32 PROJECT REPORT: MODERN METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION
The terracotta cladding system by NBK Architectural Terracotta was attached from mast climbing platforms
Bedford and delivered to site in batches while the concrete works were ongoing. The project was fortunate to have access to a large storage yard owned by the council just 150 metres away, so modules and materials could be dropped off overnight, avoiding daytime deliveries by road and the associated noise and access issues. Two tower cranes positioned at the tops of the cores installed modules at a fast rate of 43 per week, equivalent to about one and a half oors.
Proximity to the railway line required crane lifting capacity to be ‘de-rated’ for safety, reducing the total weight they could carry. The largest module, fi tted with bathrooms and kitchens, weighed up to around 30 tonnes, including the lifting frame.
“When we were designing and modularising our building, we foresaw this de-rating as a potential issue and designed to accommodate it from the outset,” says Farrell.
As the stack of modules rose, the terracotta cladding system, made by Germany’s NBK Architectural Terracotta, was attached from mast climbing
WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK
work platforms. There were two mast climbers per elevation, one to install the waterproofi ng and set up facade connections on the modules, the other following behind to fi t the cladding. The volumetric construction process, with parallel work streams on site and in the factory, had major benefi ts for the programme. The scheme was ultimately delivered in 28 months, two months ahead of the contract programme. Tide has estimated that even a 30 month timeframe would have resulted in a signifi cant 0 time saving, compared to the equivalent traditional build.
As Bergin points out, speed of delivery can be a key deciding factor when clients are sizing up a residential scheme: “The sooner you complete, the sooner you can start bringing in rental income; if you fi nish a year or more quicker than a traditional building, that’s a year you can spend recouping some of the costs of the project,” he says.
Rapid construction wasn’t the only
benefi t, creating modules in a controlled factory environment where, Farrell notes, each module was A’ed fi ve times, plus a fi nal time by a A manager before it left
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
