Shipping Containers As Building Componen PDF

‘SHIPPING CONTAINERS
AS BUILDING COMPONENTS’
By
J. D. Smith
V19.0 updated 30-04-06
University of Brighton
Department of the Built Environment
Supervisor: Noel Painting
J.D. Smith ©
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-
Commercial 2.0 England & Wales License. To view a copy of this licence,
visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/ or send a letter to
Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305,
USA.
J. Smith 2005-6 Shipping containers as accommodation II
ABSTRACT
This dissertation provides an assessment of the feasibility of using ISO shipping containers
as building components. ISO shipping containers are widely available and as various
pioneers have shown, can be a low cost building resource. The reasons why these units are
not widely used in the UK is not clear. This document sets out to provide a view of the
viability of this medium, together with an identification of problems that have occurred or
may occur in implementing their use.
It is the aim of this paper to show how shipping containers have been used, the methods
employed, the locations in which they have been used and their purpose, this encompasses
both the UK and also considers influences from the global market.
The current housing needs of the UK is considered and the possibilities of satisfying this
need using ISO shipping containers is assessed by means of a survey of existing container
structures. This is followed by an analysis of the current UK Building Regulations (April
06) to identify the technical hurdles involved in container conversion.
The research shows that the UK needs to increase its building output, quality and speed of
erection. There are plentiful stocks of ISO shipping containers, and the use of these as
building components could offer faster construct time and guaranteed quality, especially
where the fit out is pre-fabricated prior to installation of the unit. Insulation design is a
technical hurdle for the designer, as it can further reduce the already limited floor to ceiling
height. In conclusion ISO shipping containers can offer a wide range of building types and
configurations, which are only limited by the technical ability of the designer.
J. Smith 2005-6 Shipping containers as accommodation II
The research undertaken follows the logic path below. This shows how the research has
evolved from the problems, to conclusion and recommendations:
Problems
Need for more building / housing stock
Cost of new housing / buildings,
Speed of construction,
Speed of UK planning system
Lack of usable land
What are the key issues? UK governmental

reviews
More buildings required due
to changing demographics
Lack of skilled work force and longer predicted life Poor quality finish and cost Barker Report
(Egan) spans (ODPM) of construction (Egan)
Egan Report
Existing construction Population will continue to Building cost will increase due
methods are to slow (Egan) increase (Barker) to demand (Barker)
Prefabricated housing
Opportunities
ISO shipping Refurbishment of

Build smaller Improved traditional Build upward to
container units as existing housing
(micro-homes) construction reduce urban spread
a building stock
components
Availability of ISO
Technical hurdles
shipping containers Existing examples Key players
Technical constraints:
Technical standards for
Building Regulations,
ISO shipping
size of units,
containers
transportation &
planning Analysis
Legend
Problems
Key Issues
Governmental Reports
Recommendations Conclusions
Other Opportunities
Research Path
Figure 1. Research logic path diagram.
J. Smith 2005-6 Shipping containers as building components III
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................. II
CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................III
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................IV
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... V
LIST OF PLATES / PHOTOGRAPHS .................................................................................... V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................................................................VI
DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ VII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................1
1.1 Scope of chapter.........................................................................................................1
1.2 Introduction to the research........................................................................................1
1.3 Identification of aims & objectives............................................................................5
1.4 Methodology (objective by objective). ......................................................................7
1.5 The methodology for each objective is defined below: .............................................8
1.6 Structure of research ................................................................................................10
1.7 Risk assessment........................................................................................................10
1.8 Limitations of the research.......................................................................................10
1.9 Literature review ......................................................................................................11
1.10 Summary of chapter .................................................................................................23
CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION.............................................................24
2.1 Scope of chapter.......................................................................................................24
2.2 History of shipping containers .................................................................................24
2.3 UK Highways Agency .............................................................................................27
2.4 What are ISO shipping containers made from? .......................................................27
2.5 What are the characteristics of an (ISO) shipping container ...................................28
2.6 (ISO) shipping container statistics ...........................................................................31
CHAPTER 3 KEY PLAYERS...........................................................................................34
3.1 Scope of chapter.......................................................................................................34
3.2 Architects .................................................................................................................35
3.3 Builders ....................................................................................................................45
3.4 Other.........................................................................................................................47
CHAPTER 4 QUESTIONNAIRES AND INTERVIEWS ................................................52
4.1 Scope of chapter.......................................................................................................52
CHAPTER 5 IDENTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL HURDLES.....................................64
5.1 Scope of chapter.......................................................................................................64
5.2 Guaranteeing container quality & structural integrity of second use containers .....64
5.3 ISO shipping container suitability for intermodal use .............................................64
5.4 Building Regulations................................................................................................66
CHAPTER 6 THERMAL MODEL OF A SHIPPING CONTAINER ..............................76
6.1 Scope of chapter.......................................................................................................76
6.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................76
6.3 Drawing of insulation types .....................................................................................88
J. Smith 2005-6 Shipping containers as building components IV
CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS OF DATA................................................................................90

7.1 Scope of chapter.......................................................................................................90
7.2 Analysis of survey data ............................................................................................90
7.3 Analysis of technical hurdle data .............................................................................96
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................98
8.1 Scope of chapter.......................................................................................................98
8.2 Overall conclusions..................................................................................................98
8.3 Conclusions for each objective ................................................................................99
8.4 Other data ...............................................................................................................102
8.5 Limitations to this research ....................................................................................104
8.6 Reflections upon research ......................................................................................105
8.7 Recommendations ..................................................................................................106
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................107
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................113
Approved Documents and Standards .................................................................................113
Articles ...............................................................................................................................114
Architects / Builders...........................................................................................................116
Building Products...............................................................................................................116
Books .................................................................................................................................116
Container Companies / Products........................................................................................117
Forums................................................................................................................................117
History................................................................................................................................118
Research .............................................................................................................................118
Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................................119
Appendix 2 .............................................................................................................................120
Appendix 3 .............................................................................................................................121
Appendix 4 .............................................................................................................................122
Appendix 5 .............................................................................................................................123
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Research logic path diagram...................................................................................... II

Figure 2. Test force per container at all four corners simultaneously. ....................................30
Figure 3. Test force per container per pair of end corners simultaneously..............................30
Figure 4. Market segments.......................................................................................................50
Figure 5. U-Value loss summary of an unmodified ISO shipping container...........................80
Figure 6. U-Value loss summary of a Building Regulation compliant insulated ISO
shipping container ....................................................................................................................87
Figure 7. Sighting of project. ...................................................................................................90
Figure 8. Bulk of structure. ......................................................................................................91
Figure 9. Use type of structure.................................................................................................91
Figure 10. Current use of structure. .........................................................................................92
Figure 12. Type of foundation used. ........................................................................................93
Figure 13. Type of container used Vs project site. ..................................................................94
Figure 14. Location against use type. ......................................................................................95
J. Smith 2005-6 Shipping containers as building components V
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. ISO shipping container dimensions ...........................................................................29

Table 2. UK major ports continental & coastwise container traffic: 2002 ..............................31
Table 3. ‘Major ports unitised traffic, by category: 2002 Foreign and coastwise traffic’......32
LIST OF PLATES / PHOTOGRAPHS
Note all photographs are originally printed in colour.

All photographs used within this document are copyright of there rightful owner.
Photo 1. Global Peace Container under construction. ...............................................................3

Photo 2. Global Peace Container under construction. ...............................................................3
Photo 3 & 4. Future Shack external & internal. SGA..............................................................35
Photo 5, 6 & 7. HTBU external and internal renders. Habitainer............................................36
Photo 8, 9, 10 & 11. Mo. Vida Project external renders, Habitainer. ......................................37
Photo 12, 13 & 14. Mo. Vida Project external renders, Habitaner. .........................................38
Photo 15. (montage). Studio 320, Hybrid. ...............................................................................39
Photo 16. External rendering of Mobile Medical, Hybrid. ......................................................40
Photo 17. Internal view, Collectors house, Kalkin & Co.........................................................41
Photo 18. Container City 2. Photo 19. Container Learn. Photo 20. Cove Park. ......................42
Photo 21. Pearson concept render. ..........................................................................................43
Photo 22. Dwell concept render..............................................................................................43
Photo 22. Container Kit Home concept, LOT-EK...................................................................44
Photo 23. MDU concept, LOT-EK. .........................................................................................44
Photo 26. View of courtyard, Tempohousing ..........................................................................46
Photo 27. View of courtyard façade, Tempohousing...............................................................46
Photo 28. Initial container sighting, Global Peace Container..................................................47
Photo 29. Mid construction, Global Peace Container..............................................................48
Photo 30. Completed project, Global Peace Container............................................................48
Photo 32. Example of a damaged ISO shipping container. .....................................................64
Photo 33. Extreme container deformation due to poor packing. .............................................65
J. Smith 2005-6 Shipping containers as building components VI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank the following people who gave their time, assistance and
guidance during the preparation and writing of this dissertation.
Thanks go to Mr Noel Painting, my supervisor who took a risk on an unknown subject
and guided me through this research.
Thanks also go to all the Architects / Builders and Container Industry people who have
taken time out of their day to talk to me especially:
Joel Egan of Robert Humble / Hybrid Architects.

Louis Rodriguez Alonso of Habitainer.
Charlie Luxton for his comments and support.
Andrew Foxcroft for his insight in to the container industry.
Special thanks must go to my wife who have assisted me on this journey through
education, without whose support I could not have undertaken this work and my
Grandfather who passed away during this research.
Further thanks to all my friends who helped with the proof reading, especially Manuel
Reusa for translating the Spanish documents to English and the two Mikes for their
constructive criticism.
And finally a big thanks to Dietrich Mateschitz for inventing Red Bull without which
much of my work would still be unfinished.
J. Smith 2005-6 Shipping containers as building components VII
DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AD Approved Document
BRE Building Research Establishment
BS British Standard
Cargotecture ‘The building system of using ISO-dimension elements, cargo
container conversions or ISO-dimension prefabricated modules,
into a dwelling, shop, school or office space which would be
shippable if ever located’ Joel Egan of Robert Humble / Hybrid
Architects 2004
DoE Department of Environment
EN European Norm
Intermodal ‘1. (of a transport system) using different modes of conveyance
in conjunction, such as ships, aircraft, road vehicles, etc.
2. (of a container) able to be carried by different modes of
conveyance without being unpacked.’ (Collins 2000)
Intermodel BS ISO 8323:1985 uses the word ‘Intermodel’ on the front cover
of the British Standard Implementation of ISO 8323:1985 – this
is an error and should be ‘Intermodal’
ISO International Standardization Organization
Lo-Lo “Load on” “Load off”, a shipping term for the ISO container
type that are loaded on and loaded off of ships
Parasite House A house which can be moved and quickly connected to any or all
local services
PPG3 Planning Policy Guidance note 3
PGS Planning Gain Supplement
Prefabricated Typically modules that have been made offsite to be finally
erected or installed on site.
TEU Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit
Modular Created of standardised units
Standardised Components within the construction industry, this is typically
400mm, 600mm or 1200mm (centres) are used to create
‘modules’
J. Smith 2005-6 Shipping containers as building components 1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 SCOPE OF CHAPTER
This chapter aims to provide a basic understanding of the problems of the and possibilities
of ISO shipping containers that provoked this research, together with the issues
surrounding the UK building industry and lack of housing stock.
1.2 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH
The idea of using shipping containers as a building component is by no means new, as Paul
Sawyers identifies in his book ‘Intermodal Shipping Container Small Steel Buildings’,
published in 2005. Most shipping container conversions have however been for temporary
accommodation needs, for example, storage, emergency shelters and site offices. In North
America Sawyers describes “farmers and rural folks” as the pioneers using shipping
container as permanent, low-cost structures and states that “Intermodal units have become
so prevalent in recent years, they are beginning to turn up in Wyoming, Indiana and other
places nowhere near either coast”. In the UK using ISO shipping containers as a building
component to provide more permanent accommodation has only been undertaken by a few
people.
Initial inspiration for this research was from a series of TV programmes called ‘Guerrilla
homes’ (BBC3 2004) presented by Charlie Luxton, which discussed aspects of low income
housing within the UK and the problems of getting on to the property ladder, set against
the complexities of current town and country planning laws. This programme sparked
interest in cheap housing, modular construction and ultimately the conversion of existing
steel shipping containers, as had been done in the series to create a “parasite home”.
Shipping containers are a widely available, low cost resource that UK developers,
architects and builders are not using, the reasons why these units are not widely used in the
UK is not clear. This study is an analysis of the information available regarding the use of
shipping containers as a building component in the UK compared with the influences from
the global market and aims to identify any restrictions that their use may incur.
The ISO shipping container has been designed to stringent standards, not only to withstand
the extreme weather conditions on sea voyages, but to withstand the stacking of 9 fully
laden containers (3392kN / 192000kg– ISO 1496-1:1990/BS3951-2.1:1991). Shipping
containers are used by all exporting and importing nations consequently there is a global
transportation network that already exits to move these containers by sea, road or rail.
These containers are reusable but if the need for imports exceeds exports then, as the UK
finds itself now, there will continue to be a surplus of containers gathering in cities and
ports. Future supply of these units is not an issue with ocean routes still increasing in
number and ‘larger ships being built to take up to 10,000 containers at a time’. (Harbatkin
2005)
The standard dimensions of an ISO container means that they are an excellent modular unit
and their inherent strength, weatherproof nature and availability makes them an ideal
modular structural component or as a whole standard accommodation unit.
So why are ISO shipping containers not being used more widely as building components?
Many might state that aesthetics are a factor, a steel box having less appeal than a timber,
glass or brick structure. It should however be remembered that the appearance of a steel
box is purely superficial and can be designed out. Containers can fit in with the local
surroundings or to the designers’ specification with a facing material such as brick slips or
shiplap boarding, as is done elsewhere in the world of modular construction.
Perhaps designers feel constrained by the lack of sizes available?
Normally 40’ (12.1m) or 20’ (6.058m) by 8’ (2.438m) wide and 8’ (2.438m) high, with
minimum internal floor areas of approximately 27.95 m2 and 13.6m2 respectively
dependant upon the manufacturer (BS ISO 668 : 1995), therefore the use of a single 40’
container or two 20’ containers could provide adequate space in line with the 1961 Parker
Morris standards for a single person’s accommodation, which is generous by today’s
standards.(Adler 2003, Metric handbook section 33-2 table ii). There are therefore no
limitations for a creative developer.
Thus it begins to appear that it is a lack of vision, research/knowledge that is holding the
UK building industry back in this area, if not is it another technical hurdle.
Containers can provide temporary solutions to a particular shortage, be it housing, office

space or another accommodation need. They could be used in disaster areas or areas of
need and for key worker homes or student housing. These temporary solutions may use
brown / green field sites, flood planes, areas earmarked for future development or virtually
any flat surface with enough ground stability, as an example see the ‘Global Peace
Container’ project below:
Photo 1. Global Peace Container under construction.
Photo 2. Global Peace Container under construction.

The reuse of a container as a building component can therefore provide a second use (for a
container) and may assist in reducing the embodied energy of buildings. Therefore as a by-
product the reuse has added benefits as council planning departments are now regularly
asking, “What is the sustainability of the scheme?”.
The ISO shipping container can be seen to have a reduced embodied energy in comparison
to other building materials as the unit has already been used for other purposes, possibly
for a number of years, where as normal building components and materials are typically a
first use of a material.
1.3 IDENTIFICATION OF AIMS & OBJECTIVES
1.3.1 Aim
To assess the technical feasibility of ISO shipping containers as a building components.
1.3.2 Objective 1
1.3.2.1 To define the characteristics of ISO shipping containers:
• What is an ISO shipping container?
• To identify what the lifecycle of an ISO shipping container is.
• How many ISO shipping containers are decommissioned per year?
• What are the numbers of ISO shipping containers within the UK?
1.3.3 Objective 2
1.3.3.1 To characterise the types / possibilities of ISO shipping containers as

building components.
• Identify key players.
• Identify building types and possibilities.
1.3.4 Objective 3
1.3.4.1 To identify the technical hurdles incurred in the conversion of ISO

shipping container for use as a building component.
• To discussed the technical issues of building regulation compliance

with relation to ISO shipping containers.
1.3.5 Objective 4
1.3.5.1 To prove that a ISO shipping container can be adapted to comply

with UK Building Regulations with regard to thermal performance.
• To define the thermal performance of an empty ISO shipping

container as a base model.
• To define the thermal performance of an ISO shipping container,

which has been insulated to meet UK building regulation
compliance.
• To produce details of the amount of internal space used by the

insulation in relation to internal floor area and floor to ceiling space.
1.4 METHODOLOGY (OBJECTIVE BY OBJECTIVE).
In order to achieve the objectives of this study it was first necessary to design a program of
research.
“The data collected using the above three approaches (surveys, case studies, problem-
solving) are called ‘primary data because they are obtained first hand. While the data
collected using the desk study approach are called ‘secondary data because the data are
obtained from other sources.” (Naoum 1998)
The initial research was based around a desktop study of secondary information sources as
defined by Naoum.
The main study of the work is to obtain data on the conversion of ISO shipping containers
and how they could be modified to comply with Building Regulations and thus provide
acceptable accommodation within the UK, this component of the research was undertaken
by means of a desk based study using industry standard data (Approved Documents and
British Standards). This work was complemented with survey data of what has gone
before, and data about the Key players within the ISO shipping container building market.
It should also be noted that in some instances the information required from the primary
sources was freely available from their web sites thus used so as to reduce time.
1.5 THE METHODOLOGY FOR EACH OBJECTIVE IS DEFINED BELOW:
1.5.1 To define the characteristics of ISO shipping containers:
• What is an ISO shipping container?
• Secondary information source. ISO documentation has been

sourced to provide the definitions of an ISO shipping container.
• To identify what the lifecycle of an ISO shipping container is.
• Secondary information source. Statistics to be sought from The

Maritime Statistics organisation or other source
• To identify how many ISO shipping containers are decommissioned

per year.

Maritime Statistics organisation and journal reports.
• To identify the numbers of ISO shipping containers within the UK.

Maritime Statistics organisation and journal reports.
1.5.2 To characterise the types / possibilities of ISO shipping containers as building

components.
• Identify key players.
• Primary and secondary information source data. Desk study /

Literature Review of websites / journals. Industry requests to be
placed within key construction journals/ magazines, from interviews
with key players a network of additional contacts within this market
may also be gained.
• Identify building types and possibilities

• Primary and secondary information source data. Desk study.

Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews shall be devised to
allow the respondent to define their use for the container unit(s)
1.5.3 To identify the technical hurdles incurred in the conversion of ISO shipping
container for use as a building component.
• To discuss the technical issues of building regulation compliance

with relation to ISO shipping containers.
• Primary information source data. Field work and Desk study.
1.5.4 To prove that a ISO shipping container can be adapted to comply with UK
Building Regulations with regard to thermal performance.
• To define the thermal performance of an empty ISO shipping

container as a base model.
• Primary information source data. Desk study using the BRE U-

Value tool and industry standard calculations.
• To define the thermal performance of an ISO shipping container,

which has been insulated to meet UK building regulation
compliance.
• Primary information source data. Desk study using the BRE U-

Value tool and industry standard calculations.
• To produce details of the amount of internal space used by the

insulation in relation to internal floor area and floor to ceiling space.
• Primary information source data. Desk study using the data

gathered BRE U-Value tool and industry standard calculations to
gather data on material thickness of the walls, floor and ceiling.
1.6 STRUCTURE OF RESEARCH
Due to the specialist information required, unique market and small number of key players
the primary information has been gathered from a mixture of sources to provide final
answers to the information required. The chapters follow the path set down within the
methodology through to formulated conclusions and recommendations for further research.
1.7 RISK ASSESSMENT
The information required for this research was expected to be widely available but in some
cases the parties asked were not prepared to provide the answers to the questions asked.
This is thought to be due to the insular nature of this market & minimal Architects /
Builders working within this sector. Potentially this research could be seen as a threat to
builders / architects future business and IPR (Intellectual Property Rights).
Statistical information with regards to numbers of containers was not be available, other
means of assessment is required. (at time of printing)
1.8 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH
These areas are not covered within this document as they could each form a body of
research in themselves. Therefore this research does not cover the following:
Research into the potential ‘loopholes’ for using ISO shipping containers as temporary
accommodation and as accommodation which is deemed ‘movable’ such as a caravan
under UK planning law.
The public and building industry’s perception of ISO shipping containers that have been
used as a building component or accommodation.
The structural testing of second use ISO shipping containers to asses their actual load
taking ability.
The embodied energy of a shipping container, from new or second use.

1.9 LITERATURE REVIEW
A desk study of existing literature on the subject has been undertaken to provide a coherent
story line of the influencing documentation that is available and has driven this research.
The literature review has been developed to illustrate the influencing factors and
documentation surrounding this work, namely the governmental reports and the need for
modularisation and prefabrication, to examples of modular construction and finally to ISO
shipping container usage.
1.9.1 Reports
Previous background reading included the Egan Report ‘Rethinking Construction’, which
was published in 1998 as a response to Government concerns that the UK construction
industry was failing due to its poor client satisfaction, inefficient investment both in
training and R&D and ultimately its low profitability. “The industry in its widest sense is
likely to have an output of some £58 billions in 1998, equivalent to roughly 10% GDP and
employs around 1.4 million people. It is simply too important to be allowed to stagnate.”
(Egan 1998)
The Egan report was an attempt to improve the output, efficiency, quality, costs and waste
of the construction industry (a primer to help the construction industry to achieve its full
potential). The Egan Report is still considered to be the benchmark review of the
construction industry. As such it has yet to be superseded as the targets within the Egan
report have yet to be achieved.
The review identified challenging targets covering reduction of capital costs, accidents,
construction time and defects and increased predictability, productivity, turnover and
profits. Companies that met the targets were cited as examples and these were used to
highlight the methods to achieve the improvements required.
Of these there were a number of items relevant to this dissertation:
• Use of modular components and standardisation.

The use of modular and standardised components can reduce time
on site, reduce costs and reduce wastage.
• Pre-assembly, notably used in car plants and manufacturing, but

there is no reason why a modular prefabricated unit could not be
fitted out prior to installation on site, thus cutting down on defects.
• ‘Reworking being sited as 30% of construction time’ (Egan 1998)

reworking or making good of poor workmanship can be reduced by
reducing the number of components within a structure and
prefabrication off site.
• ‘Lean Thinking or Lean Production, this is a generic version of the

Toyota production system, recognised as the most efficient
production system in the world’ (Egan 1998).
The lean thinking system analyses each part of the manufacturing process and defines its
value thus removing waste and effort where possible, producing an item and giving the end
user what is required. This can reduce the overall production costs.
The Egan Report is a persuasive piece of writing for the standardisation and prefabrication
of building components. It cites examples of the wastage and inefficient use of non-
standard components e.g. “local authorities have more than 30 specifications for standard
manhole covers”. (Egan 1998)
Construction companies would benefit from implementing the recommendations detailed

in the report. The Peabody Trust was commissioned in 1998 to produce a development of
modular prefabricated homes in Hackney. This they did very successfully in only 5 months
and after experiencing the benefits afforded from modular construction concluded that
“The 1998 Egan report highlighted the declining supply of skilled labour and the need to
reduce wastage in the construction industry and advised house builders to develop new
approaches. The Peabody Trust Murray Grove prototype is spear-heading a new direction
in construction for the new millennium.”(Peabody No date)
The Peabody Trust has continued to look at modular construction and states on the website
for Raines Court that it was “another example of Peabody and the project team's approach
to innovation in the context of the Egan agenda.” (Peabody 2006)
At the 2003 budget the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned Kate
Barker to write an independent review of housing supply. The reason for this review was
the acknowledgement of the lack of housing versus the increased number of households.
Life expectancy is increasing therefore it is estimated that four generations will require
housing in the future. House prices have risen due to the lack of housing and this stretched
the social housing supply, which in turn has affected the economy. “We need to act now if
we are to extend the opportunities and quality of life so many of us have enjoyed to future
generations.” (ODPM 2005a)
The Barker Report covered the need for a long term strategy for the supply of housing
within the UK and its affordability. The Government responded with various
recommendations:
‘a long-term national goal for improved affordability should be set with accompanying
regional goals:’ (ODPM 2005a)
‘investment in social housing should be increased significantly over time;’

‘Improving affordability and helping future generations of home buyers get a foot on the
housing ladder will require new housing supply in England to increase over the next
decade to 200,000 net additions per year’ (ODPM 2005a)
Within the text of this document it states that the growing trend ‘the number of household
has risen by 30 per cent but house building has failed to keep pace’ (ODPM 2005a) and
that ‘If this shortfall were to continue, the government’s analysis suggest that affordability
would worsen substantially, with just 35 per cent of 30-34 year old couples able to buy
their own homes in 2026, compared with 54 per cent today and 63 per cent at the end of
the 1980s’(ODPM 2005a)
It is obvious that the Egan Report contains some of the methodology required to achieve
the recommendations and goals highlighted by the ODPM.
Why is it that 8 years after it was published the Egan recommendations are still not
followed by the majority of the construction industry?
The issue that neither report addressed is incentives for local authorities and developers.
Incentives are required to address both the lack of training and R&D within the
construction industry which holds back innovation and to address the pervasive cultural
barrier that exists moving from the “gang” or team on-site to a factory setting required by
modular prefabricated constructions.
Another pressure on the construction industry comes from the “Planning – Gain
Supplement” (PGS) (ODPM 2005b) recommended by Kate Barker. This is a form of
revenue to be collected from the developer to be used to improve the local infrastructure.
These improvements could result in a secondary pressure on the industry in the form of
further building projects e.g. educational buildings, hospitals, social projects etc.
All this required from an industry that is perceived as currently under-performing.
However, a potential incentive for the developer could be that the level of PGS be linked
to the goals within the Egan report. Thus a developer who does not meet the goals of on-
site time, customer satisfaction, and accident rate for example pays higher PGS. This
would encourage developers to sign up to the Egan recommendations resulting in
improvements within the industry and better quality buildings across the UK.
It is estimated that the PGS will not be implemented until 2008

1.9.2 Competitions
In April 2005 the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott launched the “Design for
Manufacture Competition” with the aim to demonstrate that it is possible to build a high-
quality home for a construction cost of £60,000. The final winners will get the opportunity
to develop homes on 10 sites identified by English Partnerships.
“The figure of £60,000 is a target construction cost, not the total development cost or final
sale price. By focusing purely on the cost of construction, the Design for Manufacture
Competition aims to improve construction efficiency, quality and design. The cost
efficiency should have an impact on total scheme costs and will help to make homes more
affordable.” (English Partnership 2005).
It can be seen that there is a real drive to not only improve the quality of developments in
the UK but the construction industry as a whole and at the same time improve the
affordability and number of homes being built.
The pressure is on the construction industry to meet these requirements.
1.9.3 Modular construction
Modular construction can be used within all types of construction, but can excel where
speed, security and safety are paramount. Current systems of modular building can offer;
reduced site times, less wastage and fewer defects on site as quality can be checked before
modules leave the factory. They can also provide a safer and cleaner working environment
for the staff.
• As Egan discussed, modular and prefabricated construction units

are a method to achieving the requirements sought.
• A review of modular construction papers, journals and companies

was undertaken to evaluate the current market for modular
buildings.
Kernan’s (2003) document ‘Skanska stirs up porridge’ and Ross’ (2000) book ‘Railway
Stations’ detailed the external influences that can lead to a argument for a faster
construction time or reduced on-site time. Where traditional construction may not be
possible due to available site time, modular construction can provide a solution.
In both of the case studies by Bågenholm, Yates and McAllister (2001a, 2001b), the two
construction projects both were more expensive to construct using modular components
compared with standard forms of construction, but the increased costs per unit could be
offset against the fact that the income generated would be recouped sooner. Conversely in
Pitt’s (2000) document he states ‘Reduce costs by 30%’, this is an ideal, attainable through
reengineering of current timber frame construction methods but it is not clearly stated how
this is to be achieved.
The question of sustainability and waste is best covered by Gorgolewski’s (2003) article
‘Off-site fabrication. Can it be better for the environment’ this clearly looks at these
concepts and talks of how waste is reduced by the factory built modules, in addition to how
any waste can be better managed to that of a typical building site. This is also corroborated
by Bågenholm, Yates and McAllister (2001c, page 3) ‘A Summary Paper’.
The quality of construction and level of defects was at the forefront of many documents
namely Kernan’s (2003) document ‘Skanska stirs up porridge’ and Rawson’s 1993 Article
‘Buying buildings off the shelf’ in each case this was due to the contractors inability to
rectify problems post handover, one building being within a prison and the other being on
an oil rig.
The level of defects was also discussed in Gorgolewski’s (2003) article ‘Off-site
fabrication. Can it be better for the environment’ in this article Gorgolewski discuses how
modules can be quality checked prior to leaving the factory thus reduce site defects and
ensure quality.
Yorkon Ltd is a subsidiary of the Shepherd Building Group, the pioneers of modular units
with the PORTAKABIN in 1961. Yorkon leads the market in modular construction units.
(Shepherd group 2006).
Yorkon state that using modular units over traditional construction;

“reduces programme times by up to 50 percent
significantly reduces disruption
is safer, quieter and cleaner
improves quality
reduces future maintenance
offers a high level of design flexibility
allows buildings to be expanded without decanting” (Yorkon 2006)
Yorkon focus on commercial buildings and state “that it has delivered 96 per cent of
building projects on time and 94 per cent on budget over the past five years.
This compares to a construction industry average of only 63 per cent of schemes
completed on time and 49 per cent on budget.” (Yorkon 2006)
Yorkon were contracted by The Peabody Trust to take their success with modular
commercial buildings into the residential sector. The result was the acclaimed Murray
Grove development in 1998.
More individual modular housing is available from ‘Pad’ and Huf Haus to name but a few
these provide individuals to create individual dwellings from modular and prefabricated
components:
• The Pad™ is a system of modules that are based around a central core. This enables
your house to change as your lifestyle requires. “The future is flexible: houses will
need to respond to the ever increasing speed of social, technological
and environmental change.”(PAD) No evidence of completed Pad developments
has been found.
• Huf Haus is a company synonymous with speed and quality of residential

construction primarily within the self build market. They offer a bespoke
prefabricated dwelling manufactured off-site.
The issue of sustainability is covered by Gorgolewski (2003) but is an issue that needs to
be concidered further. The transportation of modules to site is not very environmentally
friendly, but in using the modules, the labour on site and site traffic can be reduced thus
potentially offsetting this embodied energy.
Overall the argument for modular construction is greater than that against it, but embracing
it in the UK may take time. The document by Yates and McAllister (2001c, pages 6&7)
‘Prefabricated housing in the UK, A Summary Paper’ indicates clearly why this is in
comparison with other countries, stating that “the level of demand currently prevents the
efficiencies of scale that can be achieved in other “production- line” industries such as the
automotive sector.”
In the UK the home is seen as a lifetime asset, modular housing is not yet seen to be a long
term quality product.
1.9.4 Container statistics
The hundreds of thousands of shipping containers that come in to the UK each year are
often not returned to their place of origin due to the shipping of empty ISO containers
being uneconomical and the fact that the UK imports more goods than it exports (As
identified in detail within section 2.6).
The UK has an excess of containers each year as discussed in chapter 2. Therefore the
reuse of containers is of importance since the embodied energy of each container, if just
left to rot, is a high energy waste, but likewise the recycling of the steel may prove
uneconomical within the UK, considering the transport of the container to a recycling plant
and the energy required to recycle the steel. (According to Mr A. Foxcroft (Foxcroft 2005),
of Containerisation International, due to the ever increasing numbers of containers and the
rising value of steel, recycling may become a viable option over the next few years)
The previously mentioned reports, competitions and statistics are all prime targets for
modular construction and notably ISO shipping container usage, from individuals wanting
to create an affordable house to architects and design teams trying to make affordable
structures.
1.9.5 Container structures
Across the world shipping containers are seen as a basic military accommodation unit. ISO
containers are used by the US Department of Defense, (US Department of Defense 1999),
the UK Department of Defence and the Danish, Swedish, Finnish, United Kingdom, Czech
Republic and German military have all used some forms of container accommodation e.g.
ablution containers in Iraq, office containers in Kosovo. (DCSGroup no date) Expanding
ISO 20 foot containers have been used in Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa and Northern Norway.
(Army technology 3S no date)
The military use shipping containers due to their availability, low cost, standardised size,
durability and ease of transport, this provides them with an ideal modular construction
unit.
These benefits can translate to the civilian construction industry, all that is required is
some design foresight to take the ISO shipping container from just being a steel box to
being a useable and aesthetically pleasing structure.
There are several companies selling or leasing modified containers for civilian temporary
or emergency accommodation. Such structures do not have to meet UK Building
Regulations and as such are an simple low investment high return product, requiring little
or no design input.
The website ‘Containers and More’ (Containers and More no date) has examples of
modified containers for temporary accommodation for example workshops, temporary
office space and storerooms.
The website also has images of a development by Nicholas Lacey, architect of Container
City. although there is no accompanying text this suggests that it is merely an indication of
what could be achieved with containers rather than an offered service.
Also in the UK, Royalwolf sell and lease containers and modified containers mainly as site
offices, canteens and washrooms. They offer a “Design A Container” planner that allows
the client to dictate window, door and partition positions. (Royal Wolf Trading 2004)
Worldwide, ELA Container Gmbh in Germany rent distinctive yellow container

accommodation, stacking up to 3 storeys high for industrial applications. (ELA no date)
Containex in Austria lease and sell blue containers for office and sanitary facilities, having
over 50 depots across Europe. (Containex 2006) Mobile Mini inc in the US lease
containers modified to provide office space, though their range is not comprehensive.
(Mobilemini 2004) Sea Box Inc, have a greater variety of modifications available by
offering a CAD service to meet the industrial application required by the customer. (Sea
Box 2005)
Therefore it can be seen the concept of ISO shipping containers as accommodation units is
not new, however it appears that this is restricted to the military/ industrial/ commercial
sectors as a temporary solution to their needs rather than a permanent solution.
The leap from temporary to fixed structures creates additional technical hurdles that must
be complied with. If structures are only temporary there is no need to comply with
regulations or improve on the aesthetics of the container. One of the objectives of this
paper is to cover these technical hurdles.
Within the container accommodation market there is a wide number of websites for
companies offering container structures and articles advocating their use, though none of
these are peer reviewed, due to the nature of the topic it is felt that these can provide an
insight into this emerging market. Therefore a list of these resources and together with
supplementary information has been provided within the Bibliography section of the
document.
There are a great many architectural practices offering detailed designs using containers as
structural components or as the basis of their designs. These sites are obviously of a biased
nature as they are trying to sell their product, thus should be seen as a show case for their
works. Of note Within the UK is the architect Nicholas Lacey whom has made the leap
from a temporary use steel box to permanent accommodation. In the 1970’s Lacey wrote
his thesis on the idea of reclaiming containers for use as accommodation. Four of Lacey’s
container projects have been built to date and his concepts have been continued by Urban
Space Management’s director Eric Reynolds through their container city projects. Their
projects can been seen via their survey data provided later on within this chapter 3 of this
paper and via their websites (Container Space Ltd and Container City). From the pictures
on these sites it can be seen that Lacey’s designs are simplistic and honest to say the least,
but this system of building has provided an affordable and quick to erect product. However
the continuing enhancements to the UK Building Regulations may no longer allow the
buildings to have the same honesty, this is discussed within Chapter 5 Technical Hurdles.
A further enhancement to the use of ISO shipping containers has been developed by
George & Harding Ltd and Buro Happold consulting engineers, together they are
pioneering what they call ‘Verbus’ a system of oversized containers that are manufactured
alongside standard ISO shipping containers in China then shipped to the UK (with a single
cargo inside similar to the Container City projects). These units are then put together and
cladding added to look like a traditional dwelling. (Puckett 2005)
Within this field of study, minimal literature has as yet been written, with the exception of
a few ‘architectural books’, ‘Lot –ek: Mobile Dwelling Unit’ (Scoates 2003) and
‘Intermodal Shipping Container Small Steel Buildings’ (Sawyers 2005). With this in mind,
literature of relevance has been gleaned from extracts of architectural publications and
websites showing what may be considered cutting edge container usage within this
emerging market.
‘Lot –ek: Mobile Dwelling Unit’ (Scoates 2003) Provides an idealistic view of the use of
shipping containers as a mobile dwelling unit that could be ‘shipped’ from town to town or
country to country as the needs of the occupant changes i.e. when a job contract finishes or
a life opportunity arises. The book explains and gives details of how standard shipping
containers could be modified to provide apartment style living by means of creating ‘sub-
volumes’ which can be pushed in during transit and pushed out to allow for an expanded
living space. The author envisages swathes of mobile dwelling units stacked together in
‘vertical harbours’ allowing the units to be ‘plugged in’ to the required services.
The need for a mobile dwelling unit is a viable idea but for most people a stable base or
home is more important, so together with the fact that most jobs are local or desk based,
this negates the use of the mobile dwelling unit. Further more Scoates also does not take
into consideration the fact that moving a shipping container around uses a great deal of
energy, therefore additional study should be looked into to define the embodied energy of a
shipping container home in comparison to a traditional dwelling (of comparable size) to
assess at what point it is no longer energy efficient to move the mobile dwelling unit.
Scoates views of this system are obviously biased to their product and design but there is
no reason why this system of housing and living could not be used around the world.
‘Intermodal Shipping Container Small Steel Buildings’ (Sawyers 2005) is an American

publication giving information on the history of shipping containers, the purchase of
containers through to the building process together with conceptual ideas for the shapes /
arrangements of container buildings. The author has covered a wide and varied subject
matter in layman’s terms together with simplistic diagrams, which could be translated into
coherent building designs with additional input; this publication gives a good overview of
the topic but provides little in the way of design details or methods of construction. The
data provided being American biased does not conform to British Building Regulations
and therefore can not wholly be of use within the UK, but does provide a good insight into
the possibilities of ISO shipping container use.
Other Architectural Books of note are:
Small Houses, Mobile (Pople 2003)

