Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:
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.
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.
Technical Paper (National Research Council of Canada. Division of Building
Research), 1959-08-01
READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE. https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright
NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC :
https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=0c899232-402d-4082-abe6-a088222e6928 https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=0c899232-402d-4082-abe6-a088222e6928
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/10.4224/20378559
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at
Modular Coordination in Practice: A Record of Four Speeches for
Architects, Contractors and Manufacturers
5ey TIi" Irllltt nt " Tli n f J BLTJG
6
CANADA
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
X T O D U L A R C O O R D I N A T I O N
I N P R A C T I C E
Record of Foar Speeches
for Archi.tects, Contractors,
and Manufilctarers
A N A L Y Z E D
Published by the Division of Building Research of the National Research Council in furtherance of stimulating the wider use of modular coordinadon in Canade
Technical Paper No. 79 of the
Division of Building Research
Ottawa, August, 1959
INTRODUCTION R. F. Legget
MODULAR COORDINATION IN DESIGN F. J. Bull
MODULAR COORDINATION FOR ORDER. COHERENCE, AND CONSISTENCY
C. E. Silling
MODULAR COORDINATION IN CONSTRUCTION J. E. Coombs
MODULAR COORDINATION _ AN INDUSTRIAL TOOL
L. Bergvall
SUGGESTED READING LIST
3
I N T R O D U C T I O N
This publication presents four significant speeches describing the advantages of modular coordination in building for the archi-tect, the contractor, and the manufacturer. The first three were delivered in 1957 in Toronto as one step in introducing modular coordination to the Canadian architectural profession by the Ontario Association of Architects. The fourth speech was presented in
1955 to a meeting of the Modular Society in Great Britain.
The activities that led up to the Toronto meeting began early in the summer of 1956 when the Ontario Association of Architects formed a committee to consider the unification of masonry sizes throughout the province. Studies by the committee soon determined that a change in the sizes of these most widely used building com-ponents should provide for coordination of all building comPonents. This could best be achieved by the modular system which has proved so successful in the United States and is being tested and utilized in many European countries.
Before any new masonry sizes would be produced by brick manufacturers, it was necessary to ensure a continuing demand for them-a demand that could only come from a building industry fully acquainted with the advantages of modular coordination in building. The committee therefore organized a panel of speakers to participate in the 1957 Convention and Annual Meeting of the Association held in mid-February at the Royal York Hotel, Tor-onto. The three speakers, architects Silling and Bull, and contractor Coombs, having had extensive experience in modular coordination in the United States, discussed modular coordination in working drawings, in architectural design and in construction, respectively. The lectures have been left in spoken form in order to convey
as clearly as possible the vivid presentations made by the three speakers. Chairman of the meeting at which the speeches were presented was Mr. S. A. Gitterman of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The Division of Building Research records here its appreciation of the agreement of the speakers to have their papers published, and of the Ontario Association of Architects for permission to publish these speeches.
The speeches were published in "Grid Lines", a publication of the American Institute of Architects. Since this publication is not widely available in Canada it was thought desirable to reprint the speeches in this form. The emphasis that the speakers have placed upon the actual financial savings to be achieved through the use of modular coordination gives special value to the speeches and will answer the doubts of those who still regard modular coordina-tion as a rather academic approach to a minor aspect of building.
The fourth paper, by Lennart Bergvall, considers modular co-ordination and the manufacturer. It was presented to a meeting of the Modular Society, an English non-profitmaking company of manufacturers, contractors and architects, in London, November
1955. Excerpts from this paper, published in its entirety in the lVlodular Quarterly, relate the experiences of Swedish manufac-turers which are applicable to all manufacmanufac-turers of building com-Ponents.
The Division of Building Research is continuing its v'orlc in the development of modular coordination throughout Canada, being greatly aided in this work by the special services of Prof. Stanley R. Kent of the School of Architecture, IJniversiry of Toronto. Professor Kent has kindly arranged for the assembly of the material in this brochure. Some of his own publications are listed at the end of this pamphlet.
Ottawa August 1959
R. F. Lnccer, Director,
Division of Building Resemch.
N O D U L A R C O O R D I N A T I O N I N D E S I G N
by F. l. Bvr-r.
Frank J. BulI, A.I.A., formdy with Aeck Associates, is a pfftner in the firm of Bdl and Kmney, Architects, Atlmtta, Georgia. He bas pmticipated in meetings on modulm of the Southem Brick and Tile Mmzufacnners Association, the Structural Clay Products Institute, mzd a snninm on Simpffied Drrfting sponsored by tbe Georgia Chapter of the A.I.A. Mr. BuIl publi.sbed cn mticle "Con-oming to Modulat'' in the Noaernber 1957 issue of Progressi'ue Architecture.
