Comparative Studies on the Regional Differences of ... - J-Stage

Comparative Studies on the Regional Differences of Modularity Design Tendency Between the United States and Japan

Ying-Chang Yu1, Tomonari Yashiro2, Satoshi Yoshida3 and Zhi Qiu*4 1

Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Tamkang University, Taiwan 2 Professor, Institute of Industrial Science, the University of Tokyo, Japan 3 Professor, Master Program of Innovation for Design and Engineering, Advanced Institute of Industrial Technology, Japan 4 Lecturer, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, China

Abstract A standard architectural project comprises multiple interfaces among individual modules of information, components, systems, or players. Each society possesses its own history and background that derives a unique pattern of modules and interfaces. In 2005, Prof. Tomonari Yashiro and Prof. Satoshi Yoshida identified the antagonistic concept of design tendency between modularity and integration. Players from different countries tend to manage projects on different levels of modularity or integration, and create unique work system structures for each. The effects of the difference between modularity and integration were identified, but the mechanism was not demonstrated in visualized or quantified models. This research identifies the United States as the most oriented to modularity and Japan as the country most oriented to integration. The Two countries were the focus of analyses to demonstrate the effect of using the task structure matrix (TSM). The TSM analysis model is a method to visualize and quantify the module pattern and relationship by recording the dependencies of all the elements. This research sought to verify the different pattern of regional modularity between the United States and Japan, as well as offer a quantified understanding to help transnational project players identify the critical paths that are potentially omitted from a project. Keywords: modularity; integration; task dependency; design structure matrix; design information

1. Introduction Globalization has been widely infiltrating every aspect of our lives, and even the building construction industry is not immune to this trend. When multiple professional players engage in a transnational project with different construction knowledge and backgrounds, the project usually leads to unpredicted failure caused by inappropriate management of conflict among the players. Although a large amount of research has been dedicated to differences among cultures, little is known about how the mechanism of differing local design philosophies and convention could affect the outcome of architectural collaborations. 2. Theory and Literature Review In 2005, in the report titled "Study of the Shift of Construction Technology and Organizational *Contact Author: Zhi Qiu, Lecturer, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University No. 866, Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou City, China Tel: +86-1865-7182-859 E-mail: [email protected] ( Received April 7, 2014 ; accepted October 27, 2014 )

Configuration Based on the Development of Architectural Elements", the authors, Prof. Tomonari Ya s h i r o a n d P r o f . S a t o s h i Yo s h i d a n o t e d t h e antagonistic differences in design methods between modularity and integration. They also observed how the different orientations of integration and modularity would shape the final outcome of artifacts among different cultures. However, this observation was seeking a further quantitative study for verification. To model the process of project execution affected by concepts of modularity or integration, this research adapted the approach used in "Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity" by Prof. Carliss Y. Baldwin and Prof. Kim B. Clark. This book presented a methodology for modularity in response to a dynamic economic and commercial world. "Design Structure Matrix" method was presented as an efficient analytical tool to describe the abstract concept of modularity in a scientific format. 3. Hypothesis and Research Methods 3.1 Definition A Task is an action element that can be accumulated to provide a service or form an artifact. It can be information, a process for execution, or a component.

Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering/January 2015/56

49

The dependency among task elements is the link to maintaining the task function, and is the primary target maintainingthe thetask taskfunction, function,and andisisthe theprimary primarytartarmaintaining for improving design and project management. get for improving design and project management. maintaining the task function, and is the primary target for improving design and project management. 3.2 Hypothesis get forHypothesis improving design and project management. 3.2 3.2 Hypothesis Designs in countries oriented towards high Designsinin countries oriented towardshigh highamong modu3.2 Hypothesis Designs countries oriented towards modumodularity tend to have less dependency larity tend to have less dependency among tasks than Designs in countries oriented towards high modularity tend haveinless dependency among tasks than tasks than to those countries oriented towards high those in countries oriented towards high integration larity tend to have less dependency among tasks than those in countries integration levels. oriented towards high integration levels. those in countries oriented levels. 3.3 Analysis Modeling Tool towards high integration levels. 3.3 Analysis Modeling Tool a scientific model that The research aims to develop 3.3 Analysis Modeling Tool Theresearch research aimstoTool todevelop develop scientific model 3.3 Analysis Modeling canThe visualize and aims quantify the disparity in dependency aascientific model that can visualize and quantify the disparity in deThe research aims to develop a scientific model between the modularity oriented United States, and the that can visualize and quantify the disparity in dependency between the modularity oriented United that can visualize the disparity incauses deintegration orientedand Japan, to identify possible United pendency between the quantify modularity oriented States, and theintegration integration orientedJapan, Japan,totoidentify identify pendency between thefailure. modularity oriented United of transnational project States, and the oriented possible causes transnational project failure. States, and the integration oriented Japan, to identify possible causes ofoftransnational project 3.3.1 Task Structure Matrix Based onfailure. DSM possible causes of transnational project failure. 3.3.1 Task Structure Matrix Based on DSM Donald V. Steward conceived the Dependency 3.3.1 Task Structure Matrix Based on DSM Donald V. Steward Steward conceived theDSM Dependency 3.3.1 TaskMatrix Structure Matrix Based on Structure (DSM), also called the Design Structure Donald V. conceived Dependency Structure Matrix (DSM), also called Design Structure Donald V. Steward conceived the Dependency Matrix, Incidence Matrix, or Design precedence Structure Matrix (DSM), also called Design Structure Matrix, Incidence Matrix, or Design precedence maStructure Matrix (DSM), also called Design Structure matrix, in 1967 while designing a nuclear power Matrix, Incidence Matrix, or Design precedenceplant. matrix, in 1967 while designing a nuclear power plant. Matrix, Incidence Matrix, or Design precedence maIt was systematically introduced to the public in trix, in 1967 while designing a nuclear power plant. his ItIt was systematically introduced to the public in his trix, in 1967 while designing a nuclear power plant. It 1981 book, "Systems Analysis and Management: was systematically introduced to the public in his 1981systematically book, “Systems Analysis and public Management: was introduced to and the in his Structure, Strategy andAnalysis Design". The basic idea of 1981 book, “Systems Management: Structure, Strategy and Design”. The basic idea 1981 book, “Systems Analysis and Management: DSM is to break each element of the target artifact Structure, Strategy and Design”. The basic idea ofof DSMinto break each element of thebasic targetidea artifact Structure, Strategy and Design”. The of down abreak list and recreate the of dependency network DSM isistoto each element the target artifact down into a list and recreate the dependency network DSM to abreak each element theSimilarly, target network artifact among elements for project analysis. TSM down is into list and recreate the of dependency among elements forrecreate project analysis. Similarly, TSM down into a list and the dependency network among elements for project Similarly, TSM uses operational tasks insteadanalysis. of elements to assess the uses operational tasks instead of elements to assess the among elements tasks forapproach. project Similarly, TSM uses operational insteadanalysis. of elements to assess the target construction target construction approach. uses operational tasks instead of elements to assess the targetThe construction approach. 3.3.2 Basic Principle of Making TSM 3.3.2 TheBasic BasicPrinciple Principle MakingTSM TSM target construction approach. 3.3.2 The Taking production of ofaofMaking concrete block as an Taking production of a concrete block anexamexam3.3.2 The Basic Principle of Making TSM Takingofproduction of a concrete blockwould asasan example TSM modeling, a designer collect ple of TSM modeling, a designer would collect sysTaking production of a concrete block as an examof TSM modeling, a designer collect aasysaplesystematic set of information to would complete the design tematic set of information to complete the design prople of TSM modeling, a designer would collect a systematic set of information to complete the design proprocess, such as manufacturing processes, the feature cess,such such manufacturing processes, the feature tematic set as ofasinformation to complete the design cess, manufacturing processes, the feature ofof of the specimen, and the designer's intention. Theprofirst the specimen, and the designer’s intention. The first cess, such as manufacturing processes, the feature of the specimen, and designer’s intention. The first step is to list all thethe affective factors of this target job step listall all the affective factors thistarget target job the specimen, and the designer’s intention. The first step isistotolist the affective factors ofofthis job as parameters during the design process, and collect as parameters during the design process, and collect step is to list all the affective factors of this target job as parameters data during the design and collect corresponding associated withprocess, the parameter. corresponding dataassociated associated theparameter. parameter. as parameters during the designwith process, and collect corresponding data the In this example, producing with a concrete block would thisexample, example, producingwith concrete blockwould would corresponding data associated the parameter. InInthis producing aaconcrete block involve the ten different types of information or involve the ten different types of information acIn this example, producing a concrete block would involve the tenbelow different types of information ororacactions listed in "Fig.1.". Each information tions listed listed below “Fig. 1”.ofEach Each information involve the ten different types information or actions below inin “Fig. 1”. information oror or action was labeled as "Task" for manufacturing action was labeled as “Task” for manufacturing pations listed below in “Fig. 1”. Each information or action was such labeled as “Task” specimen for manufacturing paparameters as “molding", "molding", features such rameters such as specimen features such action was labeled as “Task” for manufacturing parameters such as “molding", specimen such as "treatment", andand design intents suchsuch asfeatures "dimension", “treatment”, design intents “dimenrameters such asand “molding", specimen such asasprecision" “treatment”, design intents suchfeatures asas “dimenor and so on. sion”, precision” and on. as “treatment”, andand design intents such as “dimension”, ororprecision” sosoon. sion”, or precision” and so on.