The Art of Portable Architecture (Siegal 2002)
Pre fab modern (Herbers 2004)
Move House (Topham 2004)
Xtreme House (Smith & Topham 2002)
Each of these books give an overview of various container projects from around the
world. The material is not of great use for this research but, rather of visual inspiration for
designers / developers undertaking buildings using containers, each depicts properties
either built or conceptually designed and provides data about the space and designers /
architects.
Of note from the above list is the ‘pro/con packaged homes’ by Jones Partners : Architects
which features within the Xtreme House book, this housing system takes containerisation a
stage forward by suggesting that companies should offer ‘branded containers’ with their
company logo on the outside and their products on the inside, thus offering free advertising
to the manufacturer on the outside, which the designers say ‘exposes one’s personal taste
and buying habits to the rest neibourhood’ (Smith & Topham 2002). This ‘fashion
statement’ may be suitable within an urban environment but the UK planning laws do not
allow advertising without planning permission thus the use of company logos may be a
drawback. In an extreme case the branding of the container units may lead to the theft of
the units, especially where units are stand-alone.
Each of these books were written to showcase the cutting edge architecture which the
authors wish us all to aspire to, but all so often most people end up in a traditional 2 up 2
down brick built box. One thing none of these books comment on is the cost of creating
such structures or the problematic planning issues which were incurred.
1.10 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER
It can therefore be seen that there are a number of factors that have influenced the writing
of this research, namely the personal interest, Governmental reports showing housing need
and the failings of the construction industry. These reports have offered solutions for
developers and builders to work upon, part of these solutions being the use of modular
construction to reduce the construction time and improve quality which has led to the use
of shipping containers of which there is a surplus. From these factors the aims and
objectives have provided the structure of the following chapters and will lead through to
the final conclusions and recommendations.
CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This chapter aims to provide additional background information with regards to ISO
shipping containers, this includes their history, the requirements of the UK highways
agency concerning the transportation of containers, what ISO shipping containers are
typically made of and what other types of are non ISO standard shipping containers are
available. These items give some salient additional information with regards to ISO
shipping containers.
2.2 HISTORY OF SHIPPING CONTAINERS
The shipping container has only been around for the last 50 years. The advent of this
method of modular standard containerisation of goods revolutionised the transportation of
goods and ultimately the international export market as turnaround time, theft, damage to
goods and costs all went down. Until 1956 goods packed in bales, sacks or barrels were
individually transferred from the vehicle to the waiting cargo ship. This was manual work
carried out by “longshoremen” using pulleys, cargo hooks and a significant labour force.
An average ship had 200, 000 individual pieces of cargo and it would take around a week
to load and unload. (Levinson 2006)
History credits Malcolm McLean with the development of the shipping container. By the
1950’s McLean had developed a large haulage business on the East Coast of the USA but
had never forgotten the days of being a driver waiting for a whole day for goods to be
loaded and unloaded at the port of New Jersey. He patented a container with reinforced
corner posts that could be craned off a truck chassis and had integral strength for stacking.
McLean was so confident in the potential of this modular cargo he look a loan for $42m
and purchased the Pan-Atlantic Steamship Company with docking rights so that he could
modify cargo ships to use his new containers. (National Museum of American History
2005) He was forced to choose between haulage and shipping by the Interstate Commerce
Act and so he focused on redeveloping the shipping firm and renamed it Sea-Land. (Mayo
and Nohria 2005)
In April 1956 the modified oil tanker owned by Sea-Land ‘Ideal X’ sailed from New
Jersey to Houston carrying 58 of the new containers. Meanwhile on the West Coast of the
USA the Matson Navigation Company decided to invest in container technology. They
took a different view and while McLean used 33 foot long containers, since these were the
limited length permitted for a truck chassis the Matson company chose 24 foot. They were
importing tinned goods from Hawaii and considered weight to be an issue, thus choosing a
smaller container. (Levinson 2006) In 1958 the first Matson container ship set sail from
San Francisco. Since there were specific docking requirements, namely large cranes,
containerisation required investment. The New York Harbour Authority realised this need
and the potential of containerisation and so built the first container port 'Port Elizabeth' in
New Jersey in 1962. The Port of Oakland in California also realised that containerisation
would revolutionise trade with Asia and would protect the declining industry and so
invested $600k in new facilities in 1969. (Mayo and Nohria 2005)
The advent of containerisation had hit the longshoremen hard. In 1960 a new agreement
was reached between the dockside unions and shipping companies where the companies
could bring in new machinery but a large pension fund was set up for longshoremen and
they were given reduced working hours. This modularisation of cargo reduced the time
required to load and unload, it also reduced the number of longshoremen required, which
resulted in the strike of 1971-72. Longshore jobs were allocated on a rota basis by the
unions but containerisation saw the needs for specialist crane operators thus the ports
wanted to hire staff on a permanent contract. The shipping owners won their rights to
employ the specialist staff and the containerisation of shipping continued to move forward.
(National Museum of American History 2005)
The next step was to standardise the containers. At the time Matson’s on the west coast
were using 24 foot containers and Sea-Land on the east were using 35 foot containers. The
military were interested in containers but in a time of war the varied sizes would not be
efficient. The Government was therefore pushing for standardisation as were the freight
companies who wanted to invest in containerisation.
McLean owned the patent on the corner posts that were so vital to the strength and
stacking of the containers and it was his release of this patent that allowed the ISO
standardisation to take place.(Bohlman 2002)
In 1969 Richard F Gibney, working at Shipbuilding and Shipping Record in the UK,
simplified the statistics involved with comparing differing container sizes he coined the
phrase Twenty Foot Equivalent (TEU) and this is the term that is still used to describe
containers. (Gurav 2006)

2.3 UK HIGHWAYS AGENCY
The maximum load size allowable to be transported on UK roads is of little consequence if

standard ISO shipping containers are used as they fall below the size that requires
notification to The Highways Agency.
If the unit is fitted out or carrying other components the weight should be checked, or if
additional material is fixed to the external faces of the container the width / length should
be checked to ensure The Highways Agency criteria for unaccompanied loads are being
met.
The Highways Agency criteria for unaccompanied loads are:
Loads which do not exceed 80,000kgs (78.74 tons).

Width not exceeding 2.9 metres (for Construction and Use Regulation loads)
Length not exceeding 18.65 metres (61' 2") (Vehicle or train of vehicles)
Information sourced from the Highways Agency, Electronic Service Delivery for
Abnormal Loads ‘ESDAL’ (2006).
2.4 What are ISO shipping containers made from?
A typical ISO shipping container is made from a ‘weathering steel’ as specified within BS
EN 10025-5:2004 this is also known as ‘Cor-ten’ steel, Cor-ten steel is a corrosion
resistant steel that is used within many industries where exposed steel sections are
necessary,
e.g. building panels, facades and sculptures.
‘Weathering steels are specified in BS EN 10 155:1993 (superseded by BS EN 10025-

5:2004) and within this category Cor-ten is a well known proprietary grade. These steels
have properties comparable with those of Grade S355 steels to BS EN 10 025’ (Corus
2004).
2.5 WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF AN (ISO) SHIPPING

CONTAINER
This section sets out to explain the characteristics of an ISO shipping container as defined
within the ISO documentation.
2.5.1 Standards
The characteristics of a (ISO) shipping container are defined within the following ISO
standards:
BS ISO 9897:1997 Freight containers
Container equipment data exchange (CEDEX) — General communication codes

Vocabulary

Air/surface (intermodel) general purpose containers — Specification and tests
BS ISO 3874:1997 Series 1 freight containers

Handling and securing
BS ISO 668:1995 Series 1 freight containers

Classification, Dimensions and Ratings
ISO 1496-1:1990 Freight containers

Part 2: Specification and testing of series 1 freight containers —
Section 2.1 General cargo containers for general purposes
Each of the above documents provides data for the design and structural requirements of
ISO shipping containers, the key texts in relation to this research are ‘BS ISO 668:1995
Series 1 freight containers’ (BSI 1995) and ‘ISO 1496-1:1990 Freight containers’ (ISO
1990). Both of these documents cover the stringent requirements needed for the shipping
process and the types of containers covered by the ISO approval system.
Series 1 is the designations and dimensions for an ISO shipping container are taken from
BS ISO 668:1995 & ISO 1496-1:1990 , the following table is an amalgamation of the data
from these documents:
External Dimensions
Freight Minimum height Minimum width Minimum length

container mm ft in mm ft in mm ft in
designation
1AAA 2896 9’ 6’’
1AA 2591 8’ 6’’
12192 40’ …..
1A 2438 8’ …
1AX <2438 <8’ …
1BBB 2896 9’ 6’’
1BB 2591 8’ 6’’
9125 29’ 11 ¼’’
1B 2438 8’ … 2438 8’ …
1BX <2438 <8’ …
1CC 2591 8’ 6’’
1C 2438 8’ … 6058 19’ 10 ½’’
1CX <2438 <8’ …
1D 2438 8’ …
2991 9’ 93/4’’
1DX <2438 <8’ …
Internal Dimensions
Fright container Minimum height Minimum width Minimum length
designation mm mm mm
1AAA
1AA
11998
1A
1AX
1BBB
1BB
8931
1B Nominal Container Height
2330
1BX minus 241mm
1CC
1C 5867
1CX
1D
1DX 2802
Table 1. ISO shipping container dimensions

ISO 1496-1:1990 also gives the loads that ISO shipping containers are designed to
carry, these are shown graphically below:
Figure 2. Test force per container at all four corners simultaneously.
‘A force of 3392kN is to be applied which is representative of a superimposed mass of

192000kg (896kN / 50800kg for 1D and 1DX units ).’ (ISO 1496-1:1990)
Figure 3. Test force per container per pair of end corners simultaneously.
‘A force of 1696kN is to be applied which is representative of a superimposed mass of

192000kg (448kN / 50800kg for 1D and 1DX units )’ (ISO 1496-1:1990)
As a comparison the imposed load test for a ISO shipping containers roof is 300kg over an
area of 0.18m2 which translates to 16.35kN/m2 where as for a typical dwelling the British
Standard (BS6399 part 2) requires a uniform load capacity of 1.2kN/m2 worst case for
snow load and BS6399 part 1 requires a uniform load capacity of 1.5kN/m2 for a domestic
floor.
2.6 (ISO) SHIPPING CONTAINER STATISTICS
2.6.1 Scope of section
This chapter defines the known statistical data available with regards to ISO shipping
containers, from Governmental and private sources. This data can be used to establish the
current surplus and growing surplus of ISO shipping containers.
2.6.2 Statistical data
From the Department for Transport’s document ‘Transport Statistics Report – Maritime
Statistics 2002’ it can be seen that Chart 2.3 “UK major ports continental & coastwise
container traffic: 2002”, (Appendix 1) provides the numbers of containers that were
imported and exported. This data shows that in 2002 there was a surplus of 125,000
container units within the UK (mixed sizes are assumed but not stated).
This data is calculated from:
Port Area Inward container traffic Outward container Surplus (thousand
(thousand units) traffic (thousand units) units)
UK coastwise 129 131 -2
Europe 840 868 -28
Africa 80 110 -30
Asia 826 674 152
Australasia & 41 50 -9
Polynesia
South America 45 62 -17
North & Central 290 231 59
America
total 125
Table 2. UK major ports continental & coastwise container traffic: 2002
A more accurate figure can by gained from Table 2.4 ‘Major ports unitised traffic, by
category: 2002 Foreign and coastwise traffic’ (Appendix 1) this gives a breakdown of all
Container traffic. It can be seen that the standard 20’ container leaves 39,000 surplus units
in UK and the 40’ container leaves 31,000 surplus units. This is broken down below:
Size Inbound units Outbound units Surplus Number of units shipped

(thousand units) (thousand units) (thousand units) outbound empty
(thousand units)
20’ 845 806 39 280

40’ 1157 1126 31 507
Table 3. ‘Major ports unitised traffic, by category: 2002 Foreign and coastwise traffic’
In principle this surplus of containers must be either de-commissioned or used for other
purposes, normally site or home storage.
2.6.3 How many containers in the UK are decommissioned each year?
The basis for this information is given above but actual figures of how may are
decommissioned from ISO status is unknown. This information was requested from the
Department of Transport, ports and freight logistics but this data is not within their subject
area. After consultation with Mr A. Foxcroft who works for Containerisation International
his reports upon the containerisation industry and container leasing may be of assistance,
Unfortunately efforts to get these documents have been unfruitful, the British Library
website lists the documents but the university interlibrary loans system was unable to get
these documents as the British library states it does not hold them.
(Reports are available direct from Containerisation International but the costs made it a
prohibitive resource)
It can seen that ISO shipping containers have had long history and have played a vital part
of the global economy thanks to Malcolm McLean’s initial vision.
The ISO shipping container is globally accepted as the international standard container unit
thanks to the ISO documentation and it has a global transport network and is transportable
within the UK without problem. The container itself is an engineered product which has to
comply with ISO requirements to ensure its stability and the security of its load and the
vessel it is carried by.
It can also be seen that within the UK there is potentially a large and ever increasing
number of containers, which could be reused.
CHAPTER 3 KEY PLAYERS
The following is a breakdown of the Key Players within the ISO shipping containers as a
building components market and where possible samples of their work, this is followed by
quotes and interviews from Key Players.
The chapter is then completed by an in-depth spreadsheet, which provides data on usage
and make up of existing container structures.
The market is diverse and the structures vary in style and usage, within the UK market
there is currently only one major player (Container City), others may be within the UK but
from the thorough desk study of available information no others have been found.
List of key players within this chapter:

Key Player type Name / Company
Architects Sean Godsell Architects, SGA
Architect Luis Rodríguez Alonso Habitainer
Architects HyBrid-cargotechture Joel Egan
Architect Adam Kalkin, Kalkin & Co
Architects Jones Partners, Doug Jackson
Architects / Urban-Space / Container City,
Manufacturers Nicholas Lacey, Eric Reynolds
Architects LOT-EK
Builders/ George & Harding
Manufacturers
Builders/ Keetwonen / Tempohousing
Manufacturers
Other Charlie Luxton
Other Boxworks, Inc
Other Global Peace Containers
3.2 ARCHITECTS
SGA: Sean Godsell Architects

Projects: Future Shack
Photo 3 & 4. Future Shack external & internal. SGA.
‘A mass produced relocatable house for emergency and relief housing. Recycled shipping
containers are used to form the main volume of the building. A parasol roof packs inside
the container. When erected the roof shades the container and reduces heat load on the
building. Legs telescope from the container enabling it to sited without excavation on
uneven terrain.’ (Sean Godsell no date)
This dwelling for emergency and relief housing provides a simple one stop solution to the
crisis housing market. The quality of the interior may be over and above that required of a
crisis solution. A better use of internal space may be to provide the toilet and washing
facilities within a separate block where small crisis communities are to be set up.
HABITAINER,
Projects: Habican, HBTU, Mo. Vida
Photo 5, 6 & 7. HTBU external and internal renders. Habitainer.
HTBU Workspace
A conceptual workspace developed from a single container with sides that expand
outwards effectively tripling the internal space, the concept has been designed as a work
space, but has a multitude of potential uses. This concept has already been developed and
implemented by the 3S Scandinavian Shelter Systems, Rapid Deployable Container And
Shelter Systems Expanding Shelter (Army-Technology.com no date) which has been field
tested by the military in Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa and Northern Norway.
Photo 8, 9, 10 & 11. Mo. Vida Project external renders, Habitainer.
Mo. Vida Project

This is a conceptual project to show how accommodation can be placed and used within
the urban landscape with minimal impact upon the streetscape at ground level. The system
is also designed to move around as the user’s needs or requirements change.
Photo 12, 13 & 14. Mo. Vida Project external renders, Habitaner.
Habitainer is the first built (container) project for Luis Rodríguez Alonso and his team, the
Habitainer is a multi use structure that is currently being marketed in Europe and is about
to be launched into the global market. This product has a good market appeal within the
UK for use as short term office space or as a start up business space, this concept is already
well catered for within the UK but all to often the quality of interior is poor as it is often
seen as temporary.
HyBrid
Projects: Mobile Medical, urban mini tower, cargo town, base camp, single family, 4 over
2, Florida home and detached studio
Photo 15. (montage). Studio 320, Hybrid.
‘This project is a built work that is the ideal scale for urban density and rural vacation
property applications. At 320 square feet, the unit can house one person or a couple
comfortably, with a great room that is three-quarters of its total space, plus a separate
bathroom and sleeping area.
‘In an urban environment the units can be stacked perhaps three high, with an adjacent
exterior stair, to address the trend of the densification of neighborhoods that were
previously zoned for single family residences; for example a backyard in such a zone could
be partially used to house three more single occupants on a very small footprint.’
‘Square Footage: 320sf shown above; two 20' containers are slid past one another by 6
feet. Version shown has a 16'x26' footprint’ (HyBrid 2006)
The construction of this dwelling uses ‘pinfoundations’, pre-cast concrete diamond piers as
a removable foundation these can be relocated and re-used with the container if the
dwelling is required to move for any reason.
Photo 16. External rendering of Mobile Medical, Hybrid.
Mobile Medical
In partnership with non-government organizations HyBrid has developed a concept for

converting shipping containers into health clinics for Sri Lanka and Tsunami affected areas
of Southern Asia.
This simple unit is an optimum use of the ISO shipping container, the reuse of containers
as health clinics and other relief uses is a prime but under used target for designers, as they
have a pre built transport infrastructure for placing them around the world to virtually
anywhere and a structure which is long-lasting and easily modified.
Kalkin & Co
Projects: Quikhouse, Collectors House, $99,000 houses & 12 container house
Photo 17. Internal view, Collectors house, Kalkin & Co.
‘Collectors House built in 2001, is an inventive work of contemporary architecture by

Adam Kalkin. Three trans-oceanic shipping containers define the interior spaces of the
two-story prefabricated structure.’ (Shelburn Museum)
This structure provides ISO shipping containers units as internal structures to create
internal rooms thus reducing build time.
Urban-Space / Container City

Projects: Tower Hamlets College. - Container Learn, Container City 1 Container City 2,
Cove Park
18 19 20
Photo 18. Container City 2. Photo 19. Container Learn. Photo 20. Cove Park.
‘Container City™ is a highly versatile system of providing stylish but affordable

accommodation for a range of uses made from shipping containers. The concept was
devised by Urban Space Management.
Containers are an extremely flexible method of construction, being both modular in shape,
extremely strong structurally and readily available.
Container Cities offer an alternative solution to traditional space provision. They are ideal
for office and workspace, live-work and key-worker housing.
Container Cities do not even have to look like containers! It is a relatively simple matter to
completely clad a building externally in a huge variety of materials.’(Container City no
date)
Jones Partners Architects
Photo 21. Pearson concept render.
Photo 22. Dwell concept render.
Jones Partners Architects have developed a system called Pro/Con which uses basic 20’
‘containers as the building block to cerate limitless variety of dwellings.’ (Jones Partners
no date) the Jones Partners practice offers a wide range of container concepts some of
which are about to start on site.
LOT-EK
Projects: MDU, CHK Container Kit Home, CHS, Mountain Inn, Chelsea Art Tower,
Container Strip, Fast Train Station and Tower (Turin), Sanlitun South, Bohen Foundation
(more on website)
Photo 22. Container Kit Home concept, LOT-EK.
Photo 23. MDU concept, LOT-EK.
LOT-EK are prevalent conceptual designers within the container field, the only known
actual dwelling is their MDU concept, which is covered with the literature review of this
paper.
3.3 BUILDERS
George & Harding

Projects: Verbus prototype house (Salisbury)
Photo 24. Internal Plan. Photo 25. External view. Verbus
‘The basis of the Verbus System is a range of high strength, manufactured steel modules
that can be combined to create of a wide variety of building shapes and be adapted to suit
any planning or end user needs.’(Verbus 2006)
The Verbus system is not strictly an ISO shipping container system, the modules are
created in the same factory as ISO shipping containers, and are shipped to the UK with a
cargo inside, however they are wider than a standard ISO unit thus not encompassed by the
ISO classification. The wider format gives a greater internal flexibility for use of space.
Cladding is added as part of the construction thus removing the industrial look of the
container units, thus appealing to a wider audience.
Keetwonen / Tempohousing
Photo 26. View of courtyard, Tempohousing
Photo 27. View of courtyard façade, Tempohousing.
‘At the moment Tempohousing, under the local brand name of Keetwonen is building a
1000 unit student housing project. The project, located near the center of Amsterdam,
consists of the professor units. Per block there is one building services container,
supplying all units in the block of electricity and an ADSL connection.’ (Keetwonen 2005)
In terms of scale this is possibly the largest ISO shipping container development in the
world using 1050 40’ ISO units. This project again shows what is capable with the ISO
shipping container.
3.4 OTHER
Charlie Luxton
Producer / Director of Guerrilla Homes (BBC 2004), Charlie Luxton, provides comment
on the state of the UK planning system and tries to get the UK public and government to
think in different ways about the UK housing stock and the way we live.
The Guerrilla Homes programme offered a series of solutions based around moving an ISO
shipping container home around the UK to gauge the public reactions, whilst also looking
at other novel ideas to solve the housing shortage.
Boxworks, Inc
Boxworks uses skilled unemployed workers to build new buildings from containers to ease
the housing shortage and container surplus in Haiti.
‘100,000 shipping containers enter Haiti each year. Only 15% leave carrying cargo,
provided container companies with incentive to recycle containers in Haiti.
The increasing costs and decreasing quality of conventional building materials in Haiti
opens opportunities for alternative building materials such as shipping containers
Low wages, high unemployment and a large pool of skilled metal workers create the
opportunity to build a large-scale operation’ (Boxworks 2005)
Global Peace Containers
Photo 28. Initial container sighting, Global Peace Container.

