EDUCATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE and Modern Methods of Construction Analysis of Off-Site Technology for the Construction of School Buildings Pablo Iglesias, Jure Kotnik, Karina Acevedo, Diego Ambasz, Tigran Shmis, Maria Ustinova, Dmitry Chugunov, Devika Singh Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction Acknowledgment © 2024 International Bank for This publication provides an overview of off-site construction as part of Reconstruction and Development / the broader family of modern methods of construction, its advantages The World Bank and shortcomings, and its application in the construction of school build- ings. It examines case studies and lessons learned and explores whether 1818 H Street NW, off-site construction has the potential to contribute significantly to Washington DC 20433 reducing the shortfall in the provision of educational infrastructure in Telephone: 202-473-1000 low-income countries. The team who contributed to this publication Internet: www.worldbank.org consisted of Pablo Iglesias (Consultant, Architect), Jure Kotnik (Consult- ant, Architect), Karina Acevedo (Consultant), Maria Ustinova (Education Consultant), Diego Ambasz (Senior Education Specialist), Tigran Shmis Rights and Permissions (Senior Education Specialist), Devika Singh (Consultant), and Dmitry Chu- The material in this work is subject gunov (Economist). Fiona Mackintosh proofread and edited the report. to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of The team expresses utmost gratitude for the invaluable comments pro- its knowledge, this work may be vided by Enrique Alasino (Senor Education Specialist), Tsuyoshi Fukao reproduced, in whole or in part, for (Senior Education Specialist), Rajiv Aggarwal (School Construction noncommercial purposes as long as Advisor, Architect), and Angie Paola Garcia Arevalo (Consultant), as well full attribution to this work is given. as the Global Program for Safer Schools (GPSS) team. Any queries on rights and licenses, The team is thankful for the intellectual leadership and guidance pro- including subsidiary rights, should be vided during the preparation by Luis Benveniste (Global Director, Edu- addressed to World Bank Publications, cation) and Halil Dundar (Practice Manager for Education Global Prac- The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street tice). The team appreciates the support of regional practice managers NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; who connected us with regional expertise and colleagues and guided fax: 202-522-2625; us towards improvement of the publication narrative - Harry Anthony e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Patrinos (Senior Advisor for Education and previously Education Practice Manager for the Europe and Central Asia Region), Cristian Aedo (Educa- tion Practice Manager for the East Asia and Pacific Region), Emanuella This work is a product of the staff Di Gropello (Education Practice Manager for the Latin America and Car- of the World Bank with external ibbean Region), and Rita Almeida (Practice Manager for the Europe and contributions. The findings, Central Asia Region). interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not Elizaveta Tarasova prepared the graphical design and layout of this pub- necessarily reflect the views of The lication. World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments that they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. ii Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction About the Authors Pablo Iglesias is a design-oriented architect with a body of work and awards spanning over 30 years and three continents. He studied at Buenos Aires University and taught design between 1988 and 1994. As a young architect, Pablo won multiple awards, including First Prize for the Civic Centre of Las Varillas. In 1995, he moved to Australia, where he became an active member of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, acting as Juror for the awards program and speaker at conferences. In 2002, Pablo moved to England, where he designed and delivered pro- jects in the Education, Urban Design, and Arts sectors, including Longley Park Sixth Form College and Oriel Mostyn Art Gallery, which won the Royal Institute of British Architects Awards in 2005 and 2011, respec- tively. In 2008, Pablo was a finalist in the open international design competition for the Mersey Observatory. He was the Lead Designer for Manchester’s Building Schools for the Future program, where he devel- oped and applied the concept of Agile Learning Spaces in several school buildings. In March 2018, Pablo founded Grated Apple, an architectural collective that brings together architects from various fields and back- grounds, focusing on the Education, Cultural, and Community sectors. Jure Kotnik is an architect, educational design specialist, and lecturer who works in different fields of architecture and research. He is the author of various publications, from the first-ever Container Architecture monograph to several preschool architecture and design publications. Besides the work in field of theory and research, Kotnik is the author of many built projects in various countries. Kotnik is a consultant for The World Bank and the Council of Europe Development Bank to improve preschool and school facility designs and legislation. In 2012, Kotnik was appointed visiting professor at Ecole Speciale d’Architecture in Paris and got PhD degree at the University of Ljubljana in 2014. Kotnik received several national and international awards for his works, including the Plečnik medal, the Golden Medal of the Minsk Biennale, and the Europe 40 under 40 awards for emerging architects and designers in Europe. Karina Acevedo (MA) is an Economist with a master’s degree in econom- ics. She is an education consultant in the World Bank's Education Global Practice. She has accumulated rigorous experience in economic research with a focus on Education, Labor market, Regional Development, and Environmental economics. In addition, she has supported several World Bank reports on education for Colombia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Guyana, Jamaica, Romania, Macedonia, and Serbia. She also holds a strong quantitative background, with experience in methods for impact evaluation applied to education and analysis of international learning assessments. She began her career as an intern at the Central Bank of Colombia and Inter-American Development Bank in Washington, DC. iii Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction Diego Ambasz is a Senior Education Specialist for the East Asia and Pacific (EAP) Region and Co-Global Lead for Education and Climate Change in the Education Global Practice at the World Bank. He has also led several education projects and analytical tasks in Latin America and Europe and Central Asia. In addition, he has contributed with techni- cal assistance for projects in other regions of the world. Prior to joining the World Bank in 2003, he held senior analytical and management positions in Argentina’s public administration. His teaching experience in public policy included professor positions at the Santa Fe Catho- lic University in Argentina, San Martin National University in Argentina, and Rosario National University in Argentina. He has published several articles, papers and books on education, skills and innovation policy. His most recent publication was in 2023 on the role of human capital in the climate transition. Tigran Shmis is a Senior Education Specialist at the Vienna office of the World Bank and covers the education programs in Western Balkans and Central Asia. He has the extensive educational experience, having earned a specialist degree in computer sciences and economics, a PhD in educational ICTs from the Russian Academy of Education, and a Mas- ter's degree in Management in Education and Educational Policy from the University of Manchester. Tigran has worked on various educational projects in Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Guyana, Kosovo, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Peru, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Uzbekistan. His most recent projects are Belarus Education Moderniza- tion Project, the Tajikistan LEARN project, and India’s Gujarat GOAL and Nagaland’s NECTAR projects. During the COVID-19 crisis, Tigran con- tributed to the data gathering and response strategies to this crisis and led a few initiatives in response to and recovery from COVID-19. He deliv- ered several cooperation programs with the OECD Center for Effective Learning Environments (CELE) and Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) networks, UNICEF, and UNESCO. Tigran's areas of research and professional interests include innovative learning environments, Early Childhood Development, international assessment work, and COVID-19 response. Maria Ustinova is a Consultant at the World Bank Regional Office for Central Asia in Almaty, Kazakhstan. She supports technical assistance and lending projects in Europe and Central Asia in education, social pro- tection, and climate change. She has been involved in activities related to education facility design in Bulgaria, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Serbia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. She also serves as an Asso- ciated Researcher at the Urban Design and Planning Unit, a part of the Architecture Department at the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany. She contributes to research projects investigating how urban planning and design influence human health and well-being, mainly focusing on school learning environments. Additionally, she taught a course on “Learning Environments Design Foundations” at the Technical University of Darmstadt and Moscow City University. She is a lifetime Bundeskanzler Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, a key scientific foundation in Germany. Maria holds a double master’s degree in international cooperation and urban development from Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany, and the University of Rome Tor iv Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction Vergata, Italy. Before joining the Bank, she worked as a consultant for the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and various projects of DG Education and Culture of the European Commission and Educa- tion, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of the European Union. Her areas of research and professional interest include education facil- ity design, early childhood development, health-promoting design, and participatory practices in education facility design. Dmitry Chugunov is an education economist with more than 15 years of international experience in development aid in Africa, MENA, and ECA regions covering more than 20 countries. In his current position at the World Bank in the Africa East unit of the Education Global Practice, he works on operational and analytical assignments in Malawi, Seychelles, Sudan, Tanzania, and Zambia based in Washington, DC. Prior to that, he worked as a consultant with the World Bank Education Department based in Russia. Dmitry’s knowledge and expertise span across various themes, including education financing, cost analysis and projection, student assessment, workforce and skills development, impact evalua- tion, and data collection. Dmitry holds a Ph.D. in Public Economics and MA in Economics and Public Finance from the Higher School of Eco- nomics (Moscow, Russia); and a BA in Economics (Finance and Credit) from the Russian Academy of Economics (Moscow, Russia). Devika Singh is a Climate Change Specialist from the World Bank Wash- ington DC office, with over eight years of international development experience focused on climate integration and solutions. She works inter-sectoral with Environment, Education, Social Protection, and Agri- culture practices across Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, and West Africa to operationalize the World Bank's climate corporate commitments and enhance climate finance. Devika also works on several analytical outputs, including the Country Climate and Development Reports (CCDRs), Green Transition Agendas, Climate Adaptation and Resilience, ESG policy anal- ysis framework, adaptive social protection, green skills, and others, emphasizing a climate focus and climate-informed program design. Devika’s expertise and specialization lie in integrating climate consid- erations across development sectors, themes, and countries to reduce emissions, build climate resilience, and create practical and scalable pol- icies, frameworks, and programs. Devika is a graduate of International Development and Policy, specializing in Environmental Science and Energy Policy from the University of Chicago. She also holds a Master of Public Policy from the National Law School of India University. v Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction Contents Acknowledgment ii About the Authors iii Glossary Of Terms vii Executive Summary 1 Background 3 1. Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction 4 Overview 4 Systems 5 Technical requirements for implementation 7 Benefits and constraints of off-site construction 9 Quality/cost relationship 13 Resilience of off-site construction in natural hazard-prone areas 15 2. Chapter 2: Off-Site Construction Applied To School Buildings 19 Layout 19 Quality 22 Timescale 22 Cost 23 Purpose 25 Barriers to adoption 26 3. Chapter 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Implementing Modern 27 Methods of Construction in School Building Projects Factors affecting the costs and benefits of modern methods of construction 28 Methodology for a cost-benefit analysis applied modern methods of construction 28 Conceptual framework and assumptions 30 Results 32 4. Chapter 4: Modern Methods Of Construction In School 34 Projects Around The World (Summary Of Interviews) 5. Chapter 5: Conclusions 46 Summary 46 Path to implementation in low-income countries 46 Challenges for implementation in low-income countries 47 Annex 1: Case Studies 50 References 60 vi Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction Glossary of Terms This glossary describes the most commonly used terms for off-site construction. A way of working more effectively to achieve more without using more Modern methods of (in other words, building more quickly and efficiently). These include the construction: use of off-site construction techniques in factory conditions and of mass production techniques. Making elements of a building in a factory away from the construction Off-site construction/ site as opposed to traditional construction methods, which occur on the prefabrication: actual site where the building will be located. The extensive use of components, methods, and processes in which there is regularity, repetition, and a background of successful practice. Standardization: Standardization in construction reduces complexity while still offering customized solutions. Items that are manufactured off-site and then assembled with other components. These include structural components (trusses and frames/ Building components: walls), non-structural (insulation), fittings, fixtures, and joinery that are cut, sized, and/or shaped off-site to be assembled on-site. These terms typically refer to the structure of a building, which can be Frame, skeletal frame, and constructed off-site from a number of different materials and are typi- framing systems: cally supplied without insulation or finished panels. A collection of prefabricated panels transported in one package to the Flat pack: building site. These panels, such as walls, floors, roofs, and cladding panels, are trans- Panels: ported to the building site as flat packs. Prefabricated units that enclose usable space and are then joined to- Volumetric/modular units: gether on-site to form the whole building or are installed within or on top of a building or structure. They are typically fully finished. These are planar, structural units fabricated off-site from small sections. Trusses: They are typically used for pitched roofs. This is a factory facility set up adjacent to the construction site, usually to reduce the need for the long-distance transportation of preassem- Flying factory: bled products. These are particularly useful in large-scale projects such as airports or bridges. vii ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction Executive Summary Off-site construction refers to the practice of correctly. In the long term, this can have an making the structural and non-structural elements important positive impact on building safety (for of a building in a factory, which are then transported example, during an earthquake) and minimize to the building’s permanent site to be assembled. the need for future maintenance. These building components can be constructed from many different materials including timber, • Speed: Off-site construction is much quicker steel, and concrete. than on-site construction. Off-site construction comes in all shapes, sizes, and • Sustainability: The amount of material waste is levels of complexity. The options range from the reduced, and recycling and re-use can be maxi- building of 2D components such as wall frames, mized. For example, instead of being demolished, roof trusses, or insulated wall panels (2D) to volu- they can be taken apart. Carbon emissions from metric construction (3D) and complete buildings. both construction and energy use, air emitters, These methods can be applied to a huge range of and overall carbon footprint from off-site con- building types, from fully equipped schools or hos- struction are lower than for on-site construction, pitals to self-assembly temporary shelters. and lower levels of energy consumption have been recorded in structures built by off-site con- Off-site construction does not present any imped- struction as well as lower emissions during reno- iments to innovative design or require any com- vations and refurbishments. promise in the quality of finishes or materials. The off-site construction industry is developing fast. • Health and safety: Off-site construction has sig- Globally, the number of suppliers of off-site con- nificantly fewer accidents and ill health among struction is increasing, and advances in technology workers because factories end to have safer and mean that they can produce permanent structures healthier working conditions than building sites. built using modern building practices and in accord- ance with modern standards. This is helping to • Cost savings: Generally, the speed and quality overcome the negative public perception of off-site of off-site construction yield cost efficiencies construction as producing cheap, poor quality, and compared to traditional construction. In addi- temporary structures (generally known as “prefab” tion, economies of scale can be achieved when buildings). large and regular orders are made. Where bulk orders of standardized solutions are procured, Compared with conventional on-site construction cost savings are significant. However, the cost methods, off-site construction systems provide sig- and viability of transporting prefabricated com- nificant benefits: ponents from factory to site may be prohibitive for using off-site construction in some cases • Scalability: Building components or modules depending on the location of the supplier (local within manufacturing facilities allows for mass versus international). production. School buildings are suitable for off-site construc- • Quality: Factory conditions make it possible to tion because of the need for large numbers of iden- turn out components of better, more consistent tical classrooms. Carefully designed prefabricated quality and with fewer defects than when pro- structures can deliver learning environments that ducing them outdoors in changeable weather. are bright, adaptable to different configurations, and conducive to the use of contemporary methods • Quality of materials: Factory construction pro- of teaching and learning. duces all of the structural elements of a building from the same material and of the same quality, The demand for educational infrastructure in some which can ensure that they can be assembled under-developed and developing countries is 1 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction huge. In these countries, traditional construction programs are not delivering the number of school buildings required to reduce the deficit, nor are they being built to an acceptable quality standard. The scalability, speed, quality, and cost-effectiveness achievable with off-site construction make it a very attractive proposition for large school building pro- grams. Design-led prefabrication can be responsive to specific standards, local conditions, and any budget. As with traditional construction, it can be deployed with community participation. Off-site construction is not a cure-all for every edu- cation building, but solid experience has demon- strated that, when design-led and reasonably applied, it has the potential to make a transforma- tional difference in enabling countries to meet the growing need for schools and classrooms. It can have the greatest impact in places where the deficit in education infrastructure is large and the need to reduce it is urgent. 2 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction Background According to the United Nations Sustainable Devel- traditional on-site construction. However, there is opment Goal 4, to achieve inclusive and equitable a need for a more detailed analysis of the benefits education for all, countries around the world should and constraints of taking this approach in develop- “build and upgrade education facilities that are ing countries and more exploration of how it could child, disability, and gender-sensitive and provide be deployed in different scenarios. safe, non-violent, inclusive, and effective learning environments for all.” The provision of educational infrastructure is a crit- ical challenge for many of the World Bank’s client countries, especially for its low-income members. In the infrastructure components of projects, which usually cover the construction and rehabilitation of educational facilities, the World Bank needs to support countries in defining their long-term plans for closing their educational infrastructure gaps. Across the world, approximately 59 million children of primary school age don’t have access to school facilities, most of whom are concentrated in Africa and South Asia.1 This is happening in the context of a rapidly changing demography in these countries and, therefore, requires solutions that are quick, scalable, and financially viable. Recent studies have shown that students perform better in schools with better physical learning envi- ronments. New technologies and emerging peda- gogical practices have created new requirements for educational buildings. As a result, new approaches are needed to building learning environments that will not only spaces conducive for children to learn but also increase the efficiency of investments in educational infrastructure. One approach, which many countries have recently introduced, is to standardize the design of school buildings and build them off-site. Creating a stand- ard design provides a baseline for quality school infrastructure and makes it easier to manage including planning, construction, and maintenance. The practice of constructing buildings off-site also referred to as prefabrication, modular construction, or panel-built construction. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to all of these construction prac- tices as off-site construction. Off-site construction is commonly considered a cheaper and quicker way to procure buildings than 1 UNESCO (2019). 3 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Overview Off-site construction is the term used to describe includes 75 percent of prefabricated elements, the factory production of substantial elements of a which made it possible to create 36 classrooms and building that are then delivered to a site for assembly. to complete the building within a short period of 13 months. It also reduced on-site construction waste, Off-site construction can dramatically increase the labor input, and building time as the prefabs were efficiency of the construction process. Applying it supplied from a local factory.4 In Australia, fast pop- effectively requires knowledge of standardization, ulation growth and the need for school infrastruc- production, installation, interface issues, assembly, ture prompted local authorities to invest in prefab and transport logistics. To maximize the benefits classrooms. For example, the provincial Victorian from off-site construction, it is essential to adopt a government has built 100 modular school build- manufacturing rather than a construction approach ings across the region over a four-year period. The and to understand the economics and client-re- research team from the Australian Research Coun- lated benefits that influence building design and cil Training Centre for Advanced Manufacturing of decisions about which kind of construction to use. Prefabricated Housing (CAMPH) at the University of Melbourne supported the project by collecting best There is a growing global trend towards the use of practices on modular classroom design and tech- off-site construction. Significant developments in nologies.5 construction methodologies have taken place in the last few years that relate to advances in other There is also strong interest in Europe in harness- industries like energy, automotive, aircraft, and ing the potential of digital technologies to stream- shipbuilding. line manufacturing and building construction. From Lapland to Munich, house manufacturers are using Prefabrication is on the agenda of governments computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided and commercial businesses across the world. In manufacturing (CAM) production lines, many work- Europe, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, the ing with timber. In Sweden, a large percentage of United States, New Zealand, and Australia, it is seen families live in high-quality, fair-priced, prefabri- as an important way to improve quality and increase cated houses. In Germany, there are different dis- value within the usually slow-changing construction play villages and exhibitions, that regularly show- industry. The number of different types of buildings case houses from different manufacturers and constructed using modular elements is growing demonstrate that there is a prefab dwelling for across the world. For example, the current share of every taste and every budget and that sustaina- off-site housing in total new housing in Sweden, ble design is vital. Austria also has several display Denmark, and Norway is 45 percent, while in China villages designed and built by private developers. it accounts for 6 percent. Singapore builds 20,000 For example, the Blaue Lagune facility near Vienna to 30,000 modular units per year supported by a features not only the houses of different producers special policy system that incentivizes the construc- but also other construction features of prefab.6 In tion industry to embrace modular construction.2 the UK, hotel chains such as Travelodge use modu- According to a recent study by McKinsey and Co., the lar construction for new projects and often the fit- widespread use of off-site construction in Europe tings and furnishings are also shipped in modules.7 and the United States could generate annual sav- Recently, prefabricated student housing projects ings of up to US$22 billion, including US$3 billion in with as many as 20 floors have been completed. savings in new school buildings.3 There are already The UK’s industry body, Build Off-Site, which has a successful examples of off-site construction tech- strong research focus, is working hard to redefine nologies being used specifically for school build- prefabrication as efficient, sustainable, and quality ings. For example, Jinlong school in Shenzhen, China driven. Larger manufacturers are becoming increas- 2 Xu et al (2019). 