The Evaluation of Mass Produced Interim Housing in Post Natural Disaster Areas


Material Information

The Evaluation of Mass Produced Interim Housing in Post Natural Disaster Areas
Physical Description:
1 online resource (100 p.)
Brow,Nicholas R
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Master's ( M.S.B.C.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Building Construction
Committee Chair:
Ries, Robert J.
Committee Members:
Sullivan, James
Lucas, Elmer


Subjects / Keywords:
container -- cottage -- disaster -- fema -- housing -- hurricane -- isbu -- katrina -- manufactured -- modular -- reconstruction -- relief
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Natural disasters are consequences of inevitable environmental cycles throughout the biosphere. Human beings do not have the capacity to wield a mechanism to stop natural disasters. The best preventative measures to alleviate the damages and future loss from disasters are to enforce stringent building codes for the construction of commercial and residential buildings. The effectiveness and employment of these building codes determines a community?s susceptibility to vulnerability. Vulnerability is increased with lenient building codes, poor quality materials, and inadequate labor. Following a disaster, housing must be deployed and reconstruction must begin to address the loss of housing and infrastructure. Mass-produced housing can address these dire needs. Mass-produced housing can be divided into three subcategories: modular housing, manufactured housing, and container housing. Within these subcategories are models that must adhere to the unique local, state, and federal government disaster remediation plans. The inherent characteristics of mass-produced housing provide a sufficient transition from initial disaster relief to long term housing communities. The purpose of this research is to identify the most appropriate mass-produced architecture to be implemented in the aftermath of a natural disaster. Currently, the remediation efforts to address temporary and permanent housing demands are lacking. The objective of this research is to evaluate the housing models currently being deployed in disaster regions. In addition, this research identified characteristics that are essential to the construction of mass-produced architecture. This was achieved by analyzing previous deployed models during Hurricane Katrina with a select group of case-study housing techniques. The identified characteristics developed into an analysis matrix for the design and construction of rapidly deployable post-disaster housing.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Nicholas R Brow.
Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Adviser: Ries, Robert J.
Electronic Access:

Record Information

Source Institution:
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text




2011 Nicholas Robert Brow 2


To those in Mississippi and Louisiana who we re affected by Hurricane Katrina 3


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the fa culty of the University of Florida, whom have all contributed their time and patience in providing me with an opportunity to gain knowledge from their experi ences. I would also like to show appreciation to my wonderful parents and wife for providing me with the encouragement to undertake and complete my goals, as well as supporting all of my decisions throughout life. 4


TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG MENTS .................................................................................................. 4LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7LIST OF FI GURES .......................................................................................................... 8CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCT ION .................................................................................................... 11 Natural Disas ters .................................................................................................... 11Effects of Hurri cane Katr ina .................................................................................... 12FEMA ...................................................................................................................... 14Stafford Act Section 403 ................................................................................... 15Mass-shelters ............................................................................................. 15Cruise sh ips ............................................................................................... 16Hotels and mo tels ...................................................................................... 16Apartment r entals ....................................................................................... 17Stafford Act Section 408 ................................................................................... 18Building Codes ........................................................................................................ 20International Building C ode .............................................................................. 20International Resi dential Co de ......................................................................... 20Housing and Urban Developm ent .................................................................... 21Mass-Produced Architecture ................................................................................... 22Modular ............................................................................................................ 23Manufactu red ................................................................................................... 24Shipping Cont ainer ........................................................................................... 242 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 26Chronology of Portabl e Architec ture ....................................................................... 26Pre-Industrial Revoluti on .................................................................................. 26Industrial Re volution ......................................................................................... 27Post-Industrial Revolution ................................................................................. 28World Wa r I ...................................................................................................... 29World War II ..................................................................................................... 30Modern ............................................................................................................. 32Implementation of Todays Shipping Co ntainer ...................................................... 33Container Homes ............................................................................................. 35Singular Dwel ling Unit ...................................................................................... 36Mobile dwe lling uni t .................................................................................... 37Earth science Au strali a .............................................................................. 39Modular Container Construc tion ....................................................................... 42Container City ............................................................................................ 42 5


Keetwonen ................................................................................................. 45Intermodal Steel Bu ilding Un its ........................................................................ 46SG Blocks .................................................................................................. 48FEMA Hous ing ........................................................................................................ 52FEMA Travel Trailer and Mobile Home .......................................................... 53Katrina Co ttage ................................................................................................ 56Mississippi Cottage .......................................................................................... 62Analytic Hierarc hy Process ..................................................................................... 64Applicat ion ........................................................................................................ 653 METHODOL OGY ................................................................................................... 67Data Coll ection ....................................................................................................... 67Data Anal ysis .......................................................................................................... 674 RESULTS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 70Mass-Produced Housing ......................................................................................... 70Advantages of Mass -Producti on ....................................................................... 71Disadvantages of Ma ss-Produc tion .................................................................. 72Housing Model Analysis .......................................................................................... 75Project Dem ographics ...................................................................................... 75Time Constr aints .............................................................................................. 77Project Requi rements ....................................................................................... 79Architectural Qualities ...................................................................................... 82Project Specif ications ....................................................................................... 84Conclusi on .............................................................................................................. 86 APPENDIX A MODEL ANALYSIS OF SHIPPING CONTAINER HOUSING ................................. 90 B MODEL ANALYSIS OF FEMA HOUS ING .............................................................. 91 C CRITERION WE IGHTING ...................................................................................... 92 D ANALYSIS MATRIX RA DAR DIAGRA M ................................................................ 93 E PERFORMANCE RATI NG SCAL E ........................................................................ 94 F ANALYSIS MA TRIX ............................................................................................... 95LIST OF RE FERENCES ............................................................................................... 96BIOGRAPHICAL SK ETCH .......................................................................................... 100 6


LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Container Stat istics for 2010. ............................................................................. 66 7


LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 LOT-EK MDU I SBU (Lot-EK, n.d.). ..................................................................... 372-2 LOT-EK ISBU Docking Station (LotEK, n.d. ) ..................................................... 392-3 Earth Science Au stralia Early Stages of Deve lopment (Hansen, 2008). ............ 402-4 Earth Scienc e Australia Intact Stru cture (Hansen, 2008). .................................. 422-5 Contai ner City (U SM, 2001) ................................................................................ 432-6 Contai ner City (U SM, 2001) ................................................................................ 452-7 Keetwonen (Kimberley, 2010). .......................................................................... 462-8 Operations Building at Fort Bragg (SG Blocks, 2011). ....................................... 512-9 St. Petersburg Home (SG Bl ocks, 2011) ........................................................... 522-10 FEMA Trailers (Sorlien, 2006). .......................................................................... 562-11 Katrina Cottage Plan From Immedi ate-to-Long Term Use (Sorlien, 2006). ........ 582-13 Katrina Tiny Cottage (Sorlie n, 2006). ................................................................. 592-14 Katrina Thin Cottage (Sorlie n, 2006). ................................................................. 602-15 Katrina Double Co ttage (Sorli en, 2006) ............................................................. 602-16 Katrina Kernel Cottage (Sorli en, 2006) ............................................................... 612-17 Katrina Courtyar d Cottage (Sorlie n, 2006) ......................................................... 612-18. Katrina Loft Cottage (Sorlien, 2006) .................................................................. 622-19 Katrina Tall Co ttage (Sorlien, 2006) ................................................................... 622-20 Mississippi Cottage Co mmunity (Swinne y, 2007). .............................................. 644-1 Shipping Cont ainers After a Disaste r (NOAA, 2005). ......................................... 70 8


Abstract of Thesis Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulf illment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction THE EVALUATION OF MASS-PRODUCED INTERIM HOUSING IN POST-NATURAL DISASTER AREAS By Nicholas Robert Brow August 2011 Chair: Robert Ries Major: Building Construction Natural disasters are consequences of inevitable environmental cycles throughout the biosphere. Human beings do not have t he capacity to wield a mechanism to stop natural disasters. The best preventative measures to alleviate the damages and future loss from disasters are to enforce stringent building code s for the construction of commercial and residential buildings. The effectiveness and employment of these building codes determines a communitys susceptibility to vulnerability. Vulnerability is increased with lenient building codes, poor quality materials, and inadequate labor. Following a disaster, housing must be deployed and reconstruction must begin to address the loss of housing and infrastructure Mass-produced housing can address these dire needs. Mass-produced housing can be divided into three subcategories: modular housing, manufactured housing, and container housing. Within these subcategories are models that must adhere to the unique local, state, and federal government disaster remediation plans. The inherent characteristics of mass-produced housing provide a sufficient transition from in itial disaster relief to long term housing communities. 9


The purpose of this research is to ident ify the most appropriate mass-produced architecture to be implemented in the afterm ath of a natural disaster. The remediation efforts to address temporary and perm anent housing often do not meet needs. The objective of this research is to evaluate the housing models currently being deployed in disaster regions. In addition, this research identified characteristics that are essential to the construction of mass-produced architecture. This was achieved by analyzing previous deployed models during Hurricane Katrina with a select group of case-study housing techniques. The identif ied characteristics developed in to an analysis matrix for the design and construction of rapidly deployable post-disaster housing. 10


CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Natural Disasters As a global society, human beings ex perience many disasters throughout a lifetime; some are natural disasters and so me are unnatural events such as terrorist attacks. The frequency and severity of such events have been escalated by the rapid growth of the worlds population and an incr eased concentration of that population in hazardous environments. Natural disasters are catalysts for destruction that occur when hazards meet vulnerability. The vulnerability of communities in disaster prone areas have been amplified by global wa rming, deforestation, lenient building codes, too much governmental assistance in terms of coastal flood insurance, weak communications, inadequate governmental assistance, lack of budgetary allocation for disaster prevention, and insufficient infrastructure. The aptitude at which t he effecting population can resist loss depends on the inherent re silience and potential susceptibility to vulnerability. The General Assembly of the United Nations proposed the following, It is impossible to prevent the occurrence of natural disasters an d their damages, on December 22, 1989, during an in ternational conference. Howe ver, it is possible to reduce the impact of disaster s by adopting suitable disast er mitigation strategies. Disaster mitigation mainly addresses the following: Minimize the potential risks by developi ng disaster early warning strategies Prepare and implement development plans to provide resilience to such disasters Mobilize resources including communication and tele-medicinal services Disaster management, on the other hand involves: Pre-disaster planning, preparedness, and monitoring in cluding relief management 11


Prediction and early warning strategies Damage assessment and relief management Systemic plan of disaster reduction Effects of Hurricane Katrina Hurricane Katrina developed initially from tropical depression #12, in the Southeastern Bahamas on August 23, 2005. Be fore Katrina made landfall in North Miami Beach, Florida, it became a category (1) hurricane with wind speeds approaching 80 mph. As the storm moved across the sout hern point of the Florida peninsula, wind speeds decreased and it becam e a tropical storm after s pending seven hours over land. Once the tropical depression moved into the wa rmer waters of the Gu lf of Mexico, it quickly regained hurricane wind speeds and cont inued to move westward up the Gulf coast line. Continuing to strengthen and move northwards during the next 48 hours, Katrina reached maximum wind speeds on the morning of Sunday, August 28th, of over 170 mph (category (5)), and minimum central pressure dropped that afternoon to 902 mb the fourth lowest on record for an Atlantic storm (NOAA, 2005). Hurricane Katrina was the sixth strongest hurricane ever recorded and the third strongest hurricane ever recor ded that made landfall in the U.S.. Typical hurricanes of category (5) strength are rarely sustained fo r long durations due to the entrainment of dry air and the opening of the eye-wall. Although Katrina was subjected to the contributing factors, the st orm maintained strong category (4) wind speeds during initial landfall. With sustained winds during land fall of 125 mph (a strong category three hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scales) and mi nimum central pressure the third lowest on record at landfall, Katrina caused wi despread devastation along the central Gulf Coast states of the US. Cities such as Ne w Orleans, LA, Mobile, AL, and Gulfport, MS 12


bore the brunt of Katrina's force and wi ll need an undetermined am ount of time for recovery efforts to restor e normality (NOAA, 2005). Ther e have only been four storms within the last 100-years that have exceeded Hurricane Katrinas sustained winds that made have made land fall. The Labor Day Hurricane, Florida Keys, S eptember, 1935, Cate gory (5), 200 mph Hurricane Camille, Mississippi, A ugust 17, 1969, Category (5), 190 mph Hurricane Andrew, Southeast Florida, A ugust 24, 1992, Cat egory (5), 165 mph Hurricane Charley, Punta Go rda, Florida, August 13, 2004, Category (4), 150 mph (NOAA, 2005) In New Orleans, Louisiana, the evacuation plan was particularly crucial because the surrounding region was in the Storm Surge Zone, below sea level (up to six feet in some areas). The storm surges that ensued from Hurricane Katrina were estimated at 20 feet high above sea level. The subsequent rising flood waters placed an overwhelming strain on the levees of New Orleans, which were only designed for a category (3) hurricane (Katrina made land fall as a category (3)). The failure of the levees was inevitable, and due to system desi gn flaws for the most part, combined with the lack of adequate maintenance the levees gave way and spilled their retained waters into the surrounding regions and paris hes. An estimated 80% of New Orleans was underwater (up to 20 feet) due to tidal surges and flooding caused by the broken levees, an area of 90,000 square miles was affected by Hurricane Katrina. The final death toll was 1,836, primarily fr om Louisiana (1,577) and Mississi ppi (238); it is difficult to determine the exact cause of the deaths but they were all caused either directly or indirectly by the Hurricane. Hurricane Katr ina caused $75 billion in estimated physical damages, the most costly hurricane in history, but it is estimated that the total economic impact in Louisiana and Mississippi may exc eed $150 billion (NOAA, 2005). Before the 13


hurricane, the coastal region supported approximately one million non-farm jobs, with over half of them in New Orleans. Due to an unstable infrastructure and lack of coordination hundreds of thousands of local resident s were left unemployed by the hurricane. The remaining survivors of Hurrica ne Katrina were left with the overwhelming task of rebuilding their communiti es from the foundations up. FEMA The primary purpose of Federal Emer gency Management Agency (FEMA) is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has occurred in the U.S. were local and state authorities resources have become overw helmed. FEMA is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security, init ially created by Presidential Order, on April 1, 1979 (FEMA, 2010). A chain of custody exists to initiate FE MA into the disaster area, the governor of the state in which the disaster has occurred must declare a state of emergency and formally request from the President, that FEMA and the federal government respond to the disaster. While on-the-ground support of disaster recovery efforts is a major part of FEMA's char ter, the agency provides state and local governments with experts in specialized fi elds and funding for rebuilding efforts and relief funds for infrastructure, in conjunc tion with the Small Business Administration (FEMA, 2010). In addition to this, FEMA prov ides funds for the training of response personnel throughout the U.S. and its territ ories as part of the agency's preparedness effort; FEMA also assist s individuals and businesses with low interest loans. FEMA is authorized by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, to provide te mporary housing and other disaster response and recovery activities. The Stafford Act sanctions the Individual and Households Program (IHP), along with a variety of programs intended to address the 14


unmet needs resulting from a major disaster for families, individuals, and state and local governments. Two separate Stafford Act author ities implement the mission of FEMA Section 403 has provisions for emergency s heltering and Section 408 has provisions for temporary housing. Stafford Act Section 403 Section 403 addresses imm ediate threats to life and property through federal assistance, in the form of medicine, food and other consumables, and work/services on both public and private owned land. Emergency shelter, mass-care, medical services, search and rescue services, and debris re moval fall under the guidelines of the work/services category. The immediate respons e for housing following a disaster by the state and/or FEMA is referred to as emer gency shelter. Hurricane Katrina necessitated a need for a multi-objective housing strategy that would adapt to the aftermath left behind that included: mass-shelters, cruise ships, hotels and motels, and apartment rentals. Mass-shelters At its peak, the post-Katrina mass shelter network provided shelter for over 273,000 evacuees (McCarthy, 2008). The traditional emergency shelter system was overwhelmed and inadequate to address the conc erns of health and safety for both the special need population and the available trained volunteers that staff the facilities. The temporary emergency shelters funded under Section 403 authority were intended to close and move disaster victims to more suitable housing situations by October 15, 2005, about six weeks after the hurricane, meant that many families and individuals had to quickly find housing alternatives. Although charting such an ambitious goal did speed up the emptying of the shelters it also meant that altern ative forms of housing were 15


needed prior to the registration of evacuees with FEMA, and before any individuals and/or families could be presented with other options for their long term housing goals (McCarthy, 2008). Cruise ships Cruise ships were chartered by the Na vy to provide housing for both victims and relief workers in private rooms in close pr oximity to the disast er area, and to have onsite feeding facilities. The proximity to t he areas of disrepair allowed access for mobile work forces alleviated unnecessary traveling. A serious concern following a catastrophic disaster is the demand for a large work force that requires arrival into the disaster area while simultaneous mass evacuation coupled wit h the destruction of rental units is underway. During their use, the ships housed over 8,000 people and served over two million meals to Katrina victims and workers helping in the recovery (McCarthy, 2008). While meeting emergency needs, critics ques tioned the cost of housing victims on the ships, the efficacy of the plan, the location of some ships, the cost and length of the contract, and the process used to arrive at the agreement. Hotels and motels Corporate Lodging Consultants (C LC), a private contractor, worked in coordination with the Red Cross and then FEMA to man age the housing of victims into hotels and motels throughout the country. The hotels and motels vacancies were quickly filed by self-evacuated families and individuals as well as disaster evacuees who were moved out of shelters and into these establishments by FEMA. Housing the work forces responsible for clearing the debr is and rebuilding repairable bu ildings became a feasible solution for the rental units. The majority of the hotel and motel residence were families and individuals who moved from mass shelters to the hotels and motels to meet the 16