Photo 29. Mid construction, Global Peace Container.
Photo 30. Completed project, Global Peace Container.
‘Global Peace Containers is a not-for-profit organization that has perfected a method and
system to economically convert retired international shipping containers into sustainable
housing and community buildings such as medical facilities, schools and neighborhood
centers’.(Global Peace Containers)
Castor design
Castor creates unique works ‘If you want good looking s**t for your home or project’
(Castor design no date) the container used is a small form factor ISO shipping container,
which could be used as part of a larger structure or as here as a stand alone unit.
‘Sauna box is a dialectical investigation of the common shipping container and traditional
sauna. Through this tension it addresses built environment issues – minimum impact,
sustainability and presents them in a accessible form.
The Sauna Box is water tight and can be transported to any location, needs minimum site
preparation, has a wood fired stove and is electrically powered by solar panels. Each box
is site specific and custom built. The outer skin is constructed of corten steel, a material
that withstands saltwater and used as sculptural material. This utilitarian, sculptural
aesthetic is continued on the inside with hand made objects such as carved stone stools,
stone sink, custom wood and metal work.’ (Castor design no date)
Photo 31. Sauna Box unit in use.

There are few market players within the UK market namely E. Reynolds and N. Lacey
who actually build with ISO shipping containers, for other key players the global market
must be considered.
The global market is broken into distinct segments as shown below.
ISO Shipping Container

Structures
Conceptual
Designs
Symbiotic Commercial
/ Parasitic Structures
Structures
Mixed
Use
Social / Domestic Structures
Structures
Conceptual
Structures
Figure 4. Market segments
Each of the key players is positioned within parts of these segments, dependant upon the
needs of clients or the companies’ aspirations. Obviously all advocate the use of ISO
shipping containers as building components and from the concept designs and structures
have demonstrated the technical potential of this medium.
Where ISO shipping containers have been used in economically depressed countries they
have proven their flexibility, where there is a great social need, potentially low skills, a
lack of building materials, a lack of tools and minimal funding container structures have
offered a secure and effective building medium.
Habitainer, LOT-EK, Jones Partners Architects and Hybrid all show examples of
conceptual, cutting edge design and the possibilities of the ISO unit. All of these designers
show stacked ISO units in urban and sub-urban settings and offering futuristic views of
what may be possible.
Habitainer & LOT-EK both push the boundaries of flexibility with their expansive HTBU
workspace (Habitainer) and MDU Moveable Dwelling Unit (LOT-EK), both of these
feature external walls with the ability to move outwards on arrival at their destination, thus
still retaining their standard ISO configuration during transport, these offer a good
temporary solution for small simple structures. Although these offer an interesting second
use for ISO shipping containers and can offer designers interesting special ideas they do
not provide final solutions as fixed structures which is part of the main remit of this
research.
However the Tempohousing and Container City developments offer some of the best
mixed use and dense developments using ISO shipping containers, these developments
show how ISO containers can be developed and modified to provide comfortable usable
spaces for almost any usage.
Overall this chapter shows that there are a number of designers and developers who are
progressing the use of this medium across the globe.
(Note: A request for information was sent to Jones Partners Architects but no data about
specific designs or projects was received at the time of publication, some data was received
and added to Chapter 4. Further data is available at their website
http://www.jonespartners.com/)
Additional high quality images have been placed within Appendix 5 for review.
CHAPTER 4 QUESTIONNAIRES AND INTERVIEWS
What follows is a collation of data derived from interviews, phone calls, e-mails and
available Internet sources. This data is also complemented by a section which describes the
methodology behind the questionnaires.
This data provides a basis for understanding the buildings currently in use within the
container market and some of the problems faced by the key players.
4.1.1 Jones Partners Architects
Emails were sent out to all key players to request information with regards to any
information which they may have with regards to container conversions, the following is
an email reply to the request:
‘The "conversion" aspect has not been a big deal...basically what you take away you must
replace, since the containers have been refined over the years to eliminate any
structural/material redundancy. So, for our part, we have tended to advise clients against
opening up too many holes in the containers, since we are interested in using the
containers as a found source for the primary structure, and thus prefer to minimize the
introduction of supplemental lateral resisting frames. The bigger issues for us have been
dealing with the various local building departments and getting them to accept the tested
load values for the containers published by the ISO...so far this has not been an
insurmountable problem, but each time it has been slightly different. However, since these
strengths have been derived by testing and not through calculation, once openings are
introduced into the containers it invalidates these tested values. And, to date, we have not
been in a situation where we have been able to justify the costs associated with testing a
modified container (with openings). Also, certain cities (such as Los Angeles) require any
pre-manufactured construction element (sinks, toilets, windows, etc.) to undergo a
proprietary testing procedure before they are certified to be used. So, it is impossible to
use containers as a construction element in the city of LA until they receive such a
certification. Unfortunately, such tests are expensive.’ Doug Jackson (2006)
4.1.2 Urban Space – Eric Reynolds
From an informal discussion with Eric Reynolds at the Ecobuild show (22/02/06) it was
noted that: the container structures that Urban Space offer are provided fully fitted out, and
use ‘second use’ containers, the second use is based on a single trip from the manufacturer
in China filled with cargo rather than shipping containers that have been in use for a
number of years, this helps to ensure the quality and integrity of the container units. The
system is currently guaranteed for 30 years but the anticipated life is more in the region of
50+ years with proper maintenance.
4.1.3 Survey
The survey methodology was developed to provide a fast and cost effective method of data
collection. The questions were developed to find out pertinent information regarding
previous construction projects. The questionnaire included both ‘closed’ and ‘open’
questions to allow for the data to be directly interpreted into bar charts and to allow the
respondents to provide additional information.
The data was sought initially from Primary sources via email or face to face, where
possible. In some instances company websites were used to collect the required data due to
a lack of response from the potential interviewee. As this type of survey has not been done
before it has been developed to provide key data about each project:
• Global Location – To develop a sense of where in the world containers are being
used. This could be correlated to data from the Maritime statistics for each country,
which may indicate a link between surplus ISO shipping container units and second
usage.
• Current use of the container structure –To provide information on use

classification. This could show trends in use or possible areas of under use.
• Classification of geographical location – This may indicate the acceptability of

containers and transportation issues. E.g. transportation to rural areas may be more
difficult therefore less frequent. Location linked to container size may indicate that
large units are less used in rural areas due to the increased difficulty of getting a
larger unit to site.
• The use of containers within the structure- To indicate whether containers were
integrated into the structure as a whole or are basically stacked.
• Age of containers- As an indicator to the quality and characteristics of each

structure.
• The types of containers used- To provide data upon the size(s) of ISO shipping
container unit use on each project, thus giving a comparable when measured
against other factors
• Structural changes made to the shipping container unit(s) - To give an indication

regarding the amount of work involved in the conversion process, if any.
• Insulation method- This may highlight potential problems that had to be overcome
in terms of space.
• The foundation system used- May indicate if there is a preferred or even an ideal
solution.
Additional data was provided where possible, giving additional insight in to each project.
The data from the projects was to be evaluated to see patterns or links between the
shipping containers and the projects they were used on.
The remainder of the chapter is a collation of data derived from interviews, phone calls, e-
mails and available Internet sources. This data provides a basis for understanding the
buildings currently in use within the container market.
A copy of the sample questionnaire is shown on the next page.

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE SETS OUT TO IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF SHIPPING

CONTAINER STRUCTURE AND THE BASIC TECHNICAL HURDLES IN
CONVERTING IT IN TO A HABITABLE SPACE.
(Where multiple answers have been provided please circle the appropriate answer.)
Name……………………………………………………………………………………
Relationship to the structure…………………………………………………………
Project / Building Name……………………………………………………………….
What is the current use of the container structure?
Domestic
Commercial
Other
If ‘commercial’ or ‘other’ please define use:
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
Within what setting is the structure situated?
Urban (city or town centre)
Industrial area
Residential area
Rural
Were the containers the bulk of the structure?

Yes
No
If ‘No’ what is the majority of the constructions structure?
.......................................……………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
Were the containers new or second use?

New
Second Use
If ‘New’ why?
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
What types of containers were used?
20’
20’ high cube
40’
40’ high cube
Other (please define) ……………………………………………………………………………………...
Were any structural changes made to the shipping container unit(s?)

Yes
No
If ‘Yes’ please define:
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
How was each container unit insulated?

(Please provide a simplified breakdown i.e. Container, bitumen paint, insulation, ply sheeting & plaster
board. If detail is known please provide.)
Walls…………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
Floor…………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
Roof / Ceilings………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
What type of foundation system was used?

…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
Have you had any good feedback about this structure?

…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
Have you had any bad feedback about this structure?

…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
sheet 1
Ref Number 1 2 3 4
Name Eric Reynolds Eric Reynolds Eric Reynolds Eric Reynolds
Relationship to the structure company owner company owner company owner company owner
Project / Building Name Cove Park Container city 1 Container city 2 The Riverside Building
Trinity Buoy Warf, London,
Where is the structure? Peaton Hill, Scotland Trinity Buoy Warf, London, UK UK Trinity Buoy Warf, London, UK
What is the current use of the structure? (Domestic, Commercial or
Other) Other Other Commercial Commercial
If ‘commercial’ or ‘other’ please define use: Live / Work Studio Live / Work and Studios Studio Space Studio / Office Space
Within what setting is the structure situated? (Urban (city or town
centre) Industrial area Residential area or Rural) Rural Urban Urban Urban
Were the shipping containers the bulk of the structure? (yes / no) yes yes yes yes
If 'No' what was the majority of the constructions structure x x x x
Were the containers new or second use? (new / second use) second use second use second use second use
If 'New' why? x x x x
What types of containers were used?(20’, 20’ high cube, 40’, 40’
high cube, Other (please define)) 20' high cube 40' high cube 40' high cube 40' high cube
Were any structural changes made to the shipping container
unit(s?) (yes / no) yes yes yes yes
If yes please define walls cut out sides removed sides removed sides removed
How was each container insulated (Please provide a simplified

breakdown i.e. Container, bitumen paint, insulation, ply sheeting &
plaster board. If detail is known please provide.):
Walls: x x x x
Floors: x x x x
Ceilings: x x x x
What type of foundation system was used? Concrete Pads Concrete Pads Concrete Pads Concrete Pads
yes, they are looking for
Have you had any good feedback about this structure? new units yes yes yes
Have you had any bad feedback about this structure? no no no no
Additional Notes Grass Roof corridors / walkways added corridors / walkways added corridors / walkways added
Installation time 3 Days 4 Days 8 days 8 days
No. of Containers used 6 20 30 73
sheet 2
Ref Number 5 6 7 8
Name Eric Reynolds Eric Reynolds Eric Reynolds Eric Reynolds
Relationship to the structure company owner company owner company owner company owner
Meath Gardens Youth Mile End Park Youth
Project / Building Name Centre Centre Fawood Children's Centre The Shop
Meath Gardens, London, Mile End Park, London,
Where is the structure? UK UK Fawood Avenue, London, UK Fawood Avenue, London, UK
Other) Other Other Other Commercial
If ‘commercial’ or ‘other’ please define use: Youth Centre Youth Centre Nursery and adult education centre grocery shop
centre) Industrial area Residential area or Rural) Urban Urban Urban Urban
Were the shipping containers the bulk of the structure? (yes / no) yes yes no yes
additional steel Frame and external
If 'No' what was the majority of the constructions structure x x framing structure / roof x
If 'New' why? x x x x
What types of containers were used?(20’, 20’ high cube, 40’, 40’ high
cube, Other (please define)) 40' high cube 40' high cube 40' high cube 40' high cube
(yes / no) yes yes yes yes
If yes please define sides removed sides removed sides removed sides removed
Walls: x x x x
Floors: x x x x
Ceilings: x x x x
What type of foundation system was used? Concrete Pads Concrete Pads Concrete Pads Concrete Pads
Have you had any good feedback about this structure? yes yes x x
Have you had any bad feedback about this structure? no no x x
corridors / walkways added sterling
Additional Notes x prize short listed 2005 x
Installation time 1 days 1 day 5 days 1 day
No. of Containers used 2 7 20 3
sheet 3
Ref Number 9 10 11
Name Eric Reynolds Adam Kalkin Adam Kalkin
Relationship to the structure company owner Architect Architect
Project / Building Name Container Learn 12 container house Shelburne Museum
Where is the structure? Tower Hamlets, London, UK x Shelburne, USA
Other) other other commercial
Holiday Home
If ‘commercial’ or ‘other’ please define use: Classrooms (school) (domestic) Museum
centre) Industrial area Residential area or Rural) Urban Rural Rural
Were the shipping containers the bulk of the structure? (yes / no) yes yes no
If 'No' what was the majority of the constructions structure x x additional steel structure created the outer shell of the building
Were the containers new or second use? (new / second use) second use second use
If 'New' why? x x
What types of containers were used?(20’, 20’ high cube, 40’, 40’ high 40' high cube & 20' high
cube, Other (please define)) 40' high cube cube
(yes / no) yes yes
If yes please define sides removed doors & windows added
Walls: x x x
Floors: x x x
Ceilings: x x x
What type of foundation system was used? Concrete Pads Concrete slab Concrete slab
Have you had any good feedback about this structure? x x x
Have you had any bad feedback about this structure? x x x

All exterior walls are
Additional Notes x insulated to R-30 All exterior walls are insulated to R-31
Installation time 1 day
No. of Containers used 10 12 5
sheet 4
Ref Number 12
Name Joel Egan
Relationship to the structure Architect
Project / Building Name Prototype320
Where is the structure? USA
What is the current use of the structure? (Domestic,
Commercial or Other) Domestic
If ‘commercial’ or ‘other’ please define use: x
Within what setting is the structure situated? (Urban (city or
town centre) Industrial area Residential area or Rural) Rural
Were the shipping containers the bulk of the structure? (yes /
no) yes
If 'No' what was the majority of the constructions structure x
Were the containers new or second use? (new / second use) second use
If 'New' why? x
What types of containers were used?(20’, 20’ high cube, 40’, 20'(We always use high cube, because you wouldn't have insulation + reasonable ceiling height (8') without the high cubes. 40'
40’ high cube, Other (please define)) units are more cost effective, but may be too wieldy for nimble delivery and placement.)
unit(s?) (yes / no) yes
If yes please define 2/3rds of the long walls were removed. Steel tube was welded back in to replace shear resistance
breakdown i.e. Container, bitumen paint, insulation, ply
sheeting & plaster board. If detail is known please provide.):
Container, sprayed-on water-based insulation, steel studs off-set from the inside of the container, non-off-gassing ply sheathing,
linseed based organic finish.. No off-gassing of VOC's in a tight building environment with a heat recovery ventilator unit for
Walls: maximum air quality & thermal performance.
Floors: Cargo floor, rigid insulation, 2x4 sleepers, plywood. Organic finish.
Green roof for thermal comfort & thermo-diurnal lag time, Container, sprayed on water-based insulation, steel joists off-set from the
Ceilings: inside of the container, non-off-gassing ply sheathing, linseed based organic finish.
www.pinfoundations.com, pre-cast concrete diamond piers as a removable foundation. Use these- they work great. And they can be
What type of foundation system was used? relocated and re-used with the container moving.
Yes, it survived a direct hit from a 200lb fir tree branch that fell 400' down on it in a 70mph windstorm. Just a little scratch on the
Have you had any good feedback about this structure? paint & minor dent. No repair necessary.
No, but we noticed that the containers are so heavy, some 35lbs/sf when empty, that this should be considered when distributing the
weight on the foundation piers; one or two piers may sink. You must (as we did) use adjustable-height foundation cuffs on top of the
Have you had any bad feedback about this structure? diamond piers to anticipate uneven settling on uneven ground. We were able to fix our foundation settling pretty easily.
Additional Notes
Installation time
No. of Containers used 2
sheet 5
Ref Number 13 14 15 16
Name Sean Godsell x Luis Rodriguez Alonso Ed Beason
Relationship to the structure X x Architect x
Project / Building Name Future Shack Global Peace Container Habitainer Boxworks
Based in Australia
Where is the structure? (mobile) Jamaica Canary Islands Haiti
What is the current use of the structure? (Domestic, Commercial
or Other) Domestic Other Commercial Other
If ‘commercial’ or ‘other’ please define use: school Multi use (office / studio / workshop) school
centre) Industrial area Residential area or Rural) Rural (mobile) Rural Urban (proto type) Rural
Were the shipping containers the bulk of the structure? (yes / no) Yes yes yes yes
If 'No' what was the majority of the constructions structure
If 'New' why?
What types of containers were used?(20’, 20’ high cube, 40’, 40’
high cube, Other (please define)) 20' high cube 20' high cube 20' high cube 20' high cube
unit(s?) (yes / no) yes yes yes yes
sides removed, and joined
If yes please define vents added sides removed windows added together, windows added
breakdown i.e. Container, bitumen paint, insulation, ply sheeting thermal insulation to
& plaster board. If detail is known please provide.): R4.0 no insulation added Insulated to Spanish standards no insulation added
Walls: x x x x
Floors: x x x x
Ceilings: x x x x
none, telescopic legs
What type of foundation system was used? used to level dence blocks dence blocks dence blocks
Additional Notes
Installation time 11 days (inc construction)
sheet 5
Ref Number 17 18 19
Name Ed Beason Paul Cooper Keetwonen (company)
Relationship to the structure x architect x
Project / Building Name Boxworks Container hoster (1998) Wenckehof project
Where is the structure? Haiti South Africa Amsterdam
What is the current use of the structure? (Domestic, Commercial or Other) domestic + other Other
Student Housing, bar,
If ‘commercial’ or ‘other’ please define use: live work unit hostel supermarket, launderette
Within what setting is the structure situated? (Urban (city or town centre) Industrial area
Residential area or Rural) Rural Rural Urban
Were the shipping containers the bulk of the structure? (yes / no) yes yes yes
If 'No' what was the majority of the constructions structure some traditional building work
Were the containers new or second use? (new / second use) second use second use second use
If 'New' why?
What types of containers were used?(20’, 20’ high cube, 40’, 40’ high cube, Other
(please define)) 20' high cube 20' high cube 40’ high cube
Were any structural changes made to the shipping container unit(s?) (yes / no) yes yes yes
sides removed, and joined bolted together, windows / doors added doors removed, windows
If yes please define together, windows added some intermediate walls removed added to end units
How was each container insulated (Please provide a simplified breakdown i.e.
Container, bitumen paint, insulation, ply sheeting & plaster board. If detail is known
please provide.): no insulation added 12mm melamine board
Walls: x x x
Floors: x x x
Ceilings: x x x
What type of foundation system was used? dence blocks concrete piers pile
Additional Notes
Installation time
Raw data for analysis and interview/survey information from the key players has been
acquired.
This information enabled a profile of what has gone before to be established so that
conclusions about the future technical feasibility of ISO shipping containers can be made.
CHAPTER 5 IDENTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL HURDLES
This chapter highlights the main technical problems that should be considered prior to
undertaking the design or use of an ISO container as a building component. The data
below is based upon the data provided within the BS / ISO specifications and UK Building
Regulations.
5.2 GUARANTEEING CONTAINER QUALITY & STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

