Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 883–893
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Review article
New advancements, challenges and opportunities of multi-storey modular
buildings – A state-of-the-art review
⁎
T
⁎
Wahid Ferdousa, , Yu Baib, , Tuan Duc Ngoc, Allan Manalod, Priyan Mendisc
a
University of Southern Queensland, Centre for Future Materials (CFM), Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia
Monash University, Department of Civil Engineering, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
c
The University of Melbourne, Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
d
University of Southern Queensland, Centre for Future Materials (CFM), School of Civil Engineering and Surveying, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia
b
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Off-site construction
Prefabricated modules
Modular buildings
Barriers
Future prospects
Modular construction offers faster and safer manufacturing, better predictability to completion time, superior
quality, less workers on site, less resource wastage, and a more environmentally friendly solution than the
conventional construction process. Despite having several advantages of modular construction, the private sector
still relies heavily on the traditional on-site construction method. To understand the scientific reason behind this
situation, this paper critically reviews the recent developments, performances, challenges and future opportunities of modular buildings. Modular constructions are extensively used for low-rise buildings and further attracts strong interest for multi-storey building structures. Prefabricated modules demonstrated satisfactory
performance under static, dynamic impact, cyclic, seismic, blast, fire and long-term sustained loading, and offer
environmental, economic and social benefits. The acceptance and application of modular construction will
further spread with the development of design guidelines, more skilled workers, addressing handing and
transportation difficulties, and the development of novel interlocking connections between modules. Recently,
composite materials demonstrated high potential to manufacture prefabricated building modules. In Australia, it
is expected that modular construction will increase from the current stage of 3% to 5–10% by year 2030.
1. Introduction
In recent years, the modular construction of building structures has
attracted significant attention from the construction industry because of
their many advantages over traditional construction methods including:
faster and safer construction processes, better predictability to completion time, superior quality, less workers on site, less resource wastage, and less sensitivity to the environment [1–6]. Modular buildings
consist of off-site factory-made components and units (called modules)
that are transported and assembled on-site to form an entire building
[7]. The applications of modular buildings are reported for apartments,
hotels, schools, hospitals, offices, student residences and other types of
buildings where repetitive units are preferred [5,8,9]. This type of
construction technique is not a new concept nowadays and has been
reasonably used in the United States, Japan, Sweden, and United
Kingdom, whilst becoming popular in Australia, Germany, Netherlands,
China and Hong Kong [5,10–14]. Modular construction received a
boost in 2004 when the UK housing sector took initiative to construct at
least 25% of the new social housing using off-site construction
⁎
techniques [1]. There is adequate evidence to show that the modular
construction system is more efficient in meeting global demands than
the traditional method [15,16]. A study on the potential construction
method in China has suggested that there is an acute shortage of
housing and a very strong manufacturing sector [17]. Therefore, a rapid
construction method is deemed necessary in order to meet the current
demand of housing.
One essential requirement of modern construction is to improve
sustainability i.e. the reduction of economic, environmental and social
impacts of the building sector. The generation of waste during construction has a high environmental impact. It has been reported that the
construction processes are responsible for 32% of energy consumption,
30% of carbon-dioxide emissions and 30–40% of waste generation [18].
The construction wastes that are produced during the manufacturing
process to demolition generally consist of plaster, concrete, rubber,
blocks, asphalt and chemicals that account for approximately 10–30%
of all landfill wastes [19]. However, it is also reported that the ratio of
construction wastes to all wastes is about 60% in Chicago (the USA),
50% in the UK and 37% in Hong Kong [20,21]. The government is now
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: Wahid.Ferdous@usq.edu.au (W. Ferdous), Yu.Bai@monash.edu (Y. Bai).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.061
Received 17 October 2018; Received in revised form 12 January 2019; Accepted 15 January 2019
Available online 21 January 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 883–893
W. Ferdous et al.
Fig. 1. Modular buildings [32] with: (a) self-supporting load-bearing modules; and (b) frame-supported modules.
2. Recent advancements
applying a construction waste landfill charge to tackle the problem
[22]. Therefore, waste reduction by promoting off-site construction can
be one of the viable solutions. Several studies have quantified the potential advantages of modular construction. A comprehensive investigation by Lawson et al. [23] has found that modular construction
can reduce landfill waste by at least 70%, delivery vehicle visits by up
to 70%, noise and disruption by 30–50%, and reportable accidents by
over 80% relative to site-intensive construction.
While modular construction is significantly reducing environmental
impacts, the main benefit is stemming from its rapid construction
process. It is reported that a 9-storey One9-apartment building in
Melbourne, Australia was successfully installed in just five days [24].
Another 8-storey modular building was assembled with finishes within
8 days [25] while a 25-storey modular building is claimed to have been
completed with just 27 weeks of on-site work [26]. The 133 m, 44-level
La Trobe Tower has used an innovative prefabricated construction
method in order to become Australia’s tallest prefabricated building.
