SmartLIFE measurement final report by Fusion Building Systems

SmartLIFE SITE MEASUREMENT Final Report Paul Cartwright, Emmanuel Moulinier and Fran Nowak

BRE is the UK’s leading centre of expertise on the built environment, construction, energy use in buildings, fire prevention and control, and risk management. BRE is a part of the BRE Group, a world leading research, consultancy, training, testing and certification organisation, delivering sustainability and innovation across the built environment and beyond. The BRE Group is wholly owned by the BRE Trust, a registered charity aiming to advance knowledge, innovation and communication in all matters concerning the built environment for the benefit of all. All BRE Group profits are passed to the BRE Trust to promote its charitable objectives. BRE is committed to providing impartial and authoritative information on all aspects of the built environment. We make every effort to ensure the accuracy and quality of information and guidance when it is published. However, we can take no responsibility for the subsequent use of this information, nor for any errors or omissions it may contain. BRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX Tel: 01923 664000, Email: enquiries@bre.co.uk enquiries@bre.co.uk, www.bre.co.uk BRE publications are available from www.ihsbrepress.com or IHS BRE Press Willoughby Road Bracknell RG12 8FB, UK Tel@ 01344 328038 Fax: 01344 328005 Email: brepress@ihs.com Requests to copy any part of this publication should be made to the publisher: IHS BRE Press Garston, Watford WD25 9XX, UK Tel: 01923 664761 Email: brepress@ihs.com

Supplement to BR500, SmartLIFE – Lessons learned Published as pdf file on CD Rom © Copyright BRE 2008 First published 2008

Executive Summary BRE undertook a site measurement research programme to study and compare the construction process for the construction of 106 homes in the Fenland District of Cambridgeshire. The study’s specific aim was to compare four different construction methods: • Conventional brick and block construction • Open panel timber frame • Light gauge steel frame • Insulating concrete formwork (ICF). The 106 homes are located on three sites: • Beaufort Drive, Chatteris, a 15 unit development with all dwellings constructed using open panel timber frame • Norwood Road, March, a 56 unit development of 35 steel framed closed panel dwellings and 21 traditional brick and block dwellings • Hereward Hall, March, a 35 unit development of 15 dwellings constructed using an insulating concrete formwork (ICF) system and 20 dwellings constructed using traditional brick and block cavity construction. In total, six house types were used – six types on the Norwood Road site, four on the Hereward Hall site and four at Beaufort Drive. The limited number of house types allowed for a structured comparison between the different construction methods, which is often not possible when a large number of house types are used. A detailed study of the construction process was undertaken following the digging of the first foundations in September 2006. A site observer/data analyst was based on each site on a full-time basis collecting and analysing the data. The majority of the data was collected using BRE’s performance and resource measurement tools, CaliBRE and SMARTAudit. A total of 140,361 man-hours were monitored on the three sites. Some of these findings relate directly to issues concerning the application of modern methods of construction while others are generic house construction process issues. In summary the key findings are: • All three sites had site specific issues to tackle. These included access restrictions and scheduling two construction methods on the same site. • The average man-hours required for the construction on site varied between house types, with some methods requiring less than others for certain house types. • Over 21,846 man-hours have been non-value-added time as defined by BRE’s work breakdown structure • There are a number of issues relating specifically to the use of modern methods of construction while other issues are typical of the construction process in general and most had root causes relating to design, methods of work, supply chain management or site management. • Although there were only three main plan forms, variations in external finishes and internal layouts made it difficult for the assembly teams to achieve the benefits of a learning curve. Often the next plot in sequence needed reference to a new set of drawings and specifications. Even terraces had variations for end of terraces and changes in finish for elevations. • The only component common to all unit types was the bathroom pod, which was mostly delivered and installed ‘just in time’ with low man-hour requirements and relatively few snags. • Attempts to use local trades proved counterproductive, especially when the sites were competing for the same trade skills. • Over 2000 m³ of waste material were recorded during the project, of which some was segregated for recycling. Remedial work due to work methods or design variations and packaging were the main causes of waste.

Contents

Executive Summary

iii

Background to the project

Introduction to the sites

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Beaufort Drive Hereward Hall Norwood Road House types

4 6 8 10

Description of the report outputs

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

12 13 13 14 14 14 14 16 17 17 17

Planned progress against actual progress Resource utilisation: operatives on site Output rates: man-hours per dwelling Performance Waste measurement Opportunities for Improvement 3.6.1 Causes of process waste 3.6.2 Issues relating to design 3.6.3 Issues relating to managing the supply chain 3.6.4 Issues relating to managing the site 3.6.5 Issues relating to methods of work

Summary data

Beaufort Drive

5.1 Overall resource footprint 5.2 Progress on site 5.3 Substructure 5.3.1 Speed of build 5.3.2 Performance summary 5.3.3 Internal/local drainage 5.4 Superstructure 5.4.1 Overall resource footprint 5.4.2 Timber frame erection 5.4.3 Roof construction 5.4.4 External skin 5.5 Bathroom pods 5.6 Internal works and finishes 5.7 Waste measurement

19 21 21 22 24 25 27 27 28 31 32 33 34 35

Hereward Hall

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Overall resource footprint Progress on site Substructure Superstructure 6.4.1 ICF houses 6.4.2 Design Issues 6.4.3 Brick and block cavity wall construction 6.5 Bathroom pods 6.6 Internal works 6.7 Waste measurement

39 41 43 45 45 48 49 51 52 52

Norwood Road

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Overall resource footprint Progress on site Substructure Superstructure 7.4.1 Light gauge steel frame erection 7.4.2 Conventional brick and block construction 7.4.3 Bathroom pods 7.5 Internals 7.6 Final finishes 7.7 Waste measurement

55 56 58 59 59 61 64 65 67 69

Conclusions

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

72 72 73 73 74

Data limitations Beaufort Drive Hereward Hall Norwood Road Lessons Learnt

Appendix A: CaliBRE Performance Measurement Toolkit

Appendix B: SMARTAudit Waste Measurement

Appendix C: SmartLIFE and the measurement process overview

Appendix D: Schedule of construction methods and house types for the project

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

Background to the project

The construction phase of the SmartLIFE project comprised the construction of 106 new homes in the Cambridgeshire towns of March and Chatteris, which have become home to both private buyers and housing association tenants. The process of constructing them was a demonstration and training scheme involving some of the leading organisations responsible for shaping affordable housing policy and creating sustainable communities. English Partnerships, the Housing Corporation, Fenland District Council and the Department for Communities and Local Government are funding the project. It was led by SmartLIFE, a joint venture between Cambridgeshire County Council and BRE. Fenland District Council and Home Group, one of the largest housing providers in the UK, were key partners in driving forward the development. The project was developed to examine how modern methods of construction (MMC) could be used to alleviate housing shortages in growth areas. Its unique aspect is the extent to which every step of the construction process has gone under the microscope to assess issues such as build speed, build quality, the sustainability of the construction process and the post-occupancy performance of the resulting houses, including energy efficiency. Avebury, a practical construction consultancy and architects, together with architects Churchill Hui and Proctor and Matthews worked with three leading manufacturers of innovative buildings systems, Fusion, Pinewood Structures and Polarwall Insulating Concrete Formwork. Inspace Partnerships – Regeneration and New Homes Ltd were the main contractor and calfordseaden LLP provided an extensive range of services as the employer’s agent including EcoHomes assessment, Housing Quality Indicator assessment, life cycle costing and general cost advice, as well as providing advice from their extensive experience of modern methods of construction. The project examined a raft of issues connected with using modern methods of construction and conventional brick and block construction in order to compare and analyse different systems and to identify potential improvements. Three innovative construction systems were used: • Fusion StIF™ panelised steel frame system for Norwood Road • Pinewood Structures panelised timber frame system for Beaufort Drive • Polarwall Insulating Concrete Formwork (ICF) system for Hereward Hall. The systems were used to build approximately 60% of the homes: the other 40% were built using conventional brick and block constructions. A mix of terraced, detached and semi-detached properties were constructed with two, three and four bedrooms. See Appendix D. The number and variety of houses involved means that a wide selection of real-time measurements were taken and assembled in various permutations to assess what worked well and the opportunities for improvement.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

Measurements were taken using BRE’s CaliBRE and SMARTAudit systems. The same set of measures were obtained for each building system and the ‘brick and block’ houses. See Appendix C. CaliBRE was used to map the construction process, identify and code packages and tasks, monitor site construction processes and produce analysis, reports and feedback for the construction team. In addition, the data collected was used to assess the project against benchmarks using the Constructing Excellence Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Sustainability KPIs will be used, including waste produced. SMARTWaste, BRE’s web-based ‘Site Methodology to Audit, Reduce and Target Waste’ was used to evaluate the waste produced, enabling the contractor to identify how it was generated and the potential for reducing it. The effect of the 106 new homes on the environment and locality were assessed both during and postconstruction. Measures will be taken of the proportion of ecologically valuable habitat created or retained within the area. Finally, the whole life performance of the finished buildings will be assessed to examine issues such as energy efficiency based on the manufacture, installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of key components. The development is split across three sites – Beaufort Drive, Hereward Hall and Norwood Road. Each site and each system was the responsibility of a dedicated architect. At Beaufort Drive, there are 15 Pinewood Structures timber frame homes, at Hereward Hall there are 15 Polarwall insulating concrete formwork homes and 20 conventional brick and block homes and at Norwood Road, there are 35 Fusion light gauge steel frame homes and 21 conventional brick and block homes. See the table in Figure 1. Each design had to show how it reflected local and national guidance in terms of design and the creation of sustainable communities. In addition, the designs complied with Housing Corporation Scheme Development Standards (SDS). In terms of site layout, comfort and security were important. The layouts were designed to promote creative children’s play and encourage residents to use their streets in ways that reduce social isolation, particularly amongst older people. Each site has achieved Secured by Design accreditation, which focused on issues connected with crime prevention. In addition, each home was designed to optimise sunlight and daylight used to minimise energy consumption. Gardens have been positioned for maximum benefit – south-facing, wherever possible – with minimal ‘overshading’ from trees and other buildings. Energy-efficiency best practice has been adopted with wall construction U-values of at least 0.27 w/m2K. The development achieved an EcoHomes rating of ‘very good’. EcoHomes is the homes version of BREEAM, the BRE Environmental Assessment Method, which balances environmental performance with the need for a quality standard of living. The issues assessed are grouped into seven categories: • Energy • Water • Pollution • Materials • Transport • Ecology • Land use • Health and well-being The development will help to meet the current demand for housing in the Fenland area, with 48% of the 106 properties designated for rent or shared-ownership, the rest are for private sale.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Occupancy Site

2 bed 4 person

3 bed 5 person

4 bed 6 person B Type 4 bedroom

Total

Construction method

A Type

E Type

B Type

Timber frame

Hereward Hall

Conventional brick and block

Insulation concrete formwork

Norwood Road

Light gauge steel frame

Conventional brick and block

Beaufort Drive

Figure 1: Summary of the number of plots by construction method and house type

Total

106

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Introduction to the sites

2.1

Beaufort Drive

The Beaufort Drive site in Chatteris, the smallest site, involved the construction of 15 timber framed houses using the Pinewood Structures Ltd timber frame system. The construction used open panel timber frames combined with floor cassettes and light gauge steel framed bathroom pods. The construction began in September 2006 and was completed in October 2007.Three different house types were used and a mix of sale, shared ownership and rented houses were constructed.

Figure 2: Timber frame erection

Figure 3: Plot 12 completed

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 4: Artistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impression of the Beaufort Drive development

Type

A B 3 4 5

E 6

8 7 9 10 14 11 12

Jan Timber Frame

Figures 5: Schematic site plan of Beaufort Drive

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

2.2

Hereward Hall

The second SmartLIFE site involved the construction of 15 insulating concrete formwork (ICF) units and 20 units of traditional brick and blockwork cavity construction units. The ICF units were constructed using the Polarwall external wall system in which blocks of polystyrene are fitted together to form a cavity that is filled with concrete to form the structure of the house. The construction began in September 2006 and was completed in February 2008. Three houses types were used as detailed in the schematic site plan in Figure 9.

