RETHINKING MODULARITY Designing a Prototype for Checkered Stacking Paul Müller-Zitzke Supervisor: Björn Gross | Examiner: Mikael Ekegren Chalmers University of Technology Department of Architecture & Civil Engineering ACEX35 Building Design and Transformation 2024 Modular prefabrication offers a number of advantages in comparison to conventional construction, including reduced construction time, minimised material waste, reduced labour costs and improved quality control. However, modular construction faces challenges in relation to logistical, spatial and structural issues. Through the development of a modular prototype, this research aims to contribute an innovative modular con‐ struction solution, particularly an alternative method of stacking the modules, in order to address these issues. The prototype draws inspiration from the project Sneglehusene by BIG, which includes the stacking of modules in a checkered pattern. This idea serves as a starting point for the prototype, while developing its concept further. Keywords: Prefabrication, Modular Prototype, Checkered Stacking ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction Purpose And Aim 8 Research Question 8 Method 10 Delimitations 11 II. Theory Prefabrication 14 Modules 18 Reference Projects 20 III. Prototype Checkered Stacking 26 Structural Concept 28 Floor Plan 30 Module Construction 36 IV. Project FromModule to Building 48 Project Site 52 Building Plans 54 V. Discussion VI. References Bibliography 70 Student Background 72 6 I INTRODUCTION 7 Purpose and Aim Research Question Method Delimitations I. INTRODUCTION 8 II Modular construction, or prefabricated con‐ struction, is not a novel concept. It has been a feature of the building industry for several dec‐ ades. Despite its longstanding presence, the application of this method may not have been fully explored or utilised yet. This thesis is motiv‐ ated by an interest in these potential improve‐ ments. The decision to focus on prefabricated modular construction stems from its perceived benefits in terms of its construction efficiency. This thesis aims to identify and analyse the potential bene‐ fits and limitations of using prefabricated modu‐ lar construction for urban housing development. It investigates specific areas where prefabrication methods offer improvements over traditional construction. The study aims to provide a bal‐ anced view of prefabricated modular construc‐ tion, showcasing its advantages, while acknow‐ ledging the challenges and limitations of this approach. The thesis aims to clarify the circum‐ stances under which modular construction can be most effectively utilised. Through the design of an innovative prototype, this thesis adresses current logistical, structural and spacial challenges connected to modular construction. The thesis documents the methodology employed in the design and planning of the pro‐ totype. The prototype is tested by making it part of an exemplary building design. PURPOSE AND AIM The objective is to investigate the application of prefabricated modular construction, specifically the stacking of modules in a checkered pattern, culminating in a prototype design presented through architectural drawings, 3D images, and physical modelling. This supporting booklet accompanies the prototype, detailing the research methodology, analysis of benefits and limitations of modular construction, and the prototype's improvement of modular construc‐ tion, addressing current logistical, structural and spacial challenges in the field. How can stacking modules in a checkered pattern improve modular construction? RESEARCH QUESTION INTRODUCTION 9 INTRODUCTION 9 Figure 1 Dong, Dortheavey Residence, by BIG Copenhagen, Denmark (Hjortshoj) 10 I Theoretical studies A review of existing literature on modular con‐ struction and relevant theory was undertaken. This included reading papers, articles and books that provide a broad overview of the field. The aim was to gather background information on prefabricated modular construction to support the design project. Reference projects serve as the design inspiration for the prototype. In particular, the project "Sneglehusene" by BIG serves as the starting point and provided the primary conceptual framework for the development of the module prototype. A number of other projects served as sources of inspiration during the course of the thesis. While they did indirectly affect the design decisions made, they were not directly relevant to the thesis and therefore not explicitly mentioned. The modular design manual by Stora Enso con‐ stituted the principal source of inspiration for the design and development of details in modu‐ lar construction. Methodology The methodology employed in this thesis was systematic and focused on integrating conven‐ tional architectural design methods and funda‐ mental theoretical research to develop a proto‐ type for prefabricated modular construction. The methodology employed was pragmatic, pla‐ cing a strong emphasis on the utility of standard tools and processes in architectural design. METHOD INTRODUCTION 11 DELIMITATIONS Scope and Focus This thesis defines its scope in order to maintain a focused and manageable investigation of how stacking prefabricated modules in a checkered pattern can address logistical, structural and spa‐ cial challenges in modular construction. To ensure depth and relevance in the exploration, it is imperative to specify the boundaries of this inquiry. Modularity is versatile and can be applied to many different building applications. To limit the scope for this particular project, the thesis focuses on the design for living spaces for indi‐ viduals and couples without children, recog‐ nising that this demographic is increasingly becoming the predominant group in urban areas. Material and Construction Techniques The investigation focuses on timber materials recognised for their durability and minimal environmental impact. The selection of materials and construction techniques is intentionally lim‐ ited to those that align with sustainability prin‐ ciples and are feasibly applicable in modular apartment design. Advanced or experimental materials, fall outside the scope of this thesis. Design Parameters The modular prototype and its design explora‐ tion emphasise the design of the structure and floor plan to be easy to construct, transport and install, while following general architectural design principles to create living spaces. The module is developed and iterated according to these parameters. While recognising the import‐ ance of other design considerations, such as market viability, wider socio-economic factors and a life cycle assessment, this work does not explore them. These aspects are considered cru‐ cial for further research, but are not included in this study in order to maintain a clear focus on design. Timeframe The temporal scope of this thesis is also a consid‐ eration, as the design, prototyping, and evalu‐ ation phases are limited by the academic time‐ frame allotted for the completion of this study. To conduct research and design exploration on modular construction, a pragmatic approach is necessary, prioritising depth over breadth. 