October 15, 2005 deadline mandated by FEMA. The peak was reached in late October of 2005, when 85,000 households were housed ac ross the country in hotels and motels in 48 states (McCarthy, 2008). The CLCs secondary responsibility was to track occupancy and managed the payments to the participating facilities. Hotels and motels were previously empl oyed as short-term solutions to meet emergency housing, but the unique circumstances created by Hurricane Katrina, created a national program of unprecedented size. The privately occupied rooms provided privacy for families that were recently transplanted from the very public massshelters. However, the deadline for the movement out of shelters left little or no time for establishing protocols for lodging costs or exploring alternative housing. (McCarthy, 2008) Apartment rentals The hotel and motel housing solution quickly became overrun and provided very few vacancies beyond the initial surge of evacuees. FEMA began placing both selfevacuated and those transported by FEMA, to many states that supplied: rented apartments for the evacuees; pr ovided other necessary support such as furnishings, food, transportation, and limited medical assi stance; and made the rent payments that were subsequently reimbursed by FEMA under Section 403 (McCarthy, 2008). There were, at the peak of this operation, approxim ately 67,000 apartment leases in 32 states that were reimbursable leases of up to 12 months by FEMA. The potential hosting states were promised full reim bursement of their disaster related costs, with the general instruction to treat the Hurri cane Katrina evacuees as they would disaster victims within their own state borders (McCarthy, 2008). 17


Stafford Act Section 408 Section 408 is responsible for determining eligibility of Secti on 403 applicants for longer-term housing aid. The transitional-shift from shorter-term Section 403 sheltering/housing to longer-term Section 408 temporary housing assistance was a challenging task due to the damage of perm anent housing stock (both private homes and rental properties). FEMAs staff was deploy ed within the field of disaster to assess the applicants situation; registrations we re also possible through telephone and on-line connect. The process involved contacting the applicant and explaining the process of eligibility and the time-table associated with the various methods of housing. Units of housing had to be available before applicants could qualify for them, which increased the intermission time between application and approval. Eligibility for Section 408 assistance was based on predetermined criteria: The applicants primary residence was unlivable The applicant was experiencing financial hardship There are other related difficulties in the aftermath of a declared disaster event (McCarthy, 2008) When home repair or availabl e rental units cannot meet the demands of disaster victims, FEMA will traditionally uses mobile homes and travel trailers as housing solutions. The FEMA mobile home is a larger dwelling unit intended for longer-term disaster housing needs and is suitable altern ative when rental uni ts are unavailable. Travel trailers have been used previously for shorter-term housing, and are smaller units that are usually parked adjacent to the home so that the individual or family can continue repairs while the home itself cannot be occupied and not have to pay for the space to park the trailer (McCarthy, 2008). The mobile units are also placed on existing 18


commercial lots and in parks created by FE MA for the purpose of creating manageable complexes. The travel trailer is not classified as a home or dwelling due to the presence of an axle for transportation allowing for mobility fr om site to site for recreational purposes. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developmen t (HUD) has established standards for mobile homes, but not for travel trailers; the mobile homes are designed to be used as a dwelling. The distinction between housing and transportation also becomes important when considering FEMAs own regulations which do not permit the placement of mobile homes within flood plains as temporary housing unless they are elevated above the base flood elevation (McCa rthy, 2008). This allows trailers to be placed in flood plain areas on a temporary basis, particularly in group sites, while mobile homes may not. As the duration of tem porary housing expires the occupants gain permanence. The Stafford Act allows the provisio ns to be sold directly to the individual occupant, if the individual lacks the means to provide a household for permanent housing. While manufactured homes are occasionally used, FEMA considers them the last viable housing option to be employed, and then onl y if home repairs are impractical or if there are no available units for rent al assistance (McCarthy, 2008). Although the evacuees are afforded sufficient housing, manuf actured homes not only spread disaster victims across the nation but also make home repair work difficult and slow at best. Manufactured housing became th e primary means of provid ing temporary housing in Gulf Coast communities for an ext ended period of time (McCarthy, 2008). 19


Building Codes Building codes are the laws and regulati ons that specify the way a building or infrastructure should be constructed. The me thods of portable architecture must comply with the various building codes that regulate different cat egories of building throughout the U.S.. The federal government requires that the HUD building code be used for all manufactured homes. Modular bu ilding construction is regulated at the state and local levels the same way traditional site-built homes are. The regulations that govern modular buildings apply to the particular project based on the address of the physical building site and the agencies that have jurisd iction over that area where the buildings components are constructed. International Building Code The traditional method of home constr uction and modular construction, both comply with the International Building Code (IBC), the most prev alent building code applied throughout the U.S.. Modular Homes ar e constructed under the same state and local building codes and are subjected to the same zoning regulations as site-built homes. State and local agencies in some regi ons of the U.S. enf orce codes that will meet or exceed the IBC. In 2000, The Inte rnational Code Council (ICC) had completed the International Codes series and ceased development of the legacy codes: BOCA National Building Code, Uniform Building Code, and the Standard Bu ilding Code; in favor of their national successor. International Residential Code The International Residential Code (IRC) is a subsection of the IBC, and only applies to residential construction. The IRC is a comprehensive document that addresses the use of conventional wood-fr ame construction in low-wind areas and 20


almost all seismic areas, and references pr escriptive engineering-based documents for high-wind designs. The IRC applies to detached oneand two-family dwellings not more than three-stories in height wit h separate means of egress. Housing and Urban Development The "HUD code" is a set of national manufactured home industry standards. Published and maintained by t he U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the code establishes the required standards for design and construction, strength and durability, fire resistance, energy efficiency, transportability, and quality control. It also sets performance standar ds for the heating and air conditioning, plumbing, thermal, and electrical systems (Title 24, n.d.). According to the Department of H ousing and Urban Development (HUD), manufactured homes are factorybuilt dwellings that are at least 320 square feet. The manufactured homes are constr ucted following precise guide lines to ensure safety and the ability of the home to be trans ported to its initial and future sites. HUD requires each manufactured home to include: Exterior windows or doors that cover at least 8% of the gross floor area Kitchens, bathrooms and laundry facilit ies may use artificial light A ventilation system t hat operate independent of heating and cooling systems Each habitable room must have a ceiling height of no less than 7 feet Other areas have a 5-f oot ceiling requirement Must include a living area with no less than 150 square feet Minimum area requirement fo r bedrooms is 50 square feet (Traffer, n.d.) According to the U.S. Department of E nergy's Energy Savers program, HUD was required to amend its manufactured homes code as a result of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. This resulted in stronger energy effici ency standards along with higher insulation levels were put into place and double pane windows became a requirement in all 21


climate zones; the new rules made kitchen and bathroom ventilation fans mandatory as well. Energy Savers points out that while there is still room for improvement, some builders produce manufactured homes t hat exceed minimum energy efficiency standards, as of March 2010; these homes us e 30 to 50% less energy than those built to HUD's minimum regulations (Pendola, 2010). Mass-Produced Architecture The mechanization of the industrial revo lution has given us a plethora of inventions as a result of human tasks becoming automated by machines. The onset of machine based manufacturing marked a major turning point in human history; almost every aspect of daily living was influenced in some way (Lucas, 2002). The introduction of steam powered machinery inevitably le ad to the integration of engines performing various tasks in industrial settings. New technologies granted factories the capacity to automate jobs that would previously be undertaken by human labor (Deane, n.d.). Mass-production was now possible and every industry had an increasing demand for precision components, thus an assembly line was formed that rapidly increased production. Industries such as constructi on lacked the implement ation of automation due to the one-off nature of construction tas ks, therefore traditional methods in the construction industry neglected the attributes that an assembly line could render in terms of productivity. Prefabricated construction is an emerging method that employs the automation of both humans and machines to preassemble building components. Prefabricated construction has been transforming the constr uction industry much in the same way the industrial revolution reformed the manufac turing industry back in the 18th and 19th centuries (Bhatt, 1996). Prefabrication uses the techniques of an assembly line of sorts 22


to preassemble the materials in a factory and then transports the complete assemblies or sub-assemblies to the construction si te where they are fastened together. The primary distinction between pref abrication and conventional construction methods is the physical location of where the basic materi als are transformed into building elements (Deemer, 1996). Three types of mass-produced exist: modular, manufactured, and container-style homes. The three types use conventional methods to transport the basic materials to the site where they are inevitably assembled to construct a desired building. Modular Modular homes are prefabricated in segments that consis t of multiple modules or sections which are pre-assembled in remote facilities and then later delivered to their intended site of use. The homes usually r equire the addition of plumbing, heating, ventilating and air-conditioning; windows, roofing, or siding may also be needed (McIlwain, 2006). Modular homes are consi derably different than manufactured homes chiefly due to the absence of an axle or a fr ame used for transportation. Modular homes use a typical transportation method by m eans of a flat-bed truck. Financially, manufactured homes and modular homes are appraised differently by banks for lending purposes. The codes that govern the constructi on of these types of homes play a vital role in their appraisal values. Modular homes are constructed according to the International Building Code (IBC), or in some case the more stringent local jurisdiction; these are the same codes that govern t he construction of any conventional site constructed home (Aladdin, 1917). The material s used for construction are the same as conventional site constructed home as we ll. Therefore, the deprecation values of modular homes are consist ent with the trends associat ed with typical homes because the final products are congruent in quality an d craftsmanship. Modular buildings are 23


similar to any traditional building except they are modules (pieces) t hat are pre-built in factories and then assembled together using giant cranes in a similar fashion to Lego blocks (McKinley, n.d.). Manufactured The term manufactured home specifically refers to a home built entirely in a protected environment under feder al codes set by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, informally known as H UD (Bruce & Sandbank, 1972). Much like the prefabricated homes of WWII, the factory built homes developed a negative stereotype because of their low cost. The der ogatory concept of a trailer park has been consistently linked to lower-income families which have led to prejudice and zoning restrictions, which include limitations on the number and density of homes permitted on any given site, minimum size requirements, limitations on exterior colors and finishes, and foundation mandates. Great strides have been made by HUD to monitor the quality of manufactured homes but t hey still struggle with the unv arying construction problems associated set-up issues. These homes arri ve at the site in turnkey condition and require only utility hookup, because mobile homes are typically not affixed to the land, they are usually defined as personal proper ty (McIlwain, 2006). Mult i-part manufactured units are joined at their destination and the building segments are not always placed on a permanent foundation, compounding the issue of re-financing (McKinley, n.d.). Shipping Container Container homes are box-sha ped modular homes manufactu red from International Standards Organization (ISO) standardized containers and are typically outfitted with prefabricated components (McI lwain, 2006). The surplus of ISOs has initiated a movement dedicated to the re-use and re-programming of the abundant building 24


25 component. The popularity of container homes has exponentially increased from yearto-year. ISOs are the strongest mobile or stationary structure in the world built to withstand typhoons, tornados, hurricanes and even earthquakes, and are now being incorporated into inhabitable designs such as offices, hotels, student housing, safe rooms, and emergency shelters. The benef its of using container homes can be witnessed in short/medium land use projects, when the project duratio n has expired, the containers can be unbolted and relocated or stored when the land is required for alternative uses.


CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Chronology of Portable Architecture Pre-Industrial Revolution The Hut. Mans earliest ancestors sought pr otection from the elements and predators in natural shelters such as caves and overhangs embedded within rock formations (Chiei & Decker, 2005). Mobility fo r man as a hunter/gather er was essential; survival was dependent upon his capabilities to follow his food as it migrated with the changing of seasons. The incept ion of portable buildings was thus introduced in the form of a hut a simple construct, consisti ng of a few vertical partitions and horizontal members acting as a roof. Evidence of a wooden hut was found at Terra Amata near Nice, France, dating back to the Mindel Glaciation period between 450,000-380,000 BCE; which included a hearth and fireplace (Chiei & Decker, 2005). The Tipi. The basic hut remained virtually un altered for a million years, until around the seventeenth century, when Native Americans built transportable structures from readily available materials. The nom adic people of the Great Planes lived in portable cone-shaped structur es called tipis, from ti which means dwelling, and pi meaning used for, translated from the Sioux language. When t he Native Americans food source migrated, the tribes, followi ng the buffalo, disassembled the tipis and hauled them to the next location. The North American tipi can be compared to a single cell of a space frame truss system (K ronenburg, 2003), adapted to use animal hides, membranes without inherent strength. By inco rporating a twin skin system, natural air movement patterns were created, aiding t he adaption into the natural environment. 26


Wooden Plank Home. The most notable native dwelli ng of North America, the wooden plank houses of the north-west c oast most closely resembled Western architecture (Chiei & Decker, 2005), combini ng aesthetic considerations in addition to functional ones. The plank house used long boards of hand-milled cedar to furnish the sloping roofing and rectilinear walls, forming a rectangular shape. The faade or entry of the house was programmatically placed facing the body of water in which the house sat within proximity of. The waterways were consi dered the source of life, but in the winter when the waters began to freeze the temporal nature of the plank house experienced as the dwellers would dismantle the constr uct and carry them inland to make new temporary shelters within the forests wher e fishing and berry gathering propagated. Red-River Frame In the 1860s, the Hudson Bay Company severed the mining communities during the Gold Rush by build ing a chain of retail stores in British Columbia and Alaska. The Hudson Bay Company, invented a building form called the Red-river Frame which adopted the log cabin design, a long building using logs with dove-tail corners that ran the full length of the wall, in lieu of the post-on-sill construction. The walls were generally twelve to fifteen rounds high, combined with a steep-pitch roof, allowed for a spacious atti c, often used for the storage of furs and as sleeping quarters for the prospects (Chi ei & Decker, 2005). The remote nature of prospecting required housing that was easily a ssembled with readily available resource. Industrial Revolution Crystal Palace. In 1851, a building pioneered the use of cast-iron structure, prefabricated units, and an antecedent glass curt ain wall, called the Crystal Palace. The building accommodated the 1851 Great Exhibi tion, in central London, were it showcased the modern marvels of the industrial revolution. Joseph Paxton built the 27


