海角视频

As soon as Laing O鈥橰ourke (LOR) were appointed as the main contractor for the Everton Stadium in early 2020, they shared a clear goal to use Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) to its full potential throughout the design and construction of the project.

DfMA is a design approach that focuses on the ease of manufacture and efficiency of assembly. By optimising the design of a product, it is possible to manufacture and assemble it more efficiently, more quickly, more safely and at a lower cost.

Laing O鈥橰ourke鈥檚 DfMA philosophy is 70:60:30, delivering 70% of a build using offsite construction, making things 60% more efficient and saving 30% on program. On the Everton stadium, around 70% of the superstructure and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) infrastructure has been delivered through DfMA.

Watch the video below for an overview of our DfMA work on Everton Stadium.

The DfMA approach for Everton Stadium

Below we discover how the core 海角视频 disciplines approached their designs to allow for the optimisation of DfMA.

海角视频 structures and DfMA

The Everton Stadium structure is now nearing completion with the roof steel in place and main frame constructed. In order to get here, the team adopted a DFMA strategy (Design for Manufacture and Assembly) that enabled us to build a virtual prototype of the building, utilising different software and workflows.

The stadium structure itself is comprised of four stands, North/South/East/West. The North and South stands are steel framed with precast lattice planks whilst the East and West are precast framed with lattice planks and precast twin-wall. There are eight precast stability cores in total, one in each corner of the stadium and two in the east and west respectively. The roof is entirely steel, providing cover to the supporters below.

海角视频 was employed to deliver all major engineering services including Civil, Structural, MEP, Facades and specialist disciplines. Working closely with BDP Architect鈥檚 and Laing O’Rourke we were able to design, coordinate and deliver all the structure to the Steel fabricators and Precast Manufacturers programmes.

In terms of the main frame steelwork, we designed, coordinated, and delivered a total of:

• 122 steel rakers (~2490 tonnes)
• 882 steel columns (~322 tonnes)
• 3818 steel beams (~2780 tonnes)

For the roof we delivered:

• 994 steel beams (making up the trusses, ~4050 tonnes)

In terms of the precast, we designed, coordinated, and delivered a total of:

• 3918 precast lattice planks
• 596 precast twin walls
• 658 precast columns
• 332 precast beams
• 145 precast rakers

Image: 海角视频

What makes this project so special was the no-compromise approach to off-site manufacture and how the team collaborated to achieve this. Laing O Rourke鈥檚 construction capabilities coupled with 海角视频鈥檚 computational design approach and BDP鈥檚 unwavering focus to deliver the vision, made for a unique team all aspiring to deliver the project to the best of our abilities. This involved developing a federated BIM model combining all disciplines together and collaborating across the Autodesk Construction Cloud (ACC) to deliver models at each stage of the design to all relevant parties.

From a structural perspective we used multiple software including Rhino, Grasshopper, Revit, Dynamo, Navisworks, Robot Structural Analysis and Tekla Building Designer to develop the main frame and roof. Computational routines were used to design the steelwork with beams and columns pushed into Revit using our own in-house developed 鈥楤uildings and Habitat Object Modelling鈥� code (BHoM), negating any issues with interoperability.

This allowed for the steel to be procured and passed over to Severfield, LOR鈥檚 steel sub-contractor, which was then developed further in Tekla, incorporating all connections, and passed back to the design team as IFC files (Industry Foundation Class), for checking and integration with our design models. This process was almost flawless, enabling design and fabrication models to be interchanged between the teams on a regular basis.

We used a similar approach for breaking the stadium down in to individual precast components, developing scripts and code to assign individual structural objects to respective grids, levels, and zones. A new model was created for this where floor plates were broken into individual lattice planks, columns were assigned to grid and level, beams broken between columns, and walls split by level. This complemented the main frame and roof models.

Laing O Rourke provided us with relevant rule sets for the manufacture of the precast elements, in addition to rules for transport and assembly, which were embedded into our workflow. In parallel with developing details for the connections and interfaces, we were able to populate the precast objects with openings, recesses, and the necessary gaps between elements, which resulted in a completely componentised model.