12 I INTRODUCTION 13 Prefabrication Modules Reference Projects II. THEORY 14 II Introduction Prefabrication involves the manufacturing of building components in a factory and their sub‐ sequent assembly on-site. The common perception of prefabricated build‐ ings is still heavily influenced by the architecture of the 1960s and 1970s, characterised by the use of serial precast concrete elements, which is linked to an image of lack of design and mono‐ tony. However, this perception is challenged by the contemporary wood prefabrication process, which does not adhere to the rigid schemas of the past. Modern software can automate the cre‐ ation of cutting data for complex buildings, ren‐ dering the manufacturing effort independent of the differentiation in workpieces. Today, the design freedom afforded by automated manufac‐ turing is more likely to be problematic than the limitations imposed by prefabrication itself, with major wood constructions often retaining a pro‐ totype character (Kaufmann et al., 2017). Conventional Construction In comparison to prefabrication, conventional construction methods appear less optimised. Issues are often only realised and resolved on-site, and late changes in planning frequently delay the process (Kaufmann et al., 2017). The construction is tied to the sequential execu‐ tion of tasks, vulnerability to weather-related delays, coordination complexities, and unergo‐ nomic working conditions, which result in a greater time and cost investment. The real cost of construction can only be roughly estimated and is not transparent until after construction. These issues can be reduced in the controlled environment of prefabrication (Azari et al., 2013). Prefabrication The process of prefabrication involves the trans‐ fer of production steps to a workshop, which has the potential to bring various benefits, including the reduction in construction times. Under optimal conditions, the time needed for projects can be decreased by 20–50% in comparison to conventional building methods (Bertram et al., 2019). The manufacturing of building compon‐ ents can be undertaken concurrently with the preparation of the construction site, thereby reducing the overall project duration. The process of prefabrication necessitates detailed planning, which extends the planning phase and maintains the project in a virtual state for a longer period. Consequently, this delays the actual investment costs for the project's realisa‐ tion to a later stage, potentially beneficial for the financing of the project over a shorter period. The fabrication of components under controlled workshop conditions can lead to increased qual‐ ity of execution and better process control. The benefits of these conditions include being unaffected by weather, reduced distances, con‐ sistent availability of teammembers, materials, and tools, and the ergonomic advantages of an assembly table versus construction scaffolding (Kaufmann et al., 2017). Prefabrication is based on the principles of stand‐ ardisation and repetition, which are crucial for achieving economies of scale and enhancing the efficiency of the construction process. This approach enables the efficient production of modules in a factory setting, which in turn max‐ imises productivity (Erixon, 1998; Generalov et al., 2016). Furthermore, the methodical manage‐ ment of materials coupled with a reduction in noise and air pollution at construction sites, con‐ tribute to environmental sustainability by min‐ imising waste and disturbances during construc‐ tion (Salama et al., 2017). Despite the advantages of prefabrication, the practice is not without challenges, especially logistical issues related to the transportation of the modules (Almashaqbeh & El-Rayes, 2022). PREFABRICATION THEORY 15 Figure 2 The production in Kalwang (Ott) 16 II Prefabrication Elements There are three main prefabrication elements with several key differences, which are significant for understanding the diversity and applicability of prefabrication in various contexts. Linear elements, like beams and columns, are typically used in structural applications where their linear form can be directly integrated into the building's structural framework. The simpli‐ city of linear elements is advantageous for pro‐ jects that are structurally built upon beams and columns or where structural reinforcement or extensions are necessary. However, the level of prefabrication is limited compared to more com‐ plex prefabricated systems(Bertram et al. 2019). Working with linear elements offer logistical benefits, including compact transportation and the ability to use simpler lifting equipment. Fur‐ thermore, they permit certain assembly simplific‐ ations on the construction site. However, the method may extend the assembly phase and potentially decrease precision due to on-site assembly conditions (Kaufmann et al., 2017). Flat elements include panels or wall and slab systems. These can be prefabricated as an open framing or closed with insulation, wiring, external cladding, windows and doors. This method allows for a greater degree of prefabrica‐ tion compared to linear systems (Bertram et al. 2019). The prefabrication of flat elements allows for a higher architectural design flexibility in compar‐ ison to spatial systems, although the completion of joints may have to be done on-site and ceiling elements typically exclude the floor structure. (Kaufmann et al., 2017). Spatial elements, also known as modules, involve the prefabrication of entire sections of buildings, including rooms or whole apartments, complete with internal finishes, fixtures, and fit‐ tings. Subsequently, these self-contained units can be stacked or linked together on site to form a larger structure. Working with prefabricated modules can significantly reduce on-site con‐ struction time, as the bulk of the assembly work is completed off-site. Additionally, it allows for the highest level of quality control, as units can be fully outfitted and inspected in the factory (Bertram et al. 2019). Modules offer a solution to the limitations of flat elements in construction. All surfaces and con‐ nections can be prefabricated to a high quality on a room-by-room basis, reducing assembly time on site. Interior fittings and building ser‐ vices can also be pre-assembled, further stream‐ lining the construction process. Working with modules affects the overall design, including floor plan structure and room dimensions. The dimensions of the rooms are constrained by the transportation routes between the workshop and the construction site. The width of the room cell is the limiting factor. Modular construction is commonly employed for projects with recurring room units, such as hotels and apartment or nursing homes. It also benefits spaces that require complex finishes that can be prefabric‐ ated, especially wet areas like bathrooms and kit‐ chens (Bertram et al. 2019). Modules are typic‐ ally constructed from cross-laminated timber and are elastically supported to prevent sound transmission (Kaufmann et al., 2017). The Potential of Modules The successful implementation of modules depends on a number of factors, including the scale and complexity of the project and the abil‐ ity to standardise design elements. The selection of a linear, flat, or spatial system is largely dependent on the specific requirements of the project, including architectural design and the intended use of the building. Furthermore it is possible to combine multiple systems, using the advantages of the different systems for different use cases or parts of the building. However, modules offer the highest degree of prefabrication and therefore the highest poten‐ tial for construction efficiency and time savings. THEORY 17 Figure 3 Prefabrication of linear, flat and spatial elements (Kaufmann) 18 II Module Transportation Depending on the location of the project, there are different ways of transporting the modules, by road, rail and water. The dimensional and weight restrictions of transportation infrastructure and vehicles must be considered. The dimensions and weight of modules are frequently constrained by legal transportation regulations, which vary by juris‐ diction and can have a significant impact on the planning and execution of modular construction projects (Salama et al., 2017). The Swedish Transport Agency (TSFS 2009:64) states, that newly built houses and