4 3 Bertram et al (2019). 4 Design bureau “Crossboundaries” completed the construction of the prefabricated Jinlong school in only 13 months. URL: https://www.designboom.com/ architecture/crossboundaries-prefabricated-jinlong-school-shenzhen-china-05-05-2020/ 5 Heath and Gunawardena (2018). 6 https://www.blauelagune.at/fertighaus 7 https://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4034349.html ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction ingly innovative and design-led.8 In addition, during Figure 1. Main types of off-site construction the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries started systems and materials to use modular technologies to create emergency CLOSED SYSTEMS OPEN SYSTEMS hospitals wards and additional medical units. This happened in the UK, and the country’s National OD ST EE O Health Service (NHS) has issued special guidelines W L for design and planning specialists containing the Skeleton systems Panelised systems Modular systems key requirements for using modular methods to build units for healthcare use.9 In Japan, prefabrication is synonymous with inno- vation and quality, particularly in the housing market. Toyota has been applying their lean manu- facturing principles to their Japanese housing divi- CONC TE RE sion since 1976. Other Japanese companies such LIGHT WEIGHT MEDIUM WEIGHT HEAVY WEIGHT as Sekisui Heim work with finite component sets SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEMS from which they can offer their clients a controlled Source: J. Albus, K. E. Hollmann-Schröter, 2022 degree of customization while building high qual- ity, architect-designed, and competitively-priced Skeleton homes in a fraction of the time needed to use con- ventional site-built methods.10 Most of these com- Skeleton systems include structural elements such panies did not evolve out of traditional craft-based as columns, beams, flooring, and roofing elements construction firms but were deliberately set up by that are pre-cut, pre-sized, pre-molded, and/or pre- building material companies to create a showcase shaped that can be assembled or installed on site. for their products. Japan is now exporting its expe- Typically, the exterior is put together on-site from rience with modular construction technologies to building components made from different materials. other countries. For example, in 2019 Sekisui Heim moved its office to the United Kingdom to support Figure 2. Timber skeleton system the government-led affordable housing program implemented by Homes England11 to deliver thou- sands of new houses across the country.12 The United States has an active industry body, The Modular Building Institute, which conducts research and hosts seminars, conferences, and exhibitions. Prefabrication’s speed and greater cost has pro- voked increased interest among those in the con- struction industry as well as among architects, who are now embracing design-led prefabrication, inspired by a number of influential books.13 Source: J. Albus, P. Meuser, 2018 This widespread interest in and experience with emerging off-site design and construction technol- Figure 3. Prefabricated concrete skeleton frame ogies means that prefabrication is now more viable building, building site and relevant than ever. Systems There are three main systems of off-site construc- tion: skeleton (2D), panelized (2D), and modular or volumetric (3D). These systems can be used on their own, used as hybrids with each other, or used in con- junction with traditional construction approaches. The components can be made up of any material, including timber, concrete, metal, and composite materials, or a combination of any or all of them. Source: Dolores M. Harvey/Shutterstock.com 8 https://www.buildoffsite.com/ 5 9 https://www.property.nhs.uk/media/2456/covid-19-modular-building-guidance-document_nhs-property-services.pdf 10 https://www.sekisuichemical.com/about/division/housing/index.html 11 https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/homes-england 12 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/boost-for-housing-market-as-japans-biggest-housebuilder-sekisui-house-moves-into-uk 13 Arieff and Burkhart (year?) and Kieran and Timberlake (year?). ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction Panelized Modular/Volumetric Panelized systems consist of two-dimensional flat These are three-dimensional units built in factory panel units, such as walls, floors, and roofs, that conditions that enclose usable space and are then are built in a factory and transported to the build- delivered for rapid on-site installation or assembly ing site to be assembled into a three-dimensional with other such modules [check]. These modules structure or to be fitted within an existing structure. are usually fully finished internally, which drasti- These panels can be structural, architectural, or ser- cally reduces the amount of time needed on-site to vice elements or a hybrid. The materials used are finish the entire building. typically precast concrete, cross-laminated timber, or structural insulated panels. These units can be delivered as part of a collection (to be stacked side-by-side and on top of each other The panels can be pre-fitted with all electrical and to make a complete building) or as a self-contained mechanical services such as water feeder pipes single unit (a small standalone building). What trans- or light switch fittings. They can then be rapidly portation is available determines how large and assembled on-site to form a complete building. heavy a module can be. Site handling and assembly require specialist equipment and labor skills. Flat panels simplify transport and handling and facilitate mass customization in that a “family” of Intermodal shipping containers and bathroom or elements can be incorporated in different ways to kitchen pods are common types of volumetric systems. suit a client’s specific need. Figure 4. Panelized timber system – an example of Figure 6. Site assembly of modular units cross-laminated timber and site assembly Source: Flystock/Shutterstock.com Source: Martin Bilek/Shutterstock.com Figure 5. Panelized timber system – assembly Figure 7. Stacking arrangements for shipping diagram of cross-laminated timber containers FORMING SPACES STACKING There are two ways you can construct a container The containers’ steel frame is intended for building with respect to how you want to position elementary stacking, one on top of the other. This containers relative to each other. You can either is easy and fast but if you’re not careful it can stack units close together into an indivisible whole, result in boring and monotonous buildings. But the or set them apart to create open spaces in spatial potential of container architecture is between. The former approach is often used for endless and appeal of creativity and imagination. simpler projects, especially those that will With proper static reinforcement, containers can eventually have to move, with the downside being be stacked and combined with other materials in double construction patterns. The latter approach any number of ways to create out-of-the-box is used if you want to create a more diverse floor innovative systems buildings. plan and include other construction materials, such as steel or wood. You need fewer containers to create the same interior surface. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it strips the building off mobility – one of containers’ main features. Containers stacked in Creating spaces in dynamic compositions is between containers. eye catching but usually needs additional static reinforcement. Creating spaces with containers one next to the Stacking containers one other. 43 on top of the other. Source: J. Albus, P. Meuser, 2018 Source: Authors 6 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction The use of containers as a building module has grown Figure 8. Traditional building skills within a factory in popularity over the past several years due to their environment inherent strength, wide availability, quick assembly, and relatively low expense. Due to their shape and material, shipping containers can be easily modified to fit many purposes and have been used extensively for residential, commercial, and educational projects. Containers have also been used as temporary struc- tures after an earthquake or other natural disasters. Technical requirements for implementation Standardized design Source: Stockfour/Shutterstock.com When the design of building components is stand- Figure 9. Automated building works within a high- ardized, this optimizes the manufacturing processes. tech factory environment When a factory produces the same or similar com- ponents repeatedly, it can set up efficient assem- bly lines, use specialized machinery, and implement automation wherever possible. Standardized design also ensures a high level of precision and consist- ency in the manufacturing of components. When a standardized set of components is produced in large quantities, this results in economies of scale. Fabrication The way in which building components are manu- factured depends on the level of sophistication in Source: Peter Kappes, 2022 a given factory. At the most basic level, the method is similar to what can be found on a conventional to the final construction site, which minimizes any building site where the structure is built one element transportation constraints. They also make it pos- at a time. However, a factory setting has safer and sible to use local or community workers, which can better working conditions, higher quality workman- benefit the economy of the project area. They are ship, reduced waste, and a lower risk of inclement particularly useful in the case of large-scale projects. weather disrupting project schedules than outdoor building sites. The more advanced factories have Transport moving production lines and make extensive use of automatization and ergonomic aids for workers, Regardless of what is constructed in an off-site fac- similar to the situation in the automotive industry. tory, all components have to be transported to the construction site, typically by road, rail, or sea (or a The degree to which each building component is combination of all of these). Transportation by road finished when it leaves the factory on the back of a is dependent upon what vehicles and traffic routes truck varies between manufacturers. The more work are available. done in the factory, the less work and installation time will be required on-site. The transportation of modular (3D) buildings is dependent on what size of component can be lifted Flying factories, or temporary facilities set up near a and delivered safely to the site by ground transport. construction site, either manufacture components Special transport is sometimes needed because mod- from scratch or preassemble flat-pack components ular elements can be too large for regular-size trucks. before they are put together on-site. Flying factories minimize the logistics involved in transporting the Panelized and skeleton systems (2D) tend to take components from the factory to the building site. up less space so they can normally be transported They also enable larger components (for example, by the same trucks that transport bulk materials for volumetric) to be manufactured in close proximity traditional construction. 7 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction Figure 10. Large, specialist vehicles needed to Figure 12. Cranes being used to erect/assemble transport modular volumetric (3D) systems large and heavy building components Source: Pursuit, University of Melbourne, 2018 Source: JRP Studio/Shutterstock.com Figure 11. Panelized (2D) and skeleton systems Figure 13. Lightweight wall panel designed for being transported in flat packs self-build Source: Zigmunds Dizgalvis/Shutterstock.com Source: Viacheslav Nikolaenko /Shutterstock.com Assembly Assembling all of the components made off-site involves lifting and carefully placing them by crane, whether they are part of a panelized system or are already complete (as in volumetric systems). What lifting equipment is available will dictate what size and weight of prefabricated elements can be used. The components can be assembled by the manu- facturer, the contractor, or locally trained workforce. Depending on the complexity of the prefabricated elements, specialist workers might be required to assemble components. Some manufacturers send their own specialists to the site to manage the assembly. For sites where no lifting equipment is available, lightweight flat pack systems are available or can be specifically designed that can then be manu- ally handled and assembled. These systems usu- ally come with instruction manuals and require only simple manual tools for be assembled. 8 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction Benefits and constraints of off- Volumetric modular construction minimizes time on-site as the 3D modules are almost entirely com- site construction plete when delivered. Table 1: Benefits and constraints of off-site construction Consistent Quality of Materials and Components Benefits Constraints Building components in a factory-controlled envi- Scalability Standardized design ronment makes it possible to achieve a consistent Reduced project duration Procurement high level of quality. This has been confirmed by Consistent quality Transport and handling independent experts, who have highlighted the Reduced cost Manufacturers and supply chain superior quality of prefabricated buildings over tra- Sustainability Negative public perception ditionally built structures15. Health and safety Regionalism Factory production creates controlled conditions Benefits within which it is possible to minimize variations in quality that might arise when building on-site out- Off-site construction has many advantages over doors in a changing environment. There are simply traditional on-site construction. fewer opportunities for errors to occur in the build- ing process as there is more quality control in a fac- Scalability tory than on a construction site. This is likely to make the resulting building more durable and less in need Similar to how standardization works in the car of maintenance over time as well as translating into industry, manufacturing standardized building reduced energy and maintenance costs. components in factories can increase productivity. It also makes it possible to scale up manufactur- Reduced Cost ing quickly and to deliver simultaneous projects in Prefabricating a standardized design is, by its a short time. nature, an efficient use of materials and resources. One of the great economies related to off-site con- Reduced Project Duration struction is that it is possible to repeatedly man- ufacture the same 2D or 3D building components Compared to traditional construction methods, in controlled conditions, which not only minimizes using prefabricated systems can lead to signifi- waste but also increases cost certainty. Calculations cant reductions in both cost and time.14 Because of the cost savings of off-site construction for each the off-site fabrication process takes place in par- project need to be made in the overall context of allel with site preparation activities, this can signif- the project, including its beneficial impact on the icantly reduce the overall construction period of a project’s duration and risks. While off-site construc- project. This also results in more predictable com- tion adds the overheads involved in using a factory, pletion dates because the project is less depend- it also leads to much higher labor productivity and ent on good weather. The amount of time required less waste of materials. Many costs are associated on-site to construct the final building will depend directly or indirectly with the duration of the project, on how many of the components were built off-site which, as discussed above, can be greatly reduced and how many were built using traditional methods. by building components or units off-site. Figure 14. Project duration Modular Construction Schedule Design Permits & Site Development & Install Eng. Approvals Foundations & Site Time Savings Restoration Building Construction at Plant Simultaneous Site Development and Building Constructions at the Plant has buildings open 30% to 50% sooner! Site Built Construction Schedule Design Permits & Site Development & Building Site Eng. Approvals Foundations Constrution Restoration Source: “Modular Building Institute. What is modular construction?” 14 Navaratnam et al (2019). 9 15 Hairstans, R. (2014). ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction A potential downside of off-site construction is the analysis of US residential buildings found that need to transport the components from the fac- buildings made by traditional construction meth- tory to the building site. Depending on the distance ods accounted for 95 percent of electricity con- between the two and depending on what trans- sumption and 92 percent of GHG emissions, while portation infrastructure is available, transportation construction of such buildings accounted for 57 costs can sometimes be considerable. However, percent of toxic air emissions and 51 percent of haz- these costs can be minimized if regular bulk orders ardous waste generation.19 In contrast, off-site pre- can be secured, which can then lead to economies fabrication ensures that the materials needed for a of scale and to significant cost savings compared building are delivered to the site in accurate quan- with traditional building methods. tities, less waste is produced, and deliveries are less frequent and more efficient, leading to less noise, Sustainability dust, and litter thereby benefiting the local environ- ment. Analyses on off-site construction have shown As of 2018, the buildings and construction sector that waste can be reduced by up to 15 percent over globally accounted for 39 percent of energy and conventional construction practices.20 According process-related CO2 emissions, and 36 percent of to international data, about 30 percent of all the final energy use.16 For example, a recent assessment material delivered to traditional construction sites in the UK indicated that 45 percent of emissions becomes waste. Alternatively, off-site construc- from schools come from construction and 37 per- tion, combined with special software products cent from the buildings themselves, largely due to such as building information modeling (BIM), can energy use and inefficiencies.17 Both energy con- reduce waste to almost zero.21 BIM makes it possi- sumption and emissions from the buildings and ble to model different scenarios in the building pro- construction sector worldwide reached all-times cess and make more informed decisions regarding high in 2022, increasing by 5 percent over 2020 on-site operations and waste management. levels, despite increasing global investments aimed at increasing energy efficiency and lowering energy Box 1: Industrialized Building Systems (IBS) intensity.18 in Malaysia The government and industry in Malaysia have Curbing emissions of greenhouse gases will require started using Industrialized Building Systems that the industry uses all resources more efficiently. (IBS) to reduce the environmental impact of Traditional construction practices involve many construction. IBS uses prefabricated compo- environmental hazards including biodiversity loss, nents and on-site installation of precast ele- soil degradation, and the generation of waste from ments such as floor slabs, in-filled walls, bath- exploiting virgin land such as forests and wetlands, rooms, and staircases. If these components as well as air, noise, and water pollution, the over- were built on-site, this would involve multiple exploitation of natural resources (including non-re- trades such as steel building, formwork fabrica- newable resources), the excessive consumption tion and concreting, as well as a high depend- of water and energy, and high carbon emissions. ence on foreign labor. This tends to be labor-in- Off-site construction, on the other hand, involves tensive and inefficient and to increase energy minimal site disturbance, a tightly managed flow of use, GHG emissions and transport costs. materials, and minimized construction waste, all of which reduce the environmental impact of the con- The 2010 study found that the use IBS meth- struction process. ods in Malaysia had reduced waste produc- tion, GHG emissions, construction time and By using factory-based production lines to produce costs, and labor intensity. In the case of one components, accurate cutting, aligning, screwing, building built using off-site construction, the nailing, painting, and handling is possible, which study found a drastic reduction in waste gen- drastically reduces waste materials and packag- eration of as low as 1.5 tons 100 m-2 com- ing. What waste is produced can be controlled and pared to 54.6 tons 100 m-2 in traditional con- recycled. struction practices. Furthermore, the study found that the off-site construction process When traditional building methods are used, there increased the reuse and recycling of waste, as are constant deliveries of materials and removal of 94 percent of waste generated at the IBS site waste to and from the construction site whereas had been reused and recycled versus 73 per- off-site construction means less construction traf- cent at the traditional building site. fic. Also, traditional construction processes release Source: Begum et al (2010). toxic air emissions and use toxic materials. A 2002 16 https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/3da9daf9-ef75-4a37-b3da-a09224e299dc/2019_Global_Status_Report_for_Buildings_and_Construction.pdf 10 17 https://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/Publish_Schools_Carbon_Strategy.pdf 18 https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/co2-emissions-buildings-and-construction-hit-new-high-leaving-sector 19 https://www.academia.edu/8892381/Economic_Input-output_Life-cycle_Assessment_of_U.S._Residential_Buildings 20 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/096132100368948 21 https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Operations/Our%20Insights/Voices%20on%20Infrastructure%20Scaling%20modular%20 construction/GII-Voices-Sept-2019.pdf ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction Off-site construction techniques also have the Analysis of the economic and environmental impact potential to increase the energy efficiency of fin- of different methods of prefabricated construction ished structures through better standards of insu- such as sustainable ratings systems, “whole build- lation. Because the buildings are designed to be ing” performance practices, lifecycle assessments26 disassembled and relocated to different sites, this (LCA), or lifecycle costing (LCC)27 has shown the means that whole buildings can be reused or recy- prefab construction can yield significant benefits. cled. By 2050, more than 80% of additional energy The economic benefits include reductions in con- consumption is expected to come from the exist- struction time and intensive workloads, while the ing building stock, and not new buildings (in high environmental benefits include significant reduc- income countries). Using off-site prefabricated pro- tions in material consumption and carbon emissions, totypes for whole building renovation concepts, increased energy efficiency, and less air and sound rather than single renovation measures, such as pollution. However, there are some downsides integrated HVAC, water and solar systems with pre- to off-site construction. In some cases, it involves fabricated roof systems, and overall highly insulated higher capital costs and higher energy use through envelopes with integrated distribution systems for overheating or overcooling, while transportation heating, cooling and ventilation can help realize costs can be considerable, especially if prefabri- energy efficiency to standards comparable with new cated buildings have to be sourced internationally.28 and advanced low energy buildings while also opti- Ultimately, the economic and environmental bene- mizing cost efficiency and construction quality.22 fits of using off-site construction will depend largely on local conditions, including the weather, geogra- A 2012 comparative analysis of company-wide phy, supply chain, stakeholders, and capital costs emissions from three modular construction compa- involved. nies and five on-site construction companies in the United States found that GHG emissions from tra- Prefabricated construction can be used for both ditional construction practices were around 40 per- residential and commercial buildings, including cent higher than those from off-site construction.23 schools, but it can also be used to build the road On-site construction companies produced, on aver- infrastructure needed to get people to markets age, nearly 6 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per 2000 and children to school. For instance, in many low square foot home more than houses built using off- and middle-income countries (LMICs), bridges are site construction.24 A study of residential buildings in critical components of transport networks but are South Korea that compared embodied carbon emis- highly vulnerable to natural hazards and climate sions from both modular buildings and conventional change. Box 2 discusses the construction of mod- buildings found that the embodied carbon emissions ular bridges in the Solomon Islands to replace dete- from major construction materials used during mod- riorating bridge infrastructure and to enhance the ular construction production were 36 percent lower country’s climate resilience. than those from conventional construction (see Figure 15 below).25 However, the direct construction costs of the modular buildings were 8 percent higher Box 2: Climate Change and Infrastructure in than those of the traditionally constructed buildings. the Solomon Islands Figure 15. Comparison of embodied carbon The Solomon Islands experiences 3,000 to emissions from modular versus reinforced 5,000mm of rainfall every year. This coupled concrete (RC) buildings with the impacts of climate change and natu- 220,000 ral disasters makes critical infrastructure highly 200,000 Stone vulnerable to severe damage. The Ministry of 180,000 Sand Infrastructure Development (MID) faces the 160,000 Block challenge of replacing deteriorating bridge Carbon Emissions 140,000 Tile infrastructure while balancing costs and ensur- 120,000 Rebar ing the long-term performance, sustainability, 100,000 Steel RMC Cement and climate resilience of its roads and bridges. 