Simultaneously achieving creativity and standardisation

Every building is a unique arrangement of building elements (walls, floors, roof etc) constructed from a mix of materials, which in turn may be unique or may be uniquely arranged. This makes it difficult to be certain how any given building will perform against design standards such as fire, sound transfer or thermal resistance.

In buildings constructed using traditional techniques such as with strip footings, cavity masonry walls and timber floor and roofs one may be more confident of the performance, where the arrangement is also familiar, such as a standard 3 bed detached house.

With the proliferation of new materials, it has become increasingly difficult to predict how buildings will perform against these design standards. This is because building elements (walls, floors, roof etc) are formed from an assemblage of materials that may not have been tested in the configuration used. As buildings grow in complexity in response to meeting increasingly more demanding standards the likelihood that performance may be compromised also increases. Perhaps the most well-known deficiency has arisen in AGM cladding, in which this has been installed based on an expectation of adequate thermal and fire performance, to find that it has been woefully inadequate.

To counter industry mistakes: decision makers and stakeholders (clients, building control, insurance, policy makers) now seek greater evidence of satisfactory testing of proposed build-ups. This positively improves the confidence in the assemblage of materials, but it invariably leads to a lack of options for designers. Risk adverse decision makers inevitably seek to revert to industry standards and traditional build-ups such as block and brick to avoid the need for costly rectification work at the later design or construction stages. Furthermore, complex geometry and junctions are also harder to provide evidence of their performance.

Standardisation may help to reduce risk but at the cost of design flexibility. Even volumetric modular construction is invariably bespoke for any given commission and therefore must rely on past testing of known products and assemblage.

Production line modular components benefit from the certainty of testing but retain the design flexibility.

Why?

Because the module and the connections are both tested, the final configuration is not limited. Furthermore, because the performance (fire, acoustic, structure, thermal) is integral to the panel it is does not rely on secondary finishes to achieve the standards required.

This is an exciting change to the status quo.

With SIPS or timber frame the fire and thermal integrity is dependent on layers of plasterboard applied to the inside and typically masonry to the outside. In contrast BYGO can receive secondary decorative finishes that are effectively decorative and have been tested to ensure that performance criteria such as surface spread of flame are still met.

This therefore allows huge flexibility in design form but also flexibility in finishes, with the certainty of tested performance.

Robert Barker FRIBA VProf, Director, Abode Industries