According to the builder, the Hickory group, the building was completed 30% faster (eight months earlier) than would have been possible
using a conventional approach. This project is one of the first of its kind
in the world and the way it was constructed has proven to be a safer,
less disruptive and more sustainable way to build [27]. Zenga and Javor
[28] revealed that a building, which requires 14 months using the
traditional method, can be constructed within four months using
modular assembly. Several researchers indicated that modular construction can reduce the construction period by 50–60% as opposed to
the traditional method [1,4,23,29]. The savings of construction time
can considerably minimise the final cost of a project as on-site construction is a labour-intensive process.
Despite having several advantages of modular construction, the
private sector still relies heavily on the traditional on-site construction
method involving timber formwork, bamboo scaffolding and in-situ
concreting [22]. The reason behind this has not yet been fully understood. This motivates to investigate the current state-of-the-art of prefabricated modular buildings with the following aims, i.e. (a) to understand recent progress and performance of modular buildings (b) to
identify the reason behind slow uptake rate of modular buildings and
providing suggestions to overcome them, and (c) to identify the future
opportunities of modular buildings. Consequently, this study critically
reviews and systematically investigates the recent advancements, mechanical performances, challenges and future prospects of modular
buildings. This paper primarily contributes in providing suggestions to
overcome the challenges of modular buildings adding new knowledge
to literature and providing critical information to the private sector for
its increased acceptance and use. The outcome of this study will help
unlock the potential growth of modular approach for building construction.
In recent years, the modular structures has been well adopted in the
construction of low-rise buildings and also utilised for high-rise construction up to 44 storeys high (La Trobe Tower in Melbourne
Australia) [23,30,31]. Depending on the load transfer mechanism, the
modules can be classified into two categories: self-supporting loadbearing modules and frame-supported modules. In load-bearing modules, the loads are transferred through the side walls. Thus, the compressive resistance of the walls is crucial and the building heights are
typically limited to four to eight storeys. On the other hand, loads are
transferred by edge beams connected to corner posts for frame-supported modules and the posts require high resistance to compression
[32]. Thanoon et al. [33] indicated that load bearing modular buildings
may result in cheaper and faster construction compared to frame-supported construction for low-rise buildings. However, in both systems,
the bracing or diaphragm action in the walls provides resistance to
horizontal loads from wind and imperfections for low-rise buildings but
a separate bracing system is required for buildings more than six storeys
high [34,35]. Fig. 1 shows an example of both cases.
The materials used in modular buildings are typically the same as
on-site constructed buildings but offers better quality as the components are fabricate in controlled environments. The primary materials
used for modules are timber, steel and concrete because of their consistently high quality and economy of production. The timber and steel
modules (4–6 kN/m2) are lighter than those with concrete (9–15 kN/
m2) [18]. The choice of materials has a significant influence on the
crane lift capacity and embodied energy requirements of construction
[36]. Each material has its own advantages and limitations, and the
selection of materials for manufacturing structural components is dependent on the building configurations. The application of a variety of
structural components and materials rather than a single type of
module is ideal for modular buildings [6]. Lawson et al. [34,37] explained that the mixed use of modules, panels and steel frames is more
appropriate and economical to construct an adaptable building. In
prefabricated construction, two commonly used precast components
are façades and staircases. Jaillon and Poon [38] studied the precast
components used in public housing and private residential projects, and
their analysis found that the most frequently used precast components
are precast façades (51%) followed by precast staircases (22%), semiprecast slabs (9%) and semi-precast balconies (7%). Timber is an excellent material for modular buildings from architectural and speed of
construction viewpoints. It has been claimed that engineered timber
such as glue-laminated timber (glulam) and cross-laminated timber
(CLT) can provide equal structural and fire protection, as well as reduced environmental impacts, lower energy consumption and lighter
foundation requirements than comparable steel and concrete construction [39]. The Puukuokka apartment building (Fig. 2a) in Finland
884
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 883–893
W. Ferdous et al.
Fig. 2. Different types of prefabricated buildings: (a) Prefabricated modules with cross-laminated timber (Puukuokka apartment building, Finland) [48], (b) Corner
post steel modular building with lateral bracing (B2 tower at the Atlantic Yards, Brooklyn, New York) [49]; (c) Modular building stabilised by a concrete core (Project
Paragon in west London) [32]; and (d) Hybrid building (Linea Nova building, Rotterdam, The Netherlands) [47].
sections) to minimize on-site construction activities, is referred to as a
hybrid building. Hybrid construction could be used to develop a new
building technique for urban areas [44]. Hybrid buildings with steel–timber modules are the most common [45,46]. Lawson and Ogden [34]
concluded that the hybrid forms of construction are more economical
for medium-rise buildings. The Linea Nova building (Fig. 2d) at Rotterdam is an example of a hybrid construction system where the
building materials vary with height, with the first four storeys are
constructed with concrete, and the other sixteen storeys are built with
steel and timber materials [47].
