developer prioritised other works in the development

ICF: One Scheme – almost complete

• Sruthan na Saili – Killarney – 83 units – 78 weeks- Equates to one house every 5 working days.

SOME PROGRAMME EXAMPLES

ICF – 5 Days

Timber

Frame– 14-20

Days

Cavity Wall–

10-22 Days

Decision Factors

ALL FACTORS ARE INTERLINKED Decision

Site

Design

Performance

Consent

Cost

TimeProcure

Value

Risk

Labour

Materials

THE SITE :

Location (historic areas etc.)

Shape,

Orientation,

Adjacent Sites,

Infrastructure

Venacular/Context

LOGISTICS

Opportunity to bring artic trucks

Cranes and lifting equipment space

Critical to offsite construction

Accessibility – route to the site

SITE

MASSING

Set Backs

Balconies

Recesses

Cantilevers

Transfer Structures

GRIDS

Structural Constraints

Slab Span and Wall Height will dictate structural options available

PERFORMANCE

Longevity – DOE/DCC looking for 60 years life cycle/ warranties

Flexibility – possible change to design or use

Quality Performance –Factory environment higher quality

Where is it manufactured? BcAR & Certification-

Façade Treatment and Statutory Consent requirements

STATUTORY AUTHORITIES

Perception associated with some solutions – High Rise modular or timber structure- fire risk, behaviour under fire conditions etc..

DESIGN & CONSENT

COST

Capital Cost sensibility– End User- Social& Affordable/ PRS/Hotel/ Build to Sell different priorities (Cost and Density/ etc.)

Operational Cost

Life Cycle Cost

Developer’s cost and time to market – programme

ASSET VALUE

Asset Value- Perceptions- Is higher quality leading to a premium price, is it recognised as a higher quality product?

PROGRAMME

Solution needs to be identified at concept stage

Is modular faster?

• On site? Yes

• Overall? Potentially not –still needs design time –Procurement would take longer – overlap between design and construction not entirely feasible

Other factors can influence the programme more significantly (type of planning process)

OVERALL – THE COST/PROGRAMME/ PERFORMANCE OPTIMUM SOLUTION IS PROJECT DEPENDENT

COST & TIME

PROCUREMENT:

Some solutions require part or full Design and Build contracts

Direct to manufacturers or through a Main Contractor?

• Site works capability

Competition (In Ireland approximately 8-9 firms currently offering 3D volumetric or a mixture of 2D and 3D solution)

Usually leads to a 2 Stage Tender

Will the resources and materials be available at reasonable prices

RISK TRANSFER

If D&B- Risk transfer- Risk premium-

more information for tender is better

Main factors should be defined (Statutory consent etc.)

If Employer’s Design or part design – Some Risk remains with employer.

PROCUREMENT & RISK

Other Factors for Off Site

Construction

WORKPLACE CONSIDERATIONS

Factory Vs Site- Accommodation – Opportunity

Transport

Shift work possible

TRADES & WORKFORCE CONSIDERATIONS

Consistent work

Local Community Employment

Factory specific labour

Ethics and corporate governance

WORKING ENVIRONMENT & WORKPLACE CONSIDERATIONS

HEALTH AND SAFETY & ENVIRONMENT

HEALTH& SAFETY

Better controlled in Factory setting

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

Carbon Footprint – Holistic approach needed including trades travelto their place of work.

Reduce Waste

Less Temporary Infrastructure

Where is it manufactured should be taken into consideration

MATERIALS

Local Availability of material

• Brick

• Concrete

• Timber

CERTIFICATION

Ancillary Certificates

Insurances & Warranties

ROBOTICS

Factory process offers the opportunity for increased use of robotics

MATERIALS, CERTIFICATION AND ROBOTICS

Conclusion

CHOSING THE RIGHT SOLUTION

No one-size fits all solution.

Case by Case – location and project scope.

OFF SITE MANUFACTURING

Embracing of Standardisation

• efficiencies,

• higher quality and

• decreased costs

Increase R&D around the world on developing solutions

Increase opportunity for BIM/3D modeling, integrated 3D models to to be used for factory bespoke production (i.e. each building isunique but can be made of a set of individual standard components assembled in a unique way in the factory and brought to site)

Raw Materials Available Domestically

CONCLUSION

THANK YOU

RICS Sept 2018 report

99percentinvisible.org The house that came in the post

Huf Haus german modular manufactuer

https://mhi.ie/

McKinsey & Company Report Modular ConstructionAutodesk Robotics in Construction