990,000 square feet of exhibition space using prefabrication techniques and demountable modules which allowed the building to be er ected in an unconventional nine months; the footprint of the building encompassed nine teen acres. The exhibit in Hyde Park, London, was limited to a life of six months and needed to be relocated to Sydenham Park, an affluent area outside of London, England. The glass monster, demonstrated its flexibility and transportability when it was reconstructed in six months upon a new foundation. The Cryst al Palace has been called proto-modern architecture and was widely imitated in Europe and throughout the U.S (Chiei & Decker, 2005). Manning Portable Colonial Cottage. With the advent of industrial assembly techniques, Britain produced a small-scale por table building in the nineteenth century called the Manning Portable Colonial Cottage. The Manning cottage was massmarketed as a demountable, pr efabricated, and modular, eas ily transported and erected building. The Manning Portable Cottage was the first advertised prefabricated home. The open-platform allowed owners to a ssign their unique pr ogram without being constrained by predetermined assumptions of us e; this marketing strategy perpetuated the distribution of the M anning Cottage all over Britain and the U.S.. The Manning Cottages rein came to an end with the induc tion of the Sears mail-order catalog which developed and sold house plans to the general public. Post-Industrial Revolution Sears Catalog Home. Prefabricated buildings are not to be confused with the ready-to-assemble homes such as the Sears Catalog Homes that were sold from 1908 to 1940. The catalog homes were shipped via railroad boxcars and consisted of a kit of parts that would later be assembled by the new homeowner and/or friends and relatives. The crucial distinction between pref abricated buildings and the kit home is the 28


physical location where the individual parts ar e assembled to form a building component e.g. wall or roof. The catalog did however offer over 200 different models to choose from, which varied in price based upon specific ations; the average kit was comprised of 25 tons of materials, with over 30,000 parts (Stevenson & Jandl, 1995). Sears also had the ability to mass-produce the materials in their factories which inevitably reduced manufacturing costs and lowered traditional c onstruction time by up to 40%, thus lowering purchase costs for customers and increasing productivity rates. Sears, Roebuck and Company, sales of the hom es peaked in 1929; an estimated 70,000 homes were sold in total, just before t he onset of the Great Depression (Thornton, 2002). The stalled sales after the depression later came to a halt due to changes in housing codes and the complexity of modern construction making the kit homes less desirable. World War I Nissen Hut. On April 18, 1916, Major Peter No rman Nissen of the 29th Company Royal Engineers began to ex periment with hut designs (McCosh, 1997). Nissen produced three semi-cylindrical hut prototypes of his desi gn using the aesthetics of a drill-shed at Queen's University, Kingston, Onta rio as inspiration. The third prototype was selected and critiqued by fellow officers. The prototype later went into production in August of 1916; at least 100,000 units were produced for World War I (McCosh, 1997). Nissen designs were subjected to two influenci ng factors. First, the building had to be economical in its use of materials, especiall y considering wartime shortages of building material. Second, the building had to be por table and easily erectable within desolate locations. The wartime shortages of sh ipping space increased the demand for the design to be prefabricated for ease of erec tion and removal. The Nissen hut was easily 29


packed in a standard Army wagon and erected by six men in four hours; the current world record for erection was 1 hour 27 minutes (McCosh, 1997). Production of the Nissen hut diminished between World War I and World War II, but was revived in 1939 when Nissen Buildings Ltd. lifted their patent rights for wartime production. The multi-functional design of the Nissen hut became a component that made it effortlessly mass-producible to the general public as a means of accommodation. Nissen-Petren Ltd. later converted the Nissen hut into a prefabricated two-story house, but the adaptati on of the semi-cylindrical hut to non-institutional uses was not popular (McCosh, 1997). The hut meet criticism for its shape, rectangular furniture does not fit into curved wall shapes ve ry well, nor does it conform to the status of a house. World War II Dymaxion House. Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983), was arguably one of the most significant advocates of prefabricated construction. Ephemeralization is a coined term meaning doing more with less; it was prom oted by Fuller, a philosopher, inventor and designer (Robertson, 1974). He attempted to in spire humanity to take a comprehensive view of the world we live in and the infinite possibilities for an ever-increasing standard of living within it. In 1927, Fuller advanced the argument that conventional housing designs and construction were entirely i nadequate (Pawley, 1991). To make his point, he designed a prefabricated low-cost house for mass-production. The Dymaxion House was suspended on a central core or mast, wh ich contained the buildings utility services, including an elevator, laundry, air conditioning system, plumbi ng, and electrical wiring. The roof and floor were both suspended by cabl es from the top of the mast. Using preassembled panels, the builder with help from fr iends or family, could often put up the 30


Dymaxion House up in one day. Only two prototypes of the Dymaxion House were ever fully constructed. Fuller saw his second Dymaxion Deployme nt Unit as an answer to the U.S. Governments increased need for fast, inex pensive and collapsib le housing for the mobilizing defense industry as the country prepared to enter Word War II. An experimental model was erected in Washin gton, D.C., were those who lived in it vouched for its qualities of comfort and living efficacies (Pawley, 1991). However, with canvas curtain partitions, a lack of pr ivacy became an issue among some of the occupants. Metal shortages ultimately re stricted the governments purchase of the Dymaxion II to only a few models used by the m ilitary for special uses in the field. Quonset Hut. The successor of the Nissen hut was the Quonset huts used by the U.S. during World War II. The name comes from their site of first manufacture, Quonset Point, at the Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center in Davisville (Chiei & Decker, 2005), a village located within the town of North Kingstown, Rhode Island, U.S.. The hut was adapted to specialized functi ons; each hut plan indicated the building modifications necessary to make the conversion and the location of equipment necessary for that particular design (K ronenburg, 2003). The huts formal design specifications were adjusted for varying climatic regions. In tropical climates, increased ventilation, water collecting techniques, and overhangs were implemented to mitigate the accumulation of humid within the unit. In total, 41 design variations, including a dispensary/surgical hut, a laboratory, laundry facility, pharmacy, dental facility, hospital ward, barbershop, morgue, guard house, and tailo r shop, served multitudes of needs for the militarys forward base s (Chiei & Decker, 2005). 31


Between 150,000 and 170,000 Quonset huts were manufactured during World War II. The huts minimalistic approach to prefabricated design cost between $800 and $1,100 to produce. After the war, the U.S. military sold t he remaining surplus to the general public for approximat ely $1,000 each, depending on the f eatures of the unit. As troops began to re-establish their lives afte r the war, the Quonset hut became an acceptable means of temporary postwar housing. It was throughout this time period that prefabrication made a name for itself by sa ving time on-site and reducing overall costs (Kronenburg, 2003). However, the kinks of pr efabrication were not ironed out at this time and low-quality was a result. As the ef fects of temporary housing lingered longer than anticipated, the prefabricated houses designed life was exceeded and adversely developed a certain stigma. Modern Geodesic Dome. Although Buckminster Fuller has left a remarkable legacy of inventive housing designs, he is most not ably associated with his work concerning geodesic domes. Fuller began experimenting with geo desic domes in the late 1940s, at Black Mountain College, an ex perimental institution in No rth Carolina (Pawley, 1991). The form appealed to the innovative engin eer because geodesic domes are extremely strong for their weight, their Omni-triangular surface provides a stable structure, and because a sphere encloses the most volume for the least amount of surface area (Robertson, 1974). He had hopes t hat the domes, like both versions of his Dymaxion House, would address the post-World Wa r II housing crisis. During the 1960s and 1970s, many people looking for alternative, creative and affordable housing turned to geodesic domes (Pawley, 1991). 32


Modular Home. Modern prefabricated homes ar e also popularly known as modular homes as you can put together any number of rooms to create the kind of home you desire. Modular homes are increasingly witnessing high demand due to a variety of reasons when compared to conventionally constructed homes. The construction of a prefab home is much fast er than a conventionall y built home; within two months of order time your home is typically constructed (Vanegas, 1995). Since each sectional room is built within a manufacturi ng facility, all the client has to do is to place an order with the prefab hous e builders and the house will be built to specification, transported to their site and then assembled together. On the other hand, a traditional home can take several months or even y ears, life has become expedited and people are perennially short of time; modern modular homes are an ideal option as they are faster to build and relatively hassle-free in comparison. Implementation of Todays Shipping Container The demand for lower priced, high-tec hnology products from China have been answered by the modern day shipping container The rapid growth of manufacturing in China have created a global demand for Chinese products; the shipping container allows the facilitation of the products from one side of the globe to the other. Unfortunately, one of the side effects of importation from other countries is the immediate accumulation of excess containers. The U.S. exports very little resource beyond the countrys borders using shipping cont ainers as a means of cargo holding. In 2005, the U.S. was estimated to contain nearly one million containers. Eventually Americans caught on to the mass-accumula tion through publicity and interest, and by the end of 2007, the quant ity of containers dropped to 500, 000. Table 2-1 highlights the 33


most recent deficit of expor ted containers from the Port of Los Angeles in 2010, in relation to the containe rs being imported. Through great exposure of t he problem globally, in c onjunction with the inherent strengths and ease of shipping container cons truction, the problem has transformed into one of the fastest building trends globally. Fo r many reasons, shipping containers are the strongest mobile or stat ionary structure in the world built to withstand typhoons, tornados, hurricanes and even earthquakes; thus, one or more of these incredible steel modules are the safest superstructure for a home, school, office apartment, dormitory, storage unit, emergency shel ter (Sanders, n.d.). The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), have standardized the dimensions of a common shipping container as 20 or 40 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 8 feet tall. A taller version of the comm on shipping container is also deployed named High Cube (HQ), which shares the same length options and width as the common shipping container, but has an additional one foot on the commons height measuring in at 9 feet versus 8 f eet. Both units are constructed using an non-corrosive Corten steel that resists mold. The Corten steel is used on the interior and exterior of the container and have been engineered to withst and greater bearing loads than traditional carbon steel. The common types of ISO shipping containers are: 20' GP 40' GP 20' HQ (High Cube. The difference is 1 foot taller than a standard 20' GP) 40' HQ (High Cube. The difference is 1 foot taller than a standard 40' GP) Open top Open side Freezer Refrigerated are also available, but are not recommended for ISBU construction. 34


Container Homes The physical properties that are intrinsic to the shipping container have contributed to the progression of the container from industrial transportation services to military adaptations. The implementation of shippi ng containers as small workshops, and refrigerators by the military have presented opportunities for the c ontainers to be issued as offices and employee cabins. When the c ontainer made the tran sitional shift from transportation to building component, the term ISO Shipping Contai ner is replaced by the term Intermodal Steel Buil ding Unit (ISBU). The popularity of the ISBUs has created a great demand that is often meet by purch asing the units from the manufacturers directly, simply for the purpose of constr uction, without ever being used for shipping services. There are three main implementations of shipping containers in construction: Leaving the container intact and i nhabiting the singular dwelling unit Developing a module for m odular building construction Converting the containers into inte rmodal steel building units (ISBU) ISBUs provide many advantages in the fi eld of green construction: the units themselves are recycled, the amount of wood needed to build is reduced by as much as 99%, and waste is mitigated from landfills due to construction and assembly in a factory setting. Insulation is replaced with NASA-in spired Super Therm insulation, it has no VOCs, utilizes different types and sizes of ce ramics that block 95% of the sun's radiant heat in the visible, ultra violet rays and infr a spectra. The insulation is spray painted inside and out: it is said to give an R-value of R-19 if just spray ed externally, and an Rvalue of R-28.5 if sprayed on the exterior and interior (Sanders, n.d.). The integration of an inclined roof could be used with a gutter s ystem to capture and evacuate water for 35


grey-water applications. With thoughtful innovative design, the initial construction costs could be lowered, as well as ongoing operating costs, both of which are critical issues regarding housing in disaster relief areas for temporary and permanent needs. Depending on the configurati on and intricacy of the container home, the persquare-foot cost of construction usi ng repurposed shipping containers have been reported to run from 50 to 65%of traditional constructi on costs (Sanders, n.d.). However, costs should come down for larger pr ojects or for indivi dual projects done with large amounts of owner labor and repurposing of locally found materials. Container-built homes are popping up in desi gn competitions, urban planning sessions, and university housing discussions worldwide because they are ready-made, consistent, strong, and available. This pre-fab archit ecture is likely to continue, helping to house homeless and displaced populations, build-up without eat ing-up valuable land, and create easy, modernist expressions for urbanites and nat ure lovers alike (Sanders, n.d.). Singular Dwelling Unit A single shipping container provides eit her 160 or 320 square feet of interior space, depending on the selected unit. The desi gn options are limitle ss of how the unit will be manipulated, but holding tr ue to its original external dimensions will provide an inherent efficient means of transportation. Mass-producti on of a manufactured home using an ISO shipping contai ner allows for self-contai nment. Two projects have been specifically highlighted here: LOT-EKs MDU, a high-end factory constructed house easily adapted into mass-production for disa ster relief; and Earth Science Australias research facility, that prom otes DIY techniques within remote areas. The two projects were selected based upon the integral discrepancie s they have in relation to each other, but in the end, both share a common thread of ingenuity, the manipulat ion of a shipping 36


container into a singular dwelling unit that can be readily deployed into a post-disaster area. Mobile dwelling unit A Mobile Dwelling Unit is generated from a single shipping container by cutting the envelope of the container and transforming the residual interior space into subvolumes as encapsulated living quarters, work or storage function. The three interior divisions within the MDU provide accommodations for social, entertainment and private functions. Each sub-division is delineated by large horizontal windows breaking the potentially rigid spaces into user friendly illuminated comingled ar eas (Figure 2-1). The three distinguished divisions are extr uded from the boundaries of the shipping container, increasing the interior volume of the spaces and allow for the capturing of light and views. (A) (B) Figure 2-1. LOT-EK MDU ISBU ( Lot-EK, n.d.). A) Exterior view of MDU, (B) Interior view of MDU. In the event of transporting the unit from assembly to destination, the extruded sub-volumes are pushed into the container s original dimensional boundaries leaving the outer skin of the container flush to a llow worldwide standardiz ed shipping (Lot-EK, n.d.). When delivered to the si te the sub-volumes are pushed out, leaving the interior of 37


the container completely unobstructed with all functions accessible along the sides. The interior and sub-volumes are entirel y fabricated using plastic coated and noncoated plywood, including the furnishings an d fixtures. The interior floor plan is approximately 550 square feet when the sub-volumes are deployed and has an estimated total construction cost of $75, 000 dollars, resulting in a cost of $136.36 dollars per square foot., MDUs are conceived for individuals that may require travelin g from one temporary destination to another. The MDU travels wit h its dweller to the next long term destination, fitted with all live/work equipm ent and filled with the dwellers belongings concealed safely within the IS O boundaries. Once it reaches its destination, the MDU is loaded into a MDU Vertical Harbor (Figure 22), a multiple level steel rack, measuring eight feet in width (the width of one container) and varying in length to accommodate the site. The Vertical Harbor is a stretc hed linear development that is generated by the repetition of MDUs and vertical distribution co rridors, which contains elevators, stairs and all systems (power, data, water, sewage). A crane slides parallel to the building, along the entire length, on its own tracks; it pi cks up MDUs as they are driven to the site and loads them onto slots along the rack. Steel brackets support and secure MDUs in their assigned position, where they are plugg ed-in to connect all systems. The Vertical Harbor is in constant transformation as MDUs are loaded and unloaded from the permanent rack. Like pixels in a digital image, temporary patterns are generated by the presence or absence of MDUs in different lo cations along the rack, reflecting the everchanging composition of these colonies sca ttered around the region (Lot-EK, n.d.). 38


(A) (B) Figure 2-2. LOT-EK ISBU Docking Station (Lot-EK, n.d.). A) MDU Housing Plan Section View, (B) MDU Housi ng Plan Elevation View Earth science Australia Remote construction is an obstacle that many traditional forms of building construction have an exorbitant amount of difficultly with. Post-disaster housing sometimes present challenges in the met hods of logistics and the equipment required for physical construction. Using shipping c ontainers as a means of construction in remote access areas alleviates some of the l ogistical constraints; some option include: hauling a standard 20 foot shippi ng container on a flat-bed tr uck, dragging the container using a tractor or 4wd vehicle, or usi ng third-party developed wheel systems that are placed on the underside of the container allo wing for hand or vehi cle maneuverability. A research team in Far North Queensla nd required a facility in the dense World Heritage Rainforest in order to conduct 1:1 studies with the environment. The area surrounding the site has red lateritic clay t hat is extremely slippery when doused by the annual 18 feet of rain. The design consist ed of two conventional shipping containers creating 320 square feet of living space, to be elevated off of the rainforests ground by four feet to maintain a flood resistant stature. Vehicular in frastructure to this remote location was non-existent and was only accessibl e via a narrow track previously cleared by woodcutters in 1928. The techniques used to construct the faci lity are simple and 39


employ a limited palette of building construction skills. The decision to use shipping containers as the primary build ing component was based upon Hansens understanding, They produce a dry, durable, vermin proof, confortable, removable facility with low ecol ogical impact. Site preparation first involved clearing of trees and low-lying shrubbery, eight holes where then excavated to receive PVC pi ping filled with rebar and concrete mix for structural support, the entire procedure lasted two days. A small low profile rubber tracked crane was initiated to lift the contai ners into place in 30 minutes atop the cured concrete piles (Figure 2-3), in lieu of us ing a mechanical jacking system to place the containers. The containers were spaced si x feet apart from one another and adjoined using galvanized C-section steel secti ons. The galvanized expanded metal mesh walkway served four purposes: It kept the research team from tr acking mud into the dry living areas It helped keep snakes and other vermin such as rats out of the containers It connected the two containers, wh ich were separated by six feet In the high rainfall, it permitted the rain to fall straight through to mitigate run off or splash would enter into the dry inte rior of the contai ner (Hansen, 2008). (A) (B) Figure 2-3. Earth Science Australia Early Stages of Development (Hansen, 2008). (A) PVC piles used for foundation, (B) Shipping containers elevated into place. 40