The construction of a record-breaking modular structure has started
at Croydon in South London, which combines two residential towers of
44 and 38 storeys in height, is expected to become the world’s tallest
modular building after completion [50]. In recent years, a significant
number of modular buildings have been constructed around the world.
Table 1 categorises some recently constructed modular buildings based
on their construction materials, number of storeys, year of manufacturing, location and applications. Table 1 indicates that the traditional construction materials are using for manufacturing prefabricated
buildings while composite materials are emerging as an alternative.
Moreover, interest in modular construction is now growing as a significant number of modular buildings have been constructed in the last
10 years around the world. It can also be seen that the timber-framed
and Life Cycle tower in Austria are strong examples of tall timber
buildings that are eight-storeys high [40,41]. The steel-based modules
are generally used as corner posts in the form of steel angle sections or
square hollow sections, depending on the modular system and subsequently assembled with slabs and walls. The light steel panels can also
be used as edge beams to prefabricate wall, floor and ceiling panels
[16]. The structural stability of this type of building is dependent on the
steel modules. One main advantage of steel frames is the high load
bearing capacity with minimal weight, which allows for large spans
(6–18 m) between the columns [42]. The 32-storey B2 tower (Fig. 2b)
at the Atlantic Yards, Brooklyn, New York is an example of a prefabricated steel structure that holds the current record for the world’s
tallest modular building [43]. The concrete modules in prefabricated
buildings are usually combined with timber and steel modules. For
example, the concrete-framed structural system may need to be fabricated with timber panel elements. Concrete modules have a high loadbearing capacity, as well as high availability and economic benefits that
make them suitable for the serialised production of prefabricated reinforced concrete elements [42]. Fig. 2(c) shows an example of a
modular building that is stabilised by a concrete core [32]. Another
type of modular building that is available, in which the structure
comprises of two or more off-site construction modules (usually 2D
elements such as walls, floors and roofs with 3D box-like volumetric
885
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 883–893
W. Ferdous et al.
Table 1
Classifications of modular buildings.
Construction materials
Storeys
Year
Location
Applications
Ref.
Timber framed modules
Timber hollow box elements
Cross laminated timber (CLT) modules
Timber framed structure
Timber floor
Steel core
Steel framed modules
Steel framed volumetric modules
Light steel modules
Steel modules
Light steel frame
Light steel frame
Light steel modules
Steel framing concrete floor
Steel framing concrete floor
Concrete core and steel pods
Concrete panels and structural units
Concrete core
Concrete core
Hybrid modular and panel building
Wood-concrete-composite building
3
2
8
2
9
12
32
5
8
–
2
–
8
29
28
8
44
25
9
2
–
2016
2014
2009
–
2013
–
2012
1999
–
–
–
–
–
2017
2014
2010
2016
2009
–
–
2006
Tasmania, Australia
Switzerland
Sweden
Witney, UK
Melbourne, Australia
Bristol, UK
New York, USA
Murray grove, UK
Tampere, Finland
Hong Kong
Japan
Copenhagen, Denmark
Manchester, UK
Wembley, London, UK
Darwin, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
UK
Beijing, China
UK
Germany
Student accommodation
Family house
Residential apartment
Housing
Residential apartment
Residential and commercial
Commercial and residential
Residential apartment
Social housing
Bank
Family house
Residential apartment
Student residence
Student accommodation
Residential apartment
Residential apartment
Residential tower
Student housing
Residential building
Family house
Residential and commercial
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[25]
[23]
[30]
[55]
[11]
[56]
[11]
[11]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[25]
[31]
[23]
[60]
[44]
[61]
3.2. Mechanical performance under static and dynamic loads
modules are suitable for medium-rise buildings whilst the construction
of high-rise modular buildings may require concrete and steel modules.
Modular construction is more common in Europe and the UK in particular, and in most cases, the application is limited to commercial
structures.
The static analysis of modular buildings indicates how the structural
components such as beams, columns, slabs, walls and connection systems perform under static loads. One of the limitations of modular
composite structures is the brittleness or low ductile behaviour at
failure. The high-strength concrete columns reinforced with a prefabricated cage system can perform similar to the reinforced concrete
specimens, whilst offering faster, easier and more reliable construction
[63]. The economic advantages of prefabrication and the possibility to
reuse the timber beams and concrete panels at the end of their service
life make the prefabricated timber-concrete composite floor system
very promising [64]. A fully prefabricated timber-concrete composite
floor is possible to manufacture, with the concrete slabs prefabricated
off-site and connected on-site to the timber beams [65]. The combination of cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels with steel elements for
steel–timber hybrid prefabricated buildings showed that the components can be quickly connected on-site and achieve a good inelastic
deformation capacity [66]. The prefabricated steel beam-to-column
connections demonstrated excellent joint strength, and showed potential applications in seismic regions [67].
