2009 EC Integrated Pre-Fabricated Steel Technology For Multi-Story Sector

EC
Modern steel buildings require a high degree of pre-fabrication and effective integration
KI-NA-23860-EN-S
of key components. The concept of open building systems in steel is developed with
a focus on the multi-storey residential sector. This research concentrated on providing
‘enabling’ or supporting technologies and on basic performance data to assist in the
development of these systems.
Energy has been channelled into standardising interfaces between structural and other
components such as cladding, services and lifts, and on increasing customisation
without compromising manufacturing efficiency. Information technology is seen as a
major driver, and its role is investigated. The research will lead to the development of
new systems involving skeletal, planar and modular components, including supporting
design information.
Integrated pre-fabricated steel technologies for the multi-storey sector

Integrated pre-fabricated steel
technologies for the multi-storey sector
Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 20

EUR 23860
Interested in European research?
RTD info is our quarterly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments (results, How to obtain EU publications
programmes, events, etc). It is available in English, French and German. A free sample copy
Publications for sale:
or free subscription can be obtained from:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
Directorate-General for Research
• from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number;
Information and Communication Unit
European Commission • by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact
1049 Brussels details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax
BELGIUM to +352 2929-42758.
Fax +32 22958220 Free publications:
E-mail: research@ec.europa.eu
Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo.html • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• at the European Commission's representations or delegations. You can obtain
their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu/) or by sending a fax
to +352 2929-42758.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Research Fund for Coal and Steel Unit
Contact: RFCS publications

Address: European Commission, CDMA 0/124, 1049 Brussels, BELGIUM
Fax +32 22965987; e-mail: rtd-steel@ec.europa.eu
European Commission
Research Fund for Coal and Steel

B. Döring; M. Kuhnhenne
RWTH Aachen, Lehrstuhl für Stahlbau und Leichtmetallbau
Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074 Aachen, GERMANY
O. Vassart
ArcelorMittal Esch, R & D
66, rue de Luxembourg, 4009 Esch/Alzette, LUXEMBOURG
C. Harper
CORUS UK LTD
Moorgate Road, Rotherham S60 3AR, UK
P. Beguin, S. Herbin
CTICM
Espace technologique, L’orme des merisiers — Immeuble Apollo, 91193 Saint-Aubin, FRANCE
A. Seppänen
RUUKKI
Fredrikinkatu 51-53, FI-00101 Helsinki, FINLAND
M. Lawson, E. Yandzio
The Steel Construction Institute
Silwood Park, Ascot SL5 7QN, Berkshire, UK
F. Scheublin, W. Bakens
CIB
Kruisplein 25 G, 3000 BV Rotterdam, NETHERLANDS
Contract No RFSR-CT-2004-00042
1 July 2004 to 31 December 2007
Final report
2009 EUR 23860 EN

LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission
is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009
ISBN 978-92-79-11319-2
DOI 10.2777/41420
ISSN 1018-5593
© European Communities, 2009

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Luxembourg
Printed on white chlorine-free paper

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Final Summary ............................................................................................................................. 6
Scientific and technical description of the results........................................................................ 9
Objectives of the project .......................................................................................................... 9
Comparison of initially planned activities and work accomplished ...................................... 12
Description of activities and discussion ................................................................................. 13
WP 1: Establishment of Open Building Architecture ........................................................ 13
WP 1.1: Technology base............................................................................................... 13
1.1.1 Definition of Open Building ............................................................................. 13
1.1.2 Overview of open building systems .................................................................. 16
1.1.3 Review of Integrated Steel Options .................................................................. 18
1.1.5 Opportunities for OBS in steel in various sectors ............................................. 21
WP1.2: Development of Open Building Architecture ................................................... 22
1.2.1 Criteria for dimensional planning ..................................................................... 24
1.2.2 Protocol for Open Building Systems................................................................. 25
WP 2: Development of Systemised Approach................................................................... 27
WP2.1: Develop Interface Technology.......................................................................... 27
WP2.2: Investigate whole building design..................................................................... 49
WP 3: Investigation of opportunities for Customisation.................................................... 51
WP 3.1: Information Technology................................................................................... 51
3.1.1 Existing protocols for data exchange ................................................................ 51
3.1.2 Investigate customisation (or user input) in the design process through I.T..... 57
3.1.3 Standard component and connection design by using modelling tools ............ 60
3.1.4 Transfer of information from design to manufacture........................................ 63
3.1.5 I.T. requirements for the procurement process ................................................. 63
WP 3.2: Opportunities for Customisation ...................................................................... 63
3.2.1 Opportunities for customisation within a standardised product range and inter-
face details.................................................................................................................. 63
3.2.2 Design or construction limitations as influenced by the manufacturing........... 67
3.2.3 Applications for typical building forms ............................................................ 70
WP 4: Investigation of Value-benefits and Sustainability Arguments and Case Examples
............................................................................................................................................ 71
WP 4.1: Establish Value and Sustainability Criteria...................................................... 71
4.1.1 Sustainability and construction: general aspects............................................... 71
4.1.2 Investigation on sustainability existing systems ............................................... 72
4.1.3 INPREST sustainability table for assessment: focus on 10 criteria .................. 74
4.1.4 Opportunities axes for steel construction .......................................................... 77
4.1.5 Value benefits.................................................................................................... 77
WP 4.2: Case Studies of Innovative Projects................................................................. 79
4.2.1 Short presentation of case studies ..................................................................... 79
4.2.2 Use of Inprest Sustainability Table ................................................................... 80
4.2.3 Extension to Building passport ......................................................................... 82
WP 5: Establishment of Basic Performance Data and Physical Modelling....................... 84
WP 5.1: Performance Criteria ........................................................................................ 84
WP 5.2: Physical Modelling and Testing....................................................................... 86
3
WP 6: Design ‘Tools’ and Design Guide......................................................................... 108
WP 6.1: Design Guide.................................................................................................. 108
WP 6.2: Design Tools .................................................................................................. 108
Exploitation and impact of the research results ................................................................... 111
List of figures and tables .......................................................................................................... 113
List of references...................................................................................................................... 117
Appendix 1: List of documents distributed in the frame of INPREST ................................ 119
Appendix 2: Design Guide................................................................................................... 125
4
Abstract
Modern steel buildings require a high degree of pre-fabrication and effective integration of the key
components. The concept of Open Building systems in steel is developed, aimed primarily at the multi-
storey residential sector. The research concentrated on providing ‘enabling’ or supporting technologies
and on basic performance data to assist in the development of these systems.
Effort are put into standardisation of interfaces between structural and other components such as clad-
ding, services and lifts, and on increasing customisation without compromising manufacturing effi-
ciency. Information Technology is seen as a major driver which are investigated. The research will lead
to the development of new systems involving skeletal, planar and modular components, including sup-
porting design information.
5
Final Summary
The INPREST project focuses mainly on two aspects of modern construction systems: The flexibility
for the user (internal layout, servicing, internal and external appearance) and the flexibility concerning
the suppliers and inter-change of components. Construction systems, that fulfil these objectives, are
considered as “Open Building Systems”. However, the definition of Open Building Systems (OBS) in
the context of integrated steel technologies is not clear cut, and therefore in WP 1, an approach for a
suitable definition was formulated, based on a protocol of essential and optional requirements. Exam-
ples of Open Building systems in all materials were reviewed, and possible structural options in steel
and solutions for façades were presented.
During the development of a systemized approach for OBS (WP2) it became evident that existing pro-
ducts and systems have to be considered for further developments as it is not possible to develop a com-
pletely new open building technology, except at a concept level. A general categorisation based on 1-,
2- and 3-dimensional elements was introduced and the main elements and existing systems were placed
in this scheme.
Four parallel types of Open Building approaches were addressed based on existing technologies (coun-
try of origin noted) : Nordicon (FIN), Corus Open Building Systems (UK) and PRISM (F) are systems
based on existing products and close to the market. Additionally a steel intensive solution by RWTH
Aachen (D), which is more on a research level, was also considered. Based on the description of the
different concepts and relevant elements, proposals for their incorporation in whole building design are
presented.
The subsequent WP’s 3 to 5 are essential tasks to bring forward the OBS concept in the building mar-
ket: The prefabrication and modularity of components enables and requires extensive use of information
technology (WP3). Existing software models were investigated and data structure, that is suitable for
OBS was identified. The use of software tools improves the abilities for customised design based on
prefabricated and industrialised production. Information on the appropriate levels of customisation that
ca be achieved are presented.
A new stimulus for developments in the construction sector is sustainability. In the concept of sustain-
ability the performance of a building in three levels (environmental – social – economic) over its whole
life is assessed according to various criteria, primarily concerned with the energy consumption, choice
of materials and the building performance. The basic idea has become accepted internationally, but
there is variety of methodologies concerning the indicators and assessment methods. In WP 4, the main
indicators are identified. For steel buildings using the open building concept, good sustainability per-
formance can be expected, and the main beneficial aspects are: demountable construction, recyclability
of materials, flexibility and adaptability concerning long term use and improvements in quality by off-
site manufacture.
The technical performance of Open building systems was investigated in WP 5, beginning with an
analysis of the specific requirements of Open Building Systems. Relevant performance criteria were
investigated numerically or by testing. These tests include structural performance, fire resistance and
thermal performance, as influenced by possible ‘cold bridging’ and interfaces between the structural
components and facades.
In WP6, the most important information that has been gathered in the project, is condensed into the
essential features in the form of a ‘Design Guide for Pre-fabricated Open Building Systems in Steel.
The main principles, technical solutions and examples of technologies that may form part or all of Open
6
Building systems are shown. This design guide is presented as a stand-alone document and could be
used by architects, engineers and building owners in the early phases of the design process, when the
general decisions regarding structure and floor plan have to be made.
In conclusion, this project has resulted in an overview of open building systems in steel and has shown
how current steel technologies may be used as part of an open building concept. Ideas for future devel-
opment of open building systems are presented, based on use of an integrated range of one-, two- and
three-dimensional steel components. No current integrated system exists and there are opportunities to
standardise the dimensional requirements, interface details and possible inter-change of components in
order to create new opportunities for steel–intensive systems across Europe.
The volume of the final report was limited, therefore not all information gathered or worked out during
the project is presented within this document. A list of all background-documents is attached as Appen-
dix 1, the full documents are provided on a separate CD.
7
Scientific and technical description of the results
Objectives of the project
Modern building construction requires a wide range of technologies and materials which have to be
integrated to produce an efficient construction process and to create a sustainable building product.
Steel construction is well placed to take advantage of the opportunities in many segments of the con-
struction market including commercial, residential and educational buildings and also hospitals. The
opportunities can be realised because steel construction is highly pre-fabricated and quality controlled
and can be delivered to the site in various degrees of completion, from at one extreme, the linear com-
ponents of the framework to, at the other, pre-finished modular units.
So-called “Open Building Systems” achieve a high degree of customisation and flexibility in applica-
tion, but are based on a standardised range of components that allow for common interfaces and inter-
changeability. In the past however, building systems have ‘failed’ to meet some acceptable performance
standards, and this is the area in which research should be concentrated.
The development of the Open Buildings Systems shall consider the following objectives in general:
• Customisation – allowing for flexible and individual application of components
• Standardisation of dimensions and connections allowing for simplified planning and inter-
changeability of elements
• Technological advantages by mixed steel technologies, easy assembly, fast construction, integration
into planning and production chain
• Significant improvement of performance (fire resistance, noise and thermal insulation, aesthetical
acceptance)
For the practical work these general objectives were splitted into six work-packages (WPs):
WP 1: Establishment of Open Building Architecture
At the beginning, the existing experience in Open Building Systems has to be established, including the
technology base and current developments at a European and international level. It is recognised that
the opportunities for steel will arise from an integrated range of products and components that are well
researched in terms of their inter-connectivity, standardisation, interfaces with other components, and
performance characteristics. All these aspects should be well supported by technical documentation.
The second objective is to establish the principles of an open building architecture in steel and to en-
gage in dialogue with architects and users as the first step in the optimisation and standardisation of the
range of components, comprising frames, panels and modules.
WP 2: Development of Systemised Approach to Open Building Technologies
The objective of this Work Package is the development of a systemised approach to Open Building
technology in steel which involve a primary steel frame, floor and wall panels, and modules that are
inter-changeable within the building concept. It is recognised that the interfaces between the compo-
nents and with other elements of the building, such as cladding, lifts and services are crucial to the suc-
cess of such a system.
The secondary objectives will therefore be to evaluate the design and buildability of the various compo-
nents in terms of:
• Inter-connectivity of the primary components

• Interfaces with cladding, roofing and internal partitioning
• Servicing strategies and routing
9
• Lifts and circulation zones
• Fire protection strategy
• Opportunities for standardisation and inter-changeability of components
• Opportunities for future adaptability in use
The Open Building systems will be extendable to various sectors by establishing a protocol for stan-
dardisation and interface details, which will be the first step in international standardisation.
WP 3: Investigate Opportunities for Customisation through Information Technology
The objective of this Work Package is to identify and investigate the opportunities for increased cus-
tomisation or user input at a design level, and for integration of the Information Technology interface
and product models in the design and construction process.
The secondary objectives are to:

• Extend existing ‘product models’ to Open Building Systems, including interfaces with services,
cladding and other components
• Provide a high degree of customisation for user input in the design process in terms of:
– inter-changeability of components
– geometrical range
– product ranges
• Develop protocol for data exchange between design and manufacture for these Open Building Sys-
tems
• Demonstrate how the supply chain can be brought into the procurement process.
WP 4: Investigation of Value-Benefits and Sustainability Arguments and Case Examples
Highly pre-fabricated systems achieve the benefits of speed of construction and improved quality, but
there is little information on other value-benefits in terms of increased productivity, reduced resources
and site infrastructure.
The objective of this Work Package will be to identify and quantify these value-benefits and to develop
sustainability criteria by which highly pre-fabricated systems can be assessed. These criteria will in-
clude:
• Speed of construction and programme benefits, including installation, ‘just-in-time’ delivery
• Resource use in terms of materials, recycling and reduced waste
• Productivity in terms of factory and site-based labour and logistics
• Site infrastructure in terms of facilities, storage and personnel
• Environmental benefits in terms of noise, vibration and other measures
These sustainability criteria will be related to the Building Passport principles which are mandatory in
some countries.
WP 5: Establishment of Basic Performance Data and Physical Modelling
The objective of this Work Package is to establish performance data on the proposed Open Building
Systems, including building physics, fire resistance, connection resistance etc. This performance data
will be based on modern standards of acceptability, and will allow for practical use on site.
• evaluate the performance of the systems by modelling and tests
10
• lead to national approvals
• make improvements in the systems
The work is a necessary step in European Technical Approval for these innovative building design.
WP 6: Design ‘Tools’ and Design Guide
The primary objective is to provide documentation and information on the design opportunities and on
the interfaces between components. It is recognised that the educational process on the use of Open
Building technologies must start with a clear definition of dimensional standards, interface details, and
design opportunities. It will also be necessary to provide design ‘tools’ illustrating how the ‘building
blocks’ of linear, planar and modular components may be used to create various building forms
11
Comparison of initially planned activities and work accomplished
The main objectives of the project were reached basically and essentially. In some details deviations
between the initially objectives and the work accomplished have to be named:
The objective of WP 2 was to present one systemised approach to Open Building Technology. This task
was fulfilled by presenting four different approaches in steel. These solutions show flexibility and inter-
changeability to a certain degree, but further improvements towards a more comprehensive approach
seem to be possible in the future.
Concerning WP 3 the opportunities of strong IT-solutions in the field of prefabricated construction sys-
tems in steel were shown, whereas the the OBS approach provided by RWTH Aachen was not consid-
ered, because this system is in an early phase of the development.
In WP 4 relevant criteria concerning value benefit and sustainability were identified. In the field of sus-
tainabilty it has to pointed out, that there is currently a very dynamic development, therefore this chap-
ter possesses a kind of “intermediate result”.
12
Description of activities and discussion
WP 1: Establishment of Open Building Architecture
The first objective of this first Work Package is to clearly establish the existing experience, technology
base and current developments in Open Building Systems (OBS) at a European and international level.
After a definition of “Open Building Systems” a global overview of Open building systems is given,
without regard whether these are steel constructions or not.
It is recognised that the opportunities for steel will arise form an integrated range of products and com-
ponents that are well researched in terms of their inter connectivity, standardisation, interfaces with
other components, and performance characteristics. All these aspects are supported by technical docu-
mentation.
In principle, it is pre-requisite for Open Building Systems, that they are applicable for various sectors.
Nevertheless a table was developed, that identify in which sectors the use of which prefabricated com-
ponents is most favourable.
The second objective is to establish the principles of an open building architecture in steel and to en-
gage in dialogue with architects and users as to the first step in the optimisation and standardisation of
the range of components, comprising frames, panels and modules.
Drafts for Architectural design based on modular systems are originally foreseen in WP 1, this subtask
was relocated in WP 2.
WP 1.1: Technology base
1.1.1 Definition of Open Building
A widely accepted definition of Open Building is given by Stephen Kendall and Jonathan Teicher. In
their book "Residential Open Building" [1-1], they wrote:
“What is residential Open Building?

Throughout North America - and increasingly, throughout the world - non-residential buildings are
constructed in an Open Building (OB) approach. Office and retail developers, their design and construc-
tion teams, and the associated regulators, lenders, owners, tenants, and product manufacturers are reor-
ganizing the building process. They routinely work according to principles and methods that have de-
veloped over recent decades in direct response to extraordinary and accelerating change in the shaping
of environment.
Regardless of style, typology or construction, commercial base buildings are now customarily built
without predetermined interior layout. Upon leasing, demising walls and then interior partitioning are
added, as spaces are fitted out to suit individual tenants. Each tenant may install unique interior spaces,
equipment and systems to suit organizational and technical needs. When older commercial buildings are
'revalued', demolition exposes the existing building shell, which is then retrofitted with upgraded facade
and interior systems. Even in 'build-to-suit' office facilities, base building construction is made as ge-
neric as possible: its long-term value is increased by providing capacity for changing requirements,
including eventual tenant turnover and future sale.
13
Developments in commercial construction are now moving into the residential sector. In Europe, Asia
and North America, residential Open Building principles, variously known as OB, S/I (Support/Infill),
Skeleton Housing, Supports and Detachables, Houses that Grow, etc. - are now spearheading the reor-
ganization of the design and construction of residential buildings in parallel ways. In many cases, resi-
dential Open Building is based on the reintroduction of principles intrinsic to sustainable historic envi-
ronments around the world. These have been reinterpreted and updated to harness benefits of state-of-
the-art industrial production, emerging information technologies, improved logistics, and changing so-
cial values and market structures.
Residential Open Building is a new multi-disciplinary approach to the design, financing, construction,
fit-out and long-term management processes of residential buildings, including mixed-use structures. Its
goals include creating varied, fine-grained and sustainable environment, and increasing individual
choice and responsibility within it. In Open Building, responsibility for decision-making is distributed
on various levels. New product interfaces and new permitting and inspection processes disentangle
subsystems toward the ends of simplifying construction, reducing conflict, affording individual choice,
and promoting overall environmental coherence. Residential OB thus combines a set of technical tools
with a deliberate social stance toward environmental intervention.
Residential Open Building practices are rapidly evolving throughout the world. As new consumer-
oriented infill systems appear and become more widely available, governments, housing and finance
corporations and manufacturers are joining developers, sustainability advocates and academics in en-
dorsing and advancing a new open architecture. From improved decision-making and increased choice,
to standardized interfaces between building systems that are compatible and sustainable, the broadly-
shared benefits of the ‘new wave in building’ (Proveniers and Fassbinder, n.d.) are increasingly in evi-
dence throughout the world.”
Stephen Kendall is founder and coordinator of CIB Working Commission 104, on Open Building Im-
plementation. Teicher is a member of this working Commission. In their book they mainly deal with
residential building, but most of their definition is also applicable to non residential building. In the
definition the focus is on enabling consumers to partition and install their own domain. The Open
Building strategy is strongly focussing on building load bearing structures with long spans and a mini-
mum of embedded services in the privately owned domain. The open building movement is not only
interested in the interior design. Also consumer influence on exterior design and city planning are fields
of interest.
A strategic field of interest for Open Buildings is the development of standardised connections between
the structural elements that form together the base building. This connections are usually referred to as
the building knot. Building knots are the connection between load bearing walls and floors, between
facades and load bearing walls, between roof and walls. Most suppliers of building systems have stan-
dardised the knot in their system. But there are no standards for the connection of elements from differ-
ent systems. Building Systems are in this respect closed systems. Modification of buildings is possible,
elements can be replaced by others, as long as the client deals with the owner of the system. Buying
from other suppliers is hindered by a misfit of connections.
Unlike the base building knot, there is in the Open Building movement no special focus on the devel-
opment of standardised connections between base building and infill. It is assumed that most infill sys-
tems fit to any support system. And this assumption is right. Consumer products like partition systems,
inner doors, kitchen equipment and sanitary fixtures are designed to fit in all buildings and under all
circumstances.
14
In Open Building there are two interest groups to be observed. On one side there are the home owners
and tenants (The clients). On the other side there are the manufacturers of building systems and compo-
nents (The suppliers). Clients are interested in internal flexibility. They want in the design stage the
opportunity to personalise the lay-out and outfit of their new build house. Later, after some years of
occupancy, they need the possibility to modify their home, to adapt it to a new era in their family life
cycle or to new technological features.
Suppliers want the possibility to supply elements - facades, sanitary modules, attics etc.- to existing
houses independent of the system by which the house was build. They need open systems to enlarge
their market. Clients may benefit from such supplier independent systems through the competition
among suppliers.
The interconnection of building elements is not limited to flat elements such as floors, walls and roofs.
Also 3-dimensional units containing complete bathrooms, kitchens or even bedrooms should be taken
into consideration. Units of different brands and origin should be designed to be stacked together in one
building. This is an openess that goes far further than the traditional Open Building philosophy.
A real Open Building system is a system that uses standardised connections. Connections that are used
by most if not all producers of building units and building elements. The stacking of sea containers is a
perfect example of such a system. The connectors are independent of the means of transport. They fit
trains, trucks, shipdecks and overhead cranes. And stacking in many stories is possible.
One of the major problems in residential Open Building is the place where cables and ducts are located.
In traditional buildings the cables are embedded in the walls and ceilings. Future re-arrangement of
these cables is hardly possible. The Open Building movement advocates easy accessible cables and
ducts. In particular, raised floor systems are considered to allow easy access and re-arrangement. Aim is
that consumers should be able to rearrange their systems without expert help. In practice most raised
floor systems are to expensive for residential use. Though in non residential buildings these systems are
often applied and considered to be feasible. Also connectors for cables and ducts in a Open Building
system should be universally standardised. The connections between individual units in an apartment
building to the main feaders and risers should be open systems as well.
For the INPREST project, it is important to take both the clients, and the suppliers, requirements into
account.
15
1.1.2 Overview of open building systems
The following images (Figure 1, Figure 2) show examples of previous attempts to provide Open Build-
ing Systems in various materials for residential, medical and educational buildings. Most are from
Europe, but two are from Japan, where these pre-fabricated systems are widely used.
1. Smart House 2. The 7 Heavens
3. Space Box 4. CD20
Figure 1 : Overview of Open Building Systems (part 1)
16
5. Fort Unit bouw 6. Domino system
7. Ino hospital 8. Next 21
9. Sekisui Heim
Figure 2 : Overview of Open Building Systems (part 2)
17
1.1.3 Review of Integrated Steel Options
In the INPREST project, various structural systems were considered. A review of integrated structural
options using a primary steel frame work showed 11 basic structural systems (see Figure 3, Figure 4).
• Integrated Beam and Composite Slab • Inverted Slab and Cellular Beam
Inside face
of module
Electrical box 22
150 Module
30 - 60
17
Floor of module 150 Floor
C section used 150 200 - 250 300
as raised floor 350
dia.
350 Gap
130 300
60 Composite slab 100
Rebar 280 ASB Plasterboard ceiling
• Composite Beam and Composite Slab • Precast Inverted slab on Cellular beam
Module
100 Module
Floor 150 30 - 50
200 - 250 130-150
Floor 200-250
200 - 250
240-350 150 dia.
Gap 150
130 - 150
≈100
Hollow-core slab Pre-cast inverted floor 50
HE 240 to HE 350
• Integrated Beam- Precast Hollow-core • Pre fab floor cassette

Slab
0
125
720
Recessed base Module C-62 x 2.0

190
Variable
22
10 to 30 44 5 750
5 55
Floor cassette 150 150 x 150 L C-220 x 2.0
10 60
280 ASB Shims
244 (a) Isometric view of floor
150
150 x 150 L
Variable 40 Mesh reinforcement Concrete 40
68
75 70
300 Plasterboard (fire rated) Site infill
Cross-section through module and infill floor cassette 220

C-220 x 2.0
60
(b) Detail at light steel beam (c) Support by steel beam
Cast in lifting bar
1m 150
typ
ica
lly
Alternative use of precast composite slab
Figure 3 : Overview of integrated steel options (part 1)
18
• HE beam below light steel floor • Integrated beam - Light steel floor
Floor Module Floor Module
HE profile IFB profile Module

Module
• RHS beam- Light steel floor (e.g. Smart • SHS Columns – No beams (e.g. Open
House) House)
Floor Module Floor Module
RHS profile Module SHS profile Module
• I-core
Figure 4 : Overview of integrated steel options (part 2)
19
The review of façade options which might be relevant for the design of Open Building systems contains
12 possible solutions (Table 1).
Table 1 : Façade options OBS
Detail of Façade Con- Examples of Weight

Form of Façade System Size of panel
struction Technology kg/m2
Ruukki (Fn)
1. Light steel infill wall
• Metallic Clad- Kingspan (UK) Metal panels
and others 30-60
ding eg cassettes of 0.5 to 2 m
Site installed
2. Light steel infill wall Weber/Sto/Dryvit render often
50-80
• Insulated render onto light
steel framing
Clay tiles on
3. Light steel infill wall Argiton (Fr) horizontal
• Brick slips or rails or brick 60-100
Corium (UK)
clay tiles slips on metal
sheeting
See this project in Light steel

Manchester (UK) infill wall.
4. Light steel infill wall Site con-
• Brickwork (site - Metsec (UK) structed 150-200
construction) and brickwork
others restrained by
wall
5. Large pre-fabricated Light steel
panels Skanska (Sw) wall panel of
• Light steel panels 3-6 m width
Ruukki (Fin) x 2.5 -3 m 40-70
and lightweight
façade material PRISM (Fr) height with
lightweight
facia
Pre-
fabricated
6. Large pre-fabricated See this project in
brick panel of
panels Bristol (UK)
3-4 m width 100-150
• Brickwork panels Hanson (UK) ×
2.5-3 m
height
20
Detail of Façade Con- Examples of Weight
Form of Façade System Size of panel
struction Technology kg/m2
Pre-cast con-
7. Large prefabricated Panels attached crete panel of
concrete panels to primary steel 2.5-3.5 m 200-300
frame height × 6 m
length
Kingspan (UK) Composite

Ruukki (Fin) panel of
8. Composite (sand- 0.9-1.2 m
PAB (Fr) 60-80
wich) panel width
x 6-12 m in
and others length
Schmidlin (Sw)
Curtain wall-
9. Curtain walling
Gartner (D) ing
(metal/glass) 70-100
2.5-4.5 m
Permasteelisa (It) height
See this project in

Deansgate,
Double glass
Manchester
10. Double glass facade façade
(UK). 80-120
2.7-3.5 m
Examples in
height
Germany, Swe-
den and Finland.
11. Masonry (site con-

structed) Conventional
Not applica-
− Ground sup- brickwork often 200-300
used in housing. ble
ported
12. Masonry (site con-

structed) Stainless steel Can be pre-
• Supported on angles by Halfen fabricated 200-300
each floor etc (see 6.)
1.1.5 Opportunities for OBS in steel in various sectors
The potential use of these prefabricated components are illustrated in Table 2 below. A primary steel
frame may be designed with light steel infill walls, which may be pre-fabricated as storey-high panels.
Modular units may be incorporated as load-bearing or non load-bearing components.
21
Table 2 : Application of open building technologies in various building types
Component Housing Residential Hospitals Education Public Commercial

Buildings Buildings Building
Primary steel frame     
Light steel wall panels      
Modular units      
Lifts and stairs     
Roof units    
Balconies  
 Likely to be used
 May be used
WP1.2: Development of Open Building Architecture
A major step for the development of “Open Building Architecture” is the definition of the main charac-
teristics. After an internal review on the different characteristics of an “Open Building”, a questionnaire
was defined in order to catch the “Voice of the customer” (architects, users).
This questionnaire forms the basis of interviews intended to establish the opportunities and features of a
flexible “open” building system aimed at the multi-storey residential sector or mixed residen-
tial-commercial developments. It is aligned to a similar questionnaire produced in the Euro-Build in
Steel project [1-2]. The different following tables show the results of the questionnaires (5–very impor-
tant to 1–not important), see Table 3 - Table 6.
Table 3 : Questionnaire – part 1
Aspect of building use 5 4 3 2 1
Flexible provision of internal space for different occupancy

