Prefabrication Preassembly Modularization and Offsite Fabrication Bob Lewis

Prefabrication, Preassembly Modularization and Offsite Fabrication Bob Lewis Chicago Bridge & Iron

Prefabrication Preassembly Modularization Offsite Fabrication

Why PPMOF? Needs • Improved safety • Better facilities faster • Improved cost and value Solution Use the tool and process to help evaluate: • Demanding schedules • Adverse site conditions • Limited skilled labor Goal Develop a guideline tool and process, not a formula or “black box” answer.

Project Team Carl Haas Bob Lewis, Chair Richard Mayes Bob Mc. Cabe Rob Smith Jongchul Song Wayne Sykes Bob Tatum Jorge Vanegas Terry Wilford Paul Wood Scott Flatley UT Austin Chicago Bridge & Iron Rust U. S. Steel Lockwood Green UT Austin Kvaerner Stanford University Georgia Tech University U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Eli Lilly BE&K, Inc. Past Members Curt Watson Walter Fagerlund David Jacobs Daryl Zimmerman Eichleay UT Austin Washington Group U. S. Department of State

Past Developments CII Research • CII, 1987 — Tatum, Vanegas Source Document 25 • CII, 1992 — MODEX Center for Construction Industry Studies • Prefabrication Study — 1999 Other industry and research publications “Home grown” decision tools

Research Motivation • Doubling of prefab use in last 15 years • New, robust technologies – 3 D CAD – Internet – Robotics • Supply chain evolution • Increased focus on safety awareness • Skilled labor availability issues

Research Objectives • Update pre-fab, preassembly, modularization, and offsite fabrication knowledge in light of developments in last 15 years. • Increase level of awareness about PPMOF. • Develop a tool to enhance the PPMOF decision-making process.

Benefits/Drivers • Schedule pressure • Lack of skilled labor • Safety • Environmental/ regulatory constraints • Unique site attributes • Cost savings opportunities

Challenges/Impediments • Increased engineering and coordination • Requires better front-end planning • “Stick-build” paradigm • Transportation and handling • Decreased flexibility • Potential increased cost

Research Team Methodology Focus: developing a framework for early decision making: — Literature reviews — Multiple site studies — Develop a decision process/tool — Validated with industry input — Beta tested

Industry Site Studies • BE&K • Central Texas Iron Works • Fluor-Daniel • Howe Baker • Jacobs Applied Tech • Eli Lilly • Mc. Abee • Pro. Quip • U. S. Steel

Key Findings • Tool facilitates open communication. • Potential: part of pre-planning; may drive execution strategy. • Both 3 D CAD and IT facilitate PPMOF. • Potential: dealing with skilled labor shortages. • Tool facilitates design reuse. • Range of applications: not “all or nothing. ”

Decision Guideline Tool — What It Is • Tool to help recognize the issues. • Allows judgment-based decisions to be made. • Provides early, high-level review of key issues and timeline guidance for decision making. • Facilitates project team education and alignment through open communication. • A source of industry drivers and impediments to PPMOF.

Decision Guideline Tool — What It’s Not • Does not provide definitive answer or solution. — No formulas or cost data to provide “yes or no. ” — Not designed to produce project execution plan or detailed execution issues. — No “black box” decision making. • Not biased toward PPMOF.

Typical Input Form

Typical Final Score Summary

Typical Report of Extremes

PPMOF Conclusions • A decision process that should be integrated into pre-project planning. • Addresses existing and recurring industry challenges. • Capitalizes on emerging enabling technologies. • Is a knowledge-based guide to improve up-front decisions.

Implementation Session • Learn the details that support the benefits. • Work with a real planning team that uses the process and tool to make an early evaluation of modularization for a project. • Join us and work with the team to see what the recommendation will be and how they get to a conclusion.