The dynamic impact and cyclic behaviour, and performance of
modular structures under extreme loading conditions such as seismic
and fire have been investigated by several researchers [68–74]. The
prefabricated timber-concrete composite slab system showed satisfactory performance under dynamic impact loads. Moreover, the observed
slab deflection due to a one-year long-term sustained load was lower
than acceptable limits provided by current codes of practice [68]. The
cyclic behaviour of prefabricated circular concrete-encased composite
columns has suggested that the ultimate load and energy absorption
capacity can be enhanced significantly by prestressing [69]. The increasing demand of modular construction extended its application to
high-rise buildings where the influence of lateral loads such as seismic
becomes critical [70]. So far, very limited studies have been conducted
to evaluate the seismic behaviour of modular buildings. It is evident
that the modular steel buildings can resist a higher magnitude of base
shear than regular traditional steel buildings due to a considerably
larger number of columns that bear the lateral shear in modular
buildings [8]. An investigation of the damage and failure pattern of
prefabricated structures after major earthquakes in Turkey has strongly
recommended the consideration of earthquake design specifications for
these structures [75]. Additionally, the blast resistance capacity is also
3. Performance of modular structures
3.1. Handling and installation
The modules are required to be structurally stable by their own for
transportation and on-site handling. They are usually designed to be
lifted by a crane at designated lift points provided on the module, although forklifts or sometimes overhead gantry cranes are used in the
manufacturer’s yard [6]. The location and number of lift points is
generally determined by deflection criteria to prevent any unwanted
cracking of panels and in some cases, damage of the components. An
investigation on transport and handling of single storey timber framed
modules has indicated that the main form of damage (cracking) was
initiated by the lifting practices while the road transport propagate
cracks [62]. To minimise the damage due to transport and handling,
single shipment rather than several smaller shipments to their final
destination seems be more effective. In this case, the handling equipment should be ready to unload the modules from the vehicles and
place them into their final positions.
Installation is the key aspect of modular construction. The primary
design considerations for installation include crane capacity, transport
and access to the site [16]. The construction site requires sufficient
space and should be well prepared to accept and storage of the module
upon delivery. The design of connection system of the prefabricated
modules must be aligned with the on-site installation facilities. To ensure perfect assembly of connections, the workers should get a safe and
easy access to the connection points. Special tools and machineries can
also be used to place the modules accurately. This alternative process
would minimise human errors and provide a safer working environment during installation [25]. However, the use of machineries may
increase the installation cost depending on the type of constructions
and provide opportunities for further investigation. Lawson et al. [16]
indicated that the combined transportation and installation cost is approximately 2% of the overall construction cost of the building when
expressed per unit floor area.
886
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 883–893
W. Ferdous et al.
sustained loading conditions. Moreover, the material usage, wastage,
transport activities, noise and disruption, embodied energy, accidents,
safety hazards, carbon dioxide emissions and production hours are reduced while productivity is increased, which suggest that the modular
system is a sustainable construction method. Despite having many welldocumented benefits, the applications of off-site construction techniques are still limited. For example, modular construction in the United
States lies between 2 and 3% of the total new single-family houses and
is equal to or less than 1% of the total new multi-family houses constructed between 2000 and 2014 [29,93]. In the United Kingdom, the
off-site construction method is estimated to comprise around 10% of
the construction market [3,94]. While some success has been observed
in the USA and Europe, modular construction has limited applications
in Australia [7]. It is clear that the uptake rate of modular construction
appears to be slower than anticipated. The reason behind the slow
uptake needs to be investigated for a better understanding of the current barriers. Through a comprehensive survey of the literature, the
following section identifies the challenges associated with the modular
construction technique.
important for protecting personnel from buildings when they are
working in hazardous areas. The additional design considerations for
blast resistance can greatly reduce the risk to employees in modular
buildings [76]. A study on the fire performance of blind bolted composite beam to column joints demonstrated satisfactory performance
without any bolt shank fracture or bolt pull-out failure [77]. In addition, the flash-over and flame spread under fire may be prevented by
organoclay material [78] and fire retardant fillers [79]. The post-occupancy evaluation survey revealed high satisfaction in prefabricated
housing despite the fact that the occupants feel warm (thermal) during
summer and noise (acoustic) from the outside [80,81]. The long-term
experimental investigation by Vox et al. [82] demonstrated that green
façades could offer a sustainable solution for reducing energy demands
of the cooling systems, mitigating urban heat island effects and improving thermal energy performance of buildings. The acoustic insulation of modular buildings can be improved by double-layer construction [23]. However, there is a lack of information on the durability
performance of modular buildings especially those systems that uses
new and emerging materials on which an extensive investigation is
required.