80,000 Gypsum board With grant funding from its Quality Infrastruc- 60,000 RMC Glass ture Investment (QII) Partnership with the Gov- 40,000 Steel ernment of Japan, MID undertook a study to 20,000 Metal RMC assess the feasibility, design, and procurement Metal 0 Metal of modular bridges for the Solomon Islands, Modular (Lamination) RC taking into account environmental and social Source: Jang et al, 2022 22 http://www.ecbcs.org/Data/publications/EBC_Annex_50_Factsheet.pdf 26 Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a method for quantifying the total environmental 11 23 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239769075_Construction_Matters_ impact of a product or service across its entire lifetime. Comparing_Environmental_Impacts_of_Building_Modular_and_Conventional_ 27 Life-cycle costing (LCC) is a method through which the direct monetary costs Homes_in_the_United_States involved with a product or service are examined across its entire lifetime. 24 Ibid. 28 https://researchprofiles.canberra.edu.au/en/publications/environmental-and- 25 Jang et al (2022). economic-performance-of-prefabricated-construct ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction Standardization considerations, the need to reduce costs and to build the country’s resilience to natural dis- The efficiency of off-site construction increases as asters. By the end of 2024, four new bridges the degree of design standardization increases. This using innovative bridge technologies will be means that variation in the design of the modules upgraded as a pilot through the Solomon being produced needs to be kept to a minimum, but Islands Roads and Aviation Project. if the design is fit for purpose, this lack of variation Source: https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects- does not necessarily represent bad architecture. operations/project-detail/P166622 Design-led prefabrication can achieve variation, interest, and presence by using the various modules The modular construction of buildings and road creatively within the parameters of the technical infrastructure also has the potential to accelerate brief of the building project. reconstruction after disasters and making it possi- ble to construct permanent replacement infrastruc- Procurement ture very quickly instead of temporary structures in the wake of disasters. However, the choice between To maximize the benefits of off-site construction it off-site versus traditional construction practices is necessary to adopt a ‘design for manufacture and must take into account local geological and hydro- Assembly (DFMA)’ process from the start of the project. logical conditions, logistical complexities (such as transport, weight of components, and costs), and The design must be agreed and completed (Design local conditions and needs. Freeze) prior to production work. Design Freeze within an off-site construction process is important Health and Safety because late design changes can be costly and dif- ficult to implement due to the necessity for re-work. Transferring much of a construction program from an open site to a controlled factory environment For any large building program, centralized pro- (where the work process is easier to control) reduces curement is crucial, and in most cases, it will choose the potential for site-based accidents and ill health. to use one particular provider to manufacture the Health and safety are easier to control in a factory majority of its building components. because most of the work can be conducted at waist height and because workers are familiar with Transport and Handling and have been trained to use the factory’s machin- ery and systems.29 The larger and heavier the building components, the higher the specifications of the necessary vehi- During outbreaks of illness, such as COVID-19, social cles, routes, and handling equipment. distancing is much more possible within a factory environment. This can reduce the risk of contagion Some sites might be very difficult or costly for deliv- dramatically. As a result, the off-site construction ery vehicles to access. For projects in remote areas industry was less affected by the pandemic than the with poor road infrastructure, project managers traditional construction sector. should consider ordering smaller, more light-weight components that do not need to be delivered by The pandemic also led to increased use of off- enormous vehicles. site construction technologies to build additional emergency hospitals to deal with the heavy load of Figure 16. Lightweight building components being COVID cases. For example, in China a new 1,000- transported by the same vehicles used to transport bed hospital was built in just 10 days.30 In the UK, bulk materials for traditional construction new sections of the Grange University Hospital in South Wales included 661 horizontal corridor mod- ules and 243 bathroom pods manufactured from 3D models.31 Constraints Although off-site construction offers many advan- tages over traditional on-site construction, there are some constraints on its implementation. Source: Soong Kim Huei/Shutterstock.com 29 https://blogs.worldbank.org/ppps/modular-bridges-climate-resilient-solution-small-bridges-pacific?cid=SHR_BlogSite 12 30 https://redshift.autodesk.com/modular-hospitals/ 31 https://www.fenwickelliott.com/research-insight/annual-review/2020/covid-19-revolution-offsite-modular-construction ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction Building project managers need to compare the cost Figure 17. School in Bhutan, World Bank project of transportation, time in transit, and the location of (2003-2011) the supplier(s) of prefab construction components with the equivalent for traditional construction. In low-income countries, there may not be a trans- port company capable of delivering the necessary components from the factory to the building site. For a large project, it might be possible to estab- lish a temporary factory as close as possible to the site, thus greatly simplifying the logistics involved in transporting large building components. Manufacturers and Supply Chain The off-site construction industry is developing fast. However, the vast majority of off-site construc- Source: Rajiv Aggarwal, 2010 tion activity currently happens in Europe, Japan, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia. Local Employment and Skills Because few off-site construction companies yet exist in developing countries, project managers in Another concern about the increasing use of off- those countries currently have to rely on imports of site construction is that this will result in the loss of prefab components until local factories are devel- traditional trades and local craftsmanship. oped. Regardless of their origin, these components will need to be aligned with local building standards However, there are other opportunities to develop and certification schemes. and upgrade the skills of local workers. If they live close to the manufacturing site, they could receive Regulatory Framework training in modern design, fabrication, logistics, and assembly techniques. If they live close to the con- For an effective off-site construction industry struction site, the local workforce can gain new skills to develop in any country, it will be important to and a sense of ownership by participating in the establish a national regulatory framework govern- preparation of the site and in the on-site assembly ing the standards and norms of construction and of the buildings. the certification of construction specialists. The regulations should also cover the planning, design- ing, fabricating, assembling, and quality inspection Quality/cost relationship of new buildings as well as requirements for energy efficiency and water conservation. Circumstances most often dictate which prefabri- cated system is the most appropriate choice in any One concern about using “off-the-shelf” buildings given situation. In the case of emergency accom- in a large construction project might be that the modation required after natural disasters, modu- buildings are not suitable for the area in which they lar units – often consisting of shipping containers are being deployed. However, if prefabrication is (provided that transportation is feasible) or simple design-led, then adaptable solutions can be found panelized structures – are the best choice, both for that take into account specific social, cultural, and their speed of construction and costs. Modular units regulatory contexts. are designed to the required standards for the spe- cific accommodation, be it classrooms, offices, sport Negative Public Perception facilities, places of worship, etc. If these modules are not perfectly suited to meet a particular need, they There is still a general public perception that associ- can be further design-articulated to fit the project ates prefabricated buildings with temporary, uninspir- requirements. ing, and sub-standard buildings. However, modern off-site construction delivers buildings that bear little Tailor-made prefabricated designs are most com- resemblance to the old-style portables (see Figure 17). monly used for permanent structures and in situ- The new generation of prefabricated buildings con- ations where clients have stringent requirements sists mostly of permanent structures built to modern for their building’s performance and design. These building standards that mirror the technical charac- prefabricated buildings are built to the same qual- teristics of good quality traditionally built structures. ity standards and lifespan as any traditionally built 13 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction Figure 18. Costs and quality in prefabricated structure and are actually a more advanced method school design of construction in that they use the latest devel- Cost Custom Designs opments in prefabrication technology (including 3D printing) and are more efficient in terms of their use of resources and materials. Given that they are Articulated Standard also being built faster, are more resilient to natural Designs hazards such as earthquakes, and are more environ- mentally friendly and sustainable, it can be argued that prefabricated buildings are one of the most Basic Standard advanced construction techniques of the present Designs time. Several design-led prefabricated buildings have been given awards for the quality of their architecture. For example, Burntwood School in the UK was awarded the RIBA Stirling Prize in 2015, the Quality country’s most prestigious award for architecture. Source: Authors Figure 19. Standard school building construction Figure 20. Prefabricated Burntwood school using shipping containers (left) and a more design awarded the RIBA Stirling Prize 2015 articulated school using the same modular units (right) Source: Authors Source: David Anstiss / Burntwood School, Wandsworth (2) / CC BY-SA 2.0 Box 3: Initiatives and Centers of Knowledge Around the world, there are many active industry bodies dedicated to advancing the off-site con- struction industry. These are just a few examples. Loughborough University Offsite Construction. A resource to help people in the construction industry to make better use of off-site manufacturing, standardization, and pre-assembly tech- niques during the construction process. https://offsite.lboro.ac.uk/  The Australian Research Council Training Centre for Advanced Manufacturing of Prefabricated Housing (CAMPH) at the University of Melbourne. Led by researchers working on modular class- rooms. https://camph.eng.unimelb.edu.au/  Modular Construction Codes Board at Monash University. Handbook for the design of modular structures. http://www.mccb.org.au/ National Institute of Building Sciences – Off-Site Construction Council. A research, education, and outreach center for relevant and current information on off-site design and construction for com- mercial, institutional, and multi-family facilities. https://www.nibs.org/page/oscc PrefabAUS. The hub for off-site construction in Australia. https://www.prefabaus.org.au/ 14 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction Buildoffsite. Creates and sustains a dynamic work program that both supports increased aware- ness of off-site solutions and the increased value that they can enable. It also challenges the off- site supply side to improve and promote the value of their solutions. https://www.buildoffsite.com/ Modular Building Institute. Trade association for modular construction in the US. http://www.mod- ular.org/ Off Site Construction Hub. Online information center dedicated to keeping the world of off-site manufacturing and technology connected. https://www.offsitehub.co.uk/home/ Modular and Portable Building Association. Plays a key role in connecting all sectors of the mod- ular and portable building industry in the US together. https://mpba.biz/ Prefab New Zealand.  A non-profit membership organization that informs, educates, and advo- cates for innovation and excellence in off-site design and construction in New Zealand. http://www. prefabnz.com/ Container Home Association.  Provides information, plans, drawings, designs, and guidelines on how to convert shipping containers into buildings that can be also used for educational purposes. It promotes container technology as well as providing information on laws and ordinances globally that allow it to be used for building and construction. http://containerhomeassociation.org/index.htm the prefab buildings could include raised founda- Resilience of off-site construction tions and flood-resistant materials such as con- in natural hazard-prone areas crete, stone, or treated wood and be designed to withstand strong winds and water currents).35 In order to use off-site construction in a specific geographical area, it is important to factor the Also, in many natural hazard-prone countries (for area’s unique emergency characteristics into all example, in Japan, Korea, Australia, Pakistan, and designs, including those for educational facilities. New Zealand), off-site construction technology has Certain regions may be prone to flooding, while been used to design residential housing in emer- others are vulnerable to droughts, earthquakes, gencies or during post-disaster reconstruction. wildfires, or hurricanes. In addition, climate change Because the technology is time-efficient, can be may be increasing the frequency and severity of produced on demand, and needs little onsite labor, such events.32/33 The Sendai Framework for Disaster it can be used to shelter vulnerable populations in Risk Reduction, which was approved by the United short periods of time.36,37,38,39 Nations in 2015, urges all stakeholders, including governments and the private sector to invest in It is crucial to make a precise determination of all disaster risk reduction measures and enhance their hazards that could possibly affect a building when disaster risk preparedness for effective response.34 the project is first being planned. For example, in Australia, bushfire hazard site assessments are car- Off-site construction is not a prescribed answer but ried out before every building project to evaluate can be a flexible and adaptable way to react to spe- the Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) ratings of the site cific emergency situations. Dwellings constructed by and to identify what materials can be supplied via traditional methods can collapse or incur non-rep- off-site construction.40 These kinds of assessments arable structural damage, and off-site construction provide a basis for construction professionals (such can help to address these risks by providing more as architects, suppliers, and contractors) to come sustainable structures. up with appropriate architectural and engineering solutions to address specific hazards. For example, in earthquake-prone areas, it is possi- ble to design and engineer prefab units that meet There are several key benefits that off-site construc- stringent seismic standards. These might include tion can bring to building projects in areas prone to lightweight and shock-absorbent materials with natural hazards. flexible connections to dissipate seismic forces. In an area where wildfires are common, the deployment Quality Control of prefab units made from non-combustible mate- rial (for example, fire-resistant lightweight concrete Manufacturing prefabricated components in the panels) would be appropriate. In flood-prone areas, controlled environment of a factory allows for the 32 National Building Research Organisation (2015). 37 https://www.bosai-jp.org/en/solution/detail/61/category 15 33 https://www.wbdg.org/design-objectives/secure-safe/natural-hazards-mitigation 38 https://thefifthestate.com.au/articles/prefab-industry-set-for-more-business- 34 https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/what-sendai-framework after-australias-bushfires/ 35 Upasiri et al (2022). 39 Shahzad et al (2022). 36 Maly and Iwata (2019). 40 https://research.csiro.au/bushfire/assessing-bushfire-hazards/hazard-assessment/ ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction application of strict quality control measures. This Time Efficiency ensures that construction materials and com- ponents meet the required standards for hazard Off-site construction and subsequent assembly are resistance to reduce the risk that buildings will significantly faster than traditional building meth- suffer structural failures during natural disasters. For ods. As such, it is commonly used to speed up the example, a newly built factory in Brisbane (Australia) reconstruction process after natural disasters. Since produces standardized prefab designs that reflect the components can be manufactured while the the requirements related to Queensland’s four key site is being prepared, the construction process as climate zones and those in the National Construc- a whole is expedited. This can be critical in areas tion Code, including energy efficiency and accessi- where the risk of natural disasters is high, as it ena- bility standards.41 bles families to occupy the buildings quickly and minimizes workers’ exposure to hazards during con- Precision Engineering struction. Off-site construction involves precise engineer- Code Compliance ing and manufacturing processes. This precision can enhance a structure's ability to withstand nat- Off-site modular construction can facilitate compli- ural disasters by ensuring that the components fit ance with local building codes and safety require- together seamlessly and that the structure is built ments related to natural hazards because it is gov- to withstand specific loads and forces such as erned by strict manufacturing standards. earthquakes, floods, or high winds. Off-site construction techniques for different Structural Resilience natural hazards The use of off-site construction often results in Specific construction solutions are usually applied in structures that are inherently more resilient to nat- the case of different natural hazards (see Table 2), ural hazards than those built by traditional meth- all of which are achievable with off-site construction ods. Modules can be designed to withstand specific building methods. The specific recommendations environmental conditions, such as earthquakes or may vary based on local regulations, geological con- hurricanes, and can be engineered to flex or absorb ditions, and other factors. Designers should consult energy without sustaining significant damage. For with local experts and authorities for site-specific example, in Japan, it is a requirement that prefab- guidance on the most prevalent hazards in the area ricated housing must contain seismic isolation and and on the most effective mitigation measures. seismic control equipment.42 Table 2. Off-site construction solutions in Material Selection different natural hazard-prone areas Off-site construction means that prefabricated Flexible foundations Earthquakes units or components can be made using carefully Base isolation/Damping systems selected materials that are highly resistant to the Reinforcing the building’s structure (e.g., cross effects of certain natural hazards. For example, bracing) in the case of flood-prone areas, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recom- Lightweight materials (e.g., steel and timber) mends concrete, concrete tile, and precast concrete Building on elevated foundations or stilts as the best materials for floors and recommends Flood-resistant materials (e.g., concrete, stone, or Floods brick, metal, concrete, concrete block, porcelain, treated timber) slate, glass block, stone, and ceramic and clay tile Reinforcement of doors and windows for walls and ceilings.43 In the case of wildfires, non-combustible materials are the best choice, Appropriate drainage systems and flood barriers while any timber elements must be fire-resistant Resilient materials such as concrete Hurricanes/Cyclones according to building code standards. In Australia, Reinforced timber/steel off-site homes must be produced in accordance with the area’s BAL rating and can be designed in Connectors and ties between structural elements line of the risks that are most prevalent in a specific and to foundations geographical zone.44 For example, research findings Storm shutters or impact-resistant windows have shown that steel structures are most resilient Roof reinforcements and secure roof materials to earthquakes.45 41 Queensland Government (2023). 16 42 https://www.purekyo.or.jp/bukai/jyutaku/english/senshin.html 43 https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_tb_2_flood_damage-resistant_materials_requirements.pdf 44 Australian Standard – AS 3959:2018 Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas. 45 https://www.sbssteelstructure.com/prefabricated-steel-structure-is-the-best-earthquake-resistant.html ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction Fire-resistant materials such as concrete and Figure 21. Earthquake-resistant modular stone kindergarten in Saitama, Japan Wildfires Ember-resistant vents and screens Defensible space and fire breaks around buildings Encapsulation of timber elements with protective layer and use of fire retardants* Pile foundations (metal or concrete) and retaining walls Braced and reinforced steel frame Flexible structural arrangement Landslides Raised, lightweight building Plant vegetation on the slope Source: Studio Bauhaus, Ryuji Inoue, 2016 Concrete “catch” walls to divert boulders/debris In the aftermath of Chile's 2010 devastating earth- away from the building quake, rapid-response efforts included the recon- Surface water interception drainage and subsoil struction of the Santa Matilda School in Til Til. A pre- drainage on slope fabricated system was used, which meant that the Sufficient insulation of appropriate quality school was rebuilt fast and had the potential to be Reflective roofing material (e.g., aluminium) replicated in other regions of the country. Flexible structural arrangement Figure 22. Santa Matilde School, an earthquake- Shading devices such as overhangs, awnings, or resistant reconstruction project Extreme Heat louvres Natural ventilation techniques (e.g., cross-ventila- tion) Materials with thermal mass (e.g., concrete) Light coloured exterior finishes Plan landscaping (and roof, if feasible) with native, drought-resistant plants Orient the building to take advantage of natural shading and prevailing winds Source: Author’s compilation. *https://research.thinkwood.com/en/ list?q=fire&p=1&ps=20&setName_facet=CLT%20(Cross- Source: Landarquitectos, Sergio Pirrone, 2011 Laminated%20Timber) Similarly, following the 2017 earthquake in Mexico's Puebla region, which damaged around two hundred While Table 1 is a starting point, other unique off-site schools, two modular schools were swiftly con- construction solutions could be developed based structed in rural Santa Isabel Cholula, both of which on the relevant client brief, local building codes became fully operational in just seven months. and regulations, and local conditions to ensure the safety and resilience of structures in the face of nat- Figure 23. School in Santa Isabel, Mexico built ural disasters. with modular prefabricated elements Off-site construction techniques used in different natural hazard-prone areas Examples of prefabricated buildings can be found worldwide that are strategically designed to take into account both natural and manmade disas- ters or are constructed with resilience in mind. For example, the Saitama Kindergarten located in an earthquake-prone area of Japan was intentionally built with lightweight steel construction modules to ensure that it could withstand seismic activity. Source: Escobedo Soliz Architects, Rafael Gamo, 2018 17 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 1: Off-Site Construction Modern Methods of Construction Prefabricated buildings can also handle differ- aimed at building schools in a conflict-torn country ent extreme weather conditions. Proper insulation needs to be resilient and flexible, and to have a deep equips them to withstand extreme cold or heat, understanding of the local context. It is also essen- while innovative design elements, such as over- tial to work closely with the community and lever- hanging elevated roofs, can prevent overheating. age the support of various stakeholders in the effort An exemplary illustration is the Visshershok con- to create an environment that is both sustainable tainer classroom in South Africa. and conducive to education. Figure 24. Vissershok container classroom, South Off-site construction has the intrinsic capacity to Africa offer simple and resilient designs that can with- stand local weather conditions and potential secu- rity threats. For example, prefabricated reinforced concrete walls and roofs can offer students some protection against projectiles while giving them a sense of belonging and security. In summary, off-site construction has numerous advantages over traditional building methods in areas subject to natural hazards, climate risk, and conflict. However, it is essential for planners to con- sider the site-specific conditions and collaborate with local authorities and experts to ensure that Source: Tsai Design Studio, 2012 the chosen construction system and method aligns Notably, some prefabs are specifically designed to with area’s unique challenges and requirements. combat flooding. Structures like the Bann Huay San Yaw school in North Thailand are elevated off the ground to be flood-resistant. There are even some prototypes, like the Makoko school in Nigeria, that are designed to float. Figure 25. Baan Huay Sarn Yaw post-disaster school, Thailand Source: Vin Varavarn Architects, Spaceshift Studio, 2015 When thoughtfully designed, prefabricated build- ings offer a range of advantages in terms of disas- ter risk management. They provide faster, safer, and more adaptable solutions than traditional construc- tion methods. School building in military or conflict-prone areas Wars and conflicts have been tearing through many countries, leaving their infrastructure dilapidated, including their education facilities. Any project 18 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 2: Off-Site Construction Applied to School Buildings Modern Methods of Construction Chapter 2: Off-Site Construction Applied to School Buildings With a design-led approach, off-site construction Layout can deliver rooms for learning that are well pro- portioned, stimulating, and flexible. It can provide According to international studies, the design prin- layouts that support instruction and presentation, ciples that increase students’ ability to learn in a group work, independent learning, and collabora- classroom are naturalness (light, temperature, air tive teaching, as well as spaces that allow for differ- quality, acoustics, and links to nature), individual- ent organizational structures or pedagogies. ization (ownership, flexibility, and connection), and stimulation (visual complexity and color).46 Whatever the system (skeleton, panelized, or vol- umetric), well-designed off-site construction can Figure 26. Flexibility Off-site modular. Off-site deliver appropriate learning spaces. modular,. Southmoor Primary School, Victoria, Australia Figure 29. Ownership. Skeleton and panelized. GGPS School in Chach, Pakistan Source: State Government of Victoria, Australia, CC BY 4.0 Figure 27. Daylight, views out. Off-site modular, Southmoor Primary School, Victoria, Australia Source: Pursuit, University of Melbourne, 2018 Source: Transitional Learning Spaces, UNICEF, 2013 Figure 28. Break-out, ownership, color. Off-site Figure 30. Daylight, views out, ventilation. modular, Southmoor Primary School, Victoria, Skeleton, panelized and in-situ (hybrid). Fleur de Australia Chou School, Haiti Source: State Government of Victoria, Australia, CC BY 4.0 Source: Transitional Learning Spaces, UNICEF, 2011 46 Barrett et al (2019). 