Present and future research will be oriented towards both industrial construction techniques and sustainability, and in this sense combination of mass production and sustainable houses is of a special relevance. Modular construction is a very successful building method in some countries such as Japan and U.S.A., and could be easily applied in solar houses production. In this way it is worth to refer to Solar Decathlon competition, promoted by the U.S.A. Department of Energy, as one major laboratory of solar house prototypes, most of them being modular homes. As a progress report of modular construction applied to solar houses research, whose first paper was released at “II Jornada de Investigación en la Edificación EUATM”, Madrid 2008, in this study relationship between the modular system and space layout of solar houses from Solar Decathlon 2005 and 2007 are explored. This research will allow for a new open understanding of spatial design of each house regarding the influence of the modular construction type employed on them. It actually is an essential Knowledge to discover which the spatial and formal possibilities provided by these systems are, what in fact will be invaluable for future designers and builders. In a further stage a full set of construction

design criteria will be obtained for their application to solar houses construction

Lauret Aguirregabiria, Benito

Ovando Vacarezza, Graciela

Servicio de Coordinación de Bibliotecas de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

 
LIGHT MODULAR CONSTRUCTION: ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP 
BETWEEN MODULAR CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM AND SPACE LAYOUT IN 
SOLAR HOUSES FROM 2005 AND 2007 SOLAR DECATHLON COMPETITION. 
 
1Ovando Vacarezza, G.*, 1Lauret Aguirregabiria, B. 
 
1Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura de 
Madrid, Departamento de Construcción y Tecnología Arquitectónicas. 
Avenida Juan de Herrera, Nº 4, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040, Madrid, España. 
e-mail: graciela.ovando@upm.es 
 
 
ABSTRACT 
 
Present and future research will be oriented towards both industrial construction techniques 
and sustainability, and in this sense combination of mass production and sustainable houses 
is of a special relevance. Modular construction is a very successful building method in some 
countries such as Japan and U.S.A., and could be easily applied in solar houses production. 
In this way it is worth to refer to Solar Decathlon competition, promoted by the U.S.A. 
Department of Energy, as one major laboratory of solar house prototypes, most of them 
being modular homes. 
 
As a progress report of modular construction applied to solar houses research, whose first 
paper was released at “II Jornada de Investigación en la Edificación EUATM”, Madrid 2008, 
in this study relationship between the modular system and space layout of solar houses from 
Solar Decathlon 2005 and 2007 are explored. This research will allow for a new open 
understanding of spatial design of each house regarding the influence of the modular 
construction type employed on them. It actually is an essential Knowledge to discover which 
the spatial and formal possibilities provided by these systems are, what in fact will be 
invaluable for future designers and builders. In a further stage a full set of construction 
design criteria will be obtained for their application to solar houses construction. 
 
 
 
 
1.- Introduction 
 
Present and future research will be oriented towards both industrial construction 
techniques and sustainability, and in this sense combination of mass production and 
sustainable houses is of a special relevance. Modular construction is a very 
successful building method in some countries such as Japan and U.S.A., and could 
be easily applied in solar houses production. In this way it is worth to refer to Solar 
Decathlon competition, promoted by the U.S.A. Department of Energy, as one major 
laboratory of solar house prototypes, most of them being modular homes. In each 
edition, 20 prototypes of houses are built and transported to the Washington mall. 
These examples give us an important research platform of the light modular 
construction in which we can obtain important construction criteria.  
 
2.- Objective 
 
As a progress report of modular construction applied to solar houses research, 
whose first paper was released at the previous edition of the current congress [1] by 
the authors, this research has as a main aim to study  the relationship between the 
modular system and space layout of solar houses from 2005 and 2007 Solar 
Decathlon competition.  
 
3. Methodology 
 
According to the classification shown in the previous report [1], first of all we describe 
three categories of modular construction, and then two more categories, that even 
though they do not belong to the modular construction category, they were used in 
the solar houses of the competition too. The three categories of modular construction 
cited above are:  
 
1. Single unit. 
2. Attached units (attached or stacked depending on the relationship, vertical or 
horizontal). 
3. Multiple section units. 
 
The other two categories of no modular homes are:  
 
4. kit. 
5. Panelized. 
 