Fig.11Task Task ListofofMaking Making a SimpleConcrete Concrete Block Fig. Fig.1. Task List List of Making aa Simple Simple Concrete Block Block Fig. 1 Task List of Making a Simple Concrete Block

The concrete concrete dimension dimension defines the the strength strength ofof 1.1. The Table 1. Task Description of Makingdefines a Concrete Block

theblock blockand andthe thesize sizeofofmolding molding the strength of 1. The concrete dimension defines the 1. The concrete dimension defines the strength of the 2. The Material of the block controls thestrength strength the and the size of molding 2. block Theblock Material of of the block controls the and the size molding and appearance of the block, and decides the 2. The of the block controls strength and Material appearance of the block, and the decides the 2. The Material of the block controls the strength and method of pouring and curing time. and appearance thecuring block,time. and decides the method of pouringofand appearance the block, and determines decides method of Thestrength strength requirement the material of of pouring and curing time. the 3.3. method The requirement determines the material and curing time. of the block, and the method of pouring and cur3. pouring The strength requirement determines the material of the block, and the method of pouring and curing time. of the block, and the method of pouring and curing time. ing time. 50 JAABE vol.14 no.1 January 2015 JAABEvol.X vol.XNo.X No.XApril April20XX 20XX 22 JAABE 2 JAABE vol.X No.X April 20XX

3. 4.4. 4. 4. 5.5. 5. 5. 6. 6. 6. 6. 7.7. 7. 7. 8.8. 8. 8.

The strength requirement determines the material ofThe theprecision block, and the method of the pouring and requirement defines appearance The precision requirement defines the appearance curing time. the block,requirement andgives givesguidance guidance themolding molding The precision defines the appearance ofofthe block, and totothe The precision requirement defines the appearance method and calibration of molding. of the block, and gives guidance to the molding method and calibration ofguidance molding.to the molding of the appearance block, and requirement givesof The controlsthe thecalibracalibramethod and calibration molding. The appearance requirement controls method and calibration of molding. tion standard and the surface treatment method. The appearance requirement controls the calibrationappearance standard and the surfacecontrols treatment method. The requirement themethod. calibrationof Thestandard moldingand method determines the precision tion the surface treatment The molding method determines the precision of standard and the surface treatment method. the final final product, product, and what kind kind calibration The molding method determines theofof precision of the and what calibration The molding method thecalibration precision methods canbebe used. the final product, and determines what kind of methods can used. of the final product, and what kind of calibration The calibrating procedure affects the molding methods can be used. The calibrating procedure affects the molding methods can be used. method, and determines the beginning of theproproThe calibrating procedure affects theof molding method, and determines the beginning the The calibrating procedure affects the molding cess. method, and determines the beginning of the process. method, and determines the of final the process. Thepouring pouring processwill willbeginning affectthe the surface cess. The process affect final surface The pouring process will affect the final surface treatment, and determines the beginning of conThe pouring process will affect the final surface treatment, and determines the beginning of contreatment, and determines the beginning of crete curing. treatment, and determines the beginning of concrete curing. concrete curing. 9. The concrete curing determines the beginning crete curing. 9. The concrete curing determines the beginning ofof 9. The concrete curing determines the beginning of thesurface surfacetreatment. treatment. 9. the the surface treatment. 10. Surface treatment finishofofthe thework. work. 10. Surface treatment asasfinish 10. Surface treatment as finish of the work. Table 1 Task Description of Making a Concrete Block 10. Table 1 Task Description of Making a Concrete Block