4
patterns
Potential for change of use (e.g. residential to commercial) 3.4
Long life and robust materials without cracking and shrink-
4.7
age problems
Input of the user/occupier into the design process (customi-
3.3
sation)
Flexibility in service outlets and ease of service routing and
4.3
maintenance
Private balcony and external space 3.8
Moveable partitions internally within apartments 2.8
Ability to create office space and other mixed uses 3.4
Private, secure access by lifts or stairs 3.5
22
Aspect of building 5 4 3 2 1
Application to multi-storey (6-12 storey) buildings, as well

3.2
as low-rise buildings
Ability to create standard floor “foot-prints” and apartment
4.0
layouts
Ability to provide car parking below ground 3.2
Provision of balconies and other additional external fea-
4.4
tures
Ability to provide a range of façade options and fenestra-
4.7
tion
Concentrated highly serviced zones for ease of distribution
4.5
and maintenance
High level of glazing in the building facade 3.0
Access to small group of apartments provided by lifts and
3.9
stairs

Aspect of building performance 5 4 3 2 1
Higher level of thermal insulation in the external envelope 4.4

Higher level of acoustic insulation between apartments of 4.9
dwellings
Special safety measures e.g. sprinklers for fire safety 3.7
Use of renewable energy services e.g. photovoltaic for en-
3.25
ergy saving
High level of electric, data comms and security systems 3.3
Special provision for the aged and disabled 4.1
Special ventilation provisions (including heating/cooling) 4.2
Stiff, vibration-free floors 4.2
23
Aspect of building process 5 4 3 2 1
Speed of construction (faster than traditional construction) 4.1
Rapid, vibration and noise free construction process 3.3
Reduced level of materials use and waste 4.2
High level of pre-fabrication (e.g. as in modular units) 4.1
Ability to be constructed using locally available skills 3.3

Reduced time between end of design process and arrival on
3.8
site
Certainty of agreed cost and construction programme 4.7
Ability to “match” the completion to the “sales” (important
4.5
for private developers)
1.2.1 Criteria for dimensional planning
A further fundamental characteristic for the design of an Open Building System is to adopt relevant
dimensions as they are common in the different European countries. Therefore two tables were estab-
lished gathering the dimensional criteria for residential and office buildings (Table 7, Table 8)
Table 7 : Relevant dimensions – residential buildings

Dimensional Factor UK France Germany Finland Belgium Luxembourg Netherlands
Internal room height 2.4 m 2.5 m 2.5 m 2.6 m Depending on use Depending on use 2.5 m
2.9 m-3.3
Floor to floor height 2.7 m-3 m 2.7 m-3 m 2.8 m 2.7 m-3 m 2.7 m-3 m 2.8 m
m
3.3 m or 4 m 2.5 m min. -4 m 6 m (related to
Room depth (size) 6m 3.6 m 3 to 4 m 3 to 4 m
typical typical windows)
Houses 2-3 2-3 2 1 2-3 2-3 2-3
Typical
4 without
number
Residential 4-6 4-8 lift, 7 with 4-8 4 to 6 4 to 6
of floors
lift
Depth of Houses 8m 12m 9m 12m max 15m
floor Residential 13m 12m 12m 13m 12m max 15m 12 m residential
Secondary support to 0.6 m 0.6 m 0.6 m 0.6 m ? ? 0.9 m
0.6 m: also (75 0.45 or
Planning dimensions 0.6 m ? 0.6m 0.6m 0.3 m
´ 225 bricks) 0.6 m
Car parking 4.8 or 7.2 m 5.0 or 7.5 m ? 8.1 m 4.8 or 7.2 m 5.0 or 7.5 m 2.4, 4.8 to 7.2 m
Controlling Criterion for Brick
- ? ? ? -
Planning dimensions
24
Table 8 : Relevant dimensions – office buildings
Dimensional factor UK France Germany Finland Belgium Luxembourg Netherlands
Room height 2.7m-3m 2.7m 2.7m 2.7m - 3m 2.7m - 3m 2.7m
Floor-floor height 3.6-4.2m 3-3.7m 3.2-3.5m 3.6m - 4 m 3.6m - 4 m 3.2-3.9m
Room depth 6m 6m 6m 6m 6m 5.4m
Typical number
Typical up to 4 with no lift
of floors (fire 6-8 up to 9 upt to 7 up to 7 5-8
number up to 7 with lift
fighters)
of floors
(fire Secondary
fighters) support to 0.6m 0.6m 0.6 0.6 1.2m
facade
Depth of Depth of floor

13-18m 14-17m 12-14m 12 to 16m 12 to 16m 12-14m
floor plate
plate Planning 1.5m 1.2m 1.2m 1.2m 3.6m
Parking - 7.5m 7.2m 7.5m 7.2m
1.2.2 Protocol for Open Building Systems
Based on the results of the questionnaires, the particular requirements of open building systems were
condensed to a protocol (Table 9).
Table 9 : Protocol for Open Building Systems
Criterion for Open Building sys- Essential Optional General Beneficiary

tems requirement requirement requirement
Flexibility in use of private space z Client
(inc. moveable partitions)
Flexibility in architectural solutions z Client
(inc. facades)
Flexibility of servicing (and mainte- z Client
nance of services)
Familiar technology (design informa- z Client/supplier
tion and common interfaces)
Inter-changeability and compatibility z Supplier
of components
Wide geographical applications z Supplier
(Regulations/climate)
Ability to extend/modify the building z Client
in the future
Customisation (input by user in de- z Client
sign/design flexibility)
Flexibility in use of floor space (inc. z Client
moveable separating walls)
Open construction technology (site z Supplier
installation/skill of workers)
Flexibility in application (inc. future z Client
change of use)
High level of pre-fabrication in manu- z Supplier
facture
Speed of construction z Client/supplier
25
Criterion for Open Building sys- Essential Optional General Beneficiary
tems requirement requirement requirement
Effective supply chain – means of
delivery (and cooperation of manu- z Client/supplier
facturers and suppliers)
Satisfies Building Regulations and z Client/supplier
functional requirements
Cost competitiveness z Client/supplier
Sustainability (energy and resource z Client

efficiency)
This protocol defines the essential and optional requirements for open building systems. Essential re-
quirements are those that are fundamental to open building systems. Optional requirements are not es-
sential but are desirable. General requirements are those requirements common to all building systems
and are not only specific to open building systems.
26
WP 2: Development of Systemised Approach
The work in WP2 is primarily concerned with the development of a systematic approach to open build-
ing technology in steel. The primary concept of designing one approach was modified towards a paral-
lel enhancement of four different approaches based on:
1. Prism (F)
2. Nordicon (Fin)
3. Corus Open Building System (UK)
4. RWTH Modular Research Building (D)
The modular concepts of these approaches are categorized and the correspondence to the protocol are
checked. Details for the interfaces of the various components, which have a key role on the way to
OBS, are drawn up. In anticipation of WP 2.2 in WP 2.1 some drawings of whole building design are
given.
In WP 2.2 whole building design based on the various approaches developed, but due to the limited
space only a short review of these technologies is presented.
WP2.1: Develop Interface Technology
The concept of open buildings has been extensively addressed in WP1 resulting in the protocol for open
building systems (Table 9) and this has been used in the assessment and development of the systematic
approaches outlined here. The protocol suggests 18 criteria in the determination of an open building but
clearly any building system cannot meet all of these criteria fully.
Therefore a methodology of scoring any system or part of a system was developed to enable an assess-
ment of it against the criteria from the protocol. The essential requirements for open building as defined
by the protocol are the most important. These are:
• Flexibility in the use of private space (moveable partitions)
• Flexibility in architectural solutions
• Flexibility of servicing
• Familiar technology
• Interchange-ability and compatibility of components
• Wide geographical application
• Future adaptability
• User customisation
These criteria combined with the optional requirement for a high degree of prefabrication form the main
drivers for the development of open building systems within the INPREST project. Whilst it is recog-
nised that open building is not the sole domain of steel buildings this project is concerned with only
steel solutions as the primary material.
WP1 identified several existing building systems that may be regarded to a greater or lesser degree as
open. It also identified that there are many different building systems involving many methods of build-
ing and many variations of main components. Nor can it be concluded that open building systems are
the domain of new technologies such as modular construction. In fact many traditional buildings meet
many of the criteria defined in the protocol.
A system may also be defined by the primary components that it utilises and this analysis is particularly
useful in categorising the available systems from WP1 and also the systems analysed and developed in
WP2.
27
Generally we may regard the components in a building as 1 dimensional, 2 dimensional or 3 dimen-
sional. These are defined in Table 10. These primary components may be combined in many different
ways to give different solutions to the building problem. Figure 5 shows the possible combinations in
the form of a Venn diagram.
The systems identified in WP1 are plotted on this diagram as are the solutions addressed in this work
package. Table 11 describes the possible systems that may be created from the components outlined in
Table 10.
Table 10 : Definition of elements of a building system

1D These are essentially line elements that link 2 points in space such as beams or columns in
a structural frame. They usually occupy small volumes in the completed building and usu-
ally support other members.
2D These are elements that essentially connect 4 points in space and have a thickness such as
walls and floors. They occupy greater volume than 1D elements and may or may not sup-
port other members.
3D These are elements that connect at least 6 points in space but more usually 8 and are some-
times called volumetric spaces. Volumetric modules are the main component that fall into
this category. They may be designed to support other elements, particularly other volumet-
ric modules in typical modular construction or may be designed as non load-bearing, gen-
erally only being required to carry their own weight during transportation (often called
pods)
Figure 5 : Venn diagram showing the components of a system and their interactions
28
Table 11 : Combinations of components to create systems
1D This approach is typical of traditional approaches where most of the components are
brought to site and assembled there. This is not to say that the approach is not open be-
cause clearly most of the essential requirements of the protocol can be met. However, the
approach does not readily lend itself to off site construction deemed to be an optional but
very important characteristic of the INPREST project aims.
1D/2D These may be called frame and panel approaches. They are probably the most common of
all systems since these are typical of traditional approaches. The progress in this category
is to move the panel items off site so that the frame is erected in a traditional manner and
floors and walls are brought to site in varying degrees of completeness. Prism, Corus Open
Building System 1 and RWTH Modular Research Building are typical of this approach.
The Prism system described below is being developed using this approach.
2D It is possible that only 2D elements are used to create a building. Here the major elements:
walls, floors and roofs are fabricated off site and brought together to create the structure of
the building very rapidly with most of the elements being finished off site requiring very
little on site finishing work. The Nordicon system described later is typical of this ap-
proach.
2D/3D 3D volumetric modules are combined with 2D planar elements. The modules are used for
the highly serviced parts of the building and the panels are used to construct the open areas
of the building. This approach has been called the hybrid approach. Normally both the
modules and the planar elements are load bearing and is ideally suited to cold formed steel
modules and walls. Example of this type is the Corus Open Building System 2.
3D 3D volumetric modules are used as the primary building blocks for the building. This
methodology has become commonly known as modular construction. Modules are usually
full room elements often containing inbuilt bathrooms. These are stacked on top of one
another to form complete building structures. The external facades are normally completed
after the primary boxes are erected although some examples are fully finished including
the external parts. The methodology is typical of the hotel, student accommodation and
military barrack block sectors where the primary functional unit is the en-suite bedroom.
There are many examples of such systems e.g. Space Box.
1D/3D In this combination 3D volumetric modules are combined with traditional 1D elements
(frames). Various methods may be used, some of which are suggested in WP1. Modules
may have integrated frames as described as one of the options of the Corus Open Building
System described later or they may be independent of the frame as described in WP1.
1D/2D/3D All of the components are used together in some way and there are many possible varia-
tions. This is the system that was anticipated at the start of the project and is described in
more detail later as the Corus Open Building System. It combined a traditional steel skele-
tal frame with modules and planar elements.
Study of the many available systems leads to the conclusion that no one dimension is more open or
indeed better than another and most practical systems will use a combination such as those outlined
above to define the system. The key to the openness of a system is the ease with which the elements
may be interchanged and in the case of the INPREST project the degree of off site manufacture possible
to give the most efficient production process.
It is by no means proven however, that fully offsite manufactured buildings are the most practical or
efficient. Nor would they necessarily reduce costs and time for production. Experience would suggest
that some aspects of the building production process are more suited to factory production such as
modules and large wall and floor panels, whereas some aspects may be better completed on site such as
the connection between modules or panels and final boarding and interior finishes. Items best suited to
manufacture tend to have a high degree of repeatability, whereas items that do not tend to be best suited
to a craft based approach.
29
The most efficient solution is therefore likely to be one that combines a high degree of site technology
with highly efficient on site processes where the construction site becomes a highly efficient on site
assembly facility rather than a building site in the traditional sense. One of the major elements in
achieving this is to learn from the manufacturing facility so that for example materials arrive on site cut
to size and labelled rather than being cut on site.
The INPREST project has explored these concepts in some detail for floors, walls, modules and facades
especially in WP1 and WP2. Examples of such systems are presented here to illustrate open building
systems and the approach to developing them.
Four systems have been investigated and developed by partners in the project: the PRISM system, the
Nordicon system, the RWTH Aachen system and the Corus Open Building System. These are indicated
on the Venn diagram in Figure 5.
The PRISM system is a French example of how a primarily traditional and inherently open system may
be designed to be more manufacturable by using off-site components in conjunction with traditional
approaches. This is described in the section entitled PRISM below.
The Nordicon system from Finland illustrates the use of large panel construction based on the Ruukki
Nordicon wall element with other large panels for the other elements such as floors and roofs. It is
combined with steel frames where necessary and uses a degree of on site activities to complete the
building. The Nordicon system is described in section entitled Nordicon below.
The RWTH Aachen example utilises a regularised steel frame approach with infill panels which may be
manufactured on or off site. Its particular focus in this project was the use of all steel floor components
and traditional steel cladding panels used as part of the open building system. The system is described
in the section entitled RWTH Aachen system.
The Corus Open Building System illustrates how 1D, 2D and 3D components may be combined to cre-
ate systems for open manufactured buildings. The system is a prototype utilising some existing, some
second generation and some newly developed components and is described in detail in the section enti-
tled Corus Open Building System.
One of the key aspects of the development of any building system is how the main components and
assemblies fit together i.e. the interfaces. In each of the systems developed, the partners have carried out
work to identify and detail the main interfaces of the respective system. Space allows that only one or
two of these can be shown in this document but reference should be made to the respective partners for
further details.
A pre-requisite of any system is that it must comply with the regulatory framework applicable to the
location of the building. Many of the key aspects of compliance have been carried out by partners
through documentation, modelling and in some cases testing and prototyping. These include initial de-
sign tools for the PRISM system and the Corus Open Building system. Some of these are illustrated in
this document and again reference to the appropriate partner should be made for full details.
As with any systematic approach to building especially new or evolving ones there will inevitably be a
requirement to test new concepts and ideas either by modelling or physical testing and prototyping. The
requirements for testing have been identified and in some cases carried out during the project. The Nor-
dicon system has undergone significant testing and the Corus Open Building System has undergone
some testing and prototyping, both of the individual components and a full scale prototype of a part of a
building.
30
A systematic approach to building especially where there is a significant manufacturing content requires
the use of supporting ICT. In both the Nordicon system and the Corus Open Building system there has
been significant development of ICT tools to support the design and manufacturing processes. The
PRISM system uses existing ICT to provide a web portal to information about the system and tools that
support the use of the system. The ICT is described in more detail in section 3.
PRISM
PRISM is a French system; the word is an acronym for PRoduits Industriels et Structures Manufactu-
rees (industrial products and manufactured structures)
The main objective of the system is to use existing, proven and available components used in the con-
struction of buildings and use them in a systematic approach to open building. Solutions are offered for
the main building elements - the frame, floors, walls, roof, and foundations, which are then combined to
propose whole building solutions. Each of the elements is designed to be compatible with the other
components to which it is connected within the system.
Many of the elements are supported by design tools which are made available via the PRISM web site
(www.acierconstruction.com ) and deal with such issues as beam and column design, facade selection,
internal partition selection and the selection of mechanical and electrical systems for a particular build-
ing configuration.
The main components of the system are shown in Table 12 and the current solutions offered for each.
The system is extensible as each sub element can be extended or replaced as long as the performance
criteria for the element are addressed and the interfaces with the other components are defined.
Table 12 : Main components of the PRISM system and tools available

Main Frame The structure of the building including all beams columns and bracing sys-
tem. Design guidance is given to French Standards and Eurocodes.
PrediPrism is an excel spreadsheet for initial design of beams and columns.
Slabs A range of at least seven slabs is available to the system. These are shown
in Figure 6
Facades The main families of façade options are available – light facades, double
skin, sandwich panels. Detailed documents are available on acoustic, fire
safety, thermal behaviour and corrosion. An Excel tool is available present-
ing the characteristics of the façade options.
Roofs The main families of roof options are presented including the specifications
for each type of roof. . Detailed documents are available on acoustic, fire
safety, thermal behaviour and corrosion.
Partitions Information on insulation products, internal partition walls, ceilings is pre-
sented together with a catalogue of details for each part. Detailed documents
are available on acoustic, fire safety, thermal behaviour and corrosion.
Again Excel tools are available for internal partitions, external light skin
walls and ceilings.
Energy system Information on electrical heating and cooling systems is presented. Links to
other sources of information is available.
31
A - Concrete Slab B- Pre-cast Hollow Core Slab
C - Concrete slab on joists D - Composite slab on steel beams
E - Concrete ribbed slab F - Hollow core slab and integrated beam

Epaisseur totale du
plancher en cm
C-D
40 E-G
Plancher Sec PCIS
30
Dalle BA sur bac (étais)
A F B
20
Dalle BA sur pré-dalle (étais)
10
Portée du
4 6 8 plancher en m
G - Composite slab on concrete ribbed beam Comparison of slab systems
Figure 6 : Floor options available in the PRISM system
Figure 7 shows an example of some of the components of the PRISM system and Figure 8 illustrates
one of the many interfaces required to be designed for the system. The system is a good example of
how a traditional and predominantly open method of building can be redesigned to form modern sys-
tems. It also identifies where elements that are traditionally executed on site may be designed for offsite
manufacture to provide more efficient solutions.
32
Figure 7 : PRISM in construction Figure 8 : Interface example from PRISM
In common with all systems whether deemed to be open or not the regulatory framework governing in
the location of the building must be adhered to. This is achieved in the PRISM system by designing
each of the parameters according to the local standards in force and providing technical information to
allow the designer to easily provide the required compliance information. Information for the scheme
design stage is readily available via the PRISM web site. An example of the beam design tables for
initial design and selection is shown in Table 13.
Table 13 : Example of Column design tables from the PRISM system
The PRISM system may be defined as predominantly a 1D/2D system with no use of 3D volumetric
elements at present. This is shown on the Venn diagram as described previously. However, there is
33
much information available in WP1 and WP2 to enable volumetric modules to be added to the system
should the client demand in France become strong.
Table 14 shows how well the PRISM system fits with the essential requirements of the protocol for
open building systems developed as part of WP1.
Table 14 : PRISM – fit with essential requirements of open building systems protocol
Flexibility in use of This would depend on the floor system used but if long span floors are used
private space (inc. then there is no reason why this can not be achieved. The floor and frame
moveable partitions) design would need to be designed to allow for the moveable partitions.
Flexibility in architec- This is built into the system by allowing many façade systems to be chosen.
tural solutions (inc. Moreover, the system is based on a steel frame built on site thereby allowing
facades) many different architectural solutions.
Flexibility of servicing The current floor options allow for many variations in servicing strategies at
(and maintenance of the design phase i.e. before build but do not allow for refurbishment without
services) disruption to the occupants.
Familiar technology The system is based on current, available technologies so has a string fit with
(design information and this requirement.
common interfaces)
Inter-changeability and There is good facility for interchange of components –the components need
compatibility of com- to be designed to meet the performance requirements and interface require-
ponents ments of the system.
Wide geographical ap- The PRISM system is a French based system and whilst the system is not
plications (Regula- currently designed for other locations, the components are generic across the
tions/climate) world and could therefore be adapted to any country’s particular standards.
Ability to ex- The system results in a predominantly on-site solution. Therefore it would be
tend/modify the build- difficult to modify any of the major components. The internal spaces could
ing in the future be modified as described above.
Customisation (input by There is no facility to allow for user input into the design process at the mo-
user in design/design ment.
flexibility)
Nordicon
Nordicon is a Finnish building system for multi-storey residential building projects. These may be
apartments or houses depending on the particular requirements of the developer. The system has been
developed from the Plus Home system as described in [2-1]. The concept makes use of the Nordicon
outer wall element which is used as the primary building element. The Nordicon exterior wall element
as its name suggests is used for the outer load bearing walls of a building. There are few internal load-
bearing walls leading to a highly flexible internal space which can be configured and re-configured by
the eventual owners of the apartment. The external wall elements include any necessary structural ele-
ments to perform the function of the wall including structural columns that would traditionally lie out-
side of the wall. The walls are used to support all of the floors and roof of the building. The Nordicon
walls are manufactured offsite in a factory environment and arrive on site with all of the sub-elements
of the walls in place including windows, doors and supports for the facade where this is not part of the
Nordicon wall. Figure 9 shows a schematic of the Nordicon external wall element.
34
Figure 9 : The Nordicon exterior wall element
The roof of the system is a long span element that contains all of the structural and other performance
based elements such as thermal insulation and weather coverings. They arrive on site with all of the
guttering and other rainwater components attached together with flashings and other finishing items to
make the assembly on site as rapid as possible.
There are currently two floor types to choose from for use with the Nordicon wall element. These are
pre-cast hollow core units that are supported by the Nordicon wall elements and fixed in place using a
specially developed pin system. The floor units can span the full width of the building giving an unin-
terrupted span for the apartment. The other type of floor available is the double layer slab as shown in
Figure 10. This is an inverted composite beam with the concrete located at the lower flange of a steel
cellular beam. This gives the advantage that the apartment services are accessed from the apartment
they serve and may be modified without disrupting the apartment below.
The top surface of the floor may be made using suspended timber or steel beamed floors or by using
thin precast concrete units.
35
Figure 10 : The double layer floor system as used in the Nordicon system
The interior walls are generally non load bearing; this allows greater flexibility in the use of the interior
space both at the initial design phase where the end user may be involved in the layout of his apartment
and in the choice of interior materials, fixtures and fittings and after construction when the building is in
use and occupied. In fact if the double layer floor system is used the interior of an apartment may be
totally reconfigured without affecting any of the other occupants of the apartment building.
The system offers several architectural choices such as balconies, window systems, glazing and facade
options such as brickwork or render. Many of the facade options described in WP1 are available should
the developer wish to choose them. These choices allow the system to offer architecturally diverse
buildings from a predominantly manufactured building system.
The Nordicon system is supported by a well developed ICT system based on the Finnish modelling
package Tekla Structures. This is described in detail in section 3. The system gives easy access for user
customisation and enables efficient transfer of information from the design process to the manufactur-
ing process. Extensive information is also available for the designer to be able to use the system, an
example of a Nordicon design chart is shown in Figure 11.
36
Figure 11 : Nordicon exterior wall element dimensioning curve
The key to the success of the Nordicon system is its high level of pre-fabrication combined with the use
of industrial processes applied to building construction. This is achieved by particular attention to detail
to work out how everything fits together, calculation of appropriate tolerances both manufacturing and
on site and of course designing an efficient manufacturing approach. An example of the many interfaces
is shown in Figure 12 which shows the interface at the intersection of a pre-cast hollow core unit and
the Nordicon exterior wall element.
Figure 12 : Fitting a narrowed non-bearing Nordicon element on a hollow-core surface
37
The Nordicon system would be generally classified as predominantly planar or 2D and this is where it is
shown on the Venn diagram shown earlier. However, depending on the structural requirements 1D ele-
ments may be built into the walls to provide greater capacity thus it may also fit into the 1D/2D space.
The Nordicon system is a manufacturer specific solution to the problem of applying industrialised proc-
esses to building construction and this limits its openness in strict terms. However, since the compo-
nents used (other than the Nordicon wall element) are essentially off the shelf, they may be replaced
with any available suitable component as long as they meet the performance requirements and interface
requirements of the elements. Moreover the concept is open to be copied by another manufacturer who
is willing to put the time and effort into developing the necessary design, manufacturing and construc-
tion details required of the system. Table 15 shows how well the Nordicon fits with the open building
protocol from WP1
Table 15 : Nordicon – fit with essential requirements of open building systems protocol
Flexibility in use of pri- This is one of the design features of the system. The building is designed
vate space (inc. moveable such that the interior space is very flexible.
partitions)
Flexibility in architectural Many architectural solutions are available including façade, window de-
solutions (inc. facades) signs and balcony options.
Flexibility of servicing If the double layer floor system is used a high degree of flexibility in ser-
(and maintenance of servicing is achieved which is very easy to modify and maintain.
vices)
Familiar technology (de- The Nordicon wall is proprietary and unfamiliar; the double layer floors
sign information and are new and unfamiliar. Many of the other components are existing avail-
common interfaces) able technologies
Inter-changeability and Clearly the Nordicon wall is the main feature of the system and is not in-
compatibility of compo- terchangeable. Other elements of the system are.
nents
Wide geographical appli- Although the system is Finnish in origin and design there is no reason why
cations (Regula- the system cannot be adapted to the needs of other countries.
tions/climate)
Ability to extend/modify It would be difficult to modify any of the major components. The internal
the building in the future spaces could be modified easily as described above.
Customisation (input by This is again one of the features of the system which is achieved by user
user in design/design involvement in the design process from the outset supported by sophisti-
flexibility) cated ICT systems.
Corus Open Building System

The Corus Open Building System is a kit of parts using linear, planar and modular components, that is
designed to fit together. It is this kit and its design that make the system powerful because of its flexible
and adaptable nature. Some or all of the parts can be used together making it suitable for many applica-
tions. It is also extendable, thereby giving it longevity and openness for modern construction. The kit
contains several conceptual elements required in buildings but each element is designed to fit seam-
lessly with the rest of the components and assemblies. The kit is described in detail below but it is im-
portant to realise that many of the components are interchangeable; therefore the description is fluid and
will evolve as more compatible parts are added for various uses. Once the basics of the system are de-
scribed the many interfaces and connections are described in detail. These are of course specific to the
parts chosen and the application. Extensions of the system would need to address these same interfaces
to be included into the system.
38
The kit of parts is shown in Table 16 and has options for floors, walls, facades, foundations, skeletal
frame, modules, roof and a structural core. In addition architectural variation may be achieved by utilis-
ing architectural additions together with variation in layouts as described later.
The main work addressed in INPREST has been the development of the second generation light steel
composite floor system; Quantum and the development of an open sided corner supported module and
applying this and the other parts from the kit to the multi- storey residential sector. The concept is cur-
rently undergoing detailed design where many of the parts of the system are being designed to meet the
regulatory standards in force. The floor and module of the system are described below.
Table 16 : The Corus Open Building System kit of parts

Building Element Option
Floor • Light steel/concrete composite
• Light steel/timber composite
Ceilings • Integrated
• Light steel independent
• Suspended
Skeletal Frame • SHS Columns with integrated beams
• SHS Columns with down-stand beams
Modules • Lightweight
• Integrated
• Structural
Core • Corefast
Roof • Light steel modular
Foundations • Traditional
• Small Bore CHS
• Screwfast piles
Facades Light steel infill walls (site assembled with external cladding)
• Metallic cladding e.g cassette
• Insulated render
• Brick slips or clay tiles
Large pre-fabricated light steel wall panel systems
• Light steel walls and light weight facia material
• Pre-fabricated brickwork panels
• Pre-cast concrete panels
Brickwork and block-work (site constructed)
• Supported at floors
• Ground supported
Infill walls • Light steel boarded
• Composite panels
Interior walls • Light steel boarded
Balconies • Cantilever
• Propped cantilever
• Independent
The details of Quantum floor are illustrated in Figure 13. It comprises light steel C sections embedded
in a thin concrete slab and is typically 300 mm deep for a 7.2 m clear span. Support is provided by a
steel angle fabricated as part of the floor, and the on site attachment is made by bolts to the flange at the
supporting beams.
39
0
720
C-62 x 2.0
445 750
555
150 x 150 L C-220 x 2.0
(a) Isometric view of floor
150 x 150 L
40 Mesh reinforcement Concrete 40
70
220
C-220 x 2.0
Figure 13 : Details of the Quantum floor System from the Corus Open Building System
The main module type used in the system is of the corner-supported type (Figure 14). This gives the
advantage that all of the sides of the module can be open including the floor and ceiling if necessary,
providing a volumetric space that is very flexible in its use. The major components of the Corus module
design are the frame, four infill wall panels, a floor panel and a ceiling panel.
Figure 14 : Corus Open Building System corner supported module
40
Structural design aids have been developed to allow designers to quickly select floor options and beam
and column sizes to fit within the current system framework. Examples of these aids are shown in
Figure 15 and Figure 16.
Figure 15 : Corus Open Building System initial beam sizing chart example
Figure 16 : Corus Open Building System floor sizing tables