Alter that, eighteen houses from the Solar Decathlon Competition 2005 and twenty 
from the 2007 edition, have been classified, according to the criteria exposed 
previously, obtaining the amounts and percentages of each category. That will allow 
us to know the level of use of each system, as a valuable information in order to 
compare it with other results and so obtain the selection criteria more suitable for 
each house.  
 
The second stage of this research has been devoted to the study and classification of 
the spatial organization of the houses’ projects from the competition. In order to do 
that, four categories of spatial layout have been proposed:   
 
1. Linear spatial layout. 
2. Non linear single space layout.  
3. Functional spatial layout.   
4. Branched spatial layout.  
 
With these criteria, we have selected the houses which belong to each category and 
they have been put in a chart for a better visualization. The quantity according to 
each type and the percentage out the thirty eight analysed projects will be shown in 
the chart. This will allow us to know the level of use of each spatial layout and will be 
a valuable information in order to compare them with other results, especially the 
modular system to check the spatial versatility of each type.  
 
4.- Results 
 
We have made a final chart, with de data obtained in the modular system and spatial 
layout, which links both criteria, expressing quantity and percentage. Then, we have 
got a global information of the combined use of the two criteria in the construction of 
solar houses, in order to analyze and recognize the construction systems more used 
and to extract valid criteria for a later utilization in the project of this kind of houses.  
 
5.- Modular construction system used in the houses of the Solar Decathlon 
Competition 2005 and 2007.  
 
5.1.- Definitions 
 
According to the modular classification that has been proposed in the first report [1], 
we will classify the thirty eight prototypes of houses according to the following 
categories:  
 
• Single Unit: they are based in a three-dimensional single unit transportable in a 
single truck. (fig. 4). 
 
• Multiple section units: They are based in the addition of several units whose 
spatial identity disappear in the final volume. (fig. 1) 
 
• Attached units: They are based in the horizontal association (attached) and/or 
vertical (stacked) of several three-dimensional units, which identity is recognizable in 
the final volume. (fig. 2) 
 
We can add two more categories to the previous classification, that although they do 
not belong to the three-dimensional module sector, they can complete all the field of 
industrial solutions used in the assembly of these solar houses:  
 
• The kit: It is a coordinated set of small parts, highly industrialized which allow a 
very easy transportation, due to its size and a very quick and easy assembly by low 
skilled staff. (fig. 3).  
 
• Panelized: This construction system consists of plane elements or panels, that 
simplifies the transportation compared to the three-dimensional modules, providing 
better finished elements and so, a quicker assembly. (fig. 3) 
 
5.2.- Module system classification.  
 
M
ul
tip
le
 s
ec
tio
n 
un
its
2005/102 Rhode Island 
School of Design/7 
units+4  units roof
2007/106 University  of 
Cincinnati/6 units
2007/112 Technische 
Universität Darmstadt/3 
units
2007/118 University of 
Illinois at Urbana 
Campaign/3 units
2005/112 Crowder 
College/3 units
2005/107 University of 
Puerto Rico/4 units
2005/108 University of 
Michigan/5units
2005/109 University of 
Misouri Rolla/4 units
 
 
fig. 1. Multiple section units classification.  
 
 
fig. 2 Attached units classification.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
fig. 3. Panelized and kit classification.  
 
 
2005/113 Web 
University of 
Massachusetts 
Dartmouth/2 units
2005/103 University of 
Canadá/4 units
2007/109 University of 
Missouri-Rolla/2 
units+panelized
2007/116 
Massachusetts Institute 
of Tecnology/4 
units+unfolded roof 
2005/119 New York 
Institute of Technology/2 
attached units  + 2 roof 
units+1 adapted 
shipping container 
A
tta
ch
ed
 u
ni
ts
 
2005/116 Florida 
International 
University/3 attached 
units+2 roof units
2005/114 Pittsburgh/2 
units+panelized
2005/104 University of
Texas at Austin/6 units
2007/101 Santa Clara 
University/2 units
2007/103 University  
Puerto Rico/2 units
2007/111 University of 
Colorado at Boulr/2 
adapted shipping 
containers +2 roof units
2007/114 Carnegie 
Mellon University/2 
stacked units +3 
attached units
2007/115 Penn State/2 
units+panelized
2007/119 Lawrence 
Technological 
University/3 units+3 
units  roof
2007/120 University  
NYIT/ 2 units+1 unit roof
2005/117 University of 
Polytechnic  
Madrid/panelized + 2 
roof unit
2005/105 Washington 
State 
University/panelized+1 
adapted shipping 
container 
Pa
ne
liz
ed K
it
2007/117 Université  
Montréal/kit+panelized y 
2 small units 
 
 fig. 4 Single unit classification.  
 
