System for modular building construction

Abstract

Construction systems for erecting budding structures comprise a plurality of prefabricated interconnectable modular budding units, each unit comprising framing members and a plurality of nodes, each node situated for selective interconnection with other units, the nodes and the exterior dimensions of the frame conforming to ISO shipping standards such that each unit is transportable using the ISO intermodal transportation system, and such that when the units are interconnected, a building structure is formed. The modular units are assembled at a remote location, and are there constructed to a semi-finished state, following which the semi-finished modular units are transported from the remote location to the job site, where they are secured to form the structure being erected, and the semi-finished modular units are thereafter constructed to a finished state.

Description

REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS[0001]This application is a continuation-in-part of prior co-pending application Ser. No. 14 / 811,903, filed Jul. 29, 2015, which was a continuation of application Ser. No 14 / 339,590, filed Jul. 24, 2014, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,115,504, which was a continuation of prior co-pending application Ser. No 13 / 770,278, filed Feb. 19, 2013, now U.S. Pat. No 8,826,600, which was a continuation of prior co-pending application Ser. No.13 / 171,534, filed Jun. 29, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,397,441, which was a continuation of prior co pending application Ser. No 12 / 900041, filed Oct. 7, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No 8,001,730, which was a continuation of prior co-pending application Ser. No 11 / 893,639, filed Aug. 17, 2007, now U.S. Pat. No 7,827,738, which claimed the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of the following prior co-pending U.S. Provisional Patent Applications: Ser. No. 60 / 840,419, filed Aug. 26, 2006, Ser. No 60 / 843,247, filed Sep. 8, 2006; Ser. No 60 / 861,407, file...

AI Technical Summary

Benefits of technology

This patent describes an architectural building system that consists of interconnected prefabricated modular units. These units are made up of a steel frame that uses the standard cargo container as its exterior dimensions, with nodes at each corner that allow for easy connection with other units. The frames have edge rails with flanges that make it easy to attach the units together. Additionally, some units have never been used as cargo containers for transporting products unrelated to the building system. Overall, this invention provides a flexible and efficient way to build buildings.

Problems solved by technology

These changes, among many others, led to a vastly more complex society that demanded larger and more elaborate structures to house new living, work, social, and cultural functions.

Widely varying dimensional tolerances between factory and field methods lead to excessive allowances for fitting, which in turn encourages sloppy joinery.

Three-dimensional coordination of components, such as ductwork and piping, with structural and spatial restrictions, is done in the field under intense schedule pressure, and there is only one opportunity to get it right; frequently a ceiling is lowered or boxed out to accommodate errors, and even less desirable accommodations that sacrifice the quality of design and function are not uncommon.

This typical method of building construction, although traditional, does not take full advantage of the principles of industrialization, including the mass production of, interchangeable parts and assembly in a controlled factory setting.

Historically, the primary reason for this failure has been that most buildings, especially multi-story buildings, are too large to be cost-effectively moved from a factory to the erection site, i.e, the logistics of transportation do not suggest an obvious way of making entire buildings in factories.

Another reason is that members of the craft-based construction industry (including the design professions) have not realized anywhere near the full potential of industrial methods and advances in information technology.

Finally, the perception that the quality and versatility of “pre-fabricated” buildings is lower than that of manufactured buildings has created a stigma associated with the term “modular” construction.

However, generally speaking the high cost of transporting oversize loads has limited the distribution range of conventional modular factories to a five hundred mile radius.

This limit of distribution range has stunted the growth of the conventional modular manufacturing industry and has prevented it from operating on a national, not to mention international, scale.

Although a network of distributors arose to answer the need for nationwide distribution, those distributors, who determine the market, do a satisfactory business in temporary facilities such as classrooms and construction site offices, and therefore have no reason to change the status quo.

Furthermore, innovation has not come, nor is it likely to) come, from the manufacturers, since the roots of the “modular” industry are not in the world of heavy construction, but rather in trucking- and construction-related service businesses, which branched into manufacturing to take advantage of opportunities in the market for temporary facilities.

Temporary facilities are the core business (over sixty percent) of the “modular” industry, and in the face of inertia this fact is not likely to lead to change in the way permanent buildings are constructed, especially since such temporary facilities are generally of inferior aesthetic and performance quality as compared to standard building construction.

Thus, the conventional modular manufacturing industry has not succeeded in penetrating the construction market to any significant degree because it has not solved the transportation problem, and because it has not made any fundamental changes in construction technology to adapt buildings to industrialized methods of manufacture.

This approach limits the aesthetic expression of a building to the image of a stack of cargo containers, and results in a building envelope that is deficient from the standpoint of weathering and thermal performance.

Moreover, this prior art has been limited by its narrow understanding of the conventional ISO cargo container as a closed box that can be fitted out as habitable space merely by the addition of windows, doors, partitions, fixtures, etc., and that can in some instances, be joined together with other such boxes to yield somewhat larger structures.

Images