Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Design for manufacture and assembly: A case study for a prefabricated

bathroom wet wall panel
Paulo Vaz-Serra a, *, Muhammad Wasim b, Shannon Egglestone c
a
Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, Australia
b
Melbourne School of Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia
c
RichstoneGroup, Richstone Plumbing Pty Ltd, Epping, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Architecture Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry is increasingly called upon to adopt more efficient
Construction industry methods. While modular volumetric components and conventional construction techniques have been compared,
Advanced manufacturing processes the evaluation of alternative modular but non-volumetric strategies to improve construction efficiency has
Semi-modular prefabrication
attracted less research attention. We report on developing a semi-modular flexible solution for a residential
Plumbing industry
Construction management
bathroom “wet” wall in high-rise buildings, using Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) principles on a
DfMA selected case study in Melbourne, Australia. A prototype of the wall was first designed and assembled at the local
factory located in Melbourne, Australia. All the wall components were manufactured off-site in a factory, and
their assembly times were recorded. The comparison of conventional wall built on local high rise building with
that of the prefabricated wall is also conducted by Design for Assembly (DfA) procedures. The research findings,
validated through the case study, offer savings and efficiencies over conventional construction in terms of time,
labour, and materials. The significance of the research is that it presents a practical demonstration of the benefits
of DfMA based prefabrication in high-rise repetitive apartment buildings for the plumbing industry.

1. Introduction
Over the last three decades, innovative processes have been imple­
mented in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) in­
dustry sector to improve efficiency and competitiveness, reduce waste
and speed up construction delivery, but the industry is also renowned for
being reluctant and slow to adopt change [1].
More efficient techniques and integrated skills such as lean man­
agement methods are not yet fully recognised by the construction in­
dustry. At the same time, more onerous requirements from clients for
reducing construction times and costs have highlighted the need for high
levels of integration and multidisciplinary coordination skills [2]. Par­
allel with this, the use of off-site construction techniques has demon­
strated that advantages can be gained by using multi-tasking labour
skills to improve productivity [3].
The design phase is the most appropriate stage to introduce new
solutions that can have a high impact during the whole life-cycle of a
building project. Good design has a significant impact on the overall use
of resources in construction projects [4–8].
Volumetric modular construction (using standardised component
sizes and structural system layouts that are compatible with large scale
production) is an attractive proposition but presents some challenging
issues [9], especially in terms of economies of scale and high initial
capital cost investment. Research has been conducted into the benefits
of non-volumetric (ie in smaller quantities for bespoke projects) off-site
component prefabrication, which may include elements of modular
construction [10–14] thereby opening ways for the application of smart
design management approaches.
The Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) approach has
been extensively used for decades in the automobile, aerospace, general
mechanical and other manufacturing industries for the development of
products [15,16]. More recently, the AEC industry has begun to explore
the DfMA process [9,17]. DfMA has been tested successfully upon
structural and non-structural components such as curtain walling,
structural connections, and cabled stayed towers [7,16–20]. It has been
demonstrated that DfMA, when integrated into the construction process,
could effectively reduce cost and time and enhance quality. It also
minimises the environmental hazards and safety issues that have long
been associated with on-site construction [21].
However, further research is needed to help the AEC industry