The modifications to the containers envel ope included windows that were fitted with screens and door openings that allowed a ccess to the roof for observational purposes. By elevating the observation area from the ground or plinth, the team was able to capture more breezes and were abo ve the normal flight level of the small number of evening mosquitoes (Hans en, 2008). The adaptation of three cheap conventional car ports were installed atop t he roof for the purpose of sitting out, drying clothes, and small research projects. The pl astic roofing had serendipitous advantages, it reduced the noise of the intense tropical downpours as well as making the lower floor used for cooking nearly waterproof. A PVC storm water pipe was used to collect the rainwater from the carports roof and redirect it into a cistern for drinking water. The rainforest research facility cost approximately $17,250 dollars, resulting in a cost of $53.91 dollars per square foot., in cluding the two contai ners, transporting the containers, screening in the cargo doors, the lot. (Hansen, 2008). The facility has a floor area of 90 square feet of totally dry sl eeping area, 45 square feet of mostly dry cooking area and 135 square feet of cover ed sitting out area a total area of 270 square feet undercover and protect ed from harsh rainfall. After completion of the facility in 2006, the research team experienced an astounding 24 feet of rainfall during the rainy season, which did not penetrate the envelope of the containers. On March 20, 2006, the research facility was subjected to a Cyclone Larry, Category five cyclone with local wind gusts exceeding 176 mph. The only subsequent damage resulting from the natural disaster was tearing within the carports canvas that would later need replacing (Figure 2-4). 41


(A) (B) Figure 2-4. Earth Science Australia Intact Structure (Hansen, 2008). (A) Facility before Cyclone Larry, (B) Damage after Cyclone Larry. Modular Container Construction Containers present the ability to be sta cked during transportation anywhere from a single level for train transporta tion, to twelve units high fo r cargo ship transportation. The stacking effect has been noticed and impl emented in many architectural designs due to one the most basic characteristic of a container, its ability to be stacked. With a little ingenuity the container can be transformed into various configurations to suite the intended programs needs. A consistent characte ristic always arises from the designs, the need for service cores to facilitate utilit ies and circulation. Two projects have been highlighted, the Container City which m ade use of repurposed land and Keetwonen, a temporary facility used as do rmitories for college students. Container City Container City is an innovative and highly versatile system of construction that uses shipping containers linked together to provide high strength, prefabricated steel modules that can be combined to create a wide variety of building shapes. This modular technology enables construction times and cost s to be reduced by up to half that of traditional building techniques, while remain ing significantly more environmentally friendly (USM, 2001). To date Urban Space Management Ltd has used the Container 42


City system successfully to create a multitude of spaces such as office spaces, retail spaces, artist studios, youth centers and liv e/work spaces. USM Ltd most prominent development is a four million dollar project called Container City, which was built using two phases of construction, Contai ner City I and Cont ainer City II. The original Container City is located at Trinity Buoy Wharf, in the heart of Londons Docklands and was completed in 2001. Architects Nicholas Lacey and Partners, along with engineer Buro Happold, developed 15 unit live/work studio spaces by manipulating 20 ISO shippi ng containers. The installation time to elevate and place the 20 containers took four days with the entire comple x being completed in five months. The original configuration of Container City I was three-stories high providing 12 studios across 4,800 square feet in comb ined floor area; an additional fourth floor was later installed and provided three additio nal live/work apartments. As well as being very cost effective, Container City I is environmentally friendly with over 80% of the building created from recycled materials (USM, 2001). The total cost including installation onsite cost $1,613,056 resulting in a cost of $268.84 dollars per square foot. (A) (B) Figure 2-5. Container City (U SM, 2001). (A) Placement of t he last container completing the fourth floor, (B) Contai ner City I completed. 43


The second phase of Container City II, wa s both an extension an d evolution of the Container City I. Built by the original archit ect and engineer in 2002, five floors were erected using 30 ISO containers, providing 22 studio spaces in total. The total cost including installation onsite cost $2,386,944, resulting in a cost of $305.04 dollars per square foot. The placement of the 30 ISO co ntainers took eight days to lift into the intricate design. Interconnecting bridges between phases I and II provide the two buildings with horizontal circulation, while a ve rtical circulation core provides an elevator for disabled occupants (Figure 2-5). In contra st to the first phase, Container City II is a funky ziggurat shape and painted in bright colors to reflect the creative flair of those who work within the unique structure (USM, 2001). Insulation was applied to the interior walls and finished with drywall, providing t he occupants with a finished surface to paint and hang picture frames upon. Small studio and office space requirements are fulfilled by single 8 x 40 containers, but other spaces require interiors to be larger than the provided standard of eight feet wide. To suffice larger spaces, t he containers side walls were eliminated and supports were welded to the containers edges to maintain structural integrity. By combining multiple containers with no interi or barriers studios could range from 240-540 square feet (Sherwood, 2002). Infrastructu re has been created for service corridors located at the bridge entrances reducing t he need for plumbing walls to run continuously from the ground floor up, thus allowing for the maximum free interior space within the studios. 44


(A) (B) Figure 2-6. Container City (USM, 2001). (A ) Circulation connecti on between Container City I and II, (B) Container City II completed. Keetwonen H.J.E. Wenckebachweg 3010, Amsterdam, Netherlands, is home to the worlds largest container city, built for temporary student housing, there are 1000 units arranged in blocks creating a new community, which in cludes a cafe, supermarket, office space, and even a sports area. The architectural firm Tempohousing is responsible for the design of the facility which broke ground on the 340,000 square foot compound on August 29, 2002. The estimated cost of c onstruction was $32,054,122 dollars, resulting in a cost of $94.28 dollars per square foot, which came in under budget from its original preliminary estimates. The proj ect was initially developed to only stay on the site for five years and then relocated to another desti nation within Amster dam that required affordable mass-housing, but the relocati on plan has been postponed until 2016. The project began at the end of 2005 when the first 60 homes were commissioned and was completed in mid-2006. Many of the initial fears were put to rest once the students adapted to their new homes, such as the small size, the loud nois e levels, and maintaining climate control. Since the dormitories completion, it has become the second most popular student dormitory offered by the student housing corpor ation De Key (Kimberley, 2010). Each of 45


the units is complemented with its own bathr oom, kitchen, balcony, separate sleeping and study areas, large windows that provide daylight and views of the adjacent area. Heating throughout the units is supplied by a centrally located natural gas boiler system and is fully insulated on the interior walls. Keetwonen integrates a rooftop that helps with water shedding during heavy rains while providing heat dispersal and insulation for the top floor units. (A) (B) (C) (D) Figure 2-7. Keetwonen (Kimber ley, 2010). (A) Modular ISBU, (B) Elevating the first 60 dormitory units into place, (C) Completed building unit with balcony attachments installed, (D) Aerial view of 1,000 unit complex. Intermodal Steel Building Units Intermodal Steel Building Units (ISBU) constr uction is similar to modular container construction in many ways but with a more adaptive approach to traditional building techniques. ISBUs are integrated fully into traditional building methods and incorporated into the buildings envelope and structure. The fusing of ISBUs and wood framing or 46


concrete masonry units (CMU) has increased the potential for shipping containers to be assimilated and thought as a serious building component. More than 50 years ago, the U.S. converted steel shipping containers for use as portable command centers and medical facilities in Korea. Now, architec ts, designers, planners, and homeowners are finding renewed interest in these inter-moda l steel building units as they look for affordable, sustainable housing options for the 21st century. A container-based home offers a fast, green, and sustainable approach to building an average sized home with almost no wood. These ISBUs are manufactured in a factory-controlled environment so they are standardized and reliable. When building with ISBUs, the building blocks are r eady-made and ready to transport. Shipping containers are purchased and shipped to factorie s for modifications. Once there, the house blueprints are reviewed and each unit is custom fit for construction. In a home where four containers are to sit side by side, all but the oute rmost side panels are removed so that, once connect ed, the ISBUs create an open 40 x 32 foot interior space (SG Blocks, 2011). The vertical steel support beams are left in place for loadbearing purposes, with five along each remaini ng side of a container. When the design permits, openings are cut into th e outer walls for doors and windows. A container-based house sits on a traditional concrete block foundation with a 40 x 32 foot stem-wall foundation set and reinfo rced with steel rebar. Concrete filled cells are fitted with half-inch thick steel plates that are embedded into the concrete at the corners to secure the incoming ISBUs. Each steel-plate uses a J-hook, which connects the container to the exposed reba r and ties it all the way down to the footing. Additional footings are poured and individual concrete blocks are placed inside the foundation to 47


support the sides of adjoining ISBUs. The exte rior of the ISBU is treated with a sprayed on ceramic coating that insulates the struct ure, thus reducing heat ing and cooling loads year round. When the ISBUs arrive on site, they are crane-lifted one by one onto the foundation, hooked into place, and welded down to marry them completely to the foundation (SG Blocks, 2011). Attaching th em to embedded steel reinforcements and welding them in place ensures they will sustain extremely heavy winds. A conventional hip roof can be placed and secured atop the big steel box structure in a matter of tw o or three hours if architectu ral vernacular is desired(SG Blocks, 2011). At four foot intervals metal straps connect the rafters to the ISBU, while Simpson hurricane clips attach the steel roof to the rafters to pr event uplifting during high winds. The ISBUs are dried in via im pact-resistant windows, the window openings are measured and cut prior to delivery of the ISBUs on site. Inside, workers install a inch plywood floor over the existing in ch plywood sub-floor (SG Blocks, 2011). The crew runs metal hat channels for wiring along the walls and vertical support beams that dot the interior. Metal studs and drywall ar e used for interior partition walls. Once insulated, the existing container walls are fac ed in drywall for finishing, transforming the corrugated-steel interior and prepping them for paint or wallpaper. The exterior is clad with James Hardie fiber-cement siding. Wind ows and doors are installed into pre-cut openings with a minimal use of wood framing. Doors are hung and the roof is shingled, leaving the house ready for furnishing. SG Blocks SG Blocks have developed a building syst em that have meet the safe and sustainable housing needs in the U.S. by designing a system that satisfies the requirements of builders, developers, governm ent officials, urban planners, architects 48


and engineers looking for fast and affordabl e housing alternatives. SG Blocks have achieved conformance with the Internati onal Code Council (ICC) requirements by designing and manufacturing the syst em to specifically cater to the regulations as the standard is used by 90% of governmental juri sdictions (SG Blocks, 2011). The building system has been deployed and test ed within areas prone to earthquakes, tornados and hurricanes. Adapting to the regions architectu ral vernacular, SG Blocks can be used to build to any style of construction, from traditional to modern. SG Blocks containers can be delivered with a highly durable surface fini sh, or delivered ready to be clad with any type of standard or green technology friendly building skin (SG Blocks, 2011). The application of cladding to exteri or of the SG Block includes limestone, stucco, shingles, brownstone, brick and aluminum siding. In addition to cladding adhered to the containers surfaces SG Blocks works with a variety of insulation including traditional and emerging insulation technologies that meet or exceed insulation requirements and provide adequate thermal protection. It takes an estimated 8,000 kWh of energy to melt a four-ton shipping container, about 6,500 kWh to make a ton of steel of virgin material and almost 1,800 kWh to recycle a ton of steel from 100% scrap, but 400 to 800 kWh to convert a shipping container into an SG Blocks building un it, according to the company and its representatives. In terms of supply, proponents of container construction estimate that there are 16 to 22 million containers in active circulation with 1 million new units becoming available each year and some 700,000 being retired. SG Blocks has its own term for recycling the containers it acquires. Once on site, the process can reduce cons truction time by up to 40% over other common construction methods. 49


10% to 20% less expensive than traditi onal construction methods, particularly in urban locations and multi-story projects. SG Blocks has one of, if not the lowe st, embodied energy utilization of any structural building product on the market today, making it the environmentally friendly choice in building. As a clients needs expand or contra ct, the system may be expanded or reduced to meet those changing needs much later in the design process than other forms of construction. SG Blocks can be dismantled and relocated if needed. This makes the SG Blocks Building System a leading option in temporary or transitional building construction and creates much greater options for ur ban planners and plannin g authorities. (SG Blocks, 2011) Shipping containers typically have a useful life of 10-15 years in the shipping industry. The cost of reclaiming the raw steel from a used container is economically unfeasible. Through a process SG Block calls Value-Cycling conversion of a container into an SG Block takes 1/20th t he amount of energy requ ired to reprocess a comparable weight of steel (SG Blocks, 2011). Increasing the lifespan of a container to about 100 years, the SG Blocks system saves significant board feet of lumber and tons of new steel in addition to dramatic savings in energy expenditures, all contributing to LEED certification. Fort Bragg. SG Block built a 4,322 square foot, tw o-story office building using 12 recycled Hi-cube shipping containers for the 249th Engineers Company Operations Building at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The Operations Building was the first multi-story commercial structure in the U.S.. Construction of the st ructure took 101 days to complete and was estimated at $150 dollars per square foot. The Operations Building was delegated a $750,000 budget for the job acco rding the U.S. Army, which SG Blocks only used $648,300 dollars of that estimate and came in at two-thirds under budget if traditional construction methods were used. SG Block claims to be the first to have 50


applied brick and an insulation finishing system to the exterior of a building envelope and to completely finish the inside of the containers as an integral building component. Client: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Location: Fort Bragg, NC Architect: Lawrence Group Builder: Alberici Constructors Engineer: SG Blocks Total Construction Time: 75 days 40% fa ster than traditional method (180 days) Project Size: 4,322 square feet Completion Date: November 2007 (SG Blocks, 2011) (A) (B) (C) Figure 2-8. Operations Buildi ng at Fort Bragg (SG Blocks, 2011). (A) Assembly of SG Blocks into place, (B) Truss system in stalled atop SG Blocks, (C) Completed building with exterior finishes applied. St. Petersburg Home. A single family residence in St. Petersburg, Florida was constructed to bring affordable, storm resistant housing to a neighborhood that is subjected to severe weather. The ISBU Ho using Pilot Project was the result of a collaborative effort among St. Petersburg Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (SPNHS); Tampa Armature Works (TAW); and the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes 51