Testing has also been carried out on several of the components to ensure they meet the assumptions
used in the design of the system and various aspects have been modelled to prove their performance in
areas such as thermal performance and acoustic performance. A full scale prototype of part of the sys-
tem was erected to assess the tolerances required to manufacture the system components and assemble
these on site. Some details are described in WP 5.2.
41
The system may be applied to any building layout but to illustrate its use it has been applied to two
common layouts in current use in the multi-storey residential sector; the shallow plan form and the deep
plan form. The shallow plan form shown in Figure 17 uses a cluster of apartments around a stair or lift
core. This functional unit usually comprises 4 - 8 apartments per floor, each block being repeated on a
site. The deep plan form, where apartments are arranged along a central corridor is typical of the hotel
and student accommodation sector but not exclusively so. The deep plan form is shown in Figure 18.
7200 4800 7200
3900
Span of Quantum
3500
floor
300 PFC 280 ASB 136

7000
15900
300 PFC
3500
Module 1 Module 2 Module 3
Module 4 Module 5
5000
280 ASB 100
6000 7200 6000
2 Bed 4 Person Flat 1 Bed 2 Person Flat 2 Bed 4 Person Flat
Figure 17 : Residential building with apartments around a stair/lift core – shallow plan form
7500 5400 7500
280 ASB 136

Span of Quantum
floor
4800
300 PFC
1 Bed Flat 1 Bed Flat
2100
Module 1 Module 2
280 ASB 100

16500
2500
300 PFC
2100
Module 3 Module 6
Module 4 Module 5
280 ASB 136 280 ASB 100

5000

Span of Quantum
floor
6500 7400 6500
Figure 18 : Residential building with apartments either side of a central corridor – deep plan form
42
Moreover the system components may be combined to fit into any of the categories within the generic
open building framework established earlier. For example a 1D/2D system may be created by utilising
the planar elements of the system together with a conventional structural frame. A 1D/2D/3D variant
may be created by combining the open sided module with the planar floor and wall elements and a
skeletal framework. A 2D/3D variant may be produced by combining the open sided module with the
planar elements. An example of the 1D/2D/3D variation is shown in Figure 19.
Figure 19 : Layout for 1D/2D/3D variation of the Corus Open Building System
One of the most important aspects of the design of such a system is the effort applied to the detailing of
the system components and the interfaces between those components. The main interfaces between the
primary components have been identified and detailed - one of these is shown in Figure 20. The full list
of interfaces is shown in Table 17.
Figure 20 : Interface at the module to module to panelised area in the Corus Open Building System
43
Table 17 : List of interfaces identified for the Corus Open Building System
Floor to core Floor to beam
Beam to column Floor to cladding
Floor to module Floor to separating wall
Service integration Cladding to frame
Balconies Walkways
Fire details Acoustic details
Roof to building Frame to foundations
Core to foundations Wall panel to frame
Floor to floor Wall to support beams in main frame
Wall Panel to External Façade Frame to Foundation
Floor panel to module Module to foundation
Floor to floor at module/room interface Party Wall to Party Wall
Module to module Roof to module
Roof to Building Service holes
Roof to Façade
Module to ceiling
The system components are currently limited to those identified in Table 16 above but this does not
preclude future additions. Any replacement component will need to meet the performance requirements
and interface requirements appropriate to that element to be included in the system. In this way the sys-
tem is very open even though the concept is manufacturer specific. Table 18 shows the fit of the Corus
Open Building System with the open building system protocol.
44
Table 18 : Corus Open Building System – fit with essential requirements of open building systems pro-
tocol
Flexibility in use of pri- The interior space can be easily modified especially in the planar i.e. non
vate space (inc. moveable module based areas.
partitions)
Whilst the system is essentially modular in its approach flexibility in archi-
Flexibility in architectural
tecture is achieved by allowing many different layouts and combinations
solutions (inc. facades)
of parts to be used.
Flexibility of servicing The servicing strategy for the building is based around central cores for the
(and maintenance of ser- main distribution runs and specific service paths within the apartment. This
vices) allows for very simple design and maintenance of the apartment services.
Familiar technology (de- The technologies used are generally familiar although some of the compo-
sign information and nents are new and unfamiliar.
common interfaces)
Inter-changeability and This is one of the specific design features of the system. All walls compo-
compatibility of components and floor components are fully interchangeable and there are many
nents options for facades and foundations.
The concept does not have any specific geographical base although some
Wide geographical appli-
of the current components are specific to the UK. The methodology could
cations (Regula-
be easily extended to a wider geographical base with the addition of design
tions/climate)
to other standards and regulations.
The system is designed with future modification in mind both at the inte-
rior space level as described above and at the building level where inter-
Ability to extend/modify
faces have been defined for current and future building needs. A selection
the building in the future
of user extensions has been defined to be included in the system such as
new interior wall panels and modular extensions.
Customisation (input by As with the Nordicon system the Corus Open Building System is sup-
user in design/design ported by a sophisticated ICT system that allows user customisation of the
flexibility) building or apartment at any stage in the design process.
The Corus Open Building System, like Nordicon is supported by a sophisticated ICT system: Model
Manager, which is a parametric, hierarchical building information manager developed by Corus. The
module and interface diagram above were output from the ICT system which is also illustrated in WP 3.
RWTH Aachen Building System
The RWTH Aachen modular research building is an example of a modular approach to building in the
wider sense. It falls into the 1D/2D space of the Venn diagram shown earlier. Primarily the purpose of
the building is as a test facility aimed at improving the performance of pre-fabricated building compo-
nents used in modular type buildings. The building is cubic in shape and the frame is shown in Figure
21. The concept allows for a very flexible approach to building in that all of the panels to the frame are
infill. This means that the floors, walls and roof can be replaced by other items and there can be a mix
of component types in the building. This is clearly important for a test facility but it also illustrates how
this approach may be used in a real life system.
45
South
Figure 21 : RWTH Aachen research facility – schematic of steel frame
One of the first test components for the facility has been the I-Core floor system. This is an all steel
floor panel which is composed of top and bottom plates connected together with intermediate webs.
Figure 22 shows the finished I-Core panel.
Figure 22 : Finished I-core panel
Table 19 shows how a system based on the RWTH Aachen test facility would fit with the essential re-
quirements of the open building protocol.
46
Table 19 : RWTH Aachen research facility – fit with essential requirements of open building systems
protocol
Flexibility in use of pri- Since all of the interior panels are infill panels the interior space would be
vate space (inc. moveable easily modified. However, with the current design this would be encum-
partitions) bered with columns from the structure.
Flexibility in architectural The building is designed with the flexibility to attach any façade system
solutions (inc. facades) although the structural form is fixed.
Flexibility of servicing Services can be easily modified and maintained as they are separate from
(and maintenance of ser- the structure and other elements of the building.
vices)
Familiar technology (de- The structural frame is common technology with standard interfaces. The
sign information and other components may be new and unfamiliar or existing and available and
common interfaces) therefore familiar.
Inter-changeability and The frame is fixed but the infill panels are interchangeable
compatibility of compo-
nents
Wide geographical appli- The system could be used anywhere in the world subject to regulatory
cations (Regula- controls.
tions/climate)
The system results in a predominantly on-site solution. Therefore it would
Ability to extend/modify
be difficult to modify any of the framing components. The internal spaces
the building in the future
could be modified as described above.
Customisation (input by There is no facility to allow for user input into the design process at the
user in design/design moment.
flexibility)
Stairs and Lifts
Specific regard is required for modules with stairs and lifts; independent from the chosen system (see
before).
Modular stairs are more difficult to design and install than fully enclosed modules and often have some
additional strengthening members. The features of modular stairs that should be addressed in their de-
sign are as follows:
• The stair module has a partially open top and base, which means that the top of the module is not
restrained, and the module is torsionally more flexible.
• The external width of the module is typically 2.4 to 2.8 m and its length is 4.2 to 5 m, depending on
the floor-floor heigth and landing size (see Figure 23).
• The top of the module provides a ”false” landing and the base of the module above provides the
actual landing. The ”false” landing supports the stairs from below (see Figure 23).
• The loading on the stairs and landings are higher than in other residential applications and the load-
ing on the wall studs and floor joists is concentrated.
47
2.4 ext.
0.1
Half landing
1.1 0.2
1.0 1.0
1.7 4.2 ext.
Up
1.2
0.1 0.3 0.9 1.2
Figure 23 : Modular stairs, dimensions of module (left), use of “false landing” of intermediate mod-
ule(right)
Lifts have become essential for all residential buildings more than 3 storeys high and should include for
disabled access. Modular lifts may be designed as separate units including guide rails and doors, and
may also be include in a larger module which comprises a lift lobby. Features of such lift modules are:
• The external size of such a module is minimum 3.2 m x 3.4 m (lift-lobby module, medium rise resi-
dential building, see Figure 24).
• Depending on the type of lift, a further lift base module (1.4 m depth) and a capping module incor-
porating the lift motor, are required (Exception: hydraulic lifts do not require capping module).
• Guide-rails are pre-installed in the storey-high module (Figure 26).
3.2 ext.
0.1 0.1
Entrance H frames
Front wall and floor construction
2.0 1.9
Lift 0.2
3.4 ext.
1.6
Ancillary
1.2 equipment
Lift guide bracket Lift door frame

and cill
Guide backing
Cill adapter plates
Lift guide rail
0.1 0.3 0.9 2.0
Figure 24 : Lift module, dimensions of module (left), structure of light lift module (right)
Building services
The approach of “Open buildings” demands specific solutions for building services. This aspect has
been worked out in the mid-term report.
48
WP2.2: Investigate whole building design
Various proposals for whole building design using the modular systems as shown above have been pre-
sented in the mid term report. Due to the limited space the following pictures show a “short story” of
the development of OBS architecture starting by 1D- and 2D-elements towards drafts of various whole
buildings (Figure 25 to Figure 27).
Step 1 Step 5
Assembling of Mounting of facade
modules on one insulation / clad-
level (basic and ding
stiff module)
Step 2 Step 6
Stacking of mod- Windows
ules
Step 3 Step 7
Further assembling Floor
of modules
Step 4 Step 8
Adding of facade Finishing of facade
panels
Figure 25 : Assembling of Components
49
Figure 26 : Measurement system
Figure 27 : Variation of size and floor plan
50
WP 3: Investigation of opportunities for Customisation
WP 3.1: Information Technology
3.1.1 Existing protocols for data exchange
In this chapter typical different existing solutions and needs for data exchange in design have been de-
scribed. All considered and introduced ways are used widely and it was noticed that the actual data
exchange format is highly dependent on the used design solution or design environment. Generally can
be stated that more sophisticated data exchange needs also more complete data exchange formats. This
means that if all aspects of open building systems (structure, services, components, manufacture etc.)
have to be taken into account in exchange data, only techniques based modelling can be utilised. In the
first sub-chapter will be described general data exchange practices regardless from the data content
itself. The second sub-chapter is giving more profound view to formats and their implementation from
the viewpoint of the model data e.g. object orientated data.
General data exchange practices
In this review following basic classification of existing data exchange practices (see Figure 28) between
different software applications were identified:
• application specific data exchange
• between applications
• all-in-one applications
• standardised (open) data exchange
• industry standards
• international standards
Figure 28 : General data exchange classification
Application specific means that no generally approved protocol or standardised format is used for ex-
changing data between applications. Data exchange needs are either solved case by case or also in very
sophisticated way by using internal build in logic and database supported solutions.
o Direct link between applications has been used for several decades. It is always based on case
by case programmed import functions in receiving application and export functions in sending
application. Typically this type data exchange is in most cases one-way only and it is based on
51
ASCII format file transfer. This practice is very suitable for solving special and/or limited data
exchange cases.
o All-in-one applications have been available and used for long. They are based on high level of
integration of all (or most) needed design features in the same application environment. Typi-
cally different applications are able to use e.g. the same database(s). In this type applications
design (code checking) option or bi-directional link to external design software suitable for di-
versified design companies is often included. External data exchange is done via industry stan-
dards and/or international standards. As representatives of typical application ArchiCad, All-
plan, Revit, Triforma, Tekla Structures can be mentioned.
Standardized data exchange solutions are the other main type which can be based on either so called
industry standards or on internationally accepted data exchange standards.
o Industry standardised (open) data exchange has been used for long. They are based on com-
monly used application specific but commonly accepted file formats. These kinds of formats
are suitable for low level data exchange and typically only graphical information (geometric)
information is exchanged. Typical use is for checking compatibility of different 2D drawings or
e.g. combining different 3D models for e.g. clash checking purposes. Examples of these for-
mats are DXF, DWG, DGN/OpenDGN, SDNF, DSTV etc.
o Last recognised but may be most remarkable data exchange protocols from OBS point of view
are standardised (open) data exchange formats based on international standards. They are
based on common international exchange data format definitions and they are very suitable also
for high level data exchange. Most commonly they are used to combine different 3D product
models i.e. so called BIMs (= Building Information Models). Approach differs totally from ge-
ometry oriented (points, lines, surfaces) data and it is based on object data, where every object
can have attributes, and visual graphical information is just one way to view the model. Most
widely used format are CIS/2, IFC and at the moment IFC format developed very actively and
supported and most widely implemented.
Exchange protocols from the viewpoint of model data
Most sophisticated data exchange level is based on exchanging building model data. Main reason for
quite recent (within less than 10 years) utilisation of model based design in accordance with standard-
ised data exchange formats seems to be the underdevelopment of both hardware and software. There
have not been available software products for Building Information Modelling (BIM’s) and also the
processing capacity of existing PC workstations has been insufficient until last decade. Building proc-
esses based on modelling techniques and effective IT is also young. Below figure illustrates the wide
usage of building information models. ProIT was Finnish national technology program for guidance and
definitions where developed for model based construction.
52
Figure 29 : Model data in building process (ProIT ©)
During the review numerous advantages of using data exchange between BIM’s compared to using
drawing files or only geometric data were found. At least following general advantages were recog-
nised:
• possibility to get exact and reliable quantity estimation already in early stage
• possibility to make exact and reliable cost estimations in early stage
• customer can get reliable visualisation of what will be the result
• customer can get reliable information and analysis of performance and life cycle cost of the
building
• compatibility of design between different design domains (architectural, structural, HVAC, etc.)
can be improved greatly and the amounts mistakes reduced dramatically
• speed up design and construction productivity
Industry standardised data exchange format can be used for exchange model data (export and import)
between different software packages. Two examples of quite commonly industry standards are PDMS
format used widely in plant design applications and SDNF format used for transferring steel design data
between different designers. Figure 3.3 illustrates the basic idea of these isolated exchange formats.
Software 3
Export format 2
Software 1 Export format 1 Software 2
Import format
Figure 30 : Data exchange based on independent solutions
53
Even though this method has benefits compared to exchanging only drawing files (2D data) due to great
amount of different software products it cannot be the solution for common data exchange demand or
interoperability.
Second protocol for data exchange between building (information) models is based on common interna-
tional standards. From the few existing ones IFC (Industrial Foundation Classes) format developed by
IAI (International Alliance of Interoperability) seems to be the most widely accepted to be the basis of
model data exchange implementations. Figure 31 illustrates what the basic idea of model data exchange
using standardised formats means.
Software 3
IFC model
Software 1 Software 2
IFC model
Figure 31 : Data exchange based international (IFC) standard
Third possible and most sophisticated way to utilise model data is the usage of model servers. By using
model server techniques the model itself exists in model server and different software products used by
different designers communicate only via model server interface (set of commands). Example of exist-
ing model server technique definition is introduced in the results SABLE project (Simple Access to
Building Lifecycle Exchange, [3-1]). Figure 32 illustrates the basic idea of model server utilisation in
data exchange.
Software 3
Software 1 Model server Software 2
Figure 32 : Data exchange using model server technique
Although using model servers is probably the future solution for model based design and building main
focus has been in research of data exchange between collaborating designers to utilisation of IFC defini-
tions. Current IFC version seems to be comprehensive enough to describe practically all needed data
exchange cases. Only in case of exporting data from the models to NC machines in workshop special
output format (typically DSTV or DXF) is needed. Also in this case data can be exported directly from
building modelling data.
54
Detailed case example of data exchange from UK
In the following section more detailed case example of how data transfer from design and detailing to
manufacture in light steel and modular construction typically used in UK is presented.
In UK the light steel framing and modular supply chain is normally part of a building process in which
the architect is the originator of the design and the contractor is responsible for management and on-site
building. The light steel or modular supplier is a specialist sub-contractor in this case, who may be
‘nominated’ by the architect but employed by the contractor. Data transfer from the architect’s design
into the light steel or modular manufacturing process and then to site installation, is a complex process
with manual inputs at various stages. Figure 33 illustrates the complexity of data exchange demands,
typically used application and work / data flows. The typical steps in the process are as follows:
1. Architectural drawings are produced by AutoCad or its derivatives and are delivered in .dxf or
.dwg form to the light steel manufacturer. These drawings give overall dimensions and materi-
als, and the key dimensions are transferred into the detailing package of the light steel manufac-
turer. For modular construction, a further earlier stage is required, where the overall building
concept must be conceived in regular modular form.
2. The detailing package of the supplier places the wall studs and floor joists at regular spacing
according to in-built detailing rules within the software, which allows for windows, openings
and other changes in geometry. Manual intervention is required to re-position members, to add
strengthening members, e.g. double studs or hot rolled steel posts and other components.
3. A 2D and possibly 3D assembly of the structure is created using the light steel manufacturer’s
detailing package which can be over-layed with the architect’s drawings to check the geometry
and interfaces with non-structural elements of the building.
4. The structural design is carried out manually in parallel with steps 1 to 3, and the design is then
modified by the manufacturer to reflect the requirements of the structural design, which will in-
clude stiffening members, bracing, etc.
5. The final design concept is reviewed by the architect and the design team and some up-
dates/connections are made, particularly of the interface components.
6. Having agreed the 2D or 3D model, the data is transferred to the manufacturing process. Some
manual input is required to divide the model into suitable sizes and components for manufactur-
ing. A schedule of the components is produced, including secondary attachments and this is
linked to a bill of quantities and to ordering of the steel and other components, such as the fab-
ricated steel elements.
7. The frames and components are manufactured in the correct order for delivery to site. All parts
are numbered and a list is attached to the ‘bundle’ of panels and components delivered to site.
8. For modular construction, the same process applies, except that the manufacturing and module
assembly is fully completed in the factory. Modules are delivered ‘just in time’ to site, with
their connection plates and bolts. The modules are protected by weather-resisting shrouds be-
fore they leave the factory. Module-module connections are made on-site by bolts and plates.
9. For light steel framing, the 2D panels are assembled using the delivery schedule and drawings
listing the various components. Attachments and boards and services are fixed on-site. Geo-
metric control depends on the accuracy of foundations and ‘line and levelling’ on-site.
55
Figure 33 : Steps in light steel design and detailing process in UK
Design and detailing packages used in data exchange
The main software packages used in design, detailing and manufacture used by the light steel framing
and modular industries in the UK is presented in Table 20. In all cases, some manual input of data is
required and the structure design is independent of the detailing process.
56
Table 20 : Status of electronic data transfer in manufacture of light steel framing and modular units
Company Products Design & Detailing Manufacture
Metsec Metframe building system Strucad with modification to Data transfer from Strucad
SFS infill walls using light include Metsec products for cutting and hole punch-
steel components ing of the components
Fusion Light steel framing with Autocad drawings of Manual input to create
bonded insulation. Modules frames and modules panel drawings and data
with concrete base transfer for manufacture
Kingspan Light steel components – Automatic cutting and hole
manufactured by others punching to schedule
into frames
Metek Light steel framing using X-steel for detailing of 2D Data transfer to Framecad
‘Framemaster’ roll-forming and 3D modules using for cutting and hole punch-
machines Metek C sections ing
Advance Housing (Bar- Light steel panels and Autocad drawings link to Data transfer from HSB
ratt/Terrapin) modular kitchens and bath- HSB software to produce software to Bautech ma-
rooms 3D model chinery for manufacture
Framing Solutions Light steel framing Vertex works for design Some data transfer to
(Corus/Redrow) and detailing of manufacturing
2D-structures
Banro Light steel framing and
components
Ayrshire Framing Light steel components and
Ayrframe modules
Living Solutions (Corus) Modular units Autocad to Inventor, a 3D Manual drawing and detail-
graphics/detailing package ing of panels for data trans-
fer to manufacture by
Weinman machinery
Unite Total Solutions Modular units HSB software for detailing Data transfer for HSB soft-
of modules ware to Bautech machinery
for manufacture of modules
Terrapin Modular units
Yorkon Modular units – open sided
units
Caledonian Modular units – open-sided
units
3.1.2 Investigate customisation (or user input) in the design process through I.T.
By utilising modern I.T. tools customisation and user input can be taken into account in many different
ways. Because of very wide scope of objective only a few applications could be examined and estab-
lished during this project. Possibilities were anyway recognised to be huge and utilisation of I.T. tools is
having a lot future potential. Two different possible and promising approaches were investigated during
this project and are presented here.
The first application was done by utilising general Geometric Description Language (GDL) basically
developed by company named Graphisoft. Because the major aim was to increase user input selection
of piloting building type was not so important and it was done by using standardised steel hall concept
but approach is totally universal and can be adopted generally for any other type constructions (multi-
storey). Application uses ArchiCad’s GDL parametric objects, that can be edited and building can be
extended in fixed modules. Buildings consist of office blocks and hall blocks and customer can choose
the colours and surface materials and get quick and direct quantity and cost information of used compo-
nents. Building consists of steel frame structure with rectangular hollow section columns and trusses.
57
Exterior walls are made of sandwich panels. All changes and selections can be viewed in 3D. It is also
possible to get all main drawings directly. Figure 34 and Figure 35 are illustrating the graphical user
interface and visualisation possibilities of used developed software tool.
Figure 34 : GDL object user interface
Figure 35 : GDL object 3D ‘bird eye’ view
In another application standard building offering and design process by software integration was exam-
ined. Basic idea in here was to provide sales persons with tool (client application) that can be run in
their laptop computers when they are in direct customer contact situation. Developed I.T. concept de-
scribes a general approach how different application are able to exchange data and how strategically
most important application can be managed safely even communication is done by using internet. Used
piloting environment is totally irrelevant and only the systematic I.T. approach is what matters.
In this application the target was to develop as quickly as possible software tool for certain type of stan-
dard building composed using standard prefabricated components. Demands were both to decrease offer
making time dramatically and enable direct visualization and customisation and customer input. High
58
security demand was covered by placing all strategic applications in one server behind the firewall.
Also software integration and data exchange was studied by both developing XML based data exchange
file format using existing COM interfaces of used software components. In Figure 36 is a schematic
presentation of developed environment and used software components.
Figure 36 : Software integration environment used in pilot
Basic conclusion and finding in here was the need having special parser application (called here the
Designer) which can act as some kind of crossing point for different application and make all needed
conversions for each. The other is that in this kind of special purpose (company specific) software in-
teroperability environment specification for structured exchange file format seems to be useful if no
common standardised exchange file format is available. Possible formats could be either ASCII text
format or XML text format which was piloted in this project. Figure 36 shows the possibility for hierar-
chic approach to building data content by using XML format.
59
Figure 37 : Used XML description file content in XML file editor
Systems and approach proved to be very successful in practice. To describe the achievable benefits and
the potential of utilising IT tools with standardised structures and as final results here is the list of most
important goals which has been achieved so far. Execution time for average size of building is at the
moment about 5-10 min (depending highly the used PC and size of the model) which can be compared
to starting point which was 12 man-hours. Despite of that still full analysis, code checking and general
optimisation of the structure is made.
3.1.3 Standard component and connection design by using modelling tools
Another example to improve standard solutions in connections and more generally in designing compo-
nents by using IT tools is to improve efficiency of design by develop basic connections and modelling
components. In this application Tekla Structures modelling program was used.
First example is called NorTS where light weight Nordicon thermo purlin wall elements are designed
with Tekla Structure Custom Component application. As a final result a complete product model of
Nordicon wall element including drawing and bills of material can be generated. Figure 38 shows the
basic user interface Nordicon custom component application.
60
Figure 38 : Final Nordicon light weight wall element product model
Second example is a simple connection which is standardised and modelled very detailed including
every bevel needed for welding. It’s a basic structural hollow section spliced connection including eve-
rything. It is again a Tekla Structure Custom Component application. Figure 39 shows the basic user
interface hollow section splice connection custom component.
Figure 39 : Structural hollow section spliced connection
61
Table 21 summarizes the generally published design ‘tools’ that exist for the structural and building
physics design of components of open building systems. Besides these there exist a great amount of
local (national) application for different components and different national codes.
Table 21 : Design ‘tools’ for Open Building Systems

Aspect of Design Type of Design ‘Tool’ Example of Design ‘Tool’
Structural Design - steel Software for steel and composite beams Cobec from Arcelor
frame and columns to Eurocodes 3 and 4 BDES from Corus/SCI
Cellbeam from Westok
ComBeam and ComCol from
Ruukki
Design Tables to EC 3 and 4 SCI publications for beams and columns to
EC3 and 4
Arcelor ACB design tables
Composite column capacity tables
from FCSA
Structural Design – Software for light steel walls PurCalc from Ruukki
light steel walls
Design Tables to EC 3-1-3 See following tables for load capabilities of
C sections
Design tables from Ruukki
Structural Design - Software for composite slabs Comdek from Corus
composite slabs ComSlab from Ruukki
Design Tables to EC 4 Available from deck suppliers
Structural Design- Design Tables to EC 3-1-3 Available from light steel suppliers
light steel floors
Acoustic Performance Standard details for floors and walls, See typical details given in WP5
based on site tests
Thermal Performance Standard details for external walls and See typical details for U-values <
2
roofs 0.25 W/m °C
3D thermal analysis ‘tools’ for U-value and Commercial FEM- software for thermal
cold bridging calculations analyses
Thermal analysis of whole building (En- Commercial building simulation tools (e.g.
ergy, indoor climate) TRNSYS, TAS)
Fire Resistance Standard floor and wall configurations Standard details, for example,. from plas-
based on R30 and R60 fire tests terboard suppliers
Fire resistance analysis ‘tools’ for mixed Specialist software ‘tools’ such as Ozone,
structural systems to EC 4-1-2 FDS
Design Tables Slimdek from Corus
Sustainability Assess- Methodologies based on ‘point scoring’ for Ecohomes in the UK

ments various sustainability and energy saving HQE and Bilan carbone in France
measures
62
3.1.4 Transfer of information from design to manufacture
It has been a common practice for years to exchange design information of steel frame structures (the
skeleton of building) directly to manufacturing process. Anyway transferring design information of
light weight structures is less widely used. During this project it was tested successfully how detailed
product model data of Nordicon light weight wall element studs data can be exported from building
model, processed and used then to control thermo purlin machining tool.
Figure 40 : BIM to production (CAM) data flow
As final result and going through automation line it is now possible to get ready cut purlins, pre shaped
connections, machining and holes, holes for electricity, holes for assembling parts, holes for fixings and
types printed to purlins, all ready for final element assembly work. Figure 40 illustrates the BIM to pro-
duction data flow.
3.1.5 I.T. requirements for the procurement process
Due the selected approach based on structural product modelling rather than more traditional design
tool concepts, all requirements for the objects used in above application including e.g. dimensional,
constructional, schedule etc. demands can be added to directly structural objects. This information can
be also read directly from the attribute data of the object and utilised in material alternative selection,
quantity estimations, material ordering, production planning and management. More specific require-
ments are not possible to be described in here because they are so totally dependant of the case and the
process. In this project it was anyway recognised that tools used in piloting are having available the
possibility to store all relevant requirements directly in building components and is it more question
utilising and of taking these features to action.
WP 3.2: Opportunities for Customisation
3.2.1 Opportunities for customisation within a standardised product range and inter-face
details
In this project term ‘customisation’ relates to the ability of the user or client of a building to influence
directly the choice of components and the basic layout and dimensions of the building during the design
process. Generally, this choice is exercised by the architect acting for the client. It was concluded that
63
the architect would normally have some knowledge of the chosen manufacturing technology, but the
precise details of the components would not be fixed until the manufacturer / supplier had been engaged
under a formal contract. This would occur generally after planning approval for the project and after the
main contractor had been appointed.
Therefore in a more traditional contract, when the manufacturer / supplier is chosen, some elements of
re-design would be required in order that the building design is aligned closely with the particular com-
ponents and manufacturing technology of the supplier. This is the case particularly for modular units.
Based on these facts one of the basic conclusion here is that the opportunity for customisation is limited
if the manufacturer / supplier is not involved early in the decision making process.
It follows that user choice potentially increases if the manufacturer is involved early in the design proc-
ess, and conversely, the later the manufacturer is involved in the design process, the lower the possibil-
ity of user input. This is true of an industry in which the components are unique to a particular manufac-
turer. In an industry where components are highly standardised in terms of dimensions and interfaces,
there are more opportunities for user choice. This is the case for fabricated steelwork where standard
sections and connections are used, but much less so in the light steel framing and modular industries. In
Table 22 is an example from steel beam selection of PRISM system.
Table 22 : 6 level building, urban collective housing, 3PM system (Main beams)
Basic table for beams = Build-up beams, pinned supports, deflection
design, buckling check,
active loads =150 daN/m²
Span
Width (m) Beam section : see below
(m)
A B C D E
6 6
5
4
3
5 6
5
4
3
4 6
5
4
3
3 6
5
4
3
64
Build-up sections :
Basic dimensions: Upper flange > 120 mm, Lower flange 300 mm, Web height: 215 mm. These data
are deduced from technological consideration from the slab (sound insulation, thermal, etc.).
Table 23 : Specific data main beams
(e1: minimum thickness where local plate buckling is taken into account, according to CM66 [3-2])
e web e lower flange e upper flange