Table 1 Task Description of Making a Concrete Block The secondstep stepisistotolocate locate the dependency among The second step locatethe thedependency dependencyamong among The second tasks. The correlations of each task are listed in tasks. The correlations of each task are listed in “Fig. The step is to locate dependency among tasks.second The correlations of eachthe task are listed in “Fig. "Fig.2.". If the existence of lower tasks depends on the 2”. IfIfThe thecorrelations existence ofof lowertask tasks on the tasks. oflower each aredepends listed inon “Fig. 2”. the existence tasks the higher tasks as shown in the left side of the matrix, then higher tasks as shown in the left side of the matrix, 2”. If the existence of lower tasks depends on the higher tasks as shown in the left side of the matrix, the authors label itlabel at the leftside corner, andmatrix, ifand the then the authors theleft lower left corner, higher tasks as shown the ofcorner, the then the authors label ititinatatlower the lower left and ifif dependency is in reverse, they label it on the upper right the dependency is in reverse, they label it on the upper then the authors label it at the lower left corner, and if the dependency is in reverse, they label it on the upper corner. In the case that boththat tasks are interdependent to right corner. the case that both tasks are interdethe dependency in reverse, they label it on theinterdeupper right corner. InInisthe case both tasks are each other, they were labeled on both sides. pendent each other, they were labeled onboth both sides. right corner. In other, the case that both taskson are interdependent totoeach they were labeled sides. pendent to each other, they were labeled on both sides.

Fig.22Example ExampleofofTSM TSM Fig. Fig.2. Example of of TSM TSM Fig. 2 Example

Dependencymark markon onone oneside sidesuggests suggestsaahierarhierarDependency Dependency mark on one side suggests a hierarchical chical relationship between two tasks (One dominates Dependency mark on one suggests a hierarchical relationship between twoside tasks (One dominates relationship between two marks tasks (One dominates the the other). other). Dependency on both both sides show show chical relationship between two tasks (One dominates the Dependency marks on sides other). Dependency marks on both sides show these these twotasks tasks areinterdependent interdependent (Coexistence). the other). Dependency marks on(Coexistence). both sides show these two are two interdependent (Coexistence). thesetasks two are tasks are interdependent (Coexistence).

Fig.33Principle PrincipleofofTask TaskMarking Marking Fig. Fig. 3 Principle of Task Marking Fig.3. Principle of Task Markin

3.3.3 The TheBasic BasicPattern Patternfrom fromTSM TSM 3.3.3 The TSM may be applied to almostall allartifacts artifactstoto 3.3.3 The Basic Pattern from TSM The TSM may be applied almost 3.3.3 The Basic Pattern from to TSM analyze the design dependency mechanism. DependThe TSM may be applied to almost all artifacts to analyze the design mechanism. DependThe TSM may bedependency applied to almost all artifacts to ing on the nature of different artifacts, the Task Strucanalyze design dependency mechanism. Depending on the different artifacts, the Task Strucanalyze thenature designof dependency mechanism. Depending ture reveals some corresponding corresponding preset pating on Matrix the nature of different artifacts, the Task Structure some paton theMatrix nature reveals of different artifacts, the Taskpreset Structure terns. ture Matrix reveals some corresponding preset patterns. reveals some corresponding preset patterns. Matrix Thefirst firsttype typeofofpattern patternisisthe themodularized modularizedblock block terns. The The firstastype of pattern is4a”. the Modularized modularized blocks, block pattern, shown in “Fig. The first type of pattern is the modularized block pattern, as as shown shown in in "Fig.4.a". “Fig. 4a”. Modularized Modularized blocks, blocks, pattern, alsocalled called object-oriented design, arecommonly commonly seen pattern, as object-oriented shown in “Fig. design, 4a”. Modularized blocks, also are seen also called object-oriented design, are commonly seen in the electronics or information technology industries. also called object-oriented design, are commonly seen in the electronics or information technology industries. in the electronics or information technology industries. Ying-Chang Yu XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX

In such patterns, each block contains sufficient selfsupport information, and requires very limited information from other blocks. in the electronics or information technology industries. In such such patterns, patterns, each block contains sufficient selfIn support information, requires limited support information, andand requires very very limited inforinformation from other blocks. mation from other blocks. In such patterns, each block contains sufficient selfsupport information, and requires very limited infora mation from other blocks.b

Fig. 4 a, Highly Modularized Interface; b, Sequential Tasks without Clear Module and Interface

The second pattern is the linear sequential task as shown in “Fig. 4b”. The linear sequential layout of a indicates that every taskb depends on another task tasks Fig. 4 a, Highly Modularized Interface; b, Sequential Tasks and acts Highly as awithout unit ofClear transmission linkage. This pattern Fig.4.a, Modularized Interface; b, Sequential Tasks Module and Interface without Clear Moduleassembly and Interfacelines or conis commonly seen in factory The second pattern is the linear sequential task as b aprojects. struction shown in “4 Fig. 4b”.Modularized The linear sequen tial layout of The second pattern is the linear sequential task as Fig. a,pattern Highly Interface; b, Sequential Tasks The third is the integrated module block as tasks indicates that every task depends on another task withoutThe Clearlinear Modulesequential and Interface layout of showninin“Fig. "Fig.4.b". shown 5c”. In such pattern, there are modules and acts as asecond unitthat ofpattern transmission linkage. This pattern The istask the linear sequential task as tasks indicates every depends on another existing in the matrix with intensive interdependency istask commonly seen in factory assembly lines or con-of shown in “Fig. 4b”. The linear sequential layout and acts as a unit of transmission linkage. This among module blocks. This occurs inoncustomized tasks indicates that every task depends another task struction projects. pattern is commonly seen in factory assembly or lines or product markets, such as laptop computers, highandthird acts pattern as a unit ofthe transmission linkage. This pattern The is integrated module block as construction projects. end vehicles. is in commonly in factory assembly lines or conshown “Fig. 5c”.seen In such pattern, there are modules struction existing in theprojects. matrix with intensive interdependency The third blocks. pattern isThis the integrated module block as among module occurs in customized shown in “Fig. 5c”. In such pattern, there are modules product markets, such as laptop computers, or highexisting in the matrix with intensive interdependency end vehicles. among module blocks. This occurs in customized product markets, such as laptop computers, or highend vehicles.