OF SECOND USE CONTAINERS
Guaranteeing the structural quality and structural integrity of a container is based around
its age, lifecycle, maintenance and history. If the container is not compliant with ISO
standards then it may or may not be fit for purpose as a structural building component.
5.3 ISO SHIPPING CONTAINER SUITABILITY FOR INTERMODAL USE
An ISO shipping container becomes unsuitable for Intermodal use when it no longer
conforms to the ISO requirements as set down within the BS ISO documents.
The reasons for being decommissioned from service can be varied, examples are given
below:
Photo 32. Example of a damaged ISO shipping container.
The above container would not pass ISO 1496-1:1990 test 13 ‘weatherproofness’ but still
makes a secure storage unit and dependant upon the needs of the designer / builder the
container could still be used as a structural building component.
From an independent survey noted on the UK P & I Club video ‘Any fool can stuff a
container’ it was stated that 1 in 3 shipping containers were poorly packed, thus a high
proportion of containers are superficially damaged. It is therefore likely in the lifecycle of
a container, dependant upon the loads it carries, how it is packed as much as wear, tear and
corrosion from shipping. Impact damage from bad packing and shipping can cause racking
and deformation.
Any damage which changes the dimensions to that outside of the permitted maximums set
down in ISO 1496-1:1990 are not allowed thus the container is taken out of service.
Should a builder or designer consider purchasing containers for use as a structural
component these regulations should provide a good basis checking the suitability of a unit.
Photo 33. Extreme container deformation due to poor packing.
From consultation with industry expert Mr A. Foxcroft (Foxcroft 2005) the lifecycle of a
shipping container is between 11-15 years dependant upon its construction and how it’s
been used, but no real statistical data of the lifecycle of ISO shipping containers is known.
5.4 BUILDING REGULATIONS.
‘The Building Regulations are made under powers provided in the Building Act 1984, and
apply in England and Wales. The current edition of the regulations is ‘The Building
regulations 2000’ (as amended) and the majority of building projects are required to
comply with them. They exist to ensure the health and safety of people in and around all
types of buildings (i.e. domestic, commercial and industrial). They also provide for energy
conservation, and access to and use of buildings.’ (ODPM 2002)
UK building regulations are a major limiting factor prohibiting the use of the container as a
building component, though this is the same with any building element.
The following tables are a breakdown of the UK Building Regulation 2000 Approved
Documents & Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2531 and their impact upon the use of ISO
Shipping Container Units, where relevant. Some documents have been omitted as they do
not have a direct relevance to this research; these documents should be adhered to in any
building project and may have an indirect impact upon a design using ISO shipping
containers.
Documents covered:
Approved Document A Structure
Approved Document B Fire
Approved Document C Site preparation and resistance to moisture
Approved Document E Resistance to the passage of sound
Approved Documents L1a, L1b, L2a & L2b Conservation of fuel and power
Approved Documents P Electrical safety
Materials and Workmanship (in support to Regulation 7)
Documents omitted:
Approved Document D Toxic Substances
Approved Document F Means of Ventilation
Approved Document H Drainage and waste disposal
Approved Document J Combustion appliances and fuel storage systems
Approved Document K Protection from falling collision
Approved Document M Access to and use of building
Approved Document N Glazing
Approved Document A Structure states:
‘Loading
A1. (1) The building shall be constructed so that the combined dead, imposed and wind loads are sustained
and transmitted by it to the ground -
(a) safely; and
(b) without causing such deflection or deformation of any part of the building, or such movement of the
ground, as will impair the stability of any part of another building.
(2) In assessing whether a building complies with sub paragraph (1)
regard shall be had to the imposed and wind loads to which it is likely to be subjected in the ordinary course
of its use for the purpose for which it is intended.’ (ODPM 2000a)
Relevance:
The design and layout of any ISO shipping container structure is impacted upon by this
document. Due to the structural loads to be considered, the structural loading of an ISO
shipping container is generally less during its life as a structure than its intended life as an
ISO shipping container. (The ISO shipping container has been designed to withstand the
stacking of 9 fully laden containers (3392kN / 192000kg– ISO 1496-1:1990/BS3951-
2.1:1991)).
Designers and builders should also see BS 5950 Structural use of steel in buildings where
there are any doubts about the safe loading or potential deformations of a structure.
‘Ground Movement
A2. The building shall be constructed so that ground movement
caused by :-
(a) swelling, shrinkage or freezing of the subsoil; or
(b) land-slip or subsidence (other than subsidence arising from shrinkage), in so far as the risk can be
reasonably foreseen, will not impair the stability of any part of the building.’ (ODPM 2000a)
Relevance:
Many container structures are designed and built without foundations; this is contrary to
the requirements of Approved Document A2, or with Pad Foundation, which is outside of
the scope of Approved Document A2. Therefore BS 8004 Code of Practice for
Foundations should be referred to and a structural engineer consulted.
A soil bearing test should be undertaken, and local building control inspectors consulted.
‘Disproportionate Collapse
A3. The building shall be constructed so that in the event of an accident the building will not suffer collapse
to an extent disproportionate to the cause.’ (ODPM 2000a)
Relevance:
If a container structure is to be developed above 5 storeys high the structure must be
structurally checked to alleviate the possibility of disproportionate collapse, this is covered
in Approved Document A3. This data is obviously structure specific and beyond the remit
of this research but the ISO shipping container is designed to be stacked 9 high when fully
loaded. Therefore this should prove useful to a designer in the concept stage prior to
structural calculations being assessed.
Approved Document B Fire states:

‘Internal fire spread (structure)
B3.-(1) The building shall be designed and constructed so that, in the event of fire, its stability will be
maintained for a reasonable period.
(2) A wall common to two or more buildings shall be designed and constructed so that it adequately resists
the spread of fire between those buildings. For the purposes of this sub-paragraph a house in a terrace and
a semi-detached house are each to be treated as a separate building.
(3) To inhibit the spread of fire within the building, it shall be sub-divided with fire-resisting construction to
an extent appropriate to the size and intended use of the building.
(4) The building shall be designed and constructed so that the unseen spread of fire and smoke within
concealed spaces in its structure and fabric is inhibited.’ (ODPM 2002a)
Relevance:
Approved Document B is of particular relevance due to the fire resistive nature of steel,
from Approved Document B Appendix A Table A1 Specific provisions of test for fire
resistance of elements of structure & A2 minimum periods of fire resistance have to be
met. But the fire resistively of the structure can be dependant upon the finishes of the
structure, if the internal walls are left bare or are plaster boarded, this is an area where the
designer shall have to look at in detail once a preferred design solution is detailed.
Also CIBSE Guide E Fire Engineering and BS 476 fire tests on building materials and
structures should be consulted should be consulted.
‘External fire spread

B4.-(1) The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from
one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building.
(2) The roof of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the roof and from one building to
another, having regard to the use and position of the building’ (ODPM 2002a)
Relevance:
As above: Approved Document B is of particular relevance due to the fire resistive nature
of steel, from Approved Document B Appendix A Table A1 Specific provisions of test for
fire resistance of elements of structure & A2 minimum periods of fire resistance shall have
to be met.
Also CIBSE Guide E Fire Engineering and BS 476 fire tests on building materials and
structures should be consulted.
Approved Document C Site preparation and resistance to moisture states:

‘Site preparation and resistance to contaminants and moisture
Preparation of site and resistance to contaminants.
C1. (1) The ground to be covered by the building shall be reasonably free from any material that might
damage the building or affect its stability, including vegetable matter, topsoil and pre-existing foundations.
(2) Reasonable precautions shall be taken to avoid danger to health and safety caused by contaminants on
or in the ground covered, or to be covered by the building and any land associated with the building.
(3) Adequate sub-soil drainage shall be provided if it is needed to avoid-
(a) the passage of ground moisture to the interior of the building;
(b) damage to the building, including damage through the transport of water-borne contaminants to the
foundations of the building.
(4) For the purpose of this requirement, “contaminant” means any substance which is or may become
harmful to persons or buildings including substances, which are corrosive, explosive, flammable, radioactive
or toxic.’ (ODPM 2000b)
Relevance:
Approved Document C (C1 (1) and C1 (4)) are of relevance due to the ground conditions
and potential contaminants. From the survey data it can be seen that nearly half of the
container structures are built within the urban landscape this often means on land which
has been used before e.g. Brownfield, which is often classed as contaminated. This can
have an impact upon the choice of foundation type, especially if the compounds within the
soil are of a corrosive nature.
C3 is of relevance to all buildings but especially shipping containers. Due to the nature of
ISO shipping containers the steel structure should be isolated to ensure ground moisture
cannot travel into the structure, the effects of moisture within the structure can be
destructive to the internal materials, external structure (ISO shipping container) and cause
harm to health if exposure to damp is long term.
Approved Document C Site preparation and resistance to moisture continued:

‘Resistance to moisture
C2. The floors, walls and roof of the building shall adequately protect the building and people who use the
building from harmful effects caused by:
(a) ground moisture;
(b) precipitation and wind-driven spray;
(c) interstitial and surface condensation;’ (ODPM 2000b)
Relevance:
Approved Document C2 is of note due to the potential of interstitial and surface
condensation, the design of the thermal elements that make up the layers of the external
envelope should be checked, for interstitial condensation, Shipping containers can be
prone to interstitial condensation if not adequately ventilated due to the resistive material
used within their construction which acts as a vapour barrier.
‘The surfaces of structures which are not exposed to the elements but may be subject to the
build-up of condensation, should be appropriately ventilated. Otherwise a suitable surface
protection is necessary. The extent to which these factors depend on the prevailing climatic
conditions in the widest sense and on the details of the structure do not permit any
generally valid statements on the corrosion process. The user should therefore consult the
manufacturer of the steel regarding the suitability of the products for each individual
application.’ (BS EN 10025-5:2004)
From Chapter 2, it is known that most containers are made from Core-ten steel, which is a
weathering steel therefore not susceptible to damp conditions but condensation can have a
detrimental effect on the performance of the insulation used and may break it down over
time.
A vapour barrier should used internally within the structure (say a plaster board with foil
vapour barrier) together with adequate ventilation this should alleviate any interstitial
condensation problems. However calculations should be carried out for each structure as
condensation will be dependent on the environment in which the structure is situated (e.g.
humid or dry climate).
Approved Document E Resistance to the passage of sound states:

‘Protection against sound from other parts of the building and adjoining buildings
E1. Dwelling-houses, flats and rooms for residential purposes shall be designed and constructed in such a
way that they provide reasonable resistance to sound from other parts of the same building and from
adjoining buildings.
Protection against sound within a dwelling-house etc.
E2. Dwelling-houses, flats and rooms for residential purposes shall be designed and constructed in such
a way that –
(a) internal walls between a bedroom or a room containing a water closet, and other rooms;
and
(b) internal floors, provide reasonable resistance to sound.’ (ODPM 2003)
Relevance:
The passage of sound is a problem that must be overcome within all buildings and is not a
container specific problem. However the use of an ISO shipping container has benefits and
drawbacks.
Due to the structure of ISO shipping containers impact noise can travel through the
structure. Conversely the structure can be good at containing noise due to their
“completeness” but when the structure is compromised by windows, door & openings
these should be adequately detailed to ensure “completeness” is obtained.
Existing methods such as resilient bar framing for walls and ceilings together with an
acoustic floor treatment could provide the designer with the means to achieve the
requirements of this document.
‘Reverberation in the common internal parts of buildings containing flats or rooms for residential
purposes
E3. The common internal parts of buildings which contain flats or rooms for residential purposes shall be
designed and constructed in such a way as to prevent more reverberation around the common parts than is
reasonable.’ (ODPM 2003)
Relevance:
Reverberation within common parts could cause a problem due to the sound reflective
nature of the exterior of shipping containers. Designers may have to look at a sound
absorbent layer or coating where sound reverberation time is a potential problem.
‘Acoustic conditions in schools

E4. (1) Each room or other space in a school building shall be designed and constructed in such a way that
it has the acoustic conditions and the insulation against disturbance by noise appropriate to its intended use.
(2) For the purposes of this Part - “school” has the same meaning as in section 4 of the Education Act
1996[4]; and “school building” means any building forming a school or part of a school.’ (ODPM 2003)
Relevance:
See E1 above.
Approved Documents L1a, L1b, L2a & L2b Conservation of fuel and power states:
‘Reasonable provision shall be made for the conservation of fuel and power in buildings by:
a. limiting heat gains and losses
i. through thermal elements and other parts of the building fabric; and
ii. from pipes, ducts and vessels used for space heating, space cooling and hot water services;
b. providing and commissioning energy efficient fixed building services with efficient controls; and
providing to the owner sufficient information about the building, the fixed building services and
their maintenance requirements so that the building can be operated in such a manner as to use no
more fuel and power than is reasonable in the circumstances.’ (ODPM 2006)
Relevance:
Approved Document L is of particular relevance due to the limiting of heat gains and
losses through thermal elements and other parts of the building fabric, this is one of the
most challenging aspects of ISO shipping container usage as note below:.
Insulation of structures is a requirement for all UK buildings that must be met, this poses
particular problems to ISO shipping containers as they are of fixed sizes therefore any
insulation within them will take up valuable floor area and reduce the finished floor to
ceiling height. This reduction in space if not controlled could render a container unsuitable
for use.
If a container is used purely as a structural element then it would be more effective in

terms of floor area, an insulative layer could be formed externally, this could be
independent of the final cladding or part there of.
This trade off is a significant factor in the design of shipping container accommodation,
from the information collated the majority of containers have been insulated internally;
‘Mixing insulation internally and externally is not recommended, due to the possible
effects of cold bridging’ (BS EN ISO 10211-1, Thermal bridges in building construction —
Heat flows and surface temperatures)
Chapter 6 discusses the insulation depths required to comply with the 2006 UK Building
Regulations.
Approved Documents P Electrical safety states:

‘Design, installation, inspection and testing
P1. Reasonable provision shall be made in the design, installation, inspection and testing of electrical
installations in order to protect persons from fire or injury.
Provision of information
P2. Sufficient information shall be provided so that persons wishing to operate, maintain or alter an
electrical installation can do so with reasonable safety.’ (ODPM 2004)
Relevance:
Approved Document P is pertinent due to the conductive nature of the ISO shipping
container, any electrical installations within the units must be adequately insulated and
earthed as per the requirement of Approved Document P and BS 7671 Requirements of
electrical installations.
Particular attention should be given to the placement of any distribution boards, which
should be mounted on a non conductive board (e.g. wood).
Materials and Workmanship (in support to Regulation 7)

7. Building work shall be carried out -
(a) with adequate and proper materials which -
(i) are appropriate for the circumstances in which they are used;
(ii) are adequately mixed or prepared; and
(iii) which are applied, used or fixed so as adequately to perform the functions for which they are
designed; and
(b) in a workmanlike manner.
(ODPM 2000d)
Relevance:
Regulation 7 (a) (i) is of relevance due to the requirement that all building materials should
be ‘adequate and proper’ or ‘appropriate’ in terms of a building material /component. It
may be argued that an ISO shipping container is none of those things but as it was not
designed as a building component, this argument can be negated by the precedents which
have been set elsewhere. A legal review of this maybe required if Building Control
question its suitability.
From the previous sections it can be seen that:
If the exterior was to be clad superficial damaged would be covered reducing the visual
impact.
If a container is superficially damaged it may still be suitable for construction usage.

(Designers / builders could choose damaged containers where they knew specific areas
were to be cut out for windows etc.)
Corroded or perforated sections could be cut out or replaced.
Containers may be limited internally due to the amount of insulation needed to comply
with the building regulations. This insulation could take up valuable floor area and reduce
the floor to ceiling height to an unusable level.
Sound insulation may be a problem dependant upon the usage of the structure but can be
designed out with proprietary systems.
The foundation type used may be simpler than a traditional construction dependant upon
the size of the construction.
Earthing of the structure and a well insulated electrical system is required due to the nature
of the structure (conductive metal box).
Therefore from this chapter with the exception of the appropriateness of material and the
potential restrictions upon space placed on the unit by internal insulation, an ISO shipping
container has the same requirements as any other structure or building component, thus it
is only the ability of the designer, which could possibly limit their use.
CHAPTER 6 THERMAL MODEL OF A SHIPPING CONTAINER
Chapter 5 established that meeting the requirements of Approved Document L was
challenging due to the thermal properties of an ISO shipping container. This chapter aims
to produce thermal data of an ISO shipping container to provide data on its performance
and compliance with UK Building Regulations. Additionally the impact of insulation upon
the floor area and finished floor to ceiling height was evaluated.
6.2 METHODOLOGY
To establish the basic thermal performance, a set of U-Value calculations based on the
requirements of BS EN ISO 6946 were calculated.
The U-Values were calculated using BRE U-Value calculator (compliant with BS EN ISO
6946). The resistances within the calculation were derived from BS EN 12524:2000
Building materials and products – Hygrothermal properties – tabulated design values
where standard data was unknown, where possible manufacturer information was used.
To provide a base model the thermal transmittance (U-Value) of a unmodified ISO

shipping container will be calculated for to show the amount of insulation required to meet
the requirement of the UK Building Regulations (Table 2 of L1A provided within
Appendix 2) in terms of thermal performance.
What follows are calculations for the following:
• 20’ Hi cube empty

• 20’ Hi cube + standard internal insulation
• 20’ Hi cube + Celotex internal insulation
• 20’ Hi cube + Celotex external insulation
• Drawings of insulation Possibilities
Base Model –Floor
U-value calculation
by BRE U-value Calculator version 1.10b
Element type: Floor - Other ground floor type

Calculation Method: BS EN ISO 6946, BS EN ISO 13370
shipping container
Layer d (mm) λ layer λ bridge Fraction R layer R bridge Description

0.170 Rsi
1 19 0.130 50.0 0.100 0.146 0.00038 Timber flooring
0.170 Rs (underfloor)
19 mm 0.486
Total resistance: Upper limit: 0.466 Lower limit: 0.344 Average: 0.405 m²K/W
Ground parameters:
Perimeter P: 31.97 m, Area A: 16.04 m², Wall thickness: 2 mm
P/A = 1.99, Ground type: Clay/silt λ = 1.5 W/m·K, Rse = 0.04 m²K/W
Resistance on solum Rg: 0.000 m²K/W
Depth of underfloor space below ground: 0.000 m
Floor height above ground: 0.200 m
U-value of walls above ground (but below inside floor level): 5.880 W/m²K
Mean wind speed: 5.00 m/s
Wind shielding factor: 0.050
Ventilation openings per metre length: 0.0015 m²/m
U-value for ground (Ug) 2.069

