Below are the questions for the corresponding two assignments making up your semester
coursework you will have to submit this semester. They cover the areas of: Production Technologies
and Monitoring Technologies.
These questions are inspired, and sometimes taken directly from previous exams. They are certainly
typical of the type of questions you will get in your final exam. The questions test the depth of your
understanding of the concepts, processes and technologies, and your ability to present them in a
synthetic manner. An important learning outcome of this is the understanding of the linkages among
those concepts, processes and technologies.
Your assignments (essays) must be prepared using the Coursework Template and must be submitted
on Turnitin by midnight on the deadline dates. Academic and industrial references (examples) are
encouraged. The coursework should be between 300 and 800 words. The length of your submission
may mainly depend on the scope of the question, so don’t feel you necessarily have to reach 800
words. It’s about quality, not quantity.
Area Class
completion
Submission
deadline
Discuss the opportunities and challenges of on-site
robotics in the construction sector.
Week 8 Week 9
Discuss two significant technologies that are developed in
the area of 3D imaging. This should include descriptions
of key novel methods/technologies, their potential
applications, current performance, and barriers to their
widespread application.
Week 11 Week 12
D30IC
D30IC
Topic
Student Name (Student ID)
Introduction [Heading 1]
To write your report, we are required to use the formatting that is permitted as detailed below and shown in the Styles list (see Styles section in the Home banner). This will ensure that everybody hands-in a similar document and that all those documents can be neatly put together.
MS Word (2010 and above) for Windows is the preferred editor to be used to prepare your report. However, this template should work with MS Word for Mac as well.
To apply a Style, you must first type the text (e.g. in the default Normal style), then select it, and finally apply the style by selecting it in the Styles list. In the rest of this document, each style is shown in brackets “[…]” the first time it is applied.
If you experience any issue with the formatting
Sub-section [Heading 2]
Use sub-sections and sub-sub-sections whenever needed, in order to structure your text. [Paragraph]
This is a Paragraph. Within the text, you can emphasize [Emphasis] text, bold [strong] text or underline [Underline] text. You can also use subscript [subscript] and superscript [superscript] formatting. Do not use standard short-cuts for character formatting (e.g. Ctrl + i), but use the pre-defined character styles.
Note that, like in any other scientific work, it is important to make proper references. Please use “(Lastname, Year)” citation formatting. Then, all references go at the end of your document in the section References (see below).
Figures and tables are allowed. They must be inserted as shown below. Both of them should be inserted “as character”.
[Figure]
Figure 1: The figure’s caption [Caption]
Table Header [Table Content Left + Strong]
Table Content left [Table Content Left]
Table content right [Table Content Right]
Table 1: The table’s caption [Caption]
References [Heading 1]
Cameron D. and Osborne G. (2003), “The best paper of their life”, The best journal where the paper could be published, Volume(Issue), pp 1-10. [Reference]
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
7
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technology
in Construction and Built Environment
T. Bock, T. Linner and W. Ikeda
Technische Universität München,
Germany
1. Introduction
The human being is the only living organism which steadily uses “tools”. We have used
tools to cultivate our land, grow our food, build up cities and communication
infrastructures – tools are the basis for phenomena as culture and globalization. Some even
argue that tools (and especially the wealth they are able to create for a huge amount of
people) are the basis for today’s global spread of freedom and democracy [1].
Especially tools which enhance our power in the field of mobility have played an important
role in human history. The bicycle, an archetype of the assistance in physical ability and
mobility, is based on the combination of human power and an artificial, technical system
and was introduced by C. Drais in 1817. Later on, the car pressed ahead with this approach
and supplemented human force by motor technology, a kind of actuator. Ergonomics and
the research on efficient man-machine cooperation developed during First and Second
World War in order to maximize the efficiency of man controlled artifacts as motor cycles,
cars, airplanes, ships and other war equipment. After the Second World War, systematic
science in improving man-machine systems led to airplanes and cars which more and more
reduced the physical and cognitive workload of the human users. Today’s cars take over
driving maneuvers in critical situations and electric cars equipped with sensor-actuator
systems provide a multitude of possibilities to assist the driver and driving efficiency.
Within the scope of research on the next generation fighter jet control an autopilot is used
which is able to set its degree of autonomy in real-time based on the measured cognitive
workload of the pilot [2]. An even closer relation between man and machine is represented
by so called mobile suits envisaged by Japanese technology visionaries (e.g. in Japanese
Mangas) since the 60 ’s. In 1963, the Rancho Arm was developed by Rancho Los Amigo
s
Hospital (California) as an artificial limb for handicapped and later on integrated with
computer technology by Stanford University. Experiments with whole mobile suits and
power assistance devices were conducted by Japanese robotic scientists since the 70 ’s.
Today’s version of HAL (Hybrid Assistive Limb) is controlled by bio-electric signals thus
blurring the borders between man and machine. Further, modern power suits allow a
stepwise regulation of the suits’ assistive power according to user’s individual needs.
Finally, Toyota calls its next generation of downsized, personal, and electrical mobility
devices like iReal and iSwing explicitly “Mobility Robots” and closely cooperates with top
robotic researches to make them as intuitively operated as possible.
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
112
Meanwhile, the ICT (Information and Communication Technology) and robotic technology
no longer only focus on upgrading devices for mobility on middle and long distance (e.g.
mobility from city to city, within a city) [3] but enhance more and more devices for mobility
on a short distance and on the level of centimeters (mobility in the neighborhood, within the
building, and individual motions). Especially in ageing societies, aforementioned robotic
power assisting “tools” might transform our way of thinking about how to utilize robot
technology. A multitude of robotic devices able to restore, support, augment, and
supplement human abilities has been developed up to now. In order to support a systematic
development of future concepts, new application scenarios and technologies, we have
mapped the state-of-the-art of robotic power assisted “tools” supporting and augmenting
human abilities. Particularly, we will show in this article, that advancing robot technology
has a growing potential to gain great influence in the construction and building sector and
as assistants in our built environment.
Most major industries have already extensively made use of robotic technology. Robotics
has transformed production system technology in automotive industry, aircraft industry
and in the electrical appliances’ sector. Rapid advancements are currently made in ICT
(Information and Communication Technology) and robotics in the medical field.
Furthermore, in the US companies, e.g. John Deer, make advancements in applying field
robotics to partly and fully autonomous farming machines. In the future, we see a huge
potential for robotics – wearable cooperative systems as well as fully autonomous systems
to permeate the field of construction and building technology. As construction technology
we define tools and processes needed to erect a building. Whereas building technology
refers to the buildings’ or environment’s performance and stands for tools and processes
that assist people within the built environment from the scale of individual buildings up to
neighborhoods or cities.
1.1 Construction technology
Up to now, automation and robotic technology has been applied in construction mainly for
processing raw materials and production of building parts and building modules. Parts and
modules had to be prefabricated in a structured and standardized environment for a safe
and robust operation of the robots. In unstructured and not-standardized environments as
on the construction site or in service environments, autonomous humanoids or service
robots were difficult to operate. However, robot technology advances. Scientists as e.g. T.
Hasegawa find ways to structure environments for robots [4] and also cognition and control
technology become more advanced. Shimizu Corporation, a big Japanese construction
company, cooperates with Yasukawa Electric Corporation, Kawada Industries and the
national research institute AIST for introducing Humanoid robots to construction work for
more than eight years already [5]. It has already been shown that humanoid robots as HRP-2
can carry a joinery bench together with a construction worker, fit an interior wall, and drive
forklifts or diggers. Groups of HRP-2s can cooperate, move over a gradient of around five
degrees and compensate for up to two centimeters on uneven surfaces [6]. They can
straighten up themselves when they fall over. When carrying a component with a human,
they use an adaptive and flexible arm system. An image processing system with a mobile
portable control system has been developed to allow location detection. When the robots
move over uneven surface, a force sensor in the sole of the foot and a balance sensor in the
body register the difference and so, the sole of the foot can adapt to the surface.
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
113
Yokoyama, K., Maeda, J., Isozumi, T., Kaneko, K. (2006) Application of Humanoid Robots for
Cooperative Tasks in the Outdoors
Fig. 1. Humanoid Robot HRP-2 assisting in construction environment in carrying and
installing building parts and building modules. [5]
1.2 Building technology and service tasks
Experts and masterminds, as for example Bill Gates, announce the era of service robotics
and estimate that service robotics as part of assisted environments will undergo a similarly
fast and rigid development as the spread of personal computers in private and economic
areas since the nineties. In 1961, Joe Engelberger already wondered, whether using robotic
technologies only as industrial applications makes any sense. “The biggest market will be
service robots,” [7] asserted Engelberger, who started the industrial robotics era, when his
firm Unimation delivered GM’s first robot. Today, the application of robotics and
distributed robotic sub-systems finally starts to extend into our home, office and town
surroundings. This transformation, which has to be understood as a natural part of the
evolution of robotics, will become visible especially when robots enter the field of service,
assistance and care [8]. We think that modern robotics assisting and serving human beings
will permeate into the “surroundings” of daily life and thus become an integral part of our
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
114
built environment. Although building’s interior environments and service environments
tend to be less structured and standardized, increasingly autonomous robot systems can be
applied to those environments. However, from a short term perspective, it will be easier to
deploy not fully autonomous robotic systems as e.g. Suits for Power Assistance because they
exploit human receptiveness and flexibility for robotic service.
2. Concepts and technologies
Exoskeleton and humanoid robot technology applied in construction and building
technology demands for key concepts and technologies. At fists the degree of autonomy of
the designed system has to be considered. Further, the fusion of speed, power and accuracy
of robotic systems with human intelligence and flexibility within one system and the
operation of humans and robots in dynamic environments can be supported by recent
advancements in sensing and interface technology, actuator and control system technology
and system design strategies. Further, a slow but continuous break up of strict borders
between professions helps to create interdisciplinary cooperation and consortia which are
able handling the complex challenges of man-robot cooperation. At the end of this chapter
we present a categorization of exoskeleton and humanoid robot technology applied in
construction and building technology based on the system complexity.
2.1 Exoskeletons, humanoids and autonomy
Robotic systems can have varying degrees of autonomy. Robots with a low degree of
autonomy require detailed pre-programming or detailed real-time operation of a human
person. Robots with a medium degree of autonomy only require supervision and an
operator only has to assign tasks for which the robot autonomously finds sufficient
solutions. Robots with a high degree of autonomy are capable of performing tasks and
making decisions without major human interference. Especially in the area of construction
and building technology the degree of autonomy of a system plays an important role as e.g.
construction sites and service environments within buildings often provide dynamic
environments and unstructured, complex work tasks. One can address this problem by
modifying or structuring the environment or work task on the one hand or by advancing
robot control technology or the application of artificial intelligence on the other.
2.2 Interface technology for human-robot cooperation
In task oriented systems where humans and robots closely cooperate a close link between
the man’s sensing and motion system and the robot’s sensors and actuators is created
ideally. With every advance in sensing technology and signal interpretation methods, these
cooperative approaches become more practical. Following control strategies based on
sensing human motions, feelings and intentions can be distinguished:
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
115
Intuitive Control
Motion
Gesture
Eye Movement
Force
Control by Bio Signals
Bio-electric Signals
Vital Data (EKG, Blood Pressure, Respiration Frequency)
Brainwaves
Electrons transmitted from Nervous System
2.3 Tele-existence & Tele-Control
Concepts of Tele-Existence and Tele-Control to be used in the field of construction and
building technology were advocated by Prof. Susumu Tachi at the University of Tokyo,
already in 1980s. Tele-existence can be seen concept of advanced Tele-operation. Real world
applications for tele-operated construction machinery as e.g. excavators and trucks had been
developed in Japan since the Mount Unzen incident in 1991. A Vulcan eruption covered a
large area with dust which would be health threatening for humans removing it. Thus a
number of construction machines with the ability to be remote controlled from a save place
had to be developed. Mt. Fugen is the main peak of Unzen Volcano, which is the collective
name of a group of volcanic cones constituting the main part of the Shimabara Peninsula. Its
phreatic eruption on 17 November 1990 caused a number of pyroclastic flows, which killed
44 people and destroyed 820 houses. The area around Mt. Fugen was deadly damaged by
debris flow and pyroclastic flow. The restoration works to remove much stone and sand and
the bank protection works were done by unmanned construction machines in order to avoid
the risk of further catastrophes. Tele-operators manipulated machines from the operation
room, which was more than 2km apart. Wearing special goggles, operators were watching
3D-images of the site sent by cameras equipped with machines. The efficiency of these
remote-controlled works was estimated to be 70 percent of usual works [9]. Due to this
incident Japanese researchers and construction companies realized the importance of tele-
operation technology.
Today intelligent excavators with the ability for tele-operation and even partly autonomous
operation capability are under development in the R&D sections of all major Japanese and
Korean contractors. Further Japanese researchers and construction companies have tried to
control construction machinery by teleported humanoids (Figure 02). This approach has the
advantage that standard construction machinery can be used without modification.
Tele-existence and Tele-control can not only be used for 1:1 real time control of a single
robot or intelligent construction machine by one assigned operator. With rising degree of
autonomy of the robot systems used the tele-operator becomes a sort of supervisor able to
control multiple construction machines at once. Already in the 80s the vision of multiple
cooperating construction robots are operated by a single human supervisor from a central
existed (Figure 03). Today indeed more and more researchers succeed in developing fully
functioning and highly autonomous construction machines that can be tele-supervised
(Figure 03).
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
116
Copyright T. Bock
Fig. 2. Left: Prof. S. Tachi, Tele-existence Mechanical Engineering Laboratory (MEL) and
MITI, 1986; Middle and Right: Contol of Honda ASIMO Humanoid; Tokyu Construction,
Kawasaki Heavy Industries,and AIST
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
117
Society of Civil Engineers, Construction Robotics Commission, Prof. Shigeyuki Obayashi, 1985
Fig. 3. Multiple cooperating construction robots are operated by a single human supervisor
from a central box, Vision Sketch Japanese Research Institute, 1980
Kajima, Pictures taken form website:
http://www.kajima.co.jp/gallery/civil_kajima/bousai/bousai01.html, last visited 24/07/2011.
Fig. 4. Real world applications for tele-operated construction machinery as e.g. excavators
and trucks had been developed in Japan since the Mount Unzen incident in 1991. A Vulcan
eruption covered a large area with dust which would be health threatening for humans
removing it. Thus a number of construction machines with the ability to be remote
controlled from a save place had to be developed. Kajima Corporation, Japan, 1991
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
118
Copyright T. Bock, Picture taken at Hanyang University, Laboratory of Prof. Han.
Fig. 5. Fully functioning system for tele-operation of robotic excavators, the excavators can
operate on a high level of autonomy; the excavation process is monitored by separate laser
module (picture right side) providing information to the robotic excavator. Hanyang
University, Korea, 2011.
2.4 Actuator and control system technology
Complex systems of actuators, joints and links are controlled based on information sensed
and interpreted by internal and external sensor systems. Actuators create the activity and
movement within robotic systems. Today following actuation systems are used in a robotic
power, motion/sensing and cognition augmentation:
Electric Motors
Series Elastic Actuators
Air Pressure
Muscle Wire (e.g. Shape Memory Alloy)
Electroactive Polymers
Piezoelectric Actuators
Besides the increasing ability to downsize motors it is by now possible to improve precision
and speed. Advances in robot kinematics and robot dynamics are important for developing
robust and save control system technology for more complex man-robot systems in
construction and building technology.
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
119
2.5 Energy supply
Energy Supply is a crucial issue in developing exoskeleton and humanoid robotic
applications for construction and building technology. Unlike to robotic applications in
other industries, many tools and assistive devices need to be independent from connecting
cables. However, battery packs necessary to supply energy for the actuators represent heavy
load. Thus, on the one hand the battery systems need to be developed so that they support
mobility and wear-ability of robotic systems but on the other hand robotic applications and
systems have to be designed to be highly energy efficient.
2.6 Development complexity
Only interdisciplinary cooperation can handle the complexity associated with advanced
man-robot cooperation systems. Besides knowledge from fields related to robotics (electrical
engineering, mechanical engineering, and informatics), knowledge from various
anthropological sciences as psychology, ergonomics, neuroscience and psychology is
needed to design such systems [10]. Moreover, the blurring of borders between man and
machine within a single system gives rise to philosophical and ethical questions. Finally, in
order to receive subsidies from investing enterprises and to manage complex system
developments, entrepreneurs with the ability to lead highly interdisciplinary teams and
complex innovations have to be educated.
2.7 Categorization according to system complexity
In order to be able to design work tasks and application scenarios for exoskeletons and
humanoids in construction and building technology we classify robotic systems according to
system complexity. With complex systems we mean systems that consist of a number of sub-
systems and sub-elements. Accordingly, element technologies are basic technologies. They can
be applied as standalone systems or combined as sub-elements to more complex subsystems.
Subsystems denote e.g. partial exoskeletons (exoskeleton for lower body part/feet,
Exoskeleton for upper body part). A total system consists of several sub-systems; here we
mean e.g. total exoskeletons or mobility robots. Autonomous robot systems (humanoid robots,
service robots) and distributed robot systems can operate highly autonomous and are able to
support robot service on city scale. They stand for highly complex robot systems built up by
multitude of element technologies, subsystems and autonomous robot systems.
1. Element Technology
Power Augmentation
Sensing and Motion Augmentation
Cognition Augmentation
2. Subsystems
Assistive Devices and Partial Exoskeletons
3. Total Systems
Exoskeletons
Mobility Robots
4. Autonomous Robot Systems
Android/Humanoid Robots
Service Robots (Service in Buildings)
5. Distributed Robot Systems
Town Robotics & Space Robotics
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
120
3. Examples according to system complexity
In this section we outline several examples of each of the categories introduced above. All
examples contain information about the developing institution and about the systems’
performance. We also go into the target groups and the development stage of each system.
Each category is introduced by a short description of the status quo in the field. Further, we
outline applications in construction and building technology for each category.
3.1 Element technology
Element technologies are basic technologies that can be applied as standalone systems or
combined as sub-elements to more complex subsystems. We denote technologies for power
augmentation, sensing and motion augmentation and cognition augmentation as element
technologies.
3.1.1 Power augmentation
“Power Effector” developed by MMSE Project Team is a robot which augments the strength
of a part of human body, but its concept is different from others. Most wearable robots must
be compact and light in order to be comfortable for the users and be suitable for the
surroundings which are designed for the dimensions of the human body. On the other
hand, another approach is to be bigger and heavier so that operations can be carried out
which a person itself could never accomplish. Mr. Katsuya Kanaoka, Ritsumeikan Univ. has
proposed the concept “Man-Machine Synergy Effector” (MMSE), which combines flexible
human skills with precision and high power of machines [11]. “Power Effector” can amplify
human power 1 to several thousand times. This Technology is expected to be introduced to
heavy physical work that is not programmable and requires not only powerfulness but also
intelligence, facility, and experience.
Power Effector
Power Effector: Scanned from
Takashi, Y. (2005) Collected Data
on Partner Robot Technologies, NTS. INC.
Developer MMSE Project Team
Leading
Researcher
Katsuya Kanaoka,
Ritsumeikan University
Purpose
Augmentation of the
strength in upper limbs
Output Arm: 50 kgf, Grip: 500 kgf
Height 1550 mm
Width 1200 mm
Length 3360 mm
Weight 120 kg
Driving
System
AC Servo Motor, Ball
Screw
Power Supply AC Power Supply
Sensor 6-Axis Force Sensor
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
Purpose
Augmentation of the strength in
upper legs
Output 7 times of human power
Commercial
Launch
2015
Price 20 million yen
Degree of
Freedom
Leg: 3 DOF x 2
Sole: 3 DOF x 2
Sensor 6-Axis Force Sensor
Application in Construction: Pre-fabrication, handling and assembly of heavy building
components in factory and on-site installation of heavy panels to walls and facades.
Left: Copyright T. Bock, Right: Copyright T. Bock Komatsu Construction Machinery Division, applied
at Kajima Construction
Fig. 6. Left: handling robot used in building prefabrication, Germany. Right: Power Effector
used in high-rise construction for façade element installation, Japan.
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
122
Left: Copyright T. Bock, Telerobotic Caisson Construction Project, Right: Copyright T. Bock, MITI
Chikakukan Project, 1985
Fig. 7. Tele-operated Power Effectors used in mining, Japan
3.1.2 Sensing and motion augmentation
This category represents robotic devices which are equipped with a part of human body and
support its movements. These systems should be designed accurately not to interfering
complex movements on joints. An exoskeleton developed by University of Tsukuba works
only when the wearer needs its help so that it doesn’t disturb wearer’s delicate works [12].