c

d

Fig. 5 c. Integrated Orientation; d. Mixture Module with InteFig.5. c. Integrated Orientation; d. Mixture Module with grated Correlation Integrated Correlation

The fourth pattern is the mixture pattern shown in “Fig. In pattern this pattern, are a few modularized The third is thethere module block as dintegrated c 5d”. blocks in the system that depend on an assembly proshown in "Fig.5.c". In such pattern, there are modules Fig. 5 c. Integrated Orientation; d. Mixture Module with Inted cin the cess to hold all matrix thegrated pieces together. This is the most Correlation existing with intensive interdependency Fig. 5 c. Integrated Orientation;construction d. Mixture Module with Intetypical in the building industry. Thepattern fourth pattern isgrated the mixture shown in among module blocks. This occurspattern in customized Correlation On5d”. the basis the as abovementioned observation, “Fig. Infourth thisofsuch pattern, there are a few modularized product markets, laptop or high-end The pattern is the computers, mixture pattern shown it in is imperative to match the structure of the design team blocks in the system that depend on an assembly provehicles. “Fig. 5d”. In this pattern, there are a few modularized with the project task pattern. Otherwise, critical task cess to hold the pieces This is shown the most The fourth pattern is the mixture pattern in blocks inall the system thattogether. depend on anaassembly prodependency be ignored omitted, which cess toInmay hold all the pieces together. This is theleads most typical pattern in the building construction industry. "Fig.5.d". this pattern, thereor are a few modularized pattern building construction industry. it toblocks project Ontypical the basis of in thetheabovementioned infailure. the system that depend on observation, an assembly On the of pieces the abovementioned 4isprocess General Observation Modularity Tendencies imperative tobasis match theon structure of This the observation, design teamit to hold all the together. is the most is imperative to match the Otherwise, structure of the design task team between theinUnited States and Japan typical pattern the building construction with the project task pattern. a industry. critical the project task pattern. a0critical task Towith compare the hypothesis in section withleads the On the basis of abovementioned observation, it dependency may bethe ignored or Otherwise, omitted, which dependency may be ignored or omitted, which leads is project imperative to match of theassessed design team methodology in sectionthe 0, structure this research four to failure. to project failure. the types project task pattern. Otherwise, aTendencies critical 4with General Observation on on Modularity different ofObservation construction methods utilized intask the 4 General Modularity Tendencies dependency may be ignored or omitted, which leads to between the United States and Japan United States andthe Japan, 1) States precastand concrete between United Japan assembly, project failure. To compare the hypothesis in section 0 with the 2) parapet construction method, in 3) section roof expansion To compare the hypothesis 0 with the methodology in section 0, this research joint, and 4) window construction. methodology in section 0, this researchassessed assessedfour four 4. These General Observation on Modularity Tendencies different types of construction methods ininthe targets for observation wereutilized selected to different types of construction methods utilized the between theStates United States and Japan United Japan, 1) precast assembly, United States and and Japan, 1) precast concrete assembly, demonstrate four different levels ofconcrete system mecha2)compare construction method, roof expansion the hypothesis in section with the 2) To parapet construction method, 3) 3)roof nisms, 1)parapet intra-organization integration, 2)0expansion collaborajoint, and 4) window construction. methodology in section 0, this research assessed four joint,integration, and 4) window construction. tive 3) function integration, and 4) intetargets for observation were selected different types of construction methods utilized in the These targets for observation were selected toto gration ofThese multiple entities. demonstrate four different levels of system mechaUnited States and Japan, 1) precast concrete assembly, demonstrate four different levels of system mechanisms, 1) intra-organization integration, collabora2) parapet construction method, 3) roof expansion nisms, 1) intra-organization integration, 2)2) collaborative integration, 3) function integration, and 4) inteXXXX XXXXX 3) function integration, and 4) intetive integration, gration of multiple entities. gration of multiple entities. JAABE vol.14 no.1 January 2015 XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX

4.1 Modularity Analysis of Intra-organization Construction Method Case selection: Examples of precast concrete detailsand (Fig. 6) wereconstruction. selected to identify the effects of joint, 4) window organizational behavior building construction These targets for observation were selected 4.1 Modularity Analysis ofonIntra-organization where the interfaces and relatedofcomponents tomethods demonstrate four different levels system Construction are all provided byMethod the same entity. integration, 2) mechanisms, 1) intra-organization Case selection: Examples of precast concrete deUnited States: This3)detail wasintegration, selected and from the collaborative integration, function tails (Fig. 6) were selected to identify the effects4)of Architectural Graphic Standard (AGS) issued by the integration of multiple entities. organizational behaviorof on building construction 4.1 Modularity Analysis Intra-organization American Institute of Architects (AIA) which pro4.1 Modularity Analysis of Intra-Organization methods where the interfaces and related components Construction Method vides a privilege of authority as a guideline to the Construction Method are Case all provided byExamples the same of entity. selection: precast concrete debuilding construction industry as thethe minimum standCase selection: Examples of concrete tails (Fig. 6) were selected to identify effects of the United States: This detail wasprecast selected from ard datum. details (Fig.6.) were selected to identify the effects organizational Graphic behaviorStandard on building Architectural (AGS)construction issued by the Japan:where Thisthe detail wason selected from the “Manual ofAmerican organizational behavior building construction methods interfaces and related components Institute of Architects (AIA) which proof Pre-fab PC for Construction and Design” by the methods where the interfaces and related components are all aprovided by the entity.as a guideline to vides privilege of same authority the Kajima Company. are all provided by the same entity. Unitedconstruction States: This industry detail was from the building as selected the minimum standArchitectural Graphic (AGS) issuedfrom by thethe United States: This Standard detail was selected ard datum. American Institute of Standard Architects(AGS) (AIA) issued which by pro-the Architectural Graphic Japan: This detail was selected from theto“Manual vides a privilege of Architects authority as(AIA) a guideline the American Institute of which provides of Pre-fab PC for Construction Design” by the as theand minimum standa building privilegeconstruction of authorityindustry as a guideline to the building Kajima Company. ard datum. construction industry as the minimum standard datum. Japan: This detail was selected from the “Manual Japan: This detail was selected from the "Manual of Pre-fab PC for Construction and Design” by the ofKajima Pre-fab PC for Construction and Design" by the Company. KajimaUS Company. JPN Fig. 6 Typical Detail of Precast Concrete in the US and Japan