house sections should not have a width that exceeds 4.15 meters and recommends that the transport height should not exceed 4.5 meters, while the length of mod‐ ules is not directly limited. Oversized modules that exceed standard transport dimensions require special permits, escort vehicles, or even infrastructure modifications, all of which can lead to increased costs and delays. The transportation distance between the manu‐ facturing facility and the construction site plays a critical role in the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of modular construction. It has been demon‐ strated that the transportation of modules over long distances can be prohibitively costly, with costs increasing exponentially for modules wider than standard dimensions (Salama et al., 2017). Consequently, the location of manufacturing facilities relative to construction sites is a pivotal factor in determining the overall feasibility and efficiency of modular construction projects. The industry is in broad agreement that the max‐ imum feasible distance for transporting modules from the manufacturing facility to the building site is approximately 200 kilometres (Smith, 2010). Unlike traditional building parts or linear/flat elements, which can be transported in a flat or compact form, allowing for the maximisation of space and efficiency, modular units are three-di‐ mensional boxes filled with a substantial amount of air. This characteristic inherently leads to inefficiencies in transportation (Bertram et al., 2019). These inefficiencies are not merely about the physical space these modules occupy on a truck or trailer, but also relate to the economic and environmental cost of moving relatively low- density loads over long distances. The size and shape of each module limits the number of units that can be transported per trip, resulting in increased fuel consumption, greater transporta‐ tion costs, and higher CO₂ emissions. Shipping one square meter of floor space of a module over 250 kilometres costs five times more compared to shipping it in a flat form (Bertram et al., 2019). Module Installation Prefabricated components are delivered to the site ready for installation. The culmination of the construction process involves lifting, placing, adjusting, connecting and securing these com‐ ponents. Typically, the components are transferred dir‐ ectly from the transport trailer to their desig‐ nated location on the site. The crane lifts and positions each element, while the site crew assists in guiding the elements into place and securing them (Smith, 2010). To facilitate prefabrication and on-site assembly, the modules must be designed with lifting points, also known as 'pick points'. These points are designed to match the weight distribution of the component, ensuring stability during lifting and accurate placement. In the case of timber modules, a belt strap is commonly used, which requires the modules to have a stronger struc‐ ture, to prevent breakage during lifting (Lawson et al., 2014). The requirement of a stronger structure leads to manufactures having to over‐ size the module components to ensure their structural integrity. This leads to higher material costs and a higher demand of space for structural elements, which leads to a reduction of living space and to an increase of the overall cost of the module per m². MODULES THEORY 19 Improve Transportation and Installation In the context of modular construction, the geo‐ graphical distance to manufacturing facilities, the existing infrastructure for transportation, and regional regulatory policies are often beyond the control of project stakeholders. However, the design of the module is a critical domain where planners can exert significant influence. This is where specific design strategies can be employed to simplify the transportation of modular units, thereby mitigating logistical challenges and asso‐ ciated costs. One such strategy is the optimisation of modular dimensions by adhering to the maximum dimen‐ sions permitted under transportation regula‐ tions. The adherence to established standards for width, height, and weight ensures that modules comply with the necessary regulations for trans‐ portation, thus reducing the necessity for special permits or escorts during transit. This can often entail significant additional expense and logistical planning. The incorporation of construction materials that offer structural integrity without unnecessary loads reduces the weight of modules. This not only facilitates compliance with weight restric‐ tions but also enhances fuel efficiency during transportation and contributes to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. An efficient use of space within modules is achieved by designing components to serve mul‐ tiple purposes. When structural elements can also fulfil aesthetic or functional interior require‐ ments, the number of separate components required is reduced. This strategy aids in minim‐ ising both the physical dimensions and the weight of each module, further streamlining transportation. Moreover, optimising the utility of space within each module, ensuring that a smaller volume provides the same degree of functionality, is a critical aspect of design efficiency. Space effi‐ ciency is achieved through careful planning to maximise the functional output of every square meter within a module, aiming for an optimal balance between utility and compactness. In addition to dimension and weight optimisa‐ tion, the simple reduction of the number of modules in any modular design is cost-effective, provided that the transportation limitations are satisfied. This is because the construction and maintenance costs are increased by the necessity of more modules being connected, as well as the use of more cranes and trucks for transportation (Salama et al., 2017). Efficiency vs. Adaptability of Modules When striving for maximum efficiency of the module, it is important to not neglect the ability for the inhabitants to adapt the space. The effi‐ ciency of purpose-built spaces may be such that they offer limited scope for future reconfigura‐ tion, which could reduce the building's long- term viability if the needs change. Conversely, designing for maximum adaptability may involve compromises on current space effi‐ ciency, which highlights the need for a careful evaluation of priorities and objectives in the planning stage. The challenge therefore lies in designing modu‐ lar systems that are both space-efficient and allow for customisation and adaptation of living spaces to meet individual preferences and changing needs. Modular systems should permit a certain degree of customisation and adaptability within their standardised framework. 