Researchers in Okayama University developed some wearable robots called “Power Assist
Wear” [13]. Their actuator is a pneumatic rubber artificial muscle which is light, soft and
fitted for users. “Power Assist Glove” is made from a curved type of artificial muscle which
is a combination of materials with different stretch, e.g. rubbers and cloths. Although they
are mainly used as rehabilitation tools at the moment because of their limited effectiveness,
some products aim at being adapted to construction works and enabling elderly or female
workers to work with less physical efforts.
Application in Construction: Support of workers simple and continuous movements such as
grasping control sticks or lifting heavy building materials up. Enabling weakened workers
because of aging or injuries continue to work.
3.1.3 Cognition augmentation
Wearable computing systems are systems which are attached to a person’s body during use.
A main goal of researchers and developers is that this systems work seamlessly in the
background. They shall assist a person in various situations but not distracting him or the
environment – at the best they are invisible. Wearable Computing technologies have initially
been developed for monitoring astronauts: Life Guard [14] by NASA and Stanford
University, USA, Health Gear [15] by Microsoft Research, E-Watch [16] by Technical
University of Munich, Germany and Carnegie Melon University, USA, V-Mote [17] by
Virginia Commonwealth University. Today, wearable computing systems are increasingly
applied in the industry and service scenarios. A multitude of applications are envisioned in
the military, too. This category “Wearable Computing” mainly represents technologies that
support or augment human sight, hearing and cognition but not human’s physical motion
power. Compared to mobile robots and humanoids, these wearable computing devices
generally have a lower degree of autonomy as they are directly connected to the human
activity.
Application in Construction: Augmented and Mixed Reality applications can support
workers off-site and on-site to perform assembly operations. Wearable sensors devices
attached to workers can be used to monitor their construction acidity as well as their health.
Various AR and MR application have been developed at the laboratory of the authors in a
project called MARY [18].
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
124
Liteye LE-700
Liteye LE-700:
http://www.inition.co.uk/
inition/dispatcher.php?
URL_=product_hmd_liteye
_700&SubCatID_=15&model
=products&action
=get&tab=summary
Developer Liteye Systems, Inc.
Product Type Head Mounted Display
Size 80mm x 24mm x 31mm
Weight 80 g
Display Technology OLED
Resolution 800 x 600 and 640 x 480
Luminance Color:>70cd/m2
White:>270cd/m2
Yellow:>650cd/m2
Green:>600cd/m2
Power 5 – 6 v DC input 400 mW Typical
Anti-RSI Garment
Anti-RSI Garment:
http://www.gizmag.com/
smart-fabrics-medical-
applications/10242/picture/
56113/
Project the Con Text project: Contactless sensors for body
monitoring incorporated in textiles
Developer Philips Research
Technische Universität Berlin
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Textile Research Institute Thüringia-Vogtlandia
Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific
Research
Clothing Plus Oy
Product
Type
Wearable Computing
Purpose Prevention against repetitive strain injuries
Sensor Contactless EMG Sensors
3.2 Subsystems (assistive devices and partial exoskeletons)
This category represents wearable robots which assist wearers during laborious and
continuous work. Their output is not very strong, but these devices are effective in
preventing workers from getting injuries such as backaches. Honda has developed several
walking assist devices based on the technology utilized in ASIMO, their famous Humanoid
robot. “Walking Assist Device with Bodyweight Support System” supports a part of the
wearer’s weight while walking, going upstairs and downstairs and keeping in a hard
position. The supposed users are not disabled but need support for certain works. Smart
Support is a business company from Hokkaido University, which is aimed to popularize
their product called “Smart Suit”. It’s a light and comfortably wearable power assist system
motivated “Semi-Active Assist Mechanism”. This product has been already used for
restoration works after the big earthquake in Tohoku Japan.
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
125
Walking Assist Device with Bodyweight Support
System
Model Smart Suit / Smart Suit Light
Weight 1 kg (goal) / 400g
Power Supply Dry battery
Reduction of
Fatigue
14%
Sensor Back: Bending sensor
Actuator Elastic Material, small motor /
Elastic Material
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
126
Application in Construction: Support of workers physical abilities in light construction and
restoration tasks. Support of workers in prefabrication factories for industrialized building
construction (Sekisui House, Sekisui Heim and Toyota Home)
Smart Suit, Figure taken form Website: http://smartsuit.org/, last visited 24/07/2011
Fig. 8. Smart Suit developed by Hokkaido University and Smart Support Company is used
for restoration works after the big earthquake in Tohoku, Japan.
Left: Walking Assist Device Honda, Figure taken form Website:
http://world.honda.com/news/2008/c081107Walking-Assist-Device/, last visited 24/07/2011,
Right: Copyright T. Bock, T. Linner
Fig. 9. Left: Honda is now testing the usability of its Body Weight Assist Device in its own
factories. Right: Devices like the Body Weight Assist Device can support existing
industrialized and production line based prefabrication of buildings, Sekisui Heim, Japan.
3.3 Total systems
Element technologies as described above can be combined with sub-elements and
subsystems (e.g. partial exoskeletons, exoskeleton for lower body part/feet, and exoskeleton
for upper body part) to more complex total systems as full body exoskeletons or mobility
robots.
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
127
3.3.1 Exoskeletons
“Robot Suit HAL” is a well-known Japanese Exoskeleton which is specialized on detecting
very weak corporal signals on the surface of the skin which are generated when a person
attempts to move. In 2008, Daiwa House Industry started the renting of “HAL for Welfare-
being”. The product is now used in several nursing homes and welfare facilities in Japan to
assist elderly or disabled people in walking. There are also some other prototypes of
exoskeleton in Japan, and each of them uses different actuators, e.g. ultrasonic motors,
pneumatic rubber artificial muscles, and air bag actuators[19][20][21]. They are tackling
some common challenges such as down-sizing, long-time operations, and low-cost
manufacturing in order to bring their product to market. These exoskeletons will get further
usability when they are combined with some other element technologies. Prof. Shigeki
Toyama, who made “Wearable Agri Robot”, plans to develop Augmented Reality goggles
which show information of vegetables and fruits, the health condition of workers, and the
working hours and inform workers when to have a break. Although each project team
expects to introduce own products into a specific working area, it’s relatively easy to apply
one them to other fields, especially construction works, because they support mainly same
movements such as bending down or lifting heavy things up and have a common purpose;
preventing workers from repetitive strain injuries.
HAL: Hybrid Assistive Limb
HAL: Prof. Thomas Bock
Developer CYBERDYNE
Leading
Researcher
Yoshiyuki Sankai
Type Full Body / Lower body
Target User Physically weakened people,
Disabled people
Technology
Readiness
Lease Rental in nursing home
and welfare facility
Price 4 – 5 million yen
Height 1600mm
Weight 23 kg/ 15 kg
Power Supply AC100V Charged battery
Operating time 2 hours 40 minutes
Sensor Corporal Signal Sensors
Angle Sensor of joints
Floor Reaction Force Sensor
Drive System Power Units
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
129
Power Assist Suit for nursing care
Power Assist Suit:
Prof. Thomas Bock
Developer Kanagawa Institute of
Technology
Leading
Researcher
Keijirou Yamamoto
Target User Nurses, Care-workers
Support Motion Lifting up a care-gaver
Technology
Readiness
Prototype
Weight 30 kg
Power Supply Ni-MH batteries
Operating time 20 minutes
Strength of
Assistance
50 % (for safety measure)
Sensor Muscle Hardness Sensor
Actuator Air Bag Actuators driven by
micro air pump
Wearable Robot Suit Version 2
Wearable Robot Suit:
Prof. Thomas Bock
Developer Univ. Korea
Leading
Researcher
Target User
Technology
Readiness
Weight
Power Supply
Operating Time
Strength of
Assistance
Sensor
Actuator
Application in Construction: Support of workers physical abilities in prefabrication factories
or on the construction site. Support in lifting and assembly of heavy and bulky construction
components [22].
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
130
Copyright Prof. Han, Hanyang University
Fig. 10. Wearable robotic exoskeleton system for construction workers. The system can e.g.
support workers to carry and assemble heavy steel bars. Hanyang University, Korea
3.3.2 Mobility robots
Robots for lifting people are applied at the homely environment to support people with
immobility (elderly, patients or disabled) and their caregivers. Lifting is a basic activity of
daily life, meaning it is an event that is indispensable for bathing, dressing, going onto the
toilet and feeding. Patient transfer robots were in the focus of researchers and commercial
developers since the beginnings of the research upon nursing in the 70s. Several types of
transfer can be identified and various types of robots have been developed. Robots for
lifting people from the bed, robotic wheelchairs and robotic walking frames are just a few
basic examples to be named among a series of robotic patient transfer systems, which
have been developed up to now. However, recently robotic technology is also applied to
personal mobility following a “design for all” strategy. Toyota calls its next generation of
downsized, personal, and electrical mobility devices like iREAL and i-Swing explicitly
“Mobility Robots” and for that closely cooperates with top robotic researchers making
these devices as intuitively controllable as possible. Further, also mobile suits as Toyota’s
i-foot and KAIST’s HUBO-FX1 [23] belong to the category of mobility robots. Mobility
Robots can be considered as a special type of mobile suits. They not only augment or
multiply human power but they equip human beings with a completely new capability.
Mobility robots can communicate with each other and the environment (car-to-x
communication) and have a high potential for autonomous or autopilot control.
Therefore, in our categorization we place mobility robots between Exoskelettons and fully
autonomous Humanoids.
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
131
i-REAL
i-REAL: Prof. Thomas Bock
Developer Toyota
Driving Mode Low/ High
Height 1430 mm/ 1125 mm
Width 700 mm
Length 995 mm/ 1510 mm
Maximum
cruising speed
6 km/ 60 km
Power Supply Lithium-ion Rechargeable
Battery
Charging Time 2 hours
Cruising range 30 km
Interface Drive Controller
Other
Technology
Communication Display
Personal Mobility for Indoor Use
Mobility for Indoor Use:
Prof. Thomas Bock
Developer The University of Tokyo IRT,
Toyota
Height 1300 mm
Width 600 mm
Length 640 mm
Weight 45 kg
Sensor Seat: 6-Axis F/T Sensor
Seat and Footrest: Pressure
Sensor
Other
Technology
Perception of pattern on the
floor containing information
about position
CHRIS: Cybernetic Human-Robot Interface
System
CHRIS: Prof. Thomas Bock
Developer Hiroshima University
Height 1400 mm
Width 1000 mm
Length 750 mm
Weight 70 kg
Maximum
Moving Speed
Forward: 2.5 km / h
Backward: 1.8 km / h
Power Supply Lead Storage Battery x 3
Driving System DC Brushless Motors x 2
Interface Cybanetic Interface
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
132
Walking Assist Device
HITACHI: Prof. Thomas Bock
Developer HITACHI
Height
Width
Length
Weight
Power Supply
Driving System
Interface
i-foot
i-foot: Prof. Thomas Bock
Developer Toyota
Height 2360 mm
Weight 200 kg
Total DOF 12 DOF
Load Capacity 60 kg
Cruising speed 1.35 km/h
Interface Joystick Controller
Other Ability Navigating Staircase
HUBO FX-1
HUBO FX-1: KAIST
Humanoid Robot Series,
Public Demonstration
Developer KAIST
Height 1750 mm
Weight 150 kg
Total DOF 12 DOF
Load
Capacity
100 kg
Driving
System
400 / 800W AC Servo Motor with Driver
Sensor 3-Axis F/T Sensor at feet
Inertial Sensor at Torso
2-Axis Accelerometers on Soles
Interface Joystick
Application in Construction: Support of material and element delivery and installation.
Support of factory logistics and construction site logistics. Adaptability of technologies like a
recognition system of floor surface which some personal mobility robots already have into
logistics on construction site or prefabrication factories.
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
133
Copyright T. Bock
Fig. 11. Left: Mobile Construction and Maintenance Robot, TEPCO, Japan; Mobile and
Remote Controlled Transportation Robot for Construction Sites, Obayashi, Japan
? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ?
Copyright Dr. S. Lee, Prof. Han, Hanyang University
Fig. 12. Mobile Robotic System for Human-Robot cooperative work tasks (Ceiling Panel
Installation), Samsung Construction and Hanyang University, Korea.
3.4 Autonomous robots
Autonomous robots stand for highly complex and autonomous robot systems built up by
multitude of element technologies and subsystems. In our categorization we consider
android/humanoid robot system and service robots as autonomous robot systems.
3.4.1 Android/Humanoid robots
Humanoid robots are complex autonomous systems that can adapt to changes in the
environment. Their appearance, function and motion capability are entirely depending on
the equivalent in the human body. Androids not only interpret the human body’s function
but are designed to imitate human appearance and behavior. For both humanoids and
androids service scenarios can easily be envisioned, yet, due to their technical complexity,
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
134
real world applications are still rare. Exoskeletons come from a contrary approach,
combining the flexibility and intelligence of human beings with the speed and power of
robotic systems. Today, Wearable Robots and Assistance Suits provide more flexibility,
however, in the future, considering advancements in robot control and artificial intelligence,
autonomous humanoids, androids and inhuman service robots are likely to increase in
flexibility and the ability to adapt to various unstructured tasks and
Sensor Body: Inclination Sensor
(Gyro-scopes and G-force
sensors)
Foot and wrist: F/T Sensor
Head: 2 Video Cameras
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
135
KHR-3 (HUBO)
KHR-3:
http://hubolab.kaist.ac.kr/KHR-
3.php
Developer KAIST
Height 1250 mm
Width 417mm
Depth 210mm
Weight 56 kg
Walking Speed 0 ~ 1.25 km/h
Grasping Force 0.5 kg / finger
Total DOF 41 DOF
Power Supply 300W NiMH Battery
Operation Time 90 min.
Sensor 3-axis F/T Sensor
Tilt Sensor
CCD Camera
Pressure Sensor
Application in Construction: Control of existing standard construction machinery by tele-
operated humanoids (Figure 13). Humanoid Robots (as e.g. HRP-2) can assist workers in
construction environments by carrying and installing building parts and building modules
(Figure 01).
Copyright T. Bock
Fig. 13. Left: HARP Humanoid Robot driving forklift delivering construction material.
Right: Honda’s Asimo controlling an excavator.
3.4.2 Service robots (service in buildings)
Especially in Japan, a multitude of so called Entertainment Robots and Service Robots are
developed and sold. Entertainment robots are designed to amuse, communicate, and
perform simple tasks in the household. Mitsubishi’s Wakamaru and Sony’s Aibo for
example had primarily been designed to communicate with household members and play
music, not for providing care or household services. Yet, as the upkeep of social interaction
increasingly becomes an integral part of care strategies, the taking over of entertainment and
communication tasks by robots is envisioned by researchers and developers. Furthermore,
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
136
homemaking robots are robots which take over simple tasks as cleaning, transport of objects
or informing about intruders or the pet’s well-being. Often, the robot’s performing tasks in
the household contain elements of both entertainment and homemaking.
Wakamaru
Wakamaru: Prof. Thomas Bock
Developer MITSUBISHI HEAVY
INDUSTRIES
Business Model Home Service Robot
Height 1000 mm
Width 450 mm
Length 470 mm
Weight 30 kg
Maximum
Moving speed
1 km/h
Total DOF 13 DOF
Drive System DC Servo Motor
Power Supply Lithium-ion Battery
Operation Time 2 hours
Communication Human detection, Individual
recognition, Voice Recognition,
Speech synthesis
RIDC-01
RIDC-01: Prof. Thomas Bock
Developer Tmsuk
Business Model Guidance & Cleaning Robot
Height 1300 mm
Width 700 mm
Length 960 mm
Weight 100 kg
Maximum
Moving speed
3.0 km/h
Total DOF 10 DOF
Power Supply DC-24V Lithium-ion Battery
Operation time 2 hours
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
137
PBDR: Partner Ballroom Dance Robot
PBDR: Prof. Thomas Bock
Developer Tohoku University
NOMURA UNISON
TroisO
Business Model Dance Partner Robot
Height 1650 mm
Width 1000 mm
Length 1000 mm
Weight 100 kg
Degree of
Freedom
15 DOF
Drive System Servo Motor
Power Supply Battery
Application in Construction/Building: Service Robots can assist to carry out or can (partly)
autonomously carry out household tasks and care tasks in an ageing society. Transfer of
technologies (which some entertainment robots already have) towards humanoid robots
thus gaining communication and cooperation ability. Further service robots can be used to
maintain buildings, inspect nuclear power plants [24] and assist in homes for the elderly.
Copyright T. Bock
Fig. 14. Left: Wakamaru acting as edutainment and communication robot in a home
environment. Right: Robot for guiding and helping blinded and disabled people at home
3.5 Distributed robot systems
Urban robotics is a research field situated between smart/sensible city research and robotics
research. Its goal is to develop cutting-edge technologies as well as application scenarios for
urban life supported by robotic devices. The research field is pioneered by T. Hasegawa and
his Town Management System enabling robots to outsource complexity to sensors and
vision systems distributed in the city environment [4]. Other interesting impulses in this
research field are coming from research on smart cars and e-government. Furthermore,
NASA accounts controlled traffic systems and smart grid energy systems as so called
“Immobile Robots” [25].
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
138
Application in Construction/Building: Distributed robot systems enable robots to execute
various tasks for ordinary human life on building and city scale. Further, they can be used to
operate highly automated construction sites (this application of robotics we describe in
detail in [26]). Tele-operated robot and construction system consisting of multiple
subsystems can be used for automated construction on moon, mars or deep sea and
underwater mining operations.
Copyright T. Hasegawa
Fig. 15. The Robot Town enables robots to execute various tasks for ordinary human life by
creating an urban environment well structured in informative way for robots and service
systems. T. Hasegawa, Kyushu University [4].
Copyright T. Bock
Fig. 16. Control Center of Shimizu’s automated construction system for highly automatic
erection of high-rise buildings, Japan, Shimizu Corporation
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
139
Copyright T. Bock, Shimizu Space Project
Fig. 17. Tele-operated robot and construction system consisting of multiple subsystems for
automated construction on moon or mars, Japan, Shimizu Corporation.
4. Relation of system complexity and work task complexity
By implementing robotic technology in construction and building technology, the degree
of autonomy of the robotic system has to be considered. In general, the degree of
autonomy of a robotic system is closely correlated to its work tasks it can perform. Work
tasks can be classified into work tasks which are structured and standardized on the one
hand and unstructured and not standardized work tasks on the other hand. For example,
on the lowest level, resources and materials are processed using robots in standardized
conditions. However, the assembly of building kits is done in a less structured
environment and thus needs robotic systems which are more flexible. Up to today, it was
difficult to apply humanoids to other autonomous complex robot technology in work
tasks as building kit assembly and service. Yet, advancements in structuring
environments and information about the environment for robotic systems on the one
hand, and robot control technology and artificial intelligence on the other hand, lead to
the fact that all highly autonomous systems can increasingly be applied in service
environments.
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
140
Exoskeletons and Humanoid
Robots in Construction
E
le
m
e
n
t
T
e
ch
n
o
lo
g
y
S
u
b
sy
st
e
m
s
T
o
ta
l
S
y
st
e
m
s
A
u
t
o
n
o
m
o
u
s
S
y
st
e
m
D
is
tr
ib
u
te
d
S
y
st
e
m
Mining, dam
Tunneling,
Road
construction
Stationary
Industry
(Component and
building Prefab.)
On-site
construction
Facility
Management
Services in built
Environment
(Building to City
Scale)
Table 1. Up to today, it was difficult to apply humanoids to other autonomous service robots
in work tasks as building kit assembly and service. Yet, advancements in structuring
environments and information about the environment for robotic systems on the one hand,
and robot control technology and artificial intelligence on the other hand, lead to the fact
that all highly autonomous systems can increasingly be applied in well planned service
environments.
The notion of Generation Robots was introduced by Professor H. Moravec, Carnegie
Mellon University, in order to describe the evolution of robot technology in near future.
First Generation Robots refer to robot systems have an autonomy and intellectual capacity
that is compare able to that of a lizard (available: 2010). Second Generation Robots are
capable of learning and their intelligence is comparable to that of a mouse (available:
2020). Further, intellectual abilities of Third Generation Robots shall be comparable to that
of a monkey (available 2030) and that of Fourth Generation Robot’s intelligence finally
shall be comparable to that of human beings (available: 2040). In order to be able to
describe earlier developments in robot technology we introduce generation zero in our
graphic.