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: p.vazserra@unimelb.edu.au (P. Vaz-Serra).
Available online 12 June 2021
2352-7102/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102849
Received 9 November 2020; Received in revised form 6 April 2021; Accepted 4 June 2021
P. Vaz-Serra et al.
become more proactive in the implementation of better manufacturing
science and business culture. Industries like automotive [22], aero­
nautical [23,24], in mechanical equipment [25] have been very active in
developing modular strategies using design-for-X approaches [24,26].
The initial DfMA theory was developed typically for small components
that can be easily handled, and one issue is that this concept works less
well when using large dimensional components such as those needed for
construction projects, especially where complicated site handling is
involved. Architects, engineers and contractors need to develop a
“manufacturing mindset” to complement and integrate their more
traditional skills. Approaches looking at improvements on product ar­
chitecture [24] and product modularity [26] have been very beneficial
to understand ways to effectively introduce more efficient management
methods. The question for this research is, therefore, how a
semi-modular approach can help these stakeholders to include more
advanced manufacturing systems in their design thinking and imple­
mentation activities:
How can a semi-modular non-volumetric approach, using DfMA, be
used to improve process management innovation in the plumbing
industry?
The experimental case study used for our research was developed
with a Melbourne plumbing company in collaboration with the Uni­
versity of Melbourne and with the support of a large contractor. It adopts
DfMA methodology for a typical bathroom installation for a residential
apartment project in Melbourne, Australia. The prototype of the flat-
pack “wet wall” bathroom panel package was manufactured and
assembled in a local factory and tested by installing it on site.
Our research focuses on the application of the DfMA principles to the
“wet wall” component of a typical bathroom layout for residential
apartments in high-rise buildings. Our aim is to demonstrate whether or
not a prefabrication approach can deliver commercial benefits and make
good business sense using that model. According to Wasim et al. [16],
there is limited work on the DfMA based design of the wet wall for high
rise buildings. In this research, we first explore DfMA and current ap­
proaches by the construction industry to advanced manufacturing
methodologies. For the experimental case study we then analyse the
design, manufacture and installation of a prefabrication prototype for a
typical bathroom “wet wall” for a multistorey residential building.
2. Prefabrication and principles of DfMA
In this section we review pertinent factors including: the need for
prefabrication; lean construction and modularisation in the AEC in­
dustry; and DfMA principles and processes.
2.1. Need for prefabrication
Off-site prefabrication is not new in the construction industry [27].
High on-site construction costs, lack of qualified labour, site coordina­
tion issues and final product quality have all fuelled the need for
effective and efficient prefabrication processes.
To some extent, all the material inputs to construction are pre-
processed in some way before being transported to the site and incor­
porated into the building. The driver behind greater prefabrication is the
economic desire to reduce the amount of in-situ activities required to
construct buildings, and reap the benefits that the greater control
achievable through off-site processes can bring.
The research question then becomes: how much more can be ach­
ieved by way of off-site prefabrication for the plumbing sector in high-
rise residential construction? This is what we seek to demonstrate in
our experimental research.
2
2.2. Lean construction and modularisation in the AEC industry
Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849
“Lean” production is defined as the elimination of inefficient activ­
ities and waste, and delivery optimisation [28] and continuous process
improvement [29]. Since 1997, the formation of the Lean Construction
Institute [30] has helped to transform the construction culture using
agile and lean philosophies, principles and techniques.
The concept of “modularisation” defines an approach that reduces
the proliferation of different sizes and shapes typically encountered in
traditional custom-made or bespoke building components by adopting
standardised sizes for components, sub-components and their constitu­
ent materials and parts. Modularisation may be applied to something as
simple as a the dimensions of a ceramic wall tile, or to a whole system,
such as the spacing and sizes of columns and beams in a building
structure.
Martinez et al. [31] applied lean production principles for the
robotisation and automation of part of the building process. Their
research focused upon one product, the “Service Core” that comprised a
metal frame to which all the essential services for the operation of
bathrooms, utility areas or kitchens, were fixed. They claim that the
component products could then be assembled and installed by a robotic
system on site. Following on from this, Martinez et al. [1] presented a
conceptual design for a “Flexible Field Factory” capable of doing on-site
prefabrication of products in a semi-automatic mode. The Flexible Field
Factory is a converted shipping container-based factory that can be
transported from one site to another. The factory unit’s viability was
tested, together with the experiential knowledge of construction part­
ners, on the Service Core component which was itself based on DfMA
design and lean production principles.
2.3. DfMA principles
DfMA [32] is reflected in six main principles that follow the concept
of human motor capacity and understanding of manual dexterity [33].
These principles lead to the development of several other assembly ap­
proaches [25,34,35].
Boothroyd summarised DfMA principles as follows:
a) Reducing the quantity of the parts used in the product.
b) Facilitating easy manual and automatic handling by changing the
geometry and shape of the product.
c) Parts or components can easily be inserted into the product.
d) Standardisation of parts so that the same design can be used
repetitively.
e) Avoding risk by sticking to the current design processes and
capabilities.
f) Keep the margin for the alternative design and assembly procedures.
2.4. DfMA Index
An essential part of DfMA is the DfMA index or “design assembly
efficiency index” measure for a proposed design [32]. In general, two
main factors influence the manufacturing and assembly efficiencies of a
product:
- The number of parts in a product, and
- The ease of handling, insertion, and fastening of the parts.
The DfMA index is obtained by dividing the product of the number of
parts and the theoretical minimum assembly time by the actual assembly
time:
(Nmin )x(ta )
DfMA index : (Ema ) =
(tma )
Where:
P. Vaz-Serra et al.
Ema - DfMA index
Nmin - theoretical minimum number of parts
ta - basic theoretical assembly time for one part = 3 s (with no
handling, insertion, or fastening difficulties)
tma – actual assembly time (sec)
The theoretical minimum number of parts represents an ideal situation
where separate parts are combined into a single part unless, as each part
is added to the assembly, one or more of the following restrictive criteria
arises:
(i) During the normal operating mode of the product, the part moves
relative to all other parts already assembled.
(ii) The part must be of a different material than or must be isolated
from all other parts assembled.
(iii) The part must be separate from all other assembled parts;
otherwise, the assembly of parts meeting one of the preceding
criteria would be prevented.
Assembly operations always involve at least two component parts:
- The part to be inserted and
- The part or assembly location into which the part is inserted.
Handling time is an important consideration in DfMA.
2.5. Handling time
The time required to present (orient and/or rotate) parts for insertion
in the assembly of the component is defined as handling time, using
alpha and beta angles for symmetry. Alpha angle symmetry is the
maximum angle a part must be rotated perpendicular to the axis of
insertion to repeat its orientation. Beta angle symmetry is the angle
through which a part must be rotated about the axis of insertion to
repeat its orientation (See Fig. 1).
The geometric sizes of each part are also analysed according to
principles of “ideal” dimensions and embracing the concept of large
parts that require two hands or mechanical assistance and small parts
that can be dealt with using one hand only. Our experimental research
uses the handling times developed by Boothroyd et al. (2011, pp82-86)
for the parts that can be grasped by one-hand and two-hands respec­
tively, without the aid of grasping tools, using the concept of total angle
of symmetry = beta angle + alpha angle. Attention then turns to insertion
time.
Fig. 1. Alfa/Beta angle symmetry for part rotation and insertion. Based on 3
Rondo 2015 manual page 92 ‘twisting action’ [36].
2.6. Insertion time Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849
Insertion time is the time needed to insert one part into a locating
hole, or the placement of a part with a hole onto a location peg. Holding
down devices may be required when parts are temporarily unstable
immediately after insertion or during subsequent operations. The
insertion time depends on access, vision, and whether or not the part can
be secured on insertion by snap fit or requires a separate fastening
operation or another part for fastening. Obstructed access or restricted
vision for the insertion of threaded fasteners increases insertion or as­
sembly times.
Large components may require two people or lifting equipment for
handling and insertion. Allowance must also be made for the time taken
for a worker to acquire any necessary handling equipment, use it to
acquire the part, move the part to the assembly or installation point,
release the part, and finally return the lifting equipment to its original
location. Our research used the handling times developed by Boothroyd
et al. (2011, pp82-86) for estimated large part handling times for these
operations.
Given these DfMA principles and measures if it is possible to test their
application through case study. This research aims to test the model in
the plumbing industry for high-rise residential building.
3. Research design
The research methodology applied in our research is experimental,
using a case study approach [37]. Cases studies can have numerous
levels of analysis and can involve several sub-cases within one large case
unit [38].
We have applied one of the available DfMA methods, developed by
Boothroyd [39], in a single experimental case study (the wet wall
bathroom panel) by examining its application in the individual com­
ponents of the panel prototype in a simulation process. Primary data
were collected, by triangulating multiple sources such as historical re­
cords, interviews with relevant stakeholders and through observations.
The case study focuses on a “wet wall” required for a typical bath­
room installation for a large residential high-tise building project in
Melbourne, Australia. Construction phases, and in particular off-site
construction processes, may vary around the world but almost all go
through a conceptual design phase, detail design, procurement of ma­
terials, production, transport and final assembly [40,41]. We explored
this in a prefabrication context for one of the construction stakeholders,
the plumbing industry. The experiment comprises two main sequences:
Design and experimental.
The design was separated in the following phases: First, an abstrac­
tion and comprehensive review of the DfMA approach was conducted to
understand key concepts and principles, and the necessary adaptations
for the design of a flat-pack bathroom wet wall. Secondly, the process of
the conceptual design of the flat-pack wet wall was studied. In this phase
suggestions for design for manufacture and assembly, and optimisation
were taken into consideration for the wet wall. The third phase involved
the detailed panel design with the coordination of design and
manufacturing teams in a local factory. The design of the prefabricated
flat-pack wet wall was first developed using traditional manufacturing
at the factory. Improvements and revisions were then incorporated by
using the principles of DfMA in the third phase. The fourth phase dealt
with manufacturing and production. This included scheduling and
initial quantity and cost estimation, procurement of materials,
sequencing of works, preparation of tools and equipment and then the
final off-site assembly of the components of the wet wall was carried out.
The experimental part was separated in the factory activities
manufacturing, assembly, and packaging, and work done outside the
factory like transportation, material handling and site installation.
During the experimental stages the design was reviewed to be optimised
accordingly DfMA principles.
The manufacturing and assembly times of all the components of the
P. Vaz-Serra et al.
flat-pack wet wall were recorded in the factory and compared with the
procedures noted by the Boothroyd and Dewhurst (2010) DfMA anal­
ysis. The final prototype fabricated with DfMA approach was installed in
situ and findings compared with the traditional wet wall assembly
method.
4. The prototype prefabricated wet wall panel
4.1. Project brief
The construction project for the prefabricated flat-pack bathroom
wet wall system is located in the Central Business District (CBD) of
Melbourne, Australia. The building development comprises a 71-storey
apartment tower containing 1035 apartments for individual sale. The
superstructure for the tower is a reinforced concrete structure
comprising a central lift, staircase and services core with outrigger
columns to provide structural stability.
Limited opportunities are available for penetrations through the
concrete shear walls of such structures, and this must be taken into ac­
count in the placement of service risers, routing of apartment services to
and from the service risers, location of apartment entrance doorways
and other design issues. The plumbing services and their installation,
including hot and cold water supply and sanitary drainage, for the
apartment tower are designed to provide reliable and economic per­
formance, whilst also observing the owner’s desire to progressively
stage the completion and settlement purchases of the individual apart­
ments in the building. The design of the DfMA based wall presented in
this research considers all the plumbing services, and incorporates and
in wall toilet flushing cistern.
4.2. Abstraction of existing design knowledge for bathrooms
The specialist plumbing subcontractor engaged for the apartment
building has been engaged in this market for more than fifteen years.
Using their existing knowledge, it was possible to compare different
designs and arrive at a typical bathroom layout design. Such layouts are
typically driven by compliance with regulatory requirements and cost
constraints.
The plumbing company has used more than one hundred different
layouts in other developments in Melbourne and can identify similarities
for a typical simple bathroom for an apartment with a basin, shower and
a toilet. By overlapping the bathroom layouts, it was found that 55% of
4
Fig. 2. Wet walls of four alternative bathroom layouts for the case study building.
them are the same or have only minor differences. If the bathrooms are
Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849
also to be equipped with washing machines, the layout commonality
percentage increases to 66%.
For the case study project, 1090 bathrooms are needed, as some
apartments have two bathrooms. There are 29 bathrooms of similar
layout on each floor of the building.
The first stage of the experiment was to understand the bathroom
layout similarities and propose a prefabrication model. This model
adopts a semi-modular approach for the bathroom “wet” wall behind the
washbasin and toilet cistern. An analysis of four main design alternatives
from A to D (see Fig. 2) was prepared for developing the initial concept.
The drawings show distances between the plumbing hydraulic systems
and the structural components of the wall.
The wet wall with the washbasin and toilet fitting specifications are
the same for all apartments, so the support spacings required for these
components are identical regardless of the location of entrance door and
layout. Dimensions of the wet wall that vary occur at the left side of the
basin (198, 168 and 166 mm); between the basin and the toilet cistern
(181, 191, 192, 378 mm) and at the right-hand side of the toilet cistern
(74, 84, 143, and 154 mm). This design information helped the
plumbing company to think about parts that could be pre-assembled off-
site and manufactured under controlled conditions, with potential sav­
ings to be gained in labour hours and in quality control.
Several approaches were taken in the analysis of the common parts,
such as the structure of the wall required to support the toilet cistern and
the timber noggings needed to support the washbasin. Variations were
needed to accommodate the different dimensions of each type of bath­
room floor layout. A schematic design of the structure of a typical wet
wall was developed for the research, and Type A (Fig. 2) was selected as
the component case unit for the experimental flat-pack wet wall proto­
type, using DfMA strategies. Flat-pack design was adopted for prefab­
rication in order to optimise handling and transport conditions.
The next design consideration related to site conditions and con­
straints on the proposed testing vehicle – the apartment building project.
4.3. Site location conditions
The site layout for the apartment building project is shown in Fig. 3
with two site access points marked in red. Two tower cranes (one 32
tonne and one 50 tonne capacity), along with the loading bay, are sit­
uated adjacent to Street A. A single-car Alimak passenger hoist is located
on the eastern side of the site but currently only travels to level 7, which
P. Vaz-Serra et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849