U-value of floor deck (Uf) 2.469
Ventilation equivalent U-value (Ux) 2.886
U-value overall 1.648

U-value (rounded) 1.65 W/m²K
Base Model –Wall
U-value calculation
Element type: Wall - Other external wall type

Calculation Method: BS EN ISO 6946
Shipping Container
R = 40.00 from BS EN 12524:2000

0.130 Rsi
1 2 50.0 Steel
0.040 Rse
2 mm (total wall thickness) 0.170
U-value (uncorrected) 5.881
U-value corrections
No fixings in layer 1
Air gaps in layer 1: Level 0, ∆U = 0.000
Total ∆U 0.000
U-value (corrected) 5.881

5.88 W/m²K U-value (rounded)
Base Model –Roof / Ceiling
U-value calculation
Element type: Roof - Other external roof type

shipping container

0.100 Rsi
1 2 50.0 Steel
0.040 Rse
2 mm 0.140
U-value corrections
Total ∆U 0.000

6.2.1 Summary of U-Value losses.
Below is a pictorial view of an unmodified ISO shipping container with no insulation with
data taken from the calculations above:
7.14 W/m²K Roof
5.88 W/m² Walls
1.65 W/m²K Floor
Figure 5. U-Value loss summary of an unmodified ISO shipping container

Building regulation compliant model (internal insulation) –Floor
U-value calculation

shipping container

0.170 Rsi
1 19 0.130 0.146 Timber flooring
2 135 0.040 0.130 0.0200 3.375 1.038 insulation
3 19 0.130 50.0 0.100 0.146 0.00038 Timber flooring
173 mm 4.007
Ground parameters:


Building regulation compliant model (internal insulation) –walls
U-value calculation

Shipping Container BS insulation

R = 40.00 from BS EN 12524:2000

0.130 Rsi
1 12.5 0.250 0.050 Plasterboard high density
2 105 0.040 0.130 0.0200 2.625 0.808 insulation
3 10 R-value 0.150 Cavity unventilated
4 2 50.0 Steel
0.040 Rse
U-value corrections
Total ∆U 0.000

Building regulation compliant model (internal insulation)–roof
U-value calculation

shipping container with insulation

0.100 Rsi
1 12.5 0.250 0.050 Plasterboard high
density
2 155 0.040 0.130 0.0200 3.875 1.192 insulation
3 10 R-value 0.150 Air layer unventilated
4 2 50.0 Steel
0.040 Rse
180 mm 4.215
U-value corrections
Total ∆U 0.000

Building regulation compliant model (external insulation) –floor
U-value calculation

shipping container

0.170 Rsi
1 19 0.130 0.146 Timber flooring
2 90 R-value 0.130 0.0200 3.900 0.692 insulation Celotex GA3080Z
109 mm 4.386
Ground parameters:


Building regulation compliant model (external insulation) –walls
U-value calculation

Shipping Container BS insulation

R = 40.00 from BS EN 12524:2000

0.130 Rsi
2 42 R-value 0.150 Cavity unventilated
3 2 50.0 Steel
4 60 R-value 0.130 0.0200 2.600 0.462 insulation celotex GA3060Z
5 25 R-value Cavity ventilated
6 18 0.130 0.130 0.200 Softwood shiplap boarding
0.130 # Rse
# this resistance substitutes for Rse and the resistance of layers 5-6 because of the ventilated air layer
(layer 5)
U-value corrections
Fixings in layer 4: 2.00 per m², 2.0 mm² cross-section, λ = 17.0, ∆U = 0.000
Total ∆U 0.000

Building regulation compliant model (external insulation) –Roof

U-value calculation

shipping container with insulation

0.100 Rsi
2 42 R-value 0.150 Air layer unventilated
3 2 50.0 Steel
4 90 R-value 0.130 0.0200 3.900 0.692 insulation celotex TA3/90
0.040 Rse
147 mm 4.240
U-value corrections
Total ∆U 0.000

6.2.2 Summary of U-Value losses.
Below is a pictorial view of a Building Regulation compliant ISO shipping container with
insulation, data taken from the internal and external calculations above:
0.25 W/m²K Roof
0.35 W/m² Walls
0.25 W/m²K Floor
Figure 6. U-Value loss summary of a Building Regulation compliant insulated ISO shipping
container
Using Approved Document L1a insulation values and the insulation types given within the
U-value calculation software a standard container would lose 331mm in floor-to-ceiling
height, and 255 mm wall to wall space. This would reduce the wall to wall space to
2075mm and floor to ceiling height to 2000mm.
Using modern insulation from Celotex the required insulation values can be met with a
reduced insulation depth thus increasing the wall to wall space to 2155mm and floor-to-
ceiling height to 2120mm.
Using Celotex insulation externally gives the capacity to use the full wall to wall space of
2330mm (inclusive of plaster board) and a floor to ceiling height of 2331mm (inclusive of
plaster board).
‘Ceiling height
These have not been covered by the Building Regulations since 1985, as the DoE has
decided that they do not significantly affect health and safety. Despite this, the old
standard of 2.3 m should still be considered the minimum and reasonable ceiling height
for domestic buildings. 2.4 m is preferable.’ (Adler 2003 Metric handbook Section 33
3.01).
External insulation provides the maximum internal space but this causes extra expense due
to requiring an additional waterproof layer. Internal insulation may be further reduced by
the advent of modern thin, flexible, multi-layer aluminium foil membrane insulation,
which is now coming on to the market.
Further spatial improvements can be made when container units are stacked or positioned
next to each other as the need for thermal insulation is negated, but cold bridging can be a
problem, this is specific to each project and thus beyond the requirements of this research.
CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS OF DATA
This chapter aims to break down the information gathered from the survey data to provide
clear and usable data, which may be used in part to formulate the final outcomes of this
research.
7.2 ANALYSIS OF SURVEY DATA
7.2.1 Within what setting is the structure situated?
The following graph shows the percentage of container structures from the survey data, in
either a rural or urban setting to define whether there is a bias towards a particular location:
Urban 53.6
Urban
Rural
Rural 47.4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 7. Sighting of project.

7.2.2 Were the containers the bulk of the structure?
The following graph shows the percentage of structures where ISO shipping containers
were used as the “bulk” of the structure. The word bulk is subjective but it is deemed that
if the structure is built from more than 50% shipping containers, this is considered as bulk.
No 10.5
No
Yes
Yes 89.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 8. Bulk of structure.
7.2.3 What is the current use of the container structure? Initial breakdown.
The following graphs shows the percentage of usage type for the structures surveyed, the
key types being: Domestic, Commercial or Other, this gives an indication of the potential
markets, existing and future from the trends shown:
Other 52.5 Other

Commercial
Commercial 31.5
Domestic
Domestic 15.75
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 9. Use type of structure.

The following graph further breaks down the use type of the structures, to their current
usage; this clarifies what structures ISO shipping containers have been used to create:
0 10 20 30 40 50
Live / w ork 15.75 Live / work

Studio /office 15.75 Studio /office
Domestic
Dom estic 15.75
Youth Centre
Youth Centre 10.5 Nursery / adult ED'
Nursery / adult ED' 5.25 Shop
School
Shop 10.5
Museum
School 10.5 Hostel
Museum 5.25 Student Accomm.
Hostel 5.25
Student Accom m . 5.25
Figure 10. Current use of structure.

7.2.4 What types of containers were used?
The following graph shows the type of ISO shipping containers which have been used to
create the structures surveyed:
Mixed size 5.25 Mixed size

40' Hi Cube
40' Hi Cube 47.5
40'
40' 0 20' Hi Cube
20'
20' Hi Cube 47.5
20' 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 11. Type of ISO shipping container used.
7.2.5 What type of foundation system was used?
The following graph shows the foundation type used by the structures surveyed:
Piles 5.25 Piles

26.25 Dence blocks
Telescopic legs 5.25
Telescopic legs
10.5
Concrete slabs
Concrete pads 57.25
Concrete pads
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 12. Type of foundation used.

7.2.6 What is the most common ISO shipping container size for Rural / Urban
regions?
Were the types of container used dependent on the location of the project?
The following graph shows the size of container distributed across the two regions, urban
and rural. The data shows that within the rural environment 90% of containers used were
20’ and 10% were 40’, conversely within the urban environment 90% of containers used
were 40’ and 10% were 20’:
Rural site
20 Hi cube
40 Hi cube
Urban site
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 13. Type of container used Vs project site.

7.2.7 What is the most common ISO shipping container use type for Rural / Urban
areas?
Does the location have a bearing on what use the structure has?
The following graph shows the use type together with the project site.
From the data within the urban environment the domestic and mixed use markets are
eclipsed by the social and commercial market.
Conversely in the rural market, where space can be considered as less of a premium, no
mixed use structures were in the structures surveyed and there was a greatly inflated
domestic use.
Rural Commercial
Domestic
Social
Mixed
Urban
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 14. Location against use type.

7.2.8 From the survey data table the following was established:
All of the structures analysed had structural alterations including:

Doors added,
Windows added,
Part of container wall removed,
Whole of container wall removed.
All of the structures analysed were second use ISO containers, either from old stock or
from a single shipment use, none were specifically made and shipped empty to site.
7.3 ANALYSIS OF TECHNICAL HURDLE DATA
7.3.1 Building Regulations
From the building regulation data it can be established that ISO shipping containers can be
used as a building component, but are prone to the complexities of the UK building
regulations as with any structural component or building design. Therefore from this
chapter with the exception of the quality of materials it can be seen that an ISO shipping
container has the same requirements as any other structure or building component, thus it
is only the ability of the designer which could possibly limit their use.
7.3.2 Thermal data
The thermal calculations were undertaken as a reaction to the possible problems which
were noted within Approved Document part L.
The calculations offer a number of solutions which can meet the requirements of Approved
Document Part L. Ultimately it is the role of the designer to meet these requirements but it
is noted that internal insulation may not provide a suitable floor to ceiling height, therefore
the solutions offered are as follows:
Complete external insulation.

Complete external insulation but with floor insulation within the floor of the unit.
The analysis of the survey data has shown that:
The developers involved in the projects surveyed considered ISO shipping containers to be
sufficiently flexible for either the rural or urban environment.
The use of the shipping containers as the bulk component of each project shows the
modularity and simplicity of the container as a building component.
During the search for projects to survey none were found that used the shipping container
purely as a module to slot into a larger build. This is a potentially untapped market for the
shipping container.
ISO shipping containers are not limited to single use or any particular market end use.
Hi cube shipping containers are the only containers used within the projects surveyed. The
difference between these and the standard containers is an additional 15cm of head height.
With the insulation requirements this additional height is necessary.
Within the urban setting, 80% of the containers used were 40 foot. Within the rural setting
80% were 20 foot. A possible reason for this could be the transportation issues involved
with moving a 40 foot container on minor rural roads.
Within the UK the design and use of containers is directed by the need to fulfil the UK
Building Regulations. As one example, the thermal data calculations have shown the
impact on working height.
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION
The aim is to bring together the items from each chapter to formulate conclusive evidence
with regards to the potential of shipping containers as building components.
8.2 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The aim to assess the technical feasibility of ISO shipping containers as building
components was met and the final conclusions given below.
It can be concluded that the ideal ISO shipping container for use as a building component
was seen to be 8’6’’ high (Hi cube), position of the site and the ability to transport to the
site dictates ideal length. Therefore 20’ and 40’ units are both acceptable but 40’can be
problematic due to transport issues.
The UK Building Regulations impact upon the use of ISO shipping containers but no more
than on the use of any other building components and designs. Their use is limited by the
insulation used to meet the requirements of Approved Document L. The position of
insulation i.e. internal or external, has a substantial effect on the floor to ceiling height.
As a building component it can therefore be concluded that the only limiting factor is that
of the technical ability of the designers involved.
8.3 CONCLUSIONS FOR EACH OBJECTIVE
8.3.1 To define the characteristics of ISO shipping containers:
Defining the characteristics of ISO shipping containers was straightforward since being
ISO compliant the characteristics were clearly defined within various ISO standards. There
are many requirements a container must meet to be ISO compliant, these cover internal and
external dimensions, strength, waterproofness, handling and securing.
In addition it was found that the majority of ISO shipping containers are made from a
material called Core-ten steel, this is a “weathering” steel, i.e. corrosion resistant, its
chemical composition being covered by a British Standard.
To ascertain the lifecycle of an ISO shipping container and annual numbers of

decommissioned containers the Department of Transport, Maritime Statistics were
approached but responded that this information was not within their remit. A lifecycle of
10- 15 years was obtained from Mr A. Foxcroft from the journal Containerisation
International.
Identifying the total number of ISO shipping containers within the UK was not possible
due to the continuous movement of units in and out of the country. The Maritime Statistics
reports identified that in 2002 there were 70,000 surplus ISO shipping containers in the
UK (20 and 40 foot).
8.3.2 To characterise the types / possibilities of ISO shipping containers as building

components:
Within the UK the architect Nicholas Lacey and the developer Urban Space Management
are the prominent names, both being the drivers behind the Container City and other
container developments in London. There being so few players in this area, it was
concluded that the key ones were those that are actively promoting themselves in the field
of “Cargotecture”.
The possibilities of shipping containers as building components was assessed using the
survey results obtained from accessible projects.
These results showed that the spread of development between urban and rural was fairly
equal though the location of the development appeared to have an effect on the size of
container used. The majority of rural developments being 20 foot hi cube containers while
the majority of urban developments were 40 foot hi cubes.
From assessing projects within the UK and across the globe, containers can be used for
social, domestic, commercial buildings therefore the only limitation regarding usage is
within the mind of the designer. The survey results indicated that within the rural
environment there was a greater domestic development and no mixed use developments.
This suggests that within the rural locations space is less of a premium therefore there is
less need for buildings to have multi-use. In the urban environment there was less domestic
development and the focus was on commercial and social structures.
The survey concluded that the container was not used as a modular/prefabricated unit
within a structure. Most of the projects were purely shipping container structures. In the
10% where the shipping containers were not the sole building components they were not
used as a prefabricated unit, but just as a shell for on-site fitting as per the rest of the
structure.
It is considered that the use of containers as modular components, for example as a

prefabricated sanitary module, or office module within a warehouse is a neglected area that
should be capitalised upon, the concept designs from LOT-EK architects show clearly how
this can be achieved.
The survey also indicated that all the containers utilised had gone through some structural
modification, either doors or windows had been added or complete walls removed.
However, where a major amount of the structure was removed reinforcement was included,
the exception to this is the Boxworks structures within which complete walls were
removed and two containers welded together.
It is noted that all the containers used were second use containers, either old stock or used
for a single shipment. Single shipment containers were used for a maximum of 3 weeks
(China to UK), which represents 0.5% of the working life if taken over 11 years.
This use of single shipment containers is very poor from an embodied energy perspective.
The components of embodied energy are the manufacturing, the transportation, usage and
the disposal energy. Thus extending the life of the container i.e. using old stock containers
would have less environmental impact since the embodied energy has been used over a
longer lifetime of the container.
8.3.3 To identify the technical hurdles incurred in the conversion of ISO shipping
container for use as a building component.
From the analysis of the suitability of ISO shipping containers with regards to the UK
Building Regulations the following was ascertained:
The units are stackable fully loaded up to a point beyond where structural calculations are
called for (anything over 5 stories) therefore from a structural integrity view the use of
stacked shipping containers is within acceptable limits.
Where stacking is required, dependant on the use of the structure, Part E of the Building
Regulations has various requirements relating to Resistance to the passage of sound. A
means of isolation from noise can be provided by separating the shipping containers from
each other or by increasing the mass or by means of internal isolation e.g. resilient bar
ceilings or walls.
Shipping containers are by their design waterproof. However using a container as a

structure requires insulating the structure in some way to meet the requirements of Part L
of the Building Regulations. If the insulation is internal, then meeting UK requirements
would result in floor area and floor to ceiling height being sacrificed, which could make
the height of the container unusable.
If the insulation was placed externally then the waterproof nature of the container would be
lost and a secondary waterproof layer would be required adding additional expense to the
construction.
Insulation should also not be mixed internally and externally to avoid any possibility of
cold bridging
8.3.4 To prove that an ISO shipping container can be adapted to comply with UK
Building Regulations with regard to thermal performance.
The thermal performance of an unmodified ISO shipping container was ascertained and
used as a control for comparison against potential methods of insulation. The insulation
used in the calculations was modified to meet the requirements of the UK Building
Regulations, this then provided proof of the potential limiting factors for the use of ISO
shipping containers as building components.
Dependant upon the insulation type used to meet the requirements for thermal
transmittance the floor to ceiling heights would be compromised. It therefore has been
deduced that unless new flexible thin multilayer insulators are ratified by UK building
control, internal insulation may be only used where insulation is within the floor void.
Therefore this would still leave the structure prone to some cold bridging. The best
solution would be to completely insulate the structure externally. This however would
have cost and size implications.
8.4 OTHER DATA
8.4.1 Size and transportation
The UK Highways Agency information shows that within the UK standard size ISO
shipping containers can move without hindrance around the UK road network. However, it
should be noted that not all roads are suitable for the transportation of 40’ units. This
infrastructure is an insufficiently used resource by the building industry. Most UK
construction still takes place on site with all the materials and construction specialists
turning up to site to produce the final product. Malcolm McLean’s idea to reduce the
loading and unloading boxes (Mayo and Nohria 2005) is still true today. Instead of turning
up to site with a lorry load of goods and materials to be unloaded, the whole container
could be unloaded and used.
It would be better to do the bulk of construction and fit-out work within factory conditions
(with local staff) and then create the final structure in a shorter time period on-site with
less staff. Therefore this greatly reduces potential site traffic over a long period of time by
reducing the number of small staff vehicles turning up to site each day and reducing the
number of large materials vehicles turning up frequently to project.
Container City are advocates of this method. From the additional information gathered by
the surveys it is apparent that the installation time was under 8 days for most of their
projects. This is in comparison to traditional construction which can take on average over 3
months before a structure is water tight. This system of working can provide a fast and
efficient method of providing a long lasting and weather resistant structure.
The division of usage between 20’ and 40’ units from the survey data is nearly a 50 / 50
split over the projects covered but this is not necessarily a true representation of usage. A
number of factors are influencing the use of a particular size of container, but difficulty
with transportation to the site is obviously the biggest problem.
The larger scale works in Amsterdam (Wenckehof project) and London (Container City
projects) are both near major ports so travelling to site is minimized. Joel Egan of Hybrid /
Cargotecture also notes in his reply to the survey that ‘40' units are more cost effective, but
may be too wieldy for nimble delivery and placement.’
The ISO shipping container’s modularity can also be seen as a bonus in terms of its ability
to stack and be sourced from various suppliers with the knowledge that they will fit
together. This will enable a designer to increase the flexibility and density of a site,
something that is a talking point of ‘PPG3’. Containers could also be stacked on top of
existing buildings providing additional usage and density to a building.
8.5 LIMITATIONS TO THIS RESEARCH
Throughout this research the main limitation has been the lack of UK Container Buildings
and UK Architects who have undertaken work to produce container accommodation. This
emerging market can only grow as the need for cheaper, faster building methods are sought
and the surplus of containers increases. Hopefully this work may prompt the UK
construction industry to look at this useable resource.
This lack of businesses within the UK ISO shipping container market, led to the widening
of this research to establish what has been created on a global scale. It is hoped that the
eventual publication of this research will serve as a source of information and inspiration
to others to look at this emerging market.
The insular nature of this market and the minimal number of architects/ builders working
within it has meant that the questions asked have at some points got no response. The
dissemination of this research might be seen as a threat to builders/ architects future
business and Intellectual Property Rights.
Due to the revision of the Building Regulations (April 2006) this research covers the new
requirements for thermal performance as required as of April 2006 and aims to develop
this new requirement in to a usable model for future use.
8.6 REFLECTIONS UPON RESEARCH
The research sought to not only discover what the technical requirements of using ISO
shipping containers were but also to validate their use by assessing previous projects that
had used them.
As the research progressed the limited amount of data available and the small size of the
market became apparent.
In order to ensure the maximum amount of information was obtained The Architects
Journal, The Architecture Review, Building Engineer, Construction News, Building and
Building Design were contacted offering information on the research in the hope that an
article would be initiated thus providing more research material and potential further
contacts. None of the publications were interested in running an article or letter about the
research. The Architects Journal replied that an article on shipping containers is planned
for the future.
Contact with individual companies and architects/ designers also was more difficult than
anticipated. It was not appreciated that considerable time trying to make contact would be
required and so this was not fully appreciate in the planning stage, thus leaving little time
for chasing either journals or individuals.
A greater emphasis on the literature research would have provided an increased number of
container related issues. It was only during the reading of some newspaper articles for
interest rather than primary research material that it was discovered Nicholas Lacey wrote
a thesis on the use of shipping containers in structures in the 1970’s. Unfortunately this
was only discovered a week prior to submission of this research. Likewise a large number
of military companies were found which would have been helpful within the body of the
text in relation to what the potential of some of the systems available
8.7 RECOMMENDATIONS
From the research and analysis of information gained, the following recommendations for
future work have been developed:
• In order to assess why the use of modular or prefabricated buildings are not more
widely used a review of the public perception to them should be conducted.
• In order to assess why the modular construction market is using specially

constructed units, which might require additional investment into transport
infrastructure when shipping containers are already available, a review of the
industry’s perception of using shipping containers should be conducted.
• The numbers of ISO shipping containers available for conversion year on year
should be assessed, together with the predicted numbers available in the future.
• In order to judge the eco-credentials of using new, single-use or old stock ISO
shipping containers as building components, a study of the embodied energy used
in shipping and using an ISO shipping container should be assessed.
• The results of the embodied energy study should be compared against “traditional”
building components to judge whether using ISO shipping containers as a building
component results in an effective method of construction in terms of embodied
energy.
REFERENCES
Adler (2003). Metric Handbook Planning and Design Data, Architectural Press.
Army-Technology.com (No date) 3S Rapid Deployable Container and Shelter Systems.

