PREFABRICATION:

Discoveries in Off-Site Construction Techniques

 
Ryan E. Smith, Associate Professor
Director ITAC, University of Utah
Chair of the Off-Site Construction Council,
National Institute of Building Sciences
March 11, 2015

Photo  Credit:  MKD  

OFF-SITE
STUDIES

Disclaimer:
 This
 presenta1on
 was
 developed
 by
 a
 third
 party
 and
 is
 not
 funded
 by
 WoodWorks
 or
 the
 So=wood
 Lumber
 Board.
 
“The Wood Products Council” is a
Registered Provider with The
American Institute of Architects
Continuing Education Systems (AIA/
CES), Provider #G516.
Credit(s) earned on completion of this
course will be reported to AIA CES for
AIA members. Certificates of
Completion for both AIA members
and non-AIA members are available
upon request.
This course is registered with AIA
CES for continuing professional
education. As such, it does not
include content that may be
deemed or construed to be an
approval or endorsement by the
AIA of any material of
construction or any method or
manner of handling, using,
distributing, or dealing in any
material or product.
__________________________________
Questions related to specific materials,
methods, and services will be addressed at
the conclusion of this presentation.
 Course Description

Off-site construction techniques, including both light-frame and

solid wood solutions, are continually evolving—with prefabrication at
the forefront of the trend. In this presentation, different types of
prefabrication will be discussed, along with key considerations—such
as site, cost and schedule to determine which option, if any, is right
for a project. Case study examples will be used to illustrate key
principles of practice, benefits of prefabrication and current
challenges.
Learning Objectives
1.  Attendees will be able to understand the various prefabricated wood systems
available for specification and when is most appropriate given site, location, labor,
cost and schedule considerations in today’s construction market by evaluating
construction performance parameters and examples of case studies.

2.  Learners will be able to understand and apply knowledge of solid timber wood
solutions (i.e. CLT, LVL, SCL, etc.) to architectural projects through examples of details
and case studies.

3.  Participants will be able to identify the benefits and challenges of factory produced
light wood frame panel construction with integrated insulation, services, and
finishes. 

4.  Attendees will be able to distinguish digital workflows in wood design and
fabrication and how to properly collaborate and partner with timber fabricators to
achieve desired results through a demonstration of the landscape of digital options
in timber that make the bridge between ideation and production.    
Photo  Credit:  R.E.Smith  
Photo  Credit:  Interface  Architects  
WHY WHAT HOW WHEN
WHY WHAT HOW WHEN
ARGUMENTS
WHY WHAT HOW WHEN
ARGUMENTS CATEGORIES
WHY WHAT HOW WHEN
ARGUMENTS CATEGORIES ASSEMBLY
WHY WHAT HOW WHEN
ARGUMENTS CATEGORIES ASSEMBLY TRADE-OFFS
WHY ?
 Paul  Teicholz,  Stanford  CIFE  
Excerpted  from:  R.E.Smith  Prefab  Architecture  (Wiley  2010)  
SITE BUILDING LABOR

Source:    ITAC  UofU  

MANUFACTURING CONSTRUCTION

Source:    US  Bureau  of  Labor  and  Sta0s0cs  

Graphic:  ITAC  UofU  
 Annual % Change - Construction Volume vs.
Skilled Labor (National)
15%%

10%%

5%%

0%%

!5%%

!10%%

!15%%

!20%%
2005%

2006%

2007%

2008%

2009%

2010%

2011%

2012%

2013%

2014%

2015%

2016%
Construc6on%Volume%Percent%Change% Construc6on%Labor%Percent%Change%

Courtesy:  Cumming  Corp.  

ELEMENTS USED IN LAST 12 MO?

NEXT 12 MO?