19 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 2: Off-Site Construction Applied to School Buildings Modern Methods of Construction With regard to flexibility, off-site construction can Figure 32. Sample of connected (easy access offer a range of different types and sizes of layouts to adjacent break-out spaces) learning spaces to accommodate students of all different ages. achieved with a volumetric system, Caulfield According to international studies, it is important Grammar School, Melbourne, Australia to create easy access to attached break-out spaces and widened corridors for students’ lockers]. Also important are well-defined learning zones that facilitate age-appropriate learning options, plus a big wall area to display learning materials.47 Panelized and volumetric solutions have additional structural requirements compared with traditional and skeleton systems. Figure 31 below demon- strates some possibilities for creating easy access to adjacent break-out spaces. Figure 31. Structural arrangement (Typical classroom) Source: Pursuit, University of Melbourne, 2018 For large double height and column free spaces (such as dance studios or assembly halls), only skel- eton and panelized systems would work as volu- metric (3D modules) systems are only applicable for single-story spaces and have structural columns in each corner of the module. Figure 33. Sample of double height learning space achieved with panelized system. Collège Marcelle Baron, Héric, France Traditional + skeleton systems structural arrangement Panelized systems structural arrangement Source: SuperStock / Alain Le Bot/Photononstop -La Phototheque, 2011 Off-site construction in one form or another can be used to build every type of educational space that could be required, including laboratories, canteens, and workshops. The off-site fabrication of concrete walls, fences, floors, external furniture, planters, lighting, external auditoria seating, etc. has gained significant traction in the creation of external learning environments within playgrounds, gardens, and sports fields. This Volumetric systems structural arrangement innovative approach streamlines the construction Source: Authors process, ensuring durability and facilitating scalabil- ity for these outdoor spaces. 47 Barrett et al (2019). 20 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 2: Off-Site Construction Applied to School Buildings Modern Methods of Construction Figure 34. Multipurpose, transformable classroom built using a permanent modular building. Espoo, Finland Source: Authors, 2018 Figure 35. Prefabricated concrete walls, fences, floors, external furniture, planters, lighting, and auditoria seating used to create external spaces, various manufacturers Source: Authors, n.d. 21 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 2: Off-Site Construction Applied to School Buildings Modern Methods of Construction Quality Timescale In high-income countries, clients generally expect A 2015 study by Ryan E. Smith and the Modu- that the design life of their structure will be at least lar Building Institute explored the performance of 60 years, while they expect the non-structural com- modular construction around the world. By compar- ponents to last no fewer than 15 years. ing modular with traditional construction as used in different projects in the US, UK and Spain, the study Schools built using off-site construction can meet concluded that using modular off-site construc- or exceed the same building lifespan and standards tion reduced the average duration of construction as traditional site-built structures. The same mate- schedules by 39 percent (with a high of 60 percent rials used in conventionally constructed buildings, and a low of 25 percent).49 such as with wood, concrete, and steel, can also be used in off-site construction projects. The government in Victoria, Australia, has devel- oped a framework for the creation and procure- Around the world there are many examples of off- ment of modular classrooms that have an average site built projects – including housing, hospitals, area of between 300 and 1,000 square meters. This and schools – that have a certified design life of 60 framework allows 20 weeks for the design phase years or more. plus 17 weeks for construction, which is broken into 10 weeks for manufacturing, one week for delivery, Figure 36. Modular school built to last for 60 five weeks for assembly on-site, and one week for years – Lime Tree Primary School, Manchester, UK completing the handover to the client. In the UK, two school buildings were built using pan- elized prefabricated panels made of solid timber. One housed a library, four classrooms, a staffroom, and accessible WC facilities, and the other con- tained four classrooms. The on-site assembly of the superstructure of these two buildings was com- pleted in three weeks. If the buildings had been built using traditional methods, it would have taken three months for the superstructure to be erected. Figure 37. Panelized system made with timber Source: Google imagery, 2024 Robust detailing, appropriate use of materials, and Timber roof structure with isolated CGI integrated mechanical and electrical services in the roof sheeting standardized design of a school built off-site can result in a building that is adapted to local con- Drum for rainwater ditions and safe from natural hazards, and that harvesting requires only a simple maintenance regimen. Timber panels Blockwork base However, schools built with wall panels made out of insulation encapsulated in thin layers of plastic or metal (‘prefabs’) are not appropriate for classroom construction, as noted by Serge Theunynck “…the durability of prefabricated classrooms is low and Source: Transitional Learning Spaces, UNICEF, 2011 maintenance is complicated because industrialized panels are light structures that are highly vulner- Cost able to shocks, and [are] impossible to repair with the materials and technical capacity available. They According to the findings of the study, using volu- cannot accommodate subsequent improvements, metric construction over traditional methods could such as new electrical wiring because the installa- lead to an average reduction in costs of 16 percent. tion will damage the infrastructure. Further, they do This finding was based on the creation of single not facilitate instructional use because nothing can buildings. With large orders for identical or stand- be nailed to the walls.”48 ardized buildings, the cost savings would increase 48 Theunynck (2009). 22 49 Smith R.E., Rice T. (2015). ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 2: Off-Site Construction Applied to School Buildings Modern Methods of Construction significantly. Since 2010, an off-site contractor in project also trained school leavers to enable them to the UK has delivered standardized, modular schools work as skilled laborers in constructing the schools, to accommodate 19,000 children. The schools thus reducing the length of the construction times were built on time and on budget, costing typically and reducing costs (see Box 4 for more details). around 30 percent less than if the equivalent space had been built by traditional construction. Prefabricated building components can be trans- ported between countries by truck, railway, rivers, Research in 2016 by KMPG concluded that, if stand- and seas. Prefabricated schools in the Zaatari Camp ardized components or modules were incorporated in Jordan were manufactured in Germany and trans- into an entire construction portfolio, clients would ported to the site in three stages: by truck to the save on the unit cost of the components through Mediterranean Sea, by boat to Lebanon and finally the economies of scale of production and reducing by truck to the camp (see Box 5 for more details). In the need for professional design support. this case, the cost of transportation was cost-effi- cient and within budget. Within a five-year investment period, Anglian Water Alliance in the UK was able to make a 30 percent The Manchester School Basic Needs Building Pro- efficiency saving on the construction of a new water gram has constructed more than 30 school build- treatment facility by ordering prefabricated com- ings using off-site volumetric techniques. The mod- ponents for the whole project with the majority of ules were built in factory approximately 100 miles assembly and commissioning of a building being from the school sites. Due to the efficiency of off- completed off-site.50 site “just-in-time” delivery, considerably less con- struction traffic was needed than when schools are As discussed in Chapter 1, the costs of transport- built using traditional methods. According to a 2015 ing the modular components from the factory to overview of off-site construction in the UK, the esti- the site can have a big impact on the overall costs mated reduction in commercial vehicle traffic when of a project. Therefore, project managers need to using fully fitted off-site modules can be as high as keep these logistics in mind in their calculations. For 40 percent over traditional on-site construction.51 example, costs were saved in a World Bank school construction project in Bhutan by using light gauge The cost of assembly depends on the size and steel frame (LGSF) technology and substitut- weight of the prefabricated building components. ing reinforced concrete (GRC) for timber for lintels The equipment and machinery needed for the and sills as well as reducing the need to transport on-site assembly of panelized systems are generally heavy stones, sand, and cement to building sites. smaller and easier to handle than the large cranes The amount of timber used was reduced by about needed to handle full 3D volumetric modules. 70 percent compared to a traditionally constructed Large, prefabricated sections require heavy-duty building and the costs of transporting building cranes and precision handling to be placed in their materials were reduced by about 85 percent. The final position. Box 4. World Bank’s School Construction Project in Bhutan, 2003-2010 In 2003, the World Bank instigated a program of school building in Bhutan as part of its Education Development Project. The aim was to build selected number of schools throughout the country. A decision was taken to use light gauge steel frame (LGSF) panels to construct the schools and to use reinforced concrete (GRC) instead of timber for lintels and sills. This minimized both the time needed to build the schools and the amount of material that had to be transported over Bhutan’s hilly terri- tory. Because Bhutan’s own construction industry was not developed enough to handle off-site con- struction, all of the LGSF and GRC materials had to be imported from India, Thailand, and Taiwan. A shed was built at each school site where the pre-engineered panels for walls and roof trusses were assembled from the straight galvanized iron components. The project employed an expert to provide three months of training to high school leavers in how to assemble the components. Some students were sent to Australia to be trained as supervisors, and, after the construction was over, they became maintenance engineers for the completed buildings. The project also trained Bhutanese construction companies in how to bid for contracts and how to 50 KPMG (2016). 23 51 Taylor S. (2015). ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 2: Off-Site Construction Applied to School Buildings Modern Methods of Construction work with LGSF technology. In this way, the project helped to build local skills and capacity in a sus- tainable way. The key advantages to using these prefab technologies to construct Bhutanese schools were: • The buildings were earthquake-resistant and have survived intact through several heavy earth- quakes since they were built. • Because the buildings incorporated Buddhist elements in their design, they merged seamlessly with the local architecture. Prefabs structures allowed to integrate local elements of design. The key disadvantages were: • The boards used on the internal and external faces of the walls can easily be defaced and need regular maintenance. • It was difficult to properly seal the joints between boards on the external face of the buildings, which, after some time, gave them an inconsistent look. This issue was not so prevalent with the joints on the interiors. • It has been a challenge to procure the LGSF materials needed to maintain the buildings. Source: Authors’ compilation from project documents. Box 5. UNICEF’s School Building Program in the Zaatari Camp The UN and UNICEF’s default response for emergency relief infrastructure is to provide tents. When UNICEF was planning to build schools in the Zaatari Camp in Jordan for refugee children from the war in Syria, the design team argued that tents are only a short-term solution (seldom lasting more than four months) that is not cost-efficient or sustainable and does not provide an adequate level of protection for traumatized children. As UNICEF decided to make a long-term investment, it decided that prefabrication was the right solution. The team assessed the market for appropriate products and came across a German flat-pack system comprising a lightweight steel frame, insulated wall/roof panels, and a structural floor frame. The walls had impact-resistant skin on the outside (to resist the impact of objects flown by the typical desert high winds) and thermal insulation to provide a comfortable environment on cold mornings in the desert. The insulation prevented condensation from damaging the structure, making the build- ings durable and easy to maintain. In addition, the team procured plywood locally for the floor finish, which was modularized to be assembled on-site. The system did not require any foundations, only that the site was leveled and stable. The German company sent a technical team from the factory to train locals in how to assemble the flat pack of components and to supervise its assembly to guarantee its effectiveness and to safe- guard UNICEF’s investment. The system was relatively flexible. With the large-size module, a wall could be built in the middle to partition the space into two classrooms. The pre-fabricated schools came from Germany by boat to Lebanon and from Lebanon they were transported to the camp by truck. An assessment of road conditions had been carried out as part of the project’s feasibility assessment, which had confirmed that delivery by truck was possible. The German flat-pack system came with a 10-year warranty. It guaranteed that, if the external skin did not perform to the specified parameters, a replacement would immediately be made available at no additional cost. Source: Author’s interview with UNICEF. 24 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 2: Off-Site Construction Applied to School Buildings Modern Methods of Construction Extending and/or modifying a building constructed • The project has the potential to use standard- using off-site techniques can be either a simple or ized building components. a complex procedure, similar to extending or mod- ifying a traditionally built structure. The key is to Key project drivers (the beneficial outcomes that ensure that the design is flexible from the outset to clients require) allow for future adaptation or expansion. This might mean using, for example, a minimum number of • Minimizing overall project time fixed fixtures, a minimum amount of building com- ponents, or simple junction details and incorporat- • Minimizing overall cost ing the potential for disassembly into the design. Volumetric modular buildings can be expanded • Ensuring quality, predictability, and consistency vertically or horizontally with no need to relocate the existing structure. Installing additional modules • Minimizing the project’s environmental impact. takes a fraction of the time that would be needed to build an equivalent extension using traditional con- Constraints (the issues with which project stake- struction methods. holders have to contend) In buildings constructed using off-site techniques, s it affordable to transport the components to • I the entry points for the connections to local utilities the project site? (such as electricity, water, sewer, and gas) are estab- lished at the design stage and are incorporated into s the construction site accessible to the neces- • I the relevant components in the factory. One way to sary transport? do this is to design a utilities hub through which all of the different services can enter and be distrib- Box 6 below describes an example of an existing uted throughout the building. tool for making decisions about whether to use off- site construction. Figure 38. Example of a utilities hub in a prefabricated building Box 6. Interactive tool for deciding whether to use off-site technology Loughborough University in the UK has devel- oped Consider Offsite, an interactive tool to help decision-makers to choose at the outset of a project whether or not to use standard- ization and off-site manufacturing. Consider Offsite enables them to go through key project drivers (such as cost, time, and quality) and key project constraints (such as procurement and the site of the ultimate building) and rank their priorities to assess whether the project would Source: Rice Design Alliance, 2013 or would not benefit from off-site construction. Purpose The Consider Offsite tool has been developed for single projects such as hospitals, residential When off-site construction is design-led and is schemes, and school buildings. For a large pro- implemented within an integrated project strategy, gram of standardized school buildings, scala- it can significantly reduce construction time and bility would be an additional important driver costs and improve quality compared with tradi- to be considered as part of any decision tool, tional building methods. and if scalability were indeed a project driver, then the exercise would point strongly towards Here is a set of key criteria that can help deci- using off-site construction. sion-makers decide if off-site construction is a good Source: https://offsite.lboro.ac.uk/ option to include in their school infrastructure con- struction plans. The cost and logistics of transportation need to be Project scenario carefully considered as these could mean that off- site construction might not be feasible for a par- • The project is large in scale. ticular project. 25 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 2: Off-Site Construction Applied to School Buildings Modern Methods of Construction Barriers to adoption The potential for using off-site construction is vast. There is almost always an appropriate off-site solu- tion for any project brief. However, off-site con- struction is unlikely to be an effective solution for: • One-off, bespoke projects. • Small, standalone projects in locations where a wide range of affordable materials is available as well as access to skilled and affordable labor. • Situations where procurement is decentralized to individual projects as off-site construction works best where there are large orders and continuity of the workload. • Projects where transportation costs exceed the value created by speedy delivery. 26 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis Modern Methods of Construction Chapter 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Implementing Modern Methods of Construction in School Building Projects This section presents an economic analysis based developing, especially in low- and middle-income on a cost-benefit framework to assess if it is eco- countries. nomically and socially viable to use modern meth- ods of construction in school infrastructure projects. This economic analysis focuses on low- and low- er-middle-income countries because of their The analysis involves estimating the costs and fast-growing child populations and because of the benefits of implementing both modern and tradi- urgent need to expand the school infrastructure tional methods of construction, especially during of these countries. Enrollment levels are at least the preparation and construction period of the four times lower in low-income countries than in project. This approach relies on monetary factors high-income countries, and schools are more likely that affect the costs and benefits of implementing to be overcrowded, which is a critical constraint to one alternative or another, but other non-mone- delivering quality education and producing a high- tary factors could also affect the success of imple- skilled labor force. In addition, within the next few menting modern methods of construction (MMC). decades, the school-age population is expected to The attempt to estimate the costs and benefits of steadily increase in the poorest countries, deepen- modern methods of construction is still evolving as ing pressures on the school infrastructure (Figures techniques are constantly improving and the market 40-42). Figure 39. Cross-country averages of net and gross enrollment rates by income level, 2017 or latest year 100 88 93 95 89 80 79 77 80 78 66 63 64 60 % 41 43 40 33 20 21 20 0 Low Lower middle Upper middle High Low Lower middle Upper middle High Low Lower middle Upper middle High Low Lower middle Upper middle High Pre-primary education Primary education Lower secondary education Upper secondary education Net enrollment rates Gross enrollment rates Source: Author’s calculations based on UNESCO UIS database, 2020 Figure 40. Average primary class size in African Figure 41. Population trends for 5 to 19-year-olds countries by income level, 2019 by income group, 2020–2070 (100=2020) 200 High income 25 180 160 140 120 Upper middle income 22 100 80 60 Lower middle income 46 40 20 - 40 60 30 50 20 70 45 65 35 55 25 Low income 52 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Low-income countries 0 20 40 60 Lower-middle-income countries Upper-middle-income countries Number of students per class High-income countries Source: Author’s calculations based on UNESCO UIS database, Source: Author’s calculations based on United Nations (2019) 2020 Note: Medium fertility variant. The data are presented as index numbers, which means that each value represents the magnitude of change compared to the baseline year (2020) 27 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis Modern Methods of Construction The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal cost savings with prefabrication. Mass production, 4 seeks to ensure that, by 2030, all girls and boys as in other industries, lowers the cost per unit. Local can complete free, equitable, and quality primary factors are also key determinants in the success and secondary education as well as at least one of full prefabrication – for instance, the quality of year of pre-primary education. In order to achieve existing routes and topography. these goals, the current enrollment numbers in all levels of education must increase by at least 220 In a similar vein, the World Bank has argued that million worldwide.52 Lower-middle-income coun- the most appropriate school construction method tries account for 49 percent of this needed increase, is a simple design that uses technologies that are while low-income countries account for 46 percent. familiar to the local construction industry. It should With countries of all income levels included, the include the participation of small- and medi- Sub-Saharan Africa region accounts for 63 percent um-sized enterprises in the formal and informal of the additional enrollment required, South Asia sectors and generally use the most modern tech- 22 percent, and the Middle East and North Africa niques possible.54 8 percent. To succeed, policies that aim to increase enrollment must be accompanied by a correspond- ing expansion in education infrastructure. Methodology for a cost-benefit analysis applied modern meth- This chapter is divided into four subsections. The ods of construction first discusses the main factors that affect the costs and benefits of modern methods of construction as This section presents a cost-benefit analysis applied compared to traditional construction methods. The to modern methods of construction. Because second subsection describes the methodology for modern methods of construction include a range of a cost-benefit analysis applied to modern meth- different systems and school infrastructure require- ods of construction. The third section outlines the ments vary from country to country, decision-mak- conceptual framework for the assessment and the ers should consider the factors discussed above in underlying assumptions. The final section presents the context of their own country to decide if pre- the results of the analysis, which show the net direct fabrication is a feasible option for their own project. and indirect benefits that can be made by using To guide this process, we suggest that they take the modern methods of construction in low- and low- following steps to choose which alternative best er-middle-income countries. meets their requirements. 