Figure 6: Erecting the insulating formwork

Figure 7: Plots 4 to 6

Figure 8: Artistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impression of the Hereward Hall development

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

27 23

22 25

29 20 30 17

31 18 15

13 35

7 12

Type 1

A B

Brick and Block Polarwall ICF

Figure 9: Schematic site plan of the Hereward Hall site

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

2.3

Norwood Road

The final site is Norwood Road, a development of 35 panellised steel frame houses and 21 traditional brick and block cavity construction houses. The 35 steel frame houses were constructed using the Fusion StIF™ panelised steel frame system. Construction began in September 2006 and was completed in September 2007. Four house types were used as detailed by the schematic site plan in Figure 13.

Figure 10: Row of light gauge steel framed terraced houses

Figure 11: Conventional brick and block houses

Figure 12: Artist’s impression of the Norwood Road development

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

1 2

3 4 5

Type 43

47 48

36 52

Steel Frame 54

24 25

Brick and Block

26 33

Figure 13: Schematic site plan of Norwood Road

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

2.4

House types

Three main house types were used on all three sites, A, B and E. Norwood Road also had a four bedroom house type (B4) built using conventional brick and block construction. All three house types were built using both conventional brick and block construction and modern methods of construction.

Figure 14: House type A, 2 bed/4 person house to the right of the picture

Figure 15: House type B, 3 bed/5 person

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 16: House type E, 3 bed/5 person. L- shaped house with roof terrace house

Figure 17: House type B4, 4 bed/6 person. L shaped ground floor detached house without roof terrace

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Description of the report outputs

The measurement of the construction process using the CaliBRE and SMARTAudit measurement tools allows a number of outputs to be produced. These outputs are explained in detail below. See Appendices A and B for more information about these tools.

3.1

Planned progress against actual progress

The data collected by the observers was used to produce a chart that lists all the work carried out on each of the dwellings per day or per week. By using a shaded colour area to represent the original planned programme and numbers to represent the actual progress of a particular stage of the construction, one can immediately see how closely the work followed the planned schedule. This provides a useful performance indicator based on predictability i.e. percentage achieved progress against planned programme. The list of dwellings is arranged in the order they were constructed and set out vertically, with the first dwelling at the bottom. Each succeeding week is added alongside the previous one, so a picture of the actual progress of the site emerges. J u ly

Some stages of work follow the original planned sequence but more often a break from the sequence occurs.

D a te s

22 23

August

17 18 19 20 21

24 25 26 27 28

2 #

9 #

# #

11 12 13 14 #

22 23

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

14 15

Au g u st #

31 1

10 11

14 15 1 6 1 7 1 8

# #

3 #

# #

6 7

9 10 11 #

# #

13 #

14 #

1 2

24 25 26 27 28

17 18 19 20 21

Ju ly D ates

# #

14 15 16 17 18

10 11

# #

A major breakdown in the sequence can cause inefficiencies in the process and make control of the site difficult particularly because it disguises the measure of progress. In this example the original programme has not been followed and some fragmentation (repeat visits) has occurred.

When the planned programme is followed exactly we see all of the numbers (representing the work observed), fall within the shaded area.

# #

1 #

2 3 4

5 6 7 8

Figure 18: Planned progress versus actual progress

11 12 13 14 15

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

3.2

Resource utilisation: operatives on site

From the collected data, a complete record of site attendance is available. In fact only the number of operatives in each gang or trade is needed to compare rates of progress and to predict gangs required to cope with future progress rates.

Figure 19: Number of operatives on site per day (traditional superstructure)

The height of each bar represents the number of operatives on the site during that day or week. In the case shown in Figure 19 (traditional superstructure) there is a large gang with a build up of labour at the beginning and a tail off at the end. Care should be taken to note whether the resources are plotted per week or day.

3.3

Output rates: man-hours per dwelling

The CaliBRE process is based on a sampling technique. If the number of observations allocated to a dwelling type is small, the accuracy of that figure as a measure of the number of man-hours is low. Greater accuracy can be obtained by taking the average for a group of dwellings of similar design or construction, as applied to SmartLIFE. Manhour

The dwellings are arranged in order of construction and each dwelling is represented by a bar of length to correspond with the number of manhours spent on that dwelling. The example shown in Figure 20 indicates a steady rate of production.

1050 1000 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50

350

316 293

300

273 261 250

205 200

244

234

263 251 234

226 208

198

219 204 191

150

100

Figure 20: Average number of man-hours per dwelling

207

Manhour

1050 1000 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

3.4

Performance

Each observation made by the observers includes a code for the activities being carried out by the operatives. By analysis one can find what percentage of their time was spent doing each of these activities and as a result one can have a measure of the productivity rates. These productivity rates are recorded on a histogram and plotted per dwelling. The four colours represent the four main activity groupings as shown on the right. The example shown on the right is an ‘ideal’ with very little non-productive time being achieved without substantial productive support time (supervision).

100%

100 80

100 80%

60%

40%

20%

0% 1

10 -20%

Here one can see that several of the dwellings have a higher than usual non-productive percentage. This usually indicates where difficulties have occurred, either with the design, the supply chain, the site management or the methods of work.

122

100

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

100%

80%

80 60

60%

40 40%

20 20%

0% 122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

-20%

Figure 21: Performance plot shown as a percentage of man-hours

3.5

Waste measurement

In addition to measuring the site performance in terms of the labour resource efficiency the observer also collects information, through the application of SMARTAudit, on what waste is produced on site. The observer records the different waste products put in the waste material skips, their volumes, from which work package they were produced and from which plots and areas of the site the waste is produced.

3.6

Opportunities for Improvement

The data analysed enables the user to identify where non-value-added time has been spent. Then, following feedback from the site team, causes of the non value added time can be investigated. A detailed explanation of the causes of ‘non waste’ are provided in the following section. 3.6.1

Causes of process waste

Construction can be a wasteful process, not only in terms of wasted materials, but also wasted man-hours. Activity sampling, and the subsequent analysis of the monitored data, can identify and quantify that wasted effort.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

In terms of human resources it is relatively easy to identify certain types of ‘non-added-value’ activities, shown in Figure 22 as the red columns, such as repeat work, double handling and not working at the workplace. 200 160 120 80 40 0 BK

RO RT

Figure 22: Typical activity breakdown in man-hours

Here the 100 man-hours for rework are typical of the snagging or hand-over stage. Strategies for reduced or zero defects would aim to minimise rework. There are, though, other types of activity which are equally wasteful such as taking too long to complete a task and a lack of continuity in the overall process leading to repeat visits or delays in starting subsequent packages. The causes of this waste are analysed in later chapters for each project. In order to extract this information, data is first collected on what activities individuals are engaged in (see the Activity Code Chart in Figure 23). The non-productive time can then be analysed and the cause of the waste identified with reference to the figure.

Added Value

Statutory

Cleanin g

Taking break

Car rying out the p rescribed task

Carrying out w or k related to health and safety

Preparati on of materials

Inclem ent weather

Handling mater ials at the workplace

related to sa fety

Non-Added-Value A

No t seen d uring ob servation round

Handling mater ials fro m stores to wor kplace

Unlo ad ing

Support SU

Supervisio n

Not wor king and not at the workpl ace

Setting out

Not wor king at the workplace

Testing and checking

Maki ng g ood or corr ecting

Walking around site

Figure 23: Activity codes for the activity sampling

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

From this chart, packages running head of programme can be observed as well as those which have started late and/or overrun. In order to use this information a measure of predictability was devised as a (KPI) key performance-indicating tool. Here the opportunity for managers to improve their predictability includes making a better plan using the knowledge gained from the monitored data. The CaliBRE methodology includes a feedback system to identify and categorise the causes of waste, the site team’s strategies for dealing with it and the identification of broader lessons related to these causes. BRE has analysed numerous sites using the CALIBRE system over the past 20 years, and the findings from these sites have shown that CaliBRE issues usually fall into four main areas: • Design • Site management • Managing the supply chain • Methods of work, and also • Miscellaneous reasons In practice the feedback system breaks the causes down into much greater detail, but for the purposes of this appraisal each project is looked at under these categories. The four main categories (plus miscellaneous) of the causes of identified process waste used in the feedback system are illustrated in Figure 24, which is an example from a conventional brick and block site. 100%

Supplier management shortcomings

90% 80%

Project management shortcomings

70% 60%

Miscellaneous reasons

50% 40%

Methods of work

30% 20%

Design Specification

10% 0%

Cause

Figure 24: Typical percentage breakdown of causes of waste

Generally the approach is to quantify where empirically possible, the resource wasted, identify the cause, obtain details of any plan of action to deal with the waste and monitor the implementation. This feedback is generally carried out on a regular basis with the site management team. So, for example, if double handling was identified as a significant waste then the cause might be a supply chain issue or a site management issue. 3.6.2

Issues relating to design

In general the non value added time ensues from a failure on the part of the design team to appreciate the effect of their decisions on the construction process. This assessment of buildability is one of the CALIBRE outputs that differs with the more usual analysis of efficiency and performance in other time and motion studies. This unique offering enables it to provide a more formal channel of communication from the work

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

face back to the design team. A better understanding of these construction processes can lead to an opportunity for improvement in buildability at the design stage and throughout the construction process. 3.6.3

Issues relating to managing the supply chain

Much time wastage ensues from a failure on the part of the specialist design consultants (e.g. mechanical and engineering consultant) to plan in sufficient detail. For example, services suppliers often lacked detailed layout drawings when they need them. In those cases where development was still taking place on site, following suppliers suffered a knock-on effect of delayed starts and an increased number of visits needed to carry out their work. 3.6.4

Issues relating to managing the site

In this case the waste in resources ensues from a failure on the part of the project management team to predict and control the construction process on site. For most of the projects monitored, the management had little historic information to help plan the projects, so predictability was generally low. This showed up particularly in delays at the foundation stages of many of the studies. Improving the feedback and understanding of these construction processes provide an opportunity for improvement in performance by the project team. Other aspects of site management monitored included material waste reduction, safety issues and tidiness. 3.6.5

Issues relating to methods of work

Although much of the resource waste arises from a failure on the part of the design team to appreciate the effect of their decisions at the work face, traditional work practices are also a substantial contribution. In the assessments of performance note is taken of the interaction between the trades and the knock-on effect of any snagging or unfinished work. A better understanding of these construction processes at the work place, feeds back to the whole project team to design and plan opportunities for improvement.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Summary data

The table in Figure 25 summarises some of the key statistics from the three sites.

Indicator

Beaufort Drive Hereward Hall

Norwood Road

Total man-hours monitored for the site

23,318

48,930

68,113

Average number of man-hours on site per day 104

192

313

Average number of operatives on site per day 14

Total non value added hours for the site

4,967

11,348

7,531

Percentage of non value added hours

12.7

23.2

Volume of waste produced (excluding inert waste from site clearance and foundation excavation) (mÂł)

236

710

879

Figure 25: Summary of data collected on the three sites

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Beaufort Drive

Beaufort Drive, the smallest of the three SmartLIFE sites, was also the most restricted site in terms of access. The site shared an access road with a small existing development. This was shown to be a major constraint for the project. Access to the existing development had to be maintained for long periods and so infrastructure works including drainage could not be carried out efficiently.