20 II SNEGLEHUSENE The project "Sneglehusene," developed by Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) in Aarhus, Denmark, fea‐ tures a modular housing concept that distin‐ guishes itself primarily through its checkered facade design. This initiative, finalised in 2022, introduced 93 residential units to the Nye neigh‐ bourhood, employing a modular construction technique that makes use of relatively low-cost materials to achieve both affordability and archi‐ tectural integrity. The project's inception and realisation demonstrate a particular interest in evolving modular housing solutions within a sus‐ tainable urban setting. A central aspect of "Sneg‐ lehusene" is its repetitive use of two kinds of housing modules, which together form a visually striking checkered pattern on the facade. This pattern is not just an aesthetic choice but serves as a foundational element in defining the pro‐ ject's identity and its approach to modular con‐ struction. The advantage of stacking the mod‐ ules in the checkered pattern is that it results in the creation of vacant spaces in between, which can serve as additional living space, when enclosed by a facade layer. In this way, the same number of modules result in nearly twice as much living space. This approach also directly influences the spatial configuration of the interior, where the stacking of modules results in varying ceiling heights of 2.5 to 3.5 metres, which creates spacious living areas, augmented with floor-to-ceiling windows and private out‐ door terraces. Relevance to the Thesis The significance of Sneglehusene for this thesis cannot be overstated, particularly when consider‐ ing the checkered stacking pattern as a guiding principle for the development of the modular prototype. The project establishes a clear starting point for further exploration into how this mod‐ ular construction technique can streamline the construction process and create functional, desir‐ able living spaces. The architects do not explicitly state or demon‐ strate that the modules were prefabricated. Given that the modules are 5.5 metres wide, transport‐ ing them would be prohibitively expensive and not at all according to the theme of affordable housing. It is probable that the "modules" were prefabricated as panels and transported to the site, where they were assembled together, making the project appear less modular. This is a missed opportunity to increase the level of prefabrica‐ tion to standardise this method of building affordable housing. A disadvantage of this stacking method is the limited accessibility due to the different floor heights between the modules and the open spaces created by the alternating pattern in the checkered design. In constrast to this project, the modular proto‐ type of this thesis should be accessible, fully pre‐ fabricated and transportable to the site. REFERENCE PROJECTS Figure 4 Sneglehusene Plan 1 Bedroom Apartment (BIG) 2,5 5 THEORY 21 Figure 5 Sneglehusene Housing (Hjortshoj) Figure 6 Sneglehusene Ground Floor Plan (BIG) 22 II SVARTLAMOEN HOUSING The Svartlamoen residential development in Trondheim, Norway, designed by Brendeland & Kristoffersen in 2005, represents a distinctive approach to modern living. It comprises a multi- storey residential building and smaller studio apartments, all constructed with cross-laminated timber (CLT). A notable aspect of this project is the decision to retain the CLT framework exposed, which effectively blends practicality with visual appeal. This design choice allows the architectural qual‐ ities of CLT to enhance the interior spaces, offer‐ ing a pure and honest display of the construction materials. Beyond aesthetics, the visible wood contributes to a healthier living environment by naturally regulating humidity. This method also showcases a commitment to sustainability, min‐ imising the need for extra materials and finishes. While additional insulation is necessary for energy efficiency, the timber's inherent qualities provide effective thermal and acoustic insulation. One challenge with exposed CLT is its vulnerab‐ ility to physical damage over time, such as scratches and dents, which are more challenging to address than with typical wall finishes like dry‐ wall or plaster. However, this aligns with the architect's vision, which celebrates the raw beauty of CLT. The material is central to the design narrative, emphasising functionality and the thematic prominence of solid wood construction. The use of CLT creates a harmonious interior, as if the space is sculpted from a single piece of wood, encompassing walls, floors, ceilings, furniture, and doors. The decision to leave the wood sur‐ faces largely untreated minimises chemical use and maintenance while allowing the material to age and develop a patina, which adds character over time. Transparent lacquers are applied only where necessary to maintain the wood's natural look and feel (Brendeland & Kristoffersen, 2009). Relevance to the Thesis The utilisation of exposed CLT in modular con‐ struction serves to enhance the sustainability and efficiency of the construction process. Exposed CLT simplifies connections and streamlines the prefabrication process, aligning with the over‐ arching aim to build modules more efficiently. The module prototype will follow the design philosophy of Brendeland & Kristoffersen, that values the raw architectural qualities of the material while being environmentally conscious. Figure 7 Svartlamoen Ground Floor (Brende. & Kristof.) Figure 8 Section A-A (Brend.& Kristof.) THEORY 23 Figure 9 Svartlamoen housing complex (Garcés) Figure 10 Svartlamoen housing bare CLT walls (Musch) 24 III PROTOTYPE 25 Checkered Stacking Structural Concept Floor Plan Module Construction III. PROTOTYPE 26 III The checkered stacking pattern for modular con‐ struction presents a compelling solution to sev‐ eral prevalent challenges in the field. Logistical One of the most compelling benefits of the checkered stacking approach lies in its logistical efficiencies. The strategic stacking of modules in a checkered pattern allows for a significant reduc‐ tion in the quantity of modules required without compromising the overall space of the structure. This pattern addresses the inefficiency associated with transporting voluminous modules by focus‐ ing modularity on necessary components. This reduction directly translates into a lowered requirement for transportation and logistics, as only half the number of modules needs to be shipped to the site, lifted by cranes, and secured in place. Additionally, this pattern optimises manufacturing facility space, using less space in the factory, allowing for a more streamlined fab‐ rication process which can lead to cost savings and increased production speed. Spacial From a spatial perspective, the checkered pattern introduces a unique blend of efficiency and adaptability that traditional modular methods struggle to achieve. The open spaces created between stacked modules offer flexibility in design and utility, enabling the inhabitants to use the space freely, which enhances the living envir‐ onment. This balance ensures that while mod‐ ules are optimised for their specific purpose – be it residential units complete with fixtures and fit‐ tings – the overall architectural plan remains ver‐ satile. Structural In conventional modular construction, buildings frequently exhibit two structural layers where modules meet. This double layering of walls and ceilings often presents as a challenge due to increased complexity, cost, and spatial demands. Furthermore, additional structural requirements for modules, to facilitate their transportation and lifting, result in even further cost and spatial demands. However, in the checkered stacking system, this feature is transformed into a signific‐ ant advantage. Like in traditional construction practices, each wall effectively serves dual pur‐ poses, supporting two adjacent rooms, which optimises space. Additionally it also enhances the module's overall stability, because the thickness of the construction layers from two modules are merged into one. This added rigidity is crucial during crane lifting and placement at the con‐ struction site, ensuring safer and more reliable installation. Furthermore, the checkered arrangement pos‐ sibly improves structural stability by promoting an even load distribution across the structure. This means that loads are shared more uni‐ formly, reducing stress concentrations and enhancing the building's resilience to environ‐ mental forces. CHECKERED STACKING PROTOTYPE 27 8 modules stacked in a conventional way 8 modules stacked in a checkered pattern 28 III Maximise Prefabrication Each apartment consists of one module and one open space. To exploit the advantages of prefab‐ rication, the goal is to maximise the degree of prefabrication. In order to attain this