5.3.-Comparative table of the modular system. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1 Charts, values and percentages of the modular system. Source: own file.  
 
5.4. Preliminary conclusions.  
 
Alter classifying the thirty eight prototypes applying the modular classification 
exposed in 5.1 paragraph, the figures in the 5.2 paragraph (fig. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and the 
chart in the previous paragraph (table 1), we can verify that the modular system more 
used is that of attached units with a 40%, followed by the single unit with a 32% and 
the multiple section units with a 21%. With a very little use we have the panelized unit 
with a 5% and the kit unit with a 2%.  
We can observe that the system most used is the attached one (fig 2), because it 
probably is the one which satisfy the most favourable conditions about weight and 
transport width. We will need to use a crane with no high tonnage and normal 
2005/106 University of 
Colorado/1 unit
2005/111 Cornell 
University/1 unit
2005/115 Virginia 
Tech/1 unit
Si
ng
le
 u
ni
t
2005/101 Calpoly/1 unit
2007/102 University 
Polytechnic of Madrid/1 
unit+2 units  roof+4 
small units
2007/104 Texas A&M/1 
unit+2 additional units 
2007/105 University  
Texas Austin/1 unit
2007/108 University  
Cornell/1 unit 2007/110 Kansas/1 unit
2005/120 University of 
Maryland/1 unit
2007/107 University  
Maryland/1 unit
2007/113 Georgia 
Institute of Technology/1 
unit
1 (2%)
2 (5%)
8 (21%)
12 (32%)
15 (40%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Single unit Attached units Multiple section
units
Panelized Kit
Single unit
Attached units
Multiple section units
Panelized
Kit
transportation, respecting the maximum widths by road without asking for special 
permission. The assembly time is longer than the single unit one but without 
excessive joints, as the number of units can vary between two and four, although 
there is one of six units.  
 
The following most used system is the single unit one (fig 4), because it usually don’t 
have any joint and probably the assembly time is shorter, and the regulations of the 
competition give only a few days to do it. Often, there is no need to use a crane due 
to they usually incorporate a trailer with wheels.  
 
Following, we find the multiple section unit one (fig. 1), which maybe has the most 
comfortable transport, and can require or not the use of a crane.  
 
Probably, the fact that the less used system is the panelized and the kit ones (fig 3), 
is due to the great quantity of assembly tasks, joints to solve out in a few days, and 
probably the worse finish quality, due to the fact that all the assembly work must be 
done in situ. Although they benefit with an economic transportation and they do not 
use high tonnage cranes.  
 
6.- The spatial organization used in the houses of the Solar Decathlon 
competition, 2005 and 2007.  
 
6.1.- Definitions 
 
The rules of the Solar Decathlon competition define a kind of housing of 74.3m2 and 
a volume comprise in a pyramid of 5.5m high, in order to protect of shadows the 
neighbour houses, situated in an area of 500m2, sited in the National Mall in 
Washington DC, in front of the Capitol. Each house encloses a sleeping area, dining 
area, study area, bathroom and kitchen. Through an analysis and a study of the 
houses that joined the event in the 2005 and 2007 editions, we propose the following 
classification based on the spatial layout:  
 
• Linear spatial layout: Consists of a series of spaces related along a linear 
sequence of functions, setting up a single space. Its main characteristic is the 
constant wide that makes its perception as an elongated container (fig. 6).   
 
• Single space layout non linear: Consists of a flowing main space that houses the 
main functions of the house, in which the linear sequence is no dominant, nor a 
dimension above the other one (fig. 8). 
 
 
• Functional aggregation layout: It consists in the aggregation of day spaces and 
night spaces in separate areas (fig. 7). 
 
