MEP Prefabrication – Case Finland

Antti PeltokorpiAssistant ProfessorAalto Universityhttps://people.aalto.fi/antti.peltokorpiantti.peltokorpi@aalto.fi

MEP prefabrication has led to time and costs reductions and quality improvements

• Project schedule shortened 36 m 29.5 m (4.2 M$ in costs)

• 5-25 % savings in work for all MEP subcontractors

• <0,2 % rework

• Reduced on-site work 35 %

• 180 % improvement in assembly productivity

• “no waste touches the floor” –policy

• etc.

Sources: Mawdesley and Long (2002); Court et al. (2009); Khanzode et al. (2008); Antillon et al. (2014); Bekdik et al. (2016)

Worktime division of a plumber in Finland

14.5.2018 3

Plumbing

Source: Finnish MEP contractors 2013

Why MEP prefabrication is not fully utilized in Finland?• History of BES system

• MEP system standards

• Aalto CIV department’s research project together with 14 Finnish companies• What are MEP prefabrication solutions and their possibilities?

• What are the challenges and barriers for prefabrication?- How to remove barriers? What are the enablers?

• How should project and design processes and tasks change in MEP prefabrication?

• Methods: stakeholder interviews, case studies, development workshops, observations...

14.5.2018 5

MEP prefabrication solutions LVI S SPR Valmistajia

1. TilamoduulitKerrososaelementti/suurelementti x x x

Kylpyhuonemoduulit x x

Konehuoneet x x

Leikkaussalit x x

2. Tekniset tilaosatAlakattolevyjen tate (esim. valaisin ja savuilmaisin asennettuna) x x x

Tekniikkaseinäelementit (mm. keittiö, potilashuone) X x x

Lattiaelementit ja asennuslattiat X x X

Käytäväelementti (+ katot + otsat) X x x

Pystykuiluelementit (mm. Elpo) X x x

Kantavat kattoelementit X x

3. Talotekniikan keskus-, siirto-, ja pääteosat x

LVI-pystykuiluelementit X x

VJK/LJK konehuoneosat X

Yhteiskannakointijärjestelmät X x x

Toimistokattoelementit + jäähdytys x x x

IV-koneet pumppuryhmillä X

Johtosarjat x

Jakotukkikaappi X

Putkistot (esim. BIM-mallista, yksilöidyt numerot) X x

Moduulikohtaiset toimituserät (esim. pesuallaspaketti, johtosarjat, jakotukit) x x

Esiasennettavat tarvikkeet (vesimittarit, jakotukit) x

4. Tate-yhteensovittaminen muihin osiinVesikaton läpiviennit x

Väliseinä/välipohja rei’itys x x

Käytäväläpiviennit x x

Potential MEP solutions

1. Volumetric/space modules• Bathrooms, floor modules, technical rooms…

2. Technical building elements• Wall elements, floors, corridor racks with walls, load bearing

elements…

3. MEP central-, transfer-, and ending elements

• Vertical and horizontal pipes, office roof elements, technical room parts, kitting sets, small repeatable components (manifolds, water striders)…

4. MEP alignments in other building parts• Pre-cut/assembled MEP lead-throughs

Varying integration of designers

Varying timing of solution seeking

Stakeholders’ views on MEP prefabricationStakeholder Barriers Enablers Value addition Value capture

Client • Lack of knowledge about the timing of fixing

client requirements and decisions

• Lack of prefab procurement knowledge

• Relational contracts • Change agent

• Facility management

know-how

• Reduced schedule and cost

• Improved quality

• As-built=as-designed

Designers • Too rigid contracts

• Rigid division of responsibilities for MEP

design and installation

• The industry’s culture of ‘no changes needed’

• Less work if MEP sub-contractors/owners

would start ordering MEP prefabrication

directly from the fabricators

• Design collaboration with

MEP sub-contractor

• Alliance model

• Changes in sub-contractor

responsibilities

• Changes in business

models/trade union

requirements

• Installation-level BIM

model

• Designing only ’one time’

• More design work ‘for

fabrication’

MEP sub-

contractor

• Tight schedule

• Risk-averse culture

• Lack of resources

• Bad designs

• Unions’ agreements for payments

• Disturbs current business model

• Lack of repeatability

• Relational contracts

• Installation-level BIM

• Workshops for

prefabrication

• Installation knowhow • Improved quality

• Reduced labour costs

• Reduced throughput time

• Project efficiency

• Improved work safety

General

contractor

• Lack of MEP prefab procurement knowledge

• Lack of good references

• Too short-term culture

• Showcases of good practices

for prefab

• Change agent

• Realize value for

project

• Site productivity

improvement

• Improved logistics

Fabricator • The market is missing

• Design revisions

• Client requirements/

freezed design early on

• Less hassle and

material waste on site

• Better quality

• Reduced schedule

• Market development

Need for a systemic innovation

Systemic innovation = an innovation that necessitates that other stakeholders within the ‘influence domain’ of the innovation also take action to adjust to the needed changes

• Project owners and general contractors as change agents

• Designers as key enablers and facilitators

• MEP fabricators and contractors as solution providers

• Identifying actors that can add value for systemic change

• Ensuring that captured value exceeds sacrifices for all actors

Required changes for design and project process

• Prefabrication plan connected to the specific project targets

• Schedule, quality, costs, safety, flexibility, logistic requirements…

• Fabrication and installation level BIM design (‘elementtisuunnittelu’)

• By project designers, MEP fabricators or together

• Detailed logistics plan, JIT deliveries

• General contractor, MEP contractors and fabricator

• Do we have required knowhow in each phase?

Remarks on MEP prefabrication process

• Early decisions needed, especially in volumetric modules

• Do we have enough time to shorten schedule?

• Use of other industries and their ready supply networks (e.g. shipping)

• More time and resources needed on design

• Ready modular components will pay back later

NEEDS ASSESMENT

PROGRAM PLANNING

DESIGN PROPOSALS AND MASTER PLAN

DETAILED DESIGN AND PRODUCTION PLANNING

CONSTRUCTION

Volumetric/space

modules

Technical building

elements

MEP central, transfer, and

ending elements

Learnings from shipping industry ecosystem

Conclusions

• Starting from small and repeatable sub-systems• Connecting to takt or similar production planning on site

• Measuring and documenting effects• Developing system during 3+ projects

• Towards MEP prefabrication by default• Installation on site only if justified