objective, it is necessary to classify each room and function into one of two categories: those that require a high degree of manual labour and those that do not. Rooms that require a high degree of manual labour necessitate the installation of long-term fixtures and plumbing, and therefore present a greater potential for prefabrication. Con‐ sequently, these rooms should be located within the module, whereas areas requiring minimal prefabrication should be situated within the open space. Modular Corridors Expanding on the basic checkered stacking system, the idea has been further evolved into a more complex and multi-dimensional concept, that enables the buildings main structure to be entirely built modular. This development intro‐ duces a network of corridor modules and an additional layer of apartment modules, intric‐ ately woven into the existing checkered frame‐ work, enabling the access to all apartments. corridor modules detail corner stacked The corridors serve not only as transitional spaces but also as structural and space dividing elements, adopting the checkered system them‐ selves. The corridor modules are strategically positioned to weave through open and enclosed spaces, linking adjacent apartment modules and serving as dividing walls in the open areas. Plan‐ ning the corridors as modules enables the degree of fabrication for the building to be even higher. Accessibility Integrating accessibility into the checkered struc‐ tural system is crucial to improve the inclusivity and usability of these living spaces. The alternat‐ ing pattern in the checkered design creates vary‐ ing floor heights between the enclosed modules and the adjacent open living areas, resulting in accessibility barriers, as noticeable in Snegle‐ husene. To address this issue, a modification to the corners of the modules is proposed. This design adjustment ensures that when a module meets an open space, the floor heights align seamlessly, removing any potential barriers that could restrict movement between different areas of the apartment. For this, the connection details of the modules have to be adjusted. The solution is the introduction of a step in the corners of all modules. This facilitates the con‐ struction process and ensures structural integrity. STRUCTURAL CONCEPT high degree of prefab low degree of prefab step due to stacking PROTOTYPE 29 Figure 10 Sneglehusene Housing Interior Step (Hjortshoj) 30 III Organising Functions The living functions are organised according to the degree of possible prefabrication, which res‐ ults in the division below. The functions of living, dining and sleeping can be readily accom‐ modated within the open space, whereas those requiring a greater degree of prefabrication are more appropriately situated within the module. Given that the function of arrival involves the main entrance with door, it is advantageous to situate this within the module as well. The next step is to categorise the functions according to their requirement for natural light. If the windows were to be positioned on the bottom side, the resulting division would be as follows. In order to separate the sleeping area from the dining area, there are two possible solutions. Option 1: The first option is to relocate the dining area to the module adjacent to the cook‐ ing area. This is the most intuitive option, and is also the most reasonable solution for small apart‐ ments, in which there is no division between the living and sleeping areas. Option 2: An alternative option is to situate the sleeping area within the module, thus creating a more prestigious floor plan in which the living and dining areas are combined. In this instance, the kitchen is built-in into the module and opens towards the open space, creating a separate sleep‐ ing area. Furthermore, the incorporation of the sleeping area in the module allows for the inclu‐ sion of a built-in wardrobe within the bedroom, thereby optimising the utilisation of space. Evaluation Upon careful consideration and implementation of both proposed solutions for the apartment design, the second option was selected for fur‐ ther development due to its superior benefits. This design solution facilitates the inclusion of an entrance area equipped with storage solu‐ tions, followed by a compact bathroom. Adja‐ cent to this, the layout features a separate bed‐ room, which incorporates a built-in wardrobe, enhancing spatial efficiency. The architectural plan further unfolds into an expansive open space, designated for the kitchen, living, and dining area. This communal space is enclosed by full-glazing, ensuring natural daylight reaching deep into the apartment. The design employs furniture not only as functional units but also as structural and spatial dividers, efficiently using the space. The current configuration occupies a total area of 36 sqm, making it a compact living space for individuals or couples. This is merely the most compact solution, with the module still capable of being planned for a longer length and adjusted accordingly. The module is 4.1 metres, following the width restric‐ tion, and has been strategically chosen to facilit‐ ate easy transportation, eliminating the need for special permits or escort vehicles. living dining sleeping bath room arriving cooking living dining sleeping bath room arriving co ok in g living dining sleeping bath room arriving cooking living dining sleeping bath room arriving cooking FLOOR PLAN PROTOTYPE 31 living dining sleeping bath room arriving co ok in g living dining sleeping bath room arriving cooking option 1 option 2 32 III Loggia A loggia should be included into the design, in order to fully utilise the potential of the checkered system. The glazing that encloses the open space can be moved freely to the rear, thus creating an external area. To permit the construc‐ tion of a deeper loggia, the length of the module was increased. Challenges The walls surrounding the loggia need to be insulated to eliminate any potential cold bridges. This necessitates additional manual labour on- site, as it is not part of the module and therefore cannot be prefabricated. Another issue is the dis‐ proportionately long bedroom in comparison to the living room. loggia Challenges PROTOTYPE 33 Solution The optimal solution is to integrate the loggia into the module. This methodology permits the prefabrication of the entire loggia, including the insulation and exterior surfaces. This minimises the amount of manual labour on the construc‐ tion site, as the only remaining step is to install one glazing panel to enclose the open space. This also results in a more balanced distribution of living space between the living room and the bedroom. Furthermore, the loggia can be accessed from both the bedroom and the living room, thereby establishing a clear axis from the entrance to the loggia. loggia Solution 34 III HVAC In order to facilitate the routing of pipes and wires from the modules to the technical rooms, it is necessary to incorporate a shaft into the design. The shaft must be situated in the centre of the apartment, between the walls of the modules, in order to ensure that it can be lead vertically throughout the entire building. A suitable loca‐ tion for the shaft would be in close proximity to the entrance. The shaft's proximity to the bath‐ room and kitchen reduces the length of the pipe pathways. To accommodate the pipes from the rooms to the shaft, the ceiling must be suspended. Addi‐ tionally, the module creates a central space in the apartment, beneath and above the kitchen, which facilitates the connection to the main pipes of the shaft. Exhaust air is extracted from the bathroom, while fresh air is supplied natur‐ ally through the windows. The rainwater pipe serves to collect and dispose rainwater from the roof and