[mm] [mm] [mm]
A e1 e1 16
B e1 10 25
C e1 12 30
D 10 16 40
E 10 16 50
In this project the named main steel construction components or building elements for a multi-storey
residential building are a load-bearing steel frame, walls and partitions, cladding and roofing, windows,
doors and services, and possibly also modular units. The inter-relationship between the design decisions
and the choice of these components for a multi-storey building is illustrated in Figure 41, which indi-
cates also the primary and secondary building components. In this case, the primary structure is fabri-
cated steelwork and the walls are in light steel framing.
65
Figure 41 : Primary and secondary components and the interrelations of design decisions
It was also recognised that in this context some parameters need to be set as ‘fixed’ as others may be set
as ‘variables’. The ‘variable’ and ‘fixed’ parameters in the structural system, and the opportunities for
customisation, are presented in Figure 42. Some of the ‘fixed’ parameters are dependent on the particu-
lar manufacturing technology and others are related more to the practicability of transport and installa-
tion. Most fitments that are installed on site can be chosen by the client, but those that are included as
the pre-manufactured components are essentially ‘fixed’ and not subject to significant user choice.
66
Opportunities for
Design Parameters ‘Fixed’ parameters
customisation
Optimising of structural
Structural design Structural components
design
Standardisation of Choice of room sizes

Building geometry dimensions within manufacturing
e.g. 150 mm steps limits
Manufacturing process Choice of internal

Services & fitments
and components fitments
M & E services and Choice of bathroom

sanitary units fitments
Robust standard details

for acoustic, thermal & Location of service
Interfaces and details
fire performance outlets
Location and size of

windows and doors
Cladding and roofing Form of wall and roof

External appearance
components profile
Figure 42 : ‘Fixed’ and ‘variable’ factors in opportunities for customisation
3.2.2 Design or construction limitations as influenced by the manufacturing
The overall design process is explained in Table 24 in terms of the overall geometry, façade types and
performance parameters. The opportunities for user choice are defined. The ‘fixed’ parameters are iden-
tified, especially if influenced by transportation or installation. This is the case for the maximum size of
modular units and the dimensions of openings, for example. Some design parameters are dependent on
national regulations, which is the case for loading, acoustic and thermal insulation. The user can specify
stricter design parameters, but this may require a change to the choice and detailing of the components,
which leads to additional costs.
67
Table 24 : Overall design parameters
‘Variable’ Parameters ‘Fixed’ Parameters
• Building geometry
- Primary structure • Wide range of structural options and member sizes
- Planar components • Limited to the capabilities of the light steel framing technology and
to installation – suggested maximum of 3.5 m high × 8 m long
• Manufacture of planar light steel components and their in-
ter-connections
- Modular components • Modules limited by transportation to 4.2 m width × 11 m length
• Standard connections between modules and other interfaces
• Façade types
- Brickwork • Site-intensive technology – limited to 12 m free-standing wall

height, except where supported at each floor by a primary frame
- Insulated render • Site-intensive technology, but insulated render can be ‘modelled’ to

suit the façade
- Clay tiles, etc. • Fixed on site to supporting rails which are attached to panels or
modules
- Boards and fascias • Fixed on site but can be pre-attached to panels or modules
• Openings • Variable sizes of openings but to 3.6 m wide, typically dependent

on the supporting framework
• Performance characteristics
- Loading - Imposed 1.5 to 3 kN/m2

- Wind 0.5 to 1.5 kN/m2
- Services, etc. 0.2 to 0.5 kN/m2
- Fire resistance o R30 to R90 for load-bearing and separating functions. R120 for
the primary structure.
- Thermal performance (envelope) o U 0.15 to 0.35 W/m2BC
- Acoustic insulation (airborne) • DnTw 54 dB (excluding Ctr) or 45 dB (including Ctr) for airborne
sound reduction of walls and floors
Table 25 and Table 26 extend this explanation for external walls (supporting the façade) and for internal
separating walls.
68
Table 25 : Overall design parameters Example of customisation - external walls
• Wall height and width • Spacing of C sections 600 mm

• Limited range of C sections, e.g. 70, 100 and 150 mm depth in 1.0
to 2.4 mm thick
• Wall height 35 × depth of C section
• Plasterboard sizes 12.5 and 15 mm thick × 2.4 m long
• Window sizes • Use multiple C sections next to windows
• Window width 35 × depth of C section depth
• Window height 25 × depth of C section depth
• Type of cladding • Closed-cell insulation boards of 30 to 100 mm thickness placed
externally to wall panel
• Inter-stud mineral wool insulation as a preferred option
• Vertical ‘rail’ to support brick ties. Ties at spacings 375 mm verti-
2
cally and 600 mm horizontally (2.5 per m )
• Insulated render applied to external sheathing board, e.g. cement
particle board
• Cladding may be pre-attached but joints are ‘made good’ onsite
• Interface connections • Standard details for the inter-connection between components to
satisfy the required performance characteristics
• Attachment of wall panels to the supporting structure at not less
than 600 mm spacing
• Allow for relative vertical movement in non load-bearing applica-
tions of beam span/500 but not less than 10 mm
• Provide consistent fire protection to the wall and to the supporting
structure, based on standard details
‘Variable’ parameters are those that may be subject to some degree of ‘customisation’ in the design
process. ‘Fixed’ parameters are constraints on the degree of customisation, mainly due to the manufac-
turing technology.
69
Table 26 : Example of customisation - separating walls
• Wall height and width • Spacing of C sections 600 mm

• Limited range of C sections, e.g. 55, 70, 100 and 150 mm
• Wall height 45 × depth of C section
• Plasterboard sizes 12.5 depth and 15 mm thick × 2.4 m long
• Acoustic performance • Depends on performance data but 55 dB airborne sound reduction
is achieved
• Use double leaf separating walls with inter-stud insulation
• Fire resistance • Depends on performance data but R30 to R90 can be achieved
• Use single layer fire resistant boards for R30
• Use double layer of 12.5 mm fire resistant boards for R60
• Use double layer of 15 mm fire resistant boards for R90
• Interface connections • Attachments of the walls to supporting structure at not less than
600 mm spacing
• Allow for relative vertical movement in non load-bearing applica-
tions of beam span/500 but not less than 10 mm
• Provide fire protection to the supporting structure based on stan-
dard details
3.2.3 Applications for typical building forms
Arabian Kotiranta, Residential Building Helsinki

In "Kotiranta", the structural solution with its load-bearing external walls and interior materials enable
the modification of apartments throughout their life cycle. The residents have participated in the design
of apartments on the internet, already at the building stage.
Vanajanranta 4, Residential Building Hämeenlinna

Building site was built in four construction phases. Steel based components and systems were versatility
used in frame, facade, balconies and roof constructions. First housing unit was delivered in early spring
2001 and the last ones in autumn 2005 according to an agreement between City of Hämeenlinna and
Peab-Seicon.
Asunto-osakeyhtiö Oulun Hellinniitty, Housing Company Oulu

The Housing Company Oulun Hellinniitty is located four kilometres from the centre of Oulu in a town
block that provides a complete service structure and good public transport connections. The apartment
building was the first one in the area, and realised utilising dry construction methods. Three further
apartment buildings as well as a low-rise densely built residential estate are to be built in the future.
70
WP 4: Investigation of Value-benefits and Sustainability Arguments and
Case Examples
The objective of WP 4 is to develop sustainability criteria by which highly prefabricated systems can be
assessed. A first survey of existing schemes, systems and/or tools for assessing sustainability of build-
ing products, construction processes and whole buildings resulted in a rather exhaustive list including
dozens of options that has been worked out.
In Subtask 4.1 criteria for sustainability and value-benefits have to be established, the different national
approaches should be considered. A short introduction regarding “green building” concept was given
and a proposal of a tool for sustainability assessment is introduced. Subtask 4.2 contains the summary
of relevant case studies in different European countries, more detailed presentation in Annex 4. In addi-
tion, there is an application of “Table for Sustainable Assessment”.
WP 4.1: Establish Value and Sustainability Criteria
The present chapter is an attempt to investigate some of the well established schemes and tools in order
to narrow the options and precise Sustainability aspects that are most relevant for INPREST. Another
task of this WP was to prepare a value assessment of open building technologies, which is presented in
section 4.1.4 (worked out by SCI). Various Case Studies have been prepared of open building systems
from the UK.
A substantial element of “sustainability” is the assessment of the environmental impact. A suitable

method to work out the environmental impact offers the “Life Cycle Assessment” (LCA). This method
is explained in annex 4.
The most known advantages of steel construction and highly pre-fabricated systems are speed of con-
struction and lightness, but it exists less information about others value-benefits in terms of increased
productivity, resources control and site infrastructure.
After having pointed out the stakes of sustainability approach, the objective of WP4 is to identify and
quantify broad value-benefits in order to work out a sustainability criteria list by which pre-fabricated
systems can be assessed.
4.1.1 Sustainability and construction: general aspects
The construction sector is one of the most important parts of economical activities in many countries.
For example in European Union, it means about 7% of the work force and a turnover of approximately
€ 1 000 billion.
From the sustainable point of view, the use of the buildings and all construction related activities gener-
ate more than 40% of all CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions, use about 40% of the produced energy and
consume more than 40% of the material resources used in the society. These estimations might differ
slightly between European countries. In Brussels (September 2007) the European Council of European
Union reaffirmed its intention to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over the next 12 years
(until 2020). Just before, during the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) meeting organized in
71
Paris in February 2007, the experts claim that the reduction must be 50% over 50 years in order to avoid
large-scale climate changes.
The usage of energy during the building’s service, called operational energy, is one of the most impor-
tant sustainability issues for the construction sector. Energy primarily affects the environment due to the
mining, production and distribution of energy in its various forms and water for heating and cooling.
The thermal performance and overall energy efficiency have an effect on the economical and environ-
mental performance of the building, and thereby its competitiveness.
Construction needs much material input: as natural resources and as recycled material. Materials pri-
marily affect the environment through the refining processes from raw materials to building compo-
nents, and also by transports. Natural resources are not infinite and recycling leads in most cases to
improved environmental performance. The construction sector generates an enormous amount of waste
and the demands for improved recycling are increasing. Therefore, in many countries the sustainability
focus is on recyclability.
Sustainable construction does not have to mean new big investments or inventing new materials, just to
use “the right materials in the right combinations in the right place”. Sustainability improvements will
often generate economical benefits, e.g. lower costs for heating and maintenance, skill and market ad-
vantages, and also a future world where we can live.
For all those previous arguments, steel, as well as material as a way of building, is seen like a good
solution; but now these advantages have to become reality due to the development of systems integrat-
ing all the products (steel and related) and into the precise analysis of the environmental aspects to lead
to practical solutions.
4.1.2 Investigation on sustainability existing systems
In a first step, the project consists to collect information on each national approach or standard related
to sustainability, across the European community to obtain an overview of existing systems about sus-
tainability.
Our research in particular took support on a preceding European project named CRISP to summarize
following information for each system:
• the country developer,

• the aim and a short description of the system,
• the construction category : urban, building products, new buildings or refurbishment,
• the sustainable development issues : economic, environmental or social,
• the target of users: designers, contractors, producers,…
• the process phase: from planning to demolition.
Those information have be compared with others international sustainability systems, as LEED (USA)
or Green Building Challenge (Canada), see Table 27.
72
Table 27 : Summary of Sustainable system of Assessment for Building
Thus, 451 indicators were identified starting from 31 sustainable systems of 16 different countries or
entities. In order to choose suitable indicators for an application in steel construction, we have proposed
to establish some relevant characteristics for our INPREST indicators by presenting this following defi-
nition:
73
Definition of an indicator
“A parameter or a value derived from parameters, which points to describe the state of a phenomenon,
environment, area with a significance extending beyond that directly associated with a parameter
value.” – OECD Definition.
According to us, an indicator must be relevant and effective. It could be presented as a synthetic vari-
able, giving indications or describing a situation; in another way, it could be expressed in clear and pre-
cise terms, measuring unit through which monitoring can be assessed (we have proposed some charac-
teristics for an indicator):
• Permit to define a sustainability criteria,
• Relevant to every specific project or program,
• Permit to measure an appropriate data concerning the building environment or the construction site,
• Understandable for project team and to be easy for use by actors,
• Measurable by a standard method (quality control).
In addition to present a way of choice for sustainable criteria, a summary of each following sustainabil-
ity assessment methods can be find in annex 4.
• VTT Prop Building – Finland
• CIB Agenda 21 – Netherlands
• BRE ECO Home Criteria – United Kingdom
• Carbon Balance – France
• HQE method - France
4.1.3 INPREST sustainability table for assessment: focus on 10 criteria
Recommendations for INPREST
Even sustainable building methods, materials and technologies are slowly but surely changing the
building industry, the practitioner faces several questions which can be summarized thus: “who will use
environmental criteria related to the building act, and for which purpose?”. To answer that, contrac-
tors, architects or owners could waste their time in the mass of information.
Because actors in the field are many, because elaborating a building is a multi-step process, because
every building is a prototype, several answers are valid to that question.
Design for Disassembly should also be highlighted as a rather obvious element in Open Building Sys-
tems as defined within the INPREST project.
Towards a sustainable assessment tool
INPREST could collect part of the data required for assessing construction materials in most SATools
readily from the LCI Checklist provided by the IISI LCI Study. The checklist provides a framework that
can help to select relevant sections from any of the most common Sustainability Assessment Tools. The
main components include the following:
• Goals
• Scope
• Quality of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Data
74
• Energy
• Allocation for co-products
• Transportation
• Recycling
• Life Cycle Impact Assessment
• Interpretation
• Reporting
• Critical review
In the case of the components and systems relevant to INPREST, it is appropriate to highlight the as-
pects of Integrated Design which integrates material, component, and structure design and considers
selected relevant criterions for technical solutions from a wide range of sustainability criteria sorted in
the three basic groups: environmental, economical and social. (Due to the character of the research pro-
ject the social aspects will only be considered sketchy).
Now, 48 criteria are defined in the “sustainable criteria table for assessment” and distributed according
to the three classical topics:
• Environmental with 6 items (energy, climate, resources & raw materials, water, soil & landscape,
waste),
• Economic with 2 items (cost & development, access & integration),
• Social with 1 items (comfort).
Criteria linked to urban issues were not retained in the continuation of this project and the social aspect
could however be excluded as being outside the scope of the INPREST project.
In general, the capacity to gather information remains the principal difficulty, particularly in connection
with economy. Because the more there are actors, the more information is dispersed, the first questions
may be: “Which information is available? Near which?”
As the sustainability approach may concerning all the life of a product, from natural resources to the
recycling, the intention of INPREST partners is to focus on the construction period. Taking account that
each country can have different approaches of the stake of sustainability, the final table for assessment
can introduce the common part and also consider local requirements for sustainability.
By the end, INPREST partners have chosen to focus on a selection of criteria dealing with steel as ma-
terial or impacts of construction site.
The selection was operating from two main criteria:

• Importance: the relationship between the definition and actors of steel (steel industrials or fabricators,
designers, clients) and the influence,
• Effect: impact of this criterion on project process or what is significant on ecological balance.
Table 28 shows the final selection of 24 criteria for sustainable assessment in INPREST.
75
Table 28 : Global view of final draft of Sustainable Table for Assessment (environmental issues)
SUSTAINABILITY TABLE FOR ASSESSMENT draft number 5
From the 24 original criteria selected by INPREST partners
FOCUS ON THOSE ONE RELATED TO MATERIAL AND CONSTRUCTION SITE
Topic LIST OF CRITERIA IMPORTANCE EFFECT COMMENTS
GENERAL Commitment to a sustainable approach
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENERGY Heat energy High Neutral Quality Control / Air tightness ?
Electrical Energy High Neutral
Total Consumption of energy High Neutral
Can be designed with renewable energy

Consumption of renewable energy High Neutral
systems
Transport Energy (all modes) Medium High Transporting large elements / less materails
CLIMATE Climate change Potential of building products High Medium Opportunity for renovation
Low embodied energy / controlled

Emissions of CO2 / Greenhouse Gases High Med / High
environment
RESOURCE Use of Natural resources High High fewer materials / efficient ordering
Use of Recycled materials High High Steel = 100% recyclable
Consumption of non-renewable material

High Neut / Poor
resources
WATER potable water consumption Medium Neutral Industrial Production : Water is recycled
Storm water management Medium Neutral
SOIL Plot Ratio (building land area) Med / High High Adaptable Building
Avoidance of waste resulting from process

WASTE High High factory waste
(Factory)
Building Waste High High less waste on site
ECONOMIC
COST Cost of building High High Economy of scale in manufacture
Cost of refurbishment High High Open systems can be refurbished
Ease of access to elements and systems for

High High Easier to maintain
maintenance and replacement
INTEGRATE Basic services proximity High Neutral
HUMAN & SOCIAL

COMFORT Acoustical comfort - Noise conditions High High Quality control - Better detailing
Ventilation - control of smell ? Neutral
Thermal Comfort - Temperature High High Quality - reduce cold bridges
Light conditions - Illumination High Neutral
In the last draft of Sustainable Assessment Tool, all the actors are identified as they have influence or
control on each topic (see background-document In108).
76
4.1.4 Opportunities axes for steel construction
Concerning sustainability, several opportunities for steel have been yet identified, but a large part of
those ones are still challenges. Nowadays, some of the work in the sustainability area concerning con-
structions are based on voluntary undertakings or related to financial questions.
Nevertheless, in the near future, the sustainability will have probably become a dominant criterion. So,
in the subjects of the previous list, here are some examples of opportunities and challenges.
Table 29 : Summary of opportunities for steel construction
OPPORTUNITIES CHALLENGES
LIFE PERFORMANCE (Resources Management)
• An increased lifecycle perspective is advanta- • Composite structures are a challenge to recy-
geous for steel as steel constructions have long life clability. Therefore efforts to design composite
with high quality and flexible solutions. systems that can be dismantled in a cost-effective
• To emphasise the low maintenance of different way.
steel constructions. • To provide systems with an architecture and func-
• Steel enables the use of modular buildings for tion with no “best before date”.
temporary locations. • Further improvement of coatings.
• Steel structures have long design life and the high • To provide industry with information on material
quality remains as to documentation for buildings and as basis for
• Steel constructions can give flexibility to the use decision-making
of the building providing long spans.
WASTE REDUCTION
• Prefabrication can significantly reduce waste at • To increase the use of prefabricated units will en-
building site. hance the benefits for steel as to waste reduction,
• Prefabrication can significantly increase the abil- thus increase the market for steel.
ity to handle waste in a good way, increasing the • To facilitate separation of composite constructions
possibility to recycle. in order to increase the recyclability of these con-
• Steel is a very good material as to recycling. There structions.
should not be material for deposition.
• Steel products for construction purposes always
contain recycled material.
• Larger prefabricated units, i.e. modules, might be
reused in other constructions. Especially as to
temporary constructions this is a great benefit
LAND USE
• Prefabrication reduces need for space at the build- • To increase the use of prefabricated units will en-
ing site. hance the benefits for steel as to consumption of
• Waste reduction as waste is reduced by an in- ground, thus increase the market for steel
creased prefabrication. Also a well functioning
system for recycling significantly reduces the need
for deposits.
• Vertical extension reduces the need for land for
e.g. new dwellings.
• Steel is an excellent material to use as to high-rise
buildings.
• Low weight constructions enable the use of poor
grounds to new buildings
4.1.5 Value benefits
A value assessment of open building technologies has been prepared, which is presented below. Vari-
ous Case Studies have been prepared of open building systems from the UK.
The value-benefits of open building systems may be presented under various financial and tangible
benefits, as well as other intangible but important social benefits. These open building technologies are
77
generally highly pre-fabricated and lead to benefits both in the construction process and in improved
quality and in-service performance. The overall financial benefits depend first on the ‘economy of
scale’ in production and also, on the size and location of the project. These overall benefits and poten-
tial financial gains are summarised below:
The value-benefits of open building systems may be presented under various financial and tangible
benefits, as well as other intangible but important social benefits. These open building technologies are
generally highly pre-fabricated and lead to benefits both in the construction process and in improved
quality and in-service performance. The overall financial benefits depend also on the ‘economy of
scale’ in production and on the size and location of the project.
These overall benefits and potential financial gains are summarized below (Table 30).
Table 30 : Value benefits of open building systems
Financial or Value-Benefits To the Client To the Constructor
• Economy in multiple repeated • Potential cost savings of up to • Efficiency gains in manufacture
manufacturing units 20% depend on size of project depending on scale of produc-
• Savings in design costs tion and use of standardized
components
• Savings in materials use due to
efficiency in manufacture
• Reduced site infrastructure and • Savings of 3 to 5% due to re- • Reduced personnel and associ-
personnel duced site costs (Site prelimi- ated site facilities
naries) • Less dependence on local labor
• Speed of installation on site • Savings due to faster construc- • Savings in site costs and higher
tion (see above) productivity on site
• 1 - 2% savings in interest costs • More reliance on specialist
due to early completion sub-contractors for construction
• Earlier return on investment due • Safer construction due to
to early completion (depends on mechanization on site
the business)
• Reduced delivery and storage of • Less impact of the construction • Less space required on site for
materials and waste process on the locality storage of materials and equip-
• Pre-fabrication is important ment
when extending existing build- • Components can be delivered
ings ‘just in time’
• Reduced costs of waste disposal
• Higher quality construction • Fewer problems in service • Pre-installation tests can be
• Equipment can be installed and performed in he factory
commissioned before delivery • Reduced risk to the contractor
to site • Performance test data may be
• Approvals by Regulating au- established in the development
thorities of the technology
• Energy savings • Higher levels of energy effi-
ciency and air-tightness
achieved by factory production
• Future adaptability • Space can be used for various • Components can be re-used, if
purposes in the future necessary
• Asset value is maintained • Future repeat orders for the
• Buildings can be extended and design and construction team
modified easily
78
Study of Life Cycle
One way to estimate the impact of a building on the environment is to make a Life Cycle Assessment.
A possible definition of Life Cycle Assessment could be a compilation and evaluation of the inputs and
outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system through its life cycle. Three differ-
ent phases are considered during Life Cycle, as follows: construction – Use – End-of-Life
LCA cannot be analyzed independently from the cost questionnement and cost analysis shall in any
case be regarded as the major key point.
According to the ISO 15686, Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is defined as “the total cost of a building or its
parts throughout its life, including the costs of planning, design, acquisition, operations, maintenance
and disposal, less any residual value”.
LCC is a more technical approach which enables to compare cost assessments to be made over a speci-
fied period of time, taking into account all relevant economic factors, both in terms of initial capital
costs and future operational costs.
In construction sector, applications of LCCA are particularly suited for the evaluation of building de-
sign alternatives that satisfy a required performance level (as occupant comfort, safety…). Buildings
energy efficiency remains one of the most frequent applications of the LCCA. There are abundant op-
portunities to improve the thermal performance of building envelope components
WP 4.2: Case Studies of Innovative Projects

Several sustainable developments in Europe have been analyzed to focus on targets for INPREST and
can be considered as case studies.
We have also researched for case studies on buildings that are seen as possible example for sustainabil-
ity assessment. All this material is available in project documents listed in the references of the project.
4.2.1 Short presentation of case studies
The main characteristics of following case studies are just listed in this chapter; a longer description
including pictures is available (see background-document In108).
La Fenetre in Den Haag (Netherlands)

This residential building (16 storey of apartments) is supported on a myriad of inclined tubular legs and
steel structure is completed by a novel structural system, called INFRA + (I beams and inverted con-
crete slab), thus offering great span. Services are located on the slab.
Main positive aspects regarding sustainability: use of steel as recycled material, structural system is
permitting flexibility on each floor, fully glazed façade offer natural light, excellent acoustics, free ac-
cess for maintenance
Plus Home building system (Finland)

The building system is based on precast hollow-core slabs spanning between the façade walls and stairs
and supported by Z sections placed over the prefabricated load-bearing walls with light steel elements.
permitting flexibility on each floor, use of prefabricated elements, reduction of transport,
79
Open House Modular System (Sweden)
This modular construction system is based on a 3.6 m planning grid in which modules are supported on
steel columns: Square Hollow Section (SHS). Any types of façade system can be used.
PRISM, customable construction system (Reims, France)

This construction system is based on a steel frame and light steel walls and used for 3 to 8 storey resi-
dential or commercial buildings. The objective of PRISM is to use common and available industrial
products (steel, mineral wool, plasterboards). Common spans are from 5 to 10 m ; depth of slabs and
walls is adapted to requirement.
permitting flexibility on each floor, use of prefabricated elements, reduction of transport and waste,
thermal and acoustic insulation are adapted for each type of building
Social Housing (Evreux, France)

a steel-intensive dry construction approach was the main idea of design process. The whole building is
lightweight and potentially extendable and demountable.
In this objective, the structure consists of a primary steel frame, supporting deep decking and floor
boarding, a curved metallic roof and externally expressed stairs and bracing. The insulation is placed in
front of the edge of the slab into the external wall. Thus, the thermal behaviour is very good and gives a
coefficent of losses from -20 to -30% with regard of the reference
permitting flexibility on each floor, use of prefabricated elements, reduction of transport and waste,
reduction of thermal bridges, good acoustic performances (Rw+Ctr < 55dB)
4.2.2 Use of Inprest Sustainability Table
The following table is just an example of application of assessment with previous case studies.
80
Table 31 : Assessment of previous case studies with INPREST Table (presented in Table 28)
SUSTAINABILITY TABLE FOR ASSESSMENT draft number 5 CASE STUDIES
Open House
Plus Home
La Fenetre
Rheims
From the 24 original criteria selected by INPREST partners
Evreux
FOCUS ON THOSE ONE RELATED TO MATERIAL AND CONSTRUCTION SITE
Topic LIST OF CRITERIA IMPORTANCE EFFECT COMMENTS
GENERAL Commitment to a sustainable approach High High X X X X X
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENERGY Heat energy (petroleum / gas / coal / wood...) High Neutral Quality Control / Air tightness ? X X
Electrical Energy High Neutral
Total Consumption of energy High Neutral X
Can be designed with renewable energy

Consumption of renewable energy High Neutral
systems
Transport Energy consumption (all modes) Medium High Transporting large elements / less materails X X
CLIMATE Climate change Potential of building products High Medium Opportunity for renovation
Low embodied energy / controlled

Emissions of CO2 / Greenhouse Gas High Med / High
environment
RESOURCE Natural resources High High fewer materials / efficient ordering X X X X X
Recycled materials High High Steel = 100% recyclable X X X
Consumption of non-renewable material

High Neut / Poor
resources
WATER potable water consumption Medium Neutral Industrial Production : Water is recycled
Storm water management Medium Neutral
SOIL Plot Ratio Med / High High Adaptable Building X
Avoidance of waste resulting from process

WASTE High High factory waste
(Factory)
Building Waste High High less waste on site X X
ECONOMIC
COST Cost of building High High Economy of scale in manufacture X
Cost of refurbishment High High Open systems can be refurbished
Ease of access to elements and systems for

High High Easier to maintain X X X
maintenance and replacement
INTEGRATE Basic services proximity High Neutral X
HUMAN & SOCIAL