Fig. 3. Site access plan and locations of tower cranes and Alimak passenger hoists.

makes it unusable if for wall panels on higher floor levels. A double-car
Alimak passenger hoist is available on the western side of the site
alongside Street B. Access to the larger hoist is through the heritage area
of the site, as shown in the right hand panel in Fig. 3. This hoist services
all floor levels, and is a feasible alternative to using tower cranes if
sufficient crane time is hard to schedule. Ideally, the wet wall panel
elements would be craned up in steel cages (stillages) and delivered to
each floor at the same time as the drywalling subcontractor brings ma­
terials up for that floor. Each wet wall element should be positioned in
its apartment location, to be installed straight after the other internal
apartment walls have been built.
studs (rectangular channel sections 92.0 mm × 35.5 mm of thin gauge
galvanised steel) and 20,0 mm plywood nogging pieces to stiffen the
structure and support plumbing fittings (See Fig. 5).
A schematic design of the structure of the wet wall was prepared,
including wall framing and the noggings (See Fig. 4b Part A). Following
the design brief and specifications for the bathroom fittings, the sche­
matic design for the hydraulic piping and ancillary equipment was
added to understand the parts and sequence of works (See Fig. 6 Part B).
The panel design complies with the requirements of AS/NZS 3500.1

4.4. Site activities to install the wet wall in a traditional in-situ process

The traditional in-situ process of constructing bathroom wet walls

was identified by interviewing six site managers. The site managers
represented the main contractor, the drywalling subcontractor and the
plumbing subcontractor. The flow process can be seen in Fig. 4. The
waiting times before each activity for the wet wall constitute a major
scheduling risk for the project program. However, it must be noted that
site flexibility is an advantage highlighted by Marfella et al. [42] for
traditional construction processes.
On the other hand, the opportunity to use multi-tasking skilled la­
bour with off-site prefabrication solutions is an advantage [3].

4.5. Initial conceptual design

To develop the design, the initial sequence of activities for the pro­
totype flat-pack wet wall were clarified with the plumbing company.
A meeting with the drywalling company was organised, mainly to
ensure that the panel prototype uses the same materials and processes so
as to interact easily with the other walls of the bathroom.
Fig. 5. Typical in-situ wet wall panel.
The wall panel comprises metal top and bottom channels and vertical

5
Fig. 4. Site activities for a traditional in-situ bathroom construction process using sub-contractor sequencing.
P. Vaz-Serra et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849

Fig. 6. Conceptual design of the structure of the wet wall and noggings for supporting toilet fittings and plumbing.

[45] and the recommendations of the Victorian Building Authority

Table 1
(VBA) Guide to Standards and Tolerances [43].
List of structural materials for flat-pack wet wall panel.
Dimension (BMT = Base Unit Quantity Comments
4.6. Structural materials Metal Thickness)

Basin/Cistern Module
The wall panel structure needs to be light but rigid, strong enough to
Vertical Studs 92 mm × 35.5 mm x 2.8 m 6
support the fittings to be attached to it but without adding insur­ 0.5 mm BMT
mountable constraints to panel handling. See Fig. 7 for the proposed Top Track 92 mm × 50 mm x 0.5 1.788 1
panel structure. mm BMT m
The cross-sectional configuration of the structural elements follows Bottom Track 92 mm × 29 mm x 0.5 1.0 m 1
mm BMT
the Guide to Standards and Tolerances [43] for the conceptual design. Timber Noggings 20 mm Plywood 1.35 1 Need cuts
An initial list of material components for the wall panel structure was sqm
prepared based on the schematic design (See Table 1). Screws Wafer 16 × 50 mm 12 12
Connections between the structural elements were used according to Head Drill
Point
the channel system manufacturer’s recommendations [36]. See Figs. 8
Screws Wafer 24 × 40 mm 16 16
and 9 for details. Head Point

4.7. Plumbing materials

damaged from accidental penetrations by sharp fixings when the
drywall plasterboard linings are fixed to the stud wall. This type of
All fixtures and equipment for the bathroom are according to AS/
secondary operation was eliminated in our research, where two options
NZS 3500.1 [45]. Typical fixture and tapware trade components, and
for attaching the PEX pipe to the studs were considered (see Fig. 10).
their approximate weights as used in Victoria, Australia are shown in
Option 1 requires a two-stage installation process – connect timber block
Table 2.
to stud and then connect the pipe clip to timber block. Option 2 is a
PEX piping is commonly used for domestic plumbing in Australia;
single-stage installation – connect clip directly to stud. The less labour-
Traditionally, PEX pipe is clip-fixed onto separate timber blocks which
intensive clipping method was preferred by using or creating a suitable
are nailed to the internal faces of the timber wall studs (AS/NZS 3500.1
plastic clip that enables the pipe to be pushed in for a snap-fit. Hence, the
2018). This is to ensure that the PEX pipe is protected and does not get

6
Fig. 7. Structural frame and parts list of the wet wall panel prototype (without additional noggings to support other fittings such as bathroom wall cabinets).
P. Vaz-Serra et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849

Fig. 8. Typical connection detail between vertical studs and head and bottom tracks [36].

Fig. 9. Typical connection detail between vertical studs and plywood noggings notched to fit between stud webs [36].

connected to a waste pipe rising from the bathroom floor. The set-out of
Table 2
the lugged elbow fitting needs to be very precise (with barely milli­
List of plumbing materials for the prototype panel.
metres of error). The toilet cistern is fitted within the wall panel, with
Material Manufacturer Material Essential only the flushing buttons visible externally. As shown in Fig. 11, the
Basin/Cistern In-wall Cistern Caroma Plastic Y cistern is supported within the vertical panel wall studs by brackets, and
Module Basin Mixer Tap As specified Brass Y requires a single cold water supply connection. Once the cistern brackets
20ø PEX Pipe Couta PEX Y
are screwed in and the cistern is installed, it becomes quite difficult to
16ø PEX Pipe Couta PEX Y
20ø x 16ø x 16ø PEX Couta Brass Y
disassemble and re-adjust them if their set-out is not sufficiently precise.
Tee Fitting The washbasin requires hot and cold-water service connections.
16ø PEX elbow Couta Plastic Y
16ø lugged elbow Couta Brass Y 4.8. Performance and functional requirements
16ø MI x 16ø PEX Couta Plastic Y
elbow Fitting
50 mm timber block Hardware Timber N The bathroom fittings have to remain in their as-designed locations
16/20 mm PEX pipe Couta Plastic Y and cannot be relocated (refer to Fig. 2 for typical bathroom elevations).
clips The panel wall assembly must cater for two constraints: construction
tolerances of the slab-to-slab heights in the reinforced concrete building
structure, and any deflection of the concrete slab soffit under structural
load.
Three proprietary options [36] are available for height and slab
deflection control (see Fig. 12): (1) Top track with extended ends to
allow for adjustments (MAXitrack); (2) Telescoping studs – the mini­
mum overlap required for structural integrity (MAXijamb). (3) Slotted
top track.
For our research project Option 1 (extended top track) was used.
Assumptions made by the design team were that 50% of the basin
weight is supported by the wall and 50% supported by the metal
framing; and weights of 350 g/m for 20 mm PEX and 220 g/m for 16 mm
PEX piping. For the 16 mm PEX cold service piping the weight per panel
amounted to: 0.220 gm x 6 m (Cold) = 0.66 kg.
Fig. 10. Pipe clipping options for vertical metal channel wall studs.

