Mullens, M A and Arif, M (2006) Structural insulated panels: Impact on the residential construction process. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(7), pp. 786-794. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Uncertainty and risk have contributed to the reluctance of U.S. homebuilders to embrace new construction technologies. This paper explores one innovative, but underutilized building technology, structural insulated panels (SIPs), and its impact on the residential construction process. The paper presents findings from a side-by-side case study of the construction of two Habitat for Humanity homes, one SIP and one conventional wood-framing. Although the study focuses on labor productivity and cycle time during framing, other key construction performance metrics are assessed including worker safety, quality/workmanship, material waste, worker skill levels, and equipment requirements. Findings indicate that SIPs saved about two-thirds of the site framing labor for walls and roofs, with cycle time savings of similar magnitude. No significant impacts on other construction performance metrics were observed, however, size of the panels did require a lift truck and construction crane. While conclusions are limited by the scope of the case study, the writers believe that building with SIPs can be very efficient. The paper identifies key actions required of builders and SIP manufacturers to maximize potential benefits.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; insulation; panels; productivity; risk management; technology |
| Index terms: | case study, wood, construction performance, Habitat for Humanity, productivity, risk management, time saving, residential construction, labour productivity, roof, construction technology, insulation, manufacturer, building technology, builder, framing, workmanship, key action |
| Subjects: | contractual condition, management, design practice, construction integration, traditional and composite building materials, time analysis, non-governmental organizations, engineering systems, control systems, practitioner, risk assessment, data collection methods, digital engineering, conceptual models, performance assessment, building materials |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Time Control, Site Management, Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here