Speaker
Description
Each construction method has its own pros and cons. Even though traditional casting methods seems to be more expensive, they are practical and known to work in the Norwegian market. The build owner decides which method to use, and it is most often traditional methods that come out on top. It is of utmost importance that the practice used in construction is safe. Build owners are familiar with traditional methods. If prefabricated elements or modules are to take over the Norwegian market, further research and standardization must be conducted. Modular construction focuses on making prefabricated modules and elements with pre-installed services in order to reduce the construction time, whilst also maintaining the structural performance and safety of the building. Though this have not been used much in Norway, it can be observed from other countries that the method has many advantages and disadvantages. For instance, the construction time is faster, the cost can be reduced. inventory spacing can be managed more easily, labour cost can be reduced, labour safety can be improved, while still satisfying the structural requirements for the job. Furthermore, modular construction may be a more affordable solution to the housing crises in underdeveloped countries and a solution for cheaper student housing. A blend of traditional and precast methods might be the best current solution, but with continued research, prefabricated alternatives could become more common over time. This paper focuses on comparing the structural performance, cost, advantages, disadvantages, limitations and serviceability between traditional cast-in-place concrete elements, precast elements and prefabricate modules.