4.9. Design of the wet wall using DfMA-oriented parameters

timber fixing block is not needed, one component is thereby omitted,
and the assembly process is faster.
Careful consideration was given to the hydraulic design of the flat-
pack wet wall panel with respect to the metal console that supports
the front end of the floating vanity basin, and the supporting noggings
that take the weight. The in-wall toilet cistern requires specific setting
out spacing of the vertical studs in the panel. The bracket connecting the
cistern to the studs does not allow for any vertical movement. The
positioning of the washbasin impacts the position of the bottle-type
7
waste trap and the basin mixer tap. The bottle trap was designed to be
The initial design of the bathroom wet wall had to fulfil two criteria:
first, to comply with the design brief described, and second, to replicate
the in-situ wall design ensuring that all critical components are in the
correct position to locate and support the plumbing fixtures or joinery.
Key DfMA principles [33] were then applied to the design to simplify the
manufacture and assembly of the panel wall and plumbing elements.
Fig. 13 shows the sequence of activities used in the initial design phase
of the research.
The design stage for the assessment of DfMA efficiency introduced
P. Vaz-Serra et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849

Fig. 11. Hydraulic services design and list of plumbing materials.

Fig. 12. Three options available for deflection control [36].

Fig. 13. The panel design assessment flow chart.

8
P. Vaz-Serra et al.

some additional transformation in the wall design. Table 3

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849
Design assessment using DfMA criteria.
5. DfMA guidelines for wall panel manufacture and assembly DFMA Criteria Current solution and discussion

Structure of the wall panel frame (components)

5.1. Wet wall design draft a) Minimise the number of parts
Can the structural frame be adapted to Suggestion to the design team to readjust
combine parts? the location of the basin and cistern to
The initial wet wall design draft was prepared for the prefabrication
have same distances between them,
stage, responding fully to the design brief and the architectural draw­ allowing reduction of the number of
ings. DfMA guidelines were then used to assess the design from a differently-sized parts.
manufacturing and assembly perspective. Can any parts be omitted? All parts are currently essential. Some
may be combined (as above).
b) Design for ease of handling
Location of materials in storage? Materials should be located/stored near
5.2. Application of DfMA criteria to the assembly zone, and with overall
dimensions that permit easy handling by
The scope of our research project was limited to the manufacture, one-person in the assembly zone.
assembly and installation of a prototype wall panel. A discussion of the How easy is it for flat-pack packaging? Replace the timber nogging for drain
support with steel support to allow 90-
relevant DfMA processes was undertaken with project stakeholders, and
degree rotation. The drain to be aligned
the design was developed following the recommendations in the with the wall to allow flatter packaging.
checklist and sequence of assessment for the design. Assistance needed when aligning and The final wall element requires a two-
In the design phase, DfMA concepts were assessed to optimise the positioning the wall? person lift. Also needs two people to align
and position the wall. Explore methods to
production of the prototype. In the manufacturing assessment phases,
simplify handling.
the optimisation of panel materials was sought. In the assembly phase, How many people are involved? Component weights should be limited to
the initial location of the components was assessed, the connections and ensure as much as possible a one-person
positions needed for tool access, and the number of people required for lift, or a maximum of two people.
each activity; with the aim of reducing the number of tasks (See Table 3). c) Design for ease of insertion
Are components secured straight away? Connection of metal studs using flat head
self-tapping screws is time-consuming –
explore other methods of fastening such
5.3. Prefabrication of the wet wall prototype as “slot and slick” design.
Self-fastening capability? Metal studs currently require fastening
The mock-up was prefabricated, based on the existing project site together with screws. Need to consider
self-fastening components.
conditions. DfMA was used for the manufacturing and assembly process, Is it easy to insert components? Vertical studs must be placed into tracks
and for purchasing and preparing the individual components of the wall. (head and bottom) according to the detail
Assembly times were measured and recorded. A flow chart for the from the supplier, using a 90-degree
sequence of activities after the design phase is shown in Fig. 14. rotation. Consider marking locations
before final positioning. Noggings are
more challenging due to conflict with the
stud webs, and rotation of the vertical
5.4. Manufacture stud is needed to have the same type of
connection on each side of the nogging.
The components of the wall panel prototype consist of: Structure Need to consider reducing the number of
different fixing methods.
components: six vertical studs, one top track, one bottom track, eighteen
d) Standardised parts
timber noggings, and one steel nogging. Hydraulic components: PEX Part symmetry makes assembly easier. Where possible, all metal studs and
piping red and black (hot and cold water respectively), pipe elbows and noggings should be of equal length, size or
tap connectors, basin mixer tap, toilet cistern and fixing devices. configuration.
The position and setbacks for the noggings were decided jointly with Steel and timber materials supply Use only one supplier for steel channel
sources. sections and plywood noggings. Test
the plumbers normally responsible for installing these fixtures on site for alternatives for using only one material.
this building project. The sequence of works for the manufacturing e) Design for current process capabilities
(cutting and making into easy to assemble parts) of the studs, noggings Current skills available in the plumbing Plumbers need training on the assembly of
and metal brackets, and assembly of them, was achieved by performing company? typical drywall panels, and on
manufacturing methods, or employ and
tasks stage-wise as follows: Stage 1: Procurement of all the materials
train specialised assemblers and
used for the flat-wall and shower wall prototype; Stage 2: Marking and installers.
cutting of studs and noggings as per requirements, and preparation of Existing equipment available for the The plumbing company eventually
metal fixing brackets. prototype? intends to fabricate assembly jigs, using
For Stage 1, all the materials needed to manufacture the prototype an existing CNC machine, once full-scale
manufacturing commences.
were procured and transported to the factory. During this phase, addi­ Are components designed to be The components were assessed as being
tional noggings were requested to support other parts such as towel rails, assembled using current assembly capable of assembly in the current factory.
mirrors and wall cabinets (Figs. 15 and 16) and new schematic designs process capability? A separate area was made available to
were prepared, together with a new list of parts for procurement assemble the prototype. The current
processes of the company, using
(Table 4).
prefabrication for plumbing components,
The position of each nogging was agreed between the drywall were adapted to the panel frame
contractor and the plumbing company in order to develop a standard structure.
methodology. f) Maintain awareness of alternative process capabilities
In Stage 2, all the studs and noggings were cut to size in the dedicated Check in-house design capability? The in-house design team was trained to
assess the design from a DfMA
preparation area in the factory (see Fig. 17) but contact was made with perspective. External consultants
suppliers to explore supply of pre-cut parts, to reduce the number of (researchers with several years of
tasks and minimise waste. 9 (continued on next page)
The manufacturing times for cutting were recorded for this stage.
P. Vaz-Serra et al.
Table 3 (continued )
DFMA Criteria Current solution and discussion
experience in DfMA based design) were
hired to support the training of executing
DfMA analysis.
More economical to employ new The use of new technologies (like the use
technologies? of 3D print solutions and augmented
reality) was assessed in a business plan,
looking at costs of the technology and
optimum production quantities to assess
alternatives.
Hydraulic components
a) Minimise the number of parts
Reduce the number of joints and Two dimensions of PEX pipes DN20 and
different materials? DN16 requires the procurement of
differently-sized connectors. Consider
using only one pipe dimension to
eliminate this. Since this would have to be
20 mm pipe, the additional cost might be
a constraint.
b) Design for ease of handling
Design parts so tangling of pipes or PEX piping may tangle. Temporarily
cross-connections is not possible? secure pipes with adhesive tape.
Eliminate the risk of cross connections by
using colour coding of hot and cold water
service pipes.
Eliminate tasks that require secondary Consider using saddle clips directly on the
operations? channel face of metal studs to replace
clipping of PEX pipe to timber blocks fixed
to metal studs.
c) Design for ease of insertion
Crimping for pipe connections? Crimping of PEX pipes to mixer taps is
time consuming. Need to consider other
methods of connection.
What type of fastening process? Currently self-tapping screws are used.
Need to consider other quicker fastening
methods.
d) Standardised parts
Reduced inventory possible? Have only one diameter of PEX pipe.
e) Design for current process capabilities
Are the current process capabilities able Current capabilities were used to
to assemble the components? assemble the prototype. To avoid
interference with the company’s normal
activities, an area was reserved for our
project in the factory to permit assembly
using the current processes of
prefabrication for the plumbing activity.
f) Maintain awareness of alternative process capabilities
More economical to employ new The use of new technologies was assessed
technologies? in a business plan looking at costs of the
technology and forecast production
quantities to access alternatives.
Possible to combine the process A process to combine the two stages was
between structural wall and assessed for testing test if possible, to
hydraulic system? combine parts of the wall in sub-parts.
The process of combining the part of the
wall with just the cistern incorporated,
and another with the basin, was analysed
for future optimisation of the process.
5.5. Assembly
The sequence of works for the assembly was as follows: Stage 3:
Assembly of the structural frame of the wall, including studs and nog­
gings installation. Stage 4: Assembly and insertion of the hydraulics
plumbing systems and components.
5.5.1. Assembly of the structural frame
The assembly time for each component was recorded for comparison
with the recommended DfMA procedures (Boothroyd et al. 2001).
The main challenge in this stage was dealing with the weight and
dimensions of parts that cannot be handled easily.
10
Initially, the components of the structural frame for the wall panel
were laid out on the factory floor to study the best sequence for as­
Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849
sembly. Several alternatives were discussed with the dry walling
contractor and the plumbing company. For our research purposes, and
in order to compare productivity with the traditional on-site process, the
sequence adopted was the same as that for the traditional model:
a) Place the six vertical studs in their final spaced locations on the floor
but with the 92 mm channel face to the floor.
b) Place the channel top track along with the heads of the vertical studs.
c) Place the channel bottom track along the bottoms of the vertical
studs.
d) Using two people, insert the ends of the vertical studs into the top
and bottom track channels Insert the vertical studs with a rotation of
90◦ , some in clockwise and others in counter clockwise rotation ac­
cording to the agreed nogging fixing positions, and connect channels
to studs with self-tapping screws.
e) Turn the partially assembled frame over on the floor and proceed to
fix the other side of the trach channels with self-tapping screws
(Fig. 18).
f) Mark the location of the noggings using a prepared jig for each
location.
5.5.2. Assembly of the internal noggings
Once the channel fixing for the metal panel frame was completed, the
20,0 mm thick plywood noggings were connected to the metal channels
using four screws per nogging. Noggings were connected in two different
ways: inside the stud webs and outside. The noggings connected from
the outside face each required four additional metal brackets. The whole
assembly sometimes had to be turned over to allow for the correct
alignment and fixing of the plywood noggings.
Insertion of the noggings must be done with a logical sequence and
with the same type of insertion. Noggings in the first, third and fifth
parts from the left are inserted inside the stud webs (Fig. 17); Noggings
in the second and fourth parts of the wall panel (parts required for the
washbasin and toilet cistern) are inserted from the outside of the stud;
Noggings b have special insertion procedures that need to be set back to
allow space for the basin mixer tap and the waste pipe (Fig. 19).
Maintaining the positioning of the parts during the panel assembly
process was important for reducing wasted time caused by inadvertent
movement of parts to incorrect positions at the moment of assembly.
The structural frame of the wall should be assembled on a suitable
table or in a custom-made jig to ensure that the alignment and posi­
tioning of the metal studs are accurate. Using a table also puts con­
necting and fixing activities at a more comfortable waist-level for
workers. Ideally, different jigs for each type of wall panel would be used
in the future. Once the structural stud wall frame was completed, the
manufacturing process is handed over to the plumbers to install the
plumbing fixtures.
5.5.3. Assembly of the hydraulics components
The plumbing work includes the installation of the basin mixer tap,
the in-wall toilet cistern and the hot and cold water PEX service piping.
The mixer tap and the cistern were fastened to the noggings or studs with
self-tapping screws (Fig. 20). The male threads of the pipe elbow fittings
were coated with Loxeal adhesive/sealant before being screwed onto the
mixer tap assembly. Each PEX service pipe has to be crimp fixed using a
ProPress ACO152 crimping tool. The PEX pipes were attached to the
metal channel studs using four plastic saddle clips each complete with
pre-inserted self-tapping screws.
In the final factory Stage 5, the trial installation of the assembled flat-
pack wet wall panel was carried out, on the assumption that it would be
an actual bathroom where the wall panels were to be eventually
installed. The installation of the experimental wall panel in the mock-up
location prepared in the factory was carried out by two workers, with
one holding the prefabricated wall steady in an upright position while
the other worker screwed the bottom and top tracks into position. The
P. Vaz-Serra et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849