In combination with LOR, we were also able to add data to the objects to facilitate manufacture including temporary reinforcement values (which we could compare against the permanent reinforcement values), girder heights and spacing, geometric values (width, length, depth, height), object types, volumes, numbers, phases, materials, levels, and design status, amongst others.

Once the computational phase was complete, we moved into detailed co-ordination prior to handover to CEMC (Centre for Excellence for Modern Construction) and Explore (LOR鈥檚 Precast manufacturing wing). This involved further developing the precast model alongside all other sub-contractor models.

Crown House Technologies (LOR鈥檚 MEP sub-contractor) produced an MEP fabrication model with which the services openings in twin wall and lattice planks were coordinated. Brydon Wood produced the facade connections, with which the precast elements were coordinated. Banagher produced the precast rakers which our precast columns, planks and beams interfaced with. Finally, Severfield provided phased steelwork models, where all connections were coordinated with precast elements including plank bearing distances onto supporting steel, all to facilitate an accurate handover for manufacturing.

Through this collaborative DFMA process, the team managed to successfully coordinate all objects to the construction programmes, benefitting from less waste, less risk, higher quality and better coordinated models (clashes eliminated). The technology on offer and expertise at hand combined with a can-do attitude across the team, has resulted in a world class venue and is a testament to the efforts of the team.

Model representing the precast zoning areas. Image: 海角视频

海角视频 MEP and DfMA

We had the opportunity to step back and review the previous 3A deliverables and the bold decision to restart our BIM models from scratch was taken. This was to allow for the implementation of DfMA principles and the requirement of an accurate digital model, as per the guidance provided by Laing O鈥橰ourke鈥檚 MEP subcontractors Crown House Technologies: 鈥�There is a marked difference between a model that has been de-clashed (reactive) and a model that has been holistically coordinated (proactive).” With this in mind, our DfMA strategy was developed.

Now that a blank canvas was in place, we had to make sure all the MEP sub-disciplines modelled aligned to a DfMA strategy, with the design models split into Mechanical, Electrical, Public Health & Containment. We made the decision to create a separate DfMA model which would dictate the location of any primary routed service and would be loaded into all the sub-discipline models. Once loaded, each sub-discipline had to simply route as per the DfMA guide.

To determine the primary distribution and module arrangements, we first had to gather the requirements and routes of each discipline and consider any practical constraints for modularisation, including weights, transportation, access requirements and spacing of systems. At this point it was important to lean on the expertise of the MEP sub-contractors, Crownhouse Technologies, to make sure the designed modules were in line with the manufacturer鈥檚 constraints and preferences. This was achieved through regular workshops and design reviews, with 海角视频.

Level 00 海角视频 Walkway and High Level DfMA module 鈥� MEP Design Model. Image: 海角视频

Once the strategies were set, it was equally important to maintain and monitor the quality of the digital models. Keeping coordination meetings a high priority, and reporting and recording clashes and coordination items regularly made sure any issues were flagged early enough to be resolved before having a ripple effect on the design. Making use of 海角视频鈥檚 standardised Navisworks clash tests and reporting templates, we were able to gather comparable data to the previous stage and our previous projects, informing us that our process was on track.

As well as modularisation of the distributed services, the MEP teams also looked at the opportunities of prefabricated restrooms, electrical plantrooms and pump sets. The Restrooms were a first for LOR and gave an opportunity for design efficiencies, designing the systems up to the point of the room without the need to fully detail out all the sanitary connections within the model, allowing these to be completed by the sub-contracted fabricator. This helped balance out the perceived additional efforts of the primary distribution set-out and modularisation. In total, LOR prefabricated and installed over 600 sanitary units across the stadium.

Through this proactive, collaborative DfMA Strategy, the MEP team has successfully delivered a coordinated, installable design that is being manufactured and assembled off-site with greater efficiency, less waste and improved safety – realising Laing O鈥橰ourke鈥檚 ambitious 70:60:30 DfMA philosophy.

Featured Image: Pattern