4.1.1 Observation on Precast Concrete Assembly Fig. US 7 shows the design of a precast concrete JPN floor to bearing wall connection in the United States in acFig. 6 Typical Detail of Precast Concrete in the US and Japan cordance with the “AGS”. The connections between US JPN slab and bearing wall less predefined engage4.1.1 Observation on require Precast Assembly Fig. 6 Typical Detail of Precast ConcreteConcrete in the US and Japan ment. The embedded connection is a typical standard US Fig. 7 shows the design of a precast concrete JPNfloor product, and noconnection special welding isAssembly required. to bearing wall in Concrete theskill United States in ac4.1.1 Observation on Precast Fig.6. Typical Detail of Precast Concrete in the US and Japan Fig. 7 shows the “AGS”. design of The a precast concretebfloor cordance with the connections etween to bearing wall connection in theless United States inengageacslab and bearing wall require predefined 4.1.1 Observation Precast Concrete Assembly cordance the on “AGS”. The connections between ment. Thewith embedded connection is a typical standard Fig.7. the of apredefined precast concrete slab and shows bearing wall design require less engageproduct, and no special welding skill is required. floor to bearing wall connection in United States ment. The embedded connection is a the typical standard inproduct, accordance with the "AGS". The connections and no special welding skill is required.

2

9

9

9 3

2 3 3

2

2

2

9 2 2

9 States 2 2 9 Fig. 7 TSM of Typical Slab Connection in the United

Fig. 8 shows a similar detail used in Japan. This connection contains more hardware and cut-outs on Fig. 7 TSM of Typical Slab Connection in the United States

Fig. 7TSM TSMofofTypical Typical Slab Connection United States Fig.7. Slab Connection in in thethe United States JAABE vol.X No.X April 20XX 3 Fig. 8 shows a similar detail used in Japan. This

Fig. 8 shows a similar detail used in Japan.onThis connection contains more hardware and cut-outs connection contains more hardware and cut-outs on Ying-Chang Yu 3 51 JAABE vol.X No.X April 20XX

JAABE vol.X No.X April 20XX

3

between slab and bearing wall require less predefined engagement. The embedded connection is a typical standard product, and no special welding skill is required. Fig.8. shows a similar detail used in Japan. This connection contains more hardware and cut-outs on components, grout injection. components, which whichalso alsoinvolves involvesonsite onsite grout injecThe detail requires higher precision overhead onsite tion. The detail requires higher precision overhead welding. The embedded rod fabrication relies greatly onsite welding. The embedded rod fabrication relies on the attributes of other components. greatly on the attributes of other components.

29

4

4.2 Modularity Analysis of Collaborative Integration The second example for analysis is the parapet area, which is a location most vulnerable to water infiltration in building construction. This comparative analysis was conducted to discuss the differing collaborative behaviors among parties in This comparative analysis was conducted to disthe United States and Japan. The representative cases cuss the differing collaborative behaviors among parselected forUnited the USStates and Japan are shown "Fig.9.". ties in the and Japan. The in representative The detail for parapet construction in Japan cases selected for the US and Japan are shown inshown “Fig. in9”.Fig.9. was selected from "Building Construction Standard Detail", released by the Ministry The detail for which parapetwas construction in Japan shown of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism in Fig. 9 was selected from “Building Construction (Maintenance Division, Buildings Standard Detail”, which wasGovernment released by the Ministry Department,). Japan has a Transport typical system of civil of Land, Infrastructure, and Tourism (Maintenance Division, Government Buildings Delaw system. The regulations and public guidelines partment,). by Japan has a typical system of civilstrict law established government authorities establish system. The regulations standards for every user. and public guidelines established by government authorities establish strict standards for every user.

2 JPN

US

US 16

11

6

4

2

14

Fig. 8 TSM of Typical Slab Connection in Japan Fig.8. TSM of Typical Slab Connection in Japan

On the basis of TSM analysis, the authors identiOnthe thefollowing basis of TSM fied points,analysis, the authors identified the following points, 1. The quantity of total tasks in the US (the modulari1. The quantitycountry) of total tends tasks in US than (the modularity ty oriented to the be less in Japan. oriented country) tends to be less than Japan. 2. The quantity of hierarchical dependentintasks in the 2. The of less hierarchical dependent tasks in the US isquantity relatively than in Japan. relativelyofless than in Japan.tasks in the US is 3. US Theisquantity interdependent 3. The quantity of interdependent tasks in the US is somewhat less than in Japan. somewhat less than in Japan. 4. The number of internal tasks required to produce a 4. The number of internal single component in the tasks US isrequired less thantoinproduce Japan. a single component in the US is less than in Japan. 5. The assembly system transition process in the US 5. The assembly systemthan transition process in the US is is generally simpler in Japan. generally simpler than in Japan. According to the judgment criterion identified in According to the judgment in section 0, a TSM which tends tocriterion have lessidentified hierarchical section 0, a TSM which tends to have less hierarchical dependent tasks, interdependent tasks, and internal dependent interdependent tasks, and oriented internal task task leads tasks, the user toward a modularity apleads the user toward a modularity oriented approach. proach. In this case, American intra-organization In thistocase, intra-organization to be tends be American more modular-oriented, whiletends Japanese more modular-oriented, while Japanese organizations organizations tend to be more oriented toward integratend tion. to be more oriented toward integration. 4.2 Modularity Analysis of Collaborative Integration 52 The JAABE vol.14 no.1 January 2015 is the parapet area, second example for analysis which is a location most vulnerable to water infiltration in building construction.