Source:    NIBS  OSCC  

WHAT ?
NORTH AMERICA SCOTLAND HOLLAND SWEDEN GER/AUS/SWISS JAPAN
Manuf housing 90% panelized Open building Optimization CNC tools Lean manuf
Site efficiency Affordable Quality of life Appropriate tech Software integration Kaizen
3D modeling Low carbon Rational Building science MMC & Skills Precision/Perfection
Modular Sole source Shell & infill Panelized Quality Modular
SFR MFR MFR SFR, MFR, COM SFR, MFR, COM SFR

CONTEXT: CONTEXT: CONTEXT: CONTEXT: CONTEXT: CONTEXT:

Cost driven Government driven Weather restricted Performance driven Quality driven Expensive land
Immigrant labor Weather restricted Schedule driven Weather restricted Technology oriented Expensive labor
Small companies Large companies Adaptability Medium companies Medium companies Manf mind set
Fragmented Integrated Aging in place $$$ labor & product Fully integrated Large companies (5)
Fragmented Integrated

Credit:  ITAC  UofU  

 -

+
EE XX TT EE NN T O OF F C OC OM MP PL LE ET TI O
I ON N

PANELS

MODULES
MATERIALS

ELEMENTS COMPONENTS
 -

MANUFACTURE
ELEMENTS
MATERIALS
I ON N
C OC OM MP PL LE ET TI O

parts
COMPONENTS

sub-assemblies
O OF F

PANELS

assemblies
EE XX TT EE NN T

MODULES
point of final assembly
+
 -
C O M P L E T I O N

5000
TO
O F

50
E X T E N T

+ Source:  Bensonwood  
 - I ON N

GLUED
C OC OM MP PL LE ET TI O

GLT SCL CLT

COMPONENTS

NON-GLUED
O OF F

DLT NLT CNLT ICLT

EE XX TT EE NN T

POST & BEAM

SOLID WOOD (mass timber, mass wood)
HYBRID COMPONENTIZED WOOD SOLUTIONS
+ Credit:  COCIS  Edinburgh  Napier  University  &  ITAC  UofU  
SOLID-WOOD BARRIERS SOLID-WOOD UPTAKE

Credit:  COCIS  Edinburgh  Napier  University  &  ITAC  UofU  

 - I ON N
C OC OM MP PL LE ET TI O

766,943 Units
by ~2030
O OF F
EE XX TT EE NN T

 =    15,300 houses

+ Source:  A.C.  Nelson,  ‘The  Boom  To  Come,  America  Circa  2030’.Architect,  95,  no.  1  
 -
C O M P L E T I O N
O F
E X T E N T

Source:    U.S.  Census  Data  2000  –  2010  

+  
 - Bricks, 4% Plastics, 4%
Metals, 4%
Asphalt
C O M P L E T I O N

Roofing,
8%
Concrete/
Mixed
Rubble,
Drywall, 40%
10%
O F

Wood, 30%
E X T E N T

30% = 15%
+ Adapted  from  Utah  State  Environmental  Regula0on  2008  data  
 -
C O M P L E T I O N

C&D Waste = 940,264 Tons C&D Waste = 940,264 Tons

20-30% yield = 235,066 Tons 20-30% yield = 235,066 Tons
Feasibility Rate 30% = 70519.8 Tons Feasibility Rate 30% = 70519.8 Tons
Typical CLT House = 60-70 Tons 2700 S.F. House = 6,921 cu ft. wood
Density of pine wood = 33 lbs / cu ft.
# of potential houses = 1085 Homes # of potential houses = 617 Homes
O F
E X T E N T

=  

+
 -

+
E X T E N T O F C O M P L E T I O N
 -

+
E X T E N T O F C O M P L E T I O N
 -

=   2 million acres 44%

C O M P L E T I O N

2.0
O F

1.5
E X T E N T

1.0

2006 2007 2008  

+ Source:    Colorado  State  University  Report  No.  5.528  

 -
C O M P L E T I O N

Area = 1,000,000 acres 80’

Trees (50 / acre) = 50,000,000 trees
Board feet = 1695 B.F. / tree
O F

Board feet total = 84,750,000,000 B.F.