• Branched spatial layout: It consists in a linear space that serves as hall and 
corridor linking the rest of spaces (fig. 5). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2.- Spatial layout classification 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fig. 5. Branched layout classification. 
 
 
Fig. 6 Linear layout classification. 
2007/103 University  Puerto Rico/2 
units
2007/120 University  NYIT/ 2 units+1  
roof units
2005/108 University of Michigan/5 
units
2007/110 Kansas/1 unit 
2007/113 Georgia Institute of 
Technology/1 unit
2005/113 University of 
Massachusetts Dartmouth/2 units
2007/104 Texas A&M/1 unit único+2 
additional units 
2007/105 University  Texas Austin/1 
unit 2007/108 University  Cornell/1 unit
2007/102 University Polytechnic  of 
Madrid/1 unit + 2 roof units+4  small 
units
2005/101 Calpoly/1 unit
2005/106 University of Colorado/1 
unit 2005/111 Cornell University/1 unit
2005/115 Virginia Tech/1 unit
2005/120 University of Maryland/1 
unit
Li
ne
ar
B
ra
nc
he
d
2007/114 Carnegie Mellon 
University/2 stacked units +3 
attached units
2007/111 University of Colorado at 
Boulr/2 adapted shipping containers 
+2 roof units
2005/103 University of Canadá/4 
units
2005/114 Pittsburgh/2 units 
+panelized
2005/119 New York Institute of 
Technology/2 units attached units + 2 
roof units
Fu
nc
tio
na
l a
gg
re
ga
tio
n
2007/118 University of Illinois at 
Urbana Campaign/3 units
2007/119 Lawrence Technological 
University/3 units+3 roof units
2005/102 Rhode Island School of 
Design/7 units+4  roof units
2005/107 University  of Puerto Rico/ 
4 units
2007/117 Université  
Montréal/kit+panelized y 2  small 
units
2005/109 Misouri Rolla/4 units
2007/106 University of Cincinnati/6 
units
2007/109 University of Missouri-
Rolla/2 units+panelized
2007/116 Massachusetts Institute of 
Tecnology/4 units+unfolded roof units 
2007/101 Santa Clara University/2 
units
 
 
Fig. 7. Functional aggregation layout classification. 
 
 
fig.8. Non linear single space classification.  
 
6.3.- Comparing chart of spatial layout use 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table. 2 Graphs, values and percentages of every layout. 
N
on
 li
ne
ar
 s
in
gl
e 
sp
ac
e
2007/107 University  of Maryland/1 
unit
2005/116 Florida International 
University/3 attached units y 2 roof 
units
2005/105 Washington State 
University/panelized+1 adapted 
shipping container 
2005/117 University Polytechnic of  
Madrid/panelized + 2 roof units
2005/104 University of Texas at
Austin/6 units
2007/115 Penn State/2 
units+panelized 2005/112 Crowder College/3 units
2007/112 Technische Universität 
Darmstadt/3 units
2 (5%)
13 (35%)
15 (41%)
8 (22%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Linear Non linear single
space
Functional
aggregaction
Branched
Linear
Non linear single
space
Functional
aggregaction
Branched
6.4. Preliminary conclusions 
 
Alter classifying the houses according to the criteria of the spatial organization 
described above in the paragraph 6.1, 6.2 (fig 5, 6, 7 and 8), and the comparative 
table (table 2), we can assess that the spatial organization most used is the linear 
one with a 41%, following by the functional one with a 35%, and the single space non 
linear one with a 22%. The branched one has a very little use, having only a 5%.  
 
Probably the selection of the predominant linear space is due to the simplicity of the 
proposal, giving by the choice of a certain modular construction system (fig 6). In the 
other hand, the functional aggregation one and single space non linear one are very 
used due to its spatial flexibility, achieved with modular construction systems. (fig 7 
and 8).  
 
7.- Relationship between the modular construction system and spatial 
organization used in the 2005 and 2007 Solar Decathlon houses. 
 
In order to estimate the spatial possibilities of each modular system, we compare the 
data obtained in the modular system and spatial organization sections.  
 