[online],
<http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/field/3s/>
Accessed 11/11/05
Boxworks (2005), [online],

<http://www.boxworks.org>
[Accessed 18/02/06]
BBC, (2004) Guerrilla homes Television series aired October 2004 on BBC3
Bohlman, M (2002) Tribute to Malcolm McLean, founding father of the freight container
[online],
<http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/commcentre/news/archives/2002/malcolmmclean.html>
[Accessed 11/11/05]
British Standards (1995) BS ISO 668:1995 Series 1 freight containers Classification,

Dimensions and ratings, British Standards
British Standards (1999) BS ISO 830:1999 Freight containers -Vocabulary, British

Standards
British Standards (1990) ISO 1496-1:1990Freight containers, Part 2: Specification and

testing of series 1 freight containers —Section 2.1 General cargo containers for general
purposes, British Standards
British Standards (1997) BS ISO 3874:1997 Series 1 freight containers-Handling and

securing, British Standards
British Standards (1985) BS ISO 8323:1985 Freight containers-Air/surface (Intermodel)

general purpose containers — Specification and tests, British Standards
British Standards (1997) BS ISO 9897:1997 Freight containers- Container equipment data
exchange (CEDEX) — General communication codes, British Standards
British Standards (2004) BS EN 10025-5:2004 Hot rolled products of structural steels —

Part 5: Technical delivery conditions for structural steels with improved atmospheric
corrosion resistance, British Standards
British Standards (1996) BS EN ISO 10211-1 Thermal bridges in building construction —

Heat flows and surface temperatures, British Standards
Bågenholm, C.,Yates, A. and McAllister, I. (2001a) Prefabricated housing in the UK, Part
1.: BRE Publications
Bågenholm C., Yates, A. and McAllister, I. (2001b) Prefabricated housing in the UK, Part
2.: BRE Publications
Bågenholm C., Yates, A. and McAllister, I. (2001c) Prefabricated housing in the UK, Part
3 summary paper.: BRE Publications
Castor design.(No date) [online],

<http://www.castordesign.ca>
[Accessed 23/03/06]
Container City. [online],

<http://www.containercity.com/>
[Accessed 11/11/05]
Containers and more. (No date) [online],

<http://www.containersandmore.co.uk/>
[Accessed 11/11/05]
Containex (2006) Create space with modules and containers. [online],

<http://www.containex.com/en/products.aspx>
[Accessed 03/01/2006]
Egan S. J. (1998) Rethinking Construction. The report of the construction task force.
Collins (2000) Collins English Dictionary. HarperCollins
Container Space Ltd. [online],

<http://www.trainwindow.com/contact.htm>
[Accessed 15/04/06]
Corus (2004) The prevention of corrosion on structural steelwork, Corus Construction &
Industrial
DCS Group (2004) Modular Turnkey Buildings. [online],

<http://www.dcsgroup.dk/downloads/G3/G3_modular_turnkeyLOWRES.pdf>
[Accessed 11/11/05]
DCS Group (No date)Turnkey camps and camp supplies. [online],

http://www.danishcampsupply.dk/
[Accessed 18/04/2006]
ELA-CONTAINER. (No date) [online],

<http://www.container.de/index.php3?lang=en&viden=EJtqmYXGCt1gzUyObdfgTWkoZ
cvF>
[Accessed 03/01/2006]
English Partnership (2005).Design for manufacture. [online],

<http://www.designformanufacture.info/>
[Accessed 11/11/05]
Foxcroft A. (2005) Telephone Interview
Global Peace Containers[online],

<http://www.gbs-gpc.com>
[Accessed 23/03/06]
Gurav S. (2006) Containerisation. City:
Godsell S.(No date) FutureShack. [online], http://www.seangodsell.com/
Gorgolewski, M.. 2003, Off-site fabrication. Can it be better for the environment,
Volume 2 and Issue No. 4, Building for a future, ISBN 1357-759X
Harbatkin L. (2005) Flexibility Is New King. : National Association of Industrial And

Office Properties
Herbers J. (2004)Prefab modern. HarperCollinsPublishers
Jones Partners (no date) [online]

< http://www.jonespartners.com/>
[Accessed 02/05/06]
Keetwonen. (2005) student housing in Amsterdam. [online],

<http://www.tempohousing.com/containers/keetwonen.html >
[Accessed 01/03/2006]
Kernan P. (2003) Skanska stirs up porridge.
Levinson M. (2006) The Box. How the shipping container made the world smaller and the
world economy bigger. Princeton University Press
Mayo A. J. and Nohria N. (October 3, 2005) The Truck Driver Who Reinvented Shipping.
Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Mobilemini (2004) The storage and office solution specialists. [online],

<http://www.mobilemini.com/home1.html>
[Accessed 18/01/200]
Naoum, D. S. G. (1998). Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction Students,

Elsevier.
ODPM, (2000a) Approved Document A - Structure: 1992 Edition, fourth impression (with
amendments)1994, further amended 2000, The Stationary Office, UK
ODPM, (2002a) Approved Document B - Fire safety: 2000 Edition, amended 2000 and
2002, The Stationary Office, UK
ODPM (2000) Approved Document C - Site preparation and resistance to moisture: 1992
Edition, second impression (with amendments) 1992, further amended 2000 , The
Stationary Office, UK.
ODPM (2000c)Approved Document D - Toxic substances:1985 Edition, amended 1992,
further amended 2000, The Stationary Office, UK
ODPM (2003) Approved Document E - Resistance to the passage of sound: 2003 Edition,
The Stationary Office, UK
ODPM (2006) Approved Document L1a - Conservation of fuel and power in dwellings:
2002 Edition, The Stationary Office, UK
ODPM (2006) Approved Document L1b - Conservation of fuel and power in dwellings:
ODPM (2006) Approved Document L2a - Conservation of fuel and power in dwellings:
ODPM (2006) Approved Document L2b - Conservation of fuel and power in dwellings:
ODPM (2004) Approved Document P - Electrical safety:2004 Edition, The Stationary

Office, UK
ODPM (2000d) Approved Document to support regulation7 - materials and workmanship:

1999 Edition, amended 2000, The Stationary Office, UK
ODPM (2002) Building Regulations Explanatory Booklet, ODPM, amended 2005
ODPM (2005b) Planning- Gain Supplement. The facts. [online],

<http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1163844>
Accessed 16/04/06
ODPM (2005a) The governments response to Kate Barker’s Review of Housing Supply,
ODPM
PAD (2006) Built for Life. [online],

<http://www.padlife.co.uk/pad/>
[Accessed 16/04/06]
Peabody (No date) Modular Housing: Regeneration, Design and Technical. Murray Grove,
Hackney. [online],
<http://www.peabody.org.uk/main/factsheet_modular.htm>
[Accessed 16/04/06]
Peabody (2006) Raines Court. [online],

<http://www.peabody.org.uk/main/factsheet_raines.htm>
[Accessed 16/04/2006]
Pitts, G., 2000, Timber frame: Re-engineering for affordable housing. [online],
<http://www.trada.co.uk/techinfo/asset/send/390/content/5206f0-f0e7ed0436--7ffd-
c1a.unzip/index.html>
[Accessed 31/03/05]
Pople N. (2003) Small Houses. Laurence King Publishing
Puckett.k. (2005) The Xinhui Factor, Building Magazine. Issue 46
Ross J. (2000) Railway Stations - Modular Construction. Architectural Press
Royalwolf Trading (UK) Ltd. (2004) [online],

<http://www.royalwolf.co.uk/ >
[Accessed 13/04/2006]
Sawyers, P. (2005). Intermodal Shipping Container Small Steel Buildings, Lulu.
Seabox (2005) ISO Containers. [online], <http://www.seabox.com/id-102>

[Accessed 10/02/06]
Shelburn Museum (2006) [online],

<http://www.shelburnemuseum.org/buildings_and_grounds/detail.php?id=5&flash=true>
[Accessed 23/03/06]
Shepard Group(2006) History. [online],

<http://www.shepherd-buildinggroup.com/history.html>
[Accessed 16/04/06].
Sigal J. (2002) MOBILE The Art of Portable Architecture. City: Princeton Architectural
Press
Smith C. and Topham S. (2002) Xtreme houses. Prestel
Socrates, C. (2003). LOT-EK: Mobile Dwelling Unit, Art Publishers, New York.
Tempohousing (2005) [online],

<http://www.tempohousing.com/containers/keetwonen.html#>
[Accessed 04/04/06]
Topham S. (2004) Move House. Prestel
UK P & I Club (2005) Any Fool Can Stuff a Container [online],

<http://www.ukpandi.com/ukpandi/infopool.nsf/HTML/LP_Init_Videos>
[Accessed 05/04/06]
US Dept of Defense (1999) Department of Defense Standard Family of Tactical Shelters.

Verbus (2006) [online], <http://www.verbussystems.com/verbus-system/introduction.htm>

[Accessed 08/03/06]
Yorkon (2004) Design. Innovation. [online],<http://www.yorkon.co.uk/>

Accessed 18/04/2006
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPROVED DOCUMENTS AND STANDARDS
Bureau International des Containers et du Transport Intermodal (1999) B.I.C. codes.

[online],
<http://www.bic-code.org/html-gb/presentation.html>
[Accessed 11/11/05] .
G. m. insurers Container Handbook - cargo loss prevention information. [online],

<http://www.containerhandbuch.de/chb_e/index.html>
Highways Agency, Electronic Service Delivery for Abnormal Loads ‘ESDAL’ (2006),
[online],
<http://www.esdal.co.uk/forms.html>
ODPM (2000) Approved Document F - Ventilation: 1995 Edition, amended 2000, The
ODPM (2000) Approved Document G - Hygiene:1992 Edition, second impression (with

amendments) 1992, further amended 2000, The Stationary Office, UK.
ODPM (2002) Approved Document H - Drainage and waste disposal: 2002 Edition, The
ODPM (2002) Approved Document J – Combustion appliances and fuel storage systems:
2002 Edition, The Stationary Office, UK.
ODPM (2000) Approved Document K - Protection from falling, collision and impact: 1998
Edition, amended 2000, The Stationary Office, UK.
ODPM (2004) Approved Document M - Access and facilities for disabled people: 2004
Edition, The Stationary Office, UK.
ODPM (2002) Approved Document N - Glazing - safety in relation to impact, opening and
cleaning:1998 Edition, amended 2000 The Stationary Office, UK.
ISO (2004) Freight Containers. [online],

<http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/popstds/freightcontainers.html>
ARTICLES
BBC (2005) Germany tests 9ft 'micro-house [online],

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4394566.stm>
BBC (2004) Guerilla Homes [online],

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/tv/guerrillahomes/index.shtml>
Beach Shack (1997). [online],

<http://beachshack.ai/1997-06.html >
Contain yourself. (2005) [online],

<http://www.smh.com.au/news/cover-story/contain-
yourself/2005/08/31/1125302599915.html>
[Accessed 18/01/2006].
Contract journal.(01/01/01) Stack 'em high, rent 'em cheap. [online],

<http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/Article.aspx?liArticleID=12850>
Escapeartist.com(2002) Living in a shipping container part one. [online],

<http://www.escapeartist.com/efam14/Nomadic_Housing.html>
Escapeartist.com(2002) Living in a shipping container part two. [online],

<http://www.escapeartist.com/OREQ4/Nomadic_Housing2000.html>
Firmitas (No date) Shipping Container Architecture. [online],

<http://firmitas.org/>
Granger M. (2005) Katrina Housing. [online],

<http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/news_releases/katrinahousing.html>
Housing Prototypes.org. (2002) Trinity Buoy Wharf. [online],

<http://housingprototypes.org/project?File_No=GB016>
Office Properties. [online],

<http://www.naiop.org/developmentmag/features/200504indexa.cfm>
[Accessed 31-01-06].
Roberts B. (2005) BANISH YOB FAMILIES TO STEEL CONTAINER HOMES. The

Mirror, [online]
<http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15649591&method=full&siteid=94762&hea
dline=banish-yob-families-to-steel-container-homes-name_page.html>
Shelter (Superbox). (2003) [online],

<http://radio.weblogs.com/0119080/stories/2003/02/08/galleryBoxesAndCans.html>
Sims J. (2004) Mortgage too much? Try living in a box. The Independent, (London),
(05/05/04)
<http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_200405/ai_n12787447>
TheMoveChannel.com. (No date) Container reuse- green homes with a difference.

[online], <http://www.themovechannel.com/sitefeatures/viewpoints/ecological11.asp>
Treehugger. (29/09/2004) Future Shack by Sean Godsell[online],

<http://www.treehugger.com/files/2004/09/futureshack_by.php>
UKTVStyle,(No date) Living in a Box. [online], <

<http://www.uktvstyle.co.uk/index.cfm/uktvstyle/standardItem.index/aid/1604.shtml>
Vidal J. (2002) Container homes "hold key to solving crisis". The Guardian30/10/02,
<http://society.guardian.co.uk/housing/story/0,7890,822178,00.html>
Vidal J. (2004) Boxing Clever. The Guardian14/01/04, [online],

<http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,1122078,00.html>
VIEW by Duffy Design. [online],

<http://www.buildingsights.org.uk/case_studies_4.htm>
Villagevoice (2004) Contain Yourself. [online],

<http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0410,essay,51672,1.html>
ARCHITECTS / BUILDERS
Bluebase (1999-2003) Modular Accomodation System. [online],

<http://www.bluebase.com/mas.htm>
Container Futures @ Poplar Riverside. (No date) Think inside the box [online],
<http://www.containerfutures.com/>
George and Harding (2005) Constructing the Future [online],

<http://www.george-and-harding.com/default.aspx>
Global Housing Solution. (2006) [online],

< http://www.houseinabox.com/index.htm >
Kalkin(2004) Quik House. [online],

<http://www.architectureandhygiene.com/quikHouse/quikHouse_whatQH.html>
LoftCube. (2006) LoftCube. [online],

<http://www.loftcube.net/main.html>
LOT-EK. (2006) [online],

<http://www.LOT-EK.com/ >
MVRDV(2006) Container City. [online],

<http://www.mvrdv.nl/_v2/projects/172_containercity/index.html>
BUILDING PRODUCTS
Atcostructures (2006) Rapid Roof. [online],

<http://www.atcostructures.com/01Products_02US_04FAW%2BRR_RR.htm >
BOOKS
Smith C. and Ferrara A. (2003) Xtreme Interiors. Prestel

CONTAINER COMPANIES / PRODUCTS
1st Containers UK (2005) Shipping containers UK storage containers UK [online],

<http://www.1stcontainers.com>
Containers and more. [online],

<http://www.containersandmore.co.uk>
Dawoo (2004) Dawoo Prefabricated House [online],

<http://www.dawooworld.com/prefabhouse_e.html>
Kline (2004) Container Specifications. [online],

<http://www.kline.com/Containers/container-specifications.asp >
Maerskline (2006) [online],

<http://www.maerskline.com/link/?page=appinfo&path=/ponl>
Tandemloc. (2006) About shipping containers. [online], <

<http://www.tandemloc.com/0_securing/S_ISO_Container_Info.asp>
FORUMS
Container Bay (2005). [online],

<http://www.fabprefab.com/>
IBU (2006) modular houses. [online],

<http://livemodern.com/Members/lavardera/lamidesigndevblog/SimpleBlogCatSearch?cat
egory=IBU%20Modular%20Houses>
[Accessed 18/01/2006].
Shipping Container Housing Guide. (No date) What about Shipping Container Housing
Guide? [online],
<http://www.shipping-container-housing.com/index.html>
HISTORY
America on the move. (No date)Transforming the waterfront. [online],

<http://americanhistory.si.edu/ONTHEMOVE/exhibition/exhibition_17_2.html>
[Accessed 23/3/06].
National Museum of American History (undated) Transforming the Waterfront [online]

<http://americanhistory.si.edu/ONTHEMOVE/exhibition/exhibition_17_2.html>
Who Made America.(No date) Malcom Mclean[online],

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/theymadeamerica/whomade/mclean_hi.html>
RESEARCH
Church, J. (2005). Modular Residential Construction in the UK, Brighton University

(dissertation).
Container living (2003) Container home: your mobile and modular home! [online],
<http://www.containerliving.com/index.asp>
Containerisation International Online. (2006) [online],

<http://www.ci-online.co.uk/default.asp>
[Accessed 04/01/2006].
Solentwaters.(No date) Southampton Vessel types. [online],

<http://www.solentwaters.co.uk/ >
Wikipedia.(2006) Containerization. [online],

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containerization>
Wikipedia Foundation Inc. (2006) Shipping Container Architecture. [online],