loggia. PROTOTYPE 35 waste water fresh water exhaust air heating wires/cables rain water 36 III Material The module is made of cross-laminated timber (CLT) for the walls and ceilings and glued lamin‐ ated timber (GLT) for the beams. Following the architectural philosophy of Brendeland & Kristoffersen's Svartlamoen hous‐ ing project, the walls and ceilings are left bare, without any additional finishes, except for the floor and wet areas, where necessary surfaces are added to prevent damage and ensure structural integrity. Construction To ensure that the modules can be stacked up to 7 storeys high, the walls consist of two 120 mm thick CLT walls. A layer of insulation is placed between the load bearing structure to provide acoustic insulation. The internal walls consist of single 120 mmCLT walls. The exterior wall, which includes the walls of the loggia, is a 120 mmCLTwall with 170 mm of insulation to ensure the energy efficiency of the building, covered by a timber cladding. The floor/ceiling consists of a 140 mmCLT slab as the main structural element. This is followed by a generic floor structure with integrated underfloor heating. A suspended ceiling with insulation provides sound insulation between the apartments. Substructures The module is organised into different substruc‐ tures, which can be constructed separately and mounted together in the workshop, which sim‐ plifies the prefabrication process. diving wall 300 mm CLTwall 120 insulation 60 CLT wall 120 exterior wall 340 mm wooden cladding 20 air gap 30 insulation 170 CLT wall 120 floor/ceiling 555 mm tiles/parquet 10 cement 65 insulation 30 CLT slab 140 insulation 60 air gap 170 CLT slab 80 GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100 GSEducationalVersion MODULE CONSTRUCTION PROTOTYPE 37 entrance wall ceiling slab dividing wall facade & loggia shaft & kitchen floor slab wet room wardrobe 38 III Floor plan This is the floor plan of the prototype. This design solution facilitates the inclusion of entrance area equipped with a storage solution. To the right, there is a compact bathroom. The prototype features a separate bedroom, which includes a built-in wardrobe, which also serves as the dividing element between the bathroom and the bedroom. The floor plan further unfolds into an expansive open space designated for the kit‐ chen, living, and dining area. The open space is enclosed by full-glazing, ensuring that natural daylight reaches deep into the apartment. The loggia is accessible from the open space and bed‐ room. The total floor plan area is 46 m². PROTOTYPE 39 Floor plan 40 III Module PROTOTYPE 41 Open space 42 III The CLT walls of the dividing walls are connec‐ ted by wooden slats at the top and bottom of the wall and rest on glulam beams. The protruding wall rests on the glulam beam of the lower module, and so on. The modules can thus be assembled in a building block system. Cross section PROTOTYPE 43 44 III Longitudinal section PROTOTYPE 45 46 IV PROJECT 47 FromModule to Building Project Site Building Plans IV. PROJECT 48 IV GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100 GSEducationalVersion ceiling slab dividing wall glazingstaircase corridor corridor slab In order to realise the conversion of the checkered module structure into a fully integrated building, it is necessary to incorporate additional modules, walls and slabs. These components represent only slight alterations of the substructure of the main apartment module. Beyond the main module, there exist five additional elements that can be prefabricated in order to facilitate the structural integrity of the building. These include: an exterior wall and slabs, which serve to enclose or complete the checkered config‐ uration of the main apartments; a corridor module coupled with a corridor slab that encap‐ sulates the checkered layout of the corridors; a staircase module, in the same dimensions as the main module, thus ensuring seamless integration into the overall structure; and a large glazing panel, designed to enclose the open spaces within the checkered framework. This structural methodology exhibits a high degree of scalability, with efficiency gains increas‐ ing as the scale of implementation increases. This building block system is versatile and the selec‐ tion of foundation can be adapted based on the specific conditions of the site. It is even possible to build upon pre-existing structures. The build‐ ing can support any roof type, though a flat roof is probably the most efficient option, as there is no need for an additional structure for its sup‐ port. The building's structural shell can then be enveloped by insulation and a facade layer, thereby completing the construction of the entire building. The building is scaleable, which means its length is free to choose. FROM MODULE TO BUILDING PROJECT 49 GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100 GSEducationalVersion 0 1 2 3 5 104 Floor plan 50 IV GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100 GSEducationalVersion ±0,00 +4,02 +7,07 +19.5 +20,5 30 3, 47 56 2, 48 56 2, 48 81 80 Floor/Ceiling Module 10 mm Timber - Floor 70 mm Concrete 30 mm Insulation - Fiber Soft 140 mm CLT 170 mm Air Gap 60 mm Insulation - 80 mm CLT Flat Roof Garden 100 mm Soil 5 mm Membrane - Rainproof 30 mm Gravel 40 mm Concrete 5 mm Membrane - Rainproof 20 mm Concrete 150 mm Insulation - Fiber Hard 5 mm Membrane - Vapor Barrier 140 mm CLT 170 mm Air Gap 60 mm Insulation - Mineral soft 80 mm CLT Floor 10 mm Timber - Floor 50 mm Concrete 30 mm Insulation - Mineral Hard 200 mm Reinforced Concrete 10 mm Plaster - Gypsum Exterior Wall 120 mm CLT 200 mm Insulation - Fiber Soft 10 mm Wood Cladding Section, Elevation PROJECT 51 1 2 30 52 IV Gibraltarvallen As the project site, Gibraltarvallen was chosen. The site is currently used as a parking area and is adjacent to the Gibraltar guesthouse. Its sur‐ rounded by an assortment of residential, educa‐ tional, and commercial structures, in a mix of architectural styles, including modernist educa‐ tional buildings within Chalmers University and residential blocks in the Johanneberg area, which are characterised by their functionalist design language from the early to mid-20th century. The typical buildings along Gibraltargatan are averagely six-storys high and in uniform orienta‐ tion, in alignment with the street. Gibraltargatan is the main street to the east, which facilitates sig‐ nificant vehicle traffic. Vehicle access to the site is straightforward, possible from both the southern and northern directions, through the surround‐ ing parking areas. Pedestrian and cycling infra‐ structure is present but varies in quality across the site, indicating room for enhancement to promote non-motorised mobility. The site comprises a mixture of flat terrain and gently sloping hills. A number of alleys of mature trees are situated between different park‐ ing lot sections and Gibraltargatan, with existing greenery concentrated along street edges and in scattered green pockets. The green buffer along‐ side Gibraltargatan serves as a soft edge between the busy roadway and the parking lot. Opportunities and Constraints The area is characterised by a high level of activ‐ ity during weekdays, largely due to the presence of the university, which attracts students, faculty members and visitors. Residential areas of Johan‐ neberg, while quieter, contribute to a steady flow of local foot traffic and community engagement. Weekends see a notable decline in activity within the academic zones, presenting an opportunity to explore mixed-use developments that can sus‐ tain vibrancy throughout the week and the prox‐ imity to Chalmers University offers the potential for collaborations with research facilities and stu‐ dent housing. The existing green spaces have the