Generation 0 Robots
Generation 1 Robots
Generation 2 Robots U
n
st
ru
ct
u
re
d
E
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
tt
S
tr
u
ct
u
re
d
E
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
t
Human Interaction
Ambient Intelligence
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
141
5. Modularity and compatibility of element technology
The authors are currently working on applying and seamlessly integrating distributed
robotic technology and mechatronic systems into home, care and city environments [27]
[28] [29]. When people are assisted in close correlation by a robotic system, it is necessary
to acquire as much data as possible about the person in real-time (e.g. activity, movement,
vital signs) in order to understand and be able to predict mental and physical stat at any
time. The authors currently develop a chair which is in real-time monitoring and
interpreting vital data and is beyond that able to serve as a control station for games and
home automation. The chair is developed within GEWOS, a University-Industry
collaborative project financed by the German ministry (Runtime: 2010-2013) [30]. Its
objective is to upgrade furniture components with sensors and other mechatronic
components in order to support a healthy, save and active life at home. Among the
partners are the Fraunhofer Institute for integrated circuits (section medical sensors) and
EnOcean GmbH, a forerunner in energy harvesting and sensor applications. The first
target of the consortium is to develop a “Fitness Chair” which is measuring people’s vital
signs, then makes those vital signs transparent to the user and finally try to activate the
user to become more active (Figure 15), do sports and meet friends.
Copyright T. Linner
Fig. 18. Sensor Chair developed within the authors’ R&D (Research & Development) Project
GEWOS. The “Fitness Chair” is measuring people’s vital signs, makes those vital signs then
transparent to the user and finally try’s to activate the user to become more active, do sports
and meet friends.
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
142
Fig. 19. Similarity and interchangeability of underlying basic technologies between robots of
different categories. From left to right: Kaist’s Humaniod Robot HUBO, Kaist’s Mobile
HUBO FX-1 suit built upon the HUBO platform, TUM’s GEWOS sensor chair serving as
control interface, IRT’S and Toyota’s r intuitively controllable robotic wheelchair.
Above, the chair provides an open server platform which allows doctors, physical therapists
and other health professionals to develop service applications for customers. Beyond that,
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
143
the chair with its variety of integrated sensors serves as a controller for virtual reality games
and home automation. Companies as well as researchers are interested in bringing this
solution to the market. In March 2011 it has even been covered by the German issue of
Technology Review. The chair contains following systems:
EKG-Module: Measuring heart rate variability
SPO2-Module: Measuring blood pressure and oxygen saturation of the blood by infrared
and special signal processing algorithms
Activity-Module: Sensor system for analyzing the user’s activity in the proximity of the
chair
Weight-Module: Measuring weight and weight distribution on the chair
Data Platform with GUI: Allows third parties (doctors, physical therapists and other health
professionals) to develop service applications for customers
Gaming Aspect: Chair itself can be used as controller and training application to enhance
the user’s activity at home.
The technology applied to the GEWOS Sensor chair has the potential to be applied to
Mobility Robots (e.g. IRT’S and Toyota’s r intuitively controllable robotic wheelchair) and
mobile suits (e.g. Toyota’s i-foot, Kaist’s Mobile HUBO FX-1 suit built upon the HUBO
platform) for more users being accumulated and indirectly controlled. Further, HUBO FX-1
is good example that it is possible to apply technological platforms to robots of various
categories. The HUBO leg platform has been applied to the Humanoid robot HUBO as well
as to the Mobility Robot HUBO FX-1. It can be assumed that in the future this
interchangeability of technologies will increase. So that, for example wearable computers
(e.g. head up displays) and Single Joint Assistance Devices can support users to control
Mobility Robots and Humanoids.
6. Conclusion
We have argued that human beings are steadily using and advancing tools. Exoskeletons
and especially humanoid robotic technology in ill defined construction and built service
environment as a whole or its subsystems/elements can be seen as a highly advanced tool
or cooperating set of tools. Exoskeletons and humanoid robotic technology not only allows
augmenting human abilities but creates tools that are capable of autonomous decision-
making and performance in order to achieve certain goals as agent of a human being
especially in dangerous, dirty and tedious construction activities. Most major industries
have already extensively made use of robotic technology, which transforms production
system technology in automotive industry, aircraft industry, the electrical appliance’s sector,
the medical field, farming and even recently construction. For the near future, we see a huge
potential for robotics – wearable cooperative systems as well as fully autonomous systems-
to permeate the field of construction and building technology. We have presented a
categorization distinguishing between mechatronic, robotic, microsystemic element
technology (power augmentation, sensing and motion augmentation, and cognition
augmentation), subsystems (assistive devices and partial exoskeletons), total systems
(exoskeletons, mobility robots), autonomous robots (humanoids, service robots) and highly
complex distributed robot systems. Further, we have shown that with each new generation
of robots, the applicability of robots in rather unstructured environments as on the
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
144
construction sites or in building service environment advances. Finally, new sensing and
interface technologies allow that robotic systems can be fully integrated in complex human-
machine interaction systems and tasks. Based on the findings presented in this article, we
assume that more and more flexible and autonomous exoskeletons and humanoid robotic
technology will continue to permeate our in terms of complexity and work tasks rather
unstructured domain of construction and building environment. Ultimately those
exoskeletons and humanoid robotic technologies even will open up completely new
possibilities for mankind in extreme and highly unstructured environments such as deep
sea under water mining/habitat and construction and mining in space.
7. Appendix
Appendix should be put at the end of the chapter before Reference. You do not need to
include any number before Appendix.
8. References
[1] Lenk, H. (2010) Humans- flexible multi-ability beings. An introduction modern
philosophical Antropology situated between bio, techno and culture related
science, Vielbrück Wissenschaft, Weilerswist
[2] Dobson, D.L., Hollnagel, E (2004) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (Human Factors
and Ergonomics), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
[3] The European Ambient Assisted Living Program distinguishes between assistive devices
for hectometric, metric and centimetric mobility or motion ability.
[4] Murakami, K., Hasegawa T., Karazume R., Kimuro, Y. (2008). A Structured Environment
with Sensor Networks for Intelligent Robots. IEEE Sensors 2008 Conference
[5] Yokoyama, K., Maeda, J., Isozumi, T., Kaneko, K. (2006) Application of Humanoid
Robots for Cooperative Tasks in the Outdoors
[6] Bock, t. (2004) Humanoid Construction Robots instead of Low Wage Labor. In: Concrete
Plant and Precast Technology, Bauverlag, Gütersloh.
[7] Englberger, J.F. (1989). Robotics in Service. Massachussets: MIT Press.
[8] T. Linner, M. Kranz, L. Roalter, T. Bock (2011) Robotic and Ubiquitous Technologies
for Welfare Habitat. In: Journal of Habitat Engineering, Vol. 03, Number 1, pp.
101-110
[9] Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Faculty of Science, Kyushu University,
Website: http://133.5.170.64/Museum/Museum-e/Museum-e.html, last visited
24/07/2011.
[10] Prof. Sankai, Cyberdyne, “Cyerbernics” Science
[11] Katsuya Kanaoka, “A Study on Man-Machine Synergy Effect in Non-Programmable
Heavy Physical Work”, Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Construction
Robotics in Japan, September 2, 2008, pp.119-124
[12] Yasuhisa Hasegawa, Kosuke Watanabe, Yasuyuki Mikami, Yoshiyuki Sankai,
“Exoskeleton hand and wrist support system” , Proceedings of the 11th
Symposium on Construction Robotics in Japan, September 2, 2008, pp.81-92
www.intechopen.com
Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technologyin Construction and Built Environment
145
[13] Toshiro Noritsugu, Masahiro Takaiwa, Daisuke Sasaki, “Power assist wear driven with
pneumatic rubber artificial muscles”, Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on
Construction Robotics in Japan, September 2, 2008, pp.109-118
[14] K. Montgomery, C. Mundt, G. Thonier, A. Tellier, U. Udoh, V. Barker, R. Ricks, L.
Giovangrandi, P. Davies, Y. Cagle, J. Swain, J. Hines, G. Kovacs, “Lifeguard- A
Personal Physiological Monitor For Extreme Environments”.
[15] Nuria Oliver & Fernando Flores-Mangas, “HealthGear: A Real-time Wearable System
for Monitoring and Analyzing Physiological Signals”.
[16] Uwe Maurer, Anthony Rowe, Asim Smailagic, Daniel P. Siewiorek, “eWatch: A
Wearable Sensor and Notification Platform”.
[17] Hughes, E.; Masilela, M.; Eddings, P.; Raflq, A.; Boanca, C.; Merrell, R “VMote: A
Wearable Wireless Health Monitoring System”.
[18] Timmermanns, J. (2006) MARY – Konzeption und Bewertung eines Augmented-Reality-
gestützten Systems zur Optimierung des Bauprojektzyklus. Editor: Prof. Dr.-
Ing./Univ. Tokio Thomas Bock, Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart.
[19] Shigeki Toyama, Junichiro Yonetake, UltraSonicMotor Powered Assisted Suit System,
Society of Biomechanism Japan, Vol. 30, No.4, 2006, pp189-193
[20] Hiroshi Kobayashi, Sho Hasegawa, Hirokazu Nozaki, “Development and Application
of a Muscle Force Enhancement Wear: Muscle Suit”, Proceedings of the 11th
Symposium on Construction Robotics in Japan, September 2, 2008, pp.93-100
[21] Mineo Ishii, Keijiro Yamamoto, Kazuhito Hyodo, “Stand- Alone Wearable Power Assist
Suit –Development and Availability-“, Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics Vol.17
No.5, 2005
[22] KAIST Humanoid Robot Series, Public Demonstration
[23] Han, C. (2011) “Human Robot Cooperation Technology” – An ideal midway Solution
heading toward the Future of Robotics and Automation in Construction,
International Symposium on Automation and Robotics
in Construction, Korea
[24] KAIST Humanoid Robot Series, Public Demonstration
[25] Arai, T. (2011) Advanced Robotics and Mechatronics and their applications in
Construction Automation, International Symposium on Automation and Robotics
in Construction, Korea
[26] McCandless, J.W., McCann, R.S., Marshi, I. Kaiser, M.K., Andre,A.D.(2006) Human
Factors Technologies for Space Exploration. In proceedings of Space 2006. San Jose,
2006
[27] Bock, T., (2007) Construction Robotics, in Autonomous Robots, Springer Science
[28] Bock, T., Linner, T., Lee, S. (2010) Ambient Integrated Robotics: new Approach for
supporting Elderly People with integrated Technology in Living Environments. ISR
2010 International Symposion on Robotics. Munich , June 2010
[29] Kranz, M., Linner, T., Ellmann, B., Bittner, A. (2010) Robotic Service Core for Ambient
Assisted Living. 4th International Conference on Pervasive Computing
Technologies for Healthcare 2010, Munich, March.
[30] T. Linner, B. Ellmann, T. Bock (2011) Ubiquitous Life Support Systems for an Ageing
Society in Japan. In: Ambient Assisted Living: Advanced Technologies and Societal
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
146
Change. Edited by R. Wichert, B. Eberhardt, Springer Science + Business Media,
Sportkreativwerkstatt, SOPHIA GmbH, Technical University Munich, Runtime:
2010-2013, Further Information: www.br2.ar.tum.de and www.gewos.org
www.intechopen.com
The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications
Edited by Dr. Riadh Zaier
ISBN 978-953-307-951-6
Hard cover, 300 pages
Publisher InTech
Published online 20, January, 2012
Published in print edition January, 2012
InTech Europe
University Campus STeP Ri
Slavka Krautzeka 83/A
51000 Rijeka, Croatia
Phone: +385 (51) 770 447
Fax: +385 (51) 686 166
www.intechopen.com
InTech China
Unit 405, Office Block, Hotel Equatorial Shanghai
No.65, Yan An Road (West), Shanghai, 200040, China
Phone: +86-21-62489820
Fax: +86-21-62489821
This book provides state of the art scientific and engineering research findings and developments in the field of
humanoid robotics and its applications. It is expected that humanoids will change the way we interact with
machines, and will have the ability to blend perfectly into an environment already designed for humans. The
book contains chapters that aim to discover the future abilities of humanoid robots by presenting a variety of
integrated research in various scientific and engineering fields, such as locomotion, perception, adaptive
behavior, human-robot interaction, neuroscience and machine learning. The book is designed to be accessible
and practical, with an emphasis on useful information to those working in the fields of robotics, cognitive
science, artificial intelligence, computational methods and other fields of science directly or indirectly related to
the development and usage of future humanoid robots. The editor of the book has extensive R&D experience,
patents, and publications in the area of humanoid robotics, and his experience is reflected in editing the
content of the book.
How to reference
In order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to copy and paste the following:
T. Bock, T. Linner and W. Ikeda (2012). Exoskeleton and Humanoid Robotic Technology in Construction and
Built Environment, The Future of Humanoid Robots – Research and Applications, Dr. Riadh Zaier (Ed.), ISBN:
978-953-307-951-6, InTech, Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/the-future-of-humanoid-robots-
research-and-applications/exoskeleton-and-humanoid-robotic-technology-in-construction-and-built-
environment
Off-Site
Production in the UK Construction Industry- A Brief Overview
1
Offsite Production in the UK
Construction Industry – prepared by HSE
A Brief Overview
Report Prepared by Stephen Taylor: Construction
Engineering Specialist Team: HSE
Off-Site Production in the UK Construction Industry- A Brief Overview
2
Report Prepared by Stephen Taylor: Construction Engineering Specialist Team: HSE
Contents
Historical perspective
Drivers for offsite construction
The position today
‘Buildoffsite’
Loughborough University Research
Steel Construction Institute – The benefits of offsite construction in urban
locations
Timber frame construction for high rise buildings
Appendix 1 Common Terms used in offsite construction
Appendix 2 Individual Company Case studies
• Case Study 1 Van Elle – modular precast post-tensioned foundations
• Case Study 2 Corus Living Solutions – modular construction
• Case Study 3 Armstrong Integrated Systems – plug and play plant
rooms
• Case Study 4 Corefast – prefabricated lift and stair cores
• Case Study 5 Yorkon – complete building
• Case Study 6 BUMA –complete building
• Case Study 7 Wilson James – construction logistics
Appendix 3 Site Specifics
• Substructure – In situ augured piles
• Bridges and roads
• Culverts and tunnel Shafts
• Frame – concrete and steel
• Light cladding
• Internals – bathroom pods
• Services
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
3
This paper discusses the historical and current application of modern methods of construction using off-site
production techniques. The paper gives an overview of the various types of off-site construction; specific case
studies illustrating current practice; and, the primary benefits to health and safety on construction sites through its
implementation.
This brief history and overview owes much of its content to efforts by others notably members of the Buildoffsite
team such as Loughborough University, The Steel Construction Institute, TRADA and the Building Research
Establishment. Without their efforts during the last 10 years there would be little understanding of how this
important part of the UK construction Industry is structured and where its utilisation can be most beneficial.
Photograph courtesy of Corus Living Solutions PLC
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
4
Historical Perspective
The end of World War One saw the United Kingdom
construction industry affected by major shortages of
skilled labour and building materials – both having
been diverted into the war effort. The result was an
acute shortage of housing. This shortage stimulated
a search for new methods of construction that would
alleviate this problem.
Between 1918 and 1939 over 20 steel-framed
housing systems along with various types of housing
based on traditional insitu and precast concrete,
timber and occasionally cast iron building methods
were developed.
Over this period 4.5 million houses were built but only
around 5% were constructed using new methods of
construction. The majority of houses were still
traditionally built as labour and materials became
less scarce.
In Scotland there was also a need to build new
homes. A need that could not be satisfied using
traditional building methods mainly due to a shortage
of good quality bricks, a lack of bricklayers and the
rising costs of stone and slate. This forced the need
to build substantially more houses using alternative
methods of construction compared to the south.
World War 2
The end of the World War Two saw a new approach
for the construction of new dwellings. In addition to
replacing houses destroyed during the war, the
Government in1945 published a white paper with
objectives to complete the slum clearance
programme started in the 1930’s.
The emphasis was to supplement traditional building
operations with methods of construction using
industrial capacity outside of the building industry.
Immediately after the war there was a surplus of steel
and aluminium production from industries geared to
war output and now requiring diversification to
survive. These factors drove the industry towards
prefabrication and resulted in many varieties of
concrete, timber, steel and hybrid framed systems.
Industrialised Buildings
Throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s the UK building
industry moved towards industrialised forms of
building. However, while those who were promoting
industrialised building methods with an ever growing
confidence, those who lived in these houses
remained suspicious about modern methods of
construction, in particular high-rise building –
suspicions that heightened with the collapse of
Ronan Point and other problems associated with
large panel high-rise buildings.
Another generic form of construction used during the
1960’s and 70’s was volumetric construction
involving the production of buildings as a number of
boxes connected on site – usually involving
lightweight frame construction in timber or steel.
Pioneering volumetric units during the 1940’s were
made up of 4 aluminium-framed units one of which
contained the entire plumbing. These were later
superseded by aluminium panellised construction.
These units pioneered the principle of bathroom and
kitchen service cores.
During the 1960’s a simplification of the design
process produced Rationalised Traditional
Construction
Steel, timber and concrete framed systems continued
development into the early 1980’s. Prefabricated
housing became dominated by timber frame systems
using storey height timber wall panels to the inner
leaf, timber floor panels and an outer leaf of brick or
Industrialised building
Industrialised building is based on the principal that
as much of the work is done in a factory
environment leaving simple assembly operations to
take place on site. Industrialised building takes two
forms: closed and open. Closed construction has
much of the structure made from a fixed set of
prefabricated parts. Open construction produces a
shell from a small number of parts allowing the
designer to create a unique design and substitute
products from other manufacturers.
Many industrialised building systems employ large
panel methods of construction using factory made
pre-cast concrete floor and wall panels. Units arrive
on site in their assembly sequence and then
assembled with the aid of a crane.
Rational Traditional Construction
This used masonry cross-wall construction with the
front and rear elevations in-filled with storey height
timber framed panels. All dimensions and details
were standardised with all joists cut to a standard
length and eaves details suitable for a range of
external wall designs
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
5
stone. Timber framed dwellings grew to around 30%
of the new build market but suffered a dramatic
downturn after adverse coverage on the World in
Action TV programme
In Scotland where the traditional building method is
stone or timber rather than brick and with an
established and respected timber frame tradition the
market for this type of construction was hardly
affected at all.
With the ‘Rethinking Construction Agenda’ the UK
construction industry is again experimenting with
alternative construction techniques.
Drivers for offsite construction
There is now a shift towards prefabrication through
political pressure to construct affordable quality
homes and by major problems inherent within the
construction industry.
Political initiatives include ‘Rethinking Construction’
the report of the Construction Task Force (the Egan
Report) and the subsequent launch of the Movement
for Innovation (M4I) and the Housing Forum.
In the social housing sector the Housing Corporation
(HC) have strongly supported the activities of the
Task Force and the Housing Forum and require
future schemes to be Egan compliant.
Private house builders are looking at prefabrication
due to skill shortages coupled with an aging
workforce. It is difficult to get skilled workers for
conventional sites as younger people no longer
regard the construction industry as a worthwhile
career through its poor image and poor working
conditions.
Ongoing reviews of Building Regulations – particularly
the requirements for thermal and acoustic
performance – are setting more onerous criteria for
performance requirements and the testing regimes of
the finished dwelling.
Good acoustic and thermal performance
requirements both need quality workmanship if
standards are to be consistent. Offsite construction
offers a chance of achieving consistently high
standards compared to traditional site-based
masonry construction. As regulations become even
more onerous and clients see the improvement in
quality available from prefabrication an increasing
proportion of housing will be built in this way.
The position today
The off site construction of buildings, building
elements and structures is currently worth around £2-
3 Billion per year and accounts for around 2% of the
total construction market – a market share increasing
by 25% per year.
Off-site production is fragmented and dominated by
relatively small companies with little effective
coordination or partnering. Assumptions are still
made by those who procure buildings that off-site
solutions have failed in the past – the World in Action
syndrome – that solutions are aimed only at the
housing market and that off site is more expensive
than traditional on site methods of construction.
World in Action
‘ World in Action’ was severely critical of a small
group of timber framed dwellings in the West of
England inferring that the construction was not
watertight giving rise to rot in the structure. The
programme implied that this defect applied to all
timber-framed buildings and problems for current
owners of this type of construction would occur in
the future.
Screened at a time when the ‘Right to Buy’
scheme was being promoted and when many
public sector houses were built in timber frame
construction there was a significant down-turn in
the number of houses sold.
Over 400 houses were independently surveyed
in areas of severe exposure and found no
evidence of decay that supported the projections
made in the programme. The programme is still
quoted today as a justification for choosing
different forms of construction
M4I and the Housing Forum
The Movement for Innovation was launched in
1998 to facilitate cultural change in the UK
construction Industry identified as necessary by
the Egan Report. Four priorities were identified:
• product development;
• project implementation;
• partnering the supply chain; and,
• production of components.