I sometimes wonder why it is that all of us have not reached out for modular measure*. The same answer always comes to me-it can only be because of lack of understanding of the few basic principles. There is one good proof of this contention. Almost always, when an isue is controversial, speakers will rise and take sides; papers will be published pro and con. Yet I cannot recall reading one article nor hearing one lecture on the evils of modular measure. In order to speak or to write on some subiect, you must first under-stand it. Those who take time to underunder-stand modular measure are speaking and writing in favor of it.
t Modular measure is the term used in the United States for modular coordi-nation in building by use of the ,l-inch module.
7 F. l. Bull
What is the use of modular measure in architectural design? My designing friends who are not converts will reword that question this way: What is the use of architecturd design in modular measure? For some reason, they feel that modular will restrict or dictate the design. If we can clear up some of that misunderstanding, then our purpose will be well served.
First, let's put a limit on what is meant by architectural design. Since this panel is divided into three parts-design, working draw-ings and construction-mty I use the broad sense of design as rhat which goes on prior to the beginning of working drawings. The preliminary planning, then, is the design operation meant ir *y discussion. This can also be extended, if you wish, to include all decisions that affecr the appearance of the work.
Next, I must spend just a bit of time on what modular measure is, and is not. Modular measure is not a mystery, not a demon, nor a dictator. It means only that a uniform method of sizing and locating the features of a building is followed by the designer, the detailer, the manufacturer and the mechanic who puts the parts together on the job site. It means that there is a sptem of co-ordinate lines, called grid lines, which you can use as reference points to locate accurately everything your imagination purs in the building; and you can do this so easily, it will seem ridiculous not to have thought of it before. It means that materials can be manu-facrured in sizes which acknowledge the fact that they musr be joined to other materials. In this sense the word coordination enters. The materials are coordinated in size with each other.
Now, a mason can clip a modular brick iust as easily as any other. The window manufacturer can make special-size windows, as he always could. The millwork can be built to any detail you desire. It is for you to decide to what exrent this custom work is required to obtain a useful and beautiful building. To the extent you require it, you will use it. In making the decision, you may
have your eye on the budget. You may find that, with stock materials which are coordinated in size, there will be many places you can eliminate extra charge, waste, extra labor and assure a better building for your client. And that will be modular measure.
First, last, and always, modular is to be considered as a tool. According to Webster, a tool is an implement "necessary to a person in the efficient prosecution of his trade or his calling". Like any tool, the more you use it, the more skillful you become, the less awkward it is in your hand. Like any tool, you must also recognize its limitations, including when to stop using it and when you must not stop. There are two cardinal mistakes that make modular measure the whipping-boy: (l) forcing it to do what it is not meant to do; (2) timidly applying it to just a few things to see if it will work out. The result of the latter mistake can onlv be confusion to a degree that is fearful to see.
There is no great volume of reference materials on modular measure, but there is quite enough to learn the basic principles. From the standpoint of design, we believe that it is also quite enough if you learn only the basic principles, and then apply them to your problem to achieve the results you want. The reference material will give you dozens of details of windows in walls of all rypes. We have those details in our ofice. We study them. We have never used one, but we have adapted the underlying principle, time after time, to varying design conditions. So, the next time you see a brochure with details, and the details with grid lines, remember that is one way to do it. You can use the same principle and do it as many different ways as you can imagine. Instead of being hand-cuffed in design with a stock detail, you are simply using a tool that makes thinp easier to desigr, easier to build. The stock detail is your teacher.
How about the effect of modular materials on design? How about limiting your choice of materials to those made in coordinated sizes? I would guess that you have been and will be using
co-9 F. J. BulI
ordinated materials whether you endorse modular dimensioning or not. For six years, we designed low-cost schools with standard windows, jumbo brick, #inch steel columns on 8-foot centers, 32-inch roof decking and concrete block partidons' Every material was modular, but we were not. Our drawings were wrapped in a fog of fractions. Finally, we just woke up to the use of a tool that had been available all the time. If there has been any effect at all, it would be due to the better drawings and workmanship and would be an improvement. As for the limited choice of materials, we simply do not recognize any limitations at the expense of design. Our vely first modular job was blessed with a designer's choice of two kinds of non-modular brick and a custom-built window rype. It was a completely modular job, and the results of the bidding were not short of spectacular. There was a 2 per cent spread and the low bid was $500 under the budget.
One of our modular jobs is a school on a mountain site in northern Georgia. The facing material is native mountain stone. A crew collected it from the mountain slopes, and it is obviously not a modular material. The drawings are modular, however, and the stone is given a reference to a grid line.