Fig. 14. Activity flowchart for the proposed prototype prefabricated wet wall bathroom panel.

Fig. 15. Shop drawing of prefabricated wet wall panel prototype (mirrored) showing the position of additional noggings required to support towel racks, mirrors and
wall cabinets.

11
P. Vaz-Serra et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849

Fig. 16. Schematic of components of the structural frame of the wet wall for washbasin/toilet cistern including new noggings.

Table 4
Revised list of wall panel components for procurement.
Location Type Dimensions Quantity

Structural Frame
Metal Vertical 251 Rondo 92 × 35.5 × 0.55 2.80 6
Stud (BMT)
Top S683 Slotted Deflection 1.788 1
Head Track (MaxiTrack)
Rondo 92 × 50 × 1.15
(BMT)
Bottom 250 Wall Track Rondo 92 × 1.788 1
29 × 0.50 (BMT)
Support 251 Rondo 92 × 35.5 × 0.55 0.60 1
(BMT)
Noggings e Plywood 20 mm 150 × 200 2
a Plywood 20 mm 200 × 200 3
k Plywood 20 mm 300 × 200 1
c, d and g Plywood 20 mm 400 × 200 6
b, f and j Plywood 20 mm 550 × 200 4
h Plywood 20 mm 550 × 400 1
i Plywood 20 mm 400 × 400 1

Hydraulic system

Basin Basin Mixer (Model Liano 1 1

Mixer Nexus) Fig. 17. Factory layout plant with designated prototype panel production area.
Cistern In-wall cistern (Caroma 1 1
Invisi II BTW)
Pipe Hot Water 16 mm PEX pipe (2.5 m) 2.5 1 and transported to the construction site (See Fig. 21).
Cold 16 mm PEX pipe (2.5 m) 2.5 2 The process and times for unloading were checked and verified ac­
Water cording to the DfMA analysis made in the design stage. The wire cage
Plastic clips for 16 mm Pex 1 9
(stillage adapted with wells) with the flat-pack wet wall panel loaded
pipe
was easily transported to the site location. The weights of each module
Screws For Studs Screws Wafer Head Drill 135 were checked against the recommendations contained in the “Manual
Point 10–24 × 50 mm
For Screws Wafer Head Point
Handling at Work” guide [44] and the total weight of all prefabricated
Noggings wall elements together with the stillages and workers was compared
against the total payload capacity of the hoist. The panel was placed in
the two-car hoist and elevated to the 30th floor. Fig. 22 demonstrates
total weight of the prototype wall panel, including the plumbing fixtures that the largest wall assembly can fit through the hoist door opening and
was approximately 30,0 kg. comfortably into the internal car space. This configuration allows for a
212,0 mm vertical gap between the top of the wall element and the
inside ceiling height of the hoist. At this stage no other internal walls had
5.6. Verification and validation on the construction site
been installed on the target floor, and it was easy to manoeuvre a stillage
trolley on the destination floor.
After testing the installation of the prototype panel in the mock-up
A ‘just-in-time’ principle [23] could be adopted for the delivery and
location in the factory, the wet wall panel was removed and prepared
installation of prefabricated wall elements such as this in future, so as to
for transportation and installation on-site in the apartment building
minimise the risk of site damage and avoid the need for on-site storage.
project.
The transportation of the prefabricated wall panels in stillages allows a
The completed flat-pack wet wall panel was placed on the assembly
whole floor of panels to be delivered and lifted to the required floor in a
area (Fig. 17) in the factory and a temporary metal stud channel was
few hours, depending on the distance from the factory and the number of
fitted to give additional rigidity to the whole panel, while the hydraulic
panels per floor.
parts were protected to avoid damage during transportation and the
After delivery of the flat-pack wet wall panel to the floor and
whole assembled wall panel was then wrapped with elasticated plastic
intended bathroom destination, panel adjustment was then carried out
film.
to align it with pre-marked points under the soffite of the concrete slab
The packaged panel was placed in a stillage trolley (designed to be 12 above and on the slab floor. Panel levelling and verticality were
handled mechanically by a tower crane, telescopic handler or a forklift)
P. Vaz-Serra et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849

Fig. 18. Insertion procedure for vertical studs and top and bottom track channels for panel [36].