5.1

Overall resource footprint

The table in Figure 27 provides an overview of the average man-hours per plot for the site showing the breakdown for certain components. The average number of man-hours per plot for the timber frame erection was 51 man-hours. The average man-hours per plot for the superstructure including the outer skin of brickwork and blockwork, rendering and weather boarding was 378 man-hours. The overall labour resource input is over 1,000 man-hours per plot. This increases to 1,554 including site management and infrastructure which is high for this site due to the low number of plots. Average man-hours per plot for timber frame erection

Average man-hours for timber frame superstructure including scaffolding, brickwork skin and external finishes

378

Average man-hours per plot for all works excluding site management and infrastructure works

1,002

Average man-hours per plot including site management and infrastructure works

1,554

Figure 26: Average resource input for timber frames houses (man-hours)

Most of the labour input was in the period from February 2007 to June 2007 as illustrated by Figure 27. The timber frame commenced in January 2007 and following this, the number of operatives on site increased as trades were required for internal works and external finishes. The footprint shows a gap in the ground worker resource in January. This is due to the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;tightâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; site layout which meant that it was impractical for the ground workers to stay on site at the same time as the first blocks of timber frame were being erected. Access to their work areas was restricted by the crane and other timber-frame-related work on site.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

320 Renderer Floor cov erer Plasterer Painter Insulation Installer Wall/Floor Tiler Roof tiler Carpenter Electricians Site Labourer Timber Frame ForkLif t Driv er Screeder Scaf f older Plumbers Beam & block installer Fence Installer BrickLay er Ground worker

280

Number of Man-Hours

240 200 160 120 80 40

8/ 07

/0 30

7/ 07

7/ 07 /0

/0 20

6/ 07 /0

6/ 07

5/ 07 05

5/ 07

/0 18

4/ 07

3/ 07

/0 17

3/ 07

/0 29

/0 14

2/ 07

2/ 07 27

1/ 07

/0 26

2/ 06

/0 11

1/ 06

/1 15

1/ 06

/1 30

/1 15

0/ 06

/1 01

0/ 06 /1

/1 17

1/ 06

Figure 27: A resource footprint over the course of the project showing average daily resource usage for each trade on Beaufort Drive

1,400

MAN-HOURS

1,200 1,000

Final finishes

800

Internals

600

Superstructure

400

Substructure

200 0 B

HOUSE TYPE

Figure 28: Comparison of average resource usage for the different house types for each work package

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

5.2

Progress on site

Sept October 025 2 10 16 23

November December 30 6

13 20 27 4

11 18

Week 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Number

plot 004 plot 005 plot 003 plot 006 plot 007 plot 008 plot 009 plot 010 plot 011 plot 012 plot 001 plot 002 plot 013 plot 014 plot 015

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

1 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 28 6 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 3

15 22 29 5

12 19 26 5

12 19 26 2

Substructures Timber frame erection

Internal works and external skin

Figure 29: Progress chart showing the main stages of the construction process for the Beaufort Drive site

• • •

5.3

There are four distinct construction phases. The first phase includes plots 4 to 12, the second phase includes plots 1 and 2, the third phase includes plot 13 and the fourth phase includes plots 14 and 15 The timber frame erection period ranged from two to nine weeks depending on the phase. Internal works took over 25 weeks per plot, in accordance with the planned programme, for most plots. Multiple visits were required by the internal trades to complete the plots.

Substructure

The substructure stage of construction at Beaufort Drive involved the use of the three different construction methods. These methods were selected according to the ground conditions of this brownfield site. Trench fill foundations were used for the majority of the plots including plots 3 to 12, 14 and 15. Raft foundations were used for plots 1 and 2 and a strip footing with blockwork was used for plot 13. Storage space was very limited and therefore the foundations for plots 14 and 15 were not constructed until the road and storm drains under the road were finished to maintain continued access for the residents to the existing properties.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

FOUNDATIONS AVERAGES by TYPE 180 160 140

500

Raft foundations Trenchfill foundations Insulation Floor screed Drainage: Internal Blockwork to DPC Beams and Block

STRIP FOUNDATION Strip footings w ith blockw ork Insulation

450 400

Floor screed

350

120

300

100

250

200

Drainage: Internal Blockw ork to DPC Beams and Block

150

100

50 0 B3 (1)

A2 (2)

HOUSE TYPES

E3 (1)

A2 (RAFT)

0 Plot No

Figure 30: Comparison of man-hours for the different substructure methods by house type

The substructure construction for plot 13 was the most labour intensive, accounting for 485 man-hours. This was substantially higher than the average of 113 man-hours recorded for the other plots. A different foundation design was used, strip footings and blockwork which are more complex than the trench fill design used for most of the plots, to take into account the risk concerning the stability of the adjacent party wall and obstructions in the ground. 5.3.1

Speed of build

Trench fill foundations The main method used was trench fill foundations. This was by far the fastest and most resource efficient method of construction taking on average 16 man-hours per plot in contrast to 125 man-hours per plot for the raft foundations and 312 man-hours for the strip footings and blockwork for plot 13.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 31: Excavating trench for plot 8

Figure 32: Pouring concrete for plots 10 and 11

Strip footings with blockwork Strip footings with blockwork were used for the foundation on plot 13. The ground conditions in this area of the site meant a different foundation system was required and one that was more complex than the trench fill design used for most of the plots. The foundation took into account the risk concerning the stability of the adjacent party wall and obstructions in the ground. The management team and the ground workers worked out a solution on site that suited the ground conditions but it was more expensive in cost, build duration and resource utilisation than using trench fill solution. The construction began in January, three months after most of the other foundations. The foundation required 312 man-hours to complete. The main reason for the greater resource usage than a trench fill foundation was the requirements for timber shuttering as wells the time spent excavating soil and laying blocks.

Figure 33: Fix timber shuttering

Figure 34: Fix timber shuttering

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 35: Blockwork built on concrete footing

Raft foundations Raft foundations were used for plots 1 and 2. The ground conditions included existing foundations from an old development which meant this method was suitable for this area of the site. The initial excavation took place in October 2006 but most of the work including the reinforcement and concrete pour were carried out in February 2007. The average resource requirement for the complete substructure construction of these two plots was 158 man-hours per plot. This is significantly higher than for the trench fill foundations but lower than the resource required for strip footings and blockwork required for plot 13.

Figure 36: Fixing reinforcement

5.3.2

Figure 37: Foundation following concrete pour

Performance summary

There was a direct correlation between the higher resource usage and the amount of non value added time meaning plot 13 with the highest resource usage also had the highest proportion of non value added time. The performance chart below shows that the number of man-hours of non value added time was close to 100 for plot 13 and over 30 man-hours for both plots 1 and 2. The high proportion of non value added was due to project management issues with the ground works contractor and delays in finalising the foundation method to be used for the three plots.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 38: Performance for foundations in man-hours

Impact on the program In addition to a higher proportion of non value added time required for some of the foundations, there was also an impact on the programme. Plot Number

Build Duration

7 weeks

8 weeks

1 day

5 days

2 days

17 weeks

3 days

Figure 39: Comparison of build duration for foundations

5.3.3

Internal/local drainage

Further issues affecting the substructure stage of construction related to the internal drainage. Although, some of these issues were not remedied until other stages of the construction were underway they are accounted for within the substructure stage.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Design and management issues On a number of plots internal drainage was added or moved due to drawing errors showing the wrong positions for drainage. Specific issues included drains located under the timber frame sole plates and omission of drains for the downstairs bathroom.

Figure 40: Digging hole to add drainage for shower

Figure 41: Drainage position conflicting with sole plate position

The non value added time relating to the internal drainage was highest for plots 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11. In total, 42 percent of the internal drainage work has been defined as non value added time equating to a total of 156 man-hours.

Figure 42: Performance per location (man-hours) The impact of these drainage issues was a delay to the timber frame erection and an increase in manhours for the timber frame erection for remedial work to the sole plate fixing.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

5.4

Superstructure

5.4.1

Overall resource footprint

Windows/ Doors 900

Total external finishes Total roof

800

Brickwork Pods, 1st fix etc 700

Timber frame Scaffolding Man-Hours per Plot

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 3 (B)

4 (B

5 (B) 6 (A) 7 (A) 8 (E) 9 (E) 10 (E) 11 (E) 12 (E) 1 (A) 2 (A) 13 (B) 14 (E) 15 (A) Plots in sequence

Figure 43: Summary of man-hours per plot for timber frame superstructure construction

Figures 43 and 44 illustrate the resource used for the superstructure construction for each plot and the average for each house type respectively. Plots 8 to 11, house type E3, are clearly the least resource intensive while 3,4,5 and 13, house type B3, are the most resource intensive. The key reasons for the greater resource utilisation for the B type houses are: â&#x20AC;˘ The design with a roof terrace required a larger resource requirement for the external finishes with an average of 107 man-hours per plot.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

• •

The already high requirement for brickwork was increased due to remedial work to plot 5. Plots 3 to 5 were among the first plots on which the timber frame was erected and therefore were at the beginning of the ‘learning curve’ on the site.

Windows/ Doors Total external finishes Total roof Brickwork Total pods, 1st fix etc Timber frame Scaffolding

700

Man-Hours per Plot

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 B

House types Figure 44: Average man-hours per house type for superstructure construction (for each work package)

5.4.2

Timber frame erection

The timber frame erection began in January 2007 with the construction of plots 3 to 7 followed shortly afterwards by plots 8 to 12. Two gangs of timber frame erectors were used with one gang completing plots 3 to 7 and the other working on plots 8 to 12.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Man-hours 90

Timber frame 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3

Plots in sequence

Figure 45: Man-hours per plot for timber frame erection

An average of 51 man-hours per plot was spent on the timber frame erection. This is typical for the erection of a timber frame house of this size. Plots 1 and 2 had the highest resource requirement with an average of 73 man-hours required for the timber frame erection for each plot. These two plots were constructed together later in the process. The higher resource requirement reflects the use of the crane for only two plots while the other plots were constructed in larger blocks sharing the use of the crane and lowering the average resource usage.

Figure 46: Timber frame erection

Figure 47: Double handling roof trusses

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

Performance The timber frame erection did encounter some issues during the process that affected the efficiency of the construction process. Some of these have been discussed earlier in the report. Other issues are discussed in the subsequent sections. 80

Man Hours

40 Statutory Non Added Value Added Value Support Added Value

-20

-40

Plot Number Figure 48: Performance per plot for timber frame erection (man-hours)

Figure 48 clearly shows the greatest number of non value added man-hours relates to plots 8 to 11. In total 140 man-hours of non value added time relates to the timber frame erection that equates to 20% of the resource used. 60 man-hours of this time were spent on return visits for remedial work and 10 man-hours were spent double handling materials. In addition to the efficiency of the construction process there were also differences in build duration. Plots 1, 2 and 13 were erected in one week while other plots took three to four weeks. The different in build duration can be attributed to the different in approach. A horizontal approach was taken for the erection of plots 3 to 12 whereby the construction of all 9 plots began in the same two week period. In contrast, plots 1,2,13, and 14 were erected in smaller blocks following a vertical approach to get the roof on quickly. The impact of the horizontal approach was a congested site while the timber frame erection took place. This prevented the ground workers from completing their work and also delayed the start of the internal trades until the first plot had the roof on. This impact on the critical path meant that the project ran over the planned finish date. There was also unnecessary double handling of materials including roof trusses. The plots were not ready to receive the trusses and they had to be stowed on site rather than being erected ‘just-in-time’.

Number of Weeks

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1

10 11 12 13 14 15

Plot Number Figure 49: Build durations by plot number for timber frame erection

Supply chain issues There were some panels supplied to site by the timber frame manufacturer without openings or incorrectly placed openings. A first floor panel for plot 3 was delivered with an opening larger than the specified window as shown by Figures 50 and 51. This manufacturing error required other trades on site to make-up the missing section on site. There was also a missing window opening on a panel of plot 13.

Figure 50: Opening in timber frame larger than required opening for window

5.4.3

Figure 51: Remedial work to panel on site

Roof construction

The roof construction of plots 8 to 11 totalled 210 man-hours, averaging 55 man-hours per plot. This contrasts with plots 3 to 7 with an average of 18 man-hours per plot. The roof trusses for plots 8 to 11 arrived in two sections but not at he same time. Consequently, there was a delay to the erection of the

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

complete roof trusses. Furthermore, the two part roof trusses required scaffolding to be erected that required added 45 man-hours. The transportation of the trusses to site was only possible in two sections.

Figure 52: Fixing roof trusses on plots 8 to 11

Figure 53: Roof trusses complete with two sections

The B type house design was the most challenging in regard to the construction process due to its design. Until the roof was completed the houses could not be made weathertight. Consequently there was water ingress into the living rooms on some of the B3 house type plots. There was also water ingress through the dormer windows until the roof tiling, weatherboarding and flashing was completed. The process also prolonged the time required for scaffolding on these plots.