4. Challenges
3.3. Sustainability
4.1. Lack of design guidelines
Sustainability deals with environmental, economic and social impacts of a system. Landman [83] defines sustainable buildings broadly
as “building design and construction using methods and materials that are
resource efficient and that will not compromise the health of the environment
or the associated health and well-being of the building’s occupants, construction workers, the general public, or future generations”. Construction
activities have a significant influence on the environment, human
health and the overall economy [84]. It has been reported that the
energy consumption of buildings in developed countries comprises
20–40% of the total energy [85]. A sustainable construction process is
essential to improve air and water quality, reduce solid waste, conserve
natural resources and protect ecosystems [86]. The high impact of
traditional building construction on the environment, economic sector
and society has motivated sustainable construction in recent years
[87–90]. The off-site construction technique has shown potential as a
sustainable construction method for commercial, residential and industrial buildings [91]. Lawson et al. [23] found that construction
waste is substantially reduced from 10 to 15% to less than 5% with
greater opportunities for recycling (environmental and economic impacts) waste in a factory environment. They also found that modular
construction can minimise transport activities (environmental, economic and social impacts), noise and disruption (environmental and
social impacts), embodied energy (environmental impacts) and accidents (social impact). The findings of Nahmens and Ikuma [84] indicated that lean construction can reduce safety hazards (social impacts), material waste by 64% (environmental impacts) and production
hours by 31% (economic impacts). A reduction of carbon dioxide
emissions (environmental impacts) by at least 40–50% is possible whilst
implementing the modular construction technique [92,93]. Jaillon
et al. [22] concluded that precast construction can reduce waste generation by 52% (environmental and social impacts) whilst reducing
timber formwork by up to 70% (economic impacts). A similar finding
by Rogan et al. [4] has suggested that off-site construction can reduce
waste by 70%. A comparative study of the environmental performance
between modular and traditional residential buildings concluded that
the adoption of modular construction offers an approximate reduction
of resources by 36% (economic impacts), health damage by 6.6% (social impacts), ecosystem damage by 3.5% (environmental impacts),
energy by 20% (economic impacts), and the consumption of timber and
water by 71% and 22%, respectively (economic impacts) [60].
From the above performance studies, it can be seen that the components of prefabricated buildings showed satisfactory performance
under static, dynamic impact, cyclic, seismic, blast, fire and long-term
A reliable design approach for modular structure is important as the
poor design has significant impact on overall project cost and timelines
[95]. Traditional limit state design criteria considering stability,
strength, and serviceability is the current design practice for modular
buildings [6]. Because of the lack of design guidelines for prefabricated
modular buildings, Singleton and Hutchinson [96] indicated that the
modular techniques with new materials failed to meet the expectations
by the asset owners as the collective perception is that the prefabricated
components do not meet the minimum standard requirements and do
not have long term performance. To ensure a safe design, the design
loads of any structure require the consideration of all possible circumstances. The structural loads are different in traditional and modular construction due to the fact that the process of manufacturing
modules and on-site assembly generate short-term loading that may
affect the load-transfer mechanisms [7]. Moreover, the construction
process requires different infrastructure than the traditional method
[93]. The effect of geometric inaccuracies and installation must be
considered, and offsite construction requires a highly detailed design at
the early stages [32]. Therefore, the design requirements of modular
buildings are quite dissimilar and might perform differently than similar conventional structures. However, the current design of modular
buildings is largely based on the conventional design system of traditional buildings [54] and lacks suitable design guidelines. Establishing
suitable design guidelines for modular structures is deemed necessary
as the design stage determines up to 80% of building operational costs
[97].
Recently, design engineers and researchers are attempting to provide guidelines for the design of modular structures. The handbook for
the Design of Modular Structures [7] provides technical guidance to
promote the uptake of safe and high quality modular structures. The
Design in Modular Construction by Lawson et al. [16] aims to provide
guidelines for designers. Although the concepts and systems are not
exhaustive, it brings together information on steel, concrete and timber
modules, and describes their particular features and key design aspects.
Lawson and Richards [32] proposed that the out of verticality should
not exceed 8 mm per module or 80 mm in total with respect to ground
datum. Moreover, the eccentricity should not be less than 35 mm and
25 mm for design of the corner posts and load-bearing side walls, respectively. In USA, the modular structures must comply with the
Manufactured Housing and Mobile Home Safety Act that includes International Residential Code, International Building Code, International
Energy Conservation Code and International Fuel Gas Code [98,99].
887
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 883–893
W. Ferdous et al.
that can be transported without major difficulty are below 4.5 m in
width and 13 m in length [55]. The large size of modules is one of the
key constraints in modular construction, particularly at narrowly accessible areas [6,112]. Moreover, the vehicular vibrations during
transportation may cause damage to components and the intensity of
damage generally increases with the roughness of the road surface
[113,114]. To minimise transportation difficulties, the vehicle having
vibration absorber can be used to minimise damage due to vibration
[115], and additional precautions need to be considered for wider
modules while low bed transport vehicles are preferable for transporting taller modules.
Yuan et al. [100] proposed design for manufacture and assembly-oriented parametric design for prefabricated buildings. It has been
claimed that the modern design techniques such as Building Information Modelling (BIM) is useful for efficiently organise the project within
the specified time and cost [25,101]. Isaac et al. [102] demonstrated
that graph-based building design models can be useful for representing
and analysing construction projects. Although the aforementioned
specifications can be used as design guidelines, the necessary design
codes are still unavailable, which has hindered the uptake of modular
buildings.