potential to be developed into a cohesive net‐ work of public parks and green corridors, enhan‐ cing recreational options. The redevelopment of underutilised plots and surface parking areas presents an opportunity to create high-density, mixed-use zones that can cater to the academic population and local residents alike. Traffic noise and pollution along Gibraltargatan could detract from the quality of pedestrian environments, necessitating noise mitigation and green buffer interventions. Furthermore, the lim‐ ited existing vegetation and green public spaces require thoughtful planning to ensure that open spaces are integrated into new developments. Redevelopment Gothenburg has planned for the redevelopment of the area, with the intention of introducing new residential units, accommodations for stu‐ dents, service housing, and commercial spaces. This redevelopment plan includes adjustments to the traffic flow, street layouts, and public transportation facilities, with the objective of accommodating the forthcoming changes. Fur‐ thermore, Gothenburg has provided a set of guidelines for the construction of new buildings, which are expected to follow these directives closely. The guidelines set out the requirements for the forthcoming developments, ensuring that they meet the city’s standards for new construc‐ tions within the Johanneberg area. Site and location of the project The building is planned on the northern parking lot of Gibraltarvallen, next to the Gibraltar Gues‐ thouse, follows the clear axis of the surrounding buildings and is placed next to Gibraltargatan. The alley to the east and the building itself serve as a buffer to the busy road, creating an open but sound protected urban square. The ground floor is not planned modular, creating open spaces for commercial and educational use cases and lifting the residential unit one storey up, thus increasing privacy. The height of the building is 20 meters, matching its surrounding context. PROJECT SITE PROJECT 53 Site plan 54 IV GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100 GSEducationalVersion Ground Floor A BUILDING PLANS PROJECT 55 0 2 4 10 20 A 56 IV GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100 GSEducationalVersion 2. Floor A PROJECT 57 0 2 4 10 20 A 58 IV GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100 GSEducationalVersion 3. Floor A PROJECT 59 0 2 4 10 20 A 60 IV GSPublisherVersion 0.0.100.100 GSEducationalVersion Elevation East, Section A-A PROJECT 61 0 2 4 10 20 62 IV PROJECT 63 64 V DISCUSSION 65 V. DISCUSSION 66 V Discussion This thesis commenced an exploratory investiga‐ tion into the potential of modular construction in urban housing, with the development of a prototype inspired by the checkered stacking system conceptualised in the Sneglehusene pro‐ ject serving as the catalyst. Reflection on the Prototype The iterative design process has resulted in a pro‐ totype that, although detailed, remains concep‐ tual in nature. This critical reflection serves to highlight a significant insight of the thesis: the journey from conceptualisation to a fully real‐ ised, feasible modular construction system is full of complexities that transcend architectural design into the realms of engineering and materi‐ als science, and modular expertise. The prototype's development had the ambition to refine and practically apply the notion of checkered stacking to create spatially efficient modular housing. Nevertheless, despite the com‐ prehensive design, the prototype exists in a state of transition between the conceptual and the realisable. The prototype's actualisation in the physical world remains uncertain, thereby high‐ lighting a gap between theoretical innovation and practical application that is often encountered in architectural research. This uncertainty is not and indication of failure, but rather a reflection of the thesis's exploratory ethos. The prototype demonstrates the difficulty of crossing the threshold between innovative design and the practical limitations of modular construction. Although the prototype may not be immediately realisable, it serves as an exemplar of the potential of modular construction to evolve and adapt to contemporary urban chal‐ lenges. If the prototype is realisable, the advantages and challenges would have to be reevaluated by an expert. But according to my own research, the prototype has significant logistical, structural and spacial advantages. Role of Experts and Freedom of Design The decision to develop the prototype without direct input frommodular construction experts was a double-edged sword. This approach per‐ mitted unlimited creative exploration, uncon‐ strained by the immediate limitations of current construction practices. This freedom was instru‐ mental in pursuing bold and innovative design solutions that challenge conventional modular construction paradigms. However, this approach also entailed navigating the complex landscape of modular construction without the guidance of expert knowledge, which might have provided a more solid founda‐ tion for the prototype in. Upon reflection, the integration of expert consultations could prove beneficial in future iterations of the project. This would enable the blending of creative ambition with pragmatic insights, thereby facilitating the bridging of the gap between concept and con‐ struction. Theoretical Framing The incorporation of theory at the midpoint of the thesis provided a foundational framework that helped to guide the design towards more grounded solutions. Theory served as a reflective surface, prompting questions regarding the prac‐ ticality, sustainability, and urban integration of the design, thereby sharpening the focus of the design process. Site Selection The selection of Johanneberg was a pragmatic decision, with the objective of contextualising the prototype within a familiar urban setting. Although planning according to the regulations and guidelines as closely as possible, the place‐ ment of the project is supposed to serve as a proof of concept, showcasing the size and archi‐ tectural qualites of the modular system. Although it served its purpose, a more thorough and intentional site analysis could further enhance the prototype's relevance and applicabil‐ ity. This would involve tailoring the design to meet specific urban conditions and challenges. DISCUSSION 67 Presentations and Feedback The feedback received during the presentation phase was of great value, as it highlighted several aspects that had been overlooked and provided numerous suggestions for improvement. One significant area of feedback focused on the urban planning of the building, emphasising the need for a better integration within the urban scale to enhance the visual impact on the site. It was suggested that the building should be divided into two parts to avoid a monolithic appearance and create a more aesthetically pleas‐ ing structure. Furthermore, suggestions included the refine‐ ment of loggias and the incorporation of canti‐ levered balconies to extend outdoor areas. These modifications would not only improve the aes‐ thetic appeal but also enhance the building's functionality by increasing daylight in the rooms while providing necessary shading for the open spaces. Additionally, recommendations were made to experiment with the prototype on different sites, particularly those with existing buildings. This approach would better demonstrate the advant‐ ages of the modular construction technique in diverse urban contexts. The feedback included a wealth of reference projects and architects to study, which could provide further inspiration and guidance for the development of the proto‐ type. Another advice involves mentioning the rationale behind each decision, thereby demon‐ strating that choices were not merely the most rational but were also informed by thorough reasoning and consideration. Such documenta‐ tion is essential for validating the project’s out‐ comes and for future reference. While it was not possible to address all the feed‐ back within the current academic timeframe, these comments and suggestions will be instru‐ mental in guiding the continued development of the prototype. They provide a clear roadmap for further refinement. Conclusion This thesis does not conclude the discourse on if stacking modules in a checkered pattern can improve modular construction; rather, it con‐ tributes a new perspective to ongoing challenges. The prototype, with all its innovations and imperfections, serves as a catalyst for further investigation. This underscores the importance of a symbiotic relationship between theory and practice, creative freedom and expert knowledge, and conceptual innovation and practical realisa‐ tion. The thesis thus advocates for a continued evolution of modular construction, with the aspiration of merging architectural imagination with the concrete realities of urban development and modular construction. 