COMFORT Acoustical comfort - Noise conditions High High Quality control - Better detailing X X X X
Ventilation - Olfactory comfort ? Neutral
Thermal Comfort - Temperature High High Quality - reduce cold bridges X X
Light conditions - Illumination High Neutral X
81
4.2.3 Extension to Building passport
The assessment of sustainability is a substantial basis for the development of a building passport, which
gives a short but profound information on a building. Such building passports are under development in
various countries and organisations. Two examples illustrates the current state (Table 32, Table 33).
Mainly the ongoing progress in the field of sustainability assessment will lead to improved drafts of
these building passports short term.
Table 32 : Building Certification (Ref.: Extract from Sustainability Guideline, Federal Ministry of
Transport, Building and Housing, Germany [4-1])
82
Table 33 : Building Certification (Ref.:IISBE, Canada [4-2])
Design Phase
Weighting of Issues and Categories for
Ottawa, Canada Generic
Values range from 0 (not applicable) to 5 (most important), with the value
2 representing the normal default or null value, except for Mandatory
parameters, which range from 3 to 5. Use SBTool Defaults
Click on box at right to select Default or your own weighting values.
Instructions: Nominal Select
Mandatory
First decide if you want to use the defaults Suggested weights
your own
If you want to set your own weights nominal adjusted for Weighted
nominal
1. First set relative importance for highest level Issues default number of percent
weighting
2. Then set values for Categories within each Issue area values active
Categories
values.
3. To set lowest level weights, go to WtB
Issues Active
A Site Selection, Project Planning and Development 3 1.3 8.1% 0
B Energy and Resource Consumption 5 3.6 22.5% 4 M
C Environmental Loadings 5 4.3 27.0% 5 M
D Indoor Environmental Quality 4 2.9 18.0% 4 M
E Service Quality 3 2.6 16.2% 3
F Social and Economic aspects 3 0.9 5.4% 3
G Cultural and Perceptual Aspects 3 0.4 2.7% 0
Categories (note that some categories are only operational in certain phases)
Weights Weighted
Suggested
adjusted Percent Use your
Default
for active within values
A Site Selection, Project Planning and Development values
Criteria Issue
A1 Site Selection 3 9.0 33.3% 0
A2 Project Planning 3 9.0 33.3% 3
A3 Urban Design and Site Development 3 9.0 33.3% 3
.
B Energy and Resource Consumption
B1 Total Life Cycle Non-Renewable Energy 5 2.0 18.2% 5 M
B2 Electrical peak demand for facility operations 3 0.6 5.5% 3
B3 Renewable Energy 3 1.2 10.9% 3 M
B4 Materials 3 6.0 54.5% 3
B5 Potable Water 3 1.2 10.9% 3 M
.
C Environmental Loadings
C1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 5 1.7 15.6% 5 M
C2 Other Atmospheric Emissions 3 1.5 14.1% 3
C3 Solid Wastes 3 1.0 9.4% 3
C4 Rainwater, Stormwater and Wastewater 3 1.5 14.1% 3
C5 Impacts on Site 3 2.5 23.4% 3
C6 Other Local and Regional Impacts 3 2.5 23.4% 3
.
D Indoor Environmental Quality
D1 Indoor Air Quality 5 8.0 48.2% 5 M
D2 Ventilation 4 3.2 19.3% 4 M
D3 Air Temperature and Relative Humidity 3 1.2 7.2% 3
D4 Daylighting and Illumination 3 1.8 10.8% 3
D5 Noise and Acoustics 3 2.4 14.5% 3
.
E Service Quality
E1 Safety and Security During Operations 3 0.5 4.8% 3
E2 Functionality and efficiency 3 1.0 9.7% 3
E3 Controllability 3 2.0 19.4% 3
E4 Flexibility and Adaptability 3 2.5 24.2% 3
E5 Commissioning of facility systems 2 0.3 3.2% 2
E6 Maintenance of Operating Performance 3 4.0 38.7% 3
.
F Social and Economic aspects
F1 Social Aspects 3 10.5 58.3% 3
F2 Cost and Economics 3 7.5 41.7% 3
.
G Cultural and Perceptual Aspects
G1 Culture & Heritage 3 4.5 100.0% 3
83
WP 5: Establishment of Basic Performance Data and Physical Modelling
The objective of this Work Package is to establish performance data on the proposed Open Building
Systems, including building physics, fire resistance, connection resistance etc. This performance data
will be based on modern standards of acceptability, and will allow for practical use on site.
• evaluate the performance of the systems by modelling and tests

• lead to national approvals
• make improvements in the systems
The work is a necessary step in European Technical Approval for these innovative building design.
WP 5.1: Performance Criteria

The basic question in this work package is, what the specific requirements for Open Building Systems
are. Generally, there are no specific technical requirements that are valid for OBS, but the potentially
weak points have to be considered very carefully.
According the definition of an Open Building System (see WP 1) the flexibility of floor plan and the
possible change of use are major characteristics of OBS. Some requirements are strongly effected by
the OBS concept, others are not. In Table 34 the various aspects and the impact of OBS is listed.
The requirements regarding escape routes and regarding the internal climate resp. HVAC-system are
very sensitive regarding change of floor layout and change of function. Aspects like thermal perform-
ance and air-tightness are more or less independent regarding change of floor layout and (with reserva-
tions) concerning change of function.
84
Table 34 : Performance criteria affected by Open Building approach
Change of floor layout Change of function Comments
1 - independent 1 - independent
5 - strongly dependent 5 - strongly dependent
1 Structural Change of floor layout (e.g. re-
Change of use - office / residential (variation of 1 3 arranging of apartments on one
service loads) level, or open-plan-office converted
Stability -horizontal loads 2 2 to cellular offices) does not change
the design loads, but a change of
function (e.g. residential into office)
possibly does. Stability is affected
by bracing and cores, which
generally remain fixed in location.
Robustness to explosions or
seismic events is independent of
building use.
2 Acoustic Change of floor layout, possibly
Acoustic properties of walls including interfaces with 3 4 transforming internal walls into
floor and ceiling partitioning walls. Therefore the
3 acoustic requirements of the walls
Acoustic properties of floors 1 change. Floors are less affected by
change of use, except where
stricter acoustic requirements are
made (eg office to residential).
3 Fire safety The fire resistance requirements
1 3 are mainly independent from the
Fire resistance of building components floor layout, but possibly change if
the function varies (e.g. office to
5 5 assembly room etc).
Means of escape
The escape routes are very
sensitive regarding change of floor
layout (length of esacape routes,
redundant staircases etc.)
4 Thermal performance The requirements regarding
Heat transfer, including thermal bridging thermal performance mainly
1 3 depend on the internal temperature
& building envelope. In general,
change of use does not change
the thermal requirements. In
general, prefabricated, light-weight
construction needs proper design,
manufacturing and assembling of
the components to avoid thermal
bridges.
5 Air-tightness A change of floor plan and use (if

1 1 temperature level remains) does
Air-tightness of joints and junctions and whole not change the air-tightness
building performance requirements. In general,
prefabricated, light-weight
construction needs proper design,
manufacturing and assembly to
achieve air-tight construction.
6 Internal climate The function and the internal
4 5 partitioning of the building has a
Design of building services and expected thermal strong impact on the design of the
comfort HVAC-system. Therefore optional
changes in the future should be
considered during the design of the
HVAC-system (Positioning of inlets
and exhausts, metering of energy
consumption etc.)
7 Energy efficiency The national regulations
implementing the EPBD are the
The aspects mentioned above (thermal 3 3 major requirements.
performance, air-tightness, internal climate) Consider refurbishment to meet
determine the energy efficiency future requirements.
85
Identify key areas where physical modelling or testing is required e.g. in façade interfaces
Beneath the sensitivity regarding the flexibility of floor plan and function the prefabricated, modular
construction is of specific interest. These aspects have to be investigated in detail:
Fire safety
The fire safety requirements have to be fulfilled, otherwise this is a “knockout” criterion. Therefore a
detailed analysis of some interesting systems will be performed.
Heat / Energy
In the regular area, prefabricated, light weight constructions are very capable concerning heat transfer
and air-tightness. Mainly the joints of elements have to be designed carefully (thermal bridges, air-
tightness, acoustic bridges).
Indoor climate
The indoor climate of light-weight buildings is more critical than of other buildings to the reduced heat
and moisture capacities.
Design for acoustic and thermal insulation
The proper design of an Open Building System for a wide range of requirements can be solved by
thinking in layers. Acoustic, thermal and also fire safety properties can be customized by adding layers
with particular properties. The RWTH approach (see p. 45 and p. 49) is based in this concept conse-
quently: The stability is provided by a stiff steel frame, the thermal insulation is realized by sandwich
elements, which possess low thermal bridge effects, the acoustic and fire requirements can be fulfilled
by an internal cladding, an external cladding for various outlooks can be added.
WP 5.2: Physical Modelling and Testing
Structural performance of connections
In development of the Corus Open Building System several of the key connections and interfaces have
been identified and tested and prototyped. Figure 43 shows a prototype built at full scale in the labora-
tory at Corus RD&T, Rotherham, UK. The purpose of this prototype was to evaluate the buildability of
certain components within the building system and to identify where further testing might be required.
86
Digital prototype Physical prototype (one storey)
Figure 43 : Corus Open Building System Prototypes
Figure 44 shows a few the most important interfaces in the system:

• The connection of the beam ring to the columns
• The interface of the light steel floor system with the supporting beams
• The connection of the light steel joists to the encasing channel of the the light steel floor used in the
modular part of the system
Figure 44 : Interfaces at the corner of the Corus Open Building System module
Analysis and testing has been carried out on these elements for example the connection of the joist to
encasing channel has been tested for pull out under various conditions. Table 35 shows the results of the
tests to pull out.
87
Table 35 : Results of pull out tests on the Corus light steel joint
Q.A. Max Load
Test Specimen Number Basic Description of Failure kN
75mm Stud/ 78mm Encasing Channel (loaded
to failure) 6SB20 ripping and bowing encasing channel 12.56
75mm Stud/ 78mm Encasing Channel (loaded
to failure) 6SB21 ripping and bowing encasing channel 13.36
75mm Stud/ 78mm Encasing Channel(7.5 kN
cycled load (3 x), then to failure) 6SB22 ripping and bowing encasing channel 12.71
single 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel
(loaded to failure) 6SB25 ripping and bowing encasing channel 19.64
single 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel ripping and bowing encasing channel(mainly at 1
(loaded to failure) 6SB26 side) 18.46
(10 kN cycled loaded (3 x), then to failure) 6SB28 side) 15.74
single 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel
(10 kN cycled loaded (3 x), then to failure) 6SB29 ripping and bowing encasing channel 19.80
double 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel ripping and bowing encasing channel(mainly at 1
double 220mm Joist/224mm encasing channel
(loaded to failure) 6SB31 Grip slipage re-test as 6SB31A 29.81
(loaded to failure) 6SB31A ripping and bowing encasing channel 33.62
(20 kN cycled loaded (3 x), then to failure) 6SB33 ripping and bowing encasing channel 33.60
One of the products of the development work was a new connection of two light steel components simi-
lar to that used in Figure 44. This can be used for the connection of any two light steel elements such as
the floor joist to encasing channel shown above or for studs to encasing channels in walls. The joint in
each case requires different configurations and several of these have been prototyped and tested. A pat-
ent for the joint has been applied for.
One of the design aspects for the building system is how the stability of the building may be achieved.
The joint between the beam ring and the column shown in Table 35 is semi-rigid and gives some con-
tribution to the overall stability of the system. Another aspect are the infill wall panels; if they can be
attached to the surrounding frame in an acceptable way, then they too potentially provide some contri-
bution to the stability system of the building. Testing of the racking ability of light steel walls has been
carried out before but usually on walls with steel frameworks that in themselves have some resistance to
racking. With the Corus Open Building System the infill wall panels have no internal bracing; therefore
it was necessary to establish the racking characteristics of a wall panel where the steel framework has
no resistance to racking. Table 36 shows the results of racking tests on such a wall panel using several
different coverings.
88
Table 36 : Wall panel racking tests for Corus Open Building System
Test Make-up Load at 4.8mm Residual def Failure Load
deflection
mm kN
kN
1 Frame only 0.03 3.14
2 One side boarded with 12.5mm fireline 3.01 1.49 3.7

plasterboard
3 Both sides boarded with 12.5mm fireline 6.06 2.12 9.6

plasterboard
4 One side boarded with 15mm fireline plas- 3.07 1.45

terboard
5 Both sides boarded with 15mm fireline 5.79 0.80 13.8

plasterboard
6 One side 12.5mm fireline plasterboard, one 6.83 0.35 18.7

side 12mm plywood (structural grade)
7 One side 12.5mm plasterboard, one side 6.36 0.20 15.9

galvanised steel sheet
8 One side 15mm fireline plasterboard, one 7.10 0.60 14.5

side 11mm oSB
Acoustic performance of completed buildings
Most countries specify levels of requirements within the Building Regulations or associated guidance
documents. Despite reference to EN-ISO standards, there are important differences between countries
in the criteria used to describe acoustic performance, including methods of measurement and the appli-
cation of different reference curves or spectrum adaptation terms. The varied acoustic criteria mean that
it is difficult to compare requirements, but many of the differences are probably barely perceptible. The
greatest differences are in levels of requirements for impact sound.
Precompletion testing of buildings is the most demanding and expensive implementation procedure
(testing equipment see Figure 45, Figure 46). In practice, noise control must rely on the use of construc-
tions that are known to satisfy the requirements, but this does not guarantee as-built performance.
Figure 45 : Basic material used for airborne acoustic testing
89
Figure 46 : Basic impact sound generator
In future, EN 12354 may be adopted as a way to justify the choice of construction. Noise control is a
topic that is relatively impenetrable to non-experts, and it appears that the design standards are increas-
ingly the domain of specialists (see [5-1]).
The Nordicon System is based on prefabricated wall elements using thermo profiles. For these wall
constructions the acoustic performance were calculated and measured.
Figure 47 : Façade: Thermo Profile, no brick cover Figure 48 : Façade: Thermo Profile, brick cover
Table 37 : Acoustic performance of external walls for Open Building Systems

Nr. Structure Rw +Ctr Window Calculated Measured
[dB] Rw +Ctr [dB] EN 12354-3 EN 140-5
D2m,n,w + Ctr Dn,w + Ctr [dB]
[dB]
1 175 mm Termo Pro- 43 40 36 38
file, no brick cover
2 200 mm Termo Pro- 49 40 37 36
file, sheet metal
cover
3 175 mm Termo Pro- 56 40 39 40
file, 135 mm brick
cover (Room 1)
4 175 mm Termo Pro- 56 40 41 41
file, 135 mm brick
cover
(Room 2)
90
Details are given in “Research of façade airborne sound insulation with calculations and field measure-
ments” [5-2].
Fire resistance of components
Meshing in the FEM Software SAFIR
The assessments of fire resistance are made by numerical investigations using the FEM Software
SAFIR in order to calculate the evolution of the temperatures inside the components. The investigations
shown below focuses on deck systems, which are one of the key components for Open Building Sys-
tems.
Investigation of laser welded double sandwich panel (DSP)

Diamond 2004 for SAFIR Diamond 2004 for SAFIR
FILE: Icore FILE: Icore
NODES: 1017 NODES: 1017
ELEMENTS: 1302 ELEMENTS: 1302
SOLIDS PLOT SOLIDS PLOT
FRONTIERS PLOT
STEELEC3
STEELEC3
F20
FISO
Figure 49 : Section I-Core for SAFIR Figure 50 : Boundary conditions
The radiation inside the cavity is taken into account for the thermal calculation. The section is exposed
to a temperature following the ISO 834 curve of Eurocode 1-2 on the lower face and to a flux corre-
sponding to a cold environment on the upper face. The FEM software calculates the evolution of the
temperature inside the steel profile during 7200sec. The following figures show different temperature
values inside the section at given time steps:
Diamond 2004 for SAFIR Time - Temperature Plot

FILE: Icore
NODES: 1017 1000
ELEMENTS: 1302
SOLIDS PLOT
900
STEELEC3
Node 407 800
Temperature [°C]
700
600
Node 407
500
Node 478 Node 478
Node 602
400
300
200
Node 602
100
0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 6600 7200
Time [sec]
Figure 51 : Reference points for temperature Figure 52 : Development of temperature at reference

points
91
The following graphs show the evolution of the temperature at different points in the steel section. Fol-
lowing an analysis of this graph, a conclusion can be directly drawn that a problem of thermal insula-
tion will occur on the upper face because the average temperature of the upper face cannot be higher
than 140°C. In order to solve this problem, glass fibre and Fermacell flooring element shall be added
onto the upper face. It will be studied during the next period.
A 2d structural model is built in SAFIR in order to assess the thermo-mechanical behaviour of the I-
Core system:
Time - Displacements Plot

-0.0
-0.2
Displacement[m]
-0.4
-0.6
Node 18
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800
Time [sec]
Figure 53 : Statical system Figure 54 : Development of displacement
Investigation of Quantum Floor
Meshing in the FEM Software SAFIR
A numerical thermal model is built in the FEM Software SAFIR in order to calculate the evolution of
the temperature inside the steel slab.

FILE: QuantumC1 FILE: QuantumC1
FRONTIERS PLOT
STEELEC3
STEELEC2 STEELEC3
SILCONCEC2 STEELEC2
SILCONCEC2
FISO
F20
Figure 55 : FEM-model Figure 56 : FEM-model, boundary conditions
This section is exposed to a temperature following the ISO 834 curve of Eurocode 1-2 on the lower face
and to a flux corresponding to a cold environment on the upper face. The FEM software calculates the
evolution of the temperature inside the steel profile during 7200sec. The following graphs show the
evolution of the temperature at different points in the section:
92
Diamond 2004 for SAFIR Time - Temperature Plot
FILE: QuantumC1
NODES: 912
Node 311 ELEMENTS: 1466 1200
SOLIDS PLOT
STEELEC3 1000
STEELEC2
SILCONCEC2
Temperature [°C]
800
Node 328
600 Node 311
Node 328
Node 717
400
200
0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 6600 7200
Node 717
Time [sec]

points
Following an analysis of this graph, a conclusion can be directly drawn that a problem of thermal insu-
lation will occur on the upper face because the average temperature of the upper face cannot be higher
than 140°C. To solve this problem, different systems can be used and will be presented later.
A 2d structural model is built in SAFIR in order to assess the thermo-mechanical behaviour of the
Quantum system:
Diamond 2004 for SAFIR
FILE: Icore_struct_3,1
NODES: 71 Time - Displacements Plot
m
i
T -D
esp
i ce
a
l mn
sP
t ot
l
BEAMS: 35
TRUSSES: 0 . 0
0
-
SHELLS: 0
SOILS: 0
0 00
3 00
6 00
9 20
1 50
1 80
1 10
2 40
2 70
2 00
3
BEAMS PLOT
IMPOSED DOF PLOT
. 2
0
-
6m span Beam Element

Displacement [m]
. 4
0
-
. 6
0
-
oe
Nd1
2
. 8
0
-
. 0
1
-
. 2
1
-
. 4
1
-
m
i
T [s
ec]
e
Time [sec]
The first simulation takes into account the load combination in case of fire (3.25kN/m2). The following
figure shows the deflection in function of the time at mid span of the slab system:
Second Meshing in the FEM Software SAFIR
A new numerical thermal model is build in the FEM Software SAFIR in order to calculate the evolu-
tion of the temperatures inside the steel slab by taking into account a gypsum board fixed at the lower
part of the slab. This section is exposed to a temperature following the ISO 834 curve of Eurocode 1-2
on the lower face and to a flux corresponding to a cold environment on the upper face.
93
FILE: Qua_gips_void_oli FILE: Qua_gips_void_oli

FRONTIERS PLOT
STEELEC3
STEELEC2 STEELEC3
SILCONCEC2 STEELEC2
INSULATION SILCONCEC2
INSULATION
F20
FISO
Figure 61 : FEM-model Figure 62 : Boundary conditions
The FEM software calculates the evolution of the temperature inside the steel profile during 7200sec by
taking into account the radiation inside the internal cavity. The following graphs show the evolution of
the temperature at different points in the section:

FILE: Qua_gips_void_oli
Time - Temperature Plot
NODES: 2277 500
ELEMENTS: 3679
SOLIDS PLOT
450
STEELEC3
STEELEC2 400
SILCONCEC2
Temperature [°C]
INSULATION
Node 1006
350
300
250 Node 1006

Node 1091
Node 1091 Node 1366
200
150
100
Node 1366
50
0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 6600 7200
Time [sec]

points
Analysing this graph, we can directly conclude that the thermal insulation will not be a problem. More-
over, we can also add insulation between the gypsum board and the concrete.
A 2d structural model is built in SAFIR in order to assess the thermo-mechanical behaviour of the
Quantum system. The first simulation takes into account the load combination in case of fire
(3.25kN/m2). The following figure shows the deflection in function of the time at mid span of the slab
system:
94
FILE: Icore_struct_3,1
Time - Displacements Plot
NODES: 71
BEAMS: 35
TRUSSES: 0
0.00
SHELLS: 0
SOILS: 0
BEAMS PLOT -0.01
IMPOSED DOF PLOT
6m span Beam Element -0.02
Displacement[m]
-0.03
-0.04
Node 20
-0.05
-0.06
-0.07
-0.08
-0.09
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 6600 7200
Time [sec]
This calculation takes into account a simply supported beam and the horizontal displacements are com-
patible with the support system. But local instabilities in the web of the C sections are not taken into
account. In order to assess the fire resistance in real practice, a 3D SHELL model must be built in the
software SAFIR.
Thermal performance of facades and roofs
Airtightness Testing
General
Clients and building users demand energy efficient buildings, and governments have introduced strict
regulations to minimise the energy demand in buildings. In consequence buildings become more highly
insulated, thus the effect of air leakage through the envelope on energy consumption becomes relatively
more important. New regulations all over Europe demand therefore air tight buildings.
Following advantages of air tight structures are well established:
• Avoidance of unnecessary space heating and cooling demand
• Improved sound insulation
• Improved thermal protection in summer
• Improved comfort quality through avoidance of draught and uncontrolled intake of dry air (winter)
and bad smell
• Protection against pollution
• Enabling the effective performance of ventilation systems
• Prevention of moisture and corrosion
Steel structures are well qualified to perform air-tight envelopes through the combination of prefabri-
cated components. It is important to consider, that the steel cladding system is only one of the parts of
the building envelope that may contribute to the leakage. Junctions and openings such as doors, win-
dows, rooflights and penetrations may contribute significantly to the leakage. That means architects and
engineers must pay attention at junctions to realise air tight buildings and need performance data of
several steel systems. At the moment few measured data regarding the airtightness of joints and whole
buildings are available to compare them to the requirements.
Joint leakage - Testing in laboratory

Physical testing of several joints between composite panels was performed at the testing facility of
RWTH Aachen. Figure 67 shows the air-tightness test rig of RWTH Aachen and Figure 68, Figure 69
the joint of sandwich elements. This equipment is used to measure the so called “a-value” (how much
air flows through 1 m joint at a given pressure difference).
95
Figure 67 : Air-tightness Test Rig of RWTH
Figure 68 : Joint with sealing tape Figure 69 : Joint without sealing tape
The main result of the laboratory test is, that the air-tightness of the joints is extremely differing de-
pending on the type of the sandwich element, the width of the joint and the properties of the sealing
band.
96
Measurement air leakage
100
10
air leakage [ m³/(h*m) ]
0.1
0.01
0.001
10 100 1000
pressure difference [ Pa ]
requirements test
6mm specimen
Fuge
Figure 70 : Result Air-tightness Test, test specimen: Sandwich panel
A similar characteristic is expected for other prefabricated elements. These results show, that on one
hand, air-tight constructions are possible, but on the other hand a good design and a proper realisation is
needed to achieve sufficient results.
On-site testing – whole building

The building envelope of the Modular Research Building was build by using 4 different types (produc-
ers) of sandwich elements for the facades and 1 type (producer) for the roof. Figure 5 shows the joint of
one type (east façade) with sealing tape and Figure 6 shows the joint of the south façade without sealing
tape.
For this building air leakage tests were performed. Air pressurisation/depressurisation testing must be
undertaken in accordance to EN 13829:2001 - Thermal performance of buildings – Determination of air
permeability of buildings – Fan pressurization method.
The document specifies the use of mechanical pressurization of a building. It describes techniques for
measuring the resulting air flow rates at given indoor-outdoor static pressure differences. From the rela-
tionship between the air flow and pressure difference, the air leakage characteristics of a building enve-
lope can be evaluated.
Figure 71 and Figure 72 show the test equipment for whole building air leakage tests in the Modular
Research Building at RWTH Aachen.
97
Figure 71 : Depressurisation Test Figure 72 : Pressurisation Test
The following values are described in EN 13829:
Table 38 : Relevant quantities for air-tightness acc. EN 13829

Air flow at 50 Pa pressure difference between inside and outside • ⎡ m3 ⎤
V 50 ⎢ ⎥
⎣h ⎦
Air flow at 50 Pa pressure difference between inside and outside re- •
V ⎡1⎤
lated to the interior heated volume of a building n50 = 50 ⎢⎣ h ⎥⎦
V
•
Air flow at 50 Pa pressure difference between inside and outside re-
V50 ⎡ m 3 ⎤
lated to the net space area (all levels) of a building w50 = ⎢ ⎥
AF ⎣ h ⋅ m 2 ⎦
•
Air flow at 50 Pa pressure difference between inside and outside re-
V ⎡ m3 ⎤
lated to the interior envelope surface area of a building q50 = 50 ⎢ ⎥
AE ⎣ h ⋅ m 2 ⎦
Figure 73 shows the test results of one pressurization test of the Modular Research Building in Steel
according to EN 13829. The result is described as test curve showing the air flow at different pressure
differences between inside and outside. Using this curve the air flow at 50 Pa pressure difference can be
evaluated.
98
Air flow
[ m³/h ]
Pressure difference [ Pa ]
Figure 73 : Air flow at different pressure differences – Test curve of Modular Research Building
By using the following data of the Modular Research Building
Interior Volume: V = 332 m³

Interior Envelope Surface Area: A = 289 m²
Net space area (both levels): AG = 108 m²
the values n50, w50 and q50 according to EN 13829 can be calculated. Table 39 shows all requirements
according to EN 13829 and two measurements of the whole building air-tightness of the modular re-
search building.
Table 39 : Requirements and test results of whole building air-tightness
Requirements acc. to Measurement Measurement

EN 13829 30.05.06 12.06.06
n50 [1/h] 3,0 1,21 1,31
w50 [m³(h·m²) 7,8 3,73 4,05
q50 [m³(h·m²) 3,0 1,39 1,51
Beneath the estimation of the air-tightness of the whole building the “Blower Door” is also useful to
identify local weak points. For this objective a fogger or infrared camera have to be used additionally.
These investigations were performed for the modular research building.
99
Thermal performance and thermal bridges
Improvement of the energy performance of buildings is of growing importance. Because of the Energy
Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) and new national requirements in several European coun-
tries the thermal protection of the building envelope with steel elements must be improved to be more
competitive.
Main objective in this process in optimisation of building envelopes regarding transmission heat losses
by intelligent solutions including not only increasing the thickness of thermal insulation for saving heat-
ing energy but in particular reducing thermal bridges and thermal irregularities.
Joints of composite panels – numerical investigations

For example joints between composite panels lead to higher transmission heat losses through plane
elements. Table 40 shows the factor, to be multiplied with the U-value calculated without thermal ir-
regularities, for additional heat losses through two kinds of joints of sandwich panels. These factors are
evaluated by numerical FEM-calculations of heat fluxes in the area of joints between sandwich panels.
Table 40 : Factor for additional heat losses over joints of composite panels
Composite panel Joint Type A Joint Type B
Thickness
[ mm ]
60 1,04 1,16
80 1,04 1 ,10
120 1,03 1,06
160 1,03 1,05
Junctions of façade – numerical investigations
To compare numerical investigations with infrared surveys, several details of the Modular Research
Building will be investigated. Figure 74 show one corner of the building assembled with composite
panels. Figure 75 show the temperature distribution as result of two- and three-dimensional FEM-
calculations.
100
Figure 74 : Corner Figure 75 : Temperature distribution - 2D- and 3D-Modelling
Infrared surveys
During winter infrared surveys of the of the modular research building were carried out.
Figure 76 : Use of the Infrared Camera at Figure 77 : Infrared Survey of the Modular Research
the Modular Research Building in Steel Building in Steel
Cold bridging through edge beams

A thermal analysis of the local heat loss at the horizontal line of the edge beam has been performed,
which adds to the general heat loss through the façade. These design cases are considered for the brick-
work support by three different solutions:
1. ASB edge beam in Slimdek
2. I-section edge beam supporting a composite slab
3. PFC edge beam supporting Quantum floor
The first case is considered to be the ‘conventional’ case in modern design, and so the results for Quan-
tum floor should be compared to this case. ASB edge beams supporting a deep composite slab are
closely analogous to the PFC edge beam case. For the thermal analysis, the brickwork support angles
are located at either 600 or 900 mm centres along the beam.
101
Thermal Analysis of ASB Edge Beam Supporting Slimdek
In this analysis an ASB edge beam was used, as illustrated in Figure 78. Two cases were analysed with
or without mineral wool between the flanges of the ASB. Stainless steel brackets were attached at
400 mm or 1 metre centres in this case, and so the results for 600 or 900 mm centres can be interpo-
lated. The same thermal parameters as for the previous cases were studied.
20 mm bolt hole L-bar (10 mm) at 300 mm centres

≥ 30
A142 mesh
Mineral
wool infill
End diaphragm
ASB cut away by 55 mm
(if necessary)
Figure 78 : ASB edge beam supporting Slimdek
Table 41 : Results of thermal analyses of ASB supporting Slimdek
Case Mineral wool Linear bridging Ψ Min surface temp ºC FRSi
Brick supports at Between flanges 0.246 18 0.90