Figure 54: Roof terrace construction on the B3 house type

5.4.4

Figure 55: Completing the dormer windows

External skin

The external skin of the houses was constructed from a combination of brickwork, weather boarding and render. An average of 148 man-hours per plot was spent on the brickwork skin in contrast to an average of 63 man-hours for the weatherboarding and rendering combined. There were issues with the brickwork skin on some plots. 30 man-hours of repeat work was required on plot 12 to knock down and rebuild a section of the brickwork skin to the correct standard.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 56: Rework to the brickwork skin. Plot 12

Figure 57: Brickwork completed on plots 6 and 7

Figure 58: Performance per plot for the brickwork skin

5.5

Bathroom pods

Accuracy problems with aligning bathroom pods with the timber frame resulted in additional dry lining work to plots 6 and 7. Most pods were delivered just-in-time but some double handling took place for some plots.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 59: Unloading bathroom pods

5.6

Figure 60: Bathroom pod not aligning with floor cassette

Internal works and finishes

The internals stage of the construction within this report includes the electrics and plumbing, internal walls and internal finishes. The dry lining and plastering required the most resource. 400 Kitchen fitting 350 2nd fix carpentry

MAN-HOURS

300 2nd electrical fix 250

1st fix electrical

200

2nd fix plumbing

150

1st fix plumbing Dry lining/plastering

100 50

HOUSE TYPE

Figure 61: Man-hours per house type for superstructure construction (for each work package)

Design issues Plots 8 to 11 (E type house), were originally constructed without a usable landing area by the window. However, this design was changed late in the construction process. The client decided that a landing was preferred, providing additional usable floor area, rather than an open hall space. The change in design increased the resource required for the plots including additional hours needed for plastering, decorating and installing the floor.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 62: Landing area in E type houses

5.7

Waste measurement

The waste management at Beaufort Drive included the segregation of key waste products including timber, plasterboard and inert waste. This continued for most of the construction period except for the last month when only one skip was used on site and all material went into the single container.

Cement 7 Ceramics 32 Concrete 16 Inert 8 Insulation 20 Metals 2 Packaging 47 Plaster 43 Plastics 4 Timber 56 Total: 236

Figure 63: Breakdown of volume of waste produced for each product group

The four greatest amounts of waste products from the site were timber, packaging, plaster and ceramics. Despite using a factory produced panels, 56 mÂł of timber waste was produced on site mainly from the temporary crash deck timber platforms used in the houses and forming part of the first floor until the stairs are installed were disposed of in the skips. Packaging accounted for 47 mÂł of waste on site. The packaging included cardboard, timber and plastic products. The timber bearers used for packing the timber frame panels during transportation contributed to the amount of waste produced on site. The other main source of timber packaging was the timber pallets used primarily for bricks and roof tiles.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

43m³ of plaster waste was produced on site, 90% of this was plasterboard. Plasterboard waste arises on most sites due to the large quantities of plasterboard offcuts produced. This problem is due to the requirement to cut the standard plasterboard panels to fit the dimensions of the interior walls and ceilings as well the ease with which the board can be damaged by water ingress, during transportation and storage and while handling on site. The volume of waste produced equates to two and half 1 m³ bags of plasterboard per house. This is typical for open panel timber frame house construction where all wall internal walls are boarded on site.

50 45 40

Inert Cement Plaster Metals Insulation Ceramics Plastics Timber Packaging Concrete

Volume(m3)

30 25 20 15 10 5

1s tF 2n ix d ca Be f ix rp a c en Bl ms arp try oc a en k w n d tr or Bl y k oc to k D r D ain Br DP ry a ic C l in g e kw o : i Ex ng/ Int rk te pl ern Fe rna ast al lt l C eri a n la n d dd g Ba i n tte g Fl Fl ning oo at r r Fl fi ni oof oo s h r s es I cr Ki nsu eed tc la h t M e n i on R ai fit af n ti n tf U g ou til nd iti e at s io R ns en d R oo R er Si f T oad te ru s C ss Si le a es te ra H nc a e Si ndl te in w g Tr or en T k i m ch b T s fi l e ilin l f rf g ou ra nd me at W i n Wa ion do ll s w t ili s/ ng D oo rs

Figure 64: Volume of waste at Beaufort Drive by work package (for each product group)

Other than dry lining, the other main source of waste arises from the brickwork work package. The remedial work to brickwork created most of the brickwork waste.

Figure 65: Brick waste from remedial work

Figure 66: Segregation of waste timber

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

160 140 Plaster Cement Timber Plastics Packaging Metals Insulation Inert Concrete Ceramics

120

Volume(m3)

100 80 60 40 20

M Pr a o s h na j ec or ge t tc m om en in t g

Pa ck ag in g

N ot D ef in ed

M is c re ell a as ne o n ou s s

of W or k M et ho ds

Sp De e c sig i fi ca n tio n

Figure 67: Volume of waste by cause of waste at Beaufort Drive (for each product group)

Despite the limited storage space and access restrictions, a site waste management plan was implemented that involved site segregation of the key waste products. Timber, plasterboard and inert waste were segregated on site before being removed from site to the waste transfer station.

Figure 68: Mixed waste skip

Figure 69: Timber pallets

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 70: Timber waste after processing at the transfer station

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Hereward Hall

6.1

Overall resource footprint

Construction began on the Hereward Hall site in September 2006 and was completed in February 2008. The table in Figure 71 provides a summary of the labour resource that was invested in the houses constructed on the site. A comparison is made between the MMC houses using steel frame and the traditionally built homes. The ICF houses required an average of 162 man-hours for the insulating concrete formwork superstructure (to construct the concrete formwork shell including the floor joists), and 611 man-hours for the scaffolding and external skin . The conventional brick and block plots required an average of 581 man-hours per plot for the brick and block cavity wall construction including external finishes.

Construction elements Insulating concrete formwork with floor joists and decking Insulating concrete formwork with scaffolding, external skin, floor joists and decking Brick and block cavity wall construction with floor joists, decking and external finishes All works excluding infrastructure and site management All works including infrastructure and site management

Average number of man-hours Insulating Concrete Conventional brick and Formwork (ICF) block construction 162 N/A 611

N/A

581

1,338

1,047

1,530

1,239

Figure 71: Comparison of resource requirements between insulating concrete formwork and traditional construction

Figures 72 and 73 show the average number of man-hours for the different house types for each construction type respectively. House type B was clearly the most resource intensive, particularly using the ICF method. However, the show homes were house type B and it is common for show homes to be more resource intensive.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

1800

HOUSE TYPE

1600 1400 1200 Final finishes 1000

Internals Superstructure

800

Substructure

600 400 200 0 B

MAN-HOURS

Figure 72: Average number of man-hours per house type for ICF plots (for each build stage) 1,400

Final finishes

MAN-HOURS

1,200

Internals

1,000

Superstructure

800

Substructure

600 400 200 0 B

HOUSE TYPE

Figure 73: Average number of man-hours per house type for brick and block plots (for each build stage)

Resource footprints Figures 74 and 75 show the average man-hours on site day over the course of the monitoring period for the ICF and conventional brick and block plots. The difference with the ICF resource timeline is clear. The resource utilisation for the traditional plots remained low until May and resource usage peaked in September. This is in contrast to the ICF plots where resource utilisation that started to reach the highest levels in March and continued into June before declining in August and September 2007.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

240

Insulation installer Wall and Floor Tiler Painter and Decorator Dry Liner : Fixer Water men Electrician Plumbers Plasterer: Solid Roof Slater and Tiler Carpenter Scaffolder ICF Installer Bricklayer Ground w orker

Number of Man-Hours

200

160

120

07 ov N

ct 07 O

07 Se p

07 Ju l0 7 Au g 07

Ju n

M ay

Fe b

07 M ar 07 Ap r0 7

Ja n

06 N

ct 06 O

Se p

Figure 74: Resource footprint for ICF plots over the course of the monitoring period

350 Appliance f itter Wall and Floor Tiler Painter and Decorator Dry Liner : Fixer Water men Insulation installer Plasterer: Solid Electrician Roof Slater and Tiler Plumbers Floor screeder Scaf f older Carpenter Bricklay er Fence Installer Ground worker

Number of Man-Hours

300

250

200

150

100

07 O

07 Se p

07 Au g

l0 Ju

ay M 07

07 Ap r

ar 07 M

07 n Ja

06 ov N

Figure 75: Resource footprint for the brick and block plots over the course of the monitoring period

6.2

Progress on site

The chart in Figure 76 shows the progress for the construction of all 35 units. The top half of the chart maps when work was being carried out on the 20 traditional plots and the bottom half shows the construction of the 15 ICF plots. The green shading shows the ground works, the red and grey shading shows the brick and block cavity wall construction and ICF respectively, and the light blue shading shows the internal works. The chart illustrates the following: â&#x20AC;˘ The substructures for all the plots were completed in the first four months of construction.

Plot 035 Plot 034 Plot 033 Plot 032 Plot 031 Plot 030 Plot 029 Plot 007 Plot 003 Plot 012 Plot 011 Plot 010 Plot 004 Plot 006 Plot 005

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

05/08/2007

05/14/2007

05/21/2007

05/29/2007

06/04/2007

06/11/2007

06/18/2007

06/25/2007

07/02/2007

07/09/2007

07/16/2007

07/23/2007

07/30/2007

08/06/2007

08/13/2007

08/22/2007

08/28/2007

09/03/2007

09/10/2007

09/17/2007

09/24/2007

10/01/2007

10/08/2007

10/15/2007

10/22/2007

10/29/2007

44 45

Brick and block cavity wall construction

1 1 1 1 2 2

2 2

0 0 0 0Insulated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 1

1 2

Internals

Concrete Forwork

0 0 0 0

0 0

4 11

5 5

0 0

0 0 0

1 3

3 9

0 2 1

04/02/2007

05/01/2007

03/26/2007

0 0

0 0 0 0

03/19/2007

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Ground works

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04/23/2007

03/12/2007

0 0 0

0 0

03/05/2007

28 29

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

04/16/2007

02/26/2007

0 0 0

02/19/2007

0 0

04/10/2007

02/12/2007

02/05/2007

01/29/2007

12/18/2006 16

12/11/2006 15

01/22/2007

12/04/2006 14

11/27/2006 13

01/15/2007

11/20/2006 12

11/13/2006 11

01/08/2007

11/06/2006 10

10/30/2006 9

01/03/2007

10/23/2006 8

18 19

10/16/2006 7

10/09/2006 6

CHRISTMAS

10/02/2006 5

Week No. Plot 028 Plot 027 Plot 026 Plot 025 Plot 024 Plot 023 Plot 022 Plot 021 Plot 020 Plot 019 Plot 018 Plot 017 Plot 016 Plot 015 Plot 014 Plot 013 Plot 009 Plot 008 Plot 002 Plot 001

EASTER

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

1 3

4 7

0 0 2

1 1

Ground works ICF Cavity wall Internals

Figure 76: Progress chart showing when the main stages of the construction took place.

1 3

0 2 2 0 2 2 1 0 0

4 0 1 3 1 4 2

1 8

6 4

1 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 0

5 2

0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0

0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 1

2 1 3 1 3 1 0 2 2

0 2 5

4 5

0 4 2

0 3 1 0 1 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0

4 4 3 0 2 0 3 5 1 3 1 7 0 0 2

0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 Internals 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 1 8 0 0 2 0 0 0

0 1 3 1 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 3 3 1 1 2 1 4 0 2 0 0 0

0 0 2 2 4 5 3 6 7

3 0 0 5 2 1 0 1 5

0 0 0

0 0 2

7 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 1 2 2

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

• • • • • •

The construction of the ICF plots started as planned but the houses were completed between three and five months later than planned. The construction of the traditional units started over 4 weeks later than planned but the plots were completed between four months and six months later than planned. The actual duration for the ICF superstructure construction ranged from 11 to 14 weeks per plot The shorter ICF superstructure build duration did allow the roofs to be put on earlier allow and for internal work on the critical path to begin sooner than for brick and block construction. The actual duration for the conventional brick and block superstructure ranged from 23 to 28 weeks per plot The resource usage for the brick and block superstructure peaked in June 2007, six months after the planned peak in January 2007.