B.F. / House = 40,000 B.F.
E X T E N T

3’
# of potential houses = 2,118,750 Homes

+ Adapted  from  DOA  U.S.  Forest  Service  Data  

 
 -
C O M P L E T I O N
O F
E X T E N T

+
Ashby,  Materials  and  the  Environment  
 
 -
C O M P L E T I O N

2 Ply: 5.5”

3 Ply: 8.25”

4 Ply: 11”
O F

5 Ply: 13.75”
E X T E N T

+ Credit:    Euclid  Timber  

 -
C O M P L E T I O N
O F
E X T E N T

+
Credit:    Euclid  Timber  
 
 -
C O M P L E T I O N
O F
E X T E N T

Credit:    Brigham  Young  University  &  Acute  Engineering  

+  
 -
C O M P L E T I O N
O F
E X T E N T

Credit:    Sam  Glass,  

USDA  Forest  Products  
Laboratory  

+  
 -
3-PLY ICLT WITH EXTERIOR INSULATION
C O M P L E T I O N

Vapor-open Vapor-tight
Mineral wool Extruded polystyrene

Exterior to interior:
•  Composite wood siding
•  Drainage cavity/ventilated air
space
•  R-10 insulation
•  Vapor-permeable air barrier
O F

membrane
•  3-ply ICLT with no interior
finish
E X T E N T

Credit:    Sam  Glass,  

USDA  Forest  
Products  Laboratory  
 

+
Credit:  Euclid  Timber  
 
Credit:  Euclid  Timber  
 
Credit:  Euclid  Timber  
 
Credit:  Euclid  Timber  
 
Credit:  Euclid  Timber  &  ITAC  UofU  
 
Credit:  Euclid  Timber  &  ITAC  UofU  
 
Credit:  Euclid  Timber  &  ITAC  UofU  
 
Credit:  Euclid  Timber  &  ITAC  UofU  
 
Credit:  Euclid  Timber  &  ITAC  UofU  
 
Credit:  Euclid  Timber  &  ITAC  UofU  
Credit:  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah  &  ITAC  UofU  
 
Credit:  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah  &  ITAC  UofU  
 
Credit:  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah  &  ITAC  UofU  
 
Credit:  Euclid  Timber  &  ITAC  UofU  
 
Credit:  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah,  ITAC  UofU,  &  AJR  Al0er  
 
 14 Gauge A606 Steel Corner

24 x"x3" Furring Strip

Insect Screen

 
Metal Screw
1"x3" Furring Strip
14 Gauge A606 Steel
1-Layer 3 1/2"
Vaporshield Membrane
Exposed
and sanded
Insect Screen Insect Mesh Insect Screen
3 1/2 3 1/2

Wood Screw with

Wood Plug 12" O.C.

1/2' Gap

5 1/2
5 1/2

Metal Screw EPDM Rubber Gasket

1"x3" Furring Strip
14 Gauge A606 Wood Screw
with Wood Plug
Steel Corner Piece 12" O.C. Wood Screws
12" O.C.
Attach Wall to Floor 8 1/4
2-Layer ICLT 5 1/2" with 1/4" Log Screw
Electrical Chases (typ)
12" Long 12"O.C. 3-Layer ICLT 8 1/4"
Interior exposed
Interior and Exterior
and sanded
exposed and sanded

Solid Wood Floor Slab Solid Wood Floor Slab

(4) 1 3/4 x9 1/4 LVL

underneath Wall

Wall Detail at Patio Wall T-Section

02 01
Scale 2”=1’-0” Scale 2”=1’-0”