400 mm cs
Brick supports at None between flanges 0.260 18 0.90

400 mm cs
Brick supports at Between flanges 0.126 18.5 0.927

1 m centres
Equivalent U values for a 3.6 m high wall are increased by an additional U value of 0.06 W/m2ºC for
stainless steel supports at 400 mm centres, which is lower than that for a PFC edge beam.
Thermal Analysis of I Beam Supporting Composite Slab
The attachment of brickwork to an edge beam in composite construction is considered to represent con-
ventional construction practice, and this case was analysed first. The details of this construction are
presented in Figure 79 in terms of the thermal model.
102
[W/mK]
50.000
50.000
14.700
14.700
1.500
0.770
0.402
0.207
0.207
0.160
0.160
0.057
0.026
0.026
Figure 79 : Model configuration and materials used for I beam
In addition, the surface resistance of the cavities was calculated from R = 0.13 m2K/W at 0ºC and 0.04
m2K/W at 20ºC.
The analysis for linear thermal bridging was compared to the case without a stainless steel brickwork
support angle in order to calculate the additional heat loss. Three cases were then considered:
• Stainless steel angles at 600 mm spacing. Mineral wool between flanges of I beam.
• Stainless steel angles at 900 mm spacing. Mineral wool between flanges of I beam.
• Stainless steel angles at 600 mm spacing. No mineral wool between flanges of I beam.
The results are presented in Table 42 in terms of the heat loss through linear thermal bridging Ψ, the
minimum surface temperature on the wall (relative to a room temperature of 20ºC) and fRSi which de-
fines the temperature variation over the surface, given by:
θ min − θ ext
fsi =
θ int − θ ext
where
θ min is the minimum internal temperature
θ ext is the external temperature (0ºC in this analysis)
θ int is the internal temperature (20ºC in this analysis)
A maximum temperature variation of 3ºC is considered acceptable to avoid ‘ghosting’ on the surface.
103
Table 42 : Results of thermal analyses of I beam supporting brickwork

600 mm cs

900 mm cs
Brick supports at None between flanges 0.348 17.6 0.884

600 mm cs
The linear thermal bridge occurs at each floor at approximately 3.6 m vertical spacing. Dividing the Ψ
value by 3.6 m shows that the average heat loss through thermal bridging is equivalent to an additional
U value of 0.09 W/m2ºC in comparison to the basic U value of 0.22 W/m2ºC for the brickwork façade
with its light steel infill walls. Therefore linear thermal bridging represents 40% additional heat loss for
brickwork supports at 600 mm centres and approximately 30% for brickwork supports at 900 mm cen-
tres.
The internal and external temperature distributions are illustrated in Figure 80 and Figure 81 for support
angles at 600 mm spacing.
Figure 80 : Internal temperature distribution in the Figure 81 : External temperature distribution in the
region of the brickwork support angle – I beam sup- region of the brickwork support angle – I beam sup-
porting composite slab porting composite slab
Thermal Analysis of PFC Beam Supporting Quantum Floor

In the proposed Open Building System using Quantum floor, the PFC edge beam may represent a linear
cold bridge at the façade, depending on the location of the insulation and type of cladding used. Figure
82 shows a typical detail of attachment of brickwork to the PFC using a stainless steel angle attached at
approximately 0.9 m centres. A basic U value of 0.22 W/m2ºC of the light steel wall is achieved by 100
mm of inter-stud insulation within the light steel infill walls and by 50 mm of closed cell insulation
board in the brickwork cavity.
104
2 x 12.5 mm plasterboard
200 x 100 x 10 L
200 mm x 10 mm thick
plate welded to PFC 70
at 600 mm centres
Quantum floor 180
Brickwork
10
380 x 100 2x12.5
x 54 kg/m PFC
Strainless steel
brick support system 20 gap
Inter-stud mineral wool insulation
Closed cell insulation board
102 40 50 100 2x12.5
Figure 82 : Detail of PFC edge beam and brick support system in Quantum floor
The details of the thermal model for this configuration are presented in Figure 83, based on the cross-
section in Figure 82.
[W/mK]
52.000
52.000
52.000
14.700
1.553
1.552
1.500
0.770
0.204
0.179
0.160
0.065
0.038
0.037
0.025
0.025
Figure 83 : Model configuration and materials used for PFC edge beam
As previously, brickwork support angles are located at 600 or 900 mm spacing along the PFC edge
beam. The analysis for linear thermal bridging was compared to the case without a stainless steel
brickwork support angle in order to calculate the additional heat loss.
The results are presented in Table 43 in terms of the heat loss through linear thermal bridging Ψ, the
minimum surface temperature on the wall (relative to a room temperature of 20ºC) and fsi (see earlier
definition).
105
Table 43 : Results of thermal analyses of PFC supporting Quantum floor

600 mm cs

900 mm cs
Brick supports at None between flanges 0.343 17.1 0.859

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

Beneath the building shell also the thermal inertia influences the internal climate and the energy de-
mand of a building, in particular for cooling. A detailed analysis of prefabricated deck systems in or
with steel (including thermo-active systems) was presented in the EEBIS project.
The laser-welded steel sandwich panels offers the opportunity to implement a piping system and / or
PCM as additional thermal capacity. A main challenge for this and other deck systems discussed for the
OBS is the to combine the contrarious demands of acoustics, fire safety and thermal inertia for prefabri-
cated and light weight elements.
106
5.2.5 Interface attachments
The performance of prefabricated systems is concerning various criteria a question of the interfaces.
The stability, thermal performance, airtightness and (partly) acoustic is mainly influenced by the solu-
tions for the interfaces. Details to these aspects are described above.
Aspect of the design of interfaces were presented in principle in WP1 and WP2 and the corresponding
background documents, therefore no additional information are presented in this section.
107
WP 6: Design ‘Tools’ and Design Guide
WP 6.1: Design Guide
A Design Guide for pre-fabricated “Open Building Systems” in steel was extracted. The main princi-
ples, technical solutions and exemplary ground plans for Open Building are shown. This guideline is
edited as a stand-alone document (see Appendix 2) and could be used by architects, engineers and
building owners mainly in the early phases of the design process, when the general decisions regarding
structure and floor plan have to be made.
WP 6.2: Design Tools

Design ‘tools’ for open building systems depend on the construction technologies that are used. For
steel constructional systems, a high level of design information exists, which assists in the design proc-
ess. Many specialist systems use supporting physical test information in order to develop specialist de-
sign software for general applications. Structural design may be based on the requirements of the rele-
vant parts of Eurocodes 3 and 4 for steel and composite construction.
In the INPREST project, it has not been possible to develop these design ‘tools’, but simplified load
tables can be prepared for the various components, such as the primary steel frame, and load bearing or
infill walls in light steel framing. An example of the simplified design tools for light steel walls is pre-
sented in the following section. Other examples of the design tools that are available were presented in
WP3.
Example of simple design tools

Load bearing light steel walls
The compression resistance of light steel walls using C sections is dependent on their buckling resis-
tance as modified for the eccentricity of load application and the stabilising effect of boards attached to
them. For most C sections, it is major axis buckling which controls, when a mid-height restraint is
manufactured within the wall or when restrained by plasterboards in the minor axis direction. Data for
the compression resistance of single C section studs are presented in Table 1.
Where loads are applied at an eccentricity (e.g. floors are supported on a Z section on the wall studs), a
reduction factor should be made to account for combined moment, and compression. In this case, the
compression resistance is modified as shown also in Table 44, taking into account an eccentricity of
half the section depth in the major axis direction.
108
Table 44 : Example of compression resistance of load bearing walls using C sections
Load capacity -
Moment capac- Load capacity - Load capacity -
Wall stud C section Effective buckling and
ity no buckling buckling
height of wall eccentricity
(Depth x Width x Mcx Pcs Pc
Thickness) P'c,red
(m) (kNm) (kN) (kN) (kN)
70 x 45 x 1.2 2.50 32.3 18.2
70 x 45 x 1.2 2.75 1.38 57.9 27.5 16.5
70 x 45 x 1.2 3.00 23.6 15.0
100 x 45 x 1.2 2.50 32.7 19.2
100 x 45 x 1.2 2.75 2.27 58.9 30.0 18.5
100 x 45 x 1.2 3.00 26.8 16.8
100 x 45 x 1.6 2.50 53.2 28.9
100 x 45 x 1.6 2.75 3.13 88.8 47.5 27.0
100 x 45 x 1.6 3.00 40.0 24.4
(Note: Modified buckling resistances in Table 44 includes the effect of eccentricity of the load applica-
tion acting at the face of the C section)
Infill walls subject to wind loading

Infill walls are non-load bearing external walls that are designed for wind resistance and to support the
weight of the cladding. Brickwork is generally ground supported, or located on stainless steel angles
attached to the primary frame. Wind pressures are determined according to basic wind speed and the
building location, height and orientation. South or west facing panels at the corners of the buildings are
the most critical for design.
Data for external walls may be presented as a function of the design wind pressure and the deflection
limit for the type of cladding , as follows:
• brickwork (deflection limit of height/500)
• lightweight cladding (deflection limit of height/360)
Typical data for various C sections are presented in Table 45.The top of the wall panel is restrained by a
bracket attached at not more than 600 mm centres, which allows for relative vertical movement of up to
10 mm.
109
Table 45 : Design tables for infill (non load bearing walls) supporting brickwork
(a) Maximum height (m) of wall using 150 × 1.6 C wall studs
Stud Spacing Wind pressure (kN/m2)

(mm)
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
600 4.6 4.2 3.9 3.6
400 5.2 4.7 4.4 4.1
300 5.7 5.2 4.9 4.6
* Height based on deflection limit of height/500
(b) Maximum height (m) of wall using 100 × 1.6 C wall studs

(mm)
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
600 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.6
400 3.8 3.4 3.1 2.9
300 4.2 3.8 3.5 3.2
(c) Maximum height (m) of wall using 100 × 1.2 C wall studs

(mm)
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
600 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.3
400 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.6
300 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.7
110
Exploitation and impact of the research results
The project has investigated pre-fabricated solutions in steel to create “Open Building Systems”, which
offer high flexibility concerning the use of the building and also concerning the elements and the pro-
viders.
In the design guide a concise compilation of the general concept and of various technical solutions for
“Open building systems” in steel is given, that is helpful for architects and engineers to realise their
own project using existing systems.
Furthermore, results of this project are fed in the FP6 – Project “Manubuild” (2005 – 2009).
As a practical exploitation of the project, CORUS achieved a patent on an invention, that was devel-
oped as a result of this project. The solution is called “DippleClick” joint.
The development and errection of the “Modular Research Building” (RWTH Aachen) got scientific
support by the INPREST project, this building is now relevant for further research in the field of modu-
lar light weight construction in steel (e.g. RFCS-project ETHICS, since 2008).
111
List of figures and tables
List of figures
Figure 1 : Overview of Open Building Systems (part 1) 16
Figure 2 : Overview of Open Building Systems (part 2) 17
Figure 3 : Overview of integrated steel options (part 1) 18
Figure 4 : Overview of integrated steel options (part 2) 19
Figure 5 : Venn diagram showing the components of a system and their interactions 28
Figure 6 : Floor options available in the PRISM system 32
Figure 7 : PRISM in construction 33
Figure 8 : Interface example from PRISM 33
Figure 9 : The Nordicon exterior wall element 35
Figure 10 : The double layer floor system as used in the Nordicon system 36
Figure 11 : Nordicon exterior wall element dimensioning curve 37
Figure 12 : Fitting a narrowed non-bearing Nordicon element on a hollow-core surface 37
Figure 13 : Details of the Quantum floor System from the Corus Open Building System 40
Figure 14 : Corus Open Building System corner supported module 40
Figure 15 : Corus Open Building System initial beam sizing chart example 41
Figure 16 : Corus Open Building System floor sizing tables 41
Figure 17 : Residential building with apartments around a stair/lift core – shallow plan form 42
Figure 18 : Residential building with apartments either side of a central corridor – deep plan
form 42
Figure 19 : Layout for 1D/2D/3D variation of the Corus Open Building System 43
Figure 20 : Interface at the module to module to panelised area in the Corus Open Building
System 43
Figure 21 : RWTH Aachen research facility – schematic of steel frame 46
Figure 22 : Finished I-core panel 46
Figure 23 : Modular stairs, dimensions of module (left), use of “false landing” of intermediate
module(right) 48
Figure 24 : Lift module, dimensions of module (left), structure of light lift module (right) 48
Figure 25 : Assembling of Components 49
Figure 26 : Measurement system 50
Figure 27 : Variation of size and floor plan 50
Figure 28 : General data exchange classification 51
Figure 29 : Model data in building process (ProIT ©) 53
Figure 30 : Data exchange based on independent solutions 53
Figure 31 : Data exchange based international (IFC) standard 54
Figure 32 : Data exchange using model server technique 54
Figure 33 : Steps in light steel design and detailing process in UK 56
Figure 34 : GDL object user interface 58
Figure 35 : GDL object 3D ‘bird eye’ view 58
Figure 36 : Software integration environment used in pilot 59
Figure 37 : Used XML description file content in XML file editor 60
Figure 38 : Final Nordicon light weight wall element product model 61
Figure 39 : Structural hollow section spliced connection 61
Figure 40 : BIM to production (CAM) data flow 63
Figure 41 : Primary and secondary components and the interrelations of design decisions 66
Figure 42 : Fixed’ and ‘variable’ factors in opportunities for customisation 67
Figure 43 : Corus Open Building System Prototypes 87
Figure 44 : Interfaces at the corner of the Corus Open Building System module 87
Figure 45 : Basic material used for airborne acoustic testing 89
Figure 46 : Basic impact sound generator 90
113
Figure 47 : Façade: Thermo Profile, no brick cover 90
Figure 48 : Façade: Thermo Profile, brick cover 90
Figure 49 : Section I-Core for SAFIR 91
Figure 50 : Boundary conditions 91
Figure 51 : Development of temperature at reference points 91
Figure 53 : Statical system 92
Figure 54 : Development of displacement 92
Figure 55 : FEM-model 92
Figure 56 : FEM-model, boundary conditions 92
Figure 57 : Reference points for temperature 93
Figure 61 : FEM-model 94
Figure 62 : Boundary conditions 94
Figure 63 : Reference points for temperature 94
Figure 67 : Air-tightness Test Rig of RWTH 96
Figure 68 : Joint wiht sealing tape 96
Figure 69 : Joint without sealing tape 96
Figure 70 : Result Air-tightness Test, test specimen: Sandwich panel 97
Figure 71 : Depressurisation Test 98
Figure 72 : Pressurisation Test 98
Figure 73 : Air flow at different pressure differences – Test curve of Modular Research
Building 99
Figure 74 : Corner 101
Figure 75 : Temperature distribution - 2D- and 3D-Modelling 101
Figure 76 : Use of the Infrared Camera at the Modular Research Building in Steel 101
Figure 77 : Infrared Survey of the Modular Research Building in Steel 101
Figure 78 : ASB edge beam supporting Slimdek 102
Figure 79 : Model configuration and materials used for I beam 103
Figure 80 : Internal temperature distribution in the region of the brickwork support angle – I
beam supporting composite slab 104
Figure 81 : External temperature distribution in the region of the brickwork support angle – I
beam supporting composite slab 104
Figure 82 : Detail of PFC edge beam and brick support system in Quantum floor 105
Figure 83 : Model configuration and materials used for PFC edge beam 105
Figure 84 : Inside temperature distribution in the region of the brickwork support angles – PFC
edge beam supporting Quantum floor 106
Figure 85 : External temperature distribution in the region of the brickwork support angles –
PFC edge beam supporting Quantum floor 106
114
List of tables
Table 1 : Façade options OBS 20
Table 2 : Application of open building technologies in various building types 22
Table 3 : Questionnaire – part 1 22
Table 7 : Relevant dimensions – residential buildings 24
Table 8 : Relevant dimensions – office buildings 25
Table 9 : Protocol for Open Building Systems 25
Table 10 : Definition of elements of a building system 28
Table 11 : Combinations of components to create systems 29
Table 12 : Main components of the PRISM system and tools available 31
Table 13 : Example of Column design tables from the PRISM system 33
Table 14 : PRISM – fit with essential requirements of open building systems protocol 34
Table 15 : Nordicon – fit with essential requirements of open building systems protocol 38
Table 16 : The Corus Open Building System kit of parts 39
Table 17 : List of interfaces identified for the Corus Open Building System 44
Table 18 : Corus Open Building System – fit with essential requirements of open building
systems protocol 45
Table 19 : RWTH Aachen research facility – fit with essential requirements of open building
systems protocol 47
Table 20 : Status of electronic data transfer in manufacture of light steel framing and modular
units 57
Table 21 : Design ‘tools’ for Open Building Systems 62
Table 22 : 6 level building, urban collective housing, 3PM system (Main beams) 64
Table 23 : Specific data main beams (e1: minimum thickness where local plate buckling is
taken into account, according to CM66 [3-2]) 65
Table 24 : Overall design parameters 68
Table 25 : Overall design parameters Example of customisation - external walls 69
Table 26 : Example of customisation - separating walls 70
Table 27 : Summary of Sustainable system of Assessment for Building 73
Table 28 : Global view of final draft of Sustainable Table for Assessment (environmental
issues) 76
Table 29 : Summary of opportunities for steel construction 77
Table 30 : Value benefits of open building systems 78
Table 31 : Assessment of previous case studies with INPREST Table (presented in Table 28)81
Table 32 : Building Certification (Ref.: Extract from Sustainability Guideline, Federal Ministry
of Transport, Building and Housing, Germany [4-1]) 82
Table 33 : Building Certification (Ref.:IISBE, Canada [4-2]) 83
Table 34 : Performance criteria affected by Open Building approach 85
Table 35 : Results of pull out tests on the Corus light steel joint 88
Table 36 : Wall panel racking tests for Corus Open Building System 89
Table 37 : Acoustic performance of external walls for Open Building Systems 90
Table 38 : Relevant quantities for air-tightness acc. EN 13829 98
Table 39 : Requirements and test results of whole building air-tightness 99
Table 40 : Factor for additional heat losses over joints of composite panels 100
Table 41 : Results of thermal analyses of ASB supporting Slimdek 102
Table 42 : Results of thermal analyses of I beam supporting brickwork 104
Table 43 : Results of thermal analyses of PFC supporting Quantum floor 106
Table 44 : Example of compression resistance of load bearing walls using C sections 109
Table 45 : Design tables for infill (non load bearing walls) supporting brickwork 110
115
List of references
[1-1] Kendall, S., Teicher, J., Residential Open Building, E & FN Spon, 2000
[1-2] European Commission - Technical Steel Research, Euro-Build in steel - Evaluation
of client demand, sustainability and future regulations on the next generation of
building design in steel, Final report EUR 22959 EN, Luxemburg, 2007
[2-1] www.pluskoti.com
[3-1] Eurostep, SABLE (Simple Access to the Building Lifecycle Exchange), Research
Project, , Finland, 2003 - 2005
[3-2] CTICM, Regles CM 66 et additif 80, Eyrolles, Paris, 2005
[4-1] Federal Office for Building and Regional Planing, Guideline for Sustainable Build-
ing, Berlin, 2001
[4-2] IISBE (International Initiative for Sustainable Built Environment),
http://greenbuilding.ca/iisbe/start/iisbe.htm
[5-1] Visscher, H., Meijer, F., Building regulation for housing quality in Europe, Confer-
cence: ”Housing in an expanding Europe: Theory, policy, participation and imple-
mentation", Ljubljana, 2006
[5-2] Promethor, Research of façade airborne sound insulation with calculations and field
measurements (research report, not published), Turku, 2006
117
Appendices
Appendix 1: List of documents distributed in the frame of INPREST

(full documents are provide on CD “INPREST background-documents”)
InX Date of Title, partner, date

distribu-
tion
In001 25.10.04 “Case Studies on Innovative Construction Technologies in the Residen-
tial Sector”, hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the Kick-
Off-Meeting in Aachen, 25./26.10.2004
In002 25.10.04 “Open Building Systems in the Netherlands”, hard copy distributed by
Mark Lawson, SCI, on the Kick-Off-Meeting in Aachen, 25./26.10.2004
In003 25.10.04 RWTH presentation, Agenda 1st Meeting, Administrative matters,
25/10/04
In004 25.10.04 RWTH presentation, Review of technical annex, Future works, 25/10/04
In005 25.10.04 CORUS presentation, 25/10/04
In006 25.10.04 RUUKKI presentation, 1st part, 25/10/04
In007 25.10.04 RUUKKI presentation, 2nd part, 25/10/04
In008 25.10.04 CTICM presentation, 25/10/04
In009 25.10.04 RWTH presentation, 25/10/04
In010 25.10.04 SCI presentation, 1st part, 25/10/04
In011 25.10.04 SCI presentation, 2nd part, 25/10/04
In012 25.10.04 SCI presentation, 3rd part, 25/10/04
In013 22.12.04 Minutes 1st Meeting, RWTH, 22.12.04
In014 09.11.04 “What is residential open building?”, Frits Scheublin, 09.11.04
In015 16.02.05 "Database of buildings pre-fabricated buildings - Case examples from
UK", hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 2nd Meeting in
Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005
In016 16.02.05 "Sustainability criteria", hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on
the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005
In017 16.02.05 "Light steel framing and modular suppliers", hard copy distributed by
Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005
In018 16.02.05 ECSC-project "Steel in residential buildings for adaptable and sustain-
able construction": "New way of building for urban residential pro-
jects", hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 2nd Meeting
in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005
In019 16.02.05 "Structural options for medium to high-rise buildings using 'mixed' tech-
nologies”, hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 2nd Meet-
ing in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005
In020 16.02.05 "Existing solutions of Open Building in the Netherlands - Smart
House", hard copy distributed by Frits Scheublin, CIB, on the 2nd Meet-
ing in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005
In021 16.02.05 "Existing solutions of Open Building in the Netherlands - The 7 Heav-
ens", hard copy distributed by Frits Scheublin, CIB, on the 2nd Meeting
in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005
In022 16.02.05 "The INO Hospital Bern Switzerland", CD, distributed by Patrice
Goudenou, CIB, on the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005
119
In023 16.02.05 "Open Building and Sustainable Environment", CD, Proceedings Con-
ference CIB 104, Paris, September 2004, distributed by Patrice Goude-
nou, CIB, on the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005
In024 16.02.05 "Market survey on Standardised Solutions for Steel in Low-Rise Build-
ings within Europe", Final report, December 2003, VRC Project 0213 -
Standardised Solutions for Steel in Low-rise Buildings, hard copy dis-
tributed by Olivier Vassart, Arcelor, on the 2nd Meeting in Rotterdam,
16./17.02.2005
In025 16.02.05 Example UK, distributed by Andy Stevens
In026 16.02.05 "Structural Steel Contributions toward obtaining a LEEDTM rating”,
hard copy distributed by Stephane Herbin, CTICM, on the 2nd Meeting
in Rotterdam, 16./17.02.2005
In027 16.02.05 "Guideline for Sustainable Building", Federal Office for Building and
Housing on behalf of Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing, Ger-
many
In028 02.03.05 "Existing solutions of Open Building in the Netherlands - Space boxes",
e-mail Frits Scheublin, 02.03.2005
In029 16.02.05 RWTH presentation, Agenda 2nd Meeting and Administrative Mat-
ters,16/02/05
In030 16.02.05 SCI presentation, 2nd Meeting Rotterdam, 16/02/05
In031 16.02.05 Arbed presentation, 2nd Meeting Rotterdam, 16/02/05
In032 16.02.05 Corus presentation, 2nd Meeting Rotterdam,16/02/05
In033 16.02.05 Ruuki presentation, 2nd Meeting Rotterdam, 16/02/05
In034 16.02.05 Ruuki QuickPlace quick info, 16/02/05
In035 16.02.05 CTICM presentation, 2nd Meeting Rotterdam, 16/02/05
In036 16.02.05 RWTH presentation, 2nd Meeting Rotterdam, 16/02/05
In037 18.02.05 Minutes 2nd Meeting Rotterdam, 18/02/05
In038 15.06.05 “Les Cahiers D’Acier Construction”, hard copy distributed by Philippe
Beguin and Stephane Herbin, CTICM, on the 3rd Meeting in Helsinki,
15./16.06.2005
In039 15.06.05 “PRISM – Produits Industriels et Structures Manufacturées – L’acier
dans le résidentiel”, hard copy distributed by Philippe Beguin and Ste-
phane Herbin, CTICM, on the 3rd Meeting in Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005
In040 15.06.05 “Review of Integrated Structural Options for Open Building Systems”,
distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 3rd Meeting in Helsinki,
15./16.06.2005
In041 15.06.05 “Sustainability – General Presentation of the approach for INPREST
project”, hard copy distributed by Philippe Beguin and Stephane Herbin,
CTICM, on the 3rd Meeting in Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005
In042 15.06.05 “Sustainability - The CRISP – European Thematic Network – Sum-
mary”, hard copy distributed by Philippe Beguin and Stephane Herbin,
CTICM, on the 3rd Meeting in Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005
In043 15.06.05 “Sustainability – Presentation of sustainable systems”, hard copy dis-
tributed by Philippe Beguin and Stephane Herbin, CTICM, on the 3rd
Meeting in Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005
In044 15.06.05 “Sustainability - The LEEDTM Rating System”, hard copy distributed by
Philippe Beguin and Stephane Herbin, CTICM, on the 3rd Meeting in
Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005
In045 15.06.05 “Sustainability – Sustainable Issues and targets”, hard copy distributed
by Philippe Beguin and Stephane Herbin, CTICM, on the 3rd Meeting in
Helsinki, 15./16.06.2005
120
In046 15.06.05 RWTH presentation, Agenda 3rd Meeting and Administrative Mat-
ters,15/06/05
In047 15.06.05 CORUS 1st presentation, 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 15/06/05
In048 15.06.05 CORUS 2nd presentation, 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 15/06/05
In049 16.06.05 CTICM presentation, 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 16/06/05
In050 16.06.05 PARE presentation, 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 16/06/05
In051 16.06.05 RWTH 1st presentation, 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 16/06/05
In052 16.06.05 RWTH 2nd presentation, 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 16/06/05
In053 17.06.05 Minutes 3rd Meeting Helsinki, 17/06/05
In054a 22.06.05 “Protocol for Open Building Systems”, e-mail Marc Lawson,
22.06.2005
In054b 11.01.06 New Version “Protocol for Open Building Systems”, produced on the
4th Meeting in Ashorne Hill, 11.01.06
In055 22.06.05 “Questionaire for “Voice of the customer” in Open Building Systems”,
e-mail Marc Lawson, 22.06.2005
In056 31.03.05 “1st Six-monthly Report 01.07.04 – 31.12.04”
In057 30.09.05 “2nd Six-monthly Report 01.01.05 – 30.06.05”
In058 23.09.05 “Façade Systems for Residential and Mixed Use Buildings”, distributed
by Mark Lawson
In059 23.09.05 “Residential Building Form – “Mixed” Residential and Commercial
Building using Slim Deck”, distributed by Mark Lawson
In060 02.01.06 “Technical criteria for assessment of facades”, spread sheet distributed
by Aarne Seppanen
In061 11.01.06 “Case Studies on Residential Buildings using Steel”, hard copy distrib-
uted by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 4th Meeting in Ashorne Hill,
11./12.01.2006
In062 11.01.06 “Use of Quantum Floor in Open Building System”, hard copy distrib-
uted by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 4th Meeting in Ashorne Hill,
11./12.01.2006
In063 11.01.06 “Benefits of Modern Methods of Construction (MMC)”, hard copy dis-
tributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 4th Meeting in Ashorne Hill,
11./12.01.2006
In064 11.01.06 “Social housing in Evreux”, distributed by Olivier Vassart
In065 European light Social housing in Evreux, will be distributed by Olivier
Vassart
In066 11.01.06 “Façade Systems for Collective Housing in Multi-storey Steel Building
in France”, hard copy (1st draft) distributed by St. Herbin and Ph. Be-
guin, CTICM, on the 4th Meeting in Ashorne Hill, 11./12.01.2006
In067 11.01.06 “Sustainability Table for Assessment”, hard copy distributed by St. Her-
bin and Ph. Beguin, CTICM, on the 4th Meeting in Ashorne Hill,
11./12.01.2006
In068 11.01.06 RWTH presentation, Agenda 4th Meeting and Administrative Mat-
ters,11/01/06
In069 12.01.06 SCI presentation, 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 12/01/06
In070 12.01.06 RWTH 1st presentation, 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 12/01/06
In071 12.01.06 RWTH 2nd presentation, 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 12/01/06
In072 12.01.06 Ruukki presentation, 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 12/01/06
In073 12.01.06 CTICM presentation, 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 12/01/06
In074 12.01.06 CIB presentation, 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 12/01/06
In075 13.01.06 Minutes 4th Meeting Ashorne Hill, 13/01/06
In076 31.03.06 Midterm Report, March 2006
121
In077 27.06.06 “European Lightweight Steel-framed Construction”, hard copy distrib-
uted by Olivier Vassart, PARE, on the 5th Meeting in Paris,
27./28.06.2006
In078 27.06.06 “Modular Construction in France”, distributed by St. Herbin and Ph.
Beguin, CTICM, on the 5th Meeting in Paris, 27./28.06.2006
In079 27.06.06 “Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Sustainability”, hard copy distributed by
St. Herbin and Ph. Beguin, CTICM, on the 5th Meeting in Paris,
27./28.06.2006
In080 27.06.06 “Cold bridging through Brick Support Angles at PFC edge beams in
Quantum floor”, hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 5th
Meeting in Paris, 27./28.06.2006
In081 27.06.06 “COREFAST as part of integrated construction system”, distributed by
Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 5th Meeting in Paris, 27./28.06.2006
In082 27.06.06 RWTH presentation, Agenda 5th Meeting and Administrative Matters,
27/06/06
In083 27.06.06 Inprest Midterm TGS8 Presentation
In084 27.06.06 CORUS 1st presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06
In085 27.06.06 PARE presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06
In086 27.06.06 CTICM 1st presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06
In087 27.06.06 RWTH 1st presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06
In088 27.06.06 Ruukki presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06
In089 27.06.06 CTICM 2nd presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06
In090 27.06.06 CTICM 3rd presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 27/06/06
In091 28.06.06 RWTH 2nd presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 28/06/06
In092 28.06.06 CORUS 2nd presentation, 5th Meeting Paris, 28/06/06
In093 28.06.06 “Sustainability Table for Assessment”, distributed by St. Herbin and Ph.
Beguin, CTICM, on the 5th Meeting in Paris, 27./28.06.2006
In094 18.09.06 Minutes 5th Meeting Paris, 18/09/06
In095 30.09.06 “Six-monthly Report 01.01.06 – 30.06.06”
In096 10.01.07 “Nordicon exterior wall element – Design – Installation”, distributed by
Aarne Seppänen, Ruukki, on the 6th Meeting in Esch-sur-Alzette,
10./11.01.2007
In097 10.01.07 “Corefast as part of integrated construction system”, distributed by
Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 6th Meeting in Esch-sur-Alzette,
10./11.01.2007
In098 10.01.07 “Large Pre-fabricated Façade Panels in Light Steel Framing”, distrib-
uted by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 6th Meeting in Esch-sur-Alzette,
10./11.01.2007
In099 10.01.07 “Hybrid Buildings using Modular Stairs and Lifts”, hard copy distrib-
uted by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 6th Meeting in Esch-sur-Alzette,
10./11.01.2007
In100 10.01.07 “Tall Residential Buildings using Corefast and Modular Construction”,
hard copy distributed by Mark Lawson, SCI, on the 6th Meeting in
Esch-sur-Alzette, 10./11.01.2007
In101 10.01.07 RWTH presentation, Agenda 6th Meeting and Administrative Matters,
10/01/07
In102 10.01.07 CTICM presentation, 6th Meeting Esch-sur-Alzette, 10/01/07
In103 10.01.07 Ruukki presentation, 6th Meeting Esch-sur-Alzette, 10/01/07
In104 27.03.07 Minutes 6th Meeting Paris, 27/03/07
In105 31.03.07 “Six-monthly Report 01.07.06 – 31.12.06”
In106 31.03.08 Minutes 7th Meeting Ascot, 25/10/07
122
In107 31.03.08 Minutes 8th Meeting Aachen, 12/12/07
In108 31.03.08 Sustainabilty – Methods and Case Studies, CTICM
123
Appendix 2: Design Guide
125
INPREST: Design Guide
Design Using Pre-fabricated ‘Open’