This particular school will illustrate another point made earlier -the cardinal principle of recognizing the limitadon of the tool. We have an octagonal library wing covered with a folded concrete slab, with its ridges and valleys radiating from the center point. At the center of the roof slab, there is a stained-glass skylight. This is certainly no place for modular measure. So, at a particular place on the plans we have a very prominent note saying everything west of this line is modular, everything east is actual' We simply came to a place where one particular tool was no longer useful as it would be a strait-iacket for design. I must stress the fact that this is not what is called a half-modular fob. The part that is modular is 100 per cent so. The part that is not modular is 100 per cent non-modular, and there was no attemPt to mix the rwo.
F. I. Bull
to
We have learned to use two types of modules. One is a 4inch cube. This is chieflv a tool of the operetions that follow after design. The other kind of module is a planning or design module. This one is generally used as a two-dimensional unit. The size is coordinated with the 4-inch module by accepting an even multiple of 4 inches. That means a design module of something like 3 feet 4 inches, 4 feet, or 8 feet.
The design module is variable from job to job. It is chosen ro meet program and design requirements with only one limitation-that it be a multiple of 4 inches. With it, the designer works to ready reference points. Insofar as it suits his design, he locates the features of the building, interior partitions, windows, window mullions, doors and so on, in some uniform way with respect to his design module. If this much is an imposition on design freedom, it may be warranted even for aesthetic reasons. The discipline of a design rhythm has been recognized all through architectural history. But the important thing is that the design, through its co-ordination by the 4-inch cube module, has also accommodated detailing requirements so that the development of the working drawings does not deteriorate the design.
If there is concern that the 4-inch module is going to be the controlling hand in the planning or the ultimate aesthetics of your work, let me put you immediately at ease. The expectation that modular will cause design to become something automatic is in-correct. It may be either a disappointment or a pleasant surprise-depending on the viewpoint and skill of the designer. Modular measure is to be used as an aid, but it cannot relieve you of the responsibiliry for what you create-either good or bad.
I am asked, "What is the effect of modular measure on designl" Well, what is the effect of tracing paper on design? Modular measure is an aid to the architect in the sense that tracing paper is an aid-properly used, it is an instrument necessary to an architect in the eficient prosecution of his calling.
, N O D U L A R C O O R D I N A T I O N F O R O R D E R ,
C O H E R E N C E ,
A N D C O N S I S T E N C Y
by C. E. Srr.r,nrc
Cyrus E. Silling, F.A.I.A., b principal in the firm of C. E. SiIIing tnd Associates, Architects, Charleston, West Vi.rginio. He has seroed on A.I.A. conrmittees for modular coordination and has addressed A.l.A. national, regional, and chapter meetings. At present, be is the cbairman of the Americm Standards Association 462 Comninee on Modular Coordhution and the president of the Modular Bailding St and ar ds A s s o c i.ati on.
I would like to say I believe that our conference investigations here on modular measure can be of a high order. I think it is a matter of good business for every component of the building industry to constantly seek ways and means to deliver to the building public a better building for less money. In my opinion, the system of modu-Iar measure does just that.
Today's pace for distribution of penalqy and reward has never been faster in Western World economy. If the system of modular measure is of increasing importance as a factor in our construction practices under that economy, consider some of the propelling elements to that end.
As an architect practicing in this interesting, utopian welter, I am frantically in need of a time bracket to withdraw and think, if my architectnre is to measure the day and meet its larger aesthe-tic challenge. I believe modular measure orders my day to afford
that added time bracket. In our changing, churning building industry, I nrust insist that architects are its leaders, else I perish as an independent professional. I think modular measure aids my asseftion of leadership and affirms that heritage.
If building-site labor rates develop uneconomic results, and if manufacturers produce unrelated, uneconomic materials that do not fit together in size and detail, except with tailored handicraft at inordinate prices, from whom will come the needed integration? Who else, other than the professional architect, can stand aloof from the market place to bring order, dispatch and economy from the chaos of profit seeking? At one fell swoop, modular measure Iays hold on these limitations and confusions. It is a tool of leader-ship for the architect. As its exponents, the architect and the builder offer the owner more and better building for his constnrction dollar.
Modular measure, when fully integrated into our building industry, is a system that fits all building materials together in an automatic, uninhibited manner, rapidly and economically with a minimum of cutting and fitting. It utilizes, for the building in-dustry, the qualities, quantities, and economies derived from the industrial methods of mass production. It is a system of prefabri-cation and interchangeabiliqy of parts that minimizes the amount of high-salaried, skilled labor needed for assembly purposes at the building site.
From Time magazine I paraphrase an editorial. . . I hope archi-tects will be progressive enough to understand the inevitabiliry of change, and conservative enough to understand the need for con-tinuity of principle, so that we may help to restore to mankind the tension between these two poles which constitutes order. As archi-tects and as citizens, let our message to the world about order and freedom lay emphasis upon coherence and consistency. .. .