4.2. Lack of training and investors
4.4. Reliable connection systems
The lack of availability of knowledgeable and experienced experts
and labourers to work in the offsite construction factories is a major
barrier to the potential growth of modular buildings [1,103–105].
Universities and industry can jointly play a vital role to provide training
and develop necessary skills required. Recently, initiatives have been
taken through a co-operative training system between industries and
universities in Australia, which aims to provide the necessary training
and skills development in prefabricated products and services [106].
Through this initiative, it is expected that the modular construction will
increase from the current stage of 3% to 5–10% in the next 5–10 years.
The expertise is mainly required inside the manufacturing plant and
only a minimum amount of labour work is necessary for the installation
process. The on-site work can be as minimal as tightening a few nuts
and bolts that can be managed by local volunteers with minimum work
experience after providing some training. Moreover, the lack of manufacturers and the reluctance of financial institutions to fund prefabricated projects have been reported as major challenges [107]. For
example, the modular construction of Little Hero Apartments at Melbourne, Australia were financed by the Arab Bank rather than major
Australian banks, who are perhaps more familiar with traditional
building practices [1]. In most cases, the end users (clients) are reluctant to accept prefabricated components and the modular concept
particularly when there is a limited application of these types of
buildings. The confidence and reliability of modular construction can
be achieved by ensuring building warranty and improving education,
communication and experience.
The overall structural stability and robustness of the assembly of
modules are profoundly influenced by the behaviour of module-tomodule connections. Some of the available connection systems are
shown in Fig. 4. This figure suggests that there is no particular type of
connection that is suitable for assembling modular components. The
question arises as to why the construction industry uses a variety of
connection types rather than a particular one. Undoubtedly, one reason
is that none of the existing connection types can satisfactorily meet the
integrity requirements of the modules. Maintaining structural integrity
through modular connections under extreme loading conditions is a key
challenge [116]. To ensure perfect assembly, the access for modular
connections could be made externally so that the workers can get a safe
and easy access to the connection points. There is no doubt that further
research on innovative interlocking systems and their abilities in the
automation of rapid assembly and disassembly will introduce more
efficient connection systems to the construction industry.
4.5. Intensive capital requirements
High initial capital is required to set up the manufacturing plant for
producing prefabricated building components [1,29,94,125]. It has
been reported that the biggest challenge responsible for the slow uptake
of prefabrication in China is the cost, and the overall cost intensity was
estimated to be 26–72% higher than that of conventional buildings
[126]. The use of prefabricated housing in Britain increases these costs
by 7–10% [1]. Pan et al. [127] investigated the UK housebuilders’ views
on the use of modular construction through a survey of 100 housebuilders and their results also suggest that the high initial cost is one of
the current barriers. For example, Laing O’Rourke has spent 104 million
pounds on a workshop factory while L&G are investing 55 million
pounds in their Leeds facility for setting up a modular construction
factory [128]. Jaillon and Poon [129] also indicated that the high initial cost is a major challenge to prefabrication in a dense urban environment. Mao et al. [105] identified the top three major barriers of
off-site construction, which also includes the high initial costs. A careful
4.3. Transportation difficulty
In off-site construction systems, the modules are required to be
transferred to the construction site for assembly. From an economic
point of view, manufacturers work to maximise the dimensions of
modules for transportation (up to 5.7 m wide and 12 m long). The
transportation route and method can restrict the weight and dimensions
of large modules, and their transportation can be complex and costly
(Fig. 3) [108–111]. The largest external dimensions of a full module
Fig. 3. Transportation of large modules: (a) road transport [112]; and (b) sea transport [108].
888
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 883–893
W. Ferdous et al.
Fig. 4. Different connection systems: (a) beam-to-beam bolted connections [117]; (b) plate and bolt connections [118]; (c) screw connections [46]; (d) interlocking
connection [116]; (e) adhesive-bonding [119]; (f) fastened connection [120]; (g) bonded connection [121]; (h) connection by adherence and friction [122]; (i) node
connections [123] and (j) bonded sleeve joint and bolted flange joint [124].
and reduced on-site labour costs can offset the high initial cost. Furthermore, the reduced interest charges on borrowed capital, savings on
consultants’ fees due to standardisation of modules, early start- up of
the client’s business are also anticipated to minimise the cost of modular construction.