(FLASH); and was funded by $185,000 grant fr om The Home Depot Foundation to build two homes. (Rivera, 2008). Only half of the budget was allocated to the physical construction of a single home, the total cost including installation of a single home resulted in an onsite cost of $92,500, creati ng a cost of $57.81 dollars per square foot. The mission of the program was to provide affordable housing options for lowand moderate-income families to withstand high wind speeds of up to 120 mph, and resist water and termites. The project was constr ucted under the regulat ions set by MiamiDade County (FL) construction standards, t he toughest standards in the country. Client : St. Petersburg Neighborhood Housing Services Location: St. Petersburg, FL Builder: Barrow Construction Engineer : SG Blocks Total Construction Time: 4 months Project Size: 1,600 square feet Completion Date: September 2006 (SG Blocks, 2011) Figure 2-9. St. Petersburg Home (SG Blocks, 2011). FEMA Housing The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provid ed $5.5 billion dollars directly to Hurricane Katrina vict ims for housing and other needs assistance through the Individuals and Households Assistance Program. The six billion dollars disbursement of aid is the single largest contribution ever provided by FEMA for any 52


single natural disaster. After proce ssing all requests for housing relief, 950,000 applicants were determined eligible fo r assistance under the Individuals and Households Program. FEMA provided $4.2 billion dollars for housing assistance, covering temporary housing, repair, r eplacement and permanent housing construction following Hurricane Katrina. FEMA has also paid out $1.3 billion dollars to nearly 550,000 applicants in Louisiana and Mississi ppi under the DHS Transitional Housing program for homes that were inaccessible to inspectors due to persistent flooding (FEMA, 2006). The following is a breakdown of how FEMA dispersed the assistance under the Individuals and Households Program: Hotel/Motel Program 85,000 households & $650 million Housing Inspections and Repair 1.3 million inspections Travel Trailers and Mobile Homes 121,922 households (Occupied as of 8/25/06) The Louisiana Total = 71,134: mobile home 3,169, travel trailers 60,981 The Mississippi Total = 36,127: mobile home 4,709, travel trailers 31,418 The Alabama Total = 897: mobile homes 0, travel trailers 897 Cruise Ships Housing over 7,000 for the initial six months after Katrina Public Assistance Pr ojects $4.8 billion Debris Clean-up 99 million cubic yards paying out $3.7 billion dollars Crisis Counseling $126 Million Evacuation Reimbursements -$735 million to 45 states for Evacuee Host States (FEMA, 2006) FEMA Travel Traile r and Mobile Home The FEMA travel trailer is intended to provide temporary housing to victims of natural disasters until homes are able to be rebuilt or repaired. The trailers are typically installed on the private pr operty of the victim, usually on lawns and sometimes in driveways next to the house depending on the amount of debris in t he area. In places where the debris is too abundant to manage or flood water and lingering mold spores are present, FEMA constructs trailer parks where storm victim s are relocated. The size of the trailer park ranges from several trailers reoccupying abandonment parking lots to 53


a compound of thousands of trailers constr ucted on green fields with a perimeter of chain linked fence monito red by police security. The typical FEMA trailer consists of a master bedroom with a standard size bed, a living area with kitchen and stove, bunk beds, and a bathroom with shower. Each trailer is equipped with electricity, air conditioni ng, indoor heating, runni ng cold and hot water, a propane-operated stove and oven, a small micr owave oven, a large refrigerator, and a few pieces of fixed furniture attached to the floor, usually a sofa bed, a small table, and two chairs (FEMA, 2006). The trailers are elevated two feet above the ground and supported by shallow concrete piles. The ra ised body of the traile r requires a wooden or aluminum stairwell or ADA specified handicap ramps for the disabled occupant (Figure 2-10). Each trailer is equipped with two propane tanks providing hot water, indoor heating, and gas for the stove and oven. Infrastr ucture is required of all trailer units to provide sanitary running water for consum ption and hygiene, sewage lines directed to underground sewage mains, and power utilit y hook-ups. Although the trailers are equipped with telephone, cable and internet access, it is the responsibility of the resident to arrange services. The occupancy rating of the one bedroom traile rs are rated at a single family, i.e., two adults with two children; larger units ar e available to accommodate larger families. The upkeep of the trailer is delegated to the family occupying the unit and is inspected once a month by officials for the occupant s safety and convenience: if upkeep is deemed useless, new accommodations will be required. The mobile homes are constructed and regulated under the Department of Housi ng and Urban Development (HUD) which sets the standards that all mobile homes must adhere to in the U.S.; the 54


travel trailer is considered a vehicle and is exempt from HUD or any code used for the construction of a building; the park model is regulated by transportation authorities and by manufacturer acceptance of a volunt ary American National Standards Institute standard applying to their construction (McCarthy, 2008). A municipal airport in Purvis, Mississippi was the largest FEMA trailer storage and staging areas in the country after Hurricane Katrina. Following the hurricanes of 2005, FEMA ordered 145,000 mobile homes and trailers from manufactures across the nation, at a cost of more than $2.7 billion (Coolidge, n.d.). The total cost not including installation onsite of a mobile home was $26, 000, resulting in a price of $30.95 dollars per square foot. The total cost not including in stallation onsite of a FEMA travel trailer was less at $19,000, resulting in a price of $ 74.22 dollars per square foot. The total cost not including installation onsite of a FEMA park trailer wa s $22,000, resulting in a price of $58.82 dollars per square foot, this price re flects the additional square footage of the travel trailer. FEMAs estimates for t he lifespan costs of housing units the agency employs are $26,379 for a travel trailer, $37,379 for a park model, and $52,634 for a mobile home. Most were delivered and deployed, but many tens of thousands of nearly identical and brand-new trailers remained at storage yards, the largest of which were in Purvis, Mississippi (Figure 2-10), and Hope, Arkans as, unable to be delivered due to concerns about formaldehyde. Of the ones that were deploy ed, after the allowed period of use in the field, they were taken back by FEMA, and they too were stor ed, and auctioned off, sometimes in lots of 10,000 at a time. On the sale day of January 29, 2010, more than 55


100,000 Travel Trailer units were sold for $133 million, 7% of the original price paid for each unit. (Coolidge, n.d.) (A) (B) Figure 2-10. FEMA Trailers (Sorlien, 2006) (A) FEMA trailer with handicap ramp installed, (B) Purvis, Mississippi st orage facility for FEMA trailers. Katrina Cottage The Katrina Cottage is a small, structur ally sound house that can be delivered via semi-trailer truck at the cost of a FEMA trailer. The original cottage arose as a solution for post-disaster housing during the Mississippi Renewal Forum, which took place in Biloxi, Mississippi in October 2006, six week s after Hurricane Katrina (Sorlien, 2006). Several months following the installation of thousands of FEMA trailers, it became apparent that the initially estimated $70,000 li fecycle cost of the semi-permanent FEMA trailer would be exceeded and a succeeding replacement was dire. The State of Mississippi, through the Governor's Office for Recovery & Renewal, took the initiative to apply for a substantial grant for this purpos e (Sorlien, 2006). President George Bush approved a pilot program for all five Gulf St ates, which allocated $400 million dollars for the pursuit of designs and construction for futu re hurricanes. In addition to this program, President Bush signed the Baker Bill, which will allow FEMA to provide permanent structures after future disasters (Sorlien, 2006). 56


The Katrina Cottages are designed with the intention to either be temporary or permanent; a sense of permanence has been des igned allowing the expansion of the unit to become incorporated into a full-siz ed dwelling plan (Figur e 2-11). The foundation principles of Katrina Cottages include: Design quality mu st be excellent. Buildings must be appropriate to the r egional conditions, cult ure, and climate. Buildings must be deliverable by all major delivery methods, including manufactured houses, modular houses, kit houses, panelized houses, and sitebuilt houses. The cottages were designed under the Inte rnational Residentia l Code (IRC) and are built using hurricane-resistant materials. The secure structure will be anchored to a conventional foundation using footings rat her than being placed on slab, with cement siding and a metal roof that will withstand 130-mile winds and a Category 3 hurricane (Intbau, 2006). It may be built of any technology or deliv ery system, including mobile home standards, pre-manufactured elements, panelized construction, or site-built of any material (Sorlien, 2006). The 308' square foot model of the Katrina cottage was most popular unit to deploy because it fell in bet ween the 200 to 400 square foot FEMA trailer range. The total cost not including installation onsite of cottage was estimated at $35,000, resulting in a price of $113.64 dollars per square foot. The cost of construction including delivery of materials of the 308 square foot model anywhere along the Gulf Coast is estimated to be $70,000 dollars. The lif e cycle cost is less as the FEMA trailer, estimated to be an additional $70,000 for t he duration of the units intended use. 57


Figure 2-11. Katrina Cottage Plan From Immediate-toLong Term Use (Sorlien, 2006). The Katrina cottage is one room wide, providing t he proper width for crossventilation and reducing the dependence upon ai r conditioning du ring warm summer months. A metal roof (Figure 212) aids in the reflection of radiant energy, while the tall interior spaces allow the warm summer air to accumulate towards the ceiling away from the occupants. The windows installed on t he cottages are proporti onally larger than typically sized residential homes and are double-hung so residents can lower the top sash and raise the bottom sash on summer evenings, allowing warm air near the ceiling to escape and cooler air to enter at the bo ttom. The small stature of the cottages is more adaptive to the South and the mid-Atlantic region by using design features that are appropriate for t he climate. Figure 2-12. Katrina Cottage (Sorlien, 2006). Me tal roof cladding. Photo courtesy of The Katrina cottages are intende d for small lots that are typically 1/30 of an acre of net land per cottage. Traditionally built homes are constructed on a of an acre of net land which is almost double the size and therefore double the cost of the lot required for 58


the Katrina cottage. The cottages employ a fi ve foot side yard setback creating the illusion the houses are actually more l oosely spaced because the proportion of the house is smaller. The small lot size also contributes to walkability of the neighborhood because of the compact nature of the co ttages; more households are placed within walking distance of the corner store, t he neighborhood school, the playground, and the meeting hall. The need for automotive transportation is also decreased due to the compact, close proximity, diverse neighbor hoods, with many residents in similar situations only requiring one vehicl e for long distance commutes beyond the neighborhood limits. There are seven different types of resi dential Katrina Cottages: the Katrina Tiny Cottage, the Katrina Thin Cottage, the Ka trina Double Cottage, the Katrina Kernel Cottage, the Katrina Courtyard Cottage, the Katrina Loft Cottage, and the Katrina Tall Cottage. The Katrina Tiny Cottage. The Katrina Tiny Cottage measures 500 square feet or less and is one story tall. It is also less than 16' wide (measured to the eaves) so that it may be loaded onto a truck and hauled to anot her site if desired. (Figure 2-13) Figure 2-13. Katrina Tiny Cottage (Sorlien, 2006). The Katrina Thin Cottage. The Katrina Thin Cottage is the same width of the Tiny Cottage, but includes more interior squar e footage due to the cottages increased 59


length. The Thin Cottages compartmentaliz e the bedrooms to create private sections within the home providing hallways to access the cottage from the front to rear without walking through private bedrooms. (Figure 2-14) Figure 2-14. Katrina Thin Cottage (Sorlien, 2006). The Katrina Double Cottage. The Katrina Double Cottage is similar to the Katrina Thin Cottage, except it is up to twice as wide. All Katrina Double Cottages are designed to be divided into two parts if they ever need to be moved, although they are less likely to be moved than Katrina Tiny Cottages and Katrina Thin Cottages. Katrina Double Cottages generally have the most bedrooms and the greatest living space. They may be the beginning of a Kernel House, or may often stand alone. (Figure 2-15) Figure 2-15. Katrina Double Cottage. Phot o courtesy of The Katrina Kernel Cottage. The Katrina Kernel Cottage looks similar to both the Katrina Thin Cottage and the Katrina Tiny Cott age from the exterior; the difference is in the layout of the floor plan. The Kernel Cottage is designed to grow into a Kernel House, it has at least three Grow Zones from which the house can be extended in one or two 60


directions. Growth should be easy, and is usually accomplished by simply changing a window into a door. (Figure 2-16) (A) (B) Figure 2-16. Katrina Kernel Cottage (Sor lien, 2006). (A) First Deployed Unit, (B) Attached construction to the exteri or of the first deployed unit. The Katrina Courtyard Cottage. The Katrina Courtyard Cottage is made up of two or more wings that surround a courtyard on two, three, or four sides. Each of the wings is less than 16' wide. A Courtyard Cottage can be one or two stories. See Positive Outdoor Space for ideas of how to design the outdoor living space in the courtyard. (Figure 2-17) (A) (B) Figure 2-17. Katrina Courtyard Cottage (Sorlien, 2006). (A) Street view of exterior, (B) Floor plans highlighting the wings bracketing the courtyard. The Katrina Loft Cottage. The Katrina Loft Cottage has low eaves like any other one-story cottage, but it tucks a loft up under those eaves. Because the Loft Cottage is 61


designed to be shippable like al l of the other Katrina Cottages, it is also 16' wide or less, measured at the eaves. If shipped, it would ship in two parts and be assembled on-site with a crane. (Figure 2-18) Figure 2-18. Katrina Loft Cottage (Sorlien, 2006). Lateral and Longitudinal Elevations. The Katrina Tall Cottage. The Katrina Tall Cottage is a full two stories tall. Like the Loft Cottage, it is 16' wide or less, and if manufactured, ships in two parts that are assembled on-site with a crane. (Figure 2-19) Figure 2-19. Katrina Tall Co ttage (Sorlien, 2006). Str eet view of exterior Mississippi Cottage The Mississippi Cottages were constructed to serve as alternative homes for those in travel trailers. The cottages adopted the ve rnacular of the coastal Mississippi homes and were constructed using two primar y models. The two models are similar aesthetically but vary internally due to dissimilar interior square footage. The Park model offers 340 square feet and costs an es timated $22,295 to build in modular home factories, resulting in $65.57 per s quare foot; an additional $5,000 will cover transportation and installation. The Mississipp i Cottage will come in two sizes: a 70462


square-foot model at $53,940, resulting in $76.62 per square foot, plus $8,000 for transportation and installation; and an 850-squarefoot model at $64,14 0, resulting in $75.46 per square foot, plus $10,000 for trans portation and installation. The company responsible for building the cottage said the construction time is expected to be completed within four weeks of the order date (Swinney, 2007). The cottages are expected to withstand su stained 150 mph winds, or a Category four hurricane and are built to serve as in terim to permanent dwellings. The cottages have been regulated by the International Resi dential Code (IRC) and meet or exceed all local and state codes in the Mississippi / Louisiana region. The undercarriage used for transportation the cottages to their destination is constructed under the HUD building code and can either be removed upon arriva l to establish community and permanency (Figure 2-20) or remain in-p lace for future relocation. The Mississippi Cottage is 14 wide, with ei ther a 704 or 850 square foot interior living area, plus an exterior six-foot fr ont porch (Swinney, 2007). The cottage has a traditionally designed five/twelve hip roof with 30-year architectural asphaltic shingles. The units were constructed to withstand the harsh coastal environment by use Hardiboard siding with a 30-year warranty to clad the exterior walls, thermo pane windows in all openings, a vinyl soffit, all steel construction exterior doors, and vinyl aluminum rails on the front por ch; all of which prohibits early stages of pre-mature weather. All the designs for constructi on help create a low maintenance cottage designed for long lasting beauty. Residents can live rent-free in the cott ages for at least two years before they would have to purchase the units at fair market prices. In 2006, state officials have 63


reported approximately 80,000 people are living in about 23,000 FEMA trailers in Mississippi; every month, about 1,000 tra ilers are abandoned as families move into alternative housing (Swinney, 2007). Persons once residing in FEMA trailers are the only applicants eligible to be entered into a limited group to receive one of the cottages to replace the cramped trailers in which t hey lived; some residents waited as long as two years before relocating to permanent housing. Figure 2-20. Mississippi Cottage community (Swinney, 2007). Analytic Hierarchy Process The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) wa s developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s, based on mathematics and psychology. AHP provides a proven, structured technique to process complex decision maki ng by identifying and weighting select criterion, analyzing the data collected for the criterion and expediting the decision making process (Saaty, 102). The technique is used to arrive at the optimum solution that best suits the goals and understandings of the problem. AHP calculates both subjective and objective evaluation measur es, providing a useful mechanism for checking the consistency of t he evaluation measures and al ternatives suggested. The primary aim of the AHP is to alleviate dec ision bias when making complex decisions involving multiple criterions. To accomplish this, the AHP provides a framework for structuring the decision making process, for representing and quantifying the elements, 64


and correlating those elements to the overall goa l, by evaluating all alternative solutions (Saaty, 102). The first stage of the AHP involves dec omposing the complex problem into subproblems, placing them in a hierarchical order, to be analyzed independently. The placing of sub-problems into a hierarchical order can use any aspect related to the complex problem. After the hierarchy model is constructed, the systematic evaluation of the various elements are compared two at a time, with respect to their impact on the element that precedes them in t he hierarchy (Saaty, 102). It is best to use objective data about the elements when comparing them, but subjective judgments relative to the elements meaning and importance may be c onsidered. The AHP renders the most optimized results when subjective judgment s are used, in conjunction with objective underlying information to perform the evaluations. The evaluations are then converted to num erical values that can be processed and compared over the entire region of the complex problem. In order to establish consistency in a rational way, a numerical weight is derived for each element of the hierarchy. The weighting of the hierarchical elements dist inguishes the AHP from other decision making techniques (Forman & Gass, 49) To complete the process, numerical weights are calculated for each of the decision alternatives; these weights represent the capacity the alternative has to ac hieve the complex problem. Application The AHP is most useful where a comp lex problem exists with a group of individuals responsible for the outcome, in volving human perceptions and opinionated biases. The advantages of using this techni que is the capability to quantify and compare the various subjective element s into a cohesive terminology t hat is consistent among all 65


parties involved in the decision making proce ss. The application of the AHP to resolve complex problems is wide spread, involving: planning, resource allocation, priority setting, selection among alternatives, fore casting, total quality management, business process re-engineering, quality function deployment, an d the Balanced Scorecard (Forman & Gass, 49). AHP is used in designing highly specific procedures for particular situations throughout all fields of research. Forman and Gass, of Operations Research, apply the method of AHP to: Ranking Putting a set of alternatives in order from most to least desirable Prioritization Determining the relative merit of member s of a set of alternatives, as opposed to selecting a singl e one or merely ranking them Resource allocation A pportioning resources among a set of alternatives Benchmarking Comparing the processes in one's own organization with those of other best-of-breed organizations Quality management Dealing with the mu ltidimensional aspects of quality and quality improvement Conflict resolution Settling disputes between parties with apparently incompatible goals or positions Table 2-1. Container Statistics for 2010 Month In Loaded (TEUs) In Empty (TEUs) In Total (TEUs) In Empty (%) Out Loaded (TEUs) Out Empty (TEUs) Out Total (TEUs) Out Empty (%) Total (TEUs) Change (%) January 296,304 6,387 302,692 2.11% 141,243 129,032 270,276 47.74% 572,969 -2.39% February 267,361 7,578.65 274,939 2.76% 147,925 102,593 250,518 40.95% 525,458 26.95% March 269,634 12,114 281,748 4.30% 161,816 106,684 268,501 39.73% 550,249 4.51% April 302,224 9,118 311,343 2.93% 158,338 125,602 283,940 44.24% 595,283 11.87% May 342,171 9,566 351,737 2.72% 160,621 177,062 337,683 52.43% 689,420 19.94% June 371,888 7,078 378,967 1.87% 154,558 196,792 351,350 56.01% 730,317 32.38% July 369,388 6,412 375,800 1.71% 146,368 208,575 354,944 58.76% 730,745 26.82% August 399,150 7,540 406,691 1.85% 147,608 209,537 357,145 58.67% 763,837 24.69% September 373,249 6,535 379,784 1.72% 139,800 192,028 331,828 57.87% 711,613 21.94% November 333,710 10,614 344,324 3.08% 170,319 152,326 322,646 47.21% 666,970 14.95% December 299,304 13,556 312,860 4.33% 161,625 138,166 299,791 46.09% 612,651 8.82% Total 2010 3,973,933 105,198 4,079,131 2.58% 1,841,273 1,911,496 3,752,770 50.94% 7,831,902 16.05% Table source: Port of Los Angeles, (2011). TEU Statistics (Container Counts). Retrieved May 26, 2011, from The Port of Los Angeles: 66


CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Data Collection The research of this thesis was perfo rmed to evaluate the most appropriate massproduced model to be implemented following a post-natural disaster. The process through which the mass-produced architectural models were identified was completed by gathering information collected from preval ent sources that have explicitly covered possible models in both developmental st ages and currently deployed stages. The mass-produced models identified through this research were carefully considered and selected, based on a stringent performance crit eria list. The study is a comparative analysis of models that have been previous ly deployed following Hurricane Katrina by FEMA and shipping container models that were overlooked due to the lack of understanding and awareness of their potential. Data Analysis The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used as an evaluation method for comparing design concepts based on an overall value per design concepts. The AHP is a valuable decision-making tool that is used to evaluate program alternatives based on specific evaluation criteria weighted by importance. The Analytic Hierarchy Process allowed the scores of all criteria to be summed up into an overall value per performance alternative. The AHP assigns scores to the degree to which a design alternative satisfies a criterion; however, the criter ia that are used to evaluate the design alternatives might differ in their importance. The process of assigning weights to the different criteria allows the study to take into account the difference in importance 67


between the criteria. The AHPs applicati on into the study was used because an optimized solution needed to be derived from a select number of design alternatives. The matrix is constructed with the alternat ives listed along one left side of the chart and the review criteria along t he top of the chart. A box to insert the specific assigned weight is located with each criterion. A hierarchical evaluation scale is established for the whole matrix ranging from five to one us ing the Likert scale. The ranking of the alternative based on its ability to address the specific criteria is entered into the appropriate cell. The total scores are then available to use in r anking alternatives. The procedural starting point of the AHP began with a limited number of design alternatives that were promising candida tes to address the demand for mass-produced architecture in post-natural di saster areas. Criteria used wit hin the matrix analysis were selected from a compositional list of requirem ents, which were integral to success of the implemented architectural unit. After the criteria were limited, appointed weights were assigned to the criteria based on their impor tance for the evaluation. To determine the weight factor of the criteria, the weights were ranked on a scale from one to five on the Likert scale. The criterions have been ranked according to performance standards using a weighted scale range that includes: Major = 5, High = 4, Medium = 3, Minor = 2, No Significance = 1 (Appendix E). By evaluatin g alternatives based on their performance with respect to individual criter ia, a value for the alternative can be identified. The values for each alternative can then be compared to create a rank order of their performance related to the criteria as a whole. The performance criterion weighting results were transcribed into the model analysis matrix (Appendix F). A matrix was c onstructed, with the per formance criteria in 68


columns and the design concepts in the ro ws. The model analysis matrix rating scale range includes: Excellent = 5, Very Good = 4, Good = 3, Fair = 2, Poor = 1. The subjective grades were then multiplied by the weighted average for the individual criterion to arrive at a fi nal criterion score. All the scores were totaled and ranked in accordance with the highest score consider ed as the most appropriate model to implement for interim-to-permanent hous ing following a natural disaster. 69


CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ANALYSIS Mass-Produced Housing We do not have the capacity to stop nat ural disasters, we do however, have within our abilities to mitigate the billions of dollars of damage and loss of life. ISBU home or business construction is a composition of multiple steel modules that create a solid uni-body construction that are resilient to disasters. The small number of buildings throughout the globe that have implemented intermodal steel building units (ISBUs) within the structure of buildings have surv ived every catastrophic disaster to date. Whether the hurricanes and tornadoes in America or tsunami and earthquakes in Japan, the shipping containers and ISBU shipping container construction have always survived (Figure 4-1) and is well documented by local residents and government official (ISBU Association, 2008). The reason for the high survival rate of ISBU constructed buildings is the inherent properties the shipping container possesses the shipping container was designed to survive. (A) (B) Figure 4-1. Shipping Container s After a Disaster (NOAA, 2005). (A) Shipping containers resting on the debris left by thousands of homes devastated by an F-5 hurricane, (B) Shipping containers after earthquake in Japan. The designed life of a shippi ng container starts within an ISO certified factory and then is successively subjected to the loading of tons of cargo inside; from the jarring ride 70


to the docks; the bangs and drops when being loaded onto the ships at the port; the weeks of wind, rain, bouncing, banging and salt water at sea; they finally arrive at the next port for unloading and transfer. Upon arriva l, the shipping container is once again banged, dropped, swung, twist ed, hit, stacked on, then moved and repeated many times before sorting and trucked or sent by rail to their final destination. Advantages of Mass-Production By shifting the substantial portions of work offsite, several crucial productivity losses are mitigated entirely; they are: wa iting for information, receiving inadequate documents, unnecessary material handling, r edo work, waiting for resources, jobsite accidents, site constraints, etc. The overall cost for a project that uses off-site work can be less than a traditional constructed project, which can be caused by a variety of factors. The local labor for onsite work may be expensive or inefficient fo r the project. Severe on-site conditions and weather problems can lead to costly dela ys that can be avoided by preassembling sections of the work in factories that ar e isolated from the environment. Also, on-site interference and worker congestion or tr ade stacking can be av oided, increasing productivity and lowering costs. The on-site construction duration can be substantially shortened through the use of prefabrication. Greater quant ities of work for a project can be completed before going to the site so that the construction schedul e is decreased by eliminating the typical contingency days allotted for delays (Kelly, 1951). This can be an im portant factor for owners with a compressed schedule or limited on-site resources. Overall project safety can be improved through the use of off-site work. The risk to owners and contractors of work er accidents and lost time is reduced with construction 71


work that is transferred away from the jobsit e. On-site work can be relatively unsafe due to ever changing conditions, elevated work and congestion. Manufacturing and offsite work reduce all of these factors to prov ide a safe and productive environment with greater efficiencies. Quality can also be improved through the us e of off-site work. Controlled factory and production conditions and repetitive pr ocedures and activities, along with automated machinery can lead to a higher leve l of quality than can be attained on-site. This is partly due to reduced jobsite constr uction duration and a decrease in field labor requirements. Labor availability can be an adv antage as well for offsite work. There is generally a constant, employed work force for offsite prefab plants. Weather is less of a factor for prefabrication, prov iding an additional advantage over the conventional methods of bu ilding on-site. T he prefabrication and modularization shops take advantage of cont rolled environments that are not affected by harsh weather. Work is not interrupted and productivity can remain at a consistent easily measurable level. Simultaneous produc tion, or parallel work, can be exploited with the use of preassembly. Instead of per forming tasks in a strictly linear sequence on-site, construction activities can be broken up and completed simultaneously at multiple locations. This process shortens the construction durati on and reduces on-site congestion by dispersing the workers. Disadvantages of Mass-Production The principle of learning curves can be app lied in construction for the prediction of the time/cycle of future work, work performance levels, and other performance measures. More affordable mass produced factory housing may be seen as a long term win-win situation but early experience is sh owing demonstration proj ects are generally 72


struggling to meet their antici pated targets for reductions in capital costs. While much of this may be due to the early learning cu rve, the fragmented nat ure of the housing market is not allowing leading manufactu rers to generate economies of scale nor providing the assurance of business continuity Unfortunately, the re petitive nature of the prefabrication assembly li ne is infrequent resulting in an inefficient learning curve model. For a learning curve to establish itself and flourish a constant flow of work must be completed by the same crewmembers; if variables within the model are altered the factors will inevitably alter the progress of the curve. A learning curve model will never see progress in a stop and go sequenc ing of repetitive activities. The multitude of advantages clearly overs hadows the disadvantages but they still should be mentioned in this report to balanc e the argument. The intricate nature the building components inherently possess may bec ome a factor when transporting from the facility to the site. Special handling pr ecautions must be instilled to prevent the components from developing stress cracks along the components seams. As these joints become assembled in the field special attention should paid to the strength and corrosion-resistance of the physical jointing sections. It is essential the bonding surface of the joints form an impermeable s eal to prevent leaks along the seam. When the sections arrive on the job-site large heavy-duty cranes are required to lift and install the various components into the res pective places. The specified tolerances require a skilled labor force for insta llation. When large monotonous prefabricated sections are erected the aest hetical design factor is subdued. One of the most adverse site specific effects of prefabrication are the lost jobs to outsourcing. Since prefabrication is a relatively modern concept that has just begun to make its way into 73


the national market t here are only a selective group of co mpanies that are invested in the prefabricated construction industry. The actual logistics of transporting t he contents to the j ob-site from the manufacturing facility can be a considerable planning effort. The co sts of transporting voluminous prefabricated sections can be significantly higher when compared to the efficient packaging of the individual unasse mbled building materials. Transportation costs can within certain geograp hical locations can be a disadvantage to off-site work (CII, 1992). This is especially true for la rge modularized sections that must be transported over a long distance. Size cons traints and limitations exist, based on the method of travel, which directly leads into cost and schedule considerations. The dimensions of the transpor ted section are constrained by the regulations of the Department of Transportation (DOT, n.d.), which limit the weight, height, width and length of the vehicles carrying the load. There is a need for substantial increases in engineering effort upfront concurrent with the conceptual design stage of the architect (CII, 1 992). This means that design work and extensive planning must be comple ted before construction documents can be finalized and the commencing of work can begin. Building information modeling software should be used to detect any interference among the construction divisions to alleviate future conflicts. In practice, thes e activities can lead to a better performing project altogether. While there may be a sense of inflexibility associated with prefabrication, because it is much more diffi cult to make modifications after a project has begun, it may in fact l ead to better scope control. 74


Housing Model Analysis Each case study has introduced a number of essential assets that should be incorporated into an optimized housing solution for disaster relief and reconstruction. The model analysis has been broken down into five categories (Appendix A and B), which enables the assortment of housing options to be invest igated at a finer level of detail that include: Project Demographics Time Constraints Project Requirements Architectural Qualities Project Specifications Project Demographics Project demographics has been categorized into two sub-categorizes: date of construction and construction site. The more significant sub-category within project demographics is the construction site, for it influences the remaining criterion within the model analysis the most significantly. The demographics provide a layer of information that is crucial to the planning portion of di saster relief and reconstruction efforts. The companies responsible for asse mbling the units either on/o ff site rely on the date of construction by means of code revision s and up to date building technologies. Construction Site. The location of the construction si te used for construction of the building components is intrinsic to the pr oject and presides an explicit method of constructability. The technologies used to design and preassemble mass-produced housing are inherently different which limits the applicant pool of companies able to perform the intricate work. Design and constr uction resources such as materials, facilities, and infrastructure required to complete certain types of implementation can 75


varying in availability as well. The ph ysical construction onsite following a natural disaster can be limited in accessibility and create coordination issues concerning material handling and installation of the hous ing units. The method of construction in some cases may not be facilitated by the limit ed accessibility issues present on the site. The installation of the unit onsit e will require additional services to prep the site before construction can begin, the addition of services will increase the final cost of the housing unit. The Likert scale was used to determine the performance of the criterion, includes: (5) = 100% Offsite, (4) = 75%Offsite, (3) = 50% Offs ite, (2) = 25% Offsite, (1) = 0% Offsite (Appendix E). The higher the number on the Likert scale the more appropriate the criterion is for interim-to-permanent housi ng. The importance of the criterion, construction site, was ranked as a (4) = High, on the Likert scale. The importance of the criterion establishes the value of the criterion in relati on to the other criterion being considered. Date of Construction The date of construction is a direct reflection upon the technology and the paradigms of the time that facilitate such a structure to be designed and constructed. Older units, although perhaps groundbreaking at the time of inception may have become obsolete or replaced by newer technological approaches. With newer technologies presents the notion of more stringent design controls and the ability to cut costs through more efficient methods of construction. The most recent housing models are constructed under the latest building code revisions, ther efore they are less susceptible to vulnerabilities that plagued previous inad equate code requirements, and therefore, are superior ov er their predecessors. 76


The Likert scale was used to determine the importance of the criterion, includes: (5) = Present-2007, (4) = 2006-2005, (3) = 20042003, (2) = 2002-2001, (1) = 2000-Older (Appendix E). The higher the number on the Likert scale the more appropriate the criterion is for interim-to-permanent housing. The importance of the criterion, date of construction, was ranked as a (2) = Minor, on the Like rt scale. Time Constraints Time is an essential component in relati on to how local, state, and federal governments can provide reconstruction and re lief effects following a natural disaster. The ability to properly coordinate time managem ent is contingent upon the efficiency of the mass-produced housing that will soon be deployed into the field. In an effort to combat time associated with the logisti cs of mass-produced housing local, state and federal entities have always st ockpiled thousands of supplies for housing throughout the U.S. to alleviate some of the initial demand fo r housing. Therefore, t he only critical time associated with deploying housing relief is c onstruction and assembly times. After the arrival of the housing unit, the duration of intended use of the proposed building is a key component when ranking the dispersed hous ing options. The ability for the housing model to make the transitional shift from temporary-to-interim-t o-permanent is one of the most valuable attributes the housing model can possess. Construction Time. The time to construct a singl e housing unit is broad in range and is significant when consi dering the selection of the mo st appropriate model to use. Models that can be deployed, constructed and assembled quickly are generally best matched for relief in a temporary role. Models that require a greater amount of time from the initial order placed to the date of occupancy may be best equipped to meet the demand for interim-to-permanent housing. The av ailability of the shipping containers 77


directly translates into the time required for production, how ever, when using this type of method the time of construction is longer than the time of assembly onsite. A stockpiled fleet of preassembled housing is the opt imum solution and would easily meet the massive demand for housing following a disast er. In this study, even though the FEMA trailers were stockpiled, the time construction time was in cluded to reach equilibrium for comparison amongst t he housing models. The Likert scale was used to determine the importance of the cr iterion, includes: (5) = 1-30 days, (4) = 31-60 days, (3) = 6190 days, (2) = 91-120 days, (1) = >121 days (Appendix E). The higher the number on the Likert scale the more appropriate the criterion is for interim-to-permanent housi ng. The importance of the criterion, construction time, was ranked as a (5 ) = Excellent, on the Likert scale. Project Duration. The life of the installed unit is contingent upon the duration of its intended use. Trying to quantify the duration of projects to a uniform comparable standard, each project is branded as: interim/temporary, permanent, interim, interim/temporary, or temporar y. The factors that have contributed to the classification of the project include: case study durations intended use, and the ability to adapt to a long-term housing plan. Some methods of construction are better enabled to address the concerns of permanency. Some types of construction are more appropriate for temporary relief, while others ar e converted to long-term rec onstruction more effectively. The Likert scale was used to determine the importance of the cr iterion, includes: (5) = Interim/Permanent, (4) = Permanent, (3) = Interim, (2) = Interim/Temporary, (1) = Temporary (Appendix E). T he higher the number on the Likert scale the more 78