Fig. 19. Insertion recommended for vertical studs and top/bottom tracks and other materials for manufacturing [36].

checked. Panel installation was done by two workers who first fixed the
flat-pack wet wall panel to the concrete slabs at top and bottom, using
gun nailing through the track channels. Final connections were then
made to the existing water supply and waste plumbing systems by
plumbers and the whole installation assessed for quality and
performance.
6. Findings and discussion
6.1. Panel production
The process of production for the panel prototype was informed by
the existing prefabrication knowledge of the plumbing company. After
procuring the materials and designating an area to receive them in the
factory, close to the assembly area, a shelving system was arranged to
store component parts before assembly and completed panels after as­
sembly. The process of panel fabrication includes cutting the compo­
nents in their final dimensions, marking relevant points in each
component (e.g. noggings and connectors in studs, location of the steel
connectors in noggings, etc.), and all components were labelled in the
fabrication area with a code for traceability and quality control.
The assembly process was undertaken near the parts storage shelves
and the times for handling and insertion were recorded for each
component (see example in Fig. 23).
13
A spreadsheet was created to illustrate how DfMA is applied to the
prototype wall (see Appendix A).
P. Vaz-Serra et al.
Fig. 20. Insertion of the plumbing components.
Fig. 21. Final installation activity sequence.
Fig. 22. Size of wall panel assembly relative to hoist door opening dimensions.
The total number of parts in the experimental prototype panel is 162,
comprising 128 separate parts for the structural components of the wall
and another 34 parts for the hydraulic components. Total estimated
assembly time (tma ) for the wall and fixtures amounted to 1179.25 s.
Following the concept of DfMA and eliminating all screws, saddle
clips and brackets, the theoretical minimum number of parts (Nmin ) re­
Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849
duces to 37. According to the DfMA methodology, each optimised part
takes 3 s to assemble. Thus:
DfMA index is calculated as 3 x 37 / 1179.25 = 0.094 or 9.4%.
Considering that the structural components and hydraulic compo­
nents are carried out by two separate groups of workers (carpenters and
plumbers), two separate DfMA indices were calculated:
DfMA index for the structural components = 3 x 28 / 874.22 = 0.096 or 9.6%,
and
DfMA index for the hydraulic components = 3 x 9 / 305.03 = 0.089 or 8.9%.
The computations are based on the initial manufacturing and as­
sembly times recorded at the factory. A summary of manufacturing,
assembly and final installation times is shown in Table 5.
The measured assembly time for the wall prototype was 3970 s (66.2
min). This duration was heavily influenced by the lessons learnt. The
workers had to spend additional time referring to shop drawings,
moving the parts to manoeuvre around the wall assembly, and testing
various possible options for assembly. Based on time measurements at
the factory, the duration ratio for assembling the prototype wall (esti­
mated/actual) is 3970/1179 = 3.37 times longer than the estimated
optimum duration. Applying lessons learnt to the wall assembly would
improve these assembly times. Utilising the DfMA methodology, the
expected assembly time is 19.65 min per wall panel.
Existing site conditions usually require constant coordination be­
tween the main contractor, the drywall subcontractor and the plumbers
14 to ensure that works progress at an appropriate pace. There is wasted
P. Vaz-Serra et al.

Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849

Fig. 23. Examples of handling and insertion times for panel assembly sequences.

wall panel is still highly efficient, at 58% of the time needed for a similar
Table 5
in-situ wall.
Manufacturing, assembly and installation times (rounded values to seconds)
The DfMA analysis shows that the prefabricated wall panel prototype
compared for prefabricated and in-situ bathroom wall panels.
has the potential to substantially reduce assembly and installation times.
Prefabricated Wall In-situ Wall
The transfer of pre-installation work from the project construction site to
Prototype
a manufacturing environment has the potential to further increase
A - Manufacturing times 1710 + 140 = 1850 1585 + 140 = productivity by a factor of 2.3 utilising the DfMA calculated durations.
B - Assembly times (DFA analysis) 874 + 305 = 1179 1725
Better quality assurance performance is also achieved in a cleaner
C - Observed Assembly times – 2710 + 1260 = 3970 3780 + 2700 =
actual 6480 workplace.
D - Observed Installation times – 540
actual 6.2. Cost savings achievable for the prefabricated flat-pack wet wall
E − Idle and wait times – estimated 600 3600
prototype
F - Total productive time – DFMA (A 3629
+ B + E)
G - Total productive time – actual (A 6360 8330 The labour rates for manufacturing workers are between 35% and
+ C + D) 65% of the rates for licensed plumbers working on-site. Given this sig­
Total time (E + G) 6960 11,930
nificant wage differential between site assembly and manufacturing,
there is a saving in labour costs by transferring the manufacture and
time where the drywall sub-contractor has to wait for the plumbers and assembly of the wet wall panel and plumbing fixtures to a factory
vice-versa before work on the bathrooms can progress. These waiting or environment. Further labour savings can be obtained by the more effi­
idle times are estimated at 60 min for the current Melbourne CBD cient assembly process work in the factory and the reduction of idle and
apartment building project. A comparison of the actual productive times waiting time that is prevalent on a high-rise building. Material costs for
indicates that the prefabricated wall takes only 76% of the time required these wet wall assemblies, whether installed in-situ or prefabricated, are
for a similar in-situ constructed wall. Comparing the optimum DfMA likely to be similar.
productive time with the total production time, the prefabricated wall The prefabricated wall panels will incur additional costs, such as
should take only 44% (less than half) of the time needed for an in-situ design and transportation costs, that will have to be amortised over the
wall. Taking into account delays and waiting times, the prefabricated 15 total number of wall panels produced, but the cost analysis shows that
the cost of the in-situ wet wall was AUD$911.57, while that of DfMA
P. Vaz-Serra et al.