The issues discussed above are examined in further detail later in the report. Site Management Hereward Hall was a challenging site to manage. Managing two construction methods on site was difficult due to two different programmes. The site was not a ‘tight’ site to the same extent as Beaufort Drive but access was still restricted. The site shared an access road for a County Council office and a primary school. The shared access with the primary school restricted delivery times of materials that did have an impact on the efficiency of the construction process. The site was also restricted in regard to storage space, with most of the space at the back of the site. Unlike, Norwood Road that benefited from laying the permanent road surface in the early stages of construction, the Hereward Hall site used a site drainage system that did not allow the road to be completed until later in the construction process. Once the scaffolding was erected for plots 3,4 and 7 materials could not be easily delivered on to site. Materials had to be unloaded by the forklift at the site entrance and then handled to the storage area for distribution later to other parts of the site. It is important to bear in mind these site specific constraints when considering the construction process and the related efficiency issues. A further issue was the high water table that made access to some areas of the site difficult, as discussed later in the report.

Figure 77: Waterlogged area of the site

6.3

Figure 78: Waterlogged area of the site

Substructure

The 15 ICF houses were constructed using a trench fill foundation with blockwork to DPC supporting a Jetfloor composite flooring system that supports a structural concrete topping. The 20 conventional brick and block plots were constructed using beam and block floors supporting the floor screed.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

100

Trench fill foundations

Drainage - Internal / Local

Structural concrete topping

Blockwork to DPC

MAN-HOURS

Jetfloor

50 40 30 20 10 0 A

HOUSE TYPE

Figure 79: Average number of man-hours per house type for ICF plot substructures for each work package

Trench fill foundations

Blockwork to DPC Floor screed

MAN-HOURS

Beam and block 60

Drainage - Internal / Local 50 40 30 20 10 0

HOUSE TYPE

Figure 80: Average number of man-hours per house type for brick and block plot substructures for each work package

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 81: Performance per plot for substructure construction

Figure 76 illustrates that most of the substructure construction work was completed by February. However, remedial work was required on some plots to change the position of internal drainage and to add air bricks that were omitted from the brickwork below the DPC. This required return visits by the ground workers in July to undertake the remedial work.

Figure 82: Breaking out concrete floor in plot 7

6.4

Superstructure

6.4.1

ICF houses

The construction of the site started with the construction of the ICF plots in October 2007. The work was carried out by the groundworks contractor whose operatives were trained on site to install the system. The progress is illustrated on Figures 74 and 78. The grey shaded area on Figure 83 shows the planned programme while the numbers show the number of operatives working on each plot each day. Most of the numbers are before or on the shaded areas. This indicates that in general, work was completed on or close to the planned programme. The last ICF superstructure was completed in April 2007.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Plot 4 was constructed first to ensure a show home was completed for the private sale plots. Most of the ICF superstructure for plot was completed in November and December. December

January

February

March

Plot 034

1 1 1 1

Plot 033

1 1

2 2

2 1

Plot 031

Plot 029

Plot 007

1 1

Plot 003

1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

Plot 011

1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1

Plot 010

2 2 4 2 4 2

2 2 00 0 0 6 1

1 1 1

4 1 1

2 1

2 2

2 1

2 2

2 3

1 3 2

2 1 2 4 3 2

3 3

2 1 2 2

1 1

2 4

2 2

1 4 4

1 1 1 1

2 2

2 1

1 2 2 2 1

3 3 1 4 1

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 2

3 3

1 2 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 1 2

1 1 1 1

1 2 2 1 1 2

1 1

Plot 035

1 1 1 1 1 1

Plot 030

Plot 004

1 2 2 2

Plot 032

Plot 012

April

2 3 4 5 8 8 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 31 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 1 61 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 2 3

November

26 27 30 31 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 1 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22

Polarwall October

2 1

2 1 1 1 1 2

2 2

5 2 2

1 2 3

3 1

1 1

Figure 83: Planned programme against actual progress for ICF superstructure construction

Although operatives had to return to the plots to complete the gable ends following the erection of the roof trusses and to complete the roof terrace walls, the performance per work package chart shows non value added time below twenty percent on all plots.

Figure 84: Performance per location of the ICF work package (percentage of man-hours)

222 man-hours of non value added time was recorded for the insulating concrete formwork work package of which 35 man-hours of this time was recorded as repeat work. The main issues relating to performance are discussed in further detail in the subsequent sections. Methods of work The work was carried out a gang of groundworks operatives who were trained by the insulating concrete formwork manufacturer to install the system on site. There were some issues in the process including

4 2

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

remedial work. The main issue was with plot 10 where a blow-out during the concrete pour meant work had to be repeated on a section of the second floor wall accounting for 9 man-hours of non value added time. Management Rework to the window opening to the stairwell on plot 4 was carried out accounting for 12 man-hours of remedial work. The original opening was in the wrong position. A new opening was subsequently made in the ICF superstructure. The consequence of this was additional resource spent breaking out the concrete for the new opening, filling the existing opening and production of additional material waste.

Figure 85: Window opening broken out of plot 4 MAN-HOURS External cladding

1200

Total roof Brickwork

1000

1st fix carpentry, pods & stairs ICF Installation

800

Scaffolding

600

400

200

0 A

HOUSE TYPE

Figure 86: Average number of man-hours per house type for the superstructure construction of the ICF houses (for each work packages)

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

6.4.2

Design Issues

External skin The ICF external skin of the ICF houses was constructed from a mix of brickwork, render and a tile hung finish. The tile hung finish predominated. â&#x20AC;˘ Despite requiring an average of 140 man-hours for construction the ICF superstructure (making up the inner skin of the Polarwall houses), an average of 221 man-hours was required for the tile hung finish, 143 for the brickwork skin and 15 hours for the render totalling 379 man-hours. This is in contrast to the brick and blocks plots that had an average of 86 man-hours per plot for the tile hung finish. â&#x20AC;˘ The tile hung finish was a very resource intensive process because of the requirement for a double layer of counter battening. The gable ends are particularly resource intensive because of the additional cutting requirements for the tiles. Brickwork skin

Render

Tile hung

143

222

Figure 87: Average number of man-hours per plot for external finishes on the ICF plots

Figure 88: Double layer of batten and counter batten fixed to insulating formwork for tile hung finish

Roof terraces The construction of house type B designed with a roof terrace was the most challenging. A major issue was achieving a watertight internal space. This was not achieved on plots 4, 5 and 6 resulting in remedial works to the internal finishes. Remedial work to the boarding, plastering and decorating accounting for an average 16 man-hours of non value added time per plot. The later stages of the construction process for these plots saw a significant increase in non value added time as indicated by Figure 92 showing the daily performance on site. Snagging and remedial work resulted in non value added time between 20 and 40% most days. The main issue was water ingress into the living room of these units before the roof terrace was waterproofed as illustrated by Figure 91. The construction of roof terrace on the ICF plots was more complex than the concrete multideck system used on the steel frame units on Norwood Road. It took longer on Hereward Hall to gain a weather tight structure.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

Figure 89: Completed roof terrace

Figure 90: Damage to living room from water ingress during construction

100%

Percentage of Man Hours

80% 60% 40% 20%

Added Value Support Statutory Non Added Value Added Value

0% -20% -40% -60% -80%

08 /0 7 29 /

06 /0 7 15 /

05 /0 7 29 /

05 /0 7 11 /

04 /0 7 24 /

04 /0 7 05 /

03 /0 7 21 /

03 /0 7 06 /

02 /0 7 19 /

01 /0 7 30 /

12 /0 6 05 /

11 /0 6 09 /

10 /0 6 17 /

02 /

10 /0 6

-100%

Figure 91: Daily performance for plots 4, 5 and 6

6.4.3

Brick and block cavity wall construction

The other 20 units were constructed using conventional brick and block cavity construction and finished with the same external finishes as the ICF houses. However, the tile hung finish did not require the extensive counter battening used on the ICF houses. The main trends in the data are: • The average number of man-hours per plot for the brickwork and blockwork was 343 man-hours • 806 man-hours of non value added time has recorded on the conventional brick and block plots of which 265 man-hours have been non value added time. • 423 man-hours were lost on site during construction due to inclement weather that had the greatest impact on the productivity of the bricklayers. • Most of the foundations for the houses were completed by the end of January 2007. However, the resource usage for the cavity wall construction was very low in the following 3 months as shown by Figure 85. • Repeat work was required on some plots due to damage by high winds in January and February 2007.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 92: Construction of plots 23 to 28

Figure 93: Construction of plots 13 to 22

900

External cladding

800

Total roof

700

1st fix carpentry, stairs and pods Brickwork

600 MANHOURS

Scaffolding

500 400 300 200 100 0 A

B HOUSE TYPE

Figure 94: Average number of man-hours per house type for brick and block house superstructure (for each work package)

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

18 16

Number of Operatives

14 12 10 8 6 4 2

O ct

Se p

Au g

l Ju

Ju n

ay M

Ap r

b Fe

Ja n

Figure 95: Bricklayers on site per day for the construction of the traditional houses

Number of Operatives

l Ju

n Ju

ay M

r Ap

ar M

b Fe

n Ja

ec D

ov N

Figure 96: Bricklayers on site per day working on the brickwork skin for the ICF houses

6.5

Bathroom pods

Bathroom pods were used on all 35 plots. In general, they were delivered and installed without any major issues. The main issue was the double handling required for some houses, particularly the traditional houses, because just-in-time delivery was not implemented. The pods came in larger deliveries and were ahead of schedule for most of the traditional brick and block plots. Therefore, they were stored on site and double handled on site until they were ready for craning into position. In contrast, coordination of the crane hire with delivery of the pods meant there were delays on occasion to delivery of the pods.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

Figure 97: Bathroom pods for the brick and block plots stored on site

Figure 98: Bathroom pods on the brick and block plots

6.6

Figure 99: Bathroom pod in ICF plot

Internal works

The internal works on all dwellings took over 25 weeks as illustrated by Figure 76 with some lasting over 36 weeks. Multiple trade visits by internal trades and trades completing the cladding were required to complete the houses. 769 man-hours of non value added time was recorded for remedial work on site. Most of this remedial work was for carpentry and dry lining works. The types of issues contributing to this non value added time included: • Repeat work to internal finishes due to water ingress • Snagging works to complete the internal finishes to the required standard for the client.

6.7

Waste measurement

Hereward Hall had the highest volume of waste recorded per plot of the three sites. A total of 710 m³ of waste was recorded that equates to 20 m³ of waste per plot. The main waste products produced on the Hereward Hall site were packaging, timber, plaster and insulation.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

Cement 25 Ceramics 71 Concrete 77 Furniture 3 Insulation 78 Metals 18 Packaging 209 Plaster 81 Plastics 23 Timber 125 Total: 710

Figure 101: Waste produced during the monitoring period by product group (m³)

Packaging accounts for 209 m³ of waste and included plastic wrapping, cardboard and timber pallets. Timber accounted for 125m³ of the waste produced on site. 29m³ of this waste was MDF and 25 m³ was softwood both used for the second fix carpentry finishes. Insulation waste was high with 78 m³ waste produced. A third of this waste was from offcuts from the insulating concrete formwork assembly and from the plumbing and electrical installation. Most of this waste was segregated from other waste on site and removed by the supplier for recycling. 200

160

Volume(m3)

120

Bl oc kw

o Br rk t o ic D k/ P C C Blo ar ck pe w or n C k ar try 1s pe t n f t C on ry 2 i x D cre nd ra t f in e to ix ag pp e in In g te rn Fe Dry al lt, l in ba in g ti l tten in a gF nd it C ar pe t IC Fl F In oor st s al la t i o In su n la ti o n J M et ai flo ns o ut r il it ie Pa s in tin R e g R nde oo ri n fT g Si rus se te s H Ve and l r in ti W g in cal do Ti li n w s g \D oo rs

Figure 102: Volume of waste produced per work package (for each product group) in m³

Furniture Metals Plastics Timber Insulation Ceramics Cement Plaster Packaging Concrete

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 103: Segregated insulation waste from the insulating concrete formwork

Figure 104: Plasterboard waste on site

The main sources of waste were the brickwork and blockwork, the dry lining and the second fix carpentry. Site handling is also very high that refers to packaging waste from a number of different work packages. A large proportion of the waste was offcuts produced as a result of work methods that require materials to be cut to size on site. Packaging was also a major cause of waste.