Fig.9. Typical Parapet Detail in the US & Japan Fig. 9 Typical Parapet Detail in the US & Japan

JPN

The corresponding details in the United States are based on the standard in the AGS as shown in The corresponding details in the United States are "Fig.9.". The typical approach by American architects based on the standard in the AGS as shown in “Fig. 9”. to overcome water infiltration issues at the parapet The typical approach by American architects to overiscome to disregard the wall issues as partatof waterproofing water infiltration thethe parapet is to dissolution. They consider the waterproofing system to be regard the wall as part of the waterproofing solution. an attachment to the structure. They consider the waterproofing system to be an at4.2.1 Observations on Design and Construction tachment to the structure. Methods for Parapets 4.2.1 Observations on Design and Construction The corresponding TSM indicates practices similar Methods for Parapets to intra-organization behavior. The construction The corresponding TSM indicates method used in the United Statespractices requiressimilar only 1to5 t aintra-organization s k s t o c o m p l e t ebehavior. , a n d t h e The d e p e nconstruction d e n t t ask method usedamong in thesystems Unitedoccur Statesonly requires connections at the only wall 15 to tasks to complete, and the dependent task connections roof and waterproofing-to-wall. The installation of among systems occuraonly at sequential the wall topattern, roof and wawaterproofing reveals linear which terproofing-to-wall. The installation of waterproofing indicates that the process tends to a low interdependent revealsasa linear which indicates that ". pattern shownsequential in "Fig.10.pattern, the process tends to a low interdependent pattern as The Japanese standards for parapet design show a shown in “Fig. 10”. fold back from the top to cover the inner waterproofing system as the first line of defense against water infiltration. This is a very common approach in Japanese building construction, but not in the United States. The TSM pattern for the parapet design in Japan reveals a high tendency toward interdependence, which indicates that the design of the parapet is taking a highly integrated approach. The base concrete parapet requires a significant amount of interdependent

Ying-Chang Yu

3 1

2 10

1

Fig. 10 TSM for Typical Parapet Detail in the United States

3 The Japanese standards for parapet design show a 2 the inner waterprooffold back from the top to 1 cover ing system as the first line of defense against water 1 common approach10in Japainfiltration. This is a very nese building construction, but not in the United States. The TSM pattern for the parapet design in Japan reveals a high tendency toward interdependence, which indicates that the design of the parapet is taking a highly integrated approach. The base paraFig.10. TSM for Typical Parapet Detail in theconcrete United States pet requires a significant amount of interdependent information from other other components components to to be be poured poured on on information from time, for the the waterproofing waterproofing time, such such as as the the recess recess space space for material, extension of of rebar rebar to to receive receive and and hold hold material, or or the the extension the the inner inner concrete concrete in in place place as as shown shown in in "Fig.11.". “Fig. 11”.

15

10 19

4

1

US JPN US JPN Fig. 12 Typical Expansion Joint Detail in the US and Japan Fig.12. Typical Expansion Joint Detail in the US and Japan

1

4 9

12

3

2

Fig. 11 TSM of Typical Parapet Detail in Japan Fig.11. TSM of Typical Parapet Detail in Japan

The different levels of interdependence among XXXX XXXXX caused by disparate construction components

JAABE vol.14 no.1 January 2015

The different levels of interdependence among components caused by disparate construction apapproaches be explained the tendency proaches can can be explained by thebytendency toward toward modularity of designers from different modularity of designers from different social social backbackgrounds. Japanese are more willing to surrender grounds. Japanese are more willing to surrender benebenefits to provide more competitive, highly fits to provide a moreacompetitive, highly integrated, integrated, and better quality product. American and better quality product. American contractors work contractors worktoonly to the only according the according specification in specification the contract. in the contract. These two different tendencies These two different tendencies also magnify the also difmagnify difference in quality construction quality ference the in construction between the between US and the US and Japan. Japan. 4.3 Analysis ofof Function Integration 4.3Modularity Modularity Analysis Function Integration From a macro scale, each component From a macro scale, each component of of the the TSM TSM serves a distinct function. The final outcome represents serves a distinct function. The final outcome reprethe accumulation of subordinate functions from every sents the accumulation of subordinate functions from component, however, at the micro scale, each each task every component, however, at the micro scale, also has a specific function that contributes to task also has a specific function that contributes to the the establishment establishmentof of aa network network and and generates generates aa synergistic synergistic construction constructionoperation. operation. InInthis thissection, section,aaslab-wall slab-wall expansion expansion joint joint is the basis for discussion of the comparative tendencies basis for discussion of the comparative tendencies of of function integration between United States function integration between the the United States and and Japan. Expansion joints are commonly used Japan. Expansion joints are commonly used in buildin buildings to absorb heat-induced expansion or ings to absorb heat-induced expansion or seismic seismic movements and to avoid leakage or alleviate movements and to avoid leakage or alleviate concenconcentrated trated stress. stress. The selecteda atypical typical roofing Theauthors' authors’ research research selected roofing ararea expansion joint detail used in Japan from the ea expansion joint detail used in Japan from the “Ar"Architectural Waterproofing Handbook" provided by chitectural Waterproofing Handbook” provided by the the Building WaterproofSystem SystemHandbook Handbook Committee. Building Waterproof For parapets parapets in in Japan, Japan, architects architects generally generally create a For lateral cantilever cantilever from from aa vertical vertical member member to to provide a lateral solid base base to to cover cover the the joint joint and and waterproof system as solid showninin"Fig.12. “Fig. 12”. ". shown

In the United States, architects follow the same In the United thetypical same principle used in States, parapet architects design (Fig.follow 12). The principle used in parapet design (Fig.12.). The typical expansion joint on the roof would not be considered a expansion on the roof not be part of thejoint structure, and thewould installation of considered the expanasion partjoint of the structure, and the installation of the would be an additional step in the construcexpansion joint would be an additional step in the tion process. construction process. 4.3.1 Observations on Expansion Joint 4.3.1 Observations on Expansion Joint Construction Construction In the United States and Japan, design of expansion In the United States and Japan, design of expanjoints at roof or terrace areas reflect two opposite sion joints at roof or terrace areas reflect two opposite approaches to following the same principle. The approaches to following the same principle. The exexpansion joint detail in the United States tends pansion joint detail in the United States tends to be to be detached from element to element as shown detached from element to element as shown in “Fig. in "Fig.13.". The concrete supplier only needs to 13”. The concrete supplier only needs to deliver the deliver the product on time and within tolerance. The waterproofing contractor would only need to cover JAABE vol.X No.X April 20XX

Ying-Chang Yu

5

53

product on time and within tolerance. The waterproofing contractor would only need to cover the gap with an independent joint device. joint Theredevice. is althe gap with an expansion independent expansion most no interdependent flow of information between There is almost no interdependent flow of information the processes for the two between the processes for components. the two components. The design of expansion joints in in the the United United States The design of expansion joints States shows that the function of each component relativeshows that the function of each component isisrelatively ly simple. example, the function ofconcrete the concrete simple. For For example, the function of the wall wall is to receive the metal flashing. is to receive the metal flashing.