The words order, coherence and consistency offer an excellent guide to good working drawings, and their sequence forms a notable
pattern. Modular meesure embraces that Pattern.
One of our men studied modular measure a few evenings at home, and lectured to the others one Saturday morning. We made modular drawinp the following Monday. The conversion was that simple. It has never been a complicated procedure for us, for our structural engineers or for the contractors who build our buildings. We have laudatory testimonials from our contractors on its layout advantages in the field. Their masonry foremen like "modular"l they say it makes money for them.
We are firm believers in modular measure. It is a mannerism we use for profit. However, its real impact lies in its simpliciry, clarity and completeness as an aid to better documents, as an aid to better performance in the field. Like Charlie Luckman, we believe "it is less expensive to be creative than it is to be pedantic".
With representatives of the General Elecuic Company and other indusuialists, I served at one of our universities on a panel of architects and engineers in a progran titled "Simpli6ed Drafting Procedures". The burden of the discussion might be phrased as "a method of procedures that provide the shortest, clearest, simplest statement of facts as to the size, type, character, quantity of materials required, and how they are to be assembled". We think modular measure is the primary and pre-eminent step toward simplified drafting procedures.
To sell modular measure to those with sensitive pocket-books, I stress the profit motive by reciting personal history in a somewhat shameless fashion. I hope the points I make will excuse the method of attack.
In our office, we have six architectural boards, a specification writer who doubles in shop drawings and trouble-shooting; Messrs. Bowyer, Silling, and Miss James; also resident engineer inspectors at the job sites. Some people explain our production by saying we draw on both sides of the board.
In 1948, we certified to US A*y Engineers a current
load of $31,965,000; in April 1950, we cerrified to US Supervising Architect a work-load of $35,510,000. In May 1951, for the AIA Survey, we totaled nearly $40 million completed construcrion since 1947,with our current work load totaling 922 million. In 1952, we booked $20,300,000 new work. Currently, we have a $30 million medical center under construction, with active planning under way on $10 million for universiqy buildings for agriculture and engin-eering, and a g2 million hospital; also, we are doing classified work on an astronomical observatory to receive emanations from the Milky Way. We do commercial, institutional, public and laboratory buildings; for instance, a chemical plant at the pilotJevel for the US Bureau of Mines to study gasification of coal, a g4 million federal office building, buildings for a universiqy and two colleges, and several large hospitals. We do not need any new work for
1957, but we expect to book some for a backlog.
We did architectural working drawings, and coordinated the structural and mechanical therefoq on a 93,750,000 hospital in 105 man-weeks (40 hours each). The fee was 7 per cent. Its one sheet of modular window details covered conditions that would require 5 sheets of non-modular drawings. We had 8 construcrion bids. Six bracketed a 5 per cent spread. Who said "modular" caused wild bidding? Two men in our office did complete working drawings for a $1,400,000 office building in 9 weeks.
We get 6 per cent. We did a 915 million hospital with 3 active drawing boards, and one man feeding the technical decisions to those 3 boards. We do only architectural work in our office. Engineering and other consultants perform for us as professionals under our direction, but in their own shops. There are exhibits of our modular drawings on display here for those who are interested.
In my view, today's architect must be a businessman, as well as a professional and an artist. I think modular measure is a business aid that offers larger professional opportunities to the architect as an artist. I think its use:
o shortens production period for superior working drawings o develops clariqy of exposition
o increases our professional stature among builders
. furnishes a larger part of our performance time bracket for design considerations
. furnishes a larger proportion of the fee for profit.
I contend that more prosperous architects should produce a better end product - a superior architecture. I think modular measure lends further credence to such an opportunity. Since 19+6, I have practiced under these contentions in my own office, have collected added profits, and shared them with our men.
It is possible that those of other customs and habits may not feel the urge to adopt modular measure. Under the timing factor in today's American construction sequence, there is the necessity for a compelling architectural intrigue to gain ( 1) a quiet time to think and plan; (2) quality, quantity, economy, order and speed in constructing our buildings. Among architects and builders, these factors encourage the use of modular measure.
Because it is apropos, I will repeat what Professor Bannister of University of lllinois has said: "If the practice of architecture is to become a true profession, practitioners themselves must assume a maior part of the responsibility to disseminate the results of their experience. Like physicians and engineers, they must become aware that the profession will grow in technical competence only so fast as individual members feel it a duty to report their hard-won knowledge. The rate of technical growth could be multiplied to an infinite degree through such enlightened collaboration".
It is in this spirit that we talk to you today of modular measure. It is more than a method. Its philosophy, broadly applied, directs us from our present iungle of conflicting construction technologies to a clear plateau of Order, Coherence and Consistency. For those with the competence to perceive, there is also the opportunity for Beauty.