Five drivers for change were identified:
• customer focus;
• committed leadership;
• integration of processes;
• integration of product teams; and,
• commitment to people.
In December 1998 the Housing Forum was
launched to promote innovation in the Housing
Sector through mechanisms such as key
performance indicators, seminars, demonstration
projects and the Offsite Manufacturing Working
Group.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
6
Clients using off-site production techniques find that
many UK manufacturers now use state of the art
manufacturing techniques in modern highly
automated factories. Benefits include predictability,
quality assurance, faster construction times, less
waste, less noise and disruption to neighbours, less –
even zero – defects and lower site accident rates and
improved health and safety.
These advantages are seen clearly in urban locations
where the increasing demand for housing and the
scarcity of green field sites forces developers to build
on ever smaller plots of land within existing
residential developments. As more housing is built,
so the demand for schools, shops, hospitals, and
leisure and infrastructure facilities increases.
The Steel Construction Institute carried out in-depth
studies of several construction projects involving
various degrees of pre-fabricated steel construction
in urban locations. The study identified the benefits of
modern methods of construction with particular
regard to the disruption caused to local residents
from dust, noise and commercial vehicle movements
and the environmental impact of site-generated
waste. The study looked at three schools and three
residential buildings using varying degrees of
prefabrication including bare steel panels, insulated
infill panels and volumetric modules.
The findings support the view that off-site
construction is faster than traditional on-site
construction. This was an important factor in the case
of the three schools as the building programme was
determined by the new school term. In one case this
meant cutting the build time from 76 to 54 weeks. All
of the sites visited were measurably quieter than
traditional construction sites with fewer people
working on site.
A similar study carried out by the SCI on a 4-storey
residential building estimated that the total amount of
site labour could be reduced by as much as 75%
through the use of off-site construction – a benefit to
the local residents in terms of the general level of site
activity and the number of vehicles travelling to and
from the site on a daily basis and needing
somewhere to park during the day.
An important source of nuisance to local residents is
commercial vehicle traffic from deliveries of
materials, collection of waste and deliveries and
collections of plant. Off site construction reduced the
quantity of site-generated waste by the elimination of
waste board materials and insulation and the
complete elimination of steel off-cuts.
There are many attributes to procuring construction
materials, elements of construction and finished
buildings away from the place where they will be
used. Most are favourable to the adoption of these
techniques and include:
• Reduction in Waste materials
Factory production lines using CNC machines for
accurate cutting, aligning, screwing, nailing, painting
and handling etc drastically reduce waste materials.
What waste is produced is controlled and recycled.
• Shorter Build times
Time on site depends on the amount of factory-
produced components and those that are assembled
traditionally. Buildings may be constructed from large
and small components delivered to site and
fabricated by many different trades. Build times are
compromised by material and skill shortages and by
inclement weather. Buildings that are 100%
manufactured in a factory, possibly many hundreds
of miles from the site, delivered by road transport and
erected on site by crane using skilled assemblers are
not subject to these on-site problems. An example of
lower site time is that demonstrated by McDonald,s
fast food chain where site time from green field to
first hamburger sold can be as low as 48 hours site
time. Time in a controlled factory production line is
almost 4000 hours.
• Controlled build environment
Factory controlled conditions mean a better quality of
build; better finish; fewer defects; all snagging
complete and all services tested. These advantages
are matched by those for the skilled workforce who
are carrying out the work – a warm, controlled and
enclosed workplace using production line techniques
that significantly reduce the risk of accidents and ill
health.
• Made to order
Orders for factory assembled components is not
weather dependent. Work is scheduled for specific
times on the production line with start and finish not
controlled by inclement weather disruptions.
• Less noise, dust and local disruption
There can be much annoyance to neighbours caused
by traditional building methods usually from noise,
dust and litter. With less activity on the construction
site the local environment benefits.
• Fewer workmen on site
As most of the work has been carried out off site
there is a reduced assembly time on site with fewer
tradesmen required.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
7
• Creation of employment in areas away from
the building site
With shortages in locally available skills it is unlikely
that traditional construction methods employ local
labour. The site workforce may have to travel
considerable distances to the site. Employment for
factory-produced buildings is easier as the factory
site is permanent and skill shortages and numbers
can be easily addressed. Local employment will
always benefit where permanent factory units are
established.
• Transport from factory to site
Whatever is constructed in the factory has to be
transported to the construction site and is dependent
upon the limitations of vehicles and available traffic
routes. Modular buildings are limited to the sizes that
can be lifted and transported safely to site by lorry.
• Cost
Tenders often take no account of the shorter delivery
and erection times; and many benefits are negated
by following trades using traditional building methods
e.g. precast concrete piles and ring beams are
manufactured off-site, delivered and erected.
Erection time for precast beams can be measured in
minutes while following masonry based trades and
roofing take weeks to complete. Other savings are
made in the reduction of preliminaries, reduced site
storage requirements and welfare facilities.
• Economies of scale
Factory based systems are not particularly suitable
for bespoke one-off buildings and economies of scale
are dependant upon large and regular orders. Where
bulk orders are procured cost savings are significant
and benefit both supplier and manufacturer.
• Computing and traceability of components
3D modelling and component scheduling enables a
fully completed building to be visualised prior to
construction. Changes to the layout can be made
quickly and cheaply. Assembly drawings are used by
the factory production lines using CNC machines and
production methods. As-built drawings and
equipment schedules become embedded in the O
and M manual making it easy to identify parts for
maintenance schedules.
• Technological
The use of templates and jigs in a factory
environment provides greater accuracy and
tolerances particularly when used with CAD design
systems.
• Reduction in accidents and ill health
Transferring much of the construction programme
from an open site to a controlled factory environment
reduces on-site time for workers and reduces the
potential for site-based accidents and ill health.
While this is highly desirable there must also be
serious consideration that any site-based risk is not
transferred to the factory or somewhere in-between
factory and site.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
8
‘Buildoffsite’
Buildoffsite is an industry-wide campaigning
organisation of clients, developers, designers,
contractors, manufacturers, suppliers, government,
advisors and researchers promoting uptake of offsite
construction techniques by UK construction.
Growing demand, coupled with poor build quality and
a reducing skills base, has created a dilemma that
will not be resolved without a “step change” in
productivity and quality of build. Offsite techniques
offer a potential solution. Buildoffsite, through initial
funding from the DTI promotes this option.
Offsite construction has long been seen as a
potential solution to the challenges facing UK
construction. The uptake has been limited.
There are many successful companies but the
industry is fragmented and therefore critical mass for
offsite construction has not been achieved.
For the benefits of offsite to be more widely
understood and applied, the challenge is to create
mechanisms that will enable the offsite industry to
make its case more effectively by increasing
awareness and setting standards.
DTI’s initial funding delivered a critical mass of
stakeholders in off site and identified and
implemented priority actions – a first step in bringing
offsite into the mainstream – ultimately achieving a
ten-fold increase in the uptake of offsite by:
• Demonstrating the business case,
• Setting standards for the design,
manufacture, and construction process
• Resolving interfaces,
• Providing an independent, authoritative
source of data, and,
• Providing a forum for discussion of the
benefits and challenges to inform and
educate construction industry professionals
Organisations committed to Buildoffsite include:
AcerMetric
Acumen7
Anglian Water
Apex Wiring Solutions Ltd
Apollo Adhesives
Armstrong
Arup
BAA
BBA
Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory
Reform (BERR)
Black Architecture
Bourne Steel
Britspace Modular Buildings Limited
Bryden Wood Associates
Buchan Concrete Solutions
Building on Business Ltd
Caledonian Building Systems
Capita Symonds
CIRIA
The Concrete Centre
Corus
Construction Skills
Costain
Covers Timber Structures Ltd
Crown House Engineering
Danish Technological Institute
Dawkins & Co
Environmental Recycling Technologies for
Construction (ERT4C)
Fleming Developments UK Ltd
Framing Solutions
Fusion Building Systems Ltd
Gateway Bathroom Pods
Gazeley
GlaxoSmithKline
Howick Ltd
IBE (International Business Events)
Innovare
Laing O’Rourke
LEaF
Lloyd’s Register EMEA
Mike Jackson Associates
Morgan Sindall plc
Mtech
NG Bailey
Ormandy Ltd
Roger Bullivant
Sandwood Design and Build
The Staircase Group
Tarmac
Terrapin Ltd
Tesco
UNITE Group plc
Vision Modular Structures Ltd
Van Elle
Wolseley UK
Yorkon
Associated members of Buildoffsite include:
Building Research Establishment
British Precast
Building Services Research Information Association
CPA
Steel Construction InstituteI
Timber Research And Development Association
HSE is not a member or associate member of
Buildoffsite but does see the benefits that off site
construction methods offer and therefore supports
this initiative.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
9
Loughborough University Research
A research project for HSE by Loughborough
University identified site-based case studies that
demonstrated commercial cost and safety benefits
during the construction process. The study examined
the benefits to site workers but did not look at the
transfer of site risks to the factory or the risks
involving transferring components to site.
Two examples discussed in the report are described
below and concerned risks from working at height;
muscular skeletal damage from manual handling;
and, transporting materials to and around site.
Neither example reduced aesthetics, buildability and
usability or increased environmental impact.
Case Study 1: Pre-installed windows and glazing
within precast concrete cladding panels.
Project – St Margaret’s Hospital Regeneration
Main contractor – Carillion
Sub contractors – Trent Concrete (precast
concrete units) and Broderick Structures
(windows)
Traditional approach
Precast reinforced concrete cladding panels are fixed
to site located brackets. The fabrication process
involves the manufacture of timber, steel or GRP
moulds into which concrete is then cast.
Window frames are made from aluminium or steel
and installed as the building work progresses. The
frames are then silicone sealed and the windows site
glazed. Most common form of window installation is
by standing scaffold although mast climbers or
scissor lifts are also used. All methods require
working at height.
Alternative approach
Carillion identified programme savings and reduced
health and safety risks through early meetings with
the specialist sub contractors. By installing all
windows into the precast units in the factory with
factory applied sealants and glazing operations were
carried out at ground level and subsequent site
erection by crane and cherry picker.
Primary safety benefits from this alternative
sequencing were reduced slip and trip hazards for
delivery drivers delivering to a factory environment
rather than a construction site; reduced congestion at
the construction site through fewer lorry visits;
reduced muscular skeletal risks through increased
mechanical off-loading; reduced glazing and manual
handling of glazing units; reduced working at height
for window installers, sealant installers and fitters;
reduced chance of falling materials; avoidance of
scaffolding erection and dismantling; reduced slip
and trip risks; reduced working at height inspection
time for main contractor and inspecting authorities.
Commercial benefits included reduced costs for
scaffolding and cherry pickers; more efficient delivery
periods; shorter programme time; less programme
risk through factory assembly; better quality of
product in the factory; less site damage; cleaner
working environment.
Case Study 2 Pre-cast concrete beams
Project – Tesco Supermarket
Main Contractor – Taylor Woodrow
Taylor Woodrow and their design-focused team have
developed numerous design methods and processes
that reduce site operations though increased factory
based fabrication. One method is the installation of
precast concrete beams and a “T” section as part of
steel column fabrication resulting in reduced
programme time for sub-structure work and improved
health and safety due to reduced site operations
Traditional approach
The ground or ring beam is the interface between the
foundations and the superstructure and traditionally
is cast insitu into excavated trenches. The beam is
formed on site in its final location requiring intensive
use of skilled site operatives constructing steel
fabrications, positioning of shuttering and the pouring
of ready mixed concrete.
Alternative approach
Prefabricated beams are transported to site where
they are then lifted into the correct position. Highly
skilled operatives are therefore not required to
manufacture shuttering or place reinforcement. The
method is less dependant on weather conditions to
achieve an accurate result.
Primary safety benefits include very fast installation
times reducing site time and labour needs; reduced
working in muddy trenches hence reducing slips and
trips; reduced manual handling of shuttering,
reinforcement and materials; reduced adverse
bending requirements for steel fabricators; avoids the
use of power tools; avoids concrete burn risk and
cement related skin disease as less wet concrete on
site; reduced manual handling and slips and trips
through reduced material delivery to site.
Commercial benefits include reduced materials
waste; faster build programme and better quality.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
10
Steel Construction Institute – The benefits of
offsite construction in urban locations
A study of several construction projects involving
various levels of off-site steel construction technology
was undertaken by the Steel Construction Institute to
identify the benefits of modern methods of
construction in urban locations.
The challenges of urban construction
The scarcity of green field sites is forcing developers
to build on smaller plots of land within existing
residential developments.
Construction on confined urban spaces presents
developers with various challenges such as:
• The lack of working and storage space;
• The need to minimise the impact of
construction work on local residents;
• The shortage of skilled labour for site
construction.
These challenges can be met by the use of off-site
construction methods to replace site intensive work
activity by, for example, constructing two dimensional
panels and three dimensional modules and delivering
on a just-in-time basis to suit local conditions without
the need to store on site.
Speed of Construction
Off-site construction can be significantly faster than
traditional construction. Three schools in Crawley
had to be built to a tight timescale to enable them to
be opened for the new school term. This reduced the
construction programme from 76 to 54 weeks and
was only achievable by using prefabricated pre-
glazed wall panels permitting a faster weather tight
building envelope thereby allowing other trades to
work inside the building
Site activity and transport of labour
All sites visited by the researchers as part of the SCI
study were noticeably quieter and withy fewer people
working on site. The study was able to quantify that
the reduction in labour through the use of modular
construction methods could be as high as 75% when
compared to traditional construction methods.
With less site activity came less noise, dust and
general disturbance.
Commercial vehicle movements.
Traffic, including site delivery and waste collection,
associated with the construction site is an important
source of nuisance with local residents. The delivery
of prefabricated components such as panels and
modules can be timed to suit local needs avoiding
peak times such as the early and late rush hours and
the school run. Estimated reduction in commercial
vehicle traffic for fully fitted out modules can be as
high as 40%.
Waste.
Whatever form of off-site construction is used there
can be significant savings in the amount of site
generated waste. The study concluded that
reductions approaching 70% were possible when
compared with traditional techniques. This was due
to the virtual elimination of waste board materials and
insulation.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
11
Timber frame construction for high rise
buildings
High-rise timber frame building has increased in
popularity due in part to a collaborative project
between Government, TRADA Technology, TRADA,
the Building Research Establishment (BRE) and the
timber industry; TF2000 involved the construction of
a six storey, timber frame building – the tallest of its
type in the world – to demonstrate the commercial
and technical benefits of using timber for medium rise
buildings in the UK, and to encourage greater
adoption of timber frame in construction
The building is within a former airship hanger at BRE
Cardington and comprises six floors, each containing
four two bedroom flats.
The design was for Housing Association
accommodation, suitable for brownfield sites. The
timber frame wall panels were constructed with class
C16 timber, all UK sourced. An innovative reverse
wall was used for part of the structure, the remainder
being typical small panel construction, utilising British
OSB for sheathing. UK grown timber also features
largely in the building’s lift shafts, stairwells and stairs
while most floor timbers were Swedish C16 timber.
All four external elevations were brick clad.
The F2000 project was the extensive tested -,key
areas being structural, fire and acoustical
performance.
Building Regulations require buildings over four
storeys to demonstrate their resistance to collapse
when subjected to a specific level of accidental
damage – disproportionate collapse compliance. The
regulations state, “The building shall be so
constructed that, in the event of an accident, the
building will not suffer collapse to an extent
disproportionate to the cause”.
Therefore, a structural designer must consider the
removal of a loadbearing support element. It is
specified that the area of collapse within the storey
and the immediately adjacent storeys must not be
greater than 15% of the floor area or 70m2,
whichever is the lesser.
There was no collapse. The ceilings did not fall down.
The floor above the internal wall deflected only by
25mm. The externally the brick cladding did not crack
and even the resulting timber frame deflection could
not be seen.
The structure was tested for the length of its period of
resistance to disproportionate collapse. Timber
structures are known to be sensitive to time-
dependent loading, so the test was extended over a
period of 20 hours. A resulting movement of 300mm
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
12
over the floor spans of 3.6m is an acceptable limit,
but nothing like this occurred during the test.
A fire test programme undertaken in 1999 evaluated
the fire resistance of a large multi-storey timber frame
building subject to a severe natural fire exposure.
The particular aspects of fire resistance were
structural integrity (load bearing capacity) and
compartmentation (prevention of fire spread
throughout the flat of origin) to provide data to assist
in the development of fire engineering design
principles for medium rise timber buildings above 5
storeys.
The test fire was ignited in the living area of a second
floor flat in the TF2000 building. The test was
stopped after 64 minutes at which time neither the
compartmentation nor structural integrity of the
building had been compromised. The building
performed in a real fire equivalent to the Building
Regulation requirement of 60 minutes, under furnace
fire test conditions.
TF 2000 proved a demonstration to the construction
industry of the benefits of timber frame, and showed
that perceived drawbacks were false. The tests
carried out showed the strength and durability,
acoustical and fire performance of timber frame, and
also provided an opportunity for engineers to devise
improvements to the structure
However, since this work was completed there have
been problems.
Colindale Housing fire and others
In July 2007 a construction site in Collindale, London
containing two partly built six storey timber frame
housing units burnt to the ground. This took less than
10 minutes. The report into this fire in London and
other sites in the UK questioned whether this
construction method should be used for high-rise
buildings.
The report, written by the Fire Protection Association
was published the same week that a fire destroyed a
multi-storey timber-framed student accommodation
block in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
The FPA report indicated that a cigarette was the
most likely cause of the fire in the Colindale timber-
frame residential block and asked whether “timber
construction should be used for high-rise buildings”
The report also raised the question of whether
timber-frame buildings are safe once they are
completed but greater consideration to the
installation of sprinklers should be given especially
building in fire compartments during construction.
HSE’s concerns
As serious as these concerns are over the fire safety
of occupants, there are other equally serious
problems with this form of construction to add to the
debate over safety. These problems concern the
stability of scaffolding during the erection sequence
of high-rise timber frame structures and the
temporary fire protection measures in place to protect
and evacuate construction workers in the event of a
fire.
The recent fires were structures under construction.
Just as on other construction projects precautions
are needed such as the appropriate spacing between
buildings, proper site programming, and the
installation of fire protection early on.
These considerations have been largely addressed
by the industry and new protocols have been
developed for dealing with potential fire risks during
construction and the apparent lack of stability caused
to scaffolding systems during the cranage sequence
in construction
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
13
Appendix 1
Common terms used in offsite
construction
Component assembly
This is not true off-site production as it entails the
traditional assembly of relatively small building
components such as windows, doors, light fittings
ironmongery and hardware
etc. The components are
manufactured off-site but
require delivery, storage
and skilled assembly as
part of the construction
programme. In the door
example the door, frame,
casing, architrave,
hardware, glazing and
painting are all separate processes.
Non-Volumetric Assembly
Items although preassembled in factory-controlled
conditions are non-volumetric and do not enclose
usable space. This door-set
includes the prehung finished
door, frame, lining, casing and
glazing assembly complete
with all final hardware. The
door-set still requires
delivering to site, storage
while the opening is built and
then fitting in place. However,
the number of on site trades
involved in the fitting of this door-set is drastically
reduced as is the time taken to fit it.
Volumetric /Modular Preassembly
These comprise three-dimensional units built in
factory conditions that enclose usable space and are
then delivered and installed within or onto a building
or structure. They are fully finished internally and
include toilet, bathroom, washroom and kitchen pods
and plug-and-play plant rooms. Benefits of volumetric
construction include improved quality, rapid
assembly, reduced
defects and on-site
snagging, less
disruption on site,
better working
conditions, increased
predictability and
control, and
economies of scale.
Maximum size of unit is determined by the limitations
of transport and site access. The strength and
rigidity of construction must be sufficient to allow
transportation and craning into position without
damage. This strength may require structural
members that are redundant in the end-use of the
unit and therefore may be regarded as an inefficient
use of materials.
Volumetric construction can be in unit form only with
the completed unit taken to site and assembled – the
finished building completed by many other following
trades- or it is the whole building. The examples of
Corus Living Solutions and Yorkon illustrate this
concept very well.
Most UK volumetric construction has been in sectors
providing hotels, student and key-worker
accommodation, hospitals, and fast food outlets. Size
has been limited to relatively small scale buildings
repeated on many sites but there are examples of
large, complicated structures with highly
sophisticated service requirements now being
erected across all sectors.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
14
Appendix 2
Case Study- Van Elle
Modular Pre-cast Post-
Tensioned Foundations
Van Elle’s Smartfoot ® foundation packages provide
builders, developers and modular manufacturers a
foundations solution available for brownfield and
greenfield sites. The system offers all the advantages
of modular construction in the ground through speed,
quality and accuracy of tolerance. The example
shown below at Redrow Housing estate in Malton
North Yorkshire uses precast post-tensioned
concrete beams installed on prepared concrete piles
This is not always necessary. The building is a three-
storey semi detached private dwelling on an estate of
many similar properties.