All construction to conform to current uniform building code, uniform electrical code,
DESIGNED BY
uniform mechanical code, uniform plumbing code.
I-TAC Construction Documents
DRAWN BY
Contractor and all sub contractors working on this project take full liability of these plans and shall ARCHITECT REVISIONS CLIENT
JR TITLE
thoroughly review and verify all dimensions, locations, notes, etc. prior to starting any stage of
construction. Integrated Technology in No. Date Description CHECKED BY
Girl Scouts of Utah
Architecture Center, School of Lisa Hardin-Reynolds
ITAC-Integrated Technology in Architecture Center, University of Utah expressly reserves its common law Architecture, University of Utah APPROVED BY
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
copyright and other project rights in these plans. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed, or copied
Chief Operations Officer
in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the (801) 716 5122 OTHER APPROVALS
written permission and consent of ITAC. In the event of unauthorized reuse of these plans by a third party, SIZE CAGE CODE DRAWING NO. REV
Erin Carraher 410 562 5311
the third party shall hold ITAC harmless. 11x17
c 2012 - 2013 ITAC Jörg Rügemer 801 662 8727 www.gsutah.com CAD FILE NAME AD-02
Ryan Smith 130301_Details_01
130527_Cabin Design SCALE 2”=1’-0”
1/4" = 1'-0" EST. WGT SHEET OF

Credit:  Euclid  Timber,  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah,  ITAC  UofU,  &  AJR  Al0er  
Credit:  Euclid  Timber,  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah,  ITAC  UofU  
Credit:  Euclid  Timber,  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah,  ITAC  UofU  
Credit:  Euclid  Timber,  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah,  ITAC  UofU  
Credit:  Euclid  Timber,  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah,  ITAC  UofU  
Credit:  Euclid  Timber,  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah,  ITAC  UofU  
Credit:  Euclid  Timber,  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah,  ITAC  UofU  
Credit:  Euclid  Timber,  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah,  ITAC  UofU  
Credit:  Euclid  Timber,  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah,  ITAC  UofU  
Credit:  Euclid  Timber,  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah,  ITAC  UofU  
Credit:  Euclid  Timber,  Girl  Scouts  of  Utah,  ITAC  UofU  
 - I ON N
C OC OM MP PL LE ET TI O

PANELS
CLOSED VS. OPEN
O OF F

ENHANCED VS. STANDARD

HYBRID SUBASSEMBLIES
- Wall panel
- Floor cartridge
EE XX TT EE NN T

- Roof cassette

+ Credit:    Scob  Hedges  via  Linddbeck  

 -
C O M P L E T I O N
O F
E X T E N T

Credit:  Campbell  Construc0on  Group,  Glasgow,  UK  &  COCIS  Edinburgh  Napier  University  
+
 -
C O M P L E T I O N

Image  Credits:  Weinmann  HOMAG  

O F
E X T E N T

+
 -

+
E X T E N T O F C O M P L E T I O N
 -
C O M P L E T I O N
O F
E X T E N T

+ Credit:  Campbell  Construc0on  Group  

 -
C O M P L E T I O N
O F
E X T E N T

+ Credit:  Bensonwood  &  Unity  Homes  

F -
O OF A BP R L I EC TA IT OI ON N
P RCE OF M
ED XE TG ER NE ET

RESIDENTIAL / COMMERCIAL
TEMPORARY / PERMANENT
IN-LINE / STATIONARY
MODULES “VOLUMETRIC” DEALERS / MANUFACTURERS

Credit:  Simplex  Homes,  Zeta  Communi0es  &  Pacific  Mobile  

+
 -

+
ED XE TG ER NE ET O OF F P RCE OF M
A BP R L I EC TA IT OI ON N

Credit:  Interface  Architects  

 -
First Green building in the Temple University Area
LEED Gold rating
A BP R L I EC TA IT OI ON N

Client – Templetown Realty

Architect – Interface Studio Architects, Philadelphia PA
Contractor – Equinox MC
Fabricator – Excel Homes
Site Area – 16,000 Sq. Ft.
P RCE OF M

Building Area – 70,000 Sq. Ft.