This study identified the lack of design guidelines due to conflicts
consideration of the design aspects and advanced manufacturing can
minimise the overall cost of modular buildings. For example, improved
techniques and manufacturing numerous modules simultaneously can
save on materials, transportation and labour costs [93,130,131]. The
thermal comfort and microgrid integration of a building can greatly
reduce the operational costs [132]. In addition, the rapid construction
889
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 883–893
W. Ferdous et al.
prefabricated buildings with the aim of increasing modular construction from 3% to 15% of the total construction by 2025 [107,156]. In
North America, modular construction currently accounts for 3% and is
expected to increase to 5% of the new commercial construction by
2022. The highest level of the modular construction technique is its
application for commercial buildings followed by industrial, healthcare
and educational sectors, as well as lower applications in residential
sectors [157]. Moreover, modular buildings made from volumetric
modules are approximately 42% of the prefabricated building industry
in North America [158]. Buildings are responsible for 40% of primary
energy consumption in USA and they are targeting reducing buildingassociated greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2050 using modular
constructions as part of their major plans [159]. In Japan, the housing
sector is dominated by modular construction and over 150,000 houses
are constructed every year using this modern construction method [11].
Prefabricated modular buildings make up 70% of the construction industry in Sweden [156]. In UK, around 15,000 modular homes are
constructed each year, which is below the requirements to meet the
target of more than 100,000 ready-made homes by 2020. In a recent
survey, 67% of 230 house-builders said that off-site construction will
play a key role in the supply of new homes [128]. Therefore, it can be
concluded that prefabricated modular buildings will lead to the next
generation of housing.
with traditional design processes, limited skilled workers and potential
investors, transportation difficulties, lack of suitable interlocking connections between modules, and high initial costs as the major barriers
towards the potential growth of prefabricated modular buildings. In
addition, the inability for changes to be made during the construction
process has also restricted modular construction. It is interesting that
most of these barriers are not related to the product itself but mainly to
the lack of logistical support. To promote modular construction, the
aforementioned challenges must be addressed properly. This paper
provides suggestions to overcome these challenges to unlock the potential growth of modular construction in multi-storey buildings and to
increase acceptance and use by homeowners. The government needs to
create a favourable environment for modular construction and to attract the attention of potential investors. Therefore, it is necessary to
investigate the future opportunities of modular construction.
5. Future opportunities
Researchers are now investigating the capabilities of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) composites to replace the traditional timber,
concrete and steel materials in prefabricated building applications
[133–144]. Although some of these studies have explored the shortterm performance under static loads, their long-term behaviour and
performance under extreme loading condition have not been investigated extensively. The sustainability and life cycle cost modelling
are the two key aspects that needs further investigation [145]. Griffith
[146] indicated that the lack of understanding of the behaviour of new
materials in modular construction is responsible for inadequate performance of prefabricated building components. Brittleness or low
ductility is a major challenge of FRP materials. The bending performance of GFRP-wood sandwich beams under static loading has suggested that the pseudo-ductility of the beam can be increased by introducing a layer-based construction system [147]. An investigation on
the mechanical performance of a two-way modular FRP sandwich slab
system provided evidence of engineering the bending stiffness properties based on design requirements [142]. The structural behaviour of a
prefabricated composite wall system confirmed the potential of this
technology in residential modular construction [135,148,149]. The
post-fire mechanical performance of large-scale glass fibre reinforced
polymer (GFRP) structures assembled with prefabricated fire-resistant
panels has suggested that the modular GFRP multicellular slabs are able
to sustain approximately half of the structural stiffness and capacity
after 90 min of fire exposure [150]. Samani’s [151] study concluded
that the composite sandwich structures can provide higher specific
strength, better thermal insulation and lower environmental impacts
than a typical brick house while acoustic properties and fire safety still
need to be improved. Up to date, there is inadequate scientific research
undertaken to verify the benefit of using new composite materials in
modular construction, and thus most of the design engineers are relying
upon the experimental results to understand their performance [152].
An in-depth study on the modules manufactured from composite materials may provide a cost effective and durable solution to the prefabricated building industry. Recent investigations on the performance
of fibre composite prefabricated modules under different loading conditions are shown in Fig. 5.
Urbanization became more rapid due to the global spread of industry and technology. It is predicted that 60% of the total population
will be city dwellers by 2030, which is projected to 70% by 2050 [154].
It is also estimated that the global construction industry will concurrently expand by 70% to $12 trillion by 2020 to maintain the momentum [39]. To meet the increasing demand of residential and commercial buildings, the government is now prompting off-site
construction as a possible solution. The global modular construction
market is expected to grow over at a compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) of approximately 6% in the next five years (2018–2023) [155].
In Australia, the government and local industry are financing
6. Concluding remarks
This paper provides a critical review and systematic investigation of
the recent advancements, mechanical performances, challenges and
future prospects of modular buildings. It then provides suggestions
overcome different challenges in the wide adoption of modular buildings. From this systematic review, critical analysis, and prospective and
experience of the authors, the following conclusions are drawn:
• The
•
•
•
•
modular construction technique is widely implemented in
commercial buildings and with increasing applications in industrial,
healthcare, educational and residential sectors. Timber-framed
modules are suitable for medium-rise buildings while the construction of high-rise buildings may require concrete and steel modules.