The installation of pre-cast foundation beams
requires a crane with sound footing and four trained
Van Elle site operatives and crane driver. From first
lift to finish of post tensioning the time elapsed on the
example shown below was 85 minutes for a pair of
semi-detached houses. It takes longer to site the
crane than it does to lift and place the beams.
Precast concrete
piles driven into
prepared ground
with no
excavation
required for
foundation
Top of pile
prepared and
typical pile cap
cast using
lightweight
disposable plastic
formwork
First lift of pre–
cast beam by
crane. Four site
operatives plus
crane driver
Lifting
operation
almost
completed
with beams
and cross
beams
placed
accurately
on pile caps
Lift and post
tensioning of
concrete
beams
complete –
total build
time from
first lift to
end of
tensioning
85 minutes
Potential incidents during lift and placement could
have been included crane outrigger hard standing
failure, slinging failure, contact with crane, trapping
by beams, breakage of post tensioning cables. None
of these happened as skilled, trained and
experienced operatives expertly managed the whole
operation.
Traditional construction methods would have
included site clearance; extensive machine-dug
excavations; reinforcement and concrete placement –
all requiring significant amounts of labour and time
and weather dependency.
Unfortunately the savings in time and labour from
using off site constructed beams were not seen to be
applied to much of the remaining construction of the
house build as external walls and roofing were built in
traditional ways.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
15
Case Study –
Corus Living Solutions
Modular Construction
The Corus Living Solutions supplies finished off site
constructed 3.8m x 6.3m room modules as part of the
procurement of hotels and multi occupancy housing
for a variety of clients. The modules shown below are
fabricated in the Shotton HQ of Corus for the
Ashorne Hill Conference Centre. This project was of
high quality with bedrooms and bathrooms arranged
either side of a corridor with a staircase module at
one end. Service connection to plug and play
services were made in vertical riser ducts between
pairs of modules.
The modules are 3.8 metres x 6.3 metres external
plan dimensions, and this allowed ample space for a
bathroom with basin, bath, shower and toilet. The
modules are arranged either side of a 1.2 metre wide
central corridor with a large staircase module at one
end. Service connections were made in a vertical
riser between pairs of modules.
The external cladding is made from coated steel
panels pre-fabricated in sizes to match the window
pattern and supported on vertical rails attached to the
modules. The roof is V shaped with internal guttering
using down-pipes located in the service zone
between pairs of modules. It is clad with composite
panels manufactured by Kingspan. The panels were
installed rapidly to create a water-tight envelope.
The off-site manufacture of the modules allowed site
preparation and module build to be programmed in
parallel, reducing the overall project time, delay and
expense on site whilst reducing disruption to the
client.
The overall construction period took only five months
from start on site. The 28 room modules were
installed in only three days to create a weather-tight
enclosure for later fit-out and finishing. The building
was designed to high standards of energy efficiency
and comfort and to higher acoustic insulation
standards than required by the 2003 Building
Regulations.
Production line
with modular
panel laid flat
Wall panel
screwing
machine
remotely
operated
Steel frame
and door set
being erected
Finished module being
stacked ready for
delivery
to site
Out of a total construction period of 20 weeks from
start to handover the placement of 28 room modules
only took 3 days to create a weather-tight enclosure
for later fit-out and finishing. Off-site work eliminated
the need for on-site carpenters, dry liners, plasterers,
electricians, plumbers and decorators, insulators.
Fully trained skilled production line operatives with no
previous experience of construction techniques carry
out work in Corus.
Accidents happen on the Corus production line but
are few in number and are mainly tripping and falling
incidents as a result of old irregular floors. The laying
of a new floor throughout the factory is redressing
this.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
16
Case Study 3
Armstrong Integrated Systems
Services and Plant
Armstrong Integrated Systems manufacture
packaged plant rooms in a bespoke factory
environment. Their attitude is that a busy
construction site is far from an ideal place to build a
complex structure such as a plant room. If you
bought a modern car it would be built in a modern
super efficient factory – not on the hard shoulder of
the M25. The preassembly of the equipment in a
bespoke finished shell and then delivered to site for
final connection brings major benefits to the worker,
the contractor and to the client and end user.
Cost
Independent research by BSRIA shows that off-site
manufacture of plant rooms can save as much as
24% compared to the cost of conventional
procurement. Factory build removes the ‘unknowns’
and there is no on cost for site delays, waste and
rework.
Efficiency
Off-see manufacture offers faster assembly
streamlined planning and confidence in delivery. The
system arrives on the day you want it and requires
only the minimum of time and resources to complete
installation and commissioning.
Speed of Construction
Work can start off site well in advance of the
construction programme unaffected by weather and
other trades.
Quality
All procedures in the factory follow audit trails under
ISO 9001:2000 quality standard and operate under
ideal conditions. AIS conduct a 172-point checklist
ensuring that each plant room is given a thorough
working-order inspection and leaves the factory with
zero defects saving considerable time during on site
commissioning.
Safety
Off site assembly reduces health and safety risks as
equipment is assembled on modular base cassettes
with open access to all four sides. Overhead lifting
equipment is used to move large components.
Replicating this level of control on site using
traditional assembly methods would be virtually
impossible.
Site Access
Delivery to site is a planned operation and greatly
eases congestion around the site.
3D CAD
drawings
and files give
accurate
visualisation
and parts
scheduling
automatically
generating
technical
drawings used for fabrication. Once delivery date is
known fabrication commences. The plant room is
delivered on
skids and is
‘plug and
play’ with
site times
reduced to
almost zero
Construction of the
finished plant room is
carried out with 3600 all
round access on a
prefabricated floor
cassette allowing for
good ergonomic working
positions. Only on
completion of all works
including snagging are
walls and roof fitted.
There are occasions
when access is more
limited and work off
ladders to access higher
parts of the plant is
required. Finished plant
rooms are craned onto a low loader transport buy
overhead cranes and delivered to site as either
stand-alone units or further craned onto the building.
There are still questions to be addressed regarding
safe working practices at Armstrong Integrated
Systems and include the use of ladders as work
platforms, working in awkward and confined spaces
and manual handling of large valves and pipe fittings.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
17
Case Study 4
Corefast
System description
Corefast® is a system developed by Corus using a
steel and concrete composite panel system that is
manufactured and fabricated off-site into modules up
to 3 storeys high. The units can be fitted out with
stairs or lift rails in the factory reducing work and
number of trades on site. Off-site production allows
the lift core of a building to be erected up to six times
faster than a traditional reinforced concrete core.
The technology also brings many other benefits to
the project.
The system of pre-fabricated modules or components
is straightforward to assemble and significantly
reduces on-site construction time. In addition a
Corefast core is a more accurate structure than a
concrete core
The Bi-Steel components of concrete and steel are
assembled and concrete filled without the need for
formwork. The high strength of the core means that
its footprint can be reduced to maximise productive
space
External or internal walls are prefabricated off-site
and delivered ready for immediate erection on simple
pre-prepared foundations. Total building costs to
include the shell and core using Corefast can be less
than for a conventional concrete core
Buildings can be erected in multiples of modules that
are up to four storeys high, allowing rapid and safe
erection. Two metre wide panels are interlocked
using the “slot & lock” system to erect perimeter and
internal walls. Panels are prefabricated to receive
windows and doors on-site.
Additional internal structural framing and floors can
be easily incorporated into the building envelope.
Panels are designed to accept client specific
architectural finishes (internal & external).
The Corefast system benefits work on site through
strength, speed, quality and protection.
Site safety is enhanced due to fewer hours worked at
height facilitating a better build sequence and helps
reduce site congestion
The first installation
of Corefast was
completed in 5
days at the
Dundrum town
centre
development near
Dublin. The 24m
high lift shafts and
stairwells were
installed over a 17-
day period and
comprised four
assembled modules. The two lower modules were
positioned on foundations and bolt connected to each
other. The voids in the Bi-Steel panels were filled
with concrete bringing the core to full strength. The
upper modules were then craned into position, bolted
and completed by concrete infilling of the voids. Total
time to erect and assemble modules – 2 days. Total
time to concrete fill – 2 days
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
18
Case Study
Yorkon
Complete Buildings
Yorkon has pioneered the use of off-site construction
for over 20 years and has been credited with
changing the perception of modular building in the
United Kingdom.
The company offers a 20-year structural warranty
and 5 year product warranty as part of its customer
care. Other credits to its name include the first
modular building company to achieve approval for
fire testing in line with the Association of British
Insurers and Lloyds; and, the launch of the first
software tool to assess whole life costs of modular
and traditionally constructed buildings
The biggest
building
programme in the
history of the
NHS requires the
implementation of
new innovations
to ensure
success
especially the
development of
busy constrained
hospital sites.
Work is made
much easier by
the use of modular offsite construction providing
building
occupants with a
safer, quieter and
cleaner
construction
period particularly
critical where new
facilities are built
adjacent to
existing buildings
to meet increased
capacity and
changing
functions. Module
cranage is timed
for weekend and
quieter periods.
The Endoscopy Unit shown here has two fully
equipped procedure rooms, a treatment room, a two-
stage recovery area and a patient and relative
waiting area. Modular construction reduced the time
to erect the building on site from two months to four
days. Noise levels were minimised and there was no
disruption to patient services
Yorkon
constructed the
UK’s first PFI
project to be built
off-site. Ladies
Walk Centre for
Dudley Priority
Health NHS
Trust provides a
one-stop shop
for a wide range of patient services. A two-story
building designed around a central street
incorporating a striking glazed entrance and glazed
roof to maximise natural daylight.
Yorkon also construct in other sectors. Built on a
brownfield site, the £2m Sixth Avenue Apartments
project provides 24 homes for rent in York.
Occupying a prominent corner location in a
residential area, the four-storey development
provides a mix of quality 3, 2 and 1-bedroom
accommodation, including one apartment for a
supported living scheme for people with disabilities.
The apartments have reduced provision for car
parking to help reduce dependency on cars and
encourage
sustainability.
Forty-eight steel-
framed modules
were manufactured
at Yorkon’s
production facility
in York, while the
foundations were
progressed on site.
The apartments
were fully fitted out
off-site with all
plumbing, electrics, doors, windows, bathrooms,
kitchens, and tiling pre-installed. They were delivered
to site and installed in less than a week.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
19
Case Study
BUMA
Barling Court, Larkhall Lane,
Stockwell, London
Complete Building
Barling Court is a scheme for affordable housing for
key workers in London comprising high-quality low-
cost housing in Stockwell, London where a four-
storey block of eight flats was built in four days. The
building was fully finished with all the services
working and the site cleared and landscaped in less
than four months.
This very short
build programme
was achieved by
using the BUMA
system of
volumetric
construction
where the eight
flats for Hyde
Housing
Association were manufactured and assembled in
the BUMA factory in Krakow, Poland, and brought by
lorries to the site The modules were craned onto
prepared concrete strip foundations and bolted
together with galvanised-steel fixing plates. The
communal entrance and staircases leading to all the
flats were manufactured as four modules – one for
each floor.
Despite the distances involved in transporting the
volumetric units all the way from Poland – and with
skilled Polish workers to erect them – the total
construction cost including all fitting-out was
£700,000 in September 2004, which is an average of
£87,500 per apartment, excluding the cost of the
land.
Hyde Housing Association says the BUMA system of
volumetric construction is at least 12 per cent
cheaper than traditional new build, and anything from
20 to 30 per cent less than equivalent modular
systems. Given that the apartments were built in a
quarter of the time taken by traditional construction,
and that they can be unbolted, transported to another
site and re-erected, this appears to offer a way of
dealing with the present housing shortage while
allowing the prospect of re-using the homes
elsewhere later if things get better.
These flats have high-quality fittings, smooth plaster
finishes, solid floors, and good standards of sound
insulation and energy efficiency. The façades are
neatly detailed, with aluminium cladding panels,
external balconies and sliding sunscreens of slatted
timber.
The construction has a life of 60 years and its
versatility is shown by the prototype made by BUMA
in 2000 being demounted and re-erected eight times
before becoming a permanent family home outside
Krakow.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
20
Case Study
Wilson James
Construction Logistics
A construction materials consolidation centre in
south-east London has improved site efficiency and
dramatically reduced vehicle movements.
The warehouse, known as the London Construction
Consolidation Centre, is a distribution centre for five
central London construction sites. Materials for the
schemes are delivered to the Centre – which is well
located for arterial roads leading into the capital –
sorted and all the goods needed for a few days’ work
collated and delivered by one lorry rather than
several.
This approach to construction logistics cuts
congestion and pollution and also site waste as there
are fewer materials on site waiting around to get
damaged.
Over a twelve month period Constructing Excellence
has monitored the process and reports as follows:
• The initial target was to reduce vehicle
movements into central London by
40%. The centre, operated by logistics
specialist Wilson James, has achieved a
67% cut.
• The centre delivered 97% of materials to the
right place at the right time in good condition,
compared with an industry average of just
30%
• 70% or more reduction in carbon emissions
caused by fewer vehicle movements and use
of an efficient delivery fleet
• 47% improvement in materials-related site
productivity, because workers didn’t waste
time looking for materials
• 25% improvement in site safety thanks to a
reduction in the double handling of goods
and a corresponding reduction in the risk of
slips, trips and falls
• The number of tickets issued for speeding,
parking and other traffic offences significantly
reduced
• Other benefits include serious cuts in
damaged materials and packaging waste,
and,
• a 100% guarantee that materials will be on
site within 24 hours and increased inventory
control for subcontractors.
Is this format suitable for consolidation centres in
every London Borough and on the edge of other
major UK cities? The problem is one of money as the
Centre was a two-year pilot project that relies on a
subsidy of £1.85m from Transport for London (TfL).
The remaining £1.35m of its £3.2m funding came
from developer Stanhope, Wilson James and
contractor Bovis Lend Lease, which used the centre
for deliveries to five projects they are working on
together. This is not enough to make it self financing
as it needs around six ongoing projects to be
sustainable.
The challenge is that sites need to organise
themselves to benefit from the concept – a process
including organising sites to benefit from reliable just-
in-time deliveries and getting out of the habit of over-
ordering materials to compensate for damage and
loss. Both developers and TfL are convinced that
consolidation centres are the right way to improve
site efficiency and reduce congestion.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
21
Appendix 3 Site Specifics
The Health and Safety Implications from Off Site Production
Is Off-site production (OSP) safer and less hazardous to construction personnel than traditional construction
methods? HSE statistics indicate that fatal accidents in construction are five times more likely than in the
manufacturing sector.
The actual situation is not clear-cut as the ‘manufacturing’ sector includes all manufactured goods and
‘manufacturing for construction’ data is not available. Hazards inherent in traditional construction activities change
when the processes are moved to the factory environment. In many cases the hazards on site are completely
removed or are easier to reduce and control in a factory.
A recent research project at Loughborough called the ConCA project examined accident causality in traditional
construction. The research showed that many accidents occur off-task where operatives are moving around site
not directly associated with their main tasks. Off Site Production significantly reduces the number of site based
personnel and hence can seriously reduce the number of off-task accidents.
The large-scale mechanical activities of building mean that health and safety issues may sometimes be
overlooked. The following photographs and OSP benefits are those identified across several projects involving
components and elements manufactured off-site.
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
22
Below are a number site specific structures that used off-site manufactured or pre-cast components. Each lists
some of the main health and safety benefits and disbenefits of these OSP approaches. Text, layout and
photographs are courtesy of Loughborough University.
In-situ augered piles
A traditional system of piling that has the following major risks;
• breaking out concrete,
• dermatitis,
• dust inhalation
• HAVS
• MSDs
• proximity to heavy plant
• exposure to UV
• noise
• working below ground level increasing water-borne
The use of OSP concrete piles and pile caps have several benefits
that include;
• elimination of contact with contaminated spoil,
• no concrete hazards,
• reduction in manual handling,
Eliminate the need to break out the pile to reduced level with
associated benefits such as;
• elimination of power tool risks,
• HAVS
• Noise
• RSI
• Dust
• control of work area,
• reduction of trades and personnel onsite,
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
23
The use of OSP concrete piles and pile caps have several benefits
that include;
• To break down pile cap use automatic techniques (e.g. Taets
Hydraulic Pile Breaker www.taets.nl )
• The placement of the pre-cast capping beams can facilitate
the use of lifting points which can be clearly marked, to
ensure safe lifts
Bridges and Roads
A bridge abutment using the pre-cast panel re-inforced earth
system. This system utilises OSP PC concrete panels together with
stainless steel reinforcement strips embedded in well graded
backfill, this obviates the need for insitu concrete and its associated
risks, such as
• Dermatitis
• HAVS
• MSDs
• manual handling of large diameter re-inforcement bars,
• construction of falsework and formwork and associated
risks,
• cuts
• MSDs
• HAVS
• Multiple trades
A hybrid bridge which has PC concrete decking panels used in
conjunction with rolled steel beam sections. This system obviates
the need for bridge deck falsework and formwork, and the
associated risks of;
working at height,
MSDs,
manual handling,
multiple trades
HAVS
manual handling of large diameter re-inforcement bars,
placing and compaction of insitu concrete,
dermatitis
HAVS
MSD’s
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
24
Culverts and Tunnel shafts
The use of OSP PC concrete culverts eliminates the need for;
• construction of falsework and formwork and associated
risks,
• cuts
• MSDs
• HAVS
• manual handling
• manual handling of large diameter re-inforcement placing
and compaction of insitu concrete and associated risks of
dermatitis, HAV’s and MSD’s
Shaft lined with OSP PC concrete segments eliminates prolonged
working within confined and enclosed environment. The risks with
this are;
working in compressed air,
explosion
tunnel collapse
toxic gases
water ingress
any form of manual handling
Concrete Structures
Concrete panels made in the factory for walls and structures in the
factory allows more control of;
In situ concrete and its associated risks, e.g.
dermatitis
HAVS
MSDs
construction of falsework and formwork and associated risks,
cuts
MSDs
HAVS
manual handling,
working environment including,
air quality (dust)
UV exposure
noise levels
work station, for example ,
delineation of factory into separate storage and working
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
25
zones
job rotation, to minimise repetitive tasks that cause,
HAVS and MSD’s
RSI
Working in confined spaces
Steel Frame
Pre-assembled steel frames reduces the risks of;
• HAVS
• Cuts
• MSDs
• Manual handling on site
Cladding
The manufacture of cladding panels within a factory environment
changes or allows better control of the main risks, some of these
are listed below;
• working environment including,
• air quality (dust)
• UV exposure
• noise levels
• hazardous material risks,
• concrete dermatitis
• dust, grit or brick splinters
• work station,
• delineation of factory into separate storage and work areas
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
26
Finishing a panel within a factory environment allows better control
of the operative’s tasks, for example,
• job rotation, to minimise repetitive tasks that cause,
• HAVS
• RSI
• MSDs
• working in confined spaces
• working at height,
• control over trade overlap
Light Cladding
The benefits of OSP unit installations are;
• better control over mobile plant risks,
• falling material
• overturning crane
• contact
• minimal manual handling and associated risks,
• MSDs
• RSI
• allows installation at a safe distance from an unguarded
edge,
• More organised as fewer, larger deliveries
• More likely to be mechanically handled
• Transport and delivery method minimise manual handling
• Weight and centre of gravity and safe lifting points can be
clearly identified on each element to facilitate mechanical and
manual handling where appropriate.
• Packaging and orientation can be arranged to facilitate safe
unloading without double handling
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
27
Best practice installation use tele-operated vacuum lifters.
This technique reduces the likelihood of accidents resulting from
falling objects dropped by site installers as the panels have been
assembled using OSP and are not reliant on site assembly. This
avoids the need for working at height when installing the panels as
all the work is carried out internally, from behind the edge
protection handrail and not the off the scaffold. Installation method
allows edge protection to remain in position during panel
installation and that operatives do not need to work outside of
barrier
Roofing
Composite panel roofing
The following illustrate aspects of the installation of pre-assembled
roof panels.