F
O OF
ED XE TG ER NE ET

Credit:  Interface  Architects  

+
F -
O OF A BP R L I EC TA IT OI ON N
P RCE OF M
ED XE TG ER NE ET

Credit:  Interface  Architects  

+ Credit:  Interface  Architects  

 -
C O M P L E T I O N
O F
E X T E N T

Credit:  Excel  Modular,  PA   Credit:  Excel  Homes  

+
 -
C O M P L E T I O N
O F
E X T E N T

+ Credit:  Interface  Architects  

 -
C O M P L E T I O N

2 Bedroom, 1 Bath
Unfurnished = $1300/ Month
2 Bedroom, 1 Bath Furnished
= $1380/ Month
O F

3 Bedroom, 1 or 1.5 Bath

unFurnished = $1950/ Month
3 Bedroom, 1 Bath Furnished
E X T E N T

= $2070/ Month

+ Credit:  Interface  Architects  

 -
C O M P L E T I O N
O F
E X T E N T

Image  Credit:  Interface  Architects  

+ Source:  ITAC  UofU  
 -
C O M P L E T I O N
O F
E X T E N T

Credit:  KYA  Architects,  Mspace,  Britco  

+ Credit:  KYA  Architects  

 -
C O M P L E T I O N
O F
E X T E N T

Credit:  Simplex  Homes  

+
Source:  ITAC  UofU  
Modular Factory Sequence

Source:  ITAC  UofU  

Credit:  Simplex  Homes,  Irontown  Homes,  Blazer  Industries  
HOW ?
OFF-SITE BARRIERS

Source:  NIBS  OSCC  

!
!

Source:  RE  Smith,  Prefab  Architecture  (Wiley  2010)  

Source:  Kullmann  Design  Guide  
Standard Flatbed
8.5’ wide x 8.5’ high x 54’ long

Single-drop Deck
8.5’ wide x 10.5’ high x 50’ long

Double-drop Deck (low-boy)

8.5’ wide x 15.5’ high x 40’ long

Source:  R.E.  Smith,  Prefab  Architecture  (Wiley,  2010)  

Image  Credit:  Egoin  
Credit:  BluHomes,  Vallejo,  CA  
Credit:  Scob  Hedges  
Source:  R.E.  Smith,  Prefab  Architecture  (Wiley,  2010)  
Source:  R.E.  Smith,  Prefab  
Architecture  (Wiley,  2010)  
WHEN ?
TEAM TYPE PLACE

Experience Source:    RE  Smith.    Prefab  Architecture  

(Wiley,  2010)  

Control
Repetition
Manufacture
Financing
OFF-SITE BARRIERS

Source:    NIBS  OSCC  

STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION

Source:    NIBS  OSCC  

STAKEHOLDER
COLLABORATION

Source:  RE  Smith,  Prefab  Architecture  (Wiley  2010)  

DOES OFF-SITE AID IN MEETING THE
COST, TIME, LABOR, SITE AND
PROGRAMMATIC GOALS FOR THE
PROJECT?

Credit:  ITAC  UofU  

IS THE PROJECT DESIGNED IN AN
INTEGRATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS
FOR OFF-SITE MANUFACTURE,
TRANSPORT, ASSEMBLY AND
DISASSEMBLY?

Credit:  ITAC  UofU  

IS THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT
DEVELOPED SO THAT WORK IS
STRUCTURED FOR WHAT IS DONE
ONSITE AND WHAT IS DONE OFFSITE?

Credit:  ITAC  UofU  

IS DETAILING DEVELOPED IN
COLLABORATION WITH THE DESIGN
TEAM, GENERAL CONTRACTOR,
FABRICATOR AND INSTALLER?

Credit:  ITAC  UofU  

ARE DESIGN CHANGES REDUCED AND
ARE ORDERS PLACED IN A SHORT TIME
FRAME TO REDUCE COST?

Credit:  ITAC  UofU  

IS FABRICATION PERFORMED WITH
PROTOTYPES AND LEAD TIMES
REDUCED IN COORDINATION WITH THE
PROJECT TEAM?

Credit:  ITAC  UofU  

ARE SITE DELIVERIES MADE JUST-IN-
TIME, LOADED AND DELIVERED TO
MINIMIZE HANDLING?