M O D U T A R C O O R D I N A T I O N
I N C O N S T R U C T I O N
by J.E. Coo^ass
farnes E. Coombs is Presidettt cnd General Mrndger of Baker and Coonfus, Inc., Gmeral Contractors, Morgmttolun, West Vir-gina, and Vice4reident of the Modulm Bailding Standards As-sociation. He has presented papers on modulur construction at the National Academy of Science and the meetings of tbe Stntctural Clay Products Insthute. Mr. Coombs bas p'articipated in meetings of tlte Europecn Productizsity Agmcy proiect on Modular Co-mdinaion in England cnd Greece for the Americtn Standmds Association.
It's certainly an honor for me, representing a general contractor; to be invited to Toronto by your organization to participate in this panel discussion on modular measure. Very little can be said by me on the subiect of modular measure that you have not heard or read about before this time. Since I feel, however' that any delay in wider and more universal accePtance of the system will be de-trimental to the construction industry, I would like to review some of the reasons, from a contractor's viewpoint, of why modular measure is good for all of us.
This is not going to be a lesson in modular measure, but I'd like you to do a little mental arithmetic for me. This is the same kind of problem that comes up in our estimating room, or in our
field work, every day. I'd like you to menally add up the follow-ing figures:
4 inches, plus I foot 4 inches, plus 8 inches. Now add 3/6 inches, plus I foot S/a inches, plus 9 3/16 inches. Without paper and pencil, I am sure you found the last problem difficult, if not impossible, to do, while the first was comparatively easy. The first set of figures represents modular measure, while the second typifies measurements used on all architects' drawings that do not employ modular measure.
My company's first experience with a modular building oc-curred almost ten years ago, and since that time we have seen an expanded use of rhis sysrem in our section of the country. Since
1946, we have erected four buildings in the million-dollar category at West Virginia Universiqy, each of these buildings employing modular measure.
At the present time, we are the mason{y subcontractors on a $12 million medicatr school at Wsst Virsinia Universitv. which I will refer to later.
A much greater expansion of this system is inevitable. Since we in the construction industry must compete for the consumer's dollars, we must adopt proven and tested new materials, labor-saving devices, and other systems such as modular, that allow greater economy and at the same time yield a finer finished product.
To begin with, let's look at five basic advantages of modular measure that I, as a contractor, am particularly familiar with:
o easier estimating
. easier for workmen to use in the field o diminishing problems of foremen o cost reductions
. ease of instituting use of system.
Now, let's go back and review each of these.
First, estimating is easier and far more eccurate. We figure three modular jobs in the same dme it takes to figure two
style sets of drawings. Modular generares grearer speed in material take-off, and errors are gready reduced because of the elimination of dimensional fractions. Now here we go back ro rhe problem I asked you to calculate at the beginning of this talk. This same problem becomes apparent any time you compare modular to standard drawings. Even though we have calculators and other modern machinery to aid in estimating, it still rakes a man to transcribe figures from the drawings to the estimate sheet. As you all know, it is far easier to transfer figures when they are even numbers, and not in fractions. But probably most important of all, we can proceed with dispatch, and are nor caught off-balance at firsc by tryi.g to learn each architect's own individual sysrem before starting to estimate the work.
Second, modular measure is much easier for workmen to use. They understand it better. They move easier and faster, and waste far less time. We have a number of masons that have been employed by our company for a period of years, and we know from actual experience that those who used to make a gteat number of errors are now making only an occasional error. This is only because they, as average masonry employees, can understand better what is required.
Thfud, our foreman can handle far more men under his super-vision at any one given time, because he doesn't have nearly so many questions to answer, layout is rather routine and much easier to check, and errors again are greatly diminished.
Now, you remember my fourth point - costs are greatly reduced. Waste of materials is held to a minimum, and the old brickbats that we used to see lying around are a scarce thing indeed. Cutting and patching are greatly diminished. Saw time is reduced almost 50 per cent on facing materials. Squeezing and stretching of mortar ioints is a thing of the pasg and engineering layout time is easily reduced by 35 per cent. The rate of actual laying is definitely increased, and our company's records indicate that the
modular system, with modular-size units, develops savings on masonry labor alone that amount to 8-10 per cent of that masonry labor. We have recently commenced masonry work on three buildings at another universiqy. These buildings are all based on the architect's own system of measurements. [t's certainly apparent to us again, very vividly at this time, the great advantages of modular. Atlany of the masons employed on olr work there were previously employed by us on modular work at West Virginia University, so it's not a difference of personnel, or working conditions, that makes the difference in our cost. It's the difference in having, or not having, modular measure.
Fifth, the modular system is easy to learn. NIen can fully under-stand it in a few short hours, and after a day of use they are not only veterans, but experts. When we first used the system over ten years ago, we did not even have modular-size materials to use in the modular-dimensioned building. After one or two days on the job, however, it soon became apparent to us that we would rather have a set of plans laid out on the modular system to work ftom, even if modular materials are not availab.le for the workmen.