• Overall control and cleanliness better within the factory
environment, providing
o less risk of contamination,
o better control of gluing operations,
o less risk of trips, slips, falls,
• Materials are mechanically handled right to the workface,
• Work in open spaces as against the confined spaces on-
site,
• Significantly lower trade overlap and interface,
• Work at workbench level, with reduction in MSDs, as no
crouching required,
• Almost entire elimination of working at heights,
• General welfare facilities better in the factory environment
The risks of undertaking these operations traditionally include;
• working at height for longer periods,
• falls through exposed roofs,
• falling materials,
• exposure to UV,
• slips, trips and falls,
• MSDs from manual handling of materials at height and in
awkward positions,
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
28
Internals
Bathroom Pods
The installation of large office washroom pods in the factory allows
more control of insitu concrete and its associated risks, such as
dermatitis
HAVS
MSDs
construction of falsework and formwork and associated
risks,
cuts
MSDs
HAVS
manual handling,
working environment including,
air quality (dust)
UV exposure
noise levels
work station, for example delineation of factory into separate
storage and working zones
job rotation, to minimise repetitive tasks that cause,
HAVS
RSI
MSDs
working in confined spaces
Installation of pods obviates the need for large onsite installation
teams, The installation, being a large event of short duration, allows
management to focus more fully on H&S issues,
However increased risks of pod installation include increased
consequential risk of injury that can occur with large loads
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
29
Mechanical and Electrical Services
Mechanical and electrical services provide good examples of the health & safety benefits that can be derived from
OSP. The following photographs and benefits are those identified across several projects involving components
and elements manufactured off-site.
Below are a number of photographs (courtesy of Crown House Engineering) demonstrating different stages of the
manufacture of different mechanical services components? The first two photograph show stages of horizontal riser
manufacture, typically used within new airport buildings. The last three photographs depict some stages in the
manufacture and installation of horizontal distribution modules, typically used in airports, hotels, office blocks,
shopping centres etc.
Each photograph lists some of the main health and safety benefits and disbenefits of these OSP approaches.
Service Risers
The photograph alongside shows the typical assembly-line
approach to riser and plant-room production in a factory. The H&S
benefits over traditional include:
• Overall control and cleanliness better within the factory
environment, providing
o less risk of contamination,
o better control of welding operations,
o less risk of trips, slips, falls,
o less risk of HAVS, MSDs,
• Materials are mechanically handled right to the workface,
• Work in open spaces as against the confined spaces on-
site,
• Significantly lower trade overlap and interface,
• Access to all parts of the module, by ladder or other means,
not possible on-site,
• General welfare facilities better in the factory environment
Alongside is a photograph of an installed riser module. The H&S
benefits over a traditionally built approach include:
• Significantly lower number of on-site workers will reduce
risk,
o virtual elimination of MSDs and cuts,
o virtual elimination of slips, trips and falls,
• Heavy complex installation, but with much fewer on-site
operations,
• Less on-site commissioning needed, and therefore lower
risks of electrocution, etc.
On-site works almost totally mechanical and therefore involve little
manual handling. New risk introduced where this heavy load may
need to be pulled or pushed into place,
Off-Site Construction in the UK Building Industry- A Brief Overview
30
Horizontal Distribution Modules
The following three photographs illustrate aspects of multi-service
distribution modules. The H&S issues of OSP are:
• Overall control and cleanliness better within the factory
environment, providing
o less risk of contamination,
o better control of welding operations,
o less risk of trips, slips, falls,
• Materials are mechanically handled right to the workface,
• Work in open spaces as against the confined spaces on-
site,
• Significantly lower trade overlap and interface,
• Work at workbench level, with reduction in MSDs, as no
crouching required,
• Almost entire elimination of working at heights,
• General welfare facilities better in the factory environment
Quality control, inspection and commissioning of modules off-site
provides H&S benefits such as:
• Better control of ‘power-on’ for electrical components and
chill beams,
• Safer workbench level inspection possible, with no work at
heights,
Reduces people on-site,
pre-installation unit with the final ceiling finishes pre-fitted in the
factory. H&S benefits include:
• Significantly lower number of on-site workers will reduce
risk,
• virtual elimination of MSDs and cuts
• virtual elimination of slips, trips and falls
• Heavy complex installation, but with much fewer on-site
operations,
• Less on-site commissioning needed, and therefore lower
risks of electrocution, etc.
• On-site works almost totally mechanical (using scissor-lifts)
with little manual handling. New risk introduced where this
heavy load may need to be pulled or pushed into place,
Work at height still needed to connect and fix modules in place.
Primary research
Modern methods of
construction
Views from the industry
NF70
NHBC Foundation
NHBC House
Davy Avenue
Knowlhill
Milton Keynes
MK5 8FP
Tel: 0344 633 100
Modern methods of
construction
Views from the industry
NF70
ii NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
The NHBC Foundation
The NHBC Foundation, established in 2006, provides high-quality research
and practical guidance to support the house-building industry as it addresses
the challenges of delivering 21st-century new homes. To date, it has published
70 reports on a wide variety of topics, including the sustainability agenda,
homeowner issues and risk management.
The NHBC Foundation is also involved in a programme of positive engagement
with the government, academics and other key stakeholders, focusing on the
current and pressing issues relevant to house building.
To find out more about the NHBC Foundation, please visit www.nhbcfoundation.org.
If you have feedback or suggestions for new areas of research, please contact
info@nhbcfoundation.org.
NHBC is the standard-setting body and leading warranty and insurance provider
for new homes in the UK, providing risk management services to the house-
building and wider construction industry. All profits are reinvested in research
and work to improve the construction standard of new homes for the benefit of
homeowners. NHBC is independent of the government and house builders. To
find out more about the NHBC, please visit www.nhbc.co.uk.
The NHBC Foundation Expert Panel
The NHBC Foundation’s research programme is guided by the following
panel of senior representatives from government and industry:
Rt. Hon. Nick Raynsford
Chairman of the NHBC Foundation
and Expert Panel
Jane Briginshaw
Design and Sustainability
Consultant, Jane Briginshaw and
Associates
Andrew Burke
Policy Officer, National Housing
Federation (retired
)
Richard Cook
Head of Residential Development,
Lend Lease
Claire Curtis-Thomas
Chief Executive,
British Board of Agrément
Hywel Davies
Technical Director,
Chartered Institution of Building
Services Engineers (CIBSE)
Andrew Day
Director, Architecture, Design
& Sustainability – New Homes
and Communities, Countryside
Properties (UK) Ltd
Russell Denness
Group Chief Executive,
Croudace Homes Group
Michael Finn
Design and Technical Director,
Barratt Developments plc
Cliff Fud
ge
Technical Director, H+H UK Ltd
Richard Hardy
Managing Director, BRE Global
Richard Harral
Head of Technical Policy,
Building Regulation and
Standards Division, Department
for Communities and Local
Government
Richard Hill
Chief Executive,
Spectrum Housing Group
Neil Jefferson
Director, NHBC
Rod MacEachrane
Director, NHBC (retired)
Robin Nicholson CBE
Senior Partner, Cullinan Studio
Tadj Oreszczyn
Director, The Bartlett School of
Environment, Energy and Resources
Geoff Pearce
Executive Director of Regeneration
and Development,
Swan Housing Association
Mike Quinton
Chief Executive, NHBC
Helen Saunders
Group Marketing Director,
Crest Nicholson plc
Steve Turner
Head of Communications,
Home Builders Federation
Andy von Bradsky
Consultant, PRP
Karl Whiteman
Divisional Managing Director,
Berkeley Homes
Tony Woodward
Managing Director,
Kingerlee Homes
Neil Smith
Head of Research and Innovation,
NHBC, and Secretary to the
Expert Panel
iiiNHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Contents
Foreword v
1 Key findings
1
2 Background and introduction 3
3 Methodology
5
3.1 Stages 5
3.2 Weighting of data 6
4 Definition of modern methods of construction 7
5 Use and consideration of MMC 9
5.1 NHBC statistics on construction type 9
5.2 Use and consideration of different types of MMC 10
5.3 Types of panelised systems used 13
5.4 Types of off-site manufactured sub-assemblies and components used 14
5.5 Where are decisions made about the construction method? 15
5.6 Willingness to innovate 15
6 Factors driving consideration of MMC and 17
experiences in practice
6.1 Main reasons for considering MMC 17
6.2 Benefits of MMC in practice 18
6.3 Experiences of volumetric construction and pods 20
7 Concerns and barriers to using volumetric construction 23
8 The future for MMC
25
9 Factors to be addressed for increased use of MMC 33
Appendix A: Focus group attendees 35
Appendix B: Weighting of results 36
References
37
Further reading
37
iv NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
vNHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Foreword
The very mention of the phrase ‘modern methods of construction’ (MMC) has
tended, for more than half a century, to generate heated debate and conflicting
reactions from those involved in the building industry.
In the aftermath of the Second World War the need for a rapid expansion
of housing output provided a strong impetus for innovation, and this led
to extensive applications of new systems and technologies. However, a
preoccupation with quantity rather than quality, coupled with a failure to think
through the full implications of some of the new approaches, contributed to a
number of highly publicised failures, which in turn prompted a reversion to more
traditional house-building techniques.
More recently, around the turn of the new millennium, and partly inspired by the
Egan Report Rethinking construction[1], interest revived in the potential of new
methods, including the wider use of off-site prefabrication, to deliver efficiency
gains and improve quality. But once again the high hopes invested in MMC, as a
means of delivering transformational change to the house-building industry, have
not been realised on the scale anticipated by their champions.
Yet for all the reservations expressed by the sceptics, and the clear lack of
enthusiasm in the bulk of the industry for the more radical and far-reaching
manifestations of MMC, house builders have been making extensive use of a
variety of innovative approaches, including components assembled off-site.
Indeed in a context where once again a rapid expansion of output is required, but
where the industry is facing severe skills shortages, it would be surprising if there
was not a keen interest in exploring new methods with the capacity to improve
both quality and efficiency.
This new research from the NHBC Foundation explores attitudes towards MMC
across the industry. It records the degree to which different methods and systems
have been adopted and assesses the appetite for more extensive application
of specific approaches. It finds an industry, which, while cautious about over-
commitment, is nevertheless embracing MMC in many guises, and remains ready
to explore new options and innovations.
The research has depended on the participation of a number of house builders
and housing associations whose contributions are gratefully acknowledged.
I hope that the findings will be of interest and use to many organisations and
people involved in house building, and will stimulate discussion on the scope for
more effective innovation across the industry.
Rt. Hon. Nick Raynsford
Chairman, NHBC Foundation
vi NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
1NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Alternative forms or modern methods of construction (MMC) have a long
history in the UK. In the post-war period much use was made of a variety of
innovative house-building systems and from time-to-time since then, there have
been surges in interest. An industry survey, reported in this publication, was
carried out at the end of 2015. It aimed to establish current attitudes to MMC
amongst the larger house builders and housing associations.
Key findings were as follows:
1. The majority of the organisations surveyed have made use of MMC: 98% of
large and medium-sized house builders and housing associations have used
or considered at least one form of MMC in the last 3 years.
2. The most widely-adopted form of MMC is sub-assemblies and components
with two-thirds having used them for at least one home during 2015. This
category includes items such as door sets, timber I-beams, prefabricated
chimneys and prefabricated dormers.
3. The second most popular form of MMC is panelised systems (eg timber
and steel frame), which was used by 42% of respondents during 2015 for at
least one home. In the lead was timber frame which, according to NHBC
registration statistics for 2015, accounts for 15% of UK housing output. In
Scotland, where timber frame is used for three-quarters of new homes, it is
not regarded as a modern method.
4. Only limited use is being made of volumetric construction (large modules
fully fitted out on-site) and pods (room-sized modules normally bathrooms
or kitchens) with 6% and 7% of organisations having used these methods
respectively one or more times in 2015. Use tends to be concentrated in
apartment buildings in London and the South East.
1
Key findings
Key findings
2 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
5. The majority of organisations surveyed consider themselves to be ‘late
adopters’ or ‘followers’ of volumetric construction, pod and panelised
forms of MMC, watching the success of others before making the decision
to move away from conventional cavity masonry construction. Only
10%
of house builders considered themselves to be ‘market leaders’, leading
innovation.
6. One of the key attractions driving the use of MMC is the perceived ability to
build more quickly. While house builders reported that faster construction
is being realised in practice, housing associations were less convinced; they
did, however, believe that a weathertight envelope was achieved quicker
with the use of MMC.
7. It was also felt widely that MMC would have a role to play in improving the
quality of construction and overcoming current shortages in the availability
of skilled labour. For those already using MMC these perceived advantages
were being realised in practice.
8. There is some evidence of MMC leading to a reduction in costs and
improved profitability, with 44% of house builders and 27% of housing
associations pointing to benefits such as reduced preliminary costs,
improved cash flow and faster sales revenues.
9. Most participants expect the role of MMC to grow or remain static over the
next 3 years; only 3% expected it to decline. Over half expected the use of
panelised systems, in particular, to increase during that period. Drivers to
increased use include overcoming skills shortages, faster build, increasing
output and improving build quality.
10. If there is to be greater use of pods and full volumetric construction, risks
within the supply chain need to be addressed. There are concerns about
the size, quality and capacity of suppliers and their ability to sustain high
volume output. Other issues include a need to build-in the ability to
provide bespoke designs and interiors and overcome the constraints of
standardisation, the need for an early design freeze and transport logistics.
3NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
The history of innovation in construction in the UK is long, dating back to
before the Second World War, but comparisons with the current housing
market challenges are striking. In the post-war period, there was a housing
crisis with over 200,000 homes estimated to be required quickly; Prime
Ministers were heavily involved setting up cross-party committees to examine
solutions and Government programmes were being rolled out to build ‘new
technology’ homes. In 1944 this was known as the EFM (emergency factory
made) programme which, despite a good start, eventually delivered 153,000
‘temporary’ prefabricated homes. Alongside these were ‘permanent’ non-
traditional homes of which almost 450,000 were built in the decade following
the war.
More recently the need to increase off-site construction in the housing
sector, and the construction industry generally, was discussed in the Latham
Report, Constructing the team[2], Joint review of procurement and contractual
arrangements in the United Kingdom construction industry published in 1994,
and the Egan Report Rethinking construction[1] published in 1998. By drawing on
experiences of other industries such as manufacturing, these reports sought to
identify how to improve efficiency, reduce waste and make the industry more
responsive to customer needs.
Currently we still see an industry that has largely continued to use masonry
cavity wall construction for low-rise residential new build. The success of off-site
manufactured homes seen in other parts of the world, such as Scandinavia and
Japan, has not generally been replicated in volume in the UK.
2 Background and
introduction
Background and introduction
4 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
The pressures in today’s housing market are:
■■ high customer demand with shortfalls in supply
■■ shortages of skilled labour and materials
■■ a drive for construction spe
ed
■■ achieving high quality and energy performance
■■ the elimination of waste.
These pressures have echoes of past challenges which could be expected to
encourage use of off-site methods, now referred to as MMC. So how is the
industry responding?
To examine current attitudes, policies and use of MMC and its prospects for
the future, the NHBC Foundation commissioned research amongst large and
medium-sized house builders and large and medium-sized housing associations
in the private and social residential sectors.
The research set out to answer the following questions:
■■ the extent to which organisations are embracing or considering MMC
■■ factors which are driving their interest
■■ reasons for using or rejecting MMC
■■ benefits and drawbacks experienced in use
■■ views on the extent to which MMC will contribute to a significant increase in
build volumes to meet demand
■■ expectations for future use of MMC and factors which could lead to an
increase in use.
The intention of this report is to help understand current attitudes towards
MMC amongst those responsible for delivering new homes and to understand
whether it is being adopted to the benefit of the industry.
5NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
The research focused on large and medium-sized house builders and housing
associations. Those participating accounted for just over 45,000 homes or 30%
of NHBC new home registrations in 2015.
The research was conducted in two phases, involving both qualitative and
quantitative methodologies.
3.1 Stages
Stage 1
Focus groups, each lasting 2½ hours, were held in London, Glasgow and
Birmingham. These were attended by 29 people in total, representing a mix of
house-building companies and housing associations. Attendees are listed in
Appendix A.
Stage 2
Stage 1 results informed the questionnaire design for stage 2, the quantitative
stage, which involved 135 interviews by telephone (Table 1). Three-quarters
were with regional and head offices of large and medium-sized house builders
and one-quarter with housing associations.
Interviews, lasting an average of 24 minutes each, were conducted with a
variety of senior people, including house builders’ technical directors, technical
managers, construction directors, construction managers and housing
association development directors and managers.
3
Methodology
Methodology
6 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Table 1 Telephone interview programme
No. interviews
House builders
– Large national house builders*
– Medium, regional house builders†
61
39
Housing associations 35
Total 135
London and the South East 49
Rest of England and Wales 73
Scotland 13
* Building over 1,000 units a year nationally.
† Building 200 to 1,000 units a year nationally.
Interviews were spread geographically and some results have been analysed in
accordance with the geographical classification shown in Table 1.
3.2 Weighting of data
This survey was conducted to be as representative as possible of the large and
medium-sized house builders building 200 or more homes a year, and large
and medium-sized housing associations that have a new homes development
programme.
In aggregating data from these groups, to arrive at an ‘all’ figure for some of
the results quoted in this report, a weighting factor has been applied to each
group. This ensures that their answers are reflected in the all or total figures in
proportion to the number of new homes each group built in 2015. More details
are provided in Appendix B.
7NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
The term modern methods of construction (MMC) embraces a number of
approaches involving off-site manufacture or assembly. The definitions of MMC
have varied over the years but for the purposes of this research for the purposes
of this research, the following types of MMC were used (illustrated further in
Figure 1):
■■ volumetric construction
■■ pods
■■ panelised systems
■■ sub-assemblies and components
■■ site-based MMC.
The types of MMC used in the research are based on those used by BRE in the
NHBC Foundation report A guide to modern methods of construction[3]. This
classification also includes innovative on-site methods designed to improve
efficiency and/or reduce waste, such as thin joint blockwork.
The definitions and appropriate images were shown to participants as the basis
for questions about approaches they had used, and the extent of their use.
4 Definition of modern
methods of construction
Definition of modern methods of construction
8 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Figure 1
Types of MMC
There was some discussion in the focus groups about use of the term MMC
and its application to approaches which have been in use for some time. For
example, Scotland has a long tradition of building in timber frame, where it
accounts for the majority of residential new build; those in the focus group did
not feel that timber frame should therefore be described as a ‘modern’ method.
Types of MMC
5.
Site-based MMC
Innovative methods
of construction used
on-site. They include
thin joint blockwork and
insulated formwork
4. Sub-assemblies and
components
Larger components
incorporated into
new homes. They
include roof and floor
cassettes, prefabricated
chimneys, porches and
dormers, and I-beams
3. Panelised systems
Panels with timber or
light steel framing,
structural insulated
panels (SIPS) or cross-
laminated timber (CLT)
1. Volumetric construction
Three-dimensional units which
are fully fitted out off-site
2. Pods
Pods are used in
conjunction with another
construction method.
Examples are bathroom
or kitchen pods
9NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
This section examines the use of construction methodologies in residential
new build as recorded by NHBC. It breaks down the use of MMC by type
and geography, and looks in detail at the use of panelised systems and off-
site manufactured components. It indicates where decisions on construction
methodology are being made and the willingness to innovate amongst those
building new homes.
5.1 NHBC statistics on construction type
NHBC records statistics on construction type on the new homes it registers,
representing about 80% of new homes built in the UK. The figures show that
masonry construction continues to account for the majority of new residential build
and the proportion has remained fairly constant over the last 8 years (Figure 2).
Figure 2 New build, share by construction type in the UK (2008 to 2015)
5 Use and consideration of
MMC
Other Light steel frame Timber frame Masonry construction
0
20
40
60
80
100
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
M
ar
ke
t
sh
ar
e
(%
)
Year
Source: NHBC, based on registrations.
Use and consideration of MMC
10 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
The use of timber-framing or light steel-framing methods for the structure of
homes represented about 16% of the new build market in 2015, having declined
from a high of 24% in 2008 (Figure 3).
NHBC’s statistics do not, however, record the extent of use of sub-assemblies
and components, which are used by more organisations involved in new build
than structural forms of MMC.
The UK figure masks differences in construction method between countries.
In Scotland, timber frame is the conventional approach, where it accounted for
75% of construction methods amongst NHBC-registered new build homes in
2015. In Wales timber frame has experienced a higher share than in England,
where market share is at its lowest.
Figure 3 Timber frame market share in the UK, by country
5.2 Use and consideration of different types of MMC
The majority of house builders and housing associations are using, or have
considered, at least one MMC approach within their recent build programmes.
Of the large and medium-sized house builders and housing associations
surveyed, only two said they had not used or considered at least one form of
MMC in the last 3 years.
The most used are sub-assemblies and components, installed by about three-
quarters of the house builders and just under half of the housing associations in
2015. Panelised systems are the next most used
MMC type
(Figure 4).
Very few have used full volumetric construction or pods in the 3-year period
2013 to 2015 (Figure 5). However, these are being considered for future use by
over a third of organisations: 37% are considering, or may consider, volumetric
construction and 28% are considering, or may consider, using pods (sometimes
known as semi-volumetric). But opinion remains split with over half in each case
having already rejected or unlikely to consider use at all.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
England Wales Scotland
M
ar
ke
t
sh
ar
e
(%
)
Year
Source: NHBC, based on registrations.
