Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:
Technical Note (National Research Council of Canada. Division of Building Research), 1955-06-01
READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE.
https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright
Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.
Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at
PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.
NRC Publications Archive
Archives des publications du CNRC
For the publisher’s version, please access the DOI link below./ Pour consulter la version de l’éditeur, utilisez le lien DOI ci-dessous.
https://doi.org/10.4224/20358608
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at
Modular Co-Ordination in Canada
Legget, R. F.
https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits
L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.
NRC Publications Record / Notice d'Archives des publications de CNRC:
https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=435f5535-2fa0-4205-b4f5-b1e0d4a2936e https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=435f5535-2fa0-4205-b4f5-b1e0d4a2936e
DIVISION OF BUILDING RESEARCH
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA
'fEClHIN II CAlL
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOTlE
ｾ
ｾｉ
FOR INTERNAL USE CHECKED BY
PREPARED BY PREPARED FOR
R.F. Legget
Project No.
174
of the European Production AgencyAPPROVED BY
June
1955
SUBJECT Modular Co-ordination in Canada
Modular co-ordination is regarded as a most desirable feature of building design in Canada by all sections of the building
industry. Progress in its use, however, has been limited due to the practical difficulties that beset any basic change affecting building components which are mass produced. In this respect, Canada is in exactly the same position as most of the other countries which are now giving modular co-ordination serious consideration. Its
geographical position, however, is unique in that it adjoins the United States of America and is therefore influenced profoundly by
technical developments in the bUilding field in this neighbour country. The record of modular co-ordination in Canada, up to the present, is therefore a direct reflection of its development in the United States. It is often difficult for those who do not know North America to appreciate how closely integrated are the technical
features of Canada and the United States, despite the profound and marked differences between their political and constitutional arrange-ments. Canadians and Americans share a common distaste for the
frequent rhetorical references to their "three thousand miles of undefended frontier". Despite this, it is freely admitted on both sides of the international border that, in connection with engineering and architectural practice, this frontier is indeed of little
significance.
Canadian experience with modular co-ordination, therefore, parallels exactly that in the United States. Canadians followed with
interest the pioneer studies of Alfred Farwell Bemis. They do not question the sUitability of a four-inch module as being, without doubt, the most suitable for North American use. They noted with regret the change in status of the Bemis Foundation but followed with understanding the corresponding studies of the American Standards Association, leading to the well known A62 series on Modular
Co-ordination of the A.SuA. They are now watching sympathetically the progress being made by the American Institute of Architects in its continuation of these earlier efforts, Mr. William Demarest (the
A.I.A. staff member responsible for this work) including Canadian cities in his field visits. Any report on modular co-ordination
from the United States, therefore, could .. be taken - to a considerable extent - as a report from Canada.
t
2
-There arei however, some features of the Canadian picture
which differ somewhat frorn-"the American situation. It is with these that the remainder of this note is concerned. The views expressed, although those of the writer, are based upon some keen discussions on the subject under review at a meeting held in Ottawa in December 1951 (1), and upon subsequent discussions with some of those then present and with others in the Canadian building industry who are concerned about lack of standardisation in design. In
summary, the problem is seen in Canada as three-fold: the design and production of bUilding components based on the four-inch module, the preparation of modular designs for bUildings and engineering structures which can thus automatically make use of modular
components, and the actual erection of modular structures incor-porating modular components. The third phase can be dismissed
with this brief mention for Canadian builders and contractors state emphatically that they regard modular co-ordination as a "good
thing", and would welcome the idea of building modular structures. They build, however, what others design and so they say (with
justice) that the advance of modular co-ordination in Canada is the prime responsibility of those who design buildings and building components.
Herein lies the crux of the problem, for the manufacturers of bUilding components say, in general, that they would design and manufacture modular units if only architects and engineers would
promise to incorporate them in their designs in order to ensure a certain market for such new products. Architects and engineers, in turn, ask how they can be expected to include modular components in their designs if they are not listed in the manufacturers'
catalogues as being generally available for use. The difficulty of this situation is further aggravated by the tempo of building in Canada, there seeming to be never enough time for the careful study of finished designs - with a view, for example, to studying possible economies of using modular co-ordination in such designs. New
buildings ｾ･･ｭ to be wanted by their owners with a very minimum of delay. The detai.led studies which alone can warrant the adoption of any wide use of modular units seem, correspondingly, to be repeatedly pushed aside in the interests of getting essential designs complete. Some sort of catalyst is clearly necessary if this circle is to be broken.
A little progress has been made and should be reported. There are some buildings in Canada which have been designed on a modular basis, notably a large arena in Calgary and a group of houses at Sorel. No study has, however, yet been made of the
special economies of these designs. Concrete blocks of modular sizes are available from quite a number of Canadian plants, this being
the bUilding material which is most definitely in the lead with respect to modular development. Window gla$manufacturers have expressed keen interest in extending the use of modular sizes, as
have also some manufacturers of metal windows, and other prefabricated metal building components. Without the wide adoption of modular sizes, however, by brick manufacturers and by makers of millwork (wooden
3
-Reference to these specific building components points
to some of the practical difficulties which have to be overcome. Brick manufacturers, for example, have to face major capital charges if they are to change the basic dimensions of their dies and brick-making
machinery0 They must naturally be assured of a certain market before
embarking upon any such investment. They point out, in this
connection, that some American brick manufacturers who did change to modular sizes found themselves facing a new competitive argument on the part of other makers who had not gone over to modular
dimensions, these competitors pointing out that their bricks were larger than modular bricks so that the customer would get more for his money if he bought from ｴｨ･ｭｾ Ridiculous though this may seem to be as a sales argument, it is qUite seriously advanced by brick manufacturers as one reason why they are being so cautious in
approaching this problem of modular dimensions.