1. Identify a set of alternative options. Delve into Factors affecting the costs and the variety of options available for school con- benefits of modern methods of struction. Traditional methods stand out as the construction primary alternative to modern methods of con- struction. Modern methods of construction (MMC) offer sev- eral advantages in terms of design, quality, and 2. Specify the expected impacts of the project. It environmental benefits. They also have the poten- is important to identify the expected impacts of tial to reduce construction costs through savings the project, both positive or negative (see possi- on materials, labor, and construction time. Interna- ble impact factors in Table 1). Costs and benefits tional research suggests that cost is a major moti- can be estimated in the format of gains or losses vating factor for decision-makers who choose pre- for either MMC or traditional methods. It is also fabrication, followed by the project schedule, waste, important to anticipate any potential additional quality, and the requirements of the site in ques- challenges associated with using prefabs, espe- tion.53 Table 3 presents a thorough list of the mone- cially in the context of developing countries. For tary and non-monetary factors that are affected by example, there might be no factory on-site or prefabrication as well as ways to measure to assess no specialized machinery to produce the prefab the benefits of MMC compared to those associated components. In that situation, it would be nec- with traditional methods. essary to factor into the cost-benefit equation the costs and delivery time associated with any The cost of implementing modern methods of con- imports, as well as the need for any specialized struction is also affected by other factors such as work that would be needed to handle these the quality of materials, shipping costs, the com- imported components and/or the need to train plexity of the building, and the size of the project. local workers to be able to carry out the con- Scalability is one of the most important drivers of struction. 52 This represents the difference between the expected school age population by 2030 and current enrollment levels only in countries with a net negative deficit across all 28 levels. 53 Chauhan et al (2019). 54 Theunynck (2009). ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis Modern Methods of Construction Table 3. Factors affected by prefabrication Prefabrication Impact factor benefits versus Expected mechanism Measurement method traditional methods Compare labor and material costs (transportation and specialized Decreases labor and material Labor and material machinery for assembling and Neutral or reduced costs because trade bottlenecks costs moving components on-site) are reduced between traditional and prefab projects Enables recycling and just-in- Compare the amount of waste time material deliveries,and com- Waste and disposal Reduced between traditional and prefab ponents can be ordered to exact projects specifications Reduces dangerous on-site Compare the number of safety Safety (worker and Improved working conditions, with less incidents between traditional and environment) traffic on site prefab projects Compare the completion times Speeds up the assembly time, between traditional and prefab reduces staging on site, enables projects, including implementa- Project schedule Compressed better coordination between tion challenges that affect the trades timeline during the construction phase Compare achievement of quality standards in materials/elements, Standardized working methods, quality checks throughout the clear quality control points in Quality Equal or improved process, number of errors and the a stable environment, product cost to fix errors, maintenance certifications requirements and associated costs Less disturbance (noise, logistics) Surrounding Favorable to neighbors, more environmen- Surveys, interviews environment tally friendly Requires more detailed designs Compare costs and resources Increased or Design costs but enables reuse of existing between traditional and prefab reduced designs projects Late changes by the customer Design flexibility Reduced Interviews are not possible Compare the number of deliveries Site deliveries and Materials are delivered in bigger Reduced between traditional and prefab supplies units projects Compare the number of sub-con- Sub-trade activity Reduces assembly work and tractors and workers on-site Reduced on site number of sub-contractors between traditional and prefab projects Assembly is independent of Compare the interruption times weather, which can increase work and problems related to weather Weather conditions Controlled efficiency and prevent damage to conditions between traditional building materials and prefab projects Better productization (modifying Compare the actual costs of the material and installation to procuring and installing materials Procurement Favorable make it as a commercial product) between traditional and prefab and easier to purchase projects Controlled work heights, tool Ergonomics Improved weights, and environmental Worker surveys conditions Source: Chauhan et al (2019). 29 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis Modern Methods of Construction 3. Monetize costs and benefits. It is first necessary costs during the preparation and construction peri- to assign a common unit of monetary measure- ods –due to lower material and labor costs. The cost ment to the likely costs and benefits related to saving involves comparing the cost of using modern each of the impacts as identified in Step 2. Direct construction methods with the cost of traditional costs and benefits can easily be given a mone- methods, which is found in the literature to be lower tary value. Indirect and intangible costs and ben- in modern methods. This assessment also includes efits might require additional analysis as they can indirect benefits from producing less material waste be challenging to quantify because they have no (environmental impact) and from improving safety direct market value. for workers (safety and health) (Figure 42). All these impacts can be expressed in monetary values. 4. Compare the costs and benefits of modern and traditional types of construction. Once The quantification of these factors is conducted for the costs and benefits are in a common metric three scenarios. Scenario 1, the intermediate sce- (monetary units), it is then possible to calculate nario, assumes that 40 percent of the infrastruc- the total costs versus the total benefits for each ture expansion required in lower-middle-income type of construction and then compare the gains countries to achieve universal primary and second- or losses of using modern methods compared to ary education by 2030 is accomplished by imple- using traditional ones. menting modern methods of construction (MMC).55 In Scenario 2, a low-case scenario, it is assumed 5. Perform a sensitivity analysis. In addition to a that 20 percent of the infrastructure expansion is basic scenario, it is recommended that the anal- achieved using MMC. Scenario 3, the most optimis- ysis should include variations in parameters or tic scenario, assumes that 80 percent of the infra- assumptions to determine how results might structure expansion is accomplished through MMC. change. Direct Benefit: Cost-Savings 6. Analyze the incidence of non-monetary factors. The analysis should also include an evaluation Overall, the average cost savings from using modern of how non-monetary factors might affect the methods of construction in high-income countries, implementation of modern methods compared as discussed earlier in this report, range from 16 to to traditional ones. The most useful assumptions 30 percent compared with the use of traditional and parameters for a cost-benefit analysis of a methods. In addition, according to a McKinsey standard school are discussed later in this sub- report, implementing modular construction for dif- section in line with the steps presented above. ferent types of infrastructure projects would save around US$22 billion a year by 2030 in Europe and the United States. The same report also asserts that Conceptual framework and implementing these methods in school infrastruc- assumptions ture projects would save about US$3 billion and constitute a cost saving of 20 percent.56 This report has documented that modern methods offer several advantages over traditional methods for In the context of developing countries, Table 4 pre- the construction of school buildings. In the context sents the construction cost per square meter for of this assessment, benefits include direct savings in classrooms or school buildings in selected countries Figure 42. Benefits of modern methods of construction applied to school buildings Cost savings during The total number of There is less material waste preparation and construction occupational accidents is (e.g. water, energy) because period due to lower material expected to decrease because components are ordered to and labor costs workers have less exposure to exact specifications hazardous acitivities Direct Indirect Indirect Safety and health Environmental impact Source: Authors 55 About 43 percent of the population in low- and lower-middle-income countries live in urban areas and that percentage is increasing. Therefore, the intermediate 30 scenario assumes that the expansion could at least cover urban areas and non-remote rural ones. 56 Bertram et al (2019). ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis Modern Methods of Construction Table 4. Construction cost per square meter in recent projects in low- and lower-middle-income countries using traditional methods Cost per Income group of Program/ Country square meter Year Source country Implementer in US$ EFA-FTI, EDP II AF, Lao PDR Lower middle income 183 2013 (World Bank, 2015) PRF (average) Uganda Low income UPPET 142 2015 (World Bank, 2015) Vietnam Lower middle income SEQAP 231 2015 (World Bank, 2017) Madagascar Low income FEFFI 144 2015 (World Bank, 2018) (Theunynck, Serge; ABUTIP and BISEM Burundi Low income 242 2016 Rabakoson, Hervé., Programs (average) 2017) Kenya Lower middle income SEQIP 192 2017 (World Bank, 2017) GPE, MoE, other Tajikistan Low income 364 2018 (World Bank, 2018) donors (average) (Schools for Children Schools for Children of The World & W.K. Haití Low income 500 2019 of the World Kellogg Foundation, 2019) EPforR, TASAF and Tanzania Lower middle income 182 2019 (World Bank, 2019) SEDP II (average) Niger Low income GPE-SQEP 200 2020 (World Bank, 2020) Source: Prepared by the authors, 2020. as a proxy for the cost when using traditional meth- Table 5. Physical area requirements for a standard ods. The median average cost in 2019 (adjusted by school example inflation rates) is around US$209 per square meter, Source and the mean average is US$255 per square meter, Pre-primary education which is close to the average for African countries. These average costs are consequently assumed to Classroom 1.8 m2 per student be 20 percent lower for modern methods –as found 20 students per latrine (3.5 Latrine in the McKinsey report. While cost savings in con- m2) struction period is expected, inadequate road infra- Primary education structure in some low- and lower-middle-income Classroom 1.6 m2 per student countries could cancel out some of the cost savings 20 students per latrine (3.5 Latrine arising from the lower construction time, materials, m2) and labor used in MMC. Secondary education Classroom 1.6 m2 per student The analysis considers the construction of a hypo- 20 students per latrine (3.5 thetical standard school in which all levels of edu- Latrine m2) cation are delivered (pre-primary, primary and sec- Science labs 2.2 m2 per student ondary education), which therefore has to meet Administration blocks 0.26 m2 per student different physical area requirements for each level of education. The average physical area requirements Libraries 2.4 m2 per student by level of education are shown in Table 5, though Source: Prepared by the authors, 2020 these requirements do vary between countries. Note: Physical area requirements differ by country. m2 = square meter. Indirect Benefits: Safety and health 100,000 every year (see Figure 43). Also, the rate is even higher in lower-income countries, which Using MMC also has a safety impact. The construc- average 31 fatal occupational injuries per 100,000 tion industry is one of the most dangerous for work- workers, double the rate for upper-middle-income ers, with a disproportionately high rate of recorded and high-income countries (see Figure 44). How- accidents.57 On average, eight fatal occupational ever, occupational accidents in the construction injuries per 100,000 workers occur in the con- sector may be even higher in many developing struction sector globally. This compares unfavora- countries because only a small fraction of workers bly with the average for other economic sectors, are formally employed, and informal sectors are not which is around three fatal occupational injuries per fully captured in statistics. 57 https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_819705/lang--en/index.htm 31 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis Modern Methods of Construction Figure 43. Cross-country median average of fatal occupational injuries per 100,000 workers by activity, 2015 -2019 (latest available data for each country) 12 10 10 8 8 8 6 6 6 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 0 Total B. Mining and quarrying A. Agriculture; forestry and fishing F. Construction E. Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities H. Transportation and storage C. Manufacturing D. Electricity; gas, steam and air conditioning supply N. Administrative and support service activities G. Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles Source: Authors’ calculations based on International Labor Organization data, 2020 Figure 44. Cross-country median average of fatal non-fatal accidents in construction also have nega- occupational injuries per 100,000 workers in the tive private and social impacts, but there is only lim- construction sector by income level, 2015 -2019 ited available data on these accidents, especially in (latest year for each country) low-income countries. 35 31 30 Indirect Benefits: Environmental impact 25 Using MMC also has a number of important envi- 20 ronmental benefits. Overall, construction waste has 13.3 been reported to be 30 to 40 percent less than 15 when traditional building methods are used in both 10 5.7 developed and developing economies.58 In addition, 5 the cost of waste as a share of the total construction value of public primary and secondary schools using 0 Lower middle Upper middle High income steel and timber materials may represent about 2 income income percent.59 Therefore, assuming an average reduc- tion of 35 percent in construction waste, there is a Source: Authors’ calculations based on International Labor Organization data, 2020 potential for total construction costs to decrease by around 0.7 percent. This reduction could be consid- Modern methods of construction can reduce the ered as the market value of the environmental ben- incidence of occupational accidents in the con- efits resulting from the lower amount of construc- struction industry in several ways. The time required tion waste. for the construction period can be reduced by up to 45 percent using MMC (as discussed earlier in this book), which in turn reduces workers’ exposure to Results hazardous activities. In addition, part of the prefab- The net benefits of implementing modern construc- rication process occurs into a controlled environ- tion methods for expanding school infrastructure, ment where the more dangerous activities of tradi- aiming to achieve universal primary and secondary tional construction can be avoided. education by 2030 in low and lower-middle-in- come countries, range from $11.3 billion to $45.4 At least three main types of costs can be decreased billion. This estimate assumes that 20 percent to by reducing work-related accidents and, more 80 percent of the expansion in school infrastructure importantly, fatal occupational accidents. These utilizes modern methods. As a percentage of the are: (i) the cost to the worker’s family of their disa- combined GDP of all low-income and lower-mid- bility or death; (ii) the cost to companies of having dle-income countries, the total benefits would fall to replace workers; and (iii) the cost to society of within the range of 0.2 percent to 0.7 percent. the worker’s future productivity. The cost to society, calculated as the present value of future earnings Among the three main benefits analyzed, cost sav- of avoided fatalities in construction, is one of the ings during the preparation and construction period largest in magnitude. Finally, it is worth nothing that due to lower material and labor costs are the main 58 Osman and Lee Na (2016) and Heath and Gunawardena (2018). 32 59 Wrap (2009). ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 3: Cost-Benefit Analysis Modern Methods of Construction benefits of implementing modern methods of con- struction. Overall, about US$43.7 billion could be saved if 80 percent of the infrastructure expansion required in low and lower-middle-income countries by 2030 is carried out using modern methods of construction rather than traditional methods (Sce- nario 3). If 40 percent of the expansion is achieved using modern methods, savings would amount to US$21.8 billion (Scenario 2), and they would amount to around US$10.9 billion if 20 percent of the expansion were carried out using these methods (Scenario 1). Other important benefits include the reduction of fatal occupational accidents in the construction sector and the environmental benefits arising from the reduction in construction waste. If modern meth- ods are implemented for all of the infrastructure expansion required in low-income and lower-mid- dle-income countries, the social benefits would range from US$412 million to US$1,720 million. Table 6. Benefits and fiscal savings of using MMC (US$, millions) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Cost savings during the con- $10,921 $21,843 $43,685 struction period Environmental $373 $746 $1,492 benefits Safety $39 $114 $228 Total $11,333 $22,703 $45,405 As a share of 0.2 0.3 0.7 GDP Source: Authors calculations. 33 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 4: Modern Methods of Construction in School Projects Around the World Modern Methods of Construction Chapter 4: Modern Methods of Construction in School Projects Around the World (summary of interviews) Any new approach to education infrastructure is Figure 45. Flat pack cross-laminated timber best evaluated through the views and experiences manufactured off-site of users. Therefore, the author’s team has conducted several interviews with different stakeholders and decision-makers regarding their experiences with the schools that were built using modern methods of construction. These stakeholders represented different perspectives on the process from interna- tional and national program managers to those at the receiving end at the school level. The team also included the experiences of construction companies and municipal councils to reflect all of the benefits and the downsides of the approach. Survey Participants Source: MAKSYM CHUB/Shutterstock.com 1. Manchester City Council (MCC) 60 Figure 46. The kindergarten Maria de Monserrate, Portugal – concrete panel build manufactured The MCC implemented the Manchester Building off-site Schools for the Future (BSF) Program in the early 2000s. As part of this program, the city built 33 new high schools ranging from 4,500 square meters to 9,000 square meters delivered within a “kit of parts” standardized solution. One school (St Agnes Pri- mary School) was constructed using prefabricated cross-laminated timber panels (2D) imported from Sweden (see example in Figure 45). The interview was conducted with Gillian Ramsbottom, ARB Cap- ital Programmes and Procurement, Manager and Alistair Burns Grad Dip Arch RIBA, Design Manager. Another program implemented by the MCC was Source: Authors, 2016 the Manchester Educational Basic Needs (EBN) Figure 47. School in the Zaatari Refugee Camp built Schools Building Program. The program supported with a prefabricated steel structure with composite the building of 25 primary school ex-tensions panels for walls and an insulated canvas roof ranging from stand-alone buildings for early years education to fully accessible 2,200 square meters two-story classroom blocks. Some were built using off-site lightweight (steel) volumetric modules (3D), some using off-site precast concrete panels (2D), and some with structural insulated panels (SIPs) made from timber. 2. UNICEF WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene) Division UNICEF implements a wide variety of education projects in the most vulnerable countries of the Source: UNICEF, n.d. 60 https://www.manchester.gov.uk/ 34 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 4: Modern Methods of Construction in School Projects Around the World Modern Methods of Construction world. The team producing this report had a con- Figure 48. Transitional School in Roh, Pakistan versation with the manager of the WASH program – hybrid construction with foundations built Section C 13.0 to get the perspectives of UNICEF on the use of the traditionally of brick and mortar and with walls MMC for building schools. The manager’s responses and roofs prefabricated by local manufacturers are mostly based on their direct experience of man- aging the Zaatari Refugee Camp in Jordan. As part of its refugee support program, UNICEF supported the construction of two schools using a prefabricated system imported from Germany. The interview with the WASH division at UNICEF also captured the organization’s experience with MMC projects in other countries. In Pakistan, it sup- ported the construction of 100 transitional school structures, each of which were 65 percent prefab- Source: Transitional Learning Spaces, UNICEF, 2011 ricated and 35 percent traditional construction, and Photo: UNICEF, Pakistan 104 schools that were prefabricated light gauge Figure External 49. MAE – hybrid method of view of Transitional Central school in Roh steel structures with insulated pre-fabricated wall and roof panels with in-situ floor and foundations. PAKISTAN construction, both volumetric and traditional In Haiti, UNICEF supported the construction of schools in an earthquake-affected area using pre- 2010 / Flood / UNICEF 2 fabricated steel structures and roof cladding, with Agency: UNICEF/flood affected areas of Pakistan traditional construction being used for the founda- Location: Temporary Learning Spaces (TLS) in Flood Affected Areas, tions and half-height walls. In Iran, it supported the Transitional School Structures (TSS) in Singh province construction of an emergency prefabricated modu- No. of users: 4,000 TLS: 200,000 children, including 50% girls 200 TTS: 24,000 children, including 10,500 girls lar school based on a steel structure with prefabri- Classroom 40sqm with 40 children cated insulated wall panels and an internal drywall Anticipated lifespan: 30 years system. Annex 1 presents these examples in more Actual lifespan: not known yet detail. TSS: 3 classrooms per TSS, child-friendly school furniture; Facilities provided: Source: Authors, 2024 3. Manchester Enterprise Academy Central Figure 50. Timber prefab Kindergarten in (MAE Central) School Podgorje and Šmartno 192 This was a one-off project to build a single school, the Manchester Enterprise Academy Central in 2016. The interview was conducted with Dave Bell, CEO Altius Trust and the responses were informed by the users direct experience with the design, con- struction, and running of the school. Manchester Enterprise Academy Central is a 7900 square meters newly built secondary school for 1,050 students constructed using an off-site volu- metric system and traditional steel frames for the larger spaces such as sports and assembly halls. 