7

2

3

7

14

2

2

3

6

Fig. 14 TSM of Typical Roof to Wall Detail in Japan

product on time and within tolerance. The waterproofing contractor would only need to cover the gap with an independent expansion joint device. There is almost no interdependent flow of information between the processes for the two components. 5 in the United States The design of expansion joints shows that the function of each component is relatively simple. For example, the function of the concrete 4 9 wall is to receive the metal flashing.

1

1

Fig. 13 TSM of Typical Roof to Wall Detail in the United Fig.13. TSM of Typical RoofStates to Wall Detail in the United States

The Japanese design tends to contain more hardware Japanese design to contain morewater hardandThe multiple lines of tends defense to control ware and multiple of defense to preparation control water infiltration. This, in lines turn, requires more of infiltration. This, in turn, requires more preparation of the base concrete, such as grooving, notching, or laying the base concrete, such As as grooving, notching, or layembedment in advance. a result, more processes for ing embedment in advance. As a result, more process5 integration are engaged during construction. Analysis es similar for integration engaged construction. of designs in are Japan reveals during that each component Analysis of similar designs in Japan reveals that each tends to have multiple functions as shown in "Fig.14.". component tends to have multiple functions as shown 4 the same 9 structure For example, in the Japanese design in “Fig. 14”. For example, in the Japanese design the covers the gap, receives the metal flashing, holds same structure covers the gap, receives the metal the stiffener, and provides a recess to accommodate flashing, holds the stiffener, and provides a recess to sealant. accommodate sealant. 4.4 Modularity Analysis of1 Integration1 with Fig. 13Entities TSM of Typical Roof to Wall Detail in the United Multiple States A typical construction project is carried out by multiple players with varying types of components The Japanese tendssystem, to contain hardand functions. In adesign building the more window is ware and multiple lines of defense to control water an interface between the interior space and exterior infiltration. This, in turn, requires more preparation of environment. Due to its special characteristics, the base concrete, such as grooving, notching, or laynumerous interior components would meet or engage ing embedment in advance. As a result, more processwith the integration exterior components in this areaconstruction. and create es for are engaged during multiple points of communication among players. Analysis of similar designs in Japan reveals that each The intensity of communication would depend the component tends to have multiple functions as on shown . extent of modularity, as mentioned in section 0 in “Fig. 14”. For example, in the Japanese design the In general, there are multiple same structure covers the gap, systems receives in thecontact metal with each other windowand area. When acomparing flashing, holds in thethe stiffener, provides recess to processes in the sealant. United States and Japan, consciousness accommodate of modularity would greatly affect the complexity of the window design, and verify the modularity or the degree of integration in construction methods.

7 3 4.4 Modularity Analysis of Integration2with Multiple Entities A typical construction project is carried out by multiple players with varying types of components 7 system, the window and functions. In a building is2an 14 interface between the interior space and exterior environment. Due to its special characteristics, numerous interior components would meet or engage with the exterior components in this area and create multiple points of communication among players. The intensity of communication would 2 depend on the 3 extent 6of modularity, as mentioned in section 0. In general, there are multiple systems in contact withFig. each the window area.Detail When 14 other TSM ofinTypical Roof to Wall in comparing Japan processes theofUnited States and Detail Japan,in consciousFig.14. in TSM Typical Roof to Wall Japan ness of modularity would greatly affect the complexi4.4 Modularity Analysis of Integration with the typical window detail used tyComparatively, of the window design, and verify the modularity or Multiple Entities intheJapan shows that more methods of transition are degree of integration in construction methods. A typical project is carried by applied amongconstruction window frame towindow structure, as out well Comparatively, the varying typical detail used as in multiple players with types of components toJapan exterior surface treatment and of thetransition interior drywall shows that more methods are apand functions. In in a building system, the window is an system as shown "Fig.15.". For example, Japanese plied among window frame tospace structure, as well as to interface between the interior and exterior enviarchitects tend treatment to use more steel rods drywall to connect exterior surface and the interior sysronment. Dueframe to its to special characteristics, the window the15”. structural wall.numerous AJapanese sloped tem as shown in “ Fig. For example, interior components would meet or engage with the concrete sill with grout infill is commonly used the in architectscomponents tend to use steel rodscreate to connect exterior inmore this area and multiple this application. Clearly, this method involves more window frame to the structural wall. A sloped conpoints of communication among players. The intensity interdependent during construction. crete sill withcommunication groutwould infill depend is commonly in this of communication on theused extent of application. Clearly, this method involves more intermodularity, as mentioned in section 0. dependent communication during construction. In general, there are multiple systems in contact with each other in the window area. When comparing processes in the United States and Japan, consciousness of modularity would greatly affect the complexity of the window design, and verify the modularity or the degree of integration in construction methods. Comparatively, the typical window detail used in Japan shows that more methods of transition are applied among window frame to structure, as well as to exterior surface treatment and the interior drywall sysUS JPN tem as shown in “ Fig. 15”. For example, Japanese US tend JPN the architects to Window use more steel rodsUStoand connect Fig.15. Typical Detail in the Japan Fig. frame 15 Typical Window Detail in the US Japanconwindow to the structural wall. A and sloped The design building window areasin in the thein United crete sill withofof grout infillwindow is commonly used this The design building areas United States takes an opposite approach as shown in “ application. Clearly, this method involves more interStates takes an opposite approach as shownFig. in dependentThis communication during construction. "Fig.15.". approach minimizes the interconnection among components, and only a very few connecting

6 JAABE vol.X No.X April 20XX

XXXX XXXXX

54

Ying-Chang Yu


ples. Based on the comparative analysis as shown in “Fig. 16”, the dependent tasks of window construction design in the United States occurs mostly between design and components (X1-X9/Y10-Y24); very few tasks will interfere with other components, and most modules are carried out in a linear sequence. In other

struction components, multiple interdependent blocks appear on the TSM among structure, window, and exterior finish. This suggests a highly indivisible integration and verifies that the organizational tendency is closer to integrated design. 14

7

Internal Dependency Link: 36 External Dependency Link: 33 Total Dependency Link: 69

8

3

7

2

1

2

4

1

1

14

2

4

Fig. 16 TSM of Typical Window Construction in the United States Fig.16. TSM of Typical Window Construction in the United States