Concrete block manufacturers face an entirely different obstacle, this being that the size of a concrete block necessary to give an eight-inch modular dimension'is only seven and five-eighths inches (to allow for the mortar joint). This means that when concrete blocks which are made to conform to this dimension are used to form a solid wall, such a wall is less than eight inches thick. This does not conform with many local building regulations which insist upon a minimum wall dimension of eight inches. There is, fortunately, a real chance of'this type of objection being eliminated within the foreseeable future. Canada has the advantage of haVing as a national advisory set of building regulations the National Building Code of Canada
(1953).
Prepared under authority of a special Associate Committee of the National Research Council, this important document is gradually coming into use throughout Canada as local municipalities and provincialorganisations officially adopt it for use. The previous edition of the Code was in actual use by more than two hundred Canadian
ｭｵｮｩ｣ｩｰ｡ｬｩｴｩ･ｳｾ The new edition gives promise of considerably
wider use within the next year or two. And modular co-ordination has been officially endorsed by the Associate Committee and
recommended in the National BUilding Code for use whenever possible. This is but one step in advance. The National Code is essentially a performance type of document. Its part dealing with Materials lists several hundred specifications, Canadian documents when they are available and American in almost all other cases.
The Canadian documents are those of the Canadian Standards Association and of the Canadian Government Specifications Board; the American, principally those of the American Society for Testing Materials. Modular dimensions are already appearing in the specifications of
these bodies, all of which are believed to be sYmpathetic to the basic idea of modular co-ordination. Gradually, therefore, it may be expected that the standard specifications used in Ganada for building components will develop, through their revisions, in the direction of wider use of modular dimensions, to the ultimate benefit of modular design.
, 4 ,
-Current experience with the preparation of an important C.S.A. standard specification illustrates another of the practical difficulties which have to be overcome before modular design becomes general in Canada. The_exact subject matter of this particular
specification need not be mentioned, since the work of preparation is still in progress as this note is written. Great difficulty is being experienced, however, in getting manufacturers from different parts of Canada to agree upon any set of standard dimensions for the building components in question, despite the obvious advantages of such agreement. Local manufacturing processes have, over the years, led to differences in detailed dimensions in the main areas of the country (British Columbia, the Prairie Provinces, Ontario and Quebec, and the Atlantic Provinces). With such difficulties
being experienced in getting agreement about any standard dimensions, it will be clear that to obtain agreement for the adoption of
modular dimensions is a task the full consummation of which, although devoutly to be hoped for, is still something for the rather distant future.
Gradually, however, advance is being made and the
atmosphere in which manufacturing standards are developed is slowly
｢･｣ｯｭｩｮｾ more favourable. Both of the Canadian standardising
bodies (C.G.S.B., and C.S.A.) have more work on hand than they can readily handle. Every new Canadian standard specification which is issued adds something to general public appreciation of
the need for standardisation. And the increasing attention which is being paid to the economics of house design, now that the
immediate post-war desperate demand for houses at almost any cost has been met in good part, is focussing attention in a very definite way upon the basic economies possible through modular co-ordination, doing so in a field of interest which is very much in the public eye.
A recent investigation of the Division of Building Research of the National Research Council has provided some useful
confirmation of the need for modular planning in house design (2). The standard type of Canadian house design involves a structure made of a wooden framework to which some type of outer protection is applied. The framework usually consists of two- by four-inch studs, spaced theoretically at sixteen-inch centres. All the prefabricated insulation which is so vital a part of Canadian houses is made up on the assumption that the studs are so spaced. Study was made of one hundred new houses, all well built by
accepted standards, and located in cities all across the country in order to get as representative a group as possible. Total wall area and the exact spacing of all studs was measured as the houses were under construction. Not only was an appreciable proportion of studs found with spacings varying from 15 1/4 to 16 1/2 inches .
(the limits within which most types of insulation can be fitted) but, much more surprising, it was also found that in all the houses examined
34
per cent of the total wall area had studs spaced at nothing like sixteen-inch centres, varying all the way from less5
-caused by openings for doors, windows etc., and for corner details, could be accounted for in very large measure by the absence of
any basic module in the house plan. More than modular co-ordination
ｬｾｩｬｬ be required to eliminate all the waste thus uncovered, but it is abundantly clear that the use of modular design could effect an immediate and substantial improvement.
This is one of the directions that the N.R.C. Division of Building Research hopes to advance its housing research studies. The challenge and the opportunity are at hand; the necessary
personnel alone are missing. The work lies in the field of
architectural research but, for reasons already mentioned, it is proving almost impossible to interest young architects in Canada in bUilding research. Here is another "practical difficulty" in the way of the necessary advance of modular co-ordination in Canada, a difficulty' which applies to so much else in this bUsy country where a population of fifteen million is attempting to do work which should be done by twice that number. The man for this work will eventually be found, however, for the Division views
this problem as one of high priority. Its independent position, coupled with its happy and close links with all parts of the building industry in Canada, suggest that its work could act as the catalyst to which reference has already been made. In the hope that this important work may soon be initiated, the Division welcomes contact with others who are concerned with the use of modular co-ordination and looks forward to mutual sharing of experiences and of difficulties in this most impcrtant field of building ｲ･ｳ･｡ｲ｣ｨｾ
(1) "Proceedings of the First Meeting on Modular Co-ordination, December 14, 1951", Report No.
pc4,
Division of Building Research, National Research Council, Ottawa, January 1952. (2) "Stud Spacing in Canadian Frame Houses" by D.H. Rutherford,Journal, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, August 1953 (available as Technical Paper No. 14, Division of Building Research, National Research Council, Ottawa.)