4. Municipality of Slovenj Gradec, Slovenia In the municipality of Slovenj Gradec, Slovenia the team interviewed Ivica Vaukan, the director of kin- dergartens, about the experience of using the MMC buildings seen in Figure 50 for educational and child development purposes. Source: Authors, 2015 35 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 4: Modern Methods of Construction in School Projects Around the World Modern Methods of Construction 5. Laing O’Rourke,61 construction firm, UK Figure 51. MAE Central – hybrid method of construction (volumetric and traditional) The Laing O’Rourke company implemented the Manchester Educational Basic Needs (EBN) school-building program. The program included: (i) the construction of six primary school extensions ranging from 150 to 900 square meters using an off-site volumetric system; (ii) the Manchester Com- munication Primary Academy, a 2,075 square meters new-build primary school for 420 pupils built with an off-site precast concrete frame and a panelized system; (iii) the Manchester Enterprise Academy Central (see above), a 7,900 square meters new- build secondary school for 1,050 pupils constructed using an off-site volumetric system and traditional steel frames for the larger spaces such as sports Source: Authors, 2024 and assembly halls; and (iv) the Dean Trust in Ard- wick, a 8,095 square meters new-build secondary reduction of 5 percent in material waste compared school for 1,200 students constructed using an off- with the average 25 percent of equivalent waste site volumetric system and traditional steel frames produced on traditional new-build schemes. for the larger spaces such as sports and assembly halls. For the EBN Schools Building Program, the off-site solutions proposed by the contractors offered one distinct advantage, speed of construction, as the The Interview Questions and Responses need to provide additional school places was urgent. The standardized design also made it cost-effi- The interview guide included eleven questions that cient. In addition, the need for less time spent on were mostly standard but were sometimes varied to site meant that where the new build was an exten- more accurately reflect the profiles of the respond- sion to an existing school, there was far less disrup- ents. tion for the students (three months rather than 12 months) but also less dust and noise compared with Question 1. Why use off-site construction? a traditional build. The perspective of Manchester City Council Before proceeding with the prefabrication solu- tion, the MCC asked each individual school (the end For Manchester City Council, the main driving factor users) to approve the scheme. The council took end for choosing off-site construction was the speed of users from the schools included in the program to delivery. Regarding cost, the savings were not that visit recently completed prefabricated schools to significant. For the Building Schools for the Future demonstrate to them that a modular school could Program, the MCC, together with its partners (con- deliver what they expected from the new school tractors, architects, and engineers), developed a building. “kit of parts” of pre-designed and pre-engineered standardized components and assembly details The appearance of resulting modular schools is that were to be applied to all new buildings. This indistinguishable from a comparable traditional new approach allowed for flexibility in the design of each build. In fact, the majority of staff, students, and visi- individual school while achieving consistent quality tors to the schools cannot tell that they were mostly across the building stock. This also streamlined the built in factories. design process as the building and assembly details were specified from the approved toolkit and When the MCC invited tenders for the school pro- included in each new building. Large parts of the jects, it did not specify which construction method buildings (such as mechanical and electrical rooms) was to be used. Laing O’Rourke (LOR) offered to were manufactured off-site, which improved quality build the schools using off-site construction to and reduced the amount of time that needed to be reduce time on site, to reduce costs, and to improve spent on-site. the health and safety of the workers while still being able to deliver 21st century learning environments. Another objective was to minimize construction The MCC accepted the offer, based on LOR’s track waste. The “kits of parts” approach achieved a record with modern methods of construction and its 61 https://www.laingorourke.com/ 36 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 4: Modern Methods of Construction in School Projects Around the World Modern Methods of Construction confidence that the proposed standardized solution that the municipality is rich in timber and has exist- would provide enough design flexibility to respond ing prefab factories in place. A local producer was to each school’s needs and aspirations. All of the able to offer the lowest price, so the kindergartens projects were delivered on time and on budget. were built off-site from local timber, while transport costs were minimized, and the income spent ben- The perspective of UNICEF efited the local region. The municipality has been very pleased to have a high-quality timber building For the Zaatari Camp project, a UNICEF represent- comparable to the highest standards seen in nearby ative was asked to do a presentation at a donors’ Austria, Germany, and Scandinavia. meeting to ask the key question: do you want to spend money, or do you want to invest money to Question 2: Did prefabrication impose provide schools in the camp? Depending on which restrictions on the creation of appropriate answer was chosen, the solution would be very dif- educational spaces? ferent. If the donors’ answer was to spend money, then they could have an impact immediately, but it The perspective of Manchester City Council would be short-lived with few benefits accruing to children. In contrast, if their answer was to invest, No. The design for the schools aligned with the way then they could potentially have a long-lasting in which the school wanted to deliver their curricu- effect. The representative suggested that by using lum, and the modular buildings were assembled in prefabricated systems it would be possible once the accordance with the design. refugee crisis was over for the school buildings to be dismantled and transported to Syria to provide Where a volumetric system was used, the main schools for the returning Syrian children. This would constraint for the layout was the maximum size of have not only economic benefits but also psycho- a module that could be transported safely from social benefits as these schools would provide some the factory to the site. This was calculated to be 3 continuity in the disrupted and traumatic life of the meters wide, 12 meters long, and 3.6 meters high. children. This meant a spacing between columns of approx- imately 3 meters along the corridor wall and an The donors wanted to know more about the invest- open-plan arrangement limited to 12 meters on ment solution, and the UNICEF specialist presented the shortest side. For rooms that required a bigger them with a description of the prefabricated system column-free area, prefabricated concrete, timber complete with an outline of timeframe, cost, and panels, or traditional steel structures were used. logistics and of how it could be contextualized to fit the needs of the camp given that neither the Concrete panels tend to provide maximum flexibil- time nor the money was available to start building ity in terms of layout as the load-bearing structure schools with traditional methods. can be located around the perimeter of the building, leaving the floor free of columns. The internal walls In summary, the prefabrication solution was the can be moved more freely as there is always a struc- fastest way to get the displaced children back into tural floor and ceiling where they could structurally school while also minimizing the traumatic experi- connect. ence of their experience as refugees). Also, because the schools could be disassembled and moved, this The perspective of UNICEF would make it possible to relocate them to Syria in the future whenever the crisis ends. No, because the layout of the building was devised by the designer, not the construction method. While The perspective of kindergarten’s director in the prefabrication might constrain the creation of some municipality of Slovenj Gradec in Podgorje, Slovenia kinds of buildings, it does not constrain the creation of contemporary learning spaces. The managers of the city of Slovenj Gradec make the decisions about this type of investment and, there- For the Zaatari camp, UNICEF chose a system, and, fore, about whether a kindergarten building will be through good design, they made the most of it and traditionally constructed or a prefab. In the case of created appropriate learning spaces for the children the last three investments, the managers had sev- of the camp. For example, the size and proportions eral reasons to choose prefabs. One of them was the of the prefabricated classrooms were such that it financing mechanism for the projects as all of them was possible to create separate zones for children were built through public-private partnerships for of different ages or different activities (such as a the term of 15 years. The next important reason was hygiene corner or a small reading area). 37 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 4: Modern Methods of Construction in School Projects Around the World Modern Methods of Construction Equally important was how the classroom blocks, Another minor constraint was in the size of the together with the toilet blocks, were arranged offices, which, because the school design was based on-site to make the children feel that they were in on a grid, was smaller than ideal. In contrast, in the an inviting education environment, not in a ware- traditional building, they were more able to carve house. So the designers looked at the sun’s path, out small rooms with less dependence on the struc- the prevailing winds, and the building’s relationship tural grid. with the neighborhood and reached out to parents and local artists to decorate the building and give Despite these constraints, because the clients were it a distinct identity. In some instances, external closely involved in designing their own school, the spaces were covered to protect children from the building that they have now is the building that they sun and heat of the desert. envisioned – an inspiring space that facilitates the delivery of the school’s curriculum. At first, the classrooms were not provided with electricity or any mechanical services. The design Question 3: Are there any benefits to allowed for the windows to provide sufficient nat- standardized design? ural light and ventilation, but in other building pro- grams, the schools have been provided with small The perspective of Manchester City Council solar panels to enable them to run a computer or a projector. The MCC interviewee was not able to speak for each individual school but believed that modular/ Figure 52. School in Zaatari Camp, open-air standardized designs have a lot to offer to clients corridor with classrooms on either side with large school building programs. The MCC is developing standard solutions for classrooms and for administration/staff suites that would work for any school and that can increase the efficiency and consistency of their building program. The suites can then be arranged to fit the specific conditions of any site and the preferences of any school. Question 4: Does a prefabricated school’s lifespan match that of a school that is traditionally built? The perspective of Manchester City Council Source: UNICEF, n.d. The MCC requested that the schools being built under the BSF program should have a minimum The perspective of the managers of the MEA lifespan of 60 years, emphasizing their message to Central the community that the schools would be built to last. Generally, no. With a good collaborative design, the Due to budget constraints and being based on a learning areas were created as envisioned. model of private sector financing of public sector projects, for the EBN Program MCC requirement for The only rooms where the design was somewhat the new buildings was for a 25-year lifespan. How- constrained were the science laboratories. The ever, the modular buildings delivered under this requirement from the contractor was that all of the program, had the foundations and the structural worktops that needed to have services (such as gas, elements designed and built for a 60-year lifespan. water, and electricity) for experiments had to be connected to a wall. This meant the worktops had The perspective of kindergarten’s director in the to be arranged around the perimeter of the room municipality of Slovenj Gradec in Podgorje, Slovenia or have a “peninsular” arrangement. This arrange- ment is working, but the clients ideally wanted the The municipality has almost 40 years of experience laboratories to have separate bollards with power with building prefabricated kindergartens based on outlets dotted around the room and this was not panelized timber wall construction. However, since possible. Now they feel that they cannot make the the kindergartens were built, several standards most of the science labs at MAE Central because of have been changed, especially for energy efficiency, this constraint. while requirements regarding the amount of space 38 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 4: Modern Methods of Construction in School Projects Around the World Modern Methods of Construction per child in kindergartens have increased. Also, the One big advantage of a volumetric system is that, available materials used for prefab construction as the modules are lightweight and sit on a strong have improved. Forty years ago, roofs and insula- foundation, there are practically no settlement tion were made using asbestos, which is a health movements of the upper structure of the build- hazard. This was one of the main reasons that the ing, which means that the building remains free of municipality opted for new buildings to replace the cracks. old ones. Regarding their life span, they expect the new ones to last at least 60 years, most likely more. The standardized design of these prefabricated schools makes maintaining and modifying the elec- The perspective of Laing O’Rourke trical and mechanical installations straightforward and generally easier than in traditionally built build- All of the schools under Manchester’s EBN program ings. were required to have the same 60-year lifespan warranty as expected from traditionally built Question 6: Regarding cost, how do schools, and the Laing O’Rourke company delivered prefabricated schools compare with to this specification. Prefabrication does not pre- traditionally built schools? vent buildings from being built to last a long time. Their lifespan depends on the design and specifi- The perspective of Manchester City Council cation of the building, not on the methods of con- struction used. Overall, all of the schools built with standardiza- tion and off-site construction came in on budget, Question 5: How does maintaining even St Agnes Primary School for which the timber a prefabricated building compare to panels that formed the walls, floors, and roofs were maintaining a traditionally built one? imported from Sweden. The perspective of Manchester City Council Volumetric systems seem to be not as efficient in terms of materials as concrete or timber panel For ease of maintenance, the MCC chose to take systems. For example, with volumetric systems, it the same approach to designing the prefabricated makes sense to pour the ground floor slab across the schools as they would to traditionally built schools. whole footprint of the building, but then the mod- For example, they required that the most vulnerable ules come with their own floor so inevitably there and frequently used points in the building such as is duplication. Also, as each module comes with its door handles, windows, exposed corners, walls, and own structural column in each corner, when one stairs to be should robust and capable of support- module is attached to another, there are two col- ing heavy use. How easy it is to maintain a school umns when one would suffice. However, the stand- depends on its design and specification, not on the ardized design of one of the latest batches of school method used to construct it. buildings has resulted in a 15 percent reduction in costs per school compared with previous designs. The perspective of Laing O’Rourke (LOR) All of the timber panels imported from Sweden for With the first schools, LOR encountered some St Agnes Primary School came in one ship along teething problems that informed the design and the Manchester Ship Canal. In comparison with the build of the subsequent batch of school build- number of delivery trucks usually needed for tradi- ings. For example, during the construction of the tional construction, this proved to be environmen- first school, the interface between the volumetric tally advantageous as well as cost-effective. modules and the external floor finish (the perime- ter detail) was not fully resolved and caused some The factories that manufactured the components maintenance issues. Lessons were learned from this, for both the schools built using prefabricated con- and in subsequent schools, the detail was made to crete panels and those built using volumetric mod- work as the client expected. ules were located more than 100 miles away from the construction sites. Nevertheless, transporting Because the floor and wall finishes are the same the components to the sites proved to be cost-ef- in the prefab schools as they would be in a tradi- fective in each case. tionally built school, the day-to-day maintenance regime for the off-site pre-fabricated schools is the same as the regime required to maintain tradition- ally built schools. 39 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 4: Modern Methods of Construction in School Projects Around the World Modern Methods of Construction The perspective of UNICEF Question 7: What are the main advantages of using off-site construction? Normally, in low and lower-middle-income coun- tries, traditional construction involves basic materi- The answers received from interviewees to this als, simple forms of construction, and low-cost and question can be summarized as follows: low skilled labor. Incorporating prefabrication in this context means that there will be additional costs 1- Speed. Fast implementation of a school build- associated with training workers to handle the new ing project means that educational activities can technology. In high-income countries, the imple- start earlier. For example, in Slovenia the total mentation of prefabrication tends to be cheaper construction time for Podgorje kindergarten was than traditional methods because the technical 23 weeks, which is slightly more than five months knowledge and infrastructure are already in place, from the start of construction to the operation and faster implementation reduces the cost of labor. of the building. At the same time, assessing and comparing costs 2- Consistency in quality. Not only this means that between the different methods of construction is the schools are well-built but also that all of the a complex exercise. For a large building program, schools are more or less the same in different economies of scale are achievable with pre-fabri- neighborhoods or villages. Making the compo- cation that are not achievable with traditional con- nents of a school in a factory environment cre- struction. ates better conditions for workers and causes fewer job-related accidents than on-site con- The overall opinion of the UNICEF representative struction. Another bonus is that having only one was that the prefabricated schools as built in Zaatari contractor facilitates communication with the provided the best value-for-money option. client both during construction and after delivery. The perspective of kindergarten’s director in the 3- Cost predictability and savings. Off-site con- municipality of Slovenj Gradec in Podgorje, Slovenia struction is cost-effective, especially for larger projects, which can benefit from economies of The managers of the municipality believe that the scale. It also results in cost savings for clients architecture of a building is the key element driv- because the schools can be disassembled and ing the cost. In the municipality, kindergartens with re-used elsewhere. eight playrooms were built for 1.45 million euros each, while a traditionally constructed kindergar- 4- Use of timber. Timber has an advantage over tra- ten with 12 playrooms in a city only 15 kilometers ditional concrete and brick buildings because it away was built for 3.2 million euros. This cost was 30 makes users feel warm, cozy and comfortable. percent higher than the kindergarten in Podgorje, despite the fact that the Podgorje kindergarten 5- Capacity building. By introducing MCC technology was built with panel timber walls, which is the high- in areas with low labor skills, it is possible to provide est prefab standard. The cost per square meter of local communities with appropriate skills train- this type of prefab is a bit higher than traditional ing to enable them to keep up with technologi- construction, but with good planning, it can still cal advances happening in the rest of the world. end up cheaper. This is not to mention the benefits of timber in the educational environment such as Question 8: What are the main good inner climate for the users. disadvantages of using off-site construction? The perspective of Laing O’Rourke (LOR) The answers received from interviewees to this question can be summarized as follows: Construction costs have multiple variables. The big- gest element that influenced the final cost of these 1- Layouts can be a bit dull, often in rectangular prefabricated schools was the reduced time needed gridded arrangements. It is difficult to add archi- on-site because of the use of off-site volumetric tectural features such as overhangs or cantile- construction. This reduced on-site overheads, such vers. The technology, systems, and detailing are as site staff, facilities, and site-based services. still evolving. The more modular, repetitive, and based on a “kit of 2- All of the design input is concentrated at the parts” a building is, the more savings are achieved beginning of the project. It can be very costly with off-site construction. or impossible for clients to make any changes 40 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 4: Modern Methods of Construction in School Projects Around the World Modern Methods of Construction to the layouts after final approval as this may by the time the third modular school was built, the involve losing the timeslot allocated by the fac- design was optimal. tory for the job in question and putting it at the back of the queue. On the one three-story, lightweight (steel structure) volumetric school, there have been some issues with 3- The costs and logistics of transportation can be bounce on the floors and stair cores, noise transfer a considerable constraint in some areas. between the rooms and through the floors, as well as the fire compartments of facade components. 4- Local and site constraints can be a barrier to On the other hand, the schools built with concrete implementing off-site construction. Off-site or cross-laminated timber panels are and feel more modular systems cannot be implemented every- solid and robust. where, especially in difficult-to-access sites. The MCC prefers the concrete panels solution 5- Off-site construction is best suited to particular because it is more robust, structurally efficient, and projects in which repetition, standardization, and flexible, and the manufacturing process was very simple design are appropriate. streamlined. 6- In low-income countries where the governments The perspective of MAE Central have very small budgets for education, the likeli- hood of them deciding to adopt a prefabricated The ability to mix modular with traditional building system and replicating it is low. worked really well and resulted in a fantastic building. Question 9: What were the most important The standardization and repetitious nature of mod- lessons you learned? ular constructions work well for a school because it is possible to take the template of one classroom, The perspective of Manchester City Council for example, and use it for all class-rooms through- out the school. Preparation is fundamental. If everything is designed and thought through by the time the design is sent Modular construction can easily be scaled up. to the factory, it makes the whole process very effi- cient and simple. Preparation includes designing a The speed of construction was hugely impressive, building for a specific location and assessing the as it went from an empty site to a complete, beau- availability of suppliers/factories, transportation tiful building very quickly. So the speed of construc- routes, and labor skills, after which the whole pro- tion was probably the biggest advantage of using cess runs efficiently. modular off-site construction. The designer’s expertise is fundamental. If the What is also very interesting is that, when the build- designer is not an expert in the particular system on ing was finished, no one would know that it was which he or she is working, the benefits that prefab- built using modular construction as it looks like any rication offers will not be maximized. other traditionally built school. For a large building program, it is useful to first build An important factor is whether the clients or end a prototype to test out the design. Thereafter, the users can quickly grasp what can be achieved with design can be fine-tuned if necessary before the modular construction. Also, a good design team is order for larger quantities is sent to the factory. If critical to successfully applying prefab systems to the design is flawless, then the building program meet the client’s brief. will run smoothly. For the MCC schools that were built with pre-fabricated concrete panels, life-size The most challenging aspect for end users was that mockup sections of the buildings were built in the the full design had to be finished and confirmed factory to test the components' details before the upfront before the modules were manufactured, as final design went to production. This approach paid making any changes would have been very costly. for itself because, when the components arrived at This put considerable pressure on end users to the building site, the assembly process was straight- confirm specific details (such as the design of the forward. All of the minor detail issues encountered teachers’ wall or the position of electrical sockets in in the construction of the first two modular schools a classroom) quickly and much earlier in the process built (for example, with the window flashing detail than if the building was going to be built with tradi- and stair handrails) were improved upon so that, tional methods. 