On the TSM for construcdevices arecorresponding applied to assemble all window the components in tion in Japan, the dependencies are distributed among the window area. groups. No clear pattern can be observed on the ma4.4.1 Observations on Multiplayer Construction of trix. Each task group has multiple constraints of deWindows pendency with taskdetail groups. Based on theother selected and corresponding TSM, A total of 46 active tasks are identified the window consists of a larger amount in of total taskswith and 150 dependency links among tasks, and 89 dependenblocks in both the American and Japanese examples. cy links on among Based the blocks. comparative analysis as shown in Based on results oftasks the abovementioned analy"Fig.16.", thethe dependent of window construction sis, dependency links for window construction in Jadesign in the United States occurs mostly between pan represent 217% dependency of the dependency design and components (X1-X9/Y10-Y24); very few link the interfere same process the US (150:69). and The most crittasksforwill with in other components, ical dependency in Japanese window construction modules are carried out in a linear sequence. In other (external dependency among is also free 270% words, each task group couldblocks) be performed of, of or the US (89:33). with minimum constrains from other task groups. The designer provides only enough information for other XXXX partiesXXXXX to follow up. It consists of 34 identified tasks with a total of 69 dependency links among tasks, and only 33 dependency links among blocks (~48% of total dependency links). The TSM for window construction in Japan reveals the opposite as shown in "Fig.17.". With the exception of the dependent tasks between design and construction components, multiple interdependent blocks appear on the TSM among structure, window, and exterior finish. This suggests a highly indivisible integration and verifies that the organizational tendency is closer to integrated design. On the corresponding TSM for window construction in Japan, the dependencies are distributed among


groups. No clear pattern can be observed on the matrix. Each task group has multiple constraints of dependency with other task groups. A total of 46 active tasks are identified in total with 150 dependency links among tasks, and 89 dependency links among blocks. Based on the results of the abovementioned analysis, dependency links for window construction in Japan represent 217% dependency of the dependency link for the same process in the US (150:69). The critical dependency in Japanese window construction (external dependency among blocks) is also 270% of the US (89:33).

JAABE vol.X No.X April 20XX

Ying-Chang Yu

7

55

14

Internal Dependency Link: 61 External Dependency Link: 89 Total Dependency Link: 150

11

8

10

18

3

22

2

12

15

6

4

8

8

9

Fig. 17 TSM of Typical Window Construction Area in Japan Fig.17. TSM of Typical Window Construction Area in Japan

25. Conclusion Conclusion The Task Structure Structure Matrix The Task Matrix is is an an effective effective tool tool for for modeling to verify any differences between similar modeling to verify any differences between similar details to determine determine whether whether aa different different details and and helps helps to modularity or integration of players would meet modularity or integration of players would meet the the project This research assessed fourfour exprojectrequirements. requirements. This research assessed amples of of construction examples constructionmethods methodsininthe theUS USand and Japan, Japan, 1) precast concrete assembly, 2) parapet construction, 1) precast concrete assembly, 2) parapet construction, 3) 3) roof expansion joint, 4) the window construcroof expansion joint, andand 4) the window construction. tion. The purpose of the assessment was to verify The purpose of the assessment was to verify four four different system mechanisms: mechanisms: 1) intradifferent levels levels of of system 1) intraorganization organization integration, integration, 2) 2) collaborative collaborative integration, integration, 3) function integration, and 4) 3) function integration, and 4) integration integration of of multiple multiple entities. Based on the assessment, the active taskstasks and entities. Based on the assessment, the active dependencies among construction tasks in the moduand dependencies among construction tasks in the larity-oriented UnitedUnited StatesStates tend tend to betoless than than the modularity-oriented be less integration-oriented Japan. the integration-oriented Japan. The relationship relationship between between task task quantity The quantity and and project project outcome still need further study, but it is clear that a outcome still need further study, but it is clear that project player originally designated to a particular task a project player originally designated to a particular structure pattern may not equallyequally in an oppotask structure pattern mayperform not perform in an site modularity tendency project environment. The opposite modularity tendency project environment.

organization maymay not not be arranged to deal withwith an unThe organization be arranged to deal an familiar amount dependencies in in unfamiliar amountofof tasks tasks and and task task dependencies different interface areas. different interface areas. References References 1) Carliss Y. B & Kim B. C, (2000) Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power 1) 2) 2)

3) 3) 4) 4)

5) 5)

6) 6)

Carliss Y. B. &The KimMIT B. C, (2000) Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity, Press of Modularity, The MIT Press. Study on the Concept of “ArchitecYoshida S, & Yashiro T, (2005) Yoshida S., & Yashiro T., Components (2005) Study on the Concept of ture” to Analyze the Modular of Construction System, "Architecture" to Analyze the Modular Components of Journal of architecture and planning, Construction Journal ofStudy architecture planning. Yoshida S, & System, Yashiro T, (2005) on the and Concept of "ArchitecYoshida S., & Yashiro Study System on the of Concept of ture" to Describe Design T., and(2005) Construction Buildings, "Architecture" to Describe Design and Construction System of Journal of architecture and planning, Buildings, of architecture and planning. Yoshida S, Journal & Yashiro T, (2005) Study of the Shift of Construction Yoshida S., &and Yashiro T., (2005) Study of the Shift of Construction Technology Organizational Configuration Based on the DeTechnology Organizational Configuration Based on the velopment of and Architectural Elements, Journal of architecture and Development of Architectural Elements, Journal of architecture planning, and planning. Lee J & Chun J (2009) Risk Response Analysis Model for ConLee J. &Method Chun J.Using (2009) Response Analysis for struction theRisk Forced-Decision Method Model and Binary Construction MethodJournal Using of theAsian Forced-Decision and Weighting Analysis. Architecture Method and Building Binary Weighting Journal of Asian Architecture and Engineering, Vol. 8 Analysis. No. 1. pp. 205-212 Building Vol. 8 No.Risk 1. pp.205-212. Tsai T. C.Engineering, & Yang M. L. (2009) Management in the ConstrucTsaiPhase T. C.of&Building Yang M. L. (2009) Risk Journal Management the tion Projects in Taiwan. of Asianin ArchiConstruction Phase Engineering, of Building Vol. Projects Journal of tecture and Building 8 No.in1 Taiwan. pp. 143-150 Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 1 pp.143150.

8 JAABE vol.X No.X November 20XX

XXXX XXXXX

56

Ying-Chang Yu