Use and consideration of MMC
11NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Figure 4
Percentage
of all organisations using different types of MMC for new homes in 2015
Figure 5 Percentage used and considered in the last 3 years
Encouraged by historical Government funding conditions, housing associations
might be expected to have the most experience of MMC; but it appears that
more private sector house builders have been using pods, sub-assemblies and
components (Figures 6 and 7). The apparent lower use by housing associations
may be due to their procurement of new homes through Section 106
agreements or through design and build contracts, meaning that they may not
always select the method of construction used.
By region, use of volumetric construction and pods has been almost entirely in
London and the South East. Use of panelised system MMC is higher in Scotland
than elsewhere due to the well-established tradition of building with timber
frame. Use of off-site manufactured sub-assemblies and components is also
highest in Scotland.
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
u
se
d
an
d
co
ns
id
er
ed
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sub-assemblies
and components
Volumetric Pods Panelised
Site-based
MMC
Not considered and
unlikely to do so
Have considered
and rejected
Possibly will consider
Not used but
considering
Used in the last 3 years for
at least one home
MMC type
0
20
40
60
80
Volumetric Pods Panelised Sub-assemblies
and components
Site-based
MMC
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
o
f a
ll
or
ga
ni
sa
tio
ns
MMC type
Use and consideration of MMC
12 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Figure 6 Percentage of organisations using MMC at least once in 2015, by house builder and
housing association
Figure 7 Percentage of organisations using MMC at least once in 2015, by region
Other findings from the survey about the application of MMC show that:
■■ MMC has been used for both apartments and houses, although pods have
been mainly used for apartments; 97% of those using pods have installed
them in apartments in the last 3 years. By comparison, two-thirds of users
of panelised systems have used this approach for apartments and three-
quarters for houses.
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
o
f o
rg
an
is
at
io
ns
0
20
40
60
80
Large house builders Medium-sized house builders
Housing associations
Volumetric Pods Panelised Sub-assemblies
and components
Site-based MMC
House builders/housing associations
Base: Large house builders (61), medium-sized house builders (39), housing associations (35).
Volumetric Pods Panelised Sub-assemblies
and components
Site-based MMC
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
o
f o
rg
an
is
at
io
ns
0
20
40
60
80
100
London and the South East Rest of England and Wales Scotland
Region
Base: London and the South East (49), Rest of England and Wales (73), Scotland (13).
Use and consideration of MMC
13NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
■■ The average number of storeys for which pods have been used is 14, and for
volumetric construction, 9.
■■ MMC is not used as a blanket approach – a standard specification adopted
across all sites; its use varies from site to site and suitability will often be
judged for each individual project. This explains why market share for the
MMC systems is lower than the proportion of organisations with experience
of their use.
■■ Almost all of those regarding themselves as MMC ‘market leaders’,
representing 10% of those interviewed, have used panelised systems and
sub-assemblies and components. Of the market leaders 3 in 10 have also
used or have tried volumetric construction in the last 3 years and 2 in 10
have used pods, ie above the market average.
5.3 Types of panelised systems used
Panelised systems in use include ‘open panels’ (ie without plasterboard linings
factory fixed) and ‘closed panels’ (ie plasterboard fixed in the factory) in both
timber and light steel framing. In addition, this category includes structural
systems such as SIPs and CLT. 42% of the organisations interviewed used
panelised systems in 2015.
The main type used is open panel timber frame, installed by just over two-thirds
of panel system users in the last 3 years (Figure 8). 39% of organisations have
used closed panel timber frame and 33% have used SIPs over the same period.
This use of panelised systems is set to continue in 2016 with 49% expecting to
use open panel timber frame, 32% closed panel timber frame and 22% open
panel light steel frame.
32% said they are likely to use closed panel timber frame in 2016.
Figure 8 Types of panelised system used in the last 3 years and anticipated use in 2016 (based
on percentage of organisations who have used panelised systems in the last 3 years)
Percentage of organisations
0 20 40 60 80 100
Open panel timber frame
Closed panel timber frame
Structural insulated panels (SIPS)
Open panel light steel frame
Cross-laminated timber (CLT)
Closed panel light steel frame
Other
None of these
Last 3 years Anticipated in 2016
Base: House builders and housing associations (77) as a percentage of those who have used panelised systems in the last 3 years.
Use and consideration of MMC
14 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Those who have used open panel systems cited several reasons for not moving
to closed panels:
■■ perceptions of capital cost and ‘up-front’ expenditure
■■ being ‘not suitable’ for the specific project or site
■■ reduced flexibility on-site, open panel is ‘tried and tested’
■■ risk of damage in transport.
5.4 Types of off-site manufactured sub-assemblies and
components used
The survey revealed that the industry is currently making more use of sub-
assemblies and components than it is off-site manufactured systems (volumetric
construction, pods and panelised systems). Focus group comments showed
that components which have been manufactured or constructed off-site require
less on-site labour, are seen as efficient, improve build quality, have health and
safety advantages and do not attract some of the concerns associated with
other types of MMC.
The types of off-site manufactured components used by the highest proportion
of companies are door sets, timber I-beams, prefabricated chimneys and
prefabricated dormers (Figure 9).
Housing associations’ stated use of these components is lower than that of
house builders. This could be because they are less aware of what is used
on-site when they acquire homes through Section 106 arrangements or through
design and build contracts.
Figure 9 Types of off-site manufactured components used in the last 3 years
Percentage of organisations
0 20 40 60 80 100
Door sets
Timber I-beams
Prefabricated chimneys
Prefabricated dormers
Floor cassettes
Roof cassettes
Prefabricated plumbing systems
Prefabricated foundations
Porches/door canopies
Other
House builders Housing associations
Base: House builders (100) and housing associations (35).
Use and consideration of MMC
15NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
5.5 Where are decisions made about the construction
method?
Decisions about the type of construction method on a new development, in
most house builders and housing associations, are made at the regional office
level rather than at head office (Figure 10).
Figure 10 Where decisions are made about the construction method
5.6 Willingness to innovate
The majority of those interviewed regard themselves as ’followers’ or ‘late
adopters’ of volumetric construction, pods and panelised systems, rather than
‘market leaders’ in using these forms of MMC (Figure 11).
10% of the organisations surveyed described themselves as market leaders,
mostly the large and medium-sized house builders rather than the housing
associations. Subsequent answers confirm, as expected, that the market leaders
are using all the different forms of MMC to a greater extent than the majority of
the market.
16%
60%
24%
16% – Centralised policy with
regional adherence
60% – Autonomous regional decisions
24% – Centralised policy local flexibility
Base: House builders and housing associations (135).
Use and consideration of MMC
16 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Figure 11 Which best describes your company’s attitude towards the use of volumetric
construction, pods and panelised systems?
Large house builders
Medium-sized house builders
Housing associations
15%
46%
2
9%
10%
15% – Market leader
46% – Follower
29% – Late adopter
10% – Unlikely to use at all
18% – Market leader
43% – Follower
26% – Late adopter
13% – Unlikely to use at all
3% – Market leader
68% – Follower
20% – Late adopter
9% – Unlikely to use at all
18%
4
3%
26%
13%
3%
68%
20%
9%
Base: 61.
Base: 39.
Base: 35.
17NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
In this section the main reasons for considering the use of MMC amongst house
builders and housing associations are described, together with the benefits
which have been realised in practice. Experiences with volumetric construction
and pods used for apartments or houses are examined in detail together with
the likelihood for use again in the future.
6.1 Main reasons for considering MMC
The main reason for considering use of MMC is to achieve a faster build
programme (Figure 12). The majority of house builders and housing associations
identified this as their main driver and overall two-thirds gave this as one of their
top three factors.
Other reasons for considering MMC include improving build quality, tackling
the skills shortage, and improving health and safety. Achieving a fast
weathertight envelope, reducing costs and improving site efficiencies were also
mentioned. Housing associations are motivated by the need to deliver homes
quickly, and cost effectively, and the results suggest they believe MMC will help
them achieve this objective.
There is an undisputed need for more new homes and the house-building
industry is steadily increasing its output. However, only 8% of house builders
described a need to increase the number of units they build as a top three
driver for considering MMC, although 35% included it in a list of drivers which
have influenced them to some extent (not shown).
6 Factors driving
consideration of MMC and
experiences in practice
Factors driving consideration of MMC and experiences in practice
18 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Figure 12 Main reasons for using or considering MMC. Percentage stating as a top three
driver
6.2 Benefits of MMC in practice
Section 6.1 showed that achieving a faster build programme was the main
motivation to use MMC; this section explores what was encountered in reality.
For the house builders using MMC, speed of construction had proved to be the
main benefit experienced in practice. Housing associations were less convinced
of this benefit; this may be explained by their lack of direct control over the
building programme, being reliant on their contractors/house builders.
Whereas the ability to achieve a fast weathertight envelope did not rank
highly in the drivers to using MMC, it was commonly reported as a main
benefit realised in practice. Other benefits include improved build quality,
site efficiency and health and safety, and a reduction in labour and site waste
(Figure 13).
33% of house builders (36% of the large and 20% of the medium-sized
companies) have found that MMC has helped towards increasing the number
of units they build. However, none of the housing associations has found this;
achieving a faster watertight envelope has been the main benefit reported by
respondents in this group.
0 20 40 60 80
Faster build programme
Improved build quality
Tackle skills shortage
Reduce costs, improve profitability
Improved health and safety
Fast weathertight envelope
Improved site efficiency
Meet sustainability targets
Material shortages
Reduce site waste
Meet planning requirements
Increase number of units built
House builders Housing associations
Base: House builders and housing associations (133, weighted) prompted response from those using,
have used or have considered MMC.
Percentage
Factors driving consideration of MMC and experiences in practice
19NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Figure 13 Main benefits of MMC experienced in practice, percentage stating it as a benefit
Fewer than half (44% of house builders and 27% of housing associations)
reported that they had experienced reduced costs/improved profitability
despite the potential for MMC to offer reduced preliminary costs, improved
cash flow and lead to faster sales revenues. The focus groups emphasised that
these benefits will only be available in a strong sales market; some contributors
had not found that the preliminary costs could be reduced in practice.
MMC is not considered to have made a useful contribution towards reducing
reliance on specific building materials that have been in short supply as house-
building output rose following the recession. Materials such as facing bricks are
likely to still be required regardless of whether or not the underlying structure is
of MMC.
Improved site efficiency
Improved health and safety
Reduced site wastage
Tackle skills shortage
Meet sustainability targets
Increase number of units built
Address materials shortages
Base: House builders and housing associations using MMC in the last 3 years (120), prompted.
Percentage
Factors driving consideration of MMC and experiences in practice
20 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
6.3 Experiences of volumetric construction and pods
6.3.1 Volumetric construction
34% of those interviewed have used, considered or are considering using
full volumetric construction for apartments and/or houses. Most of these
organisations are in London and the South East, a small number elsewhere in
England and Wales and none in Scotland.
12 organisations have used volumetric construction at least once in the last
3 years and their mixed experiences are summarised in Figure 14.
One-third of the organisations had a positive experience, but the remainder
were less positive as they have not encountered the expected benefits. Their
experience has also highlighted the importance of paying detailed attention to
co-ordination and planning well in advance of construction starting on-site and
during construction as well. Feedback from the survey highlights the following
issues:
■■ There is the need to take design decisions and ‘freeze’ the design at an
earlier stage; this reduces flexibility on-site, particularly for any last-minute
changes.
■■ More comprehensive procurement planning of the whole development is
required at the outset.
■■ Despite the planning, more work has been found to be required on-site
when the off-site units are delivered, than was anticipated within the
programme.
■■ Cost benefits are not fulfilled in practice; logistics, weather delays and so
on, quickly erode savings.
■■ Low capacity exists within the supply chain, which constrains procurement
choice with some having encountered disappointment with delivery
performance and product quality.
In spite of these issues, the majority of respondents said that they would be
likely to consider using volumetric construction again.
Amongst the 17 organisations who had considered volumetric construction, but
not yet used it, 7 thought they might use it in future. Specific drivers for future
use included where there is a need for speed, to overcome labour or material
shortages, and to help drive up quality or build volumes.
Factors driving consideration of MMC and experiences in practice
21NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Figure 14 Full volumetric users’ experiences
Have used volumetric construction for
new homes in the last 3 years (12)
Positive experiences (4)
“So far it is going well. The quality is good and
project is on target.” (Houses)
“We feel there are enormous benefits, these
things are developed in controlled
environments and brought to site, so improves
quality, and therefore health and safety. Also
the cost of going back to repair poor
workmanship is cut out.” (Houses)
“Very, very good as long as we co-ordinated it
upfront, otherwise it could be chaotic.”
(Apartments and houses)
“As expected. No surprises. Did lots of factory
inspection in order to ensure the quality
required.”
(Apartments)
Negative experiences (8)
“The technology was quite new, it was a massive learning experience for the
manufacturer and ourselves. The difficulty was the co-ordination on and
off-site.” (Houses)
“You do more up front thinking. You have to programme more in advance,
take decisions earlier on to finalise design.” (Apartments and houses)
“Unfortunately while the principle was right, the reality of the finished article
was less than expected. There has been a lot of opening up of flats to put
things right, you would expect this to be thought through better in the
factory. I don’t think the quality was better than we could have achieved by
building on-site. (Apartments)
“We have used it on houses and it is not something I would rush and use. It
often leaves you unprepared at site level and that is across the board. When it
lands, the site is not geared up to put it up that quickly and you end up with
services not connected. They are so used to conventional delivery.” (Houses)
Used for apartments (6) Used for houses (7)
Likelihood of using again (4) Likelihood of using again (8)
Yes (3)*
“I would be amazed if we are not using it in
the next few years, the proposition is too
compelling.”
“On confined sites with limited space it’s
ideal.”
“Going to France next week to look at a
factory which makes them.”
*The 4th was unsure about future use
Yes (6)
“Speed of construction. Suitable for type
of building undertaken by our company.”
(Apartments)
“We do consider it but it’s very site
specific. Reduces site waste.”
(Apartments and houses)
“We need to look at it, eg if there are
material shortages.” (Houses)
“We would consider it in the right
circumstances on the right site. We would
consider anything going forward that gets
houses and apartments up quicker.“
No (2)
“It’s just a step too far, we are
trying to go more lightweight
metal frame, rather than the
volumetric. The kind of
apartments we are trying to
sell don’t lend themselves to
full volumetric.”
“With normal volume house
building it’s unlikely. There will
be limited bespoke uses like
emergency accommodation
for local authorities for waiting
lists in the South East.”
Factors driving consideration of MMC and experiences in practice
22 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
6.3.2 Pods
45% of organisations have used, considered or are considering pods in their
new residential build.
Of the 28 organisations which have used pods at least once in the last 3 years
most have had largely positive experiences (Figure 15). Amongst the main
reasons for using them and the benefits experienced, they highlighted the
improved build quality and reduced levels of snagging, reductions in site labour
and a faster build, with improved programming and greater overall construction
efficiency.
Almost all of those who have used pods would do so again, and most of those
considering them expect to use this approach in future.
The main problem experienced by both those who have used and those who
have rejected pods was the higher capital cost. Other drawbacks related to
capacity within the supply chain, with a lack of choice of suppliers who are able
to meet the needs of house builders. There have also been experiences of
problems with suppliers being unable to meet the delivery programme as well
as companies going out of business. The logistics of transporting pods to site
have also proved challenging due to the size of each pod.
Other participants raised concerns about adverse customer reaction,
particularly at the luxury end of the market. Concerns were also expressed
about where responsibility lies if there are problems during installation.
Figure 15 Pod users’ experiences
Have used pods for new homes in the last 3 years (28)
Positive experiences (89%)
“We tend to use bathroom pods because of the quality. We believe
most of the works happen in the bathroom, so we try to avoid
repetition of trades going in. It’s more about quality than anything
else. The downside is that, because most of the volumetric contractors
are abroad, if it leaks it takes longer to get replaced.” (Apartments)
“The flats went well, it reduced snagging.” (Apartments)
“Quality was good. Programme benefits were achieved. Fewer defects
with bathroom pods as there is more quality control when it is factory
assembled.” (Apartments and houses)
“Very good. Quality and finish excellent. Good on the programme.”
(Apartments)
“The experience has been good, there have been no issues with
delivery or installation and it’s been quicker than traditional build.”
(Apartments)
Negative experiences (11%)
“Our conclusion was the use of pod construction
was to put together cheap components.”
(Apartments)
“We used bathroom pods, it was a large scheme.
We had supply chain problems. Given that it was a
big project running to a tight timescale, we had to
take un-kitted out pods and crane them in, then
supply and fit in situ. So we had the worst of both
worlds” (Apartments)
“I think there is a nervousness around pod
manufacturers, often they seem under-capitalised
and it can cause problems with cash flow. Over
recent years there has been a volatility with
businesses coming into the market and then
disappearing.” (Apartments)
Used for apartments (27) Used for houses (4)
Likelihood of using again (25) Likelihood of using again (3)
Yes (23)
“The benefits are that it avoids the skills
shortages. They have to be stacked properly
but there are definite benefits.”
“They are sealed units, they go in quickly and
can be used in a range of dwelling sizes.”
“Benefits are that pods address the skills
shortages, also speed of build and quality, and
have more control as it‘s factory made.”
Yes (1)
“Because we
have clients
asking for
them. The
quality of build
off-site in a
controlled
environment.”
No (2)
“Probably cost”
No (2)
“Very few of the promised benefits
materialised. No improvements in
quality, quality was worse than site
construction.”
“I would rather go straight to
volumetric if we were going to
take that step, rather than pods
where we have had some difficulty
with the supply chain.”
23NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Concerns about the use of ‘whole home’ volumetric construction were first
expressed in the focus groups and the results on drivers and use in Section 6
corroborate that initial feedback. To assess the concerns in more detail and
understand the extent to which these were barriers to future use, questions
were asked of the wider audience in stage 2 of the research programme.
The initial observations in the focus groups were confirmed with the main
concerns and barriers to use being the higher capital cost and the lack of
suppliers. When asked how they perceive the costs associated with the use of
volumetric construction in comparison with other approaches, two-thirds said
they expect it to cost more.
Other concerns raised in the wider telephone survey, not considered major
barriers but nevertheless needing to be addressed, include reactions from
potential buyers, the availability of the right labour skills for installation, the
need for an early design freeze, a lack of flexibility on-site, transport logistics
and reactions from potential buyers.
Respondents were asked to name two main barriers to using full volumetric or
modular construction (Table 2) from the list shown in Figure 16.
7 Concerns and barriers
to using volumetric
construction
Concerns and barriers to using volumetric construction
24 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Figure 16 Concerns and barriers to use of full volumetric or modular construction (prompted)
Table 2 Top barriers by type of organisation
Large house builders Capital cost
Buyer reactions
Lack of suppliers
Medium-sized house
builders
Capital cost
Lack of suppliers
Lack of flexibility on-site
Need for early design freeze
Housing associations Capital cost
Lack of sub-contractor skills
Lack of suppliers
0 20 40 60
Increased capital cost
Need for early design freeze
Lack of suppliers
Lack of flexibility on-site
Transport logistics, accessibility
and craneage
Risk of problems
Buyer reactions
Sub-contractor skills to erect
Lack of suitable modular options to meet
planners’ or customers’ expectations
Restricts bespoke options for customers
Need for cost/benefit models
Possible down-valuation of homes
Local authority or planning
reaction to modular design
Concerns Main barriers to use
The dream of off-site …but
when you get into reality,
when you cost it up, with
the knowledge we have,
there is the cost implication,
and the hassle factor.
(House builder)
One of the biggest reasons
why modern methods of
construction hasn’t taken off,
particularly timber frame, is
that it’s a series of cottage
industries, it doesn’t sell itself
very well. (House builder)
The bulk of our work is in
London and it’s flats on
brownfield sites, squeezing
them in here, there and
everywhere and that says
you can’t standardise
anything. (House builder)
Base:135.
Percentage
25NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
With a somewhat mixed picture emerging of both use and experiences to date,
the research sought to gain insight into industry views about the future for MMC.
Respondents were asked for their views on the potential contribution of MMC
in the construction of new homes in the UK and the expected role it will play
within their own organisations. They were also questioned about MMC, in the
context of increasing housing output generally, over the next 3 years.
By far the main contribution is considered to be the ability to build homes
faster, again corroborating the main benefit experienced in practice. But MMC
is also expected to help house builders improve build quality and will be
adopted by some to help address skills shortages (Figure 17).