Figure 105: Cause of waste produced for each product group

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Norwood Road

This chapter presents the findings from the measurement process on the Norwood Road site. The site is the largest of three sites and was completed before the other two. The site benefited from a one-way access route through the site that enabled efficient delivery and distribution of materials, unlike the other two sites which had restricted access.

7.1

Overall resource footprint

The table in Figure 106 provides a summary of the labour resource that was invested in the houses constructed on the site. A comparison is made between the superstructure construction of the light gauge steel frame houses and the conventional brick and block homes. The comparison is average of all house types. Averages for each house type at each stage of the construction are provided later in the report.

Construction elements

Average number of man-hours Light gauge steel frame Brick and block cavity panels construction

Light gauge steel frame panel and floor cassette erection

166

Brick and block cavity wall construction with floor joists and decking

N/A

354

N/A

491

Light gauge steel frame superstructure including scaffolding, brickwork skin and external finishes

272

N/A

All works excluding infrastructure and site management

842

1,095

Brick and block cavity wall construction with floor joists, decking, scaffolding and external finishes

Figure 106: Comparison of labour resource utilisation on site between light gauge steel frame and conventional brick and block construction

The light gauge steel frame units required an average resource input of 51 man hours to erect the frames including the floor cassettes and 272 man-hours per plot for the steel frame and external skin. In contrast, the average number of man-hours invested on the traditional units was 354 man-hours for the cavity wall construction and the floor construction and 491 man-hours including the external finishes and scaffolding. The average overall resource input excluding site management and infrastructure works was 842 manhours for the steel frame units and 1,095 man-hours for the traditional units, a difference of 350 man-hours. An average of 1,000 man-hours per plot is typical for a conventional brick and block dwelling of similar size and style to those constructed on the SmartLIFE project.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

800 700

Appliance Fitter Glazier Landscaper Mastic Floor Finisher Cleaner Renders Wall and Floor Tiler Insulation installer Painter and Decorator Electricians Plasterer: Solid Plumber Roof Slater and Tiler Site Labourer Driver - crane Carpenter and Joiner Screeder Scaffolder ForkLift Driver Beam and block Engineer Steel frame erector BrickLayer Groundworker Fence Installer Driver - Digger Driver - 360

Num be r of Ma n-Hours

600 500 400 300 200 100

8/ 07 /0

7/ 07 09

7/ 07 25

6/ 07

6/ 07 22

/0 07

5/ 07

5/ 07 22

4/ 07 04

/0 19

4/ 07

3/ 07 02

/0 16

3/ 07

2/ 07 01

1/ 07 14

1/ 07

/0 15

2/ 06

2/ 06 /1

/1 19

1/ 06

1/ 06 17

0/ 06 /1

/1 02

9/ 06

Figure 107: Resource footprint for the duration of the construction period at Norwood Road showing the average number of man-hours per day (for each trade)

7.2

Progress on site

Figure 108 shows the weekly progress for the main stages at Norwood Road. • • • • • •

The construction of the houses at Norwood Road ran closer to programme than on the other sites but construction did last longer than the planned programme. The duration for the construction of the steel frame dwellings ranged from 31 to 34 weeks The duration of the construction of the conventional brick and blocks dwellings ranged from 35 to 41 weeks The steel frame construction was completed in smaller blocks than the cavity wall construction for the conventional build that was taking place on up to 18 plots at one time. Getting the roof on quickly was more easily achieved with the light gauge steel frame houses as indicated by the grey shading on the chart. The internal works started on the steel frame dwellings between 7 and 12 weeks before the conventional dwellings but the dwellings were completed, both steel and conventional, at the same time.

45 46 47 48 49 52 51 50 56 55 54 53 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 3 4 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 44 43 35 36 37 41 42 40 39 38 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17

NORWOOD RD

Roof covering Cavity wall superstructure Substructure

Internals and final finishes

Roof construction

Light gauge steel frame External skin, internsl and final finishes Substructure

Figure 108: Actual progress chart show the durations of the construction for both the steel frame and conventional plots

August 9

July 18

June 14

May

April 19

March 26

February 15

January 1

December 27

November

Date 23

Plot Nos

WEEKLY PROGRESS FOR MAIN STAGES

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

7.3

Substructure

The Norwood Road site used two substructures construction methods. Trench fill foundations were used for most of the plots combined with a beam and block floor for the traditional brick and blocks plots and a Jetfloor floor for the steel frame plots. However, due to archaeological remains found during site investigations, raft foundations were used under some plots to avoid unnecessary disturbance to the ground. The raft foundations were combined with a structural concrete topping.

Ground Works

Foundations Setting out excavate pour concrete

Drainage Excavate

Backfill

Beam and block Concrete beams

Backfill

Drainage

Blocks Grout

Screed

Run drains

Bricklaying

Block to dpc

Complete Block to dpc

Splash course

Figure 109: Process map for foundation using trench fill footing with beam and block floor and floor screed

Ground Works

Foundations Setting out excavate Concrete foot

Drainage Excavate

Backfill

Jet Floor Concrete beams Insulation

Backfill

Steel shuttering Concrete topping

Run drains

Drainage Block to dpc

Bricklaying

Complete Block to dpc

Splash course

Figure 110: Process map for foundation combining trench fill with Jetfloor and structural concrete topping

Ground Works

Foundations Setting out Stone base Concrete blind

Backfill Backfill

(Plot) Steel shuttering Insulation Concrete

Drainage Bricklaying

Raft (Block) Steel mesh Steel shuttering

Reinforcement Concrete topping

Run drains

Block to dpc

Complete Block to dpc

Splash course

Figure 111: Process map for foundation combining raft foundation with structural concrete topping

The average man-hour resource footprint charts below compares the traditional brick and block construction with the steel frame construction. They also compare house types and construction methods as described in the previous section.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Floor screed Install beam and block floor Drainage - Internal / Local Blockwork to DPC Footings

80 70

MAN-HOURS

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

B4 (4 bedroom)

HOUSE TYPE Figure 112: Average man-hours per house type for substructure construction of the conventional brick and block plots (for each work package)

JETFLOOR FOUNDATIONS-MAIN PACKAGES

Structural Concrete Topping Jetfloor system

120 Drainage - Internal / Local Blockwork to DPC

MAN-HOURS

100 80

Foundations

60 40 20 0 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 36 35 43 44 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9

PLOTS IN SEQUENCE Figure 113: Sub-structure man-hours per plot for steel frame plots for each work package

7.4

Superstructure

7.4.1

Light gauge steel frame erection

The construction of the superstructures began with plots 17 to 25, the first block of steel frame plots.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 114: Average man-hours per house type for superstructure construction of steel frame plots (for each work package)

The most resource intensive plots were the B type houses. These are the larger dwellings with three bedrooms and they incorporate a roof terrace. The steel frame panel erection took proportionally longer on these large dwellings. On average, 51 man-hours were required per plot. The main resource requirement was the brickwork skin with over 250 man-hours required for the B type houses. The man-hours required for the external finishes were also longer, due to the large area of finishes on B type houses including the roof terraces. A total of 3,907 man-hours of non value added time were recorded during the construction of the light gauge steel frame houses. 297 man-hours of this total was non value added time directly part of the steel frame erection work package while there were also issues with the steel frame and brickwork skin interface. Design The design information required was not forwarded to the subcontractor erecting the steel frame. Therefore, the membrane between the floor and the steel panel on the first block of plots was omitted. The omission of the design detailing for this meant some remedial work was required (i.e unscrewing the anchor bolts to lift the ground floor panels and inserting the membrane. This accounted for 64 man-hours of non value added time for plots 17 25 (7 man-hours per plot).

Figure 115: Steel panels arriving on site

Figure 116: Retrofitting of membrane under ground floor panels

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Methods of work The main issues was the interface between the brickwork skin and the steel frame panels. â&#x20AC;˘ 46 man-hours of non value added time to correct opening sizes in brickwork for windows and doors. Some of this work was completed by bricklayers while some was completed by carpenters fitting windows and doors. 7.4.2

Conventional brick and block construction

The conventional brick and block construction began with the construction of plots 26 to 34, the 4 bedroom detached houses. for the dwellings constructed using brick and block cavity wall construction began with plots 26 to 34. Figure below compares the average number of man-hours per house type for the brick and block plots. The A2 house type average is higher than the equivalent for the light gauge steel frame but the B3 house types are both lower than the light gauge steel frame plots.

800

External finishes Total roof 1st fix carpentry, stairs and pods Brickwork/blockwork Scaffolding

MAN-HOURS

700 600 500 400 300 200

100 0 A

B4 (4 bedroom)

HOUSE TYPE Figure 117: Average man-hours per house type for superstructure construction of brick and block plots (for each work package)

Methods of work A total of 530 man-hours was recorded as non valued added time for the brick and blockwork work package, of which 351 of man-hours were recorded as non value added time due to repeat work. Although generally the site was able to resource enough bricklayers there were issues building to the required quality. The main contractor has a local labour requirement policy that meant there was a dependence on labour from the local area. It appears that local bricklayers are less willing to work overtime. This restricted the hours per day that could be achieved hence the build duration. Moreover, there was an issue with the quality of the work delivered resulting in 5% of time on site spent on remedial work. Figure 110 clearly shows the period between May and August with a higher percentage of non value added time. This is a result of the hours spent returning to plots to undertake remedial work. The key issues are discussed further in the following sections.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 118: Performance chart showing percentage change in average non value added time for the brickwork and blockwork per month

Specific issues included: â&#x20AC;˘ A significantly slower and more resource intensive process than the steel frame erection accounting for more man-hours per plot to construct. â&#x20AC;˘ Specific issues that required repeat work included: o Rework to the size of window openings on accounted for 131 man-hours. Some of this was attributed to the use of an apprentice bricklayer who made mistakes that had to be corrected. o Retrofitting cavity wall insulation and cavity closers accounted for 101 man-hours

Figure 119: Window fitted following remedial work to the opening

Building to the required tolerances was an issue with some of the houses. This was demonstrated on site with the requirement to cut timber joists to length. The joists were designed 30 mm too large on each unit for tolerance, and the adjustments were made on site with the allowed limits The cutting of joists required up to two hours per plot which equated to 42 man-hours for all plots.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 120: Cutting the posi-joists on site

Supply chain The supply of one of the facing bricks for the site was inadequate to complete the entire job. Therefore, a different facing brick type was used for some units and brick tinting was used to produce the final finish. Additional hours were spent on this tinting process. More importantly though, consistency in quality was not achieved due to the problems managing the supply chain for this particular product. Design The B house types were the most challenging in regard to the construction process due to the roof terraces. This house type required scaffolding for longer than other house types to allow for completion of the terrace including the overhang detail and temporary safety rails. In addition remedial work was carried on some plots including interfaces between the window and the roof terrace. This non value added time contributed a high proportion of the overall non value added time in July shown on Figure 30.