68 VI Literature Figures Student Background VI. REFERENCES REFERENCES 69 70 VI Almashaqbeh, M., & El-Rayes, K. (2022). Minimizing transportation cost of prefabricated modules in modular construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 29(10), 3847–3867. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/ECAM-11-2020-0969 Azari, R. (2013). Modular Prefabricated Residential Construction. https://cm.be.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 6/2016/07/pub_modprefab_-Skanska_08082013_web.pdf Bertram, N., Fuchs, S., Mischke, J., Palter, R., Strube, G., &Woetzel, J. (n.d.). Modular construction: From projects to products. Capital Projects. Brendeland, G., & Kristoffersen, O. (2009). Vom Stab zur Platte, Bauen mit Massivholz. ARCH+Verlag GmbH. https:// archplus.net/download/artikel/3058 Erixon, G. (1998). Modular function deployment: a method for product modularisation. The Royal Inst. of Technology, Dept. of Manufacturing Systems, Assembly Systems Division. Generalova, E. M., Generalov, V. P., & Kuznetsova, A. A. (2016). Modular Buildings in Modern Construction. Procedia Engineering, 153, 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.098 Kaufmann, H., Krötsch, S., &Winter, S. (2017). Atlas Mehrgeschossiger Holzbau (Erste Auflage). Detail Business Information GmbH. Lawson, M., Ogden, R., & Goodier, C. (2014). Design inModular Construction. Oliveira, D. F. D., Souza, M. C. D., Souza, G. A. D., Souto, A. E., & Scherer, M. J. (2023). Sneglehusene Housing: Case study based on Bioclimatic Strategies. Revista Nacional de Gerenciamento de Cidades, 11(84). https://doi.org/ 10.17271/23188472118420234684 Salama, T., Salah, A., Moselhi, O., & Al-Hussein, M. (2017). Near optimum selection of module configuration for efficient modular construction. Automation in Construction, 83, 316–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.03.008 Smith, R. E. (2010). Prefab architecture: a guide to modular design and construction. Wiley. Stora Enso. (2016). Manual 3–8 storey modular buildings. https://www.storaenso.com/-/media/Documents/Download- center/Documents/Product-brochures/Wood-products/Design-Manual-A4-Modular-element- buildings20161227finalversion-40EN.pdf TSFS 2009:64. (2009). TSFS 2009:64 Transportstyrelsens allmänna råd om undantag för färd med breda fordon; Transport Styrelsen. https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/TSFS/TSFS_2009-64.pdf BIBLIOGRAPHY LITERATURE REFERENCES 71 Figure 1. Hjortshoj, R. (s.d.) Dong, Dortheavey Residence, by BIG Copenhagen, Denmark. At: https:// www.rasmushjortshoj.com/architectural-photo-02/dong-dortheavej- residence?itemId=iuagi1q00oqblnl7urk6d540mrthm7 (Accessed on 5 April 2024) Figure 2. Ott, P. (s.d.) The production in Kalwang (Die Produktion in Kalwang). At: https://www.paul-ott.at (Accessed on 5March 2024) Figure 3. Kaufmann, H. (2017) Prefabrication of linear, flat and spatial elements. Figure 4. BIG. (s.d.) Sneglehusene Plan 1 Bedroom Apartment. At: https://www.designverse.com.cn/en/article/space/ 444642 (Accessed on 28 April 2024) Figure 5. Hjortshoj, R. (s.d.) Sneglehusene Housing. At: https://www.archdaily.com/989940/sneglehusene-housing-big/ 633b29407120027a9adb0700-sneglehusene-housing-big-photo?next_project=no (Accessed on 20 April 2024) Figure 6. BIG. (s.d.) Sneglehusene Ground Floor Plan. At: https://www.designverse.com.cn/en/article/space/444642 (Accessed on 28 April 2024) Figure 7. Brendeland, G. and Kristoffersen, O. (2005) Svartlamoen Ground Floor. At: https://hicarquitectura.com/ 2020/04/brendeland-kristoffersen-svartlamoen-housing-complex/ (Accessed on 5 April 2024) Figure 8. Brendeland, G. and Kristoffersen, O. (2005) Svartlamoen Section A-A. At: https://hicarquitectura.com/ 2020/04/brendeland-kristoffersen-svartlamoen-housing-complex/ (Accessed on 5 April 2024) Figure 9. Garcés, T. (2020) Svartlamoen housing complex. At: https://hicarquitectura.com/2020/04/brendeland- kristoffersen-svartlamoen-housing-complex/ (Accessed on 28 April 2024) Figure 10. Musch, J. (2005) Svartlamoen housing bare CLT walls. At: https://hicarquitectura.com/2020/04/brendeland- kristoffersen-svartlamoen-housing-complex/ (Accessed on 5 April 2024) Figure 11. Hjortshoj, R. (s.d.) Sneglehusene Housing Interior Step. At: https://www.archdaily.com/989940/sneglehusene- housing-big/633b29407120027a9adb0700-sneglehusene-housing-big-photo?next_project=no (Accessed on 20 April 2024) FIGURES 72 VI STUDENT BACKGROUND Hello my name is Paul, I am 24 years old and a final year architecture graduate at Chalmers, originally from Germany. Before starting my studies, I worked as a carpenter for 3 months which gave me a lot of insight into the practical side of the building process. I completed my Bachelor degree in HAWKHildesheim in 2022. While studying, I was working part time in the architectural office NGA in Hannover. Currently I am studying Architecture and Urban Design at Chalmers and will have completed myMaster degree in June 2024. Focus I would describe myself as a quick learner and I like to use that skill to learn new programs that could improve my workflow and increase my skill set. I like to work efficiently and quickly. I enjoy working on projects that follow a clear structure or logic. Having studied at a technical university in Germany, I am also interested in drawing details and would like to develop this skill further. Education Graduation - gymnasium Wilhelm-Raabe Schule Hannover Internship - carpentry Holzbau Hurrle Gaggenau Studies - Architecture B.A. HAWK Hildesheim Internship - archi. office Nehse & Gerstein Architekten Studies - Arch. & Urban Design M.Sc. Chalmers University of Technology Toolset Archicad Blender Pixelmator Affinity Publisher Affinity Designer Word Powerpoint Excel QGIS California Pro Rhino Grasshopper Midjourney Lookx.ai ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Volunteering leadership team youth group „Free Generation“ Languages German English Swedish Spanish •••••••••••••• 2018 12 weeks, 2019 2019-2022 12 weeks, 2021 2022-2024 2016-2022 Personal information name: Paul Müller-Zitzke date of birth: 1999, May 29th nationality: German Contact name: Paul Müller-Zitzke email: paul.muezi@gmail.com REFERENCES 73 Chalmers University of Technology Department of Architecture & Civil Engineering ACEX35 Building Design and Transformation 2024 I. Introduction Purpose And Aim Research Question Method Delimitations II. Theory Prefabrication Modules Reference Projects III. Prototype Checkered Stacking Structural Concept Floor Plan Module Construction IV. Project From Module to Building Project Site Building Plans V. Discussion VI. References Bibliography Student Background