Construction Technologies
Introduction
The use of highly pre-fabricated and lightweight forms of construction is KEY BENEFITS
increasing for residential buildings, for mixed commercial/housing projects, The characteristics that influence the
educational and health sector buildings, where the benefits of off-site choice of a highly pre-fabricated
prefabrication and improved quality in manufacture can be realised. construction technology, are as
follows:
‘Open’ construction technologies combine a range of construction systems
• Economy of scale through repetitive
which achieve the benefits of flexible, adaptable and easily maintainable
manufacture of pre-fabricated
space through a highly pre-fabricated and rapidly assembled series of components
inter-changeable components. Steel technologies comprise linear, • Speed of construction
2-dimensional and 3-dimensional components, and it is the modular or • Improved quality control and
volumetric units which are highly pre-fabricated and which may be combined reliability
with linear or planar elements to create a more accessible and flexible • Flexibility in building use
construction system. The main sectors of application are in: • Disruption to the locality is to be
• Private and social housing minimised during construction
• Apartments and mixed use buildings • Future extensions and adaptations
are envisaged later in the building’s
• Educational sector and student residences life
• Key worker accommodation and sheltered housing
• Involvement of the supply chain in
• Public sector buildings, such as military accommodation the design process
• Health sector buildings
This Design Guide reviews the principle forms of construction using pre-
fabricated steel technologies and their key design and interface issues.
Steel-intensive apartment buildings, Evreux,

France (Dubosc and Landowski architects)
House built using a modular and panel system (Openhouse , Sweden)

This Design Guide is part of RFCS
project: RFSR-CT-2004/00042
RFCS-PR-03088
Modules supported by inclined tubular columns (Unite, Plymouth, UK)
126
Design Guide – Mixed 2 Dimensional and 1 Dimensional Components
This Design Guide reviews the range of pre-fabricated An innovative 'hidden' connection detail is used to attach
steel technologies that may be used in 'open' building the RHS beams to the SHS columns. The light steel wall
systems comprising the mixed use of linear (1 D), planar panels use C sections with insulation between the wall
(2D),and modular (3D) components. The following studs. Any type of façade material may be used.
sections present the various combinations of 1D 2D and
3D component that are possible. The beams are 200 × 100 RHS beams with a wall
thickness selected depending on the beam span. The floor
grid is designed for 6 m × 5.4 m and the RHS beams are
Mixed floor cassettes and primary structure designed to span up to 6 m. The beam – column
Form of construction connection detail is shown in Figure 2.
Floor cassettes or panels may be prefabricated and The columns are 100 × 100 SHS. Stability is provided by
supported by a primary steel structure of various forms. X-bracing in the form of tie rods placed in selected walls.
Examples of this technology are:
The 200 mm deep light steel floor joists are placed at a
• Rectangular Hollow Section beams supporting light steel spacing of 400 mm and are pre-fabricated as a floor
floor panels – SMART House cassette, which is attached onto brackets over the RHS
• Inverted precast slab with steel beams – INFRA Plus and beams. An in-situ thin gypsum screed is placed on the
Kvantti floor floor boarding to improve the rigidity and acoustic
• Slim floor or integrated beams supporting precast concrete insulation of the floor.
slabs or prefabricated composite slabs
The non-load bearing light steel walls use 100 mm
• I beams or [ beams supporting prefabricated light steel
C sections that are pre-fabricated as panels with an
composite floor cassette - Quantum floor
external weather-resisting board. In the Rotterdam project,
These forms of construction are described separately.
painted marine grade plywood was used, as an exterior
Application 'rain-screen'. Walls are re-locatable and can be moved o
Residential buildings and commercial buildings requiring a suit the spatial use of the building.
primary steel frame and a prefabricated ‘dry’ construction The kitchen, bathroom and services are concentrated in a
system often incorporating services, as in INFRAPlus and central core, which is independent of the structure and all
Kvantti. Quantum floors may also be used as the base of services are passed through the floor zone.
a module.
Technical details – Smart House
Smart House is a novel system based on the use of
Rectangular Hollow Sections (RHS) as beams and Square
Hollow Sections (SHS) as columns. The RHS beams
support a pre-fabricated floor cassette using light steel
C sections. A demonstration building using this technology
is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2 Hidden connection detail of RHS beams to SHS columns
Figure 1 Smart House project in Rotterdam
127
Technical Details – Kvantti Floor

The Ruukki system uses a variety of steel components in
the primary structure and cladding as follows:
• Kvantti floor consisting of an inverted floor using C or I steel
sections and with an exposed concrete ceiling (Figure 3)
• Nordicon wall consisting of light steel C sections and SHS
sections embedded in the insulated wall panel
• Tubular columns that may be concrete-filled for fire
resistance
• Integrated floor beans (using “top hat” sections) that
support the flooring elements
Nordicon panels can be finished with a variety of cladding
and internal materials.
Figure 4 View of 6 storey buildings at Arabianranta project,

20 Helsinki
35
Floor boards
Battens
Kvantti floor
250 Service zone
Insulation
60 Pre cast slab
(a) Kvantti floor (b) Wall panel
Figure 3 Kvantti floor and attachment to wall panels
The Kvantti floor system consist of light steel C sections or

I beams of up to 300 mm depth and an inverted concrete
slab of 50-70 mm depth, which provides the necessary
acoustic insulation and fire resistance requirements.
Spans of up to 10 m can be achieved in residential
buildings.
The flooring system may be supported by fabricated “top
hat” steel beams (HQ profiles) and square or circular
hollow section columns. The bottom flange of the beam
and the hollow sections may be fire protected by
intumescent coating for up to 60 minutes fore resistance
The Nordicon panels consist of slotted thermo-profile
C sections and are insulated to achieve a U value of
0.2 W/m2 0C. The wall panels are load-bearing up to
4 storeys height and can support the floor panels directly
by a recess in the top of the panel. Any type of façade
material may be directly attached to the wall panel and
effectively acts as a “rain screen” rather than a water-tight
façade.
Nordicon panels can also support the Kvantti floor by use
of a heavy Z section placed over the wall panel, as
illustrated above. It has been used in a recent major
housing project called Plus Home in Helsinki, shown in
Figure 4.Services are integrated in the structure, as shown Figure 5 Inverted beams showing integration of services and
support by prefabricated walls
in Figure 5.
128
Technical Details – INFRA PLUS
INFRA+ is a prefabricated flooring system based on pairs

of I beams at 1.2 m spacing, in which a concrete slab is
pre-cast around the bottom flanges of the beams. The slab
cantilevers 0.6 m and so the coverage of the inverted slab
is 2.4 m, which is suitable for transportation and
installation.
The slab is typically 70 mm thick and is exposed on its
underside. The joints are filled on site. Services are
located on the slab and provide for under-floor heating and
cooling. The floor system attached to the top flange spans
1.2 m between the beams, and may use a gypsum screed
on floor boarding on shallow decking.
A recent example of INFRA+ in a residential building is
Figure 7 Under-floor servicing in INFRA+
called La Fenetre in Den Haag (NL) which is supported on
inclined tubular columns - see Figure 6. Technical Details – Integrated Beams
Integrated beam construction comprises various
components in an essentially “dry” construction process:
• Integrated steel beams
• C section edge beams
• Hollow core precast concrete slabs
• In-situ concrete screed
The integrated steel beams are fabricated either as “top
hat” sections of 200 to 300 mm depth or as double
C sections with a welded bottom plates. The beams can
span up to 6 m. The hollow-core concrete slabs are
generally 200 to 320 mm deep and span from 7 to 11 m.
Installation of a hollow-core slab is shown in Figure 8.
The edge beams are often thicker C sections bent from
steel plate. The columns are small diameter circular
hollow sections often with an embedded steel cruciform
section for additional fire resistance. Water pipes for
heating are often incorporated in the screed.
Figure 6 Residential building, La Fenetre, Den Haag
A variety of steel beams may be used depending on their

span and loading. Although the top flange is not laterally
restrained, torsional restraint is provided by the slab cast
around the bottom flange, A typical beam span : depth
ratio is 20 and so a 450 mm deep I beam can span up to
9 m. The form of construction is illustrated for the La
Fenetre project in Figure 7.
The INFRA+ precast floor panels may be supported by
perimeter steel beams placed below the floor panels. The
slab is cast 100 mm short of the edge of the beams.
Ideally, the supporting beams should align with internal Figure 8 Installation of hollow-core precast slab on integrated
walls. Heating / cooling pipes may also be cast into the beams and perimeter C sections
slab, as shown in Figure 7.
129
6 - 7.5 m 6 - 7.5 m
Technical Details – Quantum Floor
300 x 100 x 46 kg/m PFC 300 x 100 x 46 kg/m PFC
Quantum floor comprises light steel C sections embedded
in a thin concrete slab and is typically 300 mm deep for a
280 ASB 136

7.2 m clear span. Details are shown in Figure 9. Support
is provided by a steel angle fabricated as part of the floor, Span of
Quantum
and the on-site attachment is made by bolts to the flange floor
6 - 7.5 m
at the supporting beams.
0 Module Module
720
300 x 100 x 46 kg/m PFC

C-62 x 2.0
Corridor
445 7 50
5 55
150 x 150 L C-220 x 2.0
(a) Isometric view of floor

Module Module
150 x 150 L
40 Mesh reinforcement Concrete 40
70
Figure 10 Plan form of a building with Quantum floor orientated

220
C-220 x 2.0 along the building

Other integrated flooring systems
Figure 9 Details of Quantum Floor and its support beams Other flooring systems may be used, which integrate
modules effectively within the structural zone. Precast
For general application of this technology, the target floor concrete slabs may be placed on the bottom flange of
grid is 6 to 7.5 m square, which is applicable to residential I section or integrated beams, so that the floor of the
buildings, office buildings and health centres, and a typical module and of the floor cassette are of consistent depth,
configuration with a central corridor. as illustrated in Figure 11 and 12.
The Quantum floor can also form the base to a module, 200 approx.
Module
which spans the longer direction between support beams.
In this way, the module can be used in a wider range of Floor 150
applications that may require partial or fully open sides. 200 - 250 75
Gap
225
The ‘target’ range of building heights if 3 to 6 storeys. The
130 - 150
columns may be Square Hollow Sections (SHS) of Deep Shallow SFB or ASB beam
200 × 200 or 250 × 250 section for 5 or 6 storey buildings, decking decking
or alternatively a group of two or four 100 × 100 or

3000 - 3500
120 × 120 SHS posts.

Figure 11 Mixed use of modules and integrated beams
In the floor configuration shown in Figure 10, the Quantum
floor is orientated along the building axis, which is suitable
for highly serviced modular units, such as toilets or 100 Module
30 - 5
kitchens. In this case, ASB beams support the Quantum
floor, which spans typically 5.4 to 7.5 m. Floor 200-25
200 - 250
150 dia.
ICORE is also an innovative double skin floor and walling Gap 150
system that may be supported on a steel frame and also
used to support the modules directly . It also effectively Hollow-core slab Pre-cast inverted floor 50
integrates services (see page 17).

Figure 12 Mixed use of modules and cellular beams
130
Design Guide– 3 Dimensional Components
Modular construction
The following types of modules (3 Dimensional units) may
be used in the design of fully modular buildings or
combined with other forms of steel construction to create
more adaptable buildings :
• Four-sided modules
• Partially open-sided modules
• Open-sided (corner supported) modules
• Modules supported by a primary structural frame
• Non-load bearing modules or “pods”
• Mixed modules and planar floor cassettes Figure 13 Typical four-sided module (by Terrapin)
• Special stair or lift modules The light steel walls typically use 70 to 100 mm deep
Recent applications are illustrated. C sections, and the maximum height of a modular building
is limited by the compression resistance of these
Four-sided modules members and also the bracing in the walls. The floor joists
Form of construction are typically 150 or 200 mm deep, and the combined floor
Modules may be designed to transfer loads continuously and ceiling depth is in the range of 300 to 450 mm.
through their longitudinal walls. In this form of construction,
modules are manufactured with four closed sides to create Additional steel angle members may be introduced in the
cellular-type buildings. The maximum width of the module recessed corners of the modules for lifting and for
that is suitable for transportation and installation limits the improved stability. These generic details are illustrated in
cellular space that is provided. Figure 16. Module-module connections are usually in the
form of plates that are bolted on site.
The modules are designed for combined vertical load due
to the modules that are supported above and in-plane
loads due to wind action. The maximum height of buildings
is 6-8 storeys, depending on location and exposure to wind
loading
Application:
Cellular buildings, such as hotels, student residences and
key worker accommodation.
Technical details
Modules are manufactured from a series of 2D-panels,
beginning with the floor cassette to which the four wall Figure 14 Module being lifted into place showing protective 'cage'
panels and ceiling panel are attached. The walls transfer
vertical loads and therefore the longitudinal walls of the
upper module are designed to sit on the walls of the
module below. An example of this type of module is
illustrated in Figure 3.
Modules are essentially 4-sided volumetric units with
openings in their ends for windows and doors. Their
external size is limited by transportation to approximately
4 m (3 to 3.6 m are typical internal module widths for most
applications). The module length is typically 6 to 10 m.
Special lifting frames are used, which allow the modules to
be unhooked safely at height. Examples of these types of
lifting frame are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15.
Figure 15 Module being lifted in the factory (Corus)
131
Design Using Modules
Design using modules – 3 Dimensional Components
Stability Table 1 Limiting building height depending on stabilising

system of 4-sided modules
The stabilising system depends on the geometric form of
the building, but various solutions may be used: Form of Modular Bracing Limit on size in concept
Construction Requirements design
• For low-rise buildings, in-plane bracing or diaphragm action Max. number Min.number of
of the board materials within the modules provide sufficient of storeys modules in
shear resistance, assisted by the module-module a group
connections which transfer the applied wind forces to the Single line of No additional 3 5
modules bracing
group of modules
With additional 6 8
• For buildings of 6 to 8 storeys height, a vertical bracing bracing in
system is often located around an access core, and gables
assisted by horizontal bracing or diaphragm action in the With additional 8 No limit
corridor floor between the modules stabilising core
Double line of No additional 6 2×8
• For taller buildings, a primary steel podium frame may be modules bracing
provided on which the modules are stacked (see later), or a Central corridor
concrete or steel core With additional 8 2 × 10
The maximum height of a group of modules is dependent bracing in
of the stability provided under wind action, and various gables
cases are presented in Table 1 for scheme design .Details With additional 10 No limit
stabilising core
and dimensions of particular module types differ, and so
precise guidance is system-specific.
65 x 1.2 C ceiling joists

at 400 mm centres
100 x 1.6 C wall studs

at 600 mm centres
Floor cassette
screw fixed to
150 x 1.6 C joists studs in wall panel
at 400 mm centres Recessed corner
with angle section
(a) Isometric view of 4-sided module
Floor surface 18
150
Insulation
10 300 mm Figure 17 Modular construction with metallic facade
Overall depth
20 65 of floor
Insulation gap
30
1 or 2 layers of fire-rated plasterbaord
Ceiling joist
300
(b) Cross - section through floor and ceiling
Figure 16 Details of 4-sided modules showing recessed corners

with additional angle sections
All walls are insulated, and are usually boarded externally

for weather protection. Additional external insulation can
be attached on-site.
Modules can be manufactured with integral balconies, and
a range of cladding materials can be pre-attached or
installed on site, as shown in Figures 17 and 18.
Figure 18 Integrated balconies manufactured within the modules
132
Design Guide – Adaptable 3 Dimensional Components
Partially open sided modules The edge beams in the floor cassette can be designed to
Partially open –sided modules can be manufactured so span 2 to 3 m to create openings in the sides or ends of the
that when two modules are placed together, larger open module. Additional strengthening members may be required
spaces may be created , leading to more adaptable for larger openings, which can be bolted to the posts.
buildings that may be re-configured to different uses.
Form of construction
Four-sided modules can be designed with partially
open-sides by introduction of corner and intermediate
posts and by using a stiff continuous edge beam
manufactured in the floor cassette. The maximum width of
opening is limited by the bending resistance and stiffness
of the edge member. Additional intermediate posts are
usually Square Hollow Sections (SHS) of small cross-
section, so that they can fit within the wall width.
Two modules can be placed together to create larger
rooms, as in Figure 19. The compression resistance of the
posts controls the maximum height of the building, but
6-8 storeys can be achieved, as for fully modular
construction. Additional edge beams are required for wider
openings, which can be bolted to the posts. Modules can Figure 20 Long module with a central corridor (Kingspan)
also be re-orientated at the internal posts to permit design Modules may be placed side by side to create larger
of more flexible building forms. spaces and modules can also be re-orientated at the
Long modules can also be designed to include an integral internal posts. Balconies or other components can be
corridor, as shown in 20. This can improve the speed of attached to the corner or internal posts. Overall stability is
construction by avoiding weather-tightness problems provided by additional bracing located in the walls of the
during installation and finishing work. modules. Longer modules may also be constructed with
integral corridors (see Figure 20). Temporary bracing for
Application: stability during lifting may be required in the open sides.
Key worker accommodation, small apartments, hotels with
A typical building form in which larger apartments are
corridors, communal areas in student residences etc.
created using partially open-sided units is shown in Figure
21 (and completed in Figure 22). In this case , the stairs
are also constructed as a module –see also page 17.
Use of an intermediate post to provide support to the edge
beam of an open-sided module is shown in Figure 23. In
this case, additional stiffening of the edge beam is
required to transfer compression forces through it to the
edge beam and post below.
Stability of these modules is affected by their partially
open sides, and also additional temporary restraints may
be necessary during transport and installation.
Partially open-sided modules may be used effectively in
the renovation and extension of existing buildings by
Figure 19 Partially open-ended module used in Barling Court (see addition of new bathroom and balconies, as illustrated in
opposite)
Figure 24. The modules are designed as load-bearing, but
Technical details are stabilised by attachment to the existing structure.
The form of construction is similar to that of 4-sided modules,
except for the use of additional posts, generally in the form of
70 × 70 to 100 × 100 SHS members.
133
Ceiling span
Living/Dining Bedroom
200
One bedroom unit
e 2.8 m
Edge member
n sid
Ope
Corner angle e
Storage n sid
Ope Edge
member
SHS
post .
Floor m max
Kitchen 3.0
Bathroom span
Hall
3.0 .
m max m max
. 3.0
(a) Open-sided module using modified C section edge member and SHS post
100
90 x 90 SHS post
Bathroom 20
Kitchen
200 150
Two bedroom unit
Storage
Stiffener
200
Living/Dining
Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2
(b) Detail on floor-ceiling showing (c) Detail on SHS post with

modified C edge members internal stiffeners
Balcony
Figure 23 Mid-side post to provide intermediate support to the

edge beams of modules
Figure 21 Layout of apartments using partially open-sided modules
(by PCKO Architects) – alternate modules are shaded.
Figure 24 Open-sided bathroom modules attached to an existing

building (Courtesy Ruukki)
Figure 22 Completed building (above), Barling Court, Stockwell,

London
134
Open-sided modules Technical details

Form of construction Open-sided modules comprise a primary steel framework
Fully open-sided modules are designed to transfer loads to and the longitudinal edge beams supporting the floor
the corner posts by bending of the deep longitudinal edge cassette are typically 300 to 450 mm deep, depending on
beams. The framework of the module is often in the form their span of typically 5 to 8 m. Some systems use heavy
of hot rolled steel members, such as Square Hollow cold formed sections, and others use PFC sections. The
Section (SHS) columns and Parallel Flange Channel edge beams supporting the ceiling cassette are shallower,
(PFC) edge beams, which are bolted together, as shown in but the combined depth of the edge beams the ceiling and
Figure 25. floor can be as high as 600 to 800 mm.
A shallower PFC section may be used to support the Design flexibility is provided by the open-sided modules
ceiling, but in all cases the combined depth of the edge and 3 to 3.6 m are typical widths, which can create rooms
beams is greater than for 4-sided modules. However, of 6 to 12 m width by combining modules.
modules can be placed side by side to create larger open The corner posts provide the compression resistance and
plan spaces, as required in hospitals and schools etc. are typically based on 100 x 100 SHS. The edge beams
The stability of the building generally relies on a separate may be connected to these posts by fin plates which
bracing system in the form of X-bracing in the separating provide nominal bending resistance. End plates and
walls. For this reason, fully open-ended modules are not Hollobolts to the SHS may also be used. The corner posts
often used for buildings more than 3 storeys high. The possess sufficient compression resistance for use in
walls of the module are non-load bearing, except where buildings up to 4 storeys in height.
they provide in-plane bracing. Lighter wall studs may be Open-sided modules are only stable for one or two
used than for 4-sided modules. storeys, unless additional bracing is introduced. For open
Smaller modules up to 5.5 m length may be manufactured plan buildings, the modules are stabilised by both a
by re-orientating the floor and ceiling joists to run vertical and horizontal bracing system. In-plane forces can
longitudinally, as in Figure 26. The joists may be of lattice be transferred by the floor and ceiling cassettes and
form to facilitate insertion of services. suitable connections at the corners of the modules.
Details of the internal framework of an open-sided module
using PFC beams and SHS posts are presented in
Figures 27 and 28. Installation of an open-sided module is
shown in Figure 29.
Figure 26 Smaller open-sided module using longitudinally

Figure 25 Primary steel frame used in an open-sided module spanning lattice joists
(Kingspan)
135
Design Guide– Adaptable 3 Dimensional Components
3600
An open-ended module is a variant of a 4-sided module in
which a rigid end frame is provided, usually consisting of
100 welded or rigidly connected RHS sections. The rigid end
150 200 x 90 PFC frame provides for overall stability and creates a fully
glazed façade, as bracing in the plane of the façade is not
required.
A modular system using a rigid end frame permits design
100 x 100 of a fully open-sided façade. The rigid end frame provides
x 6 SHS
3000 for overall stability of the modules under horizontal loads
and also attachment points for a full width cantilever
External wall balcony or walkway. A possible end frame design using
250 × 150 RHS sections welded with mitred corners is
shown in Figure 30(a). This form of construction may be
used for buildings up to 6 storeys, as the end frame is
200 250 300 x 90 PFC designed to resist both horizontal and vertical loads.
Inset C The rigid end frames are manufactured as part of the

module or can be assembled as separate components.
Figure 27 Structural frame of a corner supported module –
end view Light steel walls may be used for the internal walls to
create the required window and door openings. The
module-module attachments are made on site by plates
3600 and bolts, which are tightened through 70 mm diameter
600 holes in the RHS, as shown in Figure 30(b). The holes are
200 x 90 PFC
capped later. The overall floor depth is typically 450 mm.
100 x 1.6 C
0
600
100 x 100
x 6 SHS 600
300 Open side Internal wall
400 600
2700
300 x 90 PFC
150 x 1.6 C
7500 max.
Ceiling panel
Figure 28 Longitudinal edge beams of a corner supported module using 100 x 1.6 C
Wall panel
360 using 100 x 1.6 C
0
250 x 150 RHS

as welded frame
(a) Isometric view of module and welded end frame

150
20 gap 22 mm chipboard
100
70 Ø opening Floor
(200 x 1.6 C)
Overall depth
≈ 450 mm
10 mm CPB 95
250 x 150
RHS
300 x 150 x 20 Ceiling
connector plate (100 x 1.6 C)
2 x 12.5 mm
20 mm dia. plasterboard
bolt
(b) Detail at RHS frame at connection (c) Side view of RHS and module floor and ceiling
Figure 30 Rigid frame used to create an open end in a modular

unit
Figure 29 Modular school building during installation of
open-sided modules
136
Mixed modules and floor cassettes Technical details

Form of Construction The modular core of the building can be designed
In this ‘hybrid’ or mixed form of construction, long modules efficiently to accommodate the highly serviced and higher
may be stacked to form a load-bearing serviced core, and value parts of the building, such as lifts, stairs, bedrooms
floor cassettes span between the modules and and kitchens. This core provides the primary load-bearing
load-bearing walls, as illustrated in Figure 31. The floor and stabilising function to the whole building. Modules are
cassettes may be attached to the walls of the module usually arranged so that they occupy the full depth of
usually at the corner or intermediate posts. Because of the buildings of terraced form.
combined depth of the floor and ceiling of the module, it is Floor cassettes can be designed to span 4 to 6 m between
advantageous to design the floor cassettes to be relatively the modules or load-bearing walls, and the space between
deep and therefore to achieve spans up to 6 m. the modules can be partitioned independently of the
structure in order to create more flexible space. This
The form of construction of the modules is similar to that
concept was used in the design of the Corus
described for open-sided modules, but the loading applied
demonstration building, shown in Figure 32.
to the side of the modules is significantly higher.
Therefore, this form of construction is limited to buildings The overall depth of the floor cassette (and the combined
of 4-6 storeys high. floor and ceiling depth of the module) is 300 - 450 mm. The
floor cassette spans up to 6 m. Additional SHS posts are
Application: introduced in the modules to transfer the higher load
Residential buildings, particularly of terraced form. Modular adjacent to the open sides of the modules. The walls of the
“cores” as for stairs, and highly serviced areas, such as modules are braced to provide overall stability to the
bedrooms, arranged in a “spine” - see demonstration building. The façade walls can be designed as non-load
building in Figure 32. bearing and can be installed as large pre-fabricated panels
with their lightweight cladding attached.
A recent project in Fulham used load-bearing bathroom
modules that supported the floor cassettes, as illustrated in
Figures 33 and 34.
Figure 31 ‘Hybrid’ building by Corus Living Solutions
Figure 33 Mixed use of modular bathroom modules and wall panels
Figure 32 Demonstration building using the modular and panel Figure 34 Completed (above) building at Lillie Road, Fulham
system (by Corus)
137
Mixed modules and columns- OpenHouse Technical details