Figure 121: View of site during the roof construction

Figure 122: Remedial work for roof terrace of the brick and block plots and window opening interface on house type B3

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 123: Roof terrace construction house Type B

Figure 124: Roof terrace nearing completion

The steel frame dwellings with the fast build time were the first to complete the roof construction enabling internal works to begin. A predominantly horizontal approach to construction of the steel frame dwellings meant the steel frame was erected for a small number of dwellings followed shortly afterwards by the roof construction. The roof trusses for plots 17 to 25, were fixed in late December 2006. Unfortunately, due to supply chain problems they were delivered too late for the tiling to be completed before the Christmas break. High winds during the Christmas break damaged the trusses and remedial work was required before the tiling could start. Other issues were the delay in achieving a watertight shell on the A type houses. There were delays in finalising the design of the valley gutters on plots 17,18, 24, 25, 36 and 37. Until a decision was made water ingress was a problem resulting in remedial work to the decorating later in the process. Over 60 man-hours of remedial work were carried on these plots due to delay in finalising the valley gutter designs. Unlike on the other SmartLIFE sites though, the roof terraces on the B type houses have not posed the same problems with water ingress due to the use of the multideck floor constructed with concrete that was installed earlier in the construction process. 7.4.3

Bathroom pods

The bathroom pod installation started on the steel frame plots. Most pods were installed just-in-time from the delivery lorry on to the allocated plot. The main issues in the process were: â&#x20AC;˘ Remedial work to the wiring for the extractor fans on some pods. Two man-hours per pod were required for this work. â&#x20AC;˘ Remedial work to window opening on one pod to change the window opening.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Figure 125: Bathroom pod in position

7.5

Figure 126: Bathroom pods on plots 29 to 32

Internals

The internal fit-out of the dwellings commenced with plots 17 to 25 in January 2007. The first dwellings were inhabited in June 2007. A minimum of 270 man-hours was required per house type for the internal works with some house types requiring over 300 man-hours with both construction methods.

MAN-HOURS

1st fix plumbing

2nd fix plumbing

Electrical first fix

Electrical second fix

2nd fix carpentry Plastering/ drylining

Kitchen fitting

350

300

250

200

150

100

0 A

HOUSE TYPE

Figure 127: Average number of man-hours per house type for internal works in steel frame plots (for each work package)

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

MAN-HOURS 400 350

1st fix plumbing

2nd fix plumbing

Electrical first fix

Electrical second fix

2nd fix carpentry Plastering/ drylining

Kitchen fitting

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 A

HOUSE TYPE Figure 128: Average man-hours per house type for internal works in brick and block plots (for each work package)

Design changes Plots 19-23 were the first light gauge steel frame houses to be constructed. The master bedroom design for these plots (house types E) had a window between the master bedroom and the hall. This design was subsequently changed due to health and safety concerns and units 41 to 42 underwent remedial work to close the openings accounting for 6 man-hours per plot. This contributed to the higher number of manhours required for this house type.

Figure 129: Dry lining opening in the bedroom

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

7.6

Final finishes

The internal finishes were completed on the B4 and A house types during the monitoring period but not for some house Type B. Therefore, the man-hour averages are lower for house type B. The resource required for the B4 house types is significantly higher than was expected because there were more bedrooms and a larger surface area. The 4 bed houses all had downstairs shower rooms that required tiling, also contributing to the higher average number of man-hours.

MAN-HOURS 120

Cleaning Wall tiling

100

Floor Finishes Painting

0 A

HOUSE TYPE

Figure 130: Average man-hours per house type for final finishes for steel frame plots

The average number of man-hours per house type for the final finishes for both construction methods ranged from 48 to 116 man-hours. Some plots were still being completed after the full time monitoring period on site ceased therefore some average are very low. Further explanation is provided in Section 8.1 on data limitations.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

MAN-HOURS 120

Cleaning Wall tiling

100

Floor Finishes Painting

80 60 40 20 0 A

HOUSE TYPES Figure 131: Average man-hours per house type for final finishes for conventional brick and block plots

Figure 132: Downstairs shower room

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

7.7

Waste measurement

The total volume of waste recorded for the Norwood Road site was 879 m³. This equates to an average of 15.7m³ of waste per plot or just over two and half builders skips (6 m³) of waste per dwelling.

Cement Ceramics Concrete Electrical Equipment Furniture Inert Insulation Metals Packaging Plaster Plastics Timber

35 187 138 10 2 6 102 2 110 132 3 153

Total:

879

Figure 133: Breakdown of waste produced on site by product group

The top five waste products were ceramics, timber, concrete, plaster and packaging. Bricks and blocks Figure 133 shows over 400m³ of waste recorded from the brickwork and blockwork work package: • 187m³ of ceramic waste, of which over 90% was bricks, • 138 m³ of concrete block and lintel waste. The amount of remedial work required for the brick and block cavity wall was discussed earlier in the report. There was an increase in ‘waste’ not only in man-hours of non value added time but also in volume of waste material waste. A further issue was the ‘tidy site’ policy implemented by the site management. This involved regular housekeeping sessions on site whereby materials including bricks, blocks and lintels, both waste and new, were disposed of to tidy work areas. This was deemed necessary to maintain health and safety standards on site. New bricks and blocks were disposed of if not tidied at the work place. There are major opportunities for improvement in the waste management. One of the key constraints is the lack of waste management throughout the whole supply chain. Materials come to site, they are unloaded and then the supplier leaves site without taking any further responsibility for waste materials arising from damage or packaging used for transportation and material protection.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

450 400 350 300

Volume(m3)

250 200 150 100

Electrical Equipment Plaster Metals Inert Furniture Plastics Insulation Cement Concrete Ceramics Timber Packaging

1s t

F 2n ix c d arp f 2n ix c ent d ar ry Bl f ix pe o p n Br ck w lum try ic o kw rk b in g D o rk to D ra /B P in l ag ock C w e o Fl - In rk oo te r F rn in al Fl ish oo es Fl r J o oo is r s ts cr e J e Ins ed tfl ula oo ti o Ki r s y n tc s te h Lo e n m fit ft I n ti n su g Pl la as tio te ri n Pa n R g/ inti af D ng R t Fo rylin oa u d nd i ng C on atio st ns ru R ct io o R of n oo ti f T li n g St Si t rus e e e H se s lf ra and m e l ing pa ne ls

Figure 134: Waste produced per work package for eachproduct group

Packaging 110m³ of waste packaging was produced on site. Packaging is one of the major waste categories and includes timber pallets, polythene around bricks and lightweight blocks, and wrapping around internal joinery including kitchen units, doors and other fixtures. Timber pallets were one of the main waste products.

Figure 135: Timber pallets disposed of in the skip

Insulation The amount of insulation waste on site was surprisingly high. The main contributor to this was the Jetfloor insulation. Windy weather in January caused damage to a large delivery of Jetfloor insulation stored on site. This resulted in the disposal of 25 m³ of insulation waste in one day.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

Plasterboard Second to brick waste, plasterboard was one of the main waste products produced on site. 108 m³ of plasterboard waste was recorded. Most of the offcuts were segregated in 1 m³ bags provided by the supplier for removal from site to the supplier’s recycling facility. However, in the later stages of the project, plasterboard was not segregated and disposed of as mixed waste. Consequently, waste was sent directly to the waste transfer station for segregation.

Figure 136: Plasterboard, bagged and segregated being removed from site

Figure 137: Brick, block and mortar waste

Figure 138: Mixed waste on site during the later stages of the project

Figure 139: Mixed waste being segregated at the waste transfer station

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

Conclusions

8.1

Data limitations

The data collection involved two main methodologies, CaliBRE and SMARTAudit. These are intensive data collection methodologies. CaliBRE involves activity sampling and with a dedicated data site observer working full time to collect the data. Although there were only three main house plan forms, variations in external finishes and internal layouts made it difficult for the assembly teams to achieve a learning curve. Often the next plot in sequence had a new set of drawings and specifications. Even terraces had variations for end of terraces and elevations which change in finish from house to house. Data collection on site continued to the end of August for the Norwood Road and Beaufort Drive sites. Data collection continued until the end of September for the Hereward Hall and on a full time basis with monitoring take place on a part-time basis until February 2008 on Hereward Hall. This had the following implications: Beaufort Drive A complete data set was not obtained for the final finishes and external skin for some plots particularly house type A. Hereward Hall A complete data set was not obtained for: • The final finishes using the insulating concrete formwork. • The internal works, final finishes and external finishes for plots using the conventional brick and block. Norwood Road A complete data set was not obtained for: • The final finishes for the A and B house types for conventional and brick and block construction and the A house types for the light gauge steel frame. • The external finishes for the B house types for the conventional brick and block construction.

8.2

Beaufort Drive

The following conclusions can be drawn from the performance measurement of Beaufort Drive: • Inaccuracy in the substructure construction in both the design process and in the work method increased the resource requirements and delayed the construction process. • The ‘tight’ site restricted site access and the number of different trades working on site at the same time therefore extending the build duration for some work packages. • The timber frame system was not used to its full potential. Firstly, the design of some plots did not allow for the roof to be installed quickly. Secondly, a horizontal rather a vertical approach to the timber frame

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

•

• •

8.3

and roof installation meant multiple plots were under construction at the same time rather than sequentially to allow other trades to start work on site sooner. When the substructures were not handed over to the timber frame contractor as designed due to design accuracy issues, the timber frame erection was slow and inefficient. When the substructures were constructed correctly the timber frame erection process was faster and more efficient. Bathroom pods were used but just-in-time delivery was not implemented. The number of deliveries to site was restricted to site and therefore some pods were stored on site creating the need for double handling. There are a number of key opportunities for improvement with waste management particularly with managing the supply chain and controlling quality on site. Returning packaging to the manufacturers could be increased. Controlling quality on site, particularly in the brickwork could have reduced the volume of waste being removed from site.

Hereward Hall

The Hereward Wall site combining both traditional and ICF construction methods proved to be the most challenging site in regard to the construction process. The main findings have been: • Construction took between 4 and 6 months longer than the planned programme • The resource used for the conventional brick and block plots remained very low until late into the project. This was particular noticeable when comparing the number of bricklayers on the Hereward Hall site with numbers on the Norwood Road site. • The superstructures for the ICF houses required more that 100 man-hours less labour resources to build than the traditional brick and block superstructures. • Certain design features including the roof terrace for house type B made the construction process difficult. Internal works were damaged due to water ingress and remedial work being carried to the internal finishes. • Hereward Hall had the highest proportion of non value added time of three sites. The main causes of this were double handling time due to the site layout with site storage restricted to one main storage area and remedial work required to gain the required quality of product for completion. • Site waste management was organised at stages in the project including site based segregation of timber, plasterboard, ICF insulation and inert waste. However, in the later stages of the project this process was not carried out and waste was not segregated.

8.4 • • • • •

Norwood Road Both the conventional brick and block and the light gauge steel frame houses had lower resource requirements than equivalent house types on the other sites. Houses of both systems were built closer to programme than the other sites. Quality of the brickwork was an issue for the brickwork skin of the light gauge steel frame units and for the cavity wall construction for the traditional units The site setup including the early road construction and one-way traffic management made the site more efficient to run. Site waste management was organised at stages in the project including site based segregation of timber, plasterboard, and inert waste. However, in the later stages of the project this process was not carried out and waste was not segregated.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

8.5

Lessons Learnt

The report has highlighted some of the main issues that have been recording from undertaking the site measurement. These issues are summarised in the ‘Lessons Learnt’ table below. The issues are categorised in relation to common themes for comparison between modern methods of construction and conventional brick and block construction. Reference to the relevant section in the report where further explanation is provided is made in the table. Some are ‘opportunities for improvement’ because changes to design, work methods, supply and or project management could reduce the ‘waste’ that occurred in the process. Construction method

Timber frame Beaufort Drive

Issues Buildability

Insulating concrete formwork

Brick and block Hereward Hall

Brick and block Norwood Road

Norwood Road

Hereward Hall Complex roof design B type took longer B type took for E type with two to get weathertight longer to get (6.4.2) weathertight sections (5.4.2) B type longer to get Resource intensive weathertight (5.4.3) tile hung finish (6.4.2)

Build time

Light gauge steel frame

Valley gutter A type B type longer to get weathertight house delayed achieving weathertight shell (7.4.2)

Man-hours required for superstructure lowest on A and E type houses (5.4.1, 6.4.1 and 7.4.1) Longer than programme (5.2)

Longer than programme (6.2)

Significantly longer than programme (6.2)

Longer than programme (7.2)

Number and duration of trade visits

Multiple visits for internal trades (5.2)

Multiple visits for Multiple visits Multiple visits for Multiple visits for internal trades (6.2) for internal internal trades (7.2) internal trades (7.2) trades (6.2 and 6.6)

Accuracy and timeliness of foundations

Repeat work to ensure correct interface of sole plates and drainage (5.3.3)

On programme

Predictability

Ground conditions More predictable for some plots made than brick and block planning difficult (6.2) (5.3)

Need for scaffolding

Required for long duration with adjustments particularly for B type (5.4.3)

Long build duration

Closer to programme than other sites (7.2)

Major delays. Bricklayer resources low (6.4.3)

Steel frame shell was close to programme (7.2).

