I've watched videos like this where there's this big push for making modular parts where "the pieces are just like legos" and "construction needs to be more like manufacturing". And then the video shows a bunch of construction workers using fairly typical techniques. Yeah, you can position it to make things more optimal and whatever, but I still see people doing the same kind of things. The main difference I see is where they're doing it.
When I hear about modular construction my expectation is that you take those modules down to the sub-building or even sub-room layer. Take a floor piece, add four wall pieces, add a ceiling piece and you're essentially done. Outlets, wiring, HVAC, and even lighting are just built into those pieces and hooked up at the corners or edges.
I assume that this isn't the way because of the nature of timber to flex and twist as it dries, making every single structure (including these modular ones) a collection of bespoke pieces. Is there someone with more knowledge that can corroborate this?
What you described is rational but unconventional and building codes are designed to require following convention. Also, the cost of connectors goes up quickly, but the right connectors could change the game dramatically.
On-site modular is common (though not very known) for large apartment buildings. Setup a factory in the future parking lot, crank out apartment modules, crane them into place and connect them. It's efficient, but not "cool".
Modular homes have to compete with site-built on cost and quality, but do so within the same set of rules the site-built homes follow. There are two major challenges: 1) customization and 2) transportation.
Many home builders already use pre-framed walls and most use pre-built roof/floor trusses and windows because those are already cost effective. They also use standardized materials across the spectrum.
So basically, the materials are standardized to the point of customization, with the exception of roof trusses and sometimes kitchen cabinets.
For modular to win, the designs need to be standardized at a larger scope or the building codes changed to allow plug and play.
Second is transportation. It can cost $5,000-$15,000+ to ship a truck sized building module, and then a large crane has to be rented to unload and place them. The max size of a module is around 10.5' by 40'. Any larger and you pay overweight fees and for pilot cars. If you think about it, that's only 400 square feet of space. So even a 1600 square foot house gets too expensive fast.
It helps. The building code part especially makes a lot of sense. And also realizing that a crane would have to be involved once you get beyond individual sticks. Once you have a crane involved then you've got to get it on site, at which point you're already dealing with truck logistics.
Maybe I just like the idea of a truck rolling up with a flat-packed house, Ikea-style instructions, and a couple of 3 foot allen wrenches to put the whole thing together.
The limiting factor is building codes in the USA. But there are some really cool things all around the world in the building space, very little of which is publicized.
The construction industry as a whole suffers from inefficient communication.
4 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 17.9 ms ] threadWhen I hear about modular construction my expectation is that you take those modules down to the sub-building or even sub-room layer. Take a floor piece, add four wall pieces, add a ceiling piece and you're essentially done. Outlets, wiring, HVAC, and even lighting are just built into those pieces and hooked up at the corners or edges.
I assume that this isn't the way because of the nature of timber to flex and twist as it dries, making every single structure (including these modular ones) a collection of bespoke pieces. Is there someone with more knowledge that can corroborate this?
What you described is rational but unconventional and building codes are designed to require following convention. Also, the cost of connectors goes up quickly, but the right connectors could change the game dramatically.
On-site modular is common (though not very known) for large apartment buildings. Setup a factory in the future parking lot, crank out apartment modules, crane them into place and connect them. It's efficient, but not "cool".
Modular homes have to compete with site-built on cost and quality, but do so within the same set of rules the site-built homes follow. There are two major challenges: 1) customization and 2) transportation.
Many home builders already use pre-framed walls and most use pre-built roof/floor trusses and windows because those are already cost effective. They also use standardized materials across the spectrum.
So basically, the materials are standardized to the point of customization, with the exception of roof trusses and sometimes kitchen cabinets.
For modular to win, the designs need to be standardized at a larger scope or the building codes changed to allow plug and play.
Second is transportation. It can cost $5,000-$15,000+ to ship a truck sized building module, and then a large crane has to be rented to unload and place them. The max size of a module is around 10.5' by 40'. Any larger and you pay overweight fees and for pilot cars. If you think about it, that's only 400 square feet of space. So even a 1600 square foot house gets too expensive fast.
Does any of that add any insight?
Maybe I just like the idea of a truck rolling up with a flat-packed house, Ikea-style instructions, and a couple of 3 foot allen wrenches to put the whole thing together.
I think we'll get there in the next 20 years.
The limiting factor is building codes in the USA. But there are some really cool things all around the world in the building space, very little of which is publicized.
The construction industry as a whole suffers from inefficient communication.