Credit:  ITAC  UofU  

ARE ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS DESIGNED
COLLABORATIVELY AS CONTINUOUS
FLOWS TO ENSURE SAFETY, QUALITY,
TIME, AND COST PARAMETERS ARE
MET? Credit:  ITAC  UofU  
Source:  ITAC  UofU  
Source:  ITAC  UofU  
Source:  ITAC  UofU  
TEAM TYPE PLACE

McGraw  Hill  2011  

Duration
Source:    RE  Smith.    Prefab  Architecture  
(Wiley,  2010)  

Unique
Procurement
Repetition
OFF-SITE BENEFITS

Credit:  NIBS  OSCC  

Source:  R.E.Smith  Prefab  Architecture  (Wiley,  2010)  
 SCHEDULE ROI
36,000!SF!CHARTER!SCHOOL-!$7!M! 40,000!SF!OFFICE!SPACE!-!$7.66!M!
!$450,000!! !$600,000!!

!$400,000!!
!$500,000!!
!$350,000!!

!$300,000!! !$400,000!!

!$250,000!! !$335,074!!
!$300,000!! !$440,000!!
!$200,000!!

!$150,000!! !$200,000!! !$293,333!!

!$100,000!! !$134,030!!
!$100,000!!
!$50,000!!
!$74,245!! !$78,147!!
!$29,822!! !$52,214!!
!$-!! !$-!!
0%!REDUCTION! 25%! 50%! 0%!REDUCTION! 25%! 50%!

CONSTRUCTION!INTEREST!SAVINGS! INCOME!GENERATION! CONSTRUCTION!INTEREST!SAVINGS! INCOME!GENERATION!

8,000!SF!RETAIL!SPACE!-!$1.55!M!
!$80,000!!
Credit:  ITAC  UofU  
!$70,000!!

!$60,000!!

!$50,000!!

!$40,000!! !$58,667!!

!$30,000!!

!$20,000!! !$29,333!!

!$10,000!!
!$10,350!!
!$5,187!!
!$-!!
0%!REDUCTION! 25%! 50%!

CONSTRUCTION!INTEREST!SAVINGS! INCOME!GENERATION!
Site H2O Energy Air Resource habitat

SS6.1 EA1 EQQ MR2.1,

1,2,3, 4 2.2, 4.1,
4.2, 5.1,
5.2, 6, 7

Credit:  ITAC  UofU  

Source:    Quale  et  al.    Construc0on  
Mabers:  Comparing  Environmental  
Impacts  of  Building  Modular  and  
Conven0onal  Homes  in  the  United  
States.    JIE  2012.  
TEAM TYPE PLACE

Geography
Manufacture
Material
Install Labor
Regulation

Source:    RE  Smith.    Prefab  Architecture  

(Wiley,
 2010)
 
NIBS Offsite Construction Council
www.nibs.org
www.wbdg.org
•  Whole Building Design Guide
•  Core Glossary of Terms
•  Case Studies
•  Metrics Survey
•  How-To Guide
•  Research Needs Assessment
Ryan Smith, Chair, University of Utah
Sue Klawans, Vice-Chair, Gilbane Building Co.
Tom Hardiman, Secretary, Modular Building Institute
Martin Anderson, American Institute of Steel Construction
Ian Peter Atkins, KPF Architects
John Erb, Deluxe Building Systems
Brad Guy, Catholic University of America
George Lea, Army Corp of Engineers
Dan Nyce, Oldcastle
Allen Post, Perkins and Will Architects
RJ Reed, Whiting Turner Construction
Laurie Robert, NRB Inc.
Greg Rohr, PIVOTek
Stacy Scopano, Autodesk
Staff: Ryan Colker, JD, NIBS
 Questions?
This concludes The American
Institute of Architects Continuing
Education Systems Course

Ryan E. Smith, Associate Professor

Director ITAC, University of Utah

OFF-SITE
STUDIES

Disclaimer:  This  presenta1on  was  developed  by  a  third  party  and  is  not  funded  by  WoodWorks  or  the  So=wood  Lumber  Board.