 
Table. 3 Charts and porcentajes between the spatial organiation and the modular 
system.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table. 4 Values and percentages comparing spatial layout and modular system. 
 
kit Panelized
11 (29%)
7 (18%)
5 (13%)
3 (8%) 3 (8%)
2 (5%) 2 (5%)
1 (3%) 1 (3%) 2 (5%) 1 (3%)
Non linear
single 
space
Functional 
aggregation Branched
Functional 
aggregation
Functional 
aggregation
Single unit Attached units Multiple section units
Linear
Non linear
single 
space
Linear
Non linear
single 
space
Linear
Non linear
single 
space
Single unit Attached units
Multiple 
section 
units
kit Panelized
1 (3%)
2 (5%)
5 (13%)
1 (3%) 3 (8%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%)
1 (3%)
Branched
11 (29%) 3 (8%)
7 (18%)
Linear
Non linear
single space
Functional 
aggregation
8. Conclusions 
 
From the preliminary conclusions extracted from the tables and charts shown 
previously, we can draw the following final conclusions:  
 
1. The most versatile modular system is the attached unit one, due to the fact 
that all the spatial layouts described above can be built with this system. It has 
been the modular system most used, followed by the single unit one. 
  
2. The second more versatile modular system is the multiple section unit one, 
where the only missed is the branched layout. It is the third system most used.  
 
3. The single unit system is the third most versatile, in spite of its apparent 
rigidity has given place to two spatial types, being at the same time the second 
one more used.  
 
4. Finally the two non modular systems, the kit and the panelized ones, have 
been hardly used and each of them have produced only one spatial layout.  
 
 
References 
 
Books: 
 
Del Águila, A. (2006). La industrialización de la edificación de viviendas. Mairea, Madrid 
Gianino, A. (2005). The Modular Home, ed. Jeff Beneke, United States.  
The Rahus Institute. Solar Decathlon. The 2005 International Competition of Solar Home  
Design (Paperback). United States: Tor Allen, Clay Atchison, Anne Washmera, 2006.  
Ebong, Ima. Kit homes modern. New York: Collins Design, 2005.  
 
Websites:  
 
www.solardecathlon.org, official website of Solar Decathlon competition, EEUU. 
www.fabprefab.com, dedicated to prefab houses market. 
www.inhabitat.com/category/architecture/, Weblog dedicated to show technology 
innovations towards sustainability. 
www.mocoloco.com, contemporary architecture and modern design blog. 
ww.livemodern.com, sustainable design of houses, products and services.  
www.arkinetia.com, digital magazine of architecture. 
www.toyotahome.co.jp, official website from houses manufactured by Toyota. 
 
Congress reports: 
 
[1] Ovando Vacarezza, G.; Lauret Aguirregabiria, B. (2008), Industrialización y sostenibilidad 
en la vivienda: aplicación de la construcción modular ligera a casas solares, II Jornada de 
investigación en la edificación, Escuela Universitaria de Arquitectura Técnica, Universidad 
Politécnica de Madrid, Pág. 49-58, Madrid, España. 


Light modular construction: analysis of the relationship between modular construction system and space layout in solar houses from 2005 and 2007 solar decathlon competition

Present and future research will be oriented towards both industrial construction techniques and sustainability, and in this sense combination of mass production and sustainable houses is of a special relevance. Modular construction is a very successful building method in some countries such as Japan and U.S.A., and could be easily applied in solar houses production. In this way it is worth to refer to Solar Decathlon competition, promoted by the U.S.A. Department of Energy, as one major laboratory of solar house prototypes, most of them being modular homes. As a progress report of modular construction applied to solar houses research, whose first paper was released at “II Jornada de Investigación en la Edificación EUATM”, Madrid 2008, in this study relationship between the modular system and space layout of solar houses from Solar Decathlon 2005 and 2007 are explored. This research will allow for a new open understanding of spatial design of each house regarding the influence of the modular construction type employed on them. It actually is an essential Knowledge to discover which the spatial and formal possibilities provided by these systems are, what in fact will be invaluable for future designers and builders. In a further stage a full set of construction design criteria will be obtained for their application to solar houses construction

Archivo Digital UPM

http://oa.upm.es/6099/2/Ovando_Vacarezza.pdf

Light modular construction: analysis of the relationship between modular construction system and space layout in solar houses from 2005 and 2007 solar decathlon competition

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Servicio de Coordinación de Bibliotecas de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Archivo Digital UPM