Required for long Required for duration with long duration. adjustments particularly for B type houses and for tile hung finish (6.4.2)

Required for long duration with adjustments particularly B type

Remedial work to blockwork to DPC to add air bricks and change drainage position (6.3)

Longer than programme (7.2)

Closer to programme than other sites (7.2)

Required for long duration with adjustments particularly B type

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

Design issues

Roof terraces of B type (5.4.3)

i) Complexity of roofscape Roof trusses on E type (5.4.2) ii) Design variations Landing design change on E type (5.6) Management Issues

Roof terraces (6.4.2) Landing design change on E type

Roof terraces (6.4.2)

Just-in-time

‘Tight’ site made site Two methods, high water table and difficult to manage site access made the site difficult to (5.1) manage (6.2)

Work method issues Trade skills

Waste management

Early infrastructure works required to combat high water table (7)

Early infrastructure works required to combat high water table

One way system of One way system of site access worked site circulation well worked well

Most of the pods Most of the pods delivered just-in-time delivered just-intime (6.5) (5.5)

Incorrect window Factory process opening (5.4.2)

Roof terraces

Valley gutters Landing design (7.4.2) change on E Interior landing type window (7.5)

Horizontal build process, interface with different trades difficult (5.4.2) Supply chain issues

Roof terraces

Storing and Most of the pods delivered just-in time. double handling Some remedial work to extractor fan some bathroom wiring and windows. pods (6.5) Storing and double handling some bathroom pods (7.4.3)

Repeat work high for Ground workers Repeat work for Repeat work for the bricklaying g for without experience brick and brick and blockwork the brickwork skin of ICF used (6.4.1) blockwork (7.4.1) (5.4.4) (6.4.3) Dependence on local labour including apprentice brick layer

Repeat work for brick and blockwork (7.4.2) Dependence on local labour including apprentice brick layer

Segregated materials (plasterboard, timber and inert waste) for most of build duration (5.7)

Segregated timber, plasterboard, inert waste and insulation from insulating concrete formwork (6.7)

Segregated materials for most of build duration but only mixed waste in last two months (7.7)

Segregation not carried out in last 6 months

High volumes of brick and block waste, plasterboard, timber and packaging

Segregation not carried out in last two months

High packaging, timber and plasterboard waste volumes

High plasterboard and packaging waste volumes

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

Appendix A: CaliBRE Performance Measurement Toolkit The performance measurement tool used is named CALIBRE and was developed by BRE from extensive experience gained by the BRE over the past thirty year of the measurement and productivity assessment of housing. The CALIBRE monitoring process is simple to use and is undertaken without interfering with the task being undertaken. The measurement process can undertaken by an observer, often an undergraduate or recently graduated trainee who can gain a thorough understanding of the construction process. The process has four main elements, namely: • Mapping the construction process • Identifying and coding the packages and tasks • Monitoring the site and factory construction process • Analysis, reporting and feedback Typically the monitoring and feedback is undertaken continuously from the moment the first operatives set foot on site to the last operative leaving site. Comprehensive training is provided to bring each observer up to the same high level of understanding, with a full time back up being provided by the BRE. All software and hardware essential for the monitoring process is provided along with technical support from the BRE. For each observation, the observer records five attributes: What each operative is doing to Which element or work package. Where each task is being carried out. Who each operative is and When the observer undertook the observation round The packages of work and task codes are allocated according to a BRE developed National Work Breakdown Structure. These codes take into account the nature of the construction works, the levels of observed and mapped detail that are achievable and the need for code consistency between different projects. The coding system is sufficiently flexible for additional codes to be added when unforeseen tasks are observed as construction proceeds. Work monitored is categorised as Added Value Time, Support Time, Statutory Time or Non value added Time. •

Added Value Time is expended by operatives or plant on those activities that directly add value to the construction being undertaken.

•

Support Time is spent on activities, which directly support Added Value activities.

•

Statutory Time is time expended by operatives that support legislation or regulations

•

Non value added Time is time expended which adds no value to the project

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

Added Value

Statutory

Cleaning

Taking Break

Carrying out the prescribed task

Carrying out work related to health and safety

Preparation of materials

Inclement weather

H2 U

related to safety

Non Added Value

Handling materials at the workplace A

Not seen during observation round

Handling materials from stores to workplace

Unloading

Support SU

Supervision

Not working and not at the workplace

Setting out

Not working at the workplace

Testing and checking

Making good or correcting

Walking around site

Activity Codes

• • • • • •

Using the categories above observers monitor operatives activities on site by making regular rounds of the site throughout the day. Every round involves inputting the activity of each operative and as well as plant into a hand-held computer (PDA). The PDA is equipped with Access that allows data to be input into a database. At the end of each day the data is downloaded from the PDA to a laptop or desktop computer where the main database is stored. Daily analysis of the data can then be carried out to determine the breakdown of activities for each supplier, package and task for that day. The data can be presented in graphical formats and distributed to the site and project management team who can assist with determining the causes of non-added value time. The information can be presented at the daily site management team meeting enabling the management team to address the previous day’s performance and making improvements in the forthcoming days. Based on the data collected and the feedback gained the improvement can be targeted at a number of levels including the supplier, the work package or the task. Therefore, a focused process of continuous improvement can be followed.

The information can also be used for planning resource levels for current and future projects and for comparison with other projects. The observer will also be able to take a series of photographs of progress on site that can used for compiling reports and for downloading on to a website for access by people not based on site.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

Appendix B: SMARTAudit Waste Measurement

SMARTAudit is an integral part of the SMARTWaste (Site Methodology to Audit, Reduce and Target Waste) System that provides a web-based, integrated, practical approach to evaluating waste and its generation. It can be applied to any waste generating activity, and has already been adapted and used for the construction, demolition, refurbishment, manufacturing and pharmaceutical industries. The system can identify cost savings, improve resource use, improve productivity and demonstrate continuous improvement through: • waste benchmarking • identifying key waste products for reduction, reuse and recycling • sourcing local resource and waste management facilities •

sourcing local supplies of reclaimed and recycled building products.

SMARTAudit is a unique tool that audits in detail the source, type, amount, cause and cost of waste on site which is reported in any easy to understand format. The SMARTAudit measurement process uses a similar technology to CaliBRE to input the data and feed into a database. Waste on sites is collected and placed in skips. The CaliBRE monitor can use the same hand-held computer (PDA) to record data on waste produced on site. The contents of the skips are assessed and the volume of each waste product is recorded. The following details are logged: • location of the skip on site • product wasted • volume of waste produced (m³) • cause of waste • work package creating the waste • product dimensions • any notes & photographs The data is downloaded into a web-based database which presents the data in graphical and tabular formats for presentation. The tool also generates EPIs (m3 of waste per 100m2 of floor area) and KPIs (m3 of waste per £100K project value) for each site. For a development of 80 conventional houses, it is estimated that 3 hours a day will be needed to collect data on waste generated on site. The data is assessed and recommendations can be made for improving the site waste management system. Information can be provided to the contractor on how the site waste management process can be improved including what materials can be reused and recycled as well as sourcing local waste recycling facilities. The SMARTWaste toolkit includes the BREMAP system, a geographical information system (GIS) that enables firms to reduce their transport of bulky waste by locating the nearest and most suitable waste management site.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Product type

Examples of products on site

Ceramics

Bricks, bathroom and kitchen wall tiles

Concrete

Concrete and aircrete blocks, lintels, surplus readymix concrete

Inert

Topsoil, spoil mix (soil and rubble)

Insulation

Sheet material (polystyrene), ICF extruded polystyrene; steel frame insulation rolls (glass fibre)

Metals

Pipes (copper pipes, steel pipe), wires/cables, ironmongery.

Timber

Stud wall sections, decorative â&#x20AC;&#x201C; skirting and architrave, fascia and soffit board, shuttering

Packaging

Plastics (polythene sheet, empty bags, sealant tubes); timber (pallets, packaging)

Plaster/cement

Plasterboard, finish plaster; cement (cement bags, mortar, render)

Product categories and examples of products on site

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

Appendix C: SmartLIFE and the measurement process overview

SmartLIFE is an innovative pilot project led by Cambridgeshire County Council which is dedicated to the delivery and promotion of Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) and sustainable growth. The main aims address the three challenges of housing delivery in growth, as experienced in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough growth area: • affordability • sustainability/energy efficiency • skills/capacity shortages in the construction industry This report deals with the construction project component of the SmartLIFE project, which aims to deliver a 106 unit affordable housing demonstration in association with the key stakeholders: English Partnerships, Warden Housing, Fenland District Council and the Building Research Establishment. The affordable housing demonstration, discussed here, aims to construct 106 units on three sites in the Fenland District of Cambridgeshire using standard house types. One will consist of 56 units including 35 steel framed houses and 21 brick and block houses; one site will consist of 15 timber framed houses and one site with consist of 15 insulating concrete formwork houses and 20 brick and block houses. The construction of these houses will be monitored throughout the build process and comparative cost and performance measures will be made. The measurement process A key component of the SmartLIFE project is monitoring and evaluating the sites in terms of their construction performance as set out in the ‘Measuring Process’ document. In order to carryout this, a site measurement study is being carried out on all the SmartLIFE sites in collaboration with Willmott Dixon. BRE is recording the tasks undertaken on the construction site, waste produced and as well as measuring water, energy usage and distance travelled for operatives to understand the environmental impact. By observation at selected times, it is possible to build up a picture of all of the activities which occupy the time taken to complete the project and the associated waste produced, cost and environmental impact. Site observers employed by BRE and Inspace are based on site to collect and analyse the data. Their job is a full time job is to observe and record the activities on site. They are not measuring how long any operative takes and has no connection with the site organisation or with rates of pay or bonus systems. It is important to note that all data collected will be anonymous in that names of operatives are not just for data collection and reporting. The observer moves about the site throughout each day collecting data and taking photographs to record: •

Where work is being carried out on site – which blocks and plots

•

What work is being carried out – work packages and tasks

SmartLIFE Site Measurement – Final Report

•

How efficiently time is being utilised – e.g. are there any delays, is work being repeated, how many visits to site are required by trades on site

•

What waste is being produced on site, from which work package and why?

Most of the data is recorded electronically using a handheld computer. Once a day, the observer downloads the data from the computer into a PC In the site office, from which the analyst can make standard 'real-time' analyses of progress and performance. Fundamental to the success of the project and the future development of process and design is why delays and wasted effort occur. To establish these the site observer is in regular contact with the site manager and subcontractors to establish cause and possible action to improve performance. Thus real knowledge lies with the operatives who raise issue with the management team that can related to design, methods of work, the supply chain or management.

SmartLIFE Site Measurement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report

Appendix D: Schedule of construction methods and house types for the project

Schedule of plots by construction method house type and tenure BEAUFORT DRIVE

Timber frame

Plot No

House type & Tenure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

R R S S S R R R S S S S S R R

House type key A2-01

2 Bed 4 person

A2-02

2 Bed 4 person

E3-01

3 Bed 5 person

B3-01

3 Bed 5 person

B3-02

3 Bed 5 person

B4-01

4 Bed 6 person

HEREWARD HALL Traditional Brick & Block

Plot No

House type & Tenure

1 2 8 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SO SO S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

NORWOOD ROAD

Polar Wall insulated concrete

Plot No

House type & Tenure

3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

S S S S S R R R S S S S R R R

Tenure key Rent Sale Shared Ownership

R S SO

Light Weight Steel Frame

Plot No

House type & Tenure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

SO SO SO S R R S S S S R R R SO SO SO R R SO SO S S S S S R R R R R R R SO S S

Traditional Brick & Block

Plot No

House type & Tenure

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

S S S S S S S S S S SO SO S S S S S S S S S