based wall was AUD$783.70 in 2018. The analysis suggests that the cost
of the prototype wall panel was 86% of the cost for the in-situ wall. With
further optimisation of the prototype wall in accordance with DfMA
principles, the labour cost can be further reduced, resulting in a pre­
fabricated wall panel estimated cost of about 81% of the cost for the
alternative in-situ wall. Overall, therefore, this represents a substantial
savings of nearly 20% over the in-situ wall which aligns with previous
research on DfMA design for cost [25].
6.3. Proposed design changes and improvements
Using the DfMA worksheets, high-cost processes can now be identi­
fied – especially those associated with the installation of parts that do
not meet any of the criteria for separate components. From these results,
it is clear that attention should focus on the following areas of wet-wall
panel prefabrication: improving the efficiency of the fastening of the
noggins; improving the connection between studs and bottom/top
tracks; eliminating the stiffener; and using prefabricated pipe tails.
A summary of the items that have been identified for elimination or
combination and the appropriate assembly time savings is presented in
Table 6. A total of 103 items can be eliminated or replaced with self-
locking fasteners. The prefabrication of pipe tails with elbows has the
potential to reduce these assemblies from 15 items to only five and save
80 s off the fixing time for each pipe tail.
6.4. Stakeholder comments
Our research project received favourable comments from the main
contractor’s project manager:
Reduced cycle times onJournal
the floors can be achieved for the contractor, by
of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849
having a potential opportunity to speed up wet areas."
Some concerns were expressed about contractual and commercial
issues (e.g. trades demarcation and system licensing). These were not
critical of the system proposed nor detrimental to the success of this
system, but simply issues that have to be taken into consideration during
the initial contract development phase and in the longer term future.
Education and training for, and market acceptance of, new construction
methods takes time to implement. Often there is a “we have always done it
this way” attitude encountered when a new method is introduced;
especially for an already established project situation such as that used
for the research case study. And, in addition, trades (sub-contractors)
demarcation issues will require sensitive negotiation with unions.
For the prefabricated panels, minor re-work to toilet cistern in­
stallations may be required if changes in floor finishes are required in
apartment bathrooms to accommodate purchasers’ requests, for
example from tiles to timber flooring. This would affect floor levels and
heights. Flushing and waste pipes may need to be raised or lowered, and
an adjustable solution may have to be sought. Marketplace education
and promotion for the new system need to take place to make it
commercially viable on a large scale. To analyse accountability issues,
stakeholders mentioned risk sharing over the potential “what if” situa­
tion if things go wrong with this wall between the drywall sub­
contractors and plumbers.
The construction project manager for the main contractor also
mentioned that availability of crane time for mega high-rise projects
means that handling time can be compromised and may depend upon
hoist availability more often.
The overall feedback from the client stakeholder was positive:

“Bathroom plumbing elements were constructed in 9 minutes on site. To
do this in the real world from scratch, involving the plasterer, carpenter to
mark out noggins, plasterer to install noggins and then plumbing trades to
fit off individual components is usually a 4+ day process on-site to get it to
the point that it was achieved this morning.
“Overall, in principle, this is a fantastic concept and something that needs
some more market place education before a full-scale launch on a project.
We are more than happy to trial this on our job to get an in-situ sense of
how this can benefit us and involve design managers and finishes super­
visor and others for their greater input as well."

There is an ability (with some re-training or thinking with our supervisors
and site managers) around how we can speed up the production of the
following trades and accelerate the bathrooms to create an “in-situ pod”,
like building on-site in the Finishes 1 cycle. This is process driven and
something where everyone needs to buy into it.
Simple transportation to the floors via stillage or Alimak makes this a
viable product with labour saving for the plumber and other trades.
Table 6
Suggested design changes and associated time savings for the prototype pre­
fabricated flat-pack wet wall bathroom panel.
Serial Design Change Items Time Savings
no. (s)
From the plumbing company’s perspective, the findings from the
research experiment and the use of the DfMA principles were essential
for them to understand the manufacturing advantages of using the DfMA
approach. They are planning to hire more skilled labour from the
manufacturing industry to help them with their internal transformation.
A new training scheme for multi-tasking skills was also highlighted as
essential for the future, including upgrading the skills of their existing
employees to address the requirements of the factory work environment
and to improve flexibility. The practical findings presented in this paper
are novel and will pave the way for the application of DfMA for the
structural 3D modules and prefabricated buildings in future.
7. Conclusions