appropriate the criterion is for interim-t o-permanent housing. T he importance of the criterion, project duration type, was rank ed as a (4) = High, on the Likert scale. Project Requirements Project requirements are necessities that will ensure the assembly and construction of the building. The requi rements include: skilled labor, equipment requirements and foundation requ irements; all of which ar e factors used to keep the studys limits within an obtainable range. So me of the requirements are weighted slightly larger than the other s due to the importance within the field during disaster relief and reconstruction. Skilled Labor Requirements. The task forces that are used to construct massproduced housing are divided in to two classifications: general labor and skilled labor. The distinction between the two can be contributed to a workers expertize, specialization, wages, and supervisory capacity. The skilled worker is typically trained more effectively, higher wage earning, and ha ve more responsibilities delegated to them than general laborers. An influential factor is the role of the educ ational background of the worker. Education has been linked to an increase in a persons skill level (Wood, 1981). The general laborer and skilled worker each have a crucial role in the assembly and construction of mass-produced housing i. e. you cannot have one without the other. Both skill levels should be evaluated within the model analysis to determine the capacity of the taskforce required to implement the relief housing. The associated cost of having a ratio of more skilled workers versus general laborers directly affects the overall cost of the project. Although the number of people seeking high school education or higher in the U.S. has been increasing year to year, 79


the number of available skilled tradesm an within certain geographical locations throughout the U.S. is still low. The low number of skilled workers within certain locations can be attributed to lower wages, poor education, and lack of jobs requiring skilled workers. The overall project cost is increased because of the increased demand and lack of adequate skilled members to per form the job and therefore specialized crews are required to complete the work. The Likert scale was used to determine the importance of the cr iterion, includes: (5) = 0% Skilled, (4) = 25% Skilled, (3) = 50% Skilled, (2) = 75% Skilled, (1) = 100% Skilled (Appendix E). The high er the number on the Likert scale the more appropriate the criterion is for interim-to-permanent housi ng. The importance of the criterion, skilled labor requirements, was ranked as a (4) = High, on the Likert scale. Equipment Requirements. The equipment used to assemble a mass-produced house is dramatically decreased from the standard num ber of tools required to construct a traditional house. Mass-produced housing uses equipment that are more sophisticated in order to achieve limited tole rances and precision repetitively. The model analysis will be primarily conc erned with the equipment associated with the mobility of the models. Following a natur al disaster the infrastructure of a region can be compromised and will limit the size and type of equipment because of accessibility issues. The study has been refined to only include the equipment selection of using a truck type with or without a crane, to provide equilibrium for t he weighting portion of the study. Models that require the use just a truck without a crane are agile and have increased mobility versus models that require the use of a tr uck for transportation to the 80


site followed by a crane to conduct the lifti ng and assembly of the unit(s) into their respective place. The Likert scale was used to determine the importance of the cr iterion, includes: (5) = Standard Truck, (4) = Flat-bed Tru ck, (3) = Semi-Truck, (2) = Flat-bed Truck/Crane, (1) = Semi-Truck/Crane (Appe ndix E). The higher the number on the Likert scale the more appropriate the criterion is for interim-to-permanent housing. The importance of the crit erion, equipment requirements, wa s ranked as a (3) = Medium, on the Likert scale. Foundation Requirements. The foundation of a building is the point of contact between the ground and the structure of the building; at this moment, the weight of the building is transferred upon the foundation. The selection of which type of foundation to utilize is based upon such factors as: the so il bearing capacity, differential settlement, frost lines and engineering designs. The foundation required for mobile housing included in this study are p ile foundation, slab on-grade, stem-wall foundation and in some cases no foundation is required at all. It is vital that the appropriate means are provided to support the structur e of a building in an effort to mitigate failure and a compromised structure. In some areas, flood waters are persistent and require an elevated foundation even though the traditional foundation for the housing model may not require the raised stature and must be adapted to incorporate the elevated foundation. The time required erecting the fo undation and time allotte d for the curing of concrete is a task sometimes overlooked when c onsidering time sensitive disaster relief. The Likert scale was used to determine the importance of the cr iterion, includes: (5) = None, (4) = Pile-Driven/None, (3) = P ile-Driven, (2) = Stem-wall, (1) = Slab on81


grade (Appendix E). The higher the number on the Likert scale the more appropriate the criterion is for interim-to-permanent housing. The importance of the criterion, foundation requirements, was ranked as a (3) = Medium, on the Likert scale. Architectural Qualities Architectural qualities are a composition of objective and subjective reactions to the physically built characterist ics of the building. The arch itectural qualities that have been considered in this study include: squar e foot per occupant, number of bedrooms, architectural vernacular and expandability. The qualities are calculated upon the models exterior and interior characteristics. Square Foot per Occupant. The occupancy rating of the building has been delineated by building codes and fire code enforcement which determine the acceptable square footage for a single occupant. To determine the proper occupancy of the building, the square footage of interior liv ing space was divided by the number of persons to occupy the building. The occupancy rating gives a more accurate representation of the capacity the project has to offer to the thousands of displaced Katrina victims, rather than looking at the buildings cost per square foot solely. The Likert scale was used to determine the importance of the cr iterion, includes: (5) = >150 Sq. Ft., (4) = 149-125 Sq. Ft., (3 ) = 124-100 Sq. Ft., (2) = 99-75 Sq. Ft., (1) = <76 Sq. Ft. (Appendix E). T he higher the number on the Likert scale the more appropriate the criterion is for interim-t o-permanent housing. T he importance of the criterion, Square Foot per Occupant, was rank ed as a (3) = Medium, on the Likert scale. Architectural Vernacular. The architectural vernacular of the coastal regions of Louisiana and Mississippi are used to reflect the environmental, cultur al and historical context of place. It has been argued by some that architecture designed is not 82


vernacular, but a model based off of vernacul ar. In either case, in order to regain normalcy within the disaster areas, a sense of place most be re-established using the architectural tokens that once centered the communities. The projects that have been suggested include: no style, modern, cont emporary, and traditional vernacular. The effect of one vernacular style versus another is subjective and experienced differently by the designer and occupant. For the purpose s of this study, t he weighted model analysis will be from the perspective of t he subjective occupant not the designer nor local, state, or federal officials, whom will never occupy the building. The Likert scale was used to determine t he importance of the criterion includes: (5) = Adaptable, (4) = Traditi onal, (3) = Contemporary, (2 ) = Modern, (1) = No Style (Appendix E). The higher the number on the Likert scale the more appropriate the criterion is for interim-to-permanent housi ng. The importance of the criterion, architectural vernacular, was ranked as a (5) = Excellent, on the Likert scale. Expandability. The expandability of a structure is a forwarded thinking idea that will facilitate the transition from interim housing-to-permanent housing. If the structure is not expandable, the sequence of events that will follow include: removing the structure after temporary life, relocating the structure to a holding facility, storing the unit for an undetermined amount of time, watching the unit degrade thus requiring maintenance, and finally selling off the abundant accumulated units to private entities. A unit that is not expandable in some fashion will only be sufficient for temporary housing relief not long term reconstruction efforts. If using sh ipping containers for te mporary housing, the opportunity of converting the container into an Intermodal Steel Building Unit (ISBU) presents the opportunity to fulfill the transition into permanent housing. 83


The Likert scale was used to determine t he importance of the criterion includes: (5) = No effort, (4) = Little effort, (3) = Effort, (2) = Gr eat effort, (1) = Not possible (Appendix E). The higher the number on the Likert scale the more appropriate the criterion is for interim-to-permanent housi ng. The importance of the criterion, expandability, was ranked as a (4) = High, on the Likert scale. Project Specifications The specifications of the model analysis are the objective figures that are essential in comparing the suggested models for mass-produced housing fo llowing a natural disaster. The specifications are emphasized by using: building codes, shipping size, project costs, and cost per square foot to determine the most appropriate model for implementation. The individual models have been translated into dollars and dimensions to provide a uniform plane to assess the models against one another. Building Code Stringency. Building codes are the guide lines that address how a building is to be constructed within accept able tolerances to protect the property, building, and most importantly the o ccupant inside. Mass-produced housing must adhere to the most stringent building codes av ailable to ensure they meet the codes that govern the region which they will be implemented within Building codes that have been adopted by the selected models include: International Building Code (IBC), International Residential Code (IRC), Unit ed States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Internati onal Council of Building Officials (ICBO), and other region building codes. The Likert scale was used to determine the importance of the cr iterion, includes: (5) = Local Jurisdiction, (4) = IBC/IRC, (3) = HUD, (2) = ANSI, (1) = None (Appendix E). The higher the number on the Likert scale the more appropriate the criterion is for 84


interim-to-permanent housing. Th e importance of the criterion, building code stringency, was ranked as a (4) = Hi gh, on the Likert scale. Shipping Size. The shipping size of the materi als to be transported to the relief site is crucial concerning logistical coordi nation following a natural disaster. Dimensional limitations are in place to maximize safe ty and to protect the load from physical damage. The consumption of fuel is a factor when mentioning logist ical transportation from a distant storage site to the relief area. Directly correla ted to fuel consumption is the weight of the load being placed onto trucks or boats from transportation i.e. the larger the unit being transported, the more fuel will be consumed from its weight. The shipping container is the cu rrent paradigm for transporting all goods from one region to another due its dimensional standardization. A network of infras tructure currently exists to facilitate the shipping container fr om ship to truck and vise-versa. The dimensional width of the FEMA manufactured homes require oversized trailers to transport the unit from factory to site, increasing the cost of transportation and need for proper logistical accessibility. Accord ing to the Department of Transportation, a normal width of 8.5 feet (102 inches) is allowed without additional fees, however the maximum allowable vehicle load width for highw ay travel is 10 feet wide (120 inches). Housing models that exceeded to DOT regulations are subjected to permit fees and special handling procedures, incl uding front and rear vehicle escorts to maintain safety boundaries. Given the nature of di saster relief efforts, the permitting fees are typically waved, but fees for escorts are not abs orbed by the local, state, or federal transportation services and will become additional costs paid by the company/home owner. 85


The Likert scale was used to determine t he importance of the criterion includes: (5) = Standard Truck, (4) = Flat-bed Truck (3) = Semi-Truck, (2) Extended Semi-Truck, (1) = Oversized Semi-Truck (Appendix E). T he higher the number on the Likert scale the more appropriate the criterion is for interim-to-permanent housing. The importance of the criterion, shipping size, was rank ed as a (3) = Medium, on the Likert scale. Cost. The cost of each unit varies great ly based upon many factors within the model analysis such as: shipping costs, size of the building, architectural detailing, skill level of task force, etc. It is safe to say that every category mentioned with the model analysis has some contributing factor associ ated with the overall co st of the project. Some factors are slightly more influential th an others, but the largest contributor to overall cost of the sugges ted models is the type of construction that has been implemented to facilitate construction e.g. modular, ISBU, manuf actured home, etc. In order to arrive at the square footage cost of each model the overall cost of the completed building was divided by t he given interior living area. The Likert scale was used to determine t he importance of the criterion includes: (5) = <$50 per Sq. Ft., (4) = $51-100 per Sq Ft., (3) = $101-150 per Sq. Ft., (2) = $151200 per Sq. Ft., (1) = >$201 per Sq. Ft. (Appendix E). The higher the number on the Likert scale the more appropriate the criterion is for interim-to-permanent housing. The importance of the criterion, architectural vernacular was ranked as a (5) = Excellent, on the Likert scale. Conclusion Through a preference weighti ng process called Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), each design attribute was given a score by means of the fi ve-level Likert scale. The graded criterions values were then placed into a pairwise comparison chart resulting in 86


a weighted score. The weighted scores were then applied to the pe rformance criterion quantitating a final score total. The totals were ranked according to hierarchy with the highest score equating to the most appr opriate model to be implemented. Using performance criterion weighting and an analysis matrix to perform an evaluation on a select group of housing models, the precluding results were: 1. Katrina Cottage 2. Mississippi Park 3. Keetwonen Dormitories 4. Mississippi Cottage (Two Bedrooms) 5. Mississippi Cottage (Three Bedrooms) 6. Operations Building at Fort Bragg 7. FEMA Mobile Home 8. St. Petersburg Home 9. Mobile Dwelling Unit 10. Container City I 11. FEMA Park 12. Container City II 13. FEMA Travel Trailer 14. Research Facility (Appendix F) The results from the analysis matrix r anked the most appropriate model to be deployed following a natural disaster to meet the demand for interim-to-long term housing to be the Katrina Cottage. The cottage presents the most advantageous characteristics that are warranted in comparison to the other suggested models in the study. The cottage is the clearly ranked t he superior housing model in the analysis matrix (Appendix F). This study provides the framework for fu ture disaster reconstruction efforts and enables local, state, and feder al governments to quantify t he unique design criteria of future housing solutions into a comparable analysis matrix. The criterions have been selected to illustrate the most comprehensive design attributes when selecting housing 87


for reconstruction. Since time is of the e ssence for disaster re lief and management, the matrix will prove to be a vital tool in reducin g the initial set up times associated with the collection of preliminary data to weigh against possible housing solutions. 88


CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDATIONS In the event of a future researcher conti nuing the study, it should be noted that the research could include the application of energy modeling software to mass-produced housing throughout the buildings life-cycle. With the induction of computer simulation becoming an apparent staple in popular constr uction techniques, building owners are becoming more affluent with how their build ings will operate soon after occupancy. The study would also benefit from visiting or monitoring the selection process of initial, interim, and permanent housing by lo cal, state, or federal entities to be implemented into disaster regions. This pers pective would introduce unforeseen issues that must be remediated before and after a housing plan has been selected. The incite would demonstrate the import ance of disaster preparat ion and how the potential damages and loss from a natural disaster can be mitigated 89


APPENDIX A MODEL ANALYSIS OF SHIPPING CONTAINER HOUSING Name ManufacturerCountry of Origin D ate of Construction Mobile Dwelling Unit LOT-EK USA 1999 Research Facility Earth Science AustraliaAustralia 2006 Container City I Urban Space ManagementEngland 2001 Container City II Urban Space ManagementEngland 2002 Keetwonen TempohousingAmsterdam 2002 Fort Bragg Operations Bld g SG Block USA 2007 St. Petersburg Home SG Block USA 2006 Name Construction Assembly Per Family Mobile Dwelling Unit 24 1 25 Research Facility 2 21 22 Container City I 4 50 4 Container City II 8 103 5 Keetwonen N/A 1,440 2 Fort Bragg Operations Bld g 75 101 44 St. Petersburg Home N/A 122 122 Name Skilled Labor Mobile Dwelling Unit 100% Skilled Research Facility 0% Skilled Container City I 75% Skilled Container City II 75% Skilled Keetwonen 75% Skilled Fort Bragg Operations Bld g 50% Skilled St. Petersburg Home 50% Skilled Name Sq. Ft. per PersonArea (Sq. Ft)# of BedroomsVernacularExpandability Mobile Dwelling Unit1 Single Family (4) = 138 Ft. 550 1 Modern Effort Research Facility1 Single Family (4) = 80 Ft. 320 2 No Style Effort Container City I Single Family (60) = 100 Ft. 6,000 15 ModernLittle Effort Container City II2 Single Family (88) = 88 Ft. 7,825 22 ModernLittle Effort Keetwonen k Single Family (4k) = 85 Ft.340,000 1,000 Modern Effort Fort Bragg Operations Bld g Single Family (15) = 288 Ft. 4,322 (4) PossibleContemporaryNot Possible St. Petersburg Home1 Single Family (4) = 400 Ft. 1,600 3 AdaptableGreat Effort Name Building Code Cost Cost/sq. Ft. Mobile Dwelling Unit None $75,000 $136.36 Research Facility None $17,250 $53.91 Container City I UBC $1,613,056 $268.84 Container City II UBC $2,386,944 $305.04 Keetwonen Dutch Building Code $32,054,122 $94.28 Fort Bragg Operations Bld g California Building Code $648,300 $150.00 St. Petersburg HomeMiami-Dade County Code $92,500 $57.81 Semi-Truck and Crane Flat-Bed Truck (12) 40'x8.5'x9.5' = Semi-Truck (2) 40'x8.5'x9.5' = Semi-Truck Interim Temporary Permanent Permanent Interim/Permenant Permanent Permanent Equipment Requirements Flat-Bed Truck Flat-Bed Truck Semi-Truck and Crane Semi-Truck and Crane Semi-Truck and Crane 25% Offsite Project Requirements Slab on-grade Slab on-grade Duration Type Specifications Architectural Qualities Slab on-grade Stem-wall Foundation Project Demographics Foundation Type None Pile Foundation Slab on-grade Construction Site 100% Offsite 0% Offsite 75% Offsite 75% Offsite 75% Offsite 50% Offsite Time Constraints (Days) Shipping Size (1) 20'x8.5'x8.5' = Flat-bed Truck (1) 20'x8.5'x8.5' = Flat-bed Truck (23) 40'x8.5'x8.5' = Semi-Truck (30) 40'x8.5'x8.5' = Semi-Truck (1k) 40'x8.5'x8.5' = Semi-Truck 90