Form of Construction The OpenHouse system uses modules with recessed
Modules may be constructed with recessed corners and corners and sides which accommodate Square Hollow
attached to columns that are installed on site, as in Section columns that are installed first. These columns
Figure 35. The column-grid that is adopted means that provide the compression resistance, and edge beams
modules can be re-orientated at the column positions. This manufactured without the modules create the opportunity
system was developed by OpenHouse in Sweden, which for partially open sides. The layout of a typical apartment
uses a column grid of 3.9 m in both directions. Modules using this technology is illustrated in Figure 37.All the
are produced in 3.9 m widths and multiples of 3.9 m length internal space is adaptable as open-sided modules can be
(typically 7.8 m). Modules can be manufactured with partial manufactured and combined, as shown.
open sides.
Application:
Social and private housing, where more flexible space is Kitchen
Bathroom Bathroom
Bedroom
provided using a regular column grid. A 500 apartment
project in Malmo is shown in Figure 36. Store Store
Living room
Bedroom Kitchen/Living room Balcony
Balcony
Figure 37 Plan form of apartments using OpenHouse
The OpenHouse system is based on a 3.9m planning grid

with 100 x 100 Square Hollow Sections as posts at the
corners and intermediate positions. Balconies can be
attached to the posts. The edge beam in the floor cassette
is able to span 3.9m to create an open side. The internal
module width is 3.6m. Open plan space can be created, if
required using modules of the form of Figure 38.
The building height is not limited by the compression
resistance of the SHS posts, but by overall stability and an
additional bracing system is required. This building
system is targeted at buildings of 3-5 storeys. A variety
of façade materials can be used, including metallic
Figure 35 Assembly of modules on SHS posts cladding.
Figure 38 Open-sided module (with temporary posts)
Figure 36 OpenHouse system, Malmo
138
Design using modules – Mixed 3 Dimensional and 1 Dimensional Components
Modules supported by a primary structure

Modular units may be designed to be supported by a
primary structure at a podium or platform level, in which
the columns are designed as a multiple of the width of the
modules (normally 2 or 3 modules). The beams are
designed to support the combined loads from the modules
above (normally a maximum of 4-6 storeys).
The supporting structure is designed conventionally and
provides open plan space at ground floor and below
ground levels. This form of construction is very suitable for
mixed retail, commercial and residential developments.
Modules can be set back from the façade line. An example
of a mixed development is in Manchester in which the Figure 40 Mixed use of stabilising frame and modules in a project
ground floor and below ground car parking is a in Shadwell, East London by Rollalong
conventional composite structure. The completed building
is shown in Figure 39.
Alternatively, non-load bearing modules can be supported
by a primary frame, and are installed as the construction
proceeds. Modules can be disassembled in the future to
leave the floor cassette supported by the beams.
Application:
For podium structures such as residential units above
commercial areas or railway lines, etc., particularly in
urban projects.
Below ground car parking can also be introduced in the
supporting primary steel framework. An example of this
type of podium structure in east London is shown in
Figures 40 and 41.
Figure 41 Completed building (above) at Shadwell
An external steel structure may also be used which

consists of a façade structure that acted to stabilise the
building. Modules are placed internally, as shown in
Figure 42. The completed building is shown on page 19.
Figure 39 Typical podium structure in which 7 storeys of

residential units are supported on a composite frame
below
Figure 42 Installation of modules behind external steel framework

at MoHo, Manchester
139
Design Guide – Mixed 3,2 Dimensional and 1 Dimensional Components
Technical details
Four-sided modules can be designed to be supported by
steel or composite beams and the typical line load per
supported floor can be 15 kN/m. Columns generally align
with every 2 or 3 modules (i.e. at 6 to 10 m spacing) The
depth of the podium-type structure can be 800 -1000 mm,
and spans of 6 to 12 m can be created below the podium,
which are suitable for commercial applications and car
parking. A possible example of a podium using cellular
beams is shown in Figure 43
The beams are designed to align with the ends of the
modules i.e. at 3.5 m – 4 m spacing, which dictates the
grid of columns (i.e. at 7.2 to 8 m). A grid of 7.2 m is very
suitable for below-ground car parking.
The podium structure is generally braced to resist wind
loads and a separate braced core is often used to stabilise
the group of modules above the podium level. The module
design is similar to that described earlier for 4-sided
modules. Wind loads can be transferred horizontally Figure 44 Recessed corner module supported by a steel structure
through the corridors.
An application of modules in combination with a steel
structure is illustrated in Figure 45. In this case, the highly
3-3 serviced zones of the building are concentrated into the
.6 m
modules and the open plan space over long span floor
2.8 m Modules 3m cassettes. The use of long spanning floor cassettes
supported on asymmetric beams is another example of
‘hybrid’ construction
6m Core for
stairs/lifts
7500 5400 7500
m
4.5
m
2m 4.5
280 ASB 136
Span of Quantum
floor
4800
300 PFC
2100
Module 1 Module 2
280 ASB 100

300
16500
2500
300 PFC
18 m
300
of 12 -
n
Spa
2100
Module 3 Module 6
Module 4 Module 5
280 ASB 136 280 ASB 100

5000

Figure 43 Modules supported by long spanning cellular beams to Span of Quantum
floor
create open plan space at the lower levels
In a second approach, the modules may also be designed

6500 7400 6500
to be supported by a primary steel framework at each or
alternate floor level. In order to minimise the width of the
modules, they should be constructed with recessed Figure 45 Mixed use of modules and long spanning floor with a
corners, which allows them to fit around smaller SHS primary steel frame
columns as in Figure 44
140
Design Guide–Mixed Use of 3 Dimensional Components
3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

Modules supported by a concrete of steel core
Modules may be designed to be stabilised by a concrete or Module Module 6.0
composite steel core wall in which the modules are placed

around the core. In this way, vertical loads are resisted by
the modules, which are usually manufactured with corner Internal corridor 1.2
posts, and horizontal loads are transferred to the cover. 2.5 1.5 2.5
The maximum height of these core supported buildings is 1.7 0.2 3.3
Core
12–15 storeys, unless the modules are specifically 6.6
wall
designed to resist high compression forces. An example of 3.3

this system for a multi-storey residential building is shown 0.2
in 46 Internal corridor 1.2
Module Module
Figure 47 Arrangement of modules and concrete core
The layout of the 6.0 × 6.5 m concrete core is presented

in Figure 48. The same dimensions may be achieved
using Corefast, a Corus product which comprises a
double skin steel structure, as shown in Figure 49.
2.5 1.5 2.5
0.2 0.2
0.3
Lift
Services 0.1
1.8
1.2
0.1
Lift 0.1
Figure 46 Concrete core used to support 17 storey modules,
Paragon, West London (by Caledonian) 6.0 2.4
Lobby Stairs
Application
Tall residential buildings often used in combination with an Lift
Infill
additional steel frame for compression resistance. The wall
1.2
building form is such that the modules are directly attached
to the core, which also provides lifts and stairs. 0.6
Technical Details
Figure 48 Detail of core structure
The structural arrangement of a concrete core with directly
attached modules is shown in Figure . In this case,
additional corner posts are also used to provide the
required compression resistance.
Some of the modules are constructed with internal
corridors, which provide access around the core. This
means that the internal wall has to provide fire resistance
and acoustic separation functions. For buildings over
8 storeys, it is generally necessary to provide 90 minutes
fire resistance although a fire engineering analysis may be
used to provide stability in the event of one module being
subject to fire. In this case, the core structure should be
designed for 120 minutes fire resistance.
Figure 49 Corefast core wall during construction
141
Design Guide–Variants of 2 or 3 Dimensional Components
Double skin wall and floors

ICORE is a product which comprises laser welded steel
plates that may be used for planar walls and floors. The
space between the plates can be filled to increase the
thermal capacity or stiffness of the component.
Application:
Planar walls and floors, especially where increased
resistance to impact or blast loading is required. ICORE
can also act as the stabilising core of the building.
Technical details
ICORE is a specialist product which is produced by laser
welding to exact dimensions. Its structural capacity is very
high and so it is thinner than equivalent wall or floor
components. An example is shown in Figure 50.
Figure 51 Detail of light steel modular stair system showing use of

a ‘false’ landing to module
Non-load bearing pods

Non-load bearing modules are not designed to resist
external loads. They are supported directly on a floor, and
are designed to be installed either as the construction
proceeds or slid into place on the completed floor.
Figure 50 Double skin steel plates (ICORE)
Application:
Stair module Toilet/bathroom units, plant rooms, other serviced units.
Form of construction Technical details
Stairs may be designed as fully modular units and by their The structure of the non-load bearing module is lighter
nature, comprise landings and half landings. A primary than in fully modular construction, but the module (or pod)
steel frame may be used to support the stairs, in which must still be sufficiently rigid to be installed. The walls and
case the light steel components are used as infills. floor of these ‘pods’ are relatively thin (typically less than
Application: 100 mm). An example of a pod used in a light steel
structure is shown in Figure 52. The depth of the floor is
Modular stairs may be used in buildings using fully
relatively shallow, and it is usually necessary for its floor
modular construction up to 4 storeys in height.
depth to be level with the rest of the floor in the building.
Technical details
The modules rely for their stability on a base and top which
leads to use of a false landing. The walls may require
additional strengthening members at the half and
full-landing positions. The open top and base of the wall
may also be strengthened by a T, L or similar members to
transfer out of plane loads to the landing. The stairs can be
fully or partially finished before delivery to site. Square
Hollow Section posts and bracing can be introduced in the
walls to provide for overall stability.
Figure 52 Toilet pod used with light steel framing (by RB Farquhar)
Details of a typical light steel modular stair system showing
use of a 'false' landing to provide stability at the roof of the
module are shown in Figure 51.
142
Design Guide – Technical Issues
Technical Issues 1 or 2 layers of plasterboard
The following design issues are reviewed as follows: Insulated sheathing

board with foil face
• Stability and structural integrity or breather membrane Light steel studs with
mineral wool between
• Cladding types and thermal performance
• Acoustic performance
• Balcony attachment
Stability and robustness
Stability is provided through the modules or by an external
structure. Robustness is provided by the ties between the
modules, whose action is illustrated in Figure 53. A
minimum force equivalent to half the loaded weight of the Wall ties
module is normally assumed (minimum value of 30 kN).

Brick external cladding
Figure 55 Brick cladding attached to light steel walls

TH
TH
W a /2
TH
Plasterboard
W a /2 Mineral wool insulation

TH
W a /2
W a /2
FV
W a /2
Insulation
board
FV+ (W a/2)
W a /2
Vertical
rail
Figure 53 Tying forces in modular construction
Cladding
Various forms of cladding may be used, such as:
• brickwork, generally in-situ
• metallic fascia Figure 56 Metallic cassette attached to light steel walls
• insulated render
• board materials Fire resistant plasterboard
Typical details of various cladding systems are shown in Supplementary insulation

Figures 54 to 57. Lightweight cladding can be
Light steel frame
pre-attached to the modules.
Sheathing board
Breather membrane
Rigid board insulation
Polymer modified render
Figure 54 Pre-attached cladding to modules at the Royal Northern

College of Music, Manchester
Figure 57 Insulated render cladding attached to light steel walls
143
Design Guide – Technical issues
Acoustic performance Balconies

The double layer floor and ceiling, and separating walls in Balconies may be attached to modules in various ways:
modular construction achieves excellent airborne and • Self-standing steel structure to support the balconies that
impact sound reductions. The off-site manufacture and is ground supported
quality control also ensures that air gaps do not occur and
• Balconies attached between adjacent modules
so all aspects of the building physics performance is more
reliable. Airborne sound reductions of over 63 dB (without • Balconies that are attached to corner posts in the module
low frequency correction factor and 57 dB (with low • Integrated balconies within an open sided module.
frequency correction factor) are achieved, which are up to These applications are presented in the following figures.
10 dB better than in national Building Regulations.
Impact sound transmissions are also low (less than 30 dB).
In some applications, a concrete screed can be introduced,
although this adds to the floor weight.
Thermal insulation
Thermal insulation is characterised by the heat loss per m2
of the façade or roof (its U-value). Low U-values of
0.2 W/m2°C and excellent air-tightness can be achieved by
the cladding details shown earlier. External insulation
boards are normally placed on site, but sheathing boards
are pre-attached.
Fire resistance Figure 59 Self standing balcony structure
Fire resistance is provided by multiple layers of fire
resisting boards and by mineral wool placed between the Module
C sections. Two 15 mm thick fire resisting plasterboard
Existing facade
layers internally plus 100 mm thick mineral wool achieves a
fire resistance of 90 minutes. Sheathing board also assist in
preventing passage of smoke into the cavity between the
modules. Regular cavity barriers in the form of mineral wool
‘socks’ in metal gauze are provided horizontally and
vertically, as in Figure 58.
External brickwork fixed to module
Balcony
using stainless steel ties
Corner angle Insulation board (in cavity)

in module Cavity fire barrier
Light steel studs
Sheathing
boards Two layers of plasterboard
giving a total thickness
of 25 mm
Mineral wool insulation Figure 60 Balcony attachments between modules

between studs
22 mm T & G chipboard
Mineral wool insulating quilt

between floor & ceiling joists
Light steel joists
Two layers of plasterboard with a at 400 mm centres
combined thickness of at least sized to suit the span
25 mm with staggered joints
Figure 58 View of floor and wall in modular construction showing

fire protection and cavity barriers Figure 61 Balcony attachments to external structure (MoHo,
Manchester)
144
Design Guide – Dimensional planning
25 100 50 100 25
Dimensional planning
Boards
The factors that influence the dimensional planning of pre- 25-30
fabricated steel systems in general building design may be Optional

boards Floor joist Insulation
150 - 200
summarised as: Boards
• Planning grid for internal fit-out, such as kitchens 450

overall
Optional board
Board 10
140 (typ.)
• Transportation requirements, including access Ceiling joist 100
• Building form, as influenced by its functionality. Gap

25
300 overall
• Alignment with external dimensions of cladding
• Repeatability in modular manufacture a) Wall dimensions b) Floor dimensions
Figure 62 Typical wall and floor/ceiling dimensions in modular
Cladding requirements construction
Brickwork design is generally based on a standard unit of Internal walls
225 mm width and 75 mm depth. Therefore, it may be
Internal walls may be designed for a standard 300 mm
important to design a floor-floor depth to a multiple of
face-face overall width, which incorporates the various
75 mm in order to avoid non-standard coursing of bricks.
boards and insulation (see Figure 62(a)). The gap
The multiple of 225 mm in horizontal brickwork coursing
between the walls is a variable, depending on the number
width is more difficult to achieve in combination with the
and thickness of boards and size of the wall studs.
window sizes and at corners or brickwork returns.
For internal planar walls, a planning dimension of 150mm
Other types of cladding, such as clay tiles or metallic
may be used.
finishes, have their own dimensional requirements, but
generally they can be designed and manufactured to fit Table 2 Typical dimensions for planning using modular
with window dimensions etc. Many types of lightweight construction
cladding can be pre-attached to wall panels or the Internal Internal
modules, but it is generally necessary to install a cover Internal wall Ceiling-floor
Application module width module
height (mm) zone (typical)
piece over the joint between the pre-fabricated (mm) length
components on site, which should allow for geometrical Study
2400 2500–2700 5.4 to 6 m 300 m
tolerances and alignments. bedrooms
Apartments 2400 3600 6 to 9 m 450 mm
Standardisation of planning grid
5.4 to
Standardisation of the planning grid is important at the Hotels 2400–2700 3300-3600 450 mm
7.5 m
scheme design stage, as the planning grid will be 3000–3600
Schools 2700–3000 9 to 12 m 600 mm
controlled mainly by other building components and open-sided
fitments. A dimensional unit of 300 mm may be adopted as Offices 2700–3000 3600 6 to 12 m 600–750 mm
standard for vertical and horizontal dimensions, reducing to 3000-3600
Health sector 2700–3000 9 to 12 m 600–750 mm
150 mm as a second level for vertical dimensions, i.e. a open-sided
multiple of either 2 or 4 bricks. Typical dimensions for
planning in open construction using modules and other Transportation
pre-fabricated components are presented in Table 2. The following basic requirements for transportation should be
considered when designing large pre-fabricated units:
Typical wall and floor dimensions are illustrated in
Figure 62, although actual dimensions are system specific. • Components exceeding 2.95 m width require 2 days police
For planning, a combined wall width of 300 mm may be notice
used. • Components exceeding 3.5 m width require a driver’s
mate and 2 days police notice
External walls are detailed according to the type of • Components exceeding 4.1 m width require police escort
cladding as illustrated earlier. Again, a 300 mm total wall
• The maximum height of the load (including the lorry)is
width may be adopted as a guide for most cladding
4.95 m for motorway bridges.
materials. The actual width will vary between 200 mm for
insulated render and board materials to 320 mm for These limits may vary in different countries and stricter limits
brickwork. may be required for local roads, particularly in urban areas.
Standard container vehicles are typically 6.2 m or 12.2 m long.
It follows from these dimensions that in modular construction, a
3.6 m internal module width (or approximately 3.85 m in
external dimension) does not require a police escort and may
be considered to be the optimum width for many applications.
145
Design Guide – Dimensional planning
Floor zone Attachment points

Floors and ceilings in open construction systems using The generic forms of attachment using angles at the
modules are deeper than in more traditional construction. corners of modules are presented in Figure 65. The
The three structural cases noted earlier will require angles are built into the recessed corners of the modules
different overall ceiling-floor dimensions for planning and provide for lifting and attachment points.
purposes, as follows:
• Floor and ceiling zone 450 mm Bolt and
connector plate
• Corner supported modules 600 mm 100 x 100
x 10 L
• Frame supported modules 900 mm
Bolt hole
In most cases, 450 mm may be adopted as a standard
for the floor-ceiling dimension as in Figure 62(b), Plan Elevation
although many systems provide shallower depths. A floor
(a) Re-entrant corner with bolted end plate
and ceiling zone of 300 or 375 mm is feasible in some
systems and aligns with brick coursing.
Lifting point
The details of a corner supported module are illustrated Connector
plate
in Figure 63. In this case, a standard overall floor and
100 x 100
ceiling depth of 600 mm may be used, depending on the x 10 L
depth of the edge members. The gap between the floor
and ceiling is a variable depending on the number of
boards and the joist size.
Plan Elevation
(b) Re-entrant corner with welded nut
Figure 65 Corner posts using hot rolled steel angles

Corner post
Square Hollow Sections (SHS) provide the highest

Floor
400 compressive resistance and may be used for open-sided
600 modules. However, although these sections are compact,
≈80
Gap
their connections can be more complex. Figure 66
shows a welded fin plate to which the edge beams are
200 ≈ 60 bolted. This may also be used when the edge beams are
Ceiling
placed inside the line of the walls. Access holes of 50 mm
minimum diameter in the SHS allow bolts to be inserted
through end plates to provide for vertical and horizontal
Figure 63 Detail of corner supported module attachments.
SHS
Actual dimensions of the modules will be less than
these planning dimensions to allow for gaps (by 50 mm 50 dia. access
hole
for walls, and up to 150 mm for floors). Windows and
Welded fin plate
doors may also be incorporated as standard conventional 100 x 100
or angle End plate
dimensions. x 10 SHS
Connecting plate
3600
Connecting bolt
C section
Plan Elevation
1200 1200/1800 300 Wall zone = 300 mm Figure 66 Other forms of corner post using SHS or special
sections
Floor zone = 600 mm
900
Attachments between modules are made in both
600
horizontal and vertical directions, primarily to transfer
in-plane forces, but also for structured integrity.
3300
3300 2400/2700 A minimum tie force of 30 kN between modules is
recommended.
Figure 64 Standardised module dimensions in a building use
146
Design Guide – Servicing Strategy
The servicing strategy is very important to the use and The corner recess is the most common approach, but has
future adaptation of open building systems comprising pre- the disadvantage that the corner posts may interfere with
fabricated components. Services are mainly installed in the the servicing and maintenance access, and bracing action
factory and service attachments are made on site. of the walls is also affected. An internal void requires
effective fire compartmentation in the floors, and is more
problematical in the design and manufacture of the
Servicing Strategy modules.
In fully modular buildings, services attachments are usually The external service zone is easier to design, and its size
located in designated zones, generally adjacent to and can be adjusted to suit the services requirement. It
along corridors, in order to facilitate horizontal distribution. requires that the corridor joists span longitudinally, and
Water and drainage services are distributed vertically, and that the corridor provides effective fire compartmentation.
these services can be accessed from the corridor for This approach is becoming more common for taller
maintenance. The ceiling of the corridor is often lower (by buildings as it simplifies the design and manufacture of
100 – 200 mm) than the adjacent rooms in order to provide the modules.
for electrical distribution and other services.
Service distribution
Various strategies may be employed for the location of the
service risers in modular construction, dependent on the Although the main services within the pre-fabricated
size of the module and provision of corner posts. They component are generally installed in the factory, provision
influence the design and manufacture of the modules, and must be made for the vertical and horizontal distribution of
the generic options are illustrated in Figure 67, as follows: services throughout the building. This may result in
service ducts penetrating separating walls and floors. The
• corner recess built into the module and its floor detailing of such openings must ensure that the
• internal void within the module performance of the separating elements is not
• external void with a separate enclosure compromised in terms of fire resistance and acoustic
900 approx. Post (dependant on building form)
insulation.
300 approx. The final service connections between modules are made
on site. These activities are time consuming in traditional
construction and often on the 'critical path'.
100
Vertical service ducts are often incorporated in the
corners of modules as shown in Figure 68. The on-site
2700
(a) Service riser in corner of module module-to-module connections that are required can often
be made within this duct via access covers provided in
1200 circulation spaces or storage areas.
400 In some types of building, it is possible to provide multiple
services risers, which eliminate the need for horizontal
distribution of services. Alternatively, services can be
distributed within the roof space to vertical service ducts.
Figure 68 shows a typical service routing with its fire-
(b) Internal service void w ithin the module
stopping.
Walls to adjacent modular units
Cavity barrier
Electrical trunking
Soil & vent pipe
Hot water pipe
Fan to bathroom
Cold water pipe
Air duct
(c) External service void and w all
Figure 67 Typical service riser options in modular design Access door
Site fixed infill panel
Figure 68 Typical service riser between modules
147
Design Guide – Servicing Strategy
Within individual modules, provision must be made for

Fire stopping between
service enclosure routing services vertically and horizontal to points of use.
and floating floor Enclosure taken down
to structural floor Where possible, services should be designed to run
parallel with the primary-framing members. However, in
some cases openings in joist and studs may be required.
Floating floor
Lattice joists give maximum opportunity for service
Light steel
floor joist routing, but regular perforations can also be provided in
Mineral wool standard C sections used as wall studs and floor joists.
In the case of modular construction, services should not
compromise acoustic insulation and, where necessary,
Plasterboard
ceiling Flexible fire
electrical services may be located in a raised floor. Any
stopping electrical elements penetrating the plasterboard ceiling
should be detailed to prevent direct air paths through the
Figure 69 Typical vertical service routing showing fire-stopping plasterboard by sealing around any penetrations with
flexible acoustic sealant.
Bathroom ‘pods’ can be manufactured with thin wall and
floor dimensions (as little as 50 mm) and installed on the The use of the corridor between two modules can be
floor of the modules so that the depth of the acoustic floor advantageous in terms of servicing. The structural depth
aligns with the floor of the pod (to avoid ‘stepping’ into the in the corridor area is shallower than the adjacent
bathroom). modules as only one layer of structure has to be
accommodated. This additional zone can then be used for
A further modular option, shown in Figure 69, is to
the horizontal distribution of heating, ventilating, electrical
manufacture modules comprising a pair of bathrooms.
and other services, as illustrated in Figure 70. A ceiling,
Servicing can then be common to the pair of bathrooms,
which can easily be removed for maintenance, is then
which reduces the on-site service attachments. In other
suspended below the services. This may require a lower
‘hybrid’ forms of construction, it is efficient to manufacture
headroom in the corridor zone (2.2 m is the minimum
bathrooms as load-bearing modules and to construct the
floor-ceiling depth).
rest of the structure from panels. In this case, the
bathroom modules are stacked vertically and are
self-supporting.
Angle pre-fixed
to module
Floor
200 Cassette floor
450
Services zone
100
Roof Suspended ceiling
Figure 70 Corridor service zones below a cassette floor

connecting two modules
In terms of maintenance, all major services should be

accessible from outside the modules and, ideally, the ‘wet’
area should be sealed or water-proofed in case of
leakage.
Figure 70 Use of pairs of modules of bathrooms
148
Design Guide – Sources of Information
Sources of information and Publications

The following publications may be referred to for more
details on design in modular construction.
Gorgolewski M T, Grubb P J and Lawson R M
Modular construction using light steel framing:
Residential buildings
The Steel Construction Institute P 302, 2001
Case studies on steel in residential buildings
The Steel Construction Institute P-328
Lawson R M and Hicks S J
Steel in multi-storey residential buildings
Way A
Acoustic detailing for multi-storey residential buildings
The Steel Construction Institute, P-336
Way A
Guidance on meeting robustness requirements on
Approved Document A
The Steel Construction Institute, P-341. This publication
was prepared with support from DTI through Partners in
Innovation, and by Corus Strip UK.
Wright C et al
Insulated render systems used with light steel framing
Energy efficient housing using light steel framing
149
European Commission
EUR 23860 — Integrated pre-fabricated steel technologies for the multi-storey sector
B. Döring, M. Kuhnhenne, O. Vassart, C. Harper, P. Beguin, S. Herbin, A. Seppänen, M. Lawson, E. Yandzio,

F. Scheublin, W. Bakens
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
2009 — 149 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm
Research Fund for Coal and Steel series
ISBN 978-92-79-11319-2
DOI 10.2777/41420
ISSN 1018-5593

Interested in European research?
RTD info is our quarterly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments (results, How to obtain EU publications
programmes, events, etc). It is available in English, French and German. A free sample copy
Publications for sale:
or free subscription can be obtained from:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number;
Information and Communication Unit
European Commission • by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact
1049 Brussels details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax
BELGIUM to +352 2929-42758.
Fax +32 22958220 Free publications:
E-mail: research@ec.europa.eu
Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo.html • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• at the European Commission's representations or delegations. You can obtain
their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu/) or by sending a fax
to +352 2929-42758.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Research Fund for Coal and Steel Unit
Contact: RFCS publications

Address: European Commission, CDMA 0/124, 1049 Brussels, BELGIUM
Fax +32 22965987; e-mail: rtd-steel@ec.europa.eu
EC
Modern steel buildings require a high degree of pre-fabrication and effective integration
KI-NA-23860-EN-S
of key components. The concept of open building systems in steel is developed with
a focus on the multi-storey residential sector. This research concentrated on providing
‘enabling’ or supporting technologies and on basic performance data to assist in the
development of these systems.
Energy has been channelled into standardising interfaces between structural and other
components such as cladding, services and lifts, and on increasing customisation
without compromising manufacturing efficiency. Information technology is seen as a
major driver, and its role is investigated. The research will lead to the development of
new systems involving skeletal, planar and modular components, including supporting
design information.
Integrated pre-fabricated steel technologies for the multi-storey sector


EUR 23860

2009 EC Integrated Pre-Fabricated Steel Technology For Multi-Story Sector

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

2009 EC Integrated Pre-Fabricated Steel Technology For Multi-Story Sector

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EC

Integrated pre-fabricated steel technologies for the multi-storey sector

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 20

Contact: RFCS publications

Research Fund for Coal and Steel

Directorate-General for Research

2009 EUR 23860 EN

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

Freephone number (*):

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009

© European Communities, 2009

Printed on white chlorine-free paper

Objectives of the project

WP 1: Establishment of Open Building Architecture

WP 2: Development of Systemised Approach to Open Building Technologies

• Inter-connectivity of the primary components

WP 3: Investigate Opportunities for Customisation through Information Technology

The secondary objectives are to:

WP 4: Investigation of Value-Benefits and Sustainability Arguments and Case Examples

WP 5: Establishment of Basic Performance Data and Physical Modelling

WP 6: Design ‘Tools’ and Design Guide

WP 1: Establishment of Open Building Architecture

WP 1.1: Technology base

1.1.1 Definition of Open Building

“What is residential Open Building?

1. Smart House 2. The 7 Heavens

3. Space Box 4. CD20

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

7. Ino hospital 8. Next 21

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

Rebar 280 ASB Plasterboard ceiling

• Integrated Beam- Precast Hollow-core • Pre fab floor cassette

Recessed base Module C-62 x 2.0

Cross-section through module and infill floor cassette 220

Alternative use of precast composite slab

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

Floor Module Floor Module

HE profile IFB profile Module

Floor Module Floor Module

RHS profile Module SHS profile Module

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

Detail of Façade Con- Examples of Weight

See this project in Light steel

Kingspan (UK) Composite

See this project in

11. Masonry (site con-

12. Masonry (site con-

1.1.5 Opportunities for OBS in steel in various sectors

Component Housing Residential Hospitals Education Public Commercial

Primary steel frame     

Light steel wall panels      

Lifts and stairs     

WP1.2: Development of Open Building Architecture

Flexible provision of internal space for different occupancy

Moveable partitions internally within apartments 2.8

Ability to create office space and other mixed uses 3.4

Private, secure access by lifts or stairs 3.5

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

Table 5 : Questionnaire – part 3

Higher level of thermal insulation in the external envelope 4.4

Special provision for the aged and disabled 4.1

Special ventilation provisions (including heating/cooling) 4.2

2009 EUR 23860 EN