a. Eliminate self-tapping screws for 44 × 21, 310.90 We have reported the successful experimental use of DfMA for a
noggins prototype prefabricated flat-pack wet wall bathroom panel, undertaken
24 × 23, 170.90 in collaboration with a local manufacturing company of the plumbing
4 × 26, 30.90
Eliminate steel brackets for 8 × 24, 14.40
sector. By applying the DfMA approach, it has been demonstrated that
noggins savings are achievable in time and cost, and waste is reduced. The
b. Eliminate flat head self-tapping 2 × 2, 16.90 experiment also shows that a semi-modular prefabrication approach can
screws to studs 2 × 4, 16.90 combine the benefits of off-site prefabrication together with the ad­
2 × 6, 16.90
vantages of flexibility, thereby avoiding high infrastructure capital costs
2 × 8, 16.90
2 × 10, 16.90 to prefabricate modular components. This could allow smaller and more
2 × 12, 16.90 traditional companies to adopt advanced manufacturing processes to
c. Eliminate stiffener/brace 1 and 6 1 × 16, 13.53 improve their competitiveness in the AEC industry without having to
screws 6 × 17, 44.90 make major capital investments. On last decade a deliver method
d. Prefabricate pipe tails 1 × 3,4,5,6,7 80.41
1 × 8,9,10,11,12 80.41
knowing design and build have been used systematically in high-rise
1× 80.41 residential building in Melbourne and sub-contractors (trades) like
17,18,19,20,21 plumbers are required to submit their design and build quotes. Through
16
Total 118 928.16 the flat-pack wet wall panel prototype, the local manufacturing
P. Vaz-Serra et al.
company was able to improve and standardise its manufacturing and
assembly procedures and enhance the quality of its products.
The following key conclusions are drawn from our experimental
research:
• Simplified and standardised design will emerge if the same practice
as presented in this paper is applied for designs for other construction
products that are usually built on-site.
• Manufacture of the flat-pack wet wall panel was more controlled as
compared to conventional construction and without unforeseen
interruptions.
• Prefabrication at the factory can significantly reduce wastage, which
results in cost reduction as labour, time and effort required to reduce
wastage at the site will be eradicated by more controlled
manufacturing conditions. This would help to improve process sus­
tainability in the AEC industry.
• From an occupational health and safety point of view, prefabrication
would avoid on-site accidents, and with the factory environment
permitting greater safety control.
• Significant reduction in the overall cost of a construction project is
achievable through prefabrication.
During the prefabrication prototype experiment, some areas for
improvement were highlighted:
• The design brief was not always updated with the current site
conditions.
• Communication between the design team and production team could
be improved.
• Some manufacturing activities were done twice, due to variations
between the initial shop drawings and local site conditions.
• Fixings for noggings could be improved.
• The dimensions and location of noggings requires more
consideration.
• Additional support, needed to stabilise the flat-pack wet wall panel
during transportation and handling, should be reconsidered.
• Connections to external pipes and drainage systems could be
improved.
• Opening sizes to facilitate installation must be carefully monitored.
• The dimensions of each part of the wall panel must be carefully
monitored to avoid any size “creep”.
One of the limitations of this research was that it successfully
demonstrated what can be achieved by applying DfMA principles to one
building element but only using one DfMA model. The authors
acknowledged the existence of other DfMA available approaches that
could be of interest in future research to be explorer and compared.
Furthermore, research could explore technological improvements to
the flat-pack wet wall bathroom panel and adaptation to other building
elements of a similar nature. The use of new digital technologies like
virtual reality, augmented reality and robotisation are some future
research opportunities for DfMA in the AEC sector.
Author statement
All three authors have seen and approved the final version of the
manuscript being submitted. They warrant that the article is the authors’
original work, hasn’t received prior publication and isn’t under
consideration for publication elsewhere.
Declaration of competing interest
The lead and second authors for this paper have no conflicts of in­
terest in the research. The third co-author of this paper is a certified
plumber and a director of the plumbing company that contributed
additional resources, and specific plumbing knowledge, to the research.
Acknowledgements Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102849
The research project was funded by the Department of Industry,
Innovation and Science of the Australian Government and the Richstone
Group Australia (Innovation Connections Grants ICG000391 and
ICG000392). The authors thank all the Richstone Group personnel
involved and in particular Hayden Richardson, Ron de Vos, Jake
Mountney and Chris Griffiths. We are grateful to Dr Toong-Khuan Chan
for his technical support and to Adjunct Professor Peter Edwards for help
with the structure and editing of this paper. The authors also wish to
thank the Australian company Rondo for permission to use the images
from its Rondo Professional Design Manual 2015 (Rondo, 2015)
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102849.
References
[1] S. Martínez, A. Jardón, J. Gonzalez Víctores, C. Balaguer, Flexible field factory for
construction industry, Assemb. Autom. 33 (2) (2013) 175–183.
[2] K.N. Jha, C.K. Iyer, What attributes should a project coordinator possess?
Construct. Manag. Econ. 24 (9) (2006) 977–988.
[3] M. Arashpour, V. Kamat, Y. Bai, R. Wakefield, B. Abbasi, Optimisation modeling of
multi-skilled resources in prefabrication: theorising cost analysis of process
integration in off-site construction, Autom. ConStruct. 95 (2018) 1–9.
[4] A. Dubois, L.-E. Gadde, The construction industry as a loosely coupled system:
implications for productivity and innovation, Construct. Manag. Econ. 20 (7)
(2002) 621–631.
[5] R. Gerth, A. Boqvist, M. Bjelkemyr, B. Lindberg, Design for construction: utilising
production experiences in development, Construct. Manag. Econ. 31 (2) (2013)
135–150.
[6] X. Liu, Q. Cui, C. Schwartz, Greenhouse gas emissions of alternative pavement
designs: framework development and illustrative application, J. Environ. Manag.
132 (2014) 313–322.
[7] K. Chen, W. Lu, Design for manufacture and assembly oriented design approach to
a curtain wall system: a case study of a commercial building in wuhan, China,
Sustainability 10 (7) (2018) 1–16.
[8] H. Taghaddos, U. Hermann, A. Abbasi, Automated crane planning and optimisation
for modular construction, Autom. ConStruct. 95 (2018) 219–232.
[9] A.N. Tak, H. Taghaddos, A. Mousaei, U.R. Hermann, Evaluating industrial
modularisation strategies: local vs. overseas fabrication, Autom. ConStruct. 114
(2020) 103175.
[10] R.Y. Zhong, Y. Peng, F. Xue, J. Fang, W. Zou, H. Luo, G.Q. Huang, Prefabricated
construction enabled by the Internet-of-Things, Autom. ConStruct. 76 (2017)
59–70.
[11] M. Goh, Y.M. Goh, Lean production theory-based simulation of modular
construction processes, Autom. ConStruct. 101 (2019) 227–244.
[12] P.Y. Hsu, M. Aurisicchio, P. Angeloudis, Risk-averse supply chain for modular
construction projects, Autom. ConStruct. 106 (2019) 102898.
[13] C.G. da Rocha, S. Kemmer, Integrating product and process design in construction,
Construct. Manag. Econ. 36 (9) (2018) 535–543.
[14] Z. Zheng, Z. Zhang, W. Pan, Virtual prototyping-and transfer learning-enabled
module detection for modular integrated construction, Autom. ConStruct. 120
(2020) 103387.
[15] P. Selvaraj, P. Radhakrishnan, M. Adithan, An integrated approach to design for
manufacturing and assembly based on reduction of product development time and
cost, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 42 (1–2) (2009) 13–29.
[16] M. Wasim, T.M. Han, H. Huang, M. Madiyev, T.D. Ngo, An approach for
sustainable, cost-effective and optimised material design for the prefabricated non-
structural components of residential buildings, Journal of Building Engineering
(2020) 101474.
[17] Z. Yuan, C. Sun, Y. Wang, Design for Manufacture and Assembly-oriented
parametric design of prefabricated buildings, Autom. ConStruct. 88 (2018) 13–22.
[18] P. Jensen, H. Lidelöw, T. Olofsson, Product configuration in construction, Int. J.
Mass Cust. 5 (1) (2015) 73–92.
[19] J.S. Goulding, F. Pour Rahimian, M. Arif, M.D. Sharp, New off-site production and
business models in construction: priorities for the future research agenda,
Architect. Eng. Des. Manag. 11 (3) (2015) 163–184.
[20] S. Banihashemi, A. Tabadkani, M.R. Hosseini, Integration of parametric design into
modular coordination: a construction waste reduction workflow, Autom.
ConStruct. 88 (2018) 1–12.
[21] I.J. Ramaji, A.M. Memari, J.I. Messner, Product-oriented information delivery
framework for multistory modular building projects, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 31 (4)
(2017), 04017001.
[22] J. Paralikas, A. Fysikopoulos, J. Pandremenos, G. Chryssolouris, Product
modularity and assembly systems: an automotive case study, CIRP annals 60 (1)
17 (2011) 165–168.
P. Vaz-Serra et al.
[23] J. Buergin, F. Belkadi, C. Hupays, R.K. Gupta, F. Bitte, G. Lanza, A. Bernard,
A modular-based approach for Just-In-Time Specification of customer orders in the
aircraft manufacturing industry, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Technology 21 (2018) 61–74.
[24] F. Bouissiere, C. Cuiller, P.E. Dereux, C. Malchair, C. Favi, G. Formentini, July.
Conceptual Design for Assembly in aerospace industry: a method to assess manufacturing
and assembly aspects of product architectures, in: Proceedings of the Design Society:
International Conference on Engineering Design, vol. 1, Cambridge University
Press, 2019, pp. 2961–2970. No. 1.
[25] C. Favi, M. Germani, M. Mandolini, Design for manufacturing and assembly vs.
design to cost: toward a multi-objective approach for decision-making strategies
during conceptual design of complex products, Procedia CIRP 50 (2016) 275–280.
[26] T. AlGeddawy, S.N. Samy, H. ElMaraghy, Best design granularity to balance
assembly complexity and product modularity, J. Eng. Des. 28 (7–9) (2017)
457–479.
[27] G. Winch, Models of manufacturing and the construction process: the genesis of re-
engineering construction, Build. Res. Inf. 31 (2) (2003) 107–118.
[28] T. Ohno, Toyota Production System: beyond Large-Scale Production, CRC Press,
1988.
[29] J. Womack, D. Jones, ‘Lean Thinking: Banksh’, Waste And Create a Wealth In Your
Corporation, ProdPress. com, Wroclaw, 1996.
[30] Lean construction institute [Accessed Feb 2021], https://www.leanconstruction.
org/, 2021.
[31] S. Martinez, A. Jardon, A. Gimenez, C. Balaguer, J.M. Navarro, C. Barcena,
Robotized lean assembly in the building industry, in: Proceedings of the 25th
International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC),
2008, pp. 195–201.
[32] G. Boothroyd, Product design for manufacture and assembly, Comput. Aided Des.
26 (7) (1994) 505–520.
18
[33] R.H. Sturges Jr., A quantification of manual dexterity: the design for an assembly
calculator, Robot. Comput.Journal of Building
Integrated Manuf.Engineering 44 (2021)
6 (3) (1989) 102849
237–252.
[34] T.L. De Fazio, S.J. Rhee, D.E. Whitney, Design-specific approach to design for
assembly (DFA) for complex mechanical assemblies, IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 15
(5) (1999) 869–881.
[35] M.N.B. Zakaria, Design for Assembly and Application Using Hitachi Assemblability
Evaluation Method, University Malaysia Pahang, Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering, Pahag, 2009.
[36] Rondo, Rondo professional design manual 2015. Rondo. https://www.rondo.com.
au/media/2631/rondo_pro_manual_2015.pdf, 2015.
[37] K.M. Eisenhardt, Building theories from case study research, Acad. Manag. Rev. 14
(4) (1989) 532–550.
[38] R. Yin, Case Study Research, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 1984.
[39] G. (Geoffrey) Boothroyd, W.A. Knight, P. Dewhurst, Product Design for
Manufacture and Assembly, third ed., CRC Press, 2011.
[40] J. Schoenborn, A Case Study Approach to Identifying the Constraints and Barriers
to Design Innovation for Modular Construction, Doctoral dissertation, Virginia
Tech, 2012.
[41] R.E. Smith, Off-site and Modular Construction Explained, Off-Site Construction
Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, 2016.
[42] G. Marfella, S. Richardson, P. Vaz-Serra, The logic of rapid extrusion produces the
“jumping” phoenix, CTBUH Journal (2) (2016) 26–32.
[43] VBA, Guide to standards and tolerances. Victorian building authority 2015. https
://www.vba.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/111492/Guide-to-Standa
rds-and-Tolerances-2015.pdf, 2015.
[44] HSE, Manual handling at work: a brief guide. 01/20 INDG143(rev4). TSO London
[Acesses 20/10/2020], https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg143.pdf, 2020.
[45] AS/NZS 3500.1, Plumbing and drainage Water services, Australian Standards
(2018).