41 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 4: Modern Methods of Construction in School Projects Around the World Modern Methods of Construction The perspective of UNICEF It is important to be creative. For the Zaatari Camp, the company that manufactured the classrooms did Wherever or whichever organization is involved not manufacture toilet blocks. So, with the children’s in large-scale construction, they should always participation, UNICEF created an off-site solution engage an architect and an engineer. Not only will that involved adapting a shipping container into a the buildings be safer, but also and equally impor- self-sufficient toilet block. After the site was made tantly an architect will make the most of the availa- ready to receive the container, it was delivered to ble resources, achieving maximum value for money. the site with all its utility connections in place ready Hiring a team of construction professionals to deliver to be plugged in and put into service immediately a large school building program pays for itself many – complete with all the plumbing fixtures, the water times over and represents a low percentage of the tank, and the septic tank. overall project cost. Figure 53. Prefabricated (adapted ship container) Community engagement is important. Communi- toilet block at Zaatari Camp ties generally know what they want but don’t have the resources or know-how to implement it. Also, the community is the source of the kind of local information that is a crucial input to enable the design of a project to be implemented successfully. Their participation increases the likelihood of the buildings being sustainable, fully used, and easy to operate and maintain. Also, if the local community is engaged in the procurement and construction pro- cess, they will develop a sense of ownership in the schools and are likely to take good care of it. Using prefabrication does not exclude community par- ticipation. For the Zaatari Camp, UNICEF involved students from the Jordan Architecture Association Source: UNICEF, n.d. who were descendants of Syrians and Palestinians who had emigrated to Jordan as refugees a gen- Question 10: How can off-site construction be eration earlier. They became crucial players in the applied in developing countries? design and documentation of the school buildings. The perspective of Manchester City Council The speed of prefabrication also makes it possible for children to start going to school again quickly Prefabrication can be an invaluable tool to cost-ef- after emergencies, thus minimizing the disruption fectively scale up construction projects in develop- to their education. ing countries. There are a lot of options for prefab- rication (2D, 3D, steel, concrete, timber), so all that is A multitude of prefabricated systems currently required is to choose the most appropriate option exist, and the industry is evolving fast. The key is for each situation. The building program should be to research what systems are available and then design-led. There are several questions to consider. choose the appropriate system for each sce- nario. While UNICEF was working in Haiti, it came What kind of spaces are required? For instance, across a wall panel system consisting of a core of in one of the primary schools that were built with extruded polystyrene foam that had been used in prefabricated volumetric modules, the classrooms a social housing scheme in the Dominican Repub- were arranged along two sides of a central inter- lic. The panels were suitable for the housing layouts nal “street” that was covered very efficiently with because, once in place, the panels could easily be just roof cassettes (prefab panels) supported by cut to accommodate service conduits before the the classroom modules. This arrangement meant final cement coat was applied, which sped up the that the classrooms could open up onto this central construction. area where a multitude of activities was planned in accordance with this school’s curricular need. Would Solid floors are essential as evidence shows that similar considerations apply where the need is vast children are most likely to develop intestinal infec- and urgent, and resources scarce? tions through contact with dirty or muddy floors. What materials are locally available (including sus- tainable resources such as clay or rammed earth) 42 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 4: Modern Methods of Construction in School Projects Around the World Modern Methods of Construction that are appropriate for the job? Also, does the local cation should be seriously considered as a tool to workforce possess the necessary skills to assemble reduce the educational infrastructure gap in places prefab components on-site with little supervision? like Africa. Is the design appropriate for the local environmen- Question 11: Is the school easy to adapt or tal conditions? For example, the Popup School solu- modify? tion would likely overheat in hot countries. The perspective of Manchester City Council Is the available transport infrastructure sufficient to transport the chosen prefabricated components? The ability to adapt or modify the prefab schools If not, it may be necessary to choose a different should be built into their design from the outset. option. Also, is the right equipment available to assemble the components? Would cranes be avail- For the EBN program, a suite of three primary able? Or will the components need to be designed school classrooms was designed with folding par- for manual assembly? titions between them so, when required, the class- rooms could be opened up to conduct a lesson for What is the type of response needed in each differ- say 90 children with only two teachers. ent scenario? Different levels and systems of pre- fabrication suit different needs from a short-term For the BSF program, where the schools were emergency situation to a much more longer-term designed using the “kit of parts” approach, a pre- response. At one end of the spectrum, all that might scribed way of adapting the layout was built into be needed is a tent or marquee whereas at the other the design so the school could easily add or remove end of the spectrum what might be needed is a fully internal walls at specific grid intervals. finished classroom arriving on the back of a truck. Could a storage system that works on the same Some of the schools built with a volumetric solution principle as IKEA furniture be appropriate? In such (as part of the MCC’s building programs) have only a system, basic bookshelves, for example, could be limited scope to be adapted. For example, some built initially with the basic structure/shelves but, if internal walls have service pipes running within the need arises, doors, drawers or cupboards could them, which makes the process of moving or omit- easily be added later. The local community could be ting them a bit more complex. Also, for this type then trained to assemble the components of the of school, the position of new walls might be pro- system when needed and to maintain it over time. scribed by the modular grid, for example, to every 3 meters, as the beams that could support a new The perspective of UNICEF element are located at those points. If a developing country decides to invest in educa- Schools built with concrete or timber panels also tional infrastructure, a prefabricated solution can have some limitations, for example, it can be very be very feasible and cost-effective. It can enable difficult to add new openings to a concrete wall. children to resume their education quickly after dis- However, they have the advantage of being able ruptions, thus preparing them better for their adult to support large rooms. Therefore, schools built working lives. As such, prefabrication can be a real with these materials have fewer constraints on their catalyst for change. internal layouts as internal walls can be moved more freely as there is always a structural floor and ceiling The perspective of Laing O’Rourke (LOR) where they can be structurally connect. In general, it is easier to subdivide large spaces than to open As long as demand for off-site construction is high, up subdivided spaces, but it all depends on how the developing countries may choose to import mod- building is designed from the outset. ules or building components initially while gradually developing the required skills, capacity, and tech- Volumetric solutions are easy to extend by adding nology to manufacture them domestically. They more modules horizontally and /or vertically as may consider forming partnerships with established required. manufacturers and suppliers from high-income countries to start the process of developing local Also, schools built with concrete panels or capacity. cross-laminated timber panels are as easy to extend as a traditionally built ones, provided that adequate Prefabrication is a very efficient way to deliver low- (plugged-in) openings are left in the external walls cost, standardized school infrastructure. Prefabri- to allow for future expansion. 43 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 4: Modern Methods of Construction in School Projects Around the World Modern Methods of Construction Clients should consider a prefabrication “bolt-on” be taken out as required to add additional modules system that allows for the building to be dismantled horizontally. Furthermore, if the foundations are and relocated to a different place. designed with vertical expansion in mind, additional modules can be installed on top of existing ones to The perspective of MEA Central School add extra floors to the building. If designed from the outset with adaptability in mind, prefabricated So far, the school has not needed any modification. modular buildings are easier to extend and modify There are current plans to remove one of the walls than traditionally built buildings. behind the recording studio, and the school manag- ers do not expect to encounter any problems when Question 12: What were the capital and carrying out this alteration. production costs of off-site construction? If there is any need to remove a wall between two The capital cost of setting up a factory to build classrooms, the work will not be any different than if components depends on the level of technology it were being done in a school built using traditional that is required or available. It could be just a large methods. warehouse with some lifting equipment where the modules are manufactured in a traditional manner However, any modification would need to be based or it could be a fully automated production line as on an orthogonal grid, as the school management in a car factory. wanted to create traditional rectangular classrooms. Figure 54. Example of automated wall panel The perspective of UNICEF fabrication In terms of modifying the school buildings, the system deployed in Zaatari had a structural grid of approximately five meters to which walls or half walls could be added to create spaces of different sizes and proportions as required. Considering the context of this project, the prefabricated system provided an adequate level of adaptability and cost efficiency. Other models can also be easily extended to expand as required. The system adopted at the Zaatari Camp was spe- cifically chosen because it can be disassembled, transported, and re-erected elsewhere as required. Source: Riverview Homes Inc, 2008 For the Building the Education Revolution Program The perspective of kindergarten’s director in the in New South Wales, Australia, LOR built a tempo- municipality of Slovenj Gradec in Podgorje, Slovenia rary factory in a strategic location to supply compo- nents to build the 290 schools in the program. The old kindergarten was demolished, and a new prefabricated extension to the existing school was The production costs depend on how standardized built. The extension included one classroom for the or modular the design is as well as the quantity of school and four adjacent, multi-use play-rooms buildings required. Bigger savings are achieved with for the kindergarten. The municipality had a great larger orders of similar components. experience with using prefab technology, and many other schools and kindergartens in the region have Question 13: What were the transportation decided to build prefabricated ex-tensions as well. costs associated with off-site construction? The perspective of Laing O’Rourke (LOR) In the case of the Manchester schools, where the factory was located some 120 miles away from the Buildings constructed with volumetric systems are sites, and tractor-trailers were used to transport the extendable and easy to alter if they are designed prefabricated modules, the cost of transportation well at the outset, for example, using modular tech- was within budget. nology or a “kit of parts” of building components designed to be assembled on-site. As the structure In traditional construction, trucks are constantly is supported at the corners of the modules, walls can coming to the site to deliver materials and take 44 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 4: Modern Methods of Construction in School Projects Around the World Modern Methods of Construction away waste, meaning that the construction process generates far more waste than when off-site con- struction is used. Question 14: What were the costs of installing the components and connecting to utilities? For installation, it is necessary to have equipment appropriate for the components that are being installing. For the Manchester schools, the largest equipment used for handling the modules was a truck-mounted crane. Connection to local utilities such as gas, electricity, water and drainage was straight-forward as entry points for each utility were pre-designed and made in the factory, so on-site all that had to be done was plug them in. 45 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 5: Conclusions Modern Methods of Construction Chapter 5: Conclusions Summary This chapter sets out to answer the question posed struction in developing countries requires careful in the preface: “whether off-site construction has planning, collaboration between key stakeholders, the potential to contribute significantly to reducing and consideration of local conditions. The following the shortfall in educational infrastructure provision is a step-by-step guide to help decision-makers to in low-income countries.” navigate the process: In general, based on the preceding analysis, the - The client identifies the number of schools answer is a conditional yes with the caveat that it required, their desired location, and the specific depends on the context. requirements for each. Off-site construction can deliver design-led learn- - The client assesses whether off-site construction ing spaces that are flexible, and stimulating, with a is a viable option for the project by applying the sense of naturalness and the potential to be cus- off-site construction decision tool. A good indi- tomized. These are the principles of educational cator is the number of schools or classrooms that spaces that are conducive to maximizing a student’s are required as the larger the number, the higher ability to learn. the chances that off-site construction will be the best option. Off-site construction is especially effective when used to deliver large programs of standardized - The client engages with local communities and buildings. Off-site manufacturing processes offer other relevant stakeholders to present the idea scalable, quick, and cost-effective solutions to meet of using off-site technology in the project and to the growing need for more school places. find out if it will be feasible to use local labor to assemble it at the site. Off-site construction has the ability to deliver a school building program that is built by local labor - The client’s professional team and/or techni- and involves community participation. These build- cal adviser reviews the available transportation ings can also be designed to minimize the need for options, including the condition of the roads, long-term maintenance. and the possibility of importing any necessary components. Compared with traditional building techniques, off- site construction is a more sustainable, safer, and - The client’s professional team and/or technical healthier way to procure buildings as well as being adviser reviews the availability of cranes and lift- kinder to the environment. ing capacity. The combination of these inherent characteristics - The client’s professional team and/or technical of off-site construction leads to the conclusion that adviser decides on the preferred prefabrication the World Bank’s client countries should seriously system – skeleton, panelized, or volumetric. consider using design-led prefabricated construc- tion to close their current educational infrastructure - The client’s professional team and/or technical gaps quickly and efficiently. adviser designs and specifies a standardized solution, ensuring that it complies with local regulations and environmental conditions. This Path to implementation in involves choosing the right off-site construction low-income countries methods, technologies, and materials to ensure that the building will be fit for purpose, includ- Implementing an efficient, effective, and sustain- ing being resilient to natural disasters if they are able school building program using off-site con- likely to occur. 46 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 5: Conclusions Modern Methods of Construction - The client’s professional team and/or technical Challenges for implementation adviser reviews potential off-site manufactur- ers and supply chains with a preference for local in low-income countries construction firms or off-site construction spe- In developed countries, off-site construction tech- cialists who have experience in the chosen con- niques are being widely used to deliver high quality, struction method. permanent school buildings, both as one-off pro- jects and as entire school building programs. For - The client’s professional team and/or technical example, the Victorian Government in Australia is advisor produces a schedule for the delivery of successfully delivering 100 modular schools across the project and a cost plan. the state over a four-year period, having chosen off-site construction as an efficient way to deliver a - The client’s professional team and/or technical large number of buildings in a short timeframe. adviser agrees upon the procurement method, for example, tenders or the direct award of con- In developed countries, the deployment of off-site tracts. construction is successful because these countries already have: - The client initiates procurement. - An established framework of manufacturers and - The client’s professional team and/or technical suppliers adviser oversees the construction process, mon- itoring the quality of construction and its adher- - A suitable network of routes for transportation ence to timelines, building standards, codes and regulations, and the brief for the project. - Widespread availability of appropriate handling equipment and experienced workers to operate it. - The client hands over the schools to local author- ities and communities, ensuring that they have However, in low-income countries, the context is the necessary resources to operate and maintain different in that: the facilities. - The off-site industry is small, rudimentary, and Figure 55. Flat-packed schools designed to be mostly geared toward producing low quality/ assembled by the local community temporary accommodation. - Road and transportation infrastructure is usually of poor quality. - Local skills and equipment required for off-site construction are limited. A 2009 study by Serge Theunynck concluded that “The experience with prefabricated classrooms clearly points to the conclusion that prefabrication is not a viable solution to the challenge of scaling up the provision of primary school infrastructure in Africa…”.62 This statement followed Theunynck’s rigorous anal- ysis of school building programs in Pakistan (1985- 86, 3,000 classrooms), the Philippines (1994-05, 26,300 classrooms), Madagascar (2004-06, 1,400 classrooms), and Mozambique (2000-02, 375 classrooms). He cited the following factors as the reasons why those programs failed: a. A lack of suppliers/manufacturers. b. The high costs of transportation because of Source: Building Trust International, 2012 the large number of small buildings dispersed 62 Theunynck (2009). 47 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 5: Conclusions Modern Methods of Construction through the country and the general poor state e. If the prefabricated classroom is an off-the-shelf of the road network. product requiring specialist skills for assembly/ installation, there would be limited opportu- c. A lack of local industry experience. nity for community participation in the project except for preparing the site. However, if the d. The fact that the buildings had short lifespans prefabricated classroom is specifically designed and were difficult to maintain, vulnerable to and simple to assemble (like the Moving Schools damage, and not well-suited for teaching and example shown in Annex 1), the community learning. could participate in the project from its incep- tion to its completion. Figure 56 below shows e. A lack of community participation/ownership. one example of off-site construction in a low- to middle-income country. Although the design is In low-income countries the development of this poor and the building system could be improved, industry and the required infrastructure to deploy it this example is relevant because: has been slow. More than ten years since the publi- cation of Theunynck’s book, it is possible to reassess - It used modern methods of construction devel- the situation as follows: oped by a South African company with bases in South Africa and Zimbabwe (https://www.con- a. International manufacturers, suppliers, knowl- cretex.co.za/). edge, and expertise are now widely available in many developing countries. - The prefabricated elements are relatively easy to transport. b. While over the last 15 years, the road network in Sub-Saharan Africa has improved, it is still under- - It demonstrates how the local community, with developed. This represents a major constraint, only a little training, can be involved in assem- particularly for the transportation of large and/ bling the construction elements. or heavy building components, that needs to be addressed by politicians and developers. - The finished building is no different from a tradi- tionally built cement building. c. The labor skills of workers in the construction sector are still very limited, which needs to be Despite the progress made since 2009, as of today, addressed by public policy. several key constraints remain to using off-site construction in many low-income countries. These d. While the widely available, old style prefabs include: (i) the lack of local capacity for manufac- were helpful for filling infrastructure gaps , the turing the necessary components; (ii) the limited new off-site techniques, expertise, and materi- availability of construction materials; (iii) the poor als available today can deliver durable, robust, state of much of the road network and the limited and flexible buildings appropriate for all learning availability of suitable transport vehicles; and (iv) the environments. lack of skills and construction experience among the local workforce. These impediments must be fac- Figure 56. Modern methods of construction used to build a housing estate Source: John-Fs-Pic and Zigmunds Dizgalvis/Shutterstock.com 48 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Chapter 5: Conclusions Modern Methods of Construction tored into decisions about whether to use off-site/ prefab construction and, if so, what kind. It may be desirable to start by importing pre-de- signed modular buildings, which are cut and assem- bled at off-site locations, and then move gradually towards setting up local factories to manufacture the components for skeleton and/or panelized buildings, which can be designed and configured to meet the project’s unique needs. This gradual approach would enable the construction and build- ing material industries to develop over time and would also make it possible to train local workers in the skills needed to assemble these buildings. However, it may be possible in some developing countries to move directly to setting up factories to make prefabricated components and let the sup- porting systems develop in parallel. 49 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction Annex 1: Case Studies This annex presents case studies from different countries, including World Bank client countries, that have opted to build prefabricated structures, whether manufactured internally or imported. The advantages and disadvantages of each case study have been assessed in relation to their potential applicability to Sub-Saharan African countries. It is likely that none of these prefab examples could be directly transferred into the African context, but each of them has lessons that could be brought to bear, while the examples as a whole can illustrate what factors are likely to be important in applying these new technologies in the region. For example, the buildings should: • Have a feel of permanence • Be transportable • Use simple technology and be simple to construct • Be easy to maintain, repair, and expand/modify • Be cost-effective • Be context specific, • Create an inspiring learning environment. Annex Figure 1. Global distribution of selected off-site construction case studies 1,2 6 3,4 5 12 14 13 10 11 15 9 7 8 50 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction 1. Classrooms of the Future, an initiative by the Department for Education and Skills, UK Use: Kindergarten or school classroom prototypes Location: Richmond upon Thames, UK Architect: Future Systems Prefab system: Modular Material: Glass reinforced plastic (GRP) Client: Department for Education and Skills initiative Capacity: 30 students Cost: n/a Size: 100 square meters Producer: n/a + Good daylight Pros: + Spacious, stimulating learning environment - High cost/high tech. Requires specialist maintenance - Non-contextual design Cons: Source: SuperStock / View Pictures - Modules difficult to transport - Not easy to expand The idea was that the qualities of the environment in which you learn, particularly light, space, color and sound, make a real difference to how quickly children learn and the pleasure that Comments: they derive from learning. The classrooms of the future must make children feel comfortable and allow each child to learn in their own way. In order to achieve this, the design must be able to accommodate a number of different learning scenarios. Source: https://rubble.heppell.net/places/media/IngeniumFlyer.pdf 2. The Greenwood. Alternative School Alternative school provision that caters for pupils with social, Use: emotional and mental health difficulties Location: Manchester, England Architect/ Grated Apple www.gratedapple.co.uk producer: Prefab system: Structural Insulated Panel (SIP) Material: Timber construction Client: Prospere Learning Trust Capacity: 30 students Cost: n/a Size: 350 square meters Producer: McVeigh Offsite Ltd + delivered in 6 months, from initial briefing meeting to completion + flexible layout Pros: Source: Authors + robust construction + small SIP components made for ease of transport and on-site handling Cons: - Timber needs to be treated or covered to minimize risk of fire Comments: Client anticipates at least 30 percent savings in utility costs and expects the buildings will have a 50-year lifespan, which is similar to the expected lifespan of conventionally constructed schools. Source: Gratedapple.co.uk 51 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction 3. Šmartno Timeshare Kindergarten Use: Kindergarten Location: Šmartno pri Slovenj Gradcu, Slovenia Architect: Arhitektura Jure Kotnik Prefab system: Panelized timber (Cross laminated timber panels – CLT) Material: Full-wall timber construction from local wood Client: Municipality Slovenj Gradec Capacity: 176 students Cost: €1,45 million Size: 1040 square meters Producer: Lesoteka Hiše + Quality and creative environment + Fully built in 23 weeks Pros: + Sustainable construction + Energy and water efficient - Handling and assembly require skilled labor and sophisticated Cons: equipment/machinery Good performance monitoring – online real-time results: Comments: http://www.energija-rr.si/view_locations_graphs/index.php?id_ location=81&id_location_slide_site=968 https://www.archdaily.com/777438/smartno-timeshare- Source: kindergarten-arhitektura-jure-kotnik Source: Authors 4. Kindergarten Ajda Use: The extension of a kindergarten Location: Ravne Na Koroškem, Slovenia Architect: Arhitektura Jure Kotnik Prefab system: Modular shipping containers Material: Steel frame and sandwich façade Client: Kindergarten Ajda, Slovenia Capacity: 58 students Cost: €0.3 million Size: 400 square meters Producer: Trimo Ltd. + Built in three months Pros: + Cost efficient + Magnetic facade can be used for pedagogical purposes - Transportation of containers requires large trucks and a good road network Cons: - Handling and assembly require skilled labor and sophisticated equipment/machinery Source: https://www.archdaily.com/186719/kindergarten-ajda- arhitektura-jure-kotnik Source: Authors 52 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction 5. Sprout Space™ Use: High-performance modular classroom Location: The National Building Museum in Washington, DC, US Architect / Perkins+Will producer: Prefab system: Modular Material: Timber frame Client: Various Capacity: Various Cost: n/a Size: Various Producer: Triumph modular Source: https://www.researchgate. net/publication/314284677, 2017 + Good natural light throughout Pros: + Good connection to the outdoors - Transportation of modules requires large trucks and a good road network Cons: - Handling and assembly require skilled labor and sophisticated equipment/machinery Comments: The space between