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipping_Container_Architecture>
Yates A. and M. I (2000) The use of modular building techniques for social housing in the
UK: a market research report. Construction Research Communications LTD,
J. Smith 2005-6 Shipping containers as building components
APPENDIX 1
Maritime statistics 2002 exert
Chart 2.3
Table 2.4
Chart 2.3 UK major ports continental & coastwise container traffic: 2002 1
Thousand units
UK coastwise Inwards 129

Traffic Outwards 131
To UK 840
Europe
From UK 868
North & Central To UK 290
America From UK 231
To UK 826
Asia
From UK 674
To UK 80
Africa
From UK 110
To UK 45 Australasia & To UK 41
South America
From UK 62 Polynesia From UK 50
1 Not including containers to and from unspecified countries

2.4 Major ports unitised traffic, by category: 2002
Foreign and coastwise traffic
Thousand units Thousand tonnes of goods
All units Empty units
In Out All In Out All In Out All
Foreign traffic
Containers
20' containers 845 806 1,651 54 280 334 10,750 8,198 18,948
40' containers 1,157 1,126 2,282 62 507 569 15,047 10,454 25,501
Containers >20' & <40' 39 38 77 4 12 16 676 483 1,159
Containers >40' 115 108 223 2 55 58 2,043 1,158 3,201
All container traffic 2,156 2,077 4,233 122 855 977 28,516 20,293 48,809
Roll-on/roll-off (self-propelled)
Road goods vehicles and trailers 1,399 1,394 2,793 164 462 625 18,921 12,650 31,571
Passenger cars, motorcycles and 2,674 2,667 5,340
accompanying trailers/caravans
Passenger buses 92 91 183
Import/export motor vehicles 2,210 1,237 3,447 2,656 1,789 4,445
Live animals on the hoof - - - - - -
Other mobile self-propelled units 44 11 55 4 4 8 237 78 315
All ro-ro self-propelled traffic 6,419 5,399 11,818 168 465 633 21,814 14,517 36,332
Roll-on/roll-off (non self-propelled)

Unaccompanied road goods trailers 861 859 1,720 54 233 287 13,759 10,109 23,868
Unaccompanied caravans, 5 8 13 504 60 565
agricultural and industrial vehicles
Rail wagons, shipborne port to port 180 166 346 3 63 67 3,398 1,888 5,286
trailers, and barges
Other mobile non self-propelled units 1 3 4 - - - 10 25 35
All ro-ro non self-propelled traffic 1,047 1,035 2,082 58 297 354 17,672 12,082 29,754
All unitised traffic 9,622 8,511 18,133 347 1,617 1,964 68,002 46,893 114,895
APPENDIX 2
Approved document L1A table 2
APPENDIX 3
Celotex insulation information
CI/SfB | | (23.9) | Rn7 | (M2) |
January 2004
Insulation of concrete slab floors

Celotex tuff-R™ Zero GA3000Z
The requirement
Specify a concrete floor
insulation board that:
• achieves U-values with

minimum thickness
• has zero Ozone Depletion

Potential
• is strong and durable
• is non-hygroscopic
• is rot proof
• is dimensionally
stable, unaffected by
temperature cycles
• is easy to cut and shape
The solution
Celotex tuff-R™ Zero GA3000Z fulfils all of the requirements opposite and is recommended
for use in over and under slab floor applications.
It is also suitable for use in underfloor heating applications.
Celotex tuff-R™ Zero GA3000Z has been introduced as a direct replacement for Celotex
double-R™ GA2000, and features a blend of hydrocarbon blowing agents that have zero
Ozone Depletion Potential together with very low Global Warming Potential. This ensures
compliance with international legislation such as the Montreal and Kyoto protocols.
Celotex tuff-R™ Zero GA3000Z product description Product thickness table
Celotex tuff-R™ Zero GA3000Z is a low density rigid Product code Thickness R-value Weight
(mm) (kg/m²)
polyisocyanurate (PIR) foam board with a tri-laminate
GA3012Z 12 0.50 0.60
foil/kraft paper/foil facing on each side. The exposed foil
GA3020Z 20 0.85 0.75
surface is marked with a 100 mm grid to assist in laying. In
GA3025Z 25 1.05 0.90
thicknesses over 35 mm the foam core is reinforced with
GA3030Z 30 1.30 1.00
long strand glass fibres.
GA3035Z 35 1.50 1.10
Features of Celotex tuff-R™ Zero GA3000Z boards GA3040Z 40 1.70 1.25
GA3045Z 45 1.95 1.45
• low thermal conductivity
GA3050Z 50 2.15 1.60
• zero Ozone Depletion Potential GA3055Z 55 2.35 1.80
GA3060Z 60 2.60 1.90
• resistant to high temperatures
GA3065Z 65 2.80 2.00
• foil facings for low surface emissivity GA3070Z 70 3.00 2.10
• excellent dimensional stability GA3075Z 75 3.25 2.20

GA3080Z 80 3.45 2.30
• robust and durable material
GA3090Z 90 3.90 2.50
• non-hygroscopic
Celotex tuff-R™ Zero GA3000Z physical properties
• easy to cut to shape
Units Test method GA3000Z Notes
• conforms to BS EN 13165: 2001
Mechanical
• quality assured to ISO 9001: 2000 Density (foam core) kg/m³ BS EN 1602 26 - 32 Varies according
to thickness
• BBA certificate
Compressive strength kPa BS EN 826: 1996 > 120 Design value
BBA certification Water
Celotex tuff-R™ Zero GA3000Z is extremely versatile and Water vapour resistivity MNs/gm BS 4370: Part 2 43373 As measured on
25mm board
can be used in walls and roofs as well as floors. British thickness
Board of Agrément certificate No. 95/3197 covers the use of
Heat
tuff-R™ Zero GA3000Z in all three applications.
Thermal conductivity (λD) W/mK BS EN 12667: 0.023 Declared value
2001 harmonised
standard
Service temperature °C Min. and Max. -15 to +100
Fire
Certificate No. 95/3197
Reaction to fire – BS EN 13823 Class D/s2/d0
Board dimensions Surface spread of flame – BS 476: Part 7 Class 1
GA3000Z is available in 2400 x 1200 mm board sizes and

has grid markings at 100 mm intervals to assist in laying.
Ce
lo t
ex
TM
ex
TM
lo t
Ce
Ce
lo t
ex
TM
Typical under floor heating application
2 Technical Services: T 01473 820888 F 01473 820889 E technical@celotex.co.uk W www.celotex.co.uk

Installation guidelines (over slab) Under floor heating
• Install a damp proof membrane (dpm) below the slab OR Under floor heating is now recognised as a most efficient
apply a liquid waterproofing material to the top surface and cost- effective way of supplying heat to the home. For
of the slab. maximum efficiency it requires effective insulation beneath
• The dpm must provide continuity with dpcs installed the heating elements to minimise heat loss downwards
within the surrounding walls. into the structure, and to reflect the heat upwards into the
room. Celotex tuff-R™ Zero GA3000Z is the ideal solution.
• Level the surface of the slab; it should be smooth and
Approximately 50% of all self build homes, along with a
free of projections.
growing number of extension and conservatory projects,
• Use a thin sand blinding on a rough tamped slab to opt for under floor heating systems. Many of the larger
ensure that boards are continuously supported. Cut under floor heating companies already acknowledge the Over slab floor insulation
strips of board as upstands to fit around floor perimeters high performance characteristics of Celotex tuff-R™ Zero.
to eliminate heat bridging at screed edges.
The simplicity of adding an under floor system to the
• Upstand depth should equal the sum of the slab existing heating scheme without overloading the primary
insulation and screed thickness.* source of output is a big benefit. However, where it is
• The upstand thickness should not exceed the combined virtually impossible to place standard radiators in heavily
thickness of wall plaster and skirtings (see detail right). glazed conservatories it is possibly the only viable primary
form of heating.
• Lay boards directly onto the prepared slab, cutting infill
boards as required. Joints must be tightly butted. The use Achieving a successful installation relies on efficient levels
of a polythene vapour control layer over the insulation of insulation. Wherever thermal insulation thickness is
is recommended by the BRE to minimise the risk of critical you will find Celotex tuff-R™ Zero GA3000Z offering
condensation forming at the insulation/slab interface a cost-effective solution because, thickness for thickness,
Under slab floor insulation
and to prevent screed migration. it’s almost twice as efficient as ordinary insulation.
• Apply a sand/cement screed over the GA3000Z boards

Chipboard instead of concrete floor
to a minimum thickness of 65 mm. Use scaffold boards
or other protection to prevent wheelbarrows and other A vapour control layer should be laid over the Celotex
traffic damaging boards. tuff-R™ Zero GA3000Z boards and turned up 100 mm at
• Allow screed to dry thoroughly before an impermeable room perimeters, behind the skirting. All joints should be
surface, such as a vinyl floor finish, is applied. lapped 150 mm and taped.
These recommendations are suitable for normal domestic The chipboard must be minimum 18 mm tongued and
floor loadings. If higher loadings are required, it may grooved flooring grade type C4 to BS 5669. Lay the
be necessary to increase screed thickness and provide chipboard with staggered joints, glued with a wood working
reinforcement within the screed. adhesive.
Chipboard floor finish
*See “Limiting Thermal Bridging and Air Leakage: Robust construction details Provide a 10 − 12 mm gap at all perimeters and abutments
for dwellings and similar buildings” ISBN 0 11 753 6318, published by HMSO. to allow for expansion. This can be achieved by the use of
temporary wedges at perimeters and abutments.
Installation guidelines (under slab)
Where chipboards are butted together without a tongued or
Insulation under the slab must have: grooved joint and at all external doorways (for the width of
the threshold), a treated timber batten must be used in lieu
• Level and well blinded hardcore.
of the insulation boards.
• dpm (damp proof membrane) placed under insulation.
• Insulated upstand = thickness of slab + screed.
• dpm contiguous with the dpcs.
• Vapour control layer (e.g. 1000 g polythene) laid directly
over insulation.
1.0 1.0 Under floor heating
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
P/A
P/A
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
12 35 55 60 70 75 80 25 40 50 55 60 65 70
GA3000Z thickness GA3000Z thickness
Thickness of insulation to achieve required U-value of 0.22 W/m²K Thickness of insulation to achieve required U-value of 0.25 W/m²K
Technical Services: T 01473 820888 F 01473 820889 E technical@celotex.co.uk W www.celotex.co.uk 3

Celotex Limited
Lady Lane Industrial Estate Hadleigh Ipswich Suffolk IP7 6BA
T 01473 822093 F 01473 820880 E info@celotex.co.uk W www.celotex.co.uk
Design considerations Storage and handling

The insulation of ground floors is more complex • Celotex tuff-R™ Zero GA3000Z rigid polyisocyanurate
than walls or roofs, because the mechanisms for heat foam boards should be stored dry and kept flat and
flow are affected by the ratio of surface area to perimeter. clear of the ground. Only as much material as can
On fully supported slabs, very often the major flow of be installed during a single working period should
heat is sideways through the floor perimeters, because be removed from storage at any one time. If boards
the ground below the building is unlikely to become are stored under tarpaulins, care should be taken to
really cold. prevent rope damage to the boards.
Optimum positioning of the insulation within the floor
• Care should also be taken to ensure that packs are not
may depend on the positioning of insulation within the
dropped onto corners or edges.
walls. For instance, when insulating dry lining is chosen
for the walls, over slab insulation enables optimum • When cutting the product on site, use a trimming knife
continuity of the insulation line to be achieved. rather than a saw, to minimise dust.
In under slab installations, such as solid over site slabs • When sawing in an enclosed space, dust extraction,
and, more particularly, exposed solid slabs, use a vapour eye protection and face masks must be provided. Dust
control membrane over the insulation, to eliminate any or particles in the eyes should be washed out with
risk of condensation forming on the cold slab surface. liberal quantities of water.
CE marking Health and safety

Celotex products are CE marked, demonstrating their full Full guidance on the appropriate measures to be taken by
compliance with BS EN 13165: 2001 − the harmonised an employer in accordance with the COSHH Regulations is
European standard that applies to factory made, rigid provided in Celotex Health and Safety Data Sheets
foam insulation products.
Quality and technology
Product and application development has a priority in
Celotex, with a focus on high performance, durability
and buildability. The Celotex commitment to the highest
Characteristics, properties or
performance of materials described standards of quality assurance includes stringent testing
herein are derived from data obtained
under controlled test conditions. of product performance by our own quality assurance
Celotex Limited makes no warranty,
staff and by leading independent authorities, both in
express or implied as to their
characteristics under any variations Britain and Europe. Copies of certificates are available
from such conditions in actual
constructions. on request.
Typical details shown in this catalogue
are provided for guidance only and are
not to scale. Celotex Limited makes
Specification
no warranty, express or implied as to
the suitability of such details for any Use ©NBS Plus specification writer clause M10.
particular project. It is the responsibility
of the designer to ensure that any
design or construction details used are
suitable for the project, having due
regard to the environmental and
structural factors which are beyond the
control of Celotex Limited.
Not withstanding the foregoing, nothing

herein stated shall exclude or restrict:
1 the liability of Celotex Limited in

respect of death or personal injury
pursuant to the relevant provisions of
the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, or
2 the liability of Celotex Limited in

respect of any damage caused by a
defect to the extent that such comes
within the relevant provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act 1987.
C029/11-03
4
APPENDIX 4
Heat loss calculations
1: Standard 20’ Hi Cube
2: Standard 20’ Hi Cube insulated
PENTANGLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD.
HEAT LOSS CALCULATION

Project: Container 20' Floor length: 9
Engineer: J.Smith Design tai: 21 Floor width: 2.438
Date: 25/02/2006 Design tao: -4 Gross room height: 2.438
File reference: 1162 Intermittency margin: 1.1 Net room height: 2.438
Space: Basic Container Shell Insulated to building regs Air change rate: 1
Element Dimensions Area/Cube U-value W/K dt Watts

1st 2nd 3rd
Horizontal Surfaces d1 d2 A/V U W/K dt W
Floor 6.054 2.438 14.759652 0.25 3.689913 25 92
Ceiling 6.054 2.438 14.759652 0.25 3.689913 25 92
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
Full Height Surfaces d1 d2 A/V U W/K dt W
Long wall 1 2.438 6.054 14.759652 0.35 5.165878 25 129
Long wall 2 2.438 6.054 14.759652 0.35 5.165878 25 129
Short wall 1 2.438 2.438 5.943844 0.35 2.080345 25 52
Short wall 2 2.438 2.438 5.943844 0.35 2.080345 25 52
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
Other Surfaces d1 d2 A/V U W/K dt W
GLAZING 0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
d3 0 0 25 0
Ventilation 1 6.054 2.438 2.438 35.984032 0.33333 11.99468 25 300
Basic Heat Loss 847 W
Emitter Loading 931 W
Gross Cube Loss 17 W/m3
Pentangle Consulting Engineers Limited

PENTANGLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD.
HEAT LOSS CALCULATION

Project: Container 20' Floor length: 9
Engineer: J.Smith Design tai: 21 Floor width: 2.438
Date: 25/02/2006 Design tao: -4 Gross room height: 2.438
File reference: 1162 Intermittency margin: 1.1 Net room height: 2.438
Space: Basic Container Shell Air change rate: 1
Element Dimensions Area/Cube U-value W/K dt Watts

1st 2nd 3rd
Horizontal Surfaces d1 d2 A/V U W/K dt W
Floor 6.054 2.438 14.759652 1.65 24.3534258 25 609
Ceiling 6.054 2.438 14.759652 7.14 105.383915 25 2635
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
Full Height Surfaces d1 d2 A/V U W/K dt W
Long wall 1 2.438 6.054 14.759652 5.88 86.7867538 25 2170
Long wall 2 2.438 6.054 14.759652 5.88 86.7867538 25 2170
Short wall 1 2.438 2.438 5.943844 5.88 34.9498027 25 874
Short wall 2 2.438 2.438 5.943844 5.88 34.9498027 25 874
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
Other Surfaces d1 d2 A/V U W/K dt W
GLAZING 0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
0 0 25 0
d3 0 0 25 0
Ventilation 1 6.054 2.438 2.438 35.98403158 0.333333 11.9946772 25 300
Basic Heat Loss 9630 W
Emitter Loading 10593 W
Gross Cube Loss 198 W/m3
Pentangle Consulting Engineers Limited

APPENDIX 5
Additional High Quality Images.
(All images courtesy of there rightful owners)
Hybrid, Studio 320 Project

Hybrid, Studio 320 Project

Habitainer Architects Mo. Vida Concept

Jones Partners Architects Dwell Concept

Shipping Containers As Building Componen PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shipping Containers As Building Componen PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

‘SHIPPING CONTAINERS

V19.0 updated 30-04-06

Department of the Built Environment

Supervisor: Noel Painting

may occur in implementing their use.

structures. This is followed by an analysis of the current UK Building Regulations (April

06) to identify the technical hurdles involved in container conversion.

What are the key issues? UK governmental

ISO shipping Refurbishment of

CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS OF DATA................................................................................90

Figure 1. Research logic path diagram...................................................................................... II

Table 1. ISO shipping container dimensions ...........................................................................29

LIST OF PLATES / PHOTOGRAPHS

Note all photographs are originally printed in colour.

Photo 1. Global Peace Container under construction. ...............................................................3

Joel Egan of Robert Humble / Hybrid Architects.

DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

1.1 SCOPE OF CHAPTER

1.2 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH

Perhaps designers feel constrained by the lack of sizes available?

Containers can provide temporary solutions to a particular shortage, be it housing, office

Photo 1. Global Peace Container under construction.

Photo 2. Global Peace Container under construction.

1.3 IDENTIFICATION OF AIMS & OBJECTIVES

To assess the technical feasibility of ISO shipping containers as a building components.

1.3.2.1 To define the characteristics of ISO shipping containers:

• What is an ISO shipping container?

• To identify what the lifecycle of an ISO shipping container is.

• How many ISO shipping containers are decommissioned per year?

1.3.3.1 To characterise the types / possibilities of ISO shipping containers as

• Identify key players.

• Identify building types and possibilities.

1.3.4.1 To identify the technical hurdles incurred in the conversion of ISO

• To discussed the technical issues of building regulation compliance

1.3.5.1 To prove that a ISO shipping container can be adapted to comply

• To define the thermal performance of an empty ISO shipping

• To define the thermal performance of an ISO shipping container,

• To produce details of the amount of internal space used by the

1.4 METHODOLOGY (OBJECTIVE BY OBJECTIVE).

1.5 THE METHODOLOGY FOR EACH OBJECTIVE IS DEFINED BELOW:

1.5.1 To define the characteristics of ISO shipping containers:

• What is an ISO shipping container?

• Secondary information source. ISO documentation has been

• To identify what the lifecycle of an ISO shipping container is.

• Secondary information source. Statistics to be sought from The

• To identify how many ISO shipping containers are decommissioned

• Secondary information source. Statistics to be sought from The

• To identify the numbers of ISO shipping containers within the UK.

• Secondary information source. Statistics to be sought from The

1.5.2 To characterise the types / possibilities of ISO shipping containers as building

• Identify key players.

• Primary and secondary information source data. Desk study /

• Identify building types and possibilities

• Primary and secondary information source data. Desk study.

• To discuss the technical issues of building regulation compliance

• Primary information source data. Field work and Desk study.

• To define the thermal performance of an empty ISO shipping

• Primary information source data. Desk study using the BRE U-

• To define the thermal performance of an ISO shipping container,

• Primary information source data. Desk study using the BRE U-

• To produce details of the amount of internal space used by the

• Primary information source data. Desk study using the data

1.6 STRUCTURE OF RESEARCH