Integrating Design for Manufacturing and Assembly Principles in Modular Home Construction: A Comprehensive Framework for Enhanced Efficiency and Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing demand for sustainable and efficient construction practices has led to an increased interest in modular construction, with design for manufacture and assembly emerging as a pivotal approach. Despite its potential, the integration of design for manufacture and assembly in modular home construction lacks a structured methodology, posing challenges in aligning design, manufacturing, and assembly processes. This paper introduced a framework aimed at systematically incorporating design for manufacturing and assembly principles into modular home production, leveraging different software tools in the design stage for modular design standardization and streamlined manufacturing and assembly processes. Following a mixed-method research methodology, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify research gaps. To address these gaps, a framework was developed focusing on design, manufacturing, and assembly considerations, and retrospective validation of the framework was conducted to confirm its effectiveness. This study revealed the significant benefits of integrating design for manufacturing and assembly principles utilizing advanced digital tools, through a hybrid approach using 2D drafting software and 3D BIM software. The findings indicated that implementing design for manufacturing and assembly principles led to a 40% reduction in design phase duration and a 48% decrease in production errors. This paper offers a structured guide for practitioners while providing a basis for further research in sustainable modular construction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".