the pairs of classrooms is uninviting and inefficient. Source: https://www.triumphmodular.com/project/sprout-space/ 6. het 4e gymnasium Use: School – gymnasium Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands Architect: HVDN Architecten Prefab system: Modular (temporary for this site) Material: Timber construction Stadsdeel Westerpark Amsterdam, Esprit-Scholengroep, Client: Gemeente Amsterdam dmo Capacity: 780 students Cost: €4,5 million Size: 4200 square meters Producer: ursum bouwgroep bv, Wognum Source: het 4e Gymnasium, D'Oude Vos + High quality spaces Pros: + Good detailing - High cost - Transportation of modules requires large trucks and a good Cons: road network - Handling and assembly require skilled labor and sophisticated equipment/machinery Modular building designed to be dismantled and re-used in Comments: different sites when permanent school is built Source: https://www.archdaily.com/41685/the-4th-gymnasium-hvdn 53 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction 7. Santa Matilde School Use: Post earthquake modular classroom school Location: Santiago, Chile Architect: Land arquitectos Prefab system: Modular Material: Steel construction with SIP panels, Client: LafargeHolcim foundation Capacity: 60 students Cost: n/a Size: 135 square meters Producer: n/a + Ecology and energy conservation + Low costs + High roofs, skylights, and two-inch double-skin walls save Pros: energy, let the air circulate freely, and get rid of extra humidity + Good daylight + Stimulating learning environment - Transportation of modules requires large trucks and a good road network Cons: - Handling and assembly require skilled labor and sophisticated equipment/machinery Comments: a pre-fabricated system was used, which was fast (required due to the post earthquake emergency) and could be easily replicated in other regions of Chile. Source: Landarquitectos, Sergio Source: https://landarquitectos.com/en/ficha-proyecto/54/catch-light- Pirrone, 2011 classrooms 8. The Vissershok School Use: School for underprivileged children Location: Cape Town, South Africa Architect: Tsai Design Studio Prefab system: Modular – container Material: Recycled shipping container Client: Woolworths, Safmarine, and AfriSam Capacity: 25 Cost: n/a Size: 29 square meters Producer: Local Source: Tsai Design Studio, 2012 + Low construction cost + Stimulating aesthetics + Add-ons (such as swings and overhanging roofs) create delight and are environmentally functional (the canopy shelters the Pros: container from the sun while allowing ventilation to reduce heat) + Could be extended by adding additional units + Cross-ventilation is achieved through a series of colorful windows located on each side of the container. - Transportation of the container requires large trucks and a good road network - Handling of the container requires sophisticated equipment/ Cons: machinery, such as cranes - The proportion of the room (long and thin) limits the creation of different learning scenarios. In the morning, the learning area container serves as a classroom Comments: for a specific grade of students and in the afternoon as a small library for the entire Vissershok Primary School. Source: https://www.tsaidesignstudio.com/architecture/vissershok-classroom 54 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction 9. Off-Grid, Solar Powered School Use: School – adult training center, weekend market, community center Location: Malawi Architect: Architecture For A Change Modular and traditional brick walls holding part of the roof Prefab system: structure Material: Shipping container Client: The Legson Kayira Community Capacity: 60 children Cost: n/a Size: 380 square meters Producer: n/a Source: https://www.acsa-arch. org/chapter/circular-economy-for- + Completely off grid the-built-environment-reconciling- + Environmentally contextual the-actions-and-intentions-of- Pros: + Multi-functional building-professionals-in-west- + Partitions function as walls, doors, and chalkboards according africa-and-europe/ to need - Transportation of the container requires large trucks and a good road network Cons: - Handling of the container requires skilled labor and equipment. - Sound insulation is low, due to mostly to the classrooms being open Comments: Being off-grid offers the big advantage of being energy efficient and independent. Source: https://offgridworld.com/100-off-grid-solar-powered-school- built-from-shipping-containers-in-malawi/ 10. Baan Huay Sarn Yaw post-disaster school Use: Post-disaster school Location: Chiang Rai Province, Thailand Architect: Vin Varavarn Architects Prefab system: Modular Material: Steel construction, divers Client: Design for disaster (D4D) Capacity: 75 students Cost: Cca. 30 000 $ Size: Cca. 270 m2 Producer: / + quickly to built + adjustable to uneven terrain + simple construction and design elements Pros: + earthquake prone design + well-lit interiors + incorporating plants in the project - Linear typology is more suitable for smaller schools Cons: - Design is suitable for the specific climate only Comments: Combination of quality architecture and cost effectiveness Source: Vin Varavarn Architects, Source: https://inhabitat.com/handsome-earthquake-resistant-school- Spaceshift Studio, 2015 uses-natural-cooling-in-thailand/ 55 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction 11. José María Morelos School in Santa Isabel Cholula in Puebla Use: Earthquake resistant school Location: Mexico Architect: Escobedo Soliz Architects, Gutierrez Architects Prefab system: Modular Material: Diverse (steel construction, prefab panels…) Client: SEP Puebla Capacity: Cca. 350 students Cost: n/a Size: Cca. 1300 m2 Producer: GDI, JAZA, DUREZZA + modules can be quickly assembled + easy replication on various locations + different spatial compositions possible Pros: + Well lit interiors + cost effective design / details / materials + Timber finishes in the interiors + Rain harvesting technology included - Ground floor modules only Cons: - Suitable for small to medium sized schools Source: Escobedo Soliz Comments: Quality design and flexible modules for various spatial Architects, Rafael Gamo, 2018 compositions Source: https://www.escobedosoliz.net/school-joseacute-mariacutea- morelos.html 12. Images Transitional Learning Space Use: Classrooms Location: China Architect: UNICEF/UNHCR Client: Sichuan Province, emergency relief Prefab system: Panelized walls, skeleton structure Lightweight prefabricated steel frame, insulated steel-clad sandwich Material: panels walls, insulated corrugated galvanized iron sheet roof panels Photo: UNICEF, China Photo: UNICEF, China Capacity: 50 students External view of prefabricated school in Sichuan province Section C 9.0 Ground Plan Size: Twin classroom layout: 12.9 x 5.6 m, 72 square meters Not known. Data on the quantities of materials required to build each 72 IMPROVEMENT: IMPROVEMENT: access Sliding window Steel C-section 60mm IMPROVEMENT: accessible IMPROVEMENT: accessible Sandwich panel infill access steps steps rampand hand rail entranceramp entrance 850 square meter unit are available in UNICEF’s Transitional Learning Spaces Cost: (TLS), Design and Construction in Emergency Compendium (2011). IMPROVEMENT: IMPROVEMENT: additional windows additional windows 1820 Transporting panels and frames to very remote areas with very poor IMPROVEMENT: IMPROVEMENT: partition partitionsubdivides subdividesspace space classroom 1 classroom 2 road access was difficult and costly. 1820 35sqm 35sqm IMPROVEMENT: IMPROVEMENT: alternative entrance alternative entrance No. of facilities: 100 prefabricated classrooms 1820 Anticipated 8-10 years 1820 1820 1820 1820 1820 1820 1820 lifespan: 1205 12900 136 Scale 1:50 UNICEF Compendium of Transitional Learning Spaces Producer: Imported to the region from within China Source: Transitional Learning Photo: UNICEF, China website Photo: UNICEF, China website Construction Four workmen with knowledge of the assembly procedure Children outside prefabricated school Hand wash next to lantrines Spaces, UNICEF, 2011 team: Remote, difficult to access, mountainous area subject to very severe Site information: winter conditions UNICEF Compendium of Transitional Learning Spaces + Insulated + The children felt safer in these structures than in their old schools Pros: + Easy to disassemble and relocate + Lightweight and flatpack design facilitates transportation - Short lifespan - Walls are vulnerable to damage and are not robust enough for a classroom/school environment. Cons: - Specialist skills and equipment are needed to maintain, repair, and modify the structures. - Not context specific, a one size fits all solution. - Natural light and views out are limited. Comments: The buildings are designed to be transitional, temporary structures. Source: UNICEF Transitional learning spaces, 2011 56 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction 13. Section C 10.0 Images Transitional Learning Space Use: Classrooms Location: Haiti, earthquake-affected areas Architect: UNICEF Client: Port-au-Prince, emergency relief Prefab system: Panelized roof sheeting, skeleton structure Prefabricated: steel frame, insulated corrugated galvanized iron Phase 1, standard 42sqm imported tent Photo: UNICEF, Copenhagen School children playing on external play space of upgraded TLS in Haiti Photo: UNICEF Haiti Phase 2,Material: sheets roof panels, fiber cement sheets for partitioning. Photo: UNICEF, Haiti external view of upgraded tent structures In situ: sand, cement, gravel, steel reinforcement bars, concrete blocks, paint. Capacity: 25 students Size: 42 square meters US$175,000 per school, including six learning spaces, Cost: administrative offices, sanitation blocks, perimeter fencing, and supplementary works. Photo: UNICEF, Haiti Material Cost: US$96,250 per school – materials and transportation Photo: UNICEF, Haiti Phase 2, internal view of TLS, a child friendly learning environment Source: Transitional Learning constituted 55 percent of the total cost of the school. Phase 2, internal view of TLS, flexible spatial arrangement Spaces, UNICEF, 2011 No. of facilities: 200 schools 144 Anticipated UNICEF Compendium of Transitional Learning Spaces 15 years lifespan: Material Prefabricated: imported sources: In situ: locally sourced Construction 30 people per school, 10 skilled and 20 unskilled workers. team: Local contractors and community members used to demolish/ prepare the site (as part of a cash for work scheme) Site Most sites on slopes required grading/levelling, while five information: schools were located within the Red Zone of Port-au-Prince (a high-risk security zone). + Context specific + Robust + Easy to maintain Pros: + Encourages personalization and ownership + Potential to enclose the structures if required and resources were available Cons: - Very basic provision Comments: Large proportion of in-situ traditional construction Source: UNICEF Transitional learning spaces 2011 57 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction 14. Section C 13.0 Learning/UNICEF Transitional Pakistan Space Use: Water, Classrooms Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) facilities including 4 gender separate latrines, a hand pump and hand washing facility; Location: External playground equipment;flood-affected Pakistan, accessibility for special needs children by ramps and specially adapted latrines areas Architect: Total No. of facilities: UNICEF planned TSS: 500@3 classrooms, 4 latrines Images Actual under construction to date: 100 TSS Client: Construction time: 30 days Sindh province, emergency relief Main construction 65% of the school is pre-fabricated insulated steel wall panels Prefab system: on materials: Panelized walls and roof, skeleton structure steel substructure, 35% is in-situ brick and mortar work done on the school sites Material sources: 65 percent prefabricated: insulated steel wall/roof panels on Produced by local manufacturers and installed by local contractors Approx. Project cost 35.000 USD steel structure. Material: per unit: Photo: UNICEF, Pakistan External view of Transitional school in Roh Approx. material cost 30.000 USD 35 percent in-situ: brick and mortar (elevated foundations to PAKISTAN per unit: Size of units: protect from flooding). Classroom: 8.25m x 4.85m wide, 40sqm 2010 / Flood / UNICEF 2 Size of construction Monitoring: 2 internationals, 15 national staff (professional Classroom engineers team: project and support staff) for overall earthquake and flood students 40Contractor Construction: depending Agency: UNICEF/flood affected areas of Pakistan Temporary Learning Spaces (TLS) in Flood Affected Areas, Capacity: Construction skill Skilled and non-skilled workers for ground works and fabri- Location: required: cators/installers for steel structure components. Who built theSize: Classroom 40 square and suppliers meters Transitional School Structures (TSS) in Singh province facili- Local contractors No. of users: 4,000 TLS: 200,000 children, including 50% girls ties: 200 TTS: 24,000 children, including 10,500 girls Classroom 40sqm with 40 children Site information: A complete assessment/feasibility was per US$35,000 assess if (three classrooms and external circulation, carried tounit Anticipated lifespan: 30 years Cost: the proposed construction sites are technically, socially, en- Actual lifespan: not known yet built of not on vironmentally and financially appropriate. Technical issues: local hazards 90 falling into water cm catchments high-raised area, plinth) height of water table, landslides risks, electric power lines, No. of facilities: geotechnical/topographic 500 transitional school structures Facilities provided: TSS: 3 classrooms per TSS, child-friendly school furniture; conditions. Legal issues: land documents, government ownership, community agree- ment, security situation Source: Transitional Learning Anticipated 30 years oto: UNICEF, Pakistan Spaces, UNICEF, 2011 lifespan: Photo: UNICEF, Pakistan 192 Material Prefabricated: locally manufactured UNICEF Compendium of Transitional Learning Spaces Internal view of child-friendly classroom furniture sources: In situ: locally sourced Local contractors and suppliers with two international Construction supervisors and 15 national staff (professional engineers and team: support staff). Skilled and non-skilled workers. A thorough feasibility study was carried out to assess if the proposed construction sites were technically, socially, Site environmentally, and financially appropriate. It discovered information: technical issues related to the flood plain, the height of water table, the risk of landslides, electric power lines, and geotechnical/topographic conditions. + Insulated Pros: + Easy to disassemble and relocate + Flat-pack components made for easy transportation. oto: UNICEF, Pakistan - Short lifespan Photo: UNICEF, Pakistan Assembly process of prefabricated wall elements - Walls are vulnerable to damage and are not robust enough for a classroom/school environment. Cons: - Specialist skills and equipment are needed to maintain, repair, and modify the structures. UNICEF Compendium of Transitional Learning - Not context Spaces specific, a one size fits all solution. - Natural light and views out are limited. The buildings are designed to be transitional, temporary Comments: structures. Source: UNICEF Transitional learning spaces 2011 58 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction 15. Moving Schools Use: School Location: Mae Sot, Thai-Burmese border Architect: Bennetta and LaRossa Client: Building Trust non-profit charity Prefab system: Skeleton (prefabricated steel frame), flat-packed Designed for self-assembly and to be taken apart and reassembled several times over Material: Steel Steel frame was fabricated off-site by local skilled apprentices. Construction On-site assembly by local community with minimum team: supervision, though assembly drawings and instructions (which are open source) were provided. Cost: Not known + Context/climate sensitive + Low cost Pros: + Stimulating learning environment Source: Building Trust International, + Lightweight and flatpack design facilitated transportation. 2012 + Simple technology facilitated assembly by the community. - Not a permanent structure, short lifespan - Walls are vulnerable to damage and are not robust enough for Cons: a classroom/school environment. - Very basic provision The project serves displaced refugee and migrant communities living on the Thai-Burmese border. The project was used as a tool to educate local people on sustainable building techniques, Comments: providing them with experience in working from plans and enabling them to develop on-site skills that they can use and develop long after the project is complete. Source: https://www.buildingtrustinternational.org/movingschools 59 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction References Bertram, N., Fuchs, S., Mischke, J., Palter, R., & Strube, gram, Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Wash- G. a. (2019). Modular construction: From projects ington, DC: World Bank. to products. McKinsey & Company. World Bank. (2015). Implementation Completion and Chauhan, K., Peltokorpi, A., Lavikka, R., & and Sep- Results Report, Post Primary Education and Train- pänen, O. (2019). DECIDING BETWEEN PRE- ing Adaptable Program Lending (Apl 1) Project, FABRICATION AND ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION: Republic of Uganda. Washington, DC: World Bank. A. Proc. 27th Annual Conference of the Interna- tional. Group for Lean Construction, (pp. 749- World Bank. (2017). Project Appraisal Document, 758). Dublin, Ireland. School Education Quality Assurance Program, Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Washington, DC: Heath, D., & Gunawardena, T. (2018). Building the World Bank. Prefab Schools of the Future. Retrieved from Pursuit, The University of Melbourne: https:// World Bank. (2017). Project Appraisal Document, Sec- pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/building-the- ondary Education Quality Improvement Project, prefab-schools-of-the-future. Republic of Kenya. Washington, DC: World Bank. Hairstans, R. (2014). Building offsite: an introduc- World Bank. (2018). Implementation Completion tion. Edinburgh, Scotland: UK Commission for and Results Report, Global Partnership for Edu- Employment and Skills (UKCES) cation (Gpe)-4, Republic of Tajikistan. Washing- ton, DC: World Bank. Osman, N. A., & Lee Na, C. (2016). Evaluating the material waste reduction by using prefabrication World Bank. (2018). Project Appraisal Document, in building construction in Kuala Lumpur. INTI Basic Education Support Project, Republic of Journal Special Edition – Built Environment. Madagascar. Washington, DC: World Bank. Schools for Children of The World & W.K. Kellogg World Bank. (2019). Project Appraisal Document, Foundation. (2019). Model School Network Secondary Education Quality Improvement Infrastructure Plan. Project (SEQUIP), United Republic of Tanzania. Washington, DC: World Bank. Smith R.E., Rice T. (2015) Permanent Modular Con- struction: Construction Performance. University of World Bank. (2020). Implementation Completion Utah. Integrated Technology in Architecture Center, and Results Report, Support to Quality Educa- College of Architecture and Planning: https://www. tion Project, Republic of Niger. Washington, DC: meehleis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2015_ World Bank. Off-Site_PMC_Report-Ryan-Smith.pdf Wrap (2009). Assessing the costs and ben- Theunynck, S. (2009). School Construction Strat- efits of reducing waste in construction. egies for Universal Primary Education in Africa Retrieved from Wrap: https://web.archive.org/ Should Communities Be Empowered to Build web/20120906200454/https://www.wrap.org.uk/ Their Schools? Washington, DC: The World Bank. sites/files/wrap/CBA%20Summary%20Report1.pdf Theunynck, Serge; Rabakoson, Hervé. (2017). Zhao Xu, Tarek Zayed, Yumin Niu, Comparative anal- Burundi School Construction for Basic Educa- ysis of modular construction practices in main- tion. World Bank. land China, Hong Kong and Singapore, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 245, 2020, 118861, World Bank. (2015). Implementation Completion ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle- and Results Report, Catalytic Fund Efa/Fti Pro- pro.2019.118861. 60 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction Fig. 1 Source: Albus J., Hollmann-Schröter K.E. terstock. URL: https://www.shutterstock. 2022. Individualized standardization as com/fi/image-photo/transportation-re- the overarching principle in the context of inforced-concrete-precast-wall-pan- planetary boundaries. DOI: 10.1088/1755- els-2036586125 1315/1078/1/012071 Fig. 12 Source: JPR Studio. House building made Fig. 2 Source: Albus J, Meuser P. 2018. Prefabri- by prefabricated parts. Shutterstock. URL: cated Housing: Construction and Design https://www.shutterstock.com/image- Manual. DOM publishers. URL: https:// photo/house-building-made-by-prefabri- dom-publishers.com/products/prefabricat- cated-parts-452672143 ed-housing Fig. 13 Source: Nikolaenko V. Construction work- Fig. 3 Source: Harvey D.M. A large multiple-sto- ers positioning timber wall panels in a new rey precast grey concrete building with build prefabricated wooden house. Shutter- steel beams against a blue sky. Shutter- stock. URL: https://www.shutterstock.com/ stock. URL: https://www.shutterstock.com/ image-photo/construction-workers-posi- image-photo/large-multiple-storey-pre- tioning-timber-wall-panels-226104319 cast-grey-concrete-1866932998 Fig. 14 Source: Modular Building Institute. What is Fig. 4 Source: Flystock. Unfinished CLT house modular construction? URL: https://www. without a roof overlooks the scenic coun- modular.org/what-is-modular-construc- tryside below the construction site. Shutter- tion/ License: CC BY-SA 3.0. stock. URL: https://www.shutterstock.com/ image-photo/close-unfinished-clt-house- Fig. 15 Source: Jang H., Ahn Y., Roh S. Comparison without-roof-1963150579 of the Embodied Carbon Emissions and Direct Construction Costs for Modular and Fig. 5 Source: Albus J, Meuser P. 2018. Prefabri- Conventional Residential Buildings in South cated Housing: Construction and Design Korea. Buildings. 2022; 12(1):51. https://doi. Manual. DOM publishers. URL: https:// org/10.3390/buildings12010051 dom-publishers.com/products/prefabricat- ed-housing Fig. 16 Source: Kim Huei S. Workers hard at work unloading construction materials on site. Fig. 6 Source: Bilek M. Mobile home handling. Shutterstock. URL: https://www.shutter- Shutterstock. URL: https://www.shutter- stock.com/image-photo/kelantan-malay- stock.com/image-photo/mobile-home- sia-may-10-2016-workers-1955158474 handling-42945184 Source: Rajiv Aggarwal. P074114 - Fig. 17 Fig. 8 Source: Stockfour. Carpenter working on a Bhutan - Education Development Pro- wooden wall. Shutterstock. URL: https:// ject. URL: https://documents1.worldbank. www.shutterstock.com/fi/image-photo/ org/curated/en/808261474902391076/ carpenter-working-on-wooden-wall-pre- pdf/000020051-20140625081758.pdf fabricated-2165641557 Fig. 20 Source: By David Anstiss, CC BY-SA 2.0 Fig. 9 Source: Kappes P. 2022. Rick Murdock’s dream multifamily housing factory. URL: Fig. 21 Source: Studio Bauhaus, Ryuji Inoue, 2016 https://www.bdcnetwork.com/rick-mur- docks-dream-multifamily-housing-factory Source: Landarquitectos, Sergio Pirrone, Fig. 22 2011. URL: https://landarquitectos.com/en/ Source: Heath D., Gunawardena T. 2018. Fig. 10 ficha-proyecto/54/catch-light-classrooms Building the prefab schools of the future. University of Melbourne. URL: https://pur- Reference: Rafael Gamo, Escobedo Soliz Fig. 23 suit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/building-the- Architects, 2018 prefab-schools-of-the-future, CC4.0 Fig. 24 Source: Tsai Design Studio, 2012 Fig. 11 Source: Dizgalvis Z. Transportation of rein- forced concrete precast wall panels for house Fig. 25 Source: Vin Varavarn Architects, Spaceshift construction by a specialized truck. Shut- Studio, 2015 61 ◄ TOC Educational Infrastructure and Modern Methods of Construction Source: State Government of Victoria, Aus- Fig. 26 struction-process-new-modern-modu- tralia, CC BY 4.0. URL: https://www.school- lar-house-2261636873 buildings.vic.gov.au/ Fig. 47 Source: UNICEF Source: Heath D., Gunawardena T. 2018. Fig. 27 Building the prefab schools of the future. Fig. 48 Source: UNICEF. 2011. Transitional learn- University of Melbourne. URL: https://pur- ing spaces (TLS): compendium; Design suit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/building-the- and construction in emergency. New York: prefab-schools-of-the-future, CC4.0 UNICEF. URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000219962 Source: State Government of Victoria, Aus- Fig. 28 tralia, CC BY 4.0. URL: https://www.school- Fig. 52 Source: UNICEF buildings.vic.gov.au/ Fig. 53 Source: UNICEF Source: UNICEF. 2013. Transitional Learning Fig. 29 Spaces (TLS) Resilient Design and Construc- Source: Riverview Homes Inc, 2008. URL: Fig. 54 tion in Emergencies. New York: UNICEF. URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/ File:Manufactured_Home_Side_walls_are_ default/files/2014/02/TLS_2013A1.pdf. built_and_attached.jpg Fig. 30 Source: UNICEF. 2011. Transitional learn- Source: Building Trust International, 2012, Fig. 55 ing spaces (TLS): compendium; Design URL: https://www.buildingtrustinterna- and construction in emergency. New York: tional.org/ UNICEF. URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000219962 Source 1: John-Fs-Pic. Construction of steel Fig. 56 and concrete for the construction of an Fig. 32 Source: Heath D., Gunawardena T. 2018. apartment building with underground park- Building the prefab schools of the future. ing with precast concrete walls. Shutterstock. University of Melbourne. URL: https://pur- https://www.shutterstock.com/image- suit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/building-the- photo/construction-steel-concrete-apart- prefab-schools-of-the-future, CC4.0 ment-building-underground-400996324; Fig. 33 Source: SuperStock. Alain Le Bot.Photonon- Source 2: Dizgalvis Z. Construction of a stop -La Phototheque, 2011 new ecological private house according to modern technology using prefabri- Source: Lime Tree Primary School, Man- Fig. 36 cated wooden panels. URL: https://www. chester, UK. Image produced by the authors shutterstock.com/image-photo/construc- from the Google maps, 2024 tion-new-ecological-private-house-ac- cording-2212789555 Source: UNICEF. 2011. Transitional learn- Fig. 37 ing spaces (TLS): compendium; Design and construction in emergency. New York: UNICEF. URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ ark:/48223/pf0000219962 Source: Rice Design Alliance. 2013. Fig. 38 URL: https://web.archive.org/ web/20230903220456/https://www. ricedesignalliance.org/prefab-rehab-pro- ject-begun-at-rice-promises-to-upgrade- homes-without-losing-their-history Source: Chub. M. The construction pro- Fig. 45 cess of a new and modern modular house made of composite sip panels on a sunny winter day. Shutterstock. URL: https:// www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/con- 62 © 2024 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org