I could name many good things about modular measure -such as the much greater efficiency that is possible, the better appearance and finer finished product - but maybe we could best sum it up by saying that modular measure does for our industry the job of standardization that has proven so fruitful for American and Canadian mass-product industries.
Modular dimensioning standards seek to reduce the waste inherent in actual manufacturing at the job site, by changing the building process to an assembly line at the site of finished products largely manufactured elsewhere and shipped to the building site for installation.
The facts that I have related here have been attested to by general contractors throughout the United States. I'm sure that you have all heard and real their statements which are so
tic about modular measure - how easy it is to understand, its ef-ficiency, its economy - and, I have yet to hear one contractor who is familiar with the system who does not vouch for it. In my discussion, I have mainly outlined the benefia of modular dimen-sioning as they apply to the masonry field. I have done rhis because, first, I feel that modular measure is absolutely fundamental to the masonry field, and also because a large part of our experience has been with so many masonry buildings. We must remember that the same benefia apply to all buildrng materials, and particularly to such items as roof decks, precast concrete, metal partitions, sash and doors, frames, siding, and practically every other major com-ponent that goes into a building. Manufacturers in all lines of building products are swinging more to modular because:
It allows them to carry a reduced inventory of materials, since they can reduce the number of sizes carried;
It simplifies their manufacturing process, since they do not have so many sizes to make; and
They find that they have fewer complaints from the field because their materials fit better.
These are only a few of the reasons why the manufacturers are swinging so much more to modular, and I'm sure that there are many other and varied reasons.
In the medical school building at West Virginia University, which I mentioned previously, we installed over 3 million separate masonry units, including I l/2 million units of facing tile. The architect's working drawings were modular throughout without exception, and all drawings, except details, were at 1/16-inch scale. Even though this was a complex building, with many small and special-size rooms, we experienced no difficulty whatsoever with the small-scale modular drawings, and I am firmly convinced that, without modular drawings, it would have been extremely difficult to build working with l/16-inch prints.
Modular measure is a great stride forward for the architect, the manufacturer, and the contractor. It represents, on the part of the architect, not only the vision, but the practical approach so necessary in the buildings of today and tomorrow. To the manu-facturers, it represents a simplified approach to the problems of production, inventory, and distribution. The contractor can point with pride to the structures erected under the modular system as lasting tributes to that which is finest and best in this very im-portant phase of the building industry.
While more and more in the construction industry are switch-ing to modular all the time, many are still unconvinced. I suppose that men throughout history have been afraid of the new. Thousands of years ago, men probably said the wheel would never work. A generation ago, some men said the automobile would never replace the horse and buggy. Some fifteen years ago, men said the atom could never be split. If it had not been for the men of the world who dreamed of, or studied, new ways of doing things and after realizing their advantages adopted them for use, you and I would still probably be bumping around on a square or octagonal wheel. Let's not be willing that the construction industry should bump along on an old, difficult, out-dated way of doing things. Let us all suppoft to the utmost any research that will further the trend established by modular measure.
Our joint and concentrated efforts in support of modular measrue can, and must, constitute a strong bid on the part of the construction industry in competition with other industries for the consumer's dollar.
Be modern. Go modular.
T O D U T A R C O O R D I N A T I O N
-A N I N D U S T R I -A T T O O I
&y L. Boncvelr
Lemnt Bergvall, mcbitect S.l.R. (Association of Sandish Architects) ww joint duthor qoith Mr. Erik Dahlbng of tbe standard S,usedish asork on modular comdination, 'Modulutrednin-gm'. He is noas director of a small research company, A.B. Bastadsforskning, sponsored by Saxdisb Industry to deaelop eco-namical industrialized housing ntd has produced a nea) system cdlled 'Elementlnat'. He is choirman of the Sq:edi.slt Contmhsion on Modulm Coordination an:d aice-cbairnm of the Susedish com-mitt ee f or bailding standfirdization ('B y ggst mdardi s erin gen' .)
What is really the purpose of modular coordination? You may feel that this is a very elementary question to raise in an assembly like this, but I think that much of the discussion abour various details in modular coordination is due to the fact that we have nor answered a number of such elementary quescions clearly enough. It is important to keep in mind that modular coordination has been created as a natural - and necessary - complement to standardiza-tion. Consequent$, the very purpose of modular coordination is exactly the same as that of standardization, namely, to promote industrial mass production. It should be clearly kept in mind that the standardtzation is an inevitable consequence of industrial pro-duction; handicrafg on the other hand, has no use for it.
25 L. B*guall
Standardization promotes this industrial production mainly by concentrating demand to a limited number of types and sizes, thus permitting or facilitating large-scale production, production for stock, or automatic production.