Figure 17 Views on MMC’s main future contribution to new build
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Speed of construction/faster build programme
Improved/assured quality of build
Ease the skills shortage
Increased volume/increased number of houses built
Energy efficiency/sustainability
Base: 135. Main unprompted answers given by over 10%. Percentage
8
The future for MMC
The future for MMC
26 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
The majority of house builders and housing associations interviewed feel that
MMC has some role to play in the delivery of large volumes of new homes
(Figure 18), but identified other factors which need to be addressed. These are
examined in more detail in Section 9.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Some contribution but there are also other factors
A key role
No contribution, it is used for other reasons
Base: 135. Responses were prompted. Percentage
Figure 18 Expected role of MMC in significantly increasing UK housing input
In spite of these factors, 78% of house builders and 46% of housing associations
expect to increase the number of new homes they build over the next 3 years
and MMC is expected to make some contribution in achieving this by the
majority (Figure 19).
Figure 19 Some comments about the contribution of MMC to the new build sector
Look at what the Chinese are doing,
they can build 32 modular storeys in
24 weeks and the build quality looks
very good. We could use it all over
London. It could revolutionise the
building industry. We have so many
sub-contractors on our books it would
make them null and void.
(House builder)
It’s definitely a more efficient way of building.
It probably has less impact on the
surrounding environment we are working in,
for example you are not delivering so many
materials on-site. The end user benefits from
the efficiency of the house. Less time is spent
on-site so the surrounding environment is
less impacted. (House builder)
The contribution of MMC is the ability
to deliver a limited range of similar
dwellings quite quickly. It’s almost akin
to the prefabs of post war. The real
offering is the speed of construction
and being able to develop the product
in a factory environment. The next step
is to take away any wet trades,
particularly external wet trades affected
by weather conditions. (House builder)
With houses its contribution is limited. The
large house builders have not bought into it.
Go down the open panel timber frame route,
fine, but putting fully volumetric in doesn’t
stack up, it’s all about volume. If you have got a
thousand homes to deliver which are the same
that’s fine, you could probably go into
partnership with an MMC builder. But if you
have a stop/start programme when you can’t
guarantee the supply of MMC that increases
costs. So timber frame is fine, anything more
‘modern’ than that makes it a lot more difficult
for the industry to deal with the lack of
flexibility.
(Housing association)
We only need to build a certain number each
year, we are not a volume builder. But it allows
us to phase a site better, allows us to get
streetscapes in better, it allows our sales team
to actually sell, not a building site as such, but
an area to live, so we can actually move
people in to a finished street a lot quicker.
(Housing association)
The future for MMC
27NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
It is expected that the use of MMC is likely to grow over the next 3 years; 45%
anticipate that it will play a greater role in their organisation’s construction
processes. Only 3% of those surveyed expect the role of MMC to decline
(Figure 20).
Figure 20 Anticipated role of MMC in organisations’ construction processes over the next
3 years
Concerns over skills shortages, which are expected to continue over the next
3 years, were given as the main reason encouraging the use of MMC. Other
reasons are a wish to increase build speed and housing output and to improve
quality (Figure 21).
Figure 21 Main reasons why MMC is expected to play a greater role
Base: 135.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
All
Large house builders
Medium-sized house builders
Housing associations
Greater role Same role/no change Smaller role
Don’t know
Percentage
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
To overcome skills shortages
For a faster build programme
To increase housing output
To improve build quality
Government policy
To address materials shortages
To reduce costs
Base: 61 organisations expecting MMC to play a greater role.
Percentage
The future for MMC
28 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Panelised systems and sub-assemblies and components are expected to
continue to be the most used type of MMC over the next 3 years (Figure 22).
The use of ‘whole home’ volumetric construction and pods is expected
to increase over the next 3 years. 19% think they will be using volumetric
construction and 28% pods in that timeframe, significant increases compared to
6 to 7% who said they used each approach in 2015.
Figure 22 Types of MMC used in 2015 and expected to be used in 3 years’ time
There are differences by type of organisation (Figure 23); twice as many housing
associations than house builders think they will be using volumetric construction
in 3 years’ time. Also, the proportions of large house builders and housing
associations using panelised systems to some extent is anticipated to increase
significantly.
Significant differences are expected to continue by region (Figure 24), with
anticipated use of volumetric construction and pods increasing predominantly
in London/the South East and high levels of panelised system construction
continuing in Scotland, but also increasing in the rest of the UK.
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Volumetric Pods Panelised Sub-assemblies
and components
Site-based MMC
Used in 2015 Expect to be using in 3 years’ time
Base:135.
The future for MMC
29NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Figure 23 Types of MMC organisations expect to be using in 3 years’ time, by type of
organisation
Used at least once in 2015 Expect to be using in 3 years’ time
Used at least once in 2015 Expect to be using in 3 years’ time
Used at least once in 2015 Expect to be using in 3 years’ time*
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Large house builders
Medium-sized house builders
Housing associations
*7% said they do not expect to be using any of these in 3 years’ time.
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
The future for MMC
30 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Figure 24 Types of MMC organisations expect to be using in 3 years’ time, by region
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Volumetric Pods Panelised Sub-assemblies
and components
Site-based MMC
Used at least once in 2015 Expect to be using in 3 years’ time
Volumetric Pods Panelised Sub-assemblies
and components
Site-based MMC
Used at least once in 2015 Expect to be using in 3 years’ time
Volumetric Pods Panelised Sub-assemblies
and components
Site-based MMC
Used at least once in 2015 Expect to be using in 3 years’ time
Scotland
London and the South East
Rest of England and Wales
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
The future for MMC
31NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
When asked for views on where the industry is most likely to see growth in
MMC over the next 3 years, the most common answer was panelised systems
(Figure 25).
Figure 25 MMC approaches considered most likely to grow in use in new build over the next
3 years
Amongst those who feel that their use of volumetric construction and/or pods
will grow, their reasons are similar to those given for encouraging greater use of
MMC generally, ie faster build time, addressing skills shortages and helping to
meet demand (Figure 26).
Those not anticipating increased use consider that these methods remain
unfamiliar and therefore carry some risk which they are not willing to take.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Panelised
Pods or
semi-volumetric
Sub-assemblies
and components
Volumetric
On-site
manufactured
Don’t know
None of these
Base: 135.
Percentage
The future for MMC
32 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Figure 26 Reasons for and against use of volumetric construction and/or pods in future
(unprompted)
To me the biggest driver is to double
production, you can’t do that with
traditional construction. I think that’s
where the Government is going, with
the housing shortage. We don’t have
the people or the materials to do
that. (House builder)
We feel there are enormous benefits,
these things are developed in
controlled environments and brought to
site, so it improves quality, and health
and safety. Also the cost of going back
to repair poor workmanship is cut out.
(House builder)
I think we are quite risk averse and
modern methods of construction
carries risk with it. Wherever we have
tried things we have ended up with
problems we weren’t expecting in
terms of aftercare, some quite serious
and significant. (Housing association)
As we have come out of the recession
there has been a need to look elsewhere.
It is having the confidence to go into
some of these other items. We are quite
used to timber frame. But to have the
confidence to go into something which is
untried, untested, don’t know how it works
and these people tell us they can do it.
But if they fail…? (House builder)
For speed/faster build time (32%)
Help address skills shortage (30%)
Help meet demand (23%)
Risk of unfamiliar systems and public perception (41%)
Expensive (26%)
Insufficient capacity in supply chain (12%)
Market prefers traditional buildings and methods (12%)
33NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
It is clear from the research that the use of components and sub-assemblies
is very well established. The use of panelised systems, already standard in
Scotland, is developing and is clearly expected to continue. However, to
progress the move towards greater use of pods and whole home volumetric
construction, the perceived barriers need to be overcome, and the benefits
delivered such that they outweigh the drawbacks, reinforcing the case for
greater use.
This issue was debated amongst the focus group participants who identified
the following list of key issues preventing or restricting greater use of full
volumetric construction. The main issues are shown in blue shading in Table 3.
Table 3 Key issues identified for preventing or restricting greater use of full volumetric
construction
Risk, including lack
of suppliers
The risk factor was raised unprompted at both stages of the research; use of
an unknown or unfamiliar approach, and the effect on costs, site issues, labour
requirements and importantly customer attitudes. Also the risk of using what are
often small suppliers who were described as not understanding the house-building
industry.
Analogies were draw with countries like Japan where there are several large and
experienced companies successfully supplying high volumes of modular homes – a
more developed supply chain, delivering more confidence.
Increased cost Described as a main barrier to use, some companies find that savings on-site,
for example, resulting from shorter construction duration and health and safety
benefits are not taken into account in financial models. Others had been unable to
achieve significant site savings to counter the higher capital cost, in preliminaries for
example.
9 Factors to be addressed for
increased use of MMC
Factors to be addressed for increased use of MMC
34 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Buyer reactions
and restriction on
bespoke customer
options
There is concern about buyer reactions to volumetric construction – it may be seen
as a ‘cheap’ approach with association with ‘prefabs’, although some house builders
are describing off-site as providing better quality of construction.
The opportunity to offer bespoke options to customers is more limited and
decisions need to be made earlier on – restricting buyer options if an off-plan buyer
withdraws from purchase or the home is sold post construction.
Requirement for
standardisation
The view was expressed that house types need to be varied to suit local
requirements for planning and marketing purposes, but an expectation that
volumetric construction is suited to standardised or repetitive designs. There
is thought to be a lack of suitable modular options which meet planners’ and
customers’ expectations.
Need for early
design freeze
Designs may need to be changed slightly for a number of reasons; the industry is
accustomed to working with some flexibility in design – that volumetric designs
must be fixed at an earlier stage is considered by some to be an unwelcome and
impractical way of working.
Transport logistics Transporting large units to sites which may be restricted in size and difficult to
access, and requiring hoisting, is seen as adding cost and limiting use.
Lack of sub-
contractor skills
A lack of skills to install volumetric units and a lack of understanding about working
with them.
Suggestions made during the course of the research to encourage use of
volumetric construction include:
■■ dissemination by MMC manufacturers of cost/benefit models and best
practice case studies
■■ encouraging suppliers to enter the market (some have in fact left it in the
last 3 years) and improving their understanding of the house-building sector
■■ finding ways of working with suppliers to overcome industry concerns
■■ grant or subsidy-funded development
■■ improving awareness and understanding of what volumetric construction is
amongst potential homebuyers.
To be adopted by the industry on a widespread basis, volumetric construction
needs to be seen to be providing benefits for house builders. At present other
MMC approaches, such as panelised systems and sub-assemblies, are seen to
be enhancing the build process by increasing the speed of construction and
improving quality; given the concerns about full volumetric construction, these
alternatives are providing solutions sufficient for many house builders’ and
housing associations’ needs at present.
35NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Appendix A
Appendix A:
Focus group attendees
Organisation Name Job title
Aster Group Tony Clifford Development Director
Avant Homes Stuart Rowlands Development Director
Barratt Oliver Novakovic Technical and Innovation Director
Barratt East Scotland Andrew Rule Design Manager
Barratt East Scotland Martin Eaglesham Senior Architectural Technician
Bellway John Kerr Managing Director
Cala Marc Coulon Group Construction and Technical Director
CCG Homes Daniel McGann Partnership and Innovation Manager
Churchill Hacon Edgley Sustainability Consultant
Clyde Valley Housing
Association
Gerard Eardley Technical Inspector
Cruden Estates David McEvoy Construction Director
Guinness Trust Michael Watts Head of Partnerships Design and Quality
Hanover Martin Whale Quality and Programme Manager
Housing 21 Steve Hogben National Construction Manager
Keepmoat Peter Hindley Managing Director: Homes
Kier Jim Collins General Manager
Link Group George Andrew Clerk of Works
Mactaggart and Mickel Ross Mickel Director
Network David Foster Head of Construction
Notting Hill Housing
Association
Ed Badke Development Director
Octavia Housing Association Dave Woods Development Director
Riverside Group Geoff Fogden Director
Springfield Properties James Johnstone Timber Frame Design Manager
Springfield Properties Raymond Stevenson Timber Frame Design Manager
Swan Housing Deane Rosewell Commercial Director
Taylor Wimpey John Gainham Divisional Managing Director
Thenue Housing Association Beth Reilly Head of Property Services
Waterloo Housing Neil Adie Group Head of Development
36 NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
Appendix B
Appendix B:
Weighting of results
Where ‘all’ results are given in this report, weighting factors have been applied
to ensure each segment interviewed, ie large and medium-sized house builders
and housing associations, has a ‘share of voice’ of the ‘all’ figures which is in
proportion to the number of new homes each group developed in the total
market in 2015.
To arrive at this, the number of homes developed in 2015 by each office
interviewed was recorded (within bands). This was then compared with the
proportion of homes each group built in the total market by the groups
included in the survey (ie excluding those building under 200 homes).
For example, of the total number of homes built in 2015 in the sample, 26% were
built by medium-sized house builders. However, medium-sized house builders
accounted for 15% of all new homes built in 2015 by the groups included in
this research. Hence a weighting factor of 0.15 has been applied to results from
this group to arrive at the aggregated or ‘all’ results, to ensure their views are
representative in proportion to the number of homes this group actually built.
This ensures that, if any group holds a very different view to other groups, their
answers are not over- or under-represented in the total.
Weighting factors are given in Table B1.
Table B1: Application of weighting factors to ensure aggregated or ‘all’ answers are
representative
Homes
built as a
percentage
of total in
sample
Homes
built as a
percentage
of actuals
in 2015*
Weighting
factor†
Large house builders
Over 1,000 homes per annum
nationally
55% 60% 0.60
Medium-sized house builders
200 to 1,000 units per annum
nationally
26% 15% 0.15
Housing associations 19% 25% 0.25
* Note that the sample in the research did not include those building fewer than 200
homes a year.
† Each group’s answers to individual questions has been weighted by these factors to
ensure their ‘voice’ is in proportion to their share of new homes built.
37NHBC Foundation Modern methods of construction
References and further reading
References
1 Department of Trade and Industry. Rethinking construction (The Egan Report).
London, Department of Trade and Industry, 1998.
2 Department of the Environment. Constructing the team. Joint review of
procurement and contractual arrangements in the United Kingdom construction
industry (The Latham Report). London, Department of the Environment, 1994.
3 NHBC Foundation. A guide to modern methods of construction. NF 1. Milton
Keynes, NHBC Foundation, 2006.
Further reading
UK House builders directory 2015.
www.propertydata.com.
Construction Products Association. Construction industry forecasts 2015–2019.
London, Construction Products Association, 2015.
www.constructionproducts.org.uk.
The NHBC Foundation, established in 2006, provides high quality research and
practical guidance to support the house-building industry as it addresses the
challenges of delivering 21st century new homes. Visit www.nhbcfoundation.org
to find out more about the NHBC Foundation research programme.
Modern methods of construction
Views from the industry
The UK has a long history of using modern methods of construction (MMC),
with many systems being introduced since the Second World War, to increase
housing output in the UK.
Based on an extensive survey of house builders and housing associations, this
report explores current industry attitudes towards MMC. It records the degree
to which different methods and systems have been adopted and assesses the
appetite for more extensive application of specific approaches.
The research finds an industry, which, while cautious in its approach, is
nevertheless embracing MMC in its many forms, and remains ready to explore
new options and innovations.
_GoBack
1 Key findings
2 Background and introduction
3 Methodology
3.1 Stages
3.2 Weighting of data
4 Definition of Modern Methods of Construction
5 Use and consideration of MMC
5.1 NHBC statistics on construction type
5.2 Use and consideration of different types of MMC
5.3 Types of panelised systems used
5.4 �Types of off-site manufactured sub-assemblies and components used
5.5 �Where are decisions made about construction method?
5.6 �Willingness to innovate
6 Factors driving consideration of MMC and experiences in practice
6.1 Main reasons for considering MMC
6.2 Benefits of MMC in practice
6.3 Experiences of volumetric construction and pods
7 Concerns and barriers to use of volumetric construction
8 The future for MMC
9 Factors to be addressed for increased use of MMC
Appendix A:
Focus group attendees
Appendix B:
Weighting of results
References
Further reading
Innovation in Production
D30IC – Innovation in Construction Practice
Dr. S R AKOH
Agenda
Modern Methods of Construction (MMC)
Automation and Robotics
Agenda
Modern Methods of Construction (MMC)
Automation and Robotics
What is NMC?
A panelized construction system
https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6u-CDj2HJQ
Class exercise 1 (45mins)
Refer to the vision for details
MMC
Pre-fabrication
6
MMC
Pre-fabrication
Pre-assembly
Sub-assemblies
Panelised systems
MMC
Pre-fabrication
Pre-assembly
Modularisation
MMC
Advantages?
Challenges?
MMC
10
MMC
MMC
Advantages:
Higher quality
Parallel construction (schedule ‘crashing’)
Health & Safety
MMC
“Modern methods of construction offer predictability, value, improved health and safety, speed and greater efficiency in terms on minimising waste”
“The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), who regulate construction safety, are encouraging the use of MMC”
BURA (2005), Modern Methods of Construction: Evolution or Revolution?, Report.
UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2003), Modern Methods of House Building, Postnote.
MMC
2005
Pan, W., Gibb, A. and Dainty, A. (2005), Offsite Modern Methods of Construction in Housebuilding, Report, Loughborough Univ.
MMC
Modern Methods of Construction – Views from the industry
NHBC (2016)
Find it
on Vision
MMC
2016
Experienced benefits appear to now match predicted benefits
MMC
Barriers/Challenges:
MMC
Barriers/Challenges:
MMC
57 storeys in 19 days (China)
Broad, Sustainable Buildings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93HVG3j1phs
MMC
MMC
57 storeys in 19 days (China)
10 storeys in 2 days (India)
MMC
MMC
57 storeys in 19 days (China)
10 storeys in 2 days (India)
Sky City One (China)
Broad, Sustainable Buildings
220 storey – 2,750ft (32ft higher than Burj Khalifa)
90 days (24 times quicker than Burj Khalifa)
$700 millions (1/3 of cost of Burj Kalifa)
MMC
57 storeys in 19 days (China)
10 storeys in 2 days (India)
Bridge replaced (UK)
MMC
25
MMC
57 storeys in 19 days (China)
10 storeys in 2 days (India)
Bridge replaced (UK)
Bridge replaced in 1 day (China)
MMC
MMC
Legal & General Homes
Largest modular home factory in Europe (2016).
http://www.legalandgeneral.com/homes/
MMC
MMC used or considered in the last 3 years 98%
Sub-assemblies (e.g. door sets, timber I-beams, prefabricated chimneys) 65%
Panelised systems (e.g. timber and steel frame)
– Scotland: timber frame for 75% of new homes. 42%
Volumetric construction and pods
– Mainly apartments in London and South East. 6%
MMC
Agenda
Modern Methods of Construction (MMC)
Automation and Robotics
BeamMaster
BeamMaster
Advantages:
Works 24/7
Agile
High degree of accuracy and speed
Challenges:
?
SAM / Azdaja (ETH)
Advantages:
Almost unlimited shapes
More variability in the built environment
High degree of accuracy and speed
Challenges:
Localising/Positioning of robot
Transport of pre-fabricated objects
3D Printing
Advantages:
Almost no shape restriction
Easily shaped
Challenges:
Structural performance? How to insert reinforcement?
Embedded services creates problems
3D Printing
NASA 3D prints rocket engine
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2015/piece-by-piece-nasa-team-moves-closer-to-building-a-3-d-printed-rocket-engine.html
Barriers to Robots in Construction
Barriers to Robots in Construction:
Almost unique context on each project and site.
Unstructured, dynamic nature of the construction site, the hazards and difficulties presented by temporary works, weather and, sometimes, the shear scale of activity mitigate against greater automation.
Initial investment.
Exoskeleton
https://
youtu.be/Z_pdZ1LW5iw
Exoskeleton
What Will You Get?
We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.
Premium Quality
Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.
Experienced Writers
Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.
On-Time Delivery
Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.
24/7 Customer Support
Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.
Complete Confidentiality
Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.
Authentic Sources
We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.
Moneyback Guarantee
Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.
Order Tracking
You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.
From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.
Preferred Writer
Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.
Grammar Check Report
Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.
One Page Summary
You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.
Plagiarism Report
You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.
Free Features $66FREE
Most Qualified Writer
$10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report
$10FREE
Unlimited Revisions
$08FREE
Paper Formatting
$05FREE
Cover Page
$05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography
$10FREE
Dedicated User Area
$08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking
$05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts
$05FREE
Our Services
Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.
On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources
Academic Writing
We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.
Professional Editing
We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.
Thorough Proofreading
We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.
Thorough Proofreading
We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.
Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals
Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!
We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing
We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.
Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.
We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services
We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.
Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.
We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades
We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.
Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.