91 APPENDIX B MODEL ANALYSIS OF FEMA HOUSING Name ManufacturerCountry of Origin D ate of Construction FEMA Travel Trailer Various USA 2005 FEMA Park Various USA 2005 FEMA Mobile Home Various USA 2005 Mississippi Park Forest River Housing Inc. USA 2006 Mississippi Cottage Lexington Homes USA 2006 Mississippi Cottage Lexington Homes USA 2006 Katrina Cottage Cusato Designs USA 2006 Name Construction Assembly Per Family FEMA Travel Trailer 10 1 11 FEMA Park 14 1 15 FEMA Mobile Home 18 42 60 Mississippi Park 28 1 29 Mississippi Cottage 205 1 206 Mississippi Cottage 214 1 215 Katrina Cottage 20 1 21 Name Skilled Labor FEMA Travel Trailer 25% Skilled FEMA Park 25% Skilled FEMA Mobile Home 50% Skilled Mississippi Park 50% Skilled Mississippi Cottage 50% Skilled Mississippi Cottage 50% Skilled Katrina Cottage 50% Skilled Name Sq. Ft. per PersonArea (Sq. ft.)# of BedroomsVernacularExpandability FEMA Travel Trailer1 Single Family (4) = 64 Ft. 256 1 NoneNot Possible FEMA Park 1 Single Family (4) = 93 Ft. 374 2 NoneNot Possible FEMA Mobile Home1 Single Family (4) = 210 Ft. 840 3 None Effort Mississippi Park 1 Single Family (4) = 85 Ft. 340 2 AdaptableNo Effort Mississippi Cottage1 Single Family (4) = 176 Ft. 704 2 AdaptableNo Effort Mississippi Cottage1 Single Family (4) = 212 Ft. 850 1 AdaptableNo Effort Katrina Cottage 1 Single Family (4) = 77 Ft. 308 1 AdaptableNo Effort Name Building Code Cost Cost/sq. Ft. FEMA Travel Trailer None $19,000 $74.22 FEMA Park ANSI $22,000 $58.82 FEMA Mobile Home HUD $26,000 $30.95 Mississippi Park IRC $22,295 $65.57 Mississippi Cottage IRC $53,940 $76.62 Mississippi Cottage IRC $64,140 $75.46 Katrina Cottage IRC $35,000 $113.64 52'x13.5'x14.6' = Oversized Semi-Truck 60'x13.5'x14.6' = Oversized Semi-Truck 24'x11'x14.6' = Oversized Semi-Truck Shipping Size 32'x8'x14' = Truck 46'x8'x14' = Truck 60'x14'x14' = Oversized Semi-Truck 38'x11'x14' = Oversized Semi-Truck Equipment Requirements Standard Truck Standard Truck Temporary Temporary Interim/Permanent Interim/Permanent Interim/Permanent Interim/Permanent Interim/Permanent Duration Type Project Demographics Construction Site 100% Offsite 100% Offsite 75% Offsite 75% Offsite 75% Offsite 75% Offsite 75% Offsite Time Constraints (Days) Specifications Semi-Truck Semi-Truck Semi-Truck Semi-Truck Semi-Truck Pile Foundation / None Pile Foundation Pile Foundation Pile Foundation / None Architectural Qualities Project Requirements Foundation Type Pile Foundation / None None Pile Foundation / None


APPENDIX C CRITERION WEIGHTING Date of Construction Construction Site Construction Time Project Duration Type Skilled Labor Requirements Equipment Requirements Foundation Type Square Footage per Person Bedrooms per Person Architectural Vernacular Expandability Building Code Stringency Shipping Size Cost Weighted Score 24544333254435 (A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(K)(L)(M)(N) (A)Date of Construction 2 X0. 7.37 (B)Construction Site 4 4X0.81144440.81140.8 30.40 (C)Construction Time 5 55X55555515551 57.00 (D)Project Duration Type 4 410.8X144440.81140.8 30.40 (E)Skilled Labor Requirements 4 410.81X44440.81140.8 30.40 (F)Equipment Requirements 3 14.55 (G)Foundation Type 3 14.55 (H)Square Footage per Person 3 14.55 (I)Bedrooms per Person 2 7.37 (J)Architectural Vernacular 5 551555555X5551 57.00 (K)Expandability 4 410.81144440.8X140.8 30.40 (L)Building Code Stringency 4 410.81144440.81X40.8 30.40 (M)Shipping Size 3 14.55 (N)Cost 3 14.95 CRITERION IMPORTANCE SCALE Importance of criterion Major = 5 High = 4 Medium = 3 Minor = 2 No Significance = 1 92




APPENDIX E PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE 5 4321 Construction Site 100% Offsite 75% Offs ite 50% Offsite 25% Offsite 0% Offsite Construction Time 1-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days >121 days Project Duration Type Interim/PermanentPermanent Interim Interim/TemporaryTemporary Skilled Labor Requirements0% Skilled 25% Skilled 50% Skilled 75% Skilled 100% Skilled Equipment Requirements Standard Truck Flat-bed Truck S emi-Truck Flat-Bed Truck /CraneSemi-Truck/Crane Foundation Type No Foundation Pile-driven/None Pile-driven Stem-Wall Slab on-grade Square Footage per Person>150 Sq. Ft. 149-125 Sq. Ft. 124-100 Sq. Ft. 99-75 Sq. Ft. 74-1 Sq. Ft. Bedrooms per Person 1 Bedroom/ 1 Person3 Bedroom/ 4 People2 Bedroom/ 4 People1 Bedroom/ 4 PeopleNone Architectural Vernacular Adaptable Traditional Contemporary Modern No Style Expandability No Effort Little Effort Effort Great Effort Not Possible Building Code Stringency Local JurisdictionIBC HUD ANSI None Shipping Size Standard Truck Flat-bed Truck Semi-Truck Extended Semi-TruckOversized Semi-Truck Cost <$50 per Sq. Ft. $51-100 per Sq. Ft.$101-149 per Sq. Ft.$150-199 per Sq. Ft.>$200 per Sq. Ft. Likert Scale Rating 94


95 APPENDIX F ANALYSIS MATRIX Date Built Construction Site Construction Time Project Duration Type Skilled Labor Requirements Equipment Requirements Foundation Type Square Footage per Person Bedrooms per Person Architectural Vernacular Expandability Building Code Stringency Shipping Size Cost (A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J)(K)(L)(M)(N) 7.3730.4057.0030.4030.4014.5514.5514.557.3757.0030.4030.4014.5514.95 SCORE TOTAL 1Mobile Dwelling Unit 15531455223143 7.3666715228591.230.458.272.7572.7514.733311491.230.458.244.85 2Research Facility 41515432313144 29.466730.428530.415258.243.6529.122.15791.2158.259.8 3Container City I 24542113224431 14.7333121.6285121.660.814.5514.5543.6514.7333114121.6121.643.6514.95 4Container City II 24542112224431 14.7333121.6285121.660.814.5514.5529.114.7333114121.6121.643.6514.95 5Keetwonen 24552112233534 14.7333121.628515260.814.5514.5529.114.733317191.215243.6559.8 6Fort Bragg 53543115231532 36.833391.2285121.691.214.5514.5572.7514.733317130.415243.6529.9 7St. Petersburg Home 42143425452534 29.466760.857121.691. 1FEMA Travel Trailer 45514541211154 29.466715228530.4121.672.7558.214.5514.73335730.430.472.7559.8 2FEMA Park 45514552311254 29.466715228530.4121.672.7572.7529.122.15730.460.872.7559.8 3FEMA Mobile Home 44453345421315 29.4667121.622815291.243.6558.272.7529.466711430.491.214.5574.75 4Mississippi Park 44553342335414 29.4667121.628515291.243.6558.229.122.1171152121.614.5559.8 5Mississippi Cottage 44153335345414 29.4667121.65715291.243.6543.6572.7522.1228152121.614.5559.8 6Mississippi Cottage 44153335245414 29.4667121.65715291.243.6543.6572.7514.7333228152121.614.5559.8 7Katrina Cottage 44553342245413 29.4667121.628515291.243.6558.229.114.7333228152121.614.5544.85 PERFORMANCE SCALE 4 5 1 6 8 13 11 7 2 Poor =1 Excellent = 5 Very Good = 4 Good = 3 Fair = 2 9 14 10 12 3 1,385.95 Score 1,209.37 Score 1,202.00 Score 1,151.23 Score 1,351.27 Score FEMA Implemented Homes 1,029.05 Score 1,095.92 Score 1,224.72 1,169.37 1,150.83 Shipping Container Homes 1,123.05 947.52 1,107.02 Score Score Score Score Score 1,092.47 CRITERION WEIGHTED SCORES Score Score


LIST OF REFERENCES Aladdin. (1995). Aladdin "Built in a Day" House Catalog, 1917. New York: Dover Publications Inc. Alemany, C. (2000). The Effects of Computers on Construction Foremen. CCIS Report. Bhatt, V. (n.d.). Summerly's Exhibition and Paxton's Crystal Palace. Retrieved 5 15, 2011, from Birch, E., & Wachter, S. (2006). Rebuilding Urban Places After Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Philiadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bruce, A., & Sandbank, H. (1972). A History of Prefabrication. New York: The John B. Pierce. Charkesworth, E. (2006). Architects Without Frontiers. Burlington: El sevier Ltd. Chiei, C., & Decker, J. (2005). Quonset Hut. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Colean, M. (1944). American Housing: Problems and Prospects. New York: Twentieth Century. Coolidge, M. (n.d.). Hope Field FEMA Trailer Yard Retrieved June 5, 2011, from The Center for Land Use Interpretation: Deane, P. (n.d.). The First Industrial Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deemer, G. R. (1996). Modularization Reduces Cost and Unexpected Delays. Hydrocarbon Processing 75(10), 143-151. FEMA. (2006, August 25). Frequently Requested National St atistics Hurricane Katrina One Year Later Retrieved June 5, 2011, from FEMA Mobile Site: 2005katrina/anniversary_factsheet.shtm FEMA. (2010, August 11). FEMA History. Retrieved May 24, 2011, from U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Forman, E. H., & Gass, S. I. (49). The analytical hier archy processan exposition. Operations Research 469-487. Hansen, P. (2008). Shipping Container Home Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Earth Science: eldsk/container/container.html Intbau, C. (2006). Katrina Cottage Types Retrieved June 21, 2011, from Katrina Cottages: 96


ISBU Association. (2008, June). Part IThe Unnecessary Loss, But ISBU's Survived Retrieved June 4, 2011, from Intermodal Steel Building Units & Container Homes: article_2008_june_disaster_part1.htm Kelly, B. (1951). The Prefabrication of Houses. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Kimberley, M. (2010, March 1). Keetwonen (Amsterdam Student Housing) Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Open Architecture Network: Kronenburg, R. (2003). Portable Architecture. Burlington: Elsevier Ltd. Kronenburg, R. (2003). Transportable Environments New York: Spoon Press. Kunkel, C. R. (2007). Implementation of Mass-Produced Housing in Disaster Relief and Reconstruction. Gainesville: University of Florida. Lot-EK. (n.d.). Mobile Dwelling Unit Retrieved May 31, 2010, from Lot-Ek: Lucas, R. E. (2002). Lectures on Economic Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. McCarthy, F. X. (2008). FEMA Disaster Housing and Hurricane Katrina: Overview, Analysis, and Congressional Issues. Washington D.C.: CRS Report for Congress. McCosh, F. (1997). Nissen of the Huts: A biography of Lt Col. Peter Nissen, DSO. Bourne End: B D Publishing. McIlwain, J. K. (2006). Principles for Temporary Communities Washington, D.C: ULI the Urban Land Institute. McKinley, V. (n.d.). Modular Homes Consumer Guide Retrieved 5 20, 2011, from Modular Today: Port of Los Angeles, (2011). TEU Statistics (Container Counts). Retrieved May 26, 2011, from The Port of Los Angeles: NOAA. (2005, December 29). Hurricane Katrina Retrieved 5 24, 2011, from NOAA Satellite and Information Service: Oakley, B. (n.d.). Prefabrication Retrieved May 15, 2011, from Britannica Online Encyclopedia: 180/cgibin/ Pawley, M. (1991). Buckminster Fuller. New York: Taplinger. 97


Pendola, R. (2010). HUD Manufactured Home Requirements Retrieved 5 20, 2011, from eHow: _6157761_hud-manufactured-homerequirements.html Rivera, J. (2008). Bob Vila Show Docu ments Construction Method Using Recycled Shipping Containers. INNOVATIVE PILOT HOUSING PROJECT IN ST. PETERSBURG N. Venice, Florida, United States of America. Robertson, D. (1974). Mind's Eye Of Buckminster Fuller. New York: Vantage Press. Saaty, T. L. (102). "Relative Measurement and its Generalization in Decision Making: Why Pairwise Comparisons are Central in Mathematics for t he Measurement of Intangible Factors The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process. RACSAM (Review of the Royal Spanish Academy of Sciences, Series A, Mathematics) 251-318. Sanders, J. (n.d.). Shipping Container Home Construction Globally. Retrieved May 26, 2011, from Shipping Container Homes: Schodek, D. L. (1975). Operation Breakthrough: the Changing Image. Industrialization Forum 6(1), 3-12. SG Blocks. (2011). SG Blocks Building System Retrieved June 3, 2011, from SG Blocks: ocks/sg-blocks-building-system/ Sherwood, R. (2002). Trinity Buoy Wharf Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Housing Prototypes: Sorlien, S. (2006). History Retrieved June 5, 2011, from Katrina Cottage: http://katrinacottagehous Stevenson, K. C., & Jandl, H. W. (1995). Houses By Mail: A Guide to Houses from Sears, Roebuck and Company. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Swinney, L. (2007, September 26). Lexington Homes awarded MEMA contract for cottages Retrieved June 7, 2011, from Small Town Papers News Service: cle.html?articleId=65441031098716018 Tatum, J. A. (1987). Constructability Improvement Us ing Prefabrication, Preassembly, and Modularization. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin. Thornton, R. (2002). The Houses That Sears Built: Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sears Catalog Homes. Alton, Illinois: Gentle Beam Publications. Traffer, H. (n.d.). Manufacured Home Construction and Safety Standards. Title 24Housing and Urban Development p. 3280.1. USM. (2001). Container City Retrieved June 2, 2011, fr om Urban Spaces Management Ltd: 98


99 Vanegas, J. (1995). Modularization in I ndustrial Construction. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin. Wood, S. (1981). Degradation of Work: Skill, Deski lling and the Braverman Debate. Harper Collins.

PAGE 100

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nicholas R. Brow was a resident of centra l Florida for 21 years, since relocating with his family in September of 1990, fr om Leominster, Massachusetts. After the completion of high school, Nicholas att ended Daytona Beach State College to pursue an associates degree; where he completed t he necessary prerequisites to attend the architecture program, at University of Flor ida, in the summer of 2007. Two-years after transferring into U.F., Nicholas was selected to participate with a select group of students to study abroad in Hong Kong and China for the summer of 2009. After successfully completing his under graduate requirements, Nicholas was granted access into the Master of Science in Building Construction program at the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction at t he University of Florida, in the summer of 2010. Nicholas has been inducted into Sigm a Lambda Chi (SLX) in the fall of 2010 and later awarded the Dickert Scholarship in the spring of 2011 for his scholastic efforts in and out of the classroom. Nicholas has gr aduated with honors from U. F. with a masters degree and a 3.94 grade point average. Currently, he is pursuing at second masters degree majoring in architecture at the Washi ngton University in St. Louis, Missouri on a twenty-five thousand dollar annual scholarship Nicholas is living with his newly wed wife and their two English bulldogs, Mr Magoo and Lily, in St. Louis. 100