The various standardized, industrially produced building parts must however fit into each other on the building site, and must be made so that they can do so in a number of different combina-tions, which cannot be determined in advance, if any freedom is to be left for creative architecture. This is where modular co-ordination comes in. The factory-made units must be fitted into a general dimensional system with a common denominator, the basic module. The object of modular coordination must then be' firstly, to allow advanced standardization and indusuialization of the production of building parts, and secondly to accelerate the removal of their production from the building site, with its un-favorable working conditions, to factories for the production of building materials and parts, where conditions are more suitable for rational production. That is why modular coordination is basically an industrial tool.
The answer to many questions about modular depends on our basic conception of modular coordination. For us, modular co-ordination means that all linkage dimensions of the building parts and all room dimensions are multiples of our basic unit, the module. This means, first, that modular coordination deals only with linkage dimensions and does not try to restrict the choice of other dimensions such as, for example, table height. Therefore also anthropometric data are of little significance in modular co-ordination. As for Le Corbusier's attempt to base a whole system of 'modulor' coordination on so-called 'human dimensions', I like to ask 'what really are human dimensions'l If we try to use the human height as the dimensional basis, should we use the average height of a tall American or of a tiny little French girl? Also, I
fail to see that one foot (30.5 cm.) is a 'human dimension', whereas 3 dm. (30 cm.) should not be so.
This conception of modular coordination also means that the architect shall in principle have all the freedom that is offered by a grid, with the module as mesh width. This is the reason why the module must not be too large; the restrictions in design imposed by too large a module would be intolerable both from architectural and economic points of view. It is also the reason why it is neces-sary to stick to the conception of a baic module, although for some items, e.g. piping, we need to use half modules. It could be said with some reason that in such a case it is half the module that is the real basic dimension. The size of the basic module, the mesh width of the grid, determines and limits the room dimensions that must be foreseen when we design, for instance, a system for "ptefab" walls. The half module is not taken into account there, but should only be used as an aid to make some special items fit in with the basic modular grid.
As yet I have not dealt with the size of the module other than in principle. Of course, as you may know, we in Sweden have de-cided years ago on the l-dm. (3 15 /16 in.) module, and the report at the EPA meeting in Munich in August 1955 was strongly in favor of a l-dm. module. However I realize that here this question is much more intricate because of your foot-inch system and it takes much more knowledge of the situation than I have to deal with the subject from this point of view. I should like, however, ro throw some light on the question of what influence brick dimensions may be allowed to have in this respecr. [n the imagination of most laymen and -unfortunately-even in that of many experts, a house still consists mainly of floors, walls, ceilings and roof, iust as it always has, and in addition to that some new items of secondary importance, instal-lations, etc. But this conception of a building is outmoded and inadequate in our time. Now the structure itself represents only some 30 per cent of the total building cost, and of rhis about
third may represent the brick walls in a so-called brick building. So actually, when we consider letting the problem of brick dimen-sions hold back modular coordination, we allow a building part, representing some 10 per cent of the total, to Prevent us from using an excellent tool to rationalize all the other parts rePresenting some 90 per cent. I know there are complications, but it is very useful to consider what importance the particular structurd material really has nowadays compared with the rest of the building.
As we adopted modular coordination on a 1 dm. base in Sweden several years ego, you may well ask what practical results and experi-ence have been obtained. We have considered modular coordina-tion mainly as an industrial tool, and therefore it has been of special interest for the manufacturers of building materials. Against that background it may be worth mentioning that the 'modular in-vestigation' which opened up the building uade in our country for modular coordination was wholly financed by the National As-sociation of Manufacturers. As a consequence of this development of modular coordination, we found-afrer a time of somewhat con-fused discussions which seem inevitable when you try to introduce modular coordination - that the best policy was not to force the architects into a rather unknown field of modular design, but instead to use modular coordination as a tool for standardnation of building materials and parts. Thus by gradually getting a stock of modular components, architects and builders could be made cons-cious of modular coordination and all the questions of tolerance and so forth that go with it. Now we feel ready to $y to give the architects and builders detailed instructions in modular design and to encourage them to go ahead with it. But to have a firm foundation for that, we will - coordinated with EPA work - design and build two completely modular houses, one in wood-frame con-struction and one "prefab" concrete block of flats. Only after we have got all the experience possible from that experiment shall we feel ready to launch modular coordination on a wide scale, in spite
of thE-fact that we have already about 100 of the most imporrant building components modularly standardized, bricks among them, although that srandard is rather new, because it has taken a long time for the brick industry ro convince themselves. But here - as in so many cases - the deciding factor has been a desire not to be left behind in technical evolution. And very ttghtly so, because the time is not far away when only modular building componenrs will be adequare and those who have already made themselves familiar with the problems involved and are prepared ro meet the new age in building will then have a very definite advantage, com-pared with competitive non-modular materials.
We have also found that this has been the best, if not the only way, to acquaint people in the building indusrry wirh the problems and principles of tolerances, which, at least in our country, were completely new to them. But when standard after standard is released and brought into operation, where all necessary dimen-sions are grven with an adequate tolerance, they gradually grow familiar with it. Of course we all know that the building industry for many reasons must work with larger tolerances than the mechanical industry, but that is no reason to abandon the use of them, rather the contrary.
I said that our standards are modular, but that does not neces-sarily mean that all dimensions are multiples of the module, but thar all linkage dimensions are properly coordinated with the modular dimensions. Take, for instance, conduit for electric wiring. These are kept in storage, standing on end, so that the lower end will always be damaged to abour I inch from the end, and that part is supposed to be cut off on the site. So the standard length of it is not 30 modules but 30 modules plus about an inch.
You may also ask what economy we have found in modular coordination. Well, I think that question is impossible to answer because how can we separate the influence of modular standard-ization on the building costs from that of rationalstandard-ization in general
in the face of rising prices and standards of accommodation? Those who want to be dead sure of each penny before they dare to jump into modular coordination will simply miss the point. Before every new step in technical evolution you wiII find that technical and scientific research can guide you to e certain point, but beyond that you must dare to rely on intuition. All important inventions were created by such a combination of scientific skill, intuition, and faith. And modular coordination is no excePtion. Most 'of us have seen building sites so often that we have almost begun to accept the hopeless mess and disorder there compared with a well-organized factory. This is not to say that our builders should not make the best of a given situation; it is the system, not the builders that is wrong. And who can foresee the economic gains of the miracle of order in building industry?
I have already expressed my conviction that modular coordina-tion will be an inevitable tool for the building industry of the future. But I have often been astonished by the fact that moduhr coordination has not been introduced much earlier. When you have an industry whose very PurPose is to Put together a large number of different comPonents, is it not evident that a systematic coordination of their dimensions is necessaryl Or is it still true what Kipling found:
'I tell you this tale which is strictly true Just by way of convincing you
How very little since things were made Things have altered in the building trade.'
But I do not think we can afford this any longer. We have before us a very crucial time for our civilization, even if we should avert an atomic war. Our whole western democratic culture is at stake, and the course of history will certainly depend on the soundness of our western societies. The way in which we solve the housing problem is an important Part of this, so modular co-ordination is a very responsible undertaking.
S U G G E S T E D R T A D I N G L I S T
Architecrural Graphic Standards, 5th edition. G. G. Ramsey and H. R. Sleeper. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. (Typical working drawing details of some modular components)
Code for Modular Coordination in Building. Canadian Standards Asociation, A3l-1959. Ottawa. (Glossary of terms and appli-cation of 4-inch modular system)
Modular Coordination in Building. The European Productivity Agency of the Organization for European Economic Co-operation, August 1956. (Available from Ryerson Press, To-ronto.) (First report on modular principles and their application in eleven European countries. Illustrated. Second report is ex-pected to be issued in 1960)
The Modular Method in Dwelling D*rg.. Housing and Home Finance AgencR Washington" D.C. May 1951. (Application of modular planning and detailing to house design. Illusmated) Modular Coordination Cuts Design and Building Costs. S. R. Kent.
Canadian Builder, Vol. 9, January 1959. (Reprinted by National Research Council, Division of Building Research, NRC 5065) Modular Dimensioning Practices. Structural Clay Products Institute.
Washington, D.C. January 1959. (Papers presented at seminar)
Modular Design Information Sheets. B. Martin. Architectural Design, beginning isue February 1959. The Standard Caalogue Co. Ltd., London.
Brick and Tile Engineering. Harry C. Plummer. Structural Clay Products Institute, Washington, D.C. November 1950. (Designing in modular masonry. Illustrated).
This publication is one of a series being produced by the Division of Building Research of the National Research Council as a contribution towards better building in Canada.
The Division of Building Research has issued many publications describing the work carried out in the several fields for which it is responsible. A list of these publications is available and can be obtained by writing to the Publications Section, Division of Build-ing Research, National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada.
Publications of the Division of Building Research may be obtained by mailing the appropriate remittance (a Bank, Express, or Post Ofice Money Order or a cheque made payable at par in Ottawa, to the Receiver General of Canada, credit National Re-search Council) to the Publications Section, Division of Building Research, National Research Council, Ottawa. Stamps are not acceptable.
A coupon system has been introduced to make payments for publications relativelv simple. Coupons are available in denomina-tions of 5,25, and 50 cents and may be obtained by making a remittance as indicated above. These couPons may be used for the purchase of all National Research Council publications, including specifications of the Canadian Government Specifications Board.