Modular construction is commonly used in UK, Sweden, Japan and
USA with growing interest in Australia and China.
The prefabricated components have demonstrated satisfactory performance under static, dynamic impact, cyclic, seismic, blast, fire
and long-term sustained loading conditions. Using modular techniques, the material usage, waste, transport activities, noise and disruption, embodied energy, accidents, safety hazards, carbon dioxide
emissions and production hours can be reduced while productivity
can be increased.
Despite having well-documented benefits, the uptake rate of modular construction in the building industry has been slower than
anticipated. This study found that the uptake barriers are not related
to the product itself but mainly related to the lack of logistical
support.
The development of design guidelines, training of workers and increasing interest from investors together with better transportability
and reliable interlocking connections between modules will reduce
the cost and will unlock the potential growth of prefabricated
modular buildings.
Prefabricated modular buildings is the next generation of housing.
In Australia alone, modular construction currently accounts for 3%
and is expected to increase up to 10% by year 2030. Composite
materials have also emerged as an alternative to the traditional
construction materials for modular buildings.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the support from the ARC
890
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 883–893
W. Ferdous et al.
Fig. 5. Performance of fibre composite prefabricated modules: (a) FRP sandwich slab in two way bending [142]; (b) FRP wall under shear [135]; (c) steel-FRP
composite beam with blind bolts as shear connection [153]; and (d) FRP web-flange sandwich structure with prefabricated gypsum plaster board after fire [150].
Training Centre for Advanced Manufacturing of Prefabricated Housing
(IC150100023) and the Australian Research Council through the
Discovery scheme (DP180102208).
[19] Li Y, Zhang X. Web-based construction waste estimation system for building
construction projects. Autom Constr 2013;35:142–56.
[20] Tam VWY, Gao XF, Tam CM, Chan CH. New approach in measuring water absorption of recycled aggregates. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:364–9.
[21] W-h Lee, K-w Kim, S-h Lim. Improvement of floor impact sound on modular
housing for sustainable building. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:263–75.
[22] Jaillon L, Poon CS, Chiang YH. Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using
prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Manage
2009;29:309–20.
[23] Lawson RM, Ogden RG, Bergin R. Application of modular construction in high-rise
buildings. J Archit Eng 2012;18:148–54.
[24] Boafo FE, Kim J-H, Kim J-T. Performance of modular prefabricated architecture:
case study-based review and future pathways. Sustainability 2016;8:1–16.
[25] Gunawardena T. Behaviour of prefabricated modular buildings subjected to lateral
loads. The University of Melbourne; 2016.
[26] Gunawardena T, Ngo T, Mendis P, Aye L, Crawford R. Time efficient post-disaster
housing reconstruction with prefabricated modular structures. Australia: The
University of Melbourne; 2014.
[27] Online-Editor. Record heights in prefabrication: La Trobe Tower. Australia:
Australian Design Review, www.australiandesignreview.com. 2017.
[28] Zenga M, Javor A. Modular homes: the future has arrived. Fideli Publishing; 2008.
[29] Kamali M, Hewage K. Life cycle performance of modular buildings: a critical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;62:1171–83.
[30] Velamati S. Feasibility, benefits and challenges of modular construction in high
rise development in the united states: a developer’s perspective. USA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2012.
[31] Hickory. Record setting project becomes Australia's tallest prefabricated building
by using innovative Hickory delivery model, La Trobe Tower – Melbourne, www.
hickory.com.au. 2016.
[32] Lawson RM, Richards J. Modular design for high-rise buildings. Struct Build
2010;163:151–64.
[33] Thanoon WA, Jaafar MS, Razali M, Kadir A, Abdullah A, Ali A, et al. Development
of an innovative interlocking load bearing hollow block system in Malaysia. Constr
Build Mater 2004;18:445–54.
[34] Lawson RM, Ogden RG. ‘Hybrid’ light steel panel and modular systems. ThinWalled Struct 2008;46:720–30.
[35] Veljkovic M, Johansson B. Light steel framing for residential buildings. ThinWalled Struct 2006;44:1272–9.
[36] Aye L, Ngo T, Crawford RH, Gammampila R, Mendis P. Life cycle greenhouse gas
emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules. Energy
Build 2012;47:159–68.
[37] Lawson RM, Ogden RG, Pedreschi R, Grubb PJ, Popo-Ola SO. Developments in prefabricated systems in light steel and modular construction. Struct Eng
2005;83:28–35.
[38] Jaillon L, Poon CS. The evolution of prefabricated residential building systems in
Hong Kong: a review of the public and the private sector. Autom Constr
2009;18:239–48.
[39] Tahan N. Case study of an eight-story timber office building. Struct Sustain 2013.
[40] Sun J. Mid-rise timber construction in Finland – a study on material, technology
and market maturity Helsinki Metropolia. University of Applied Sciences; 2016.
[41] Professner H, Mathis C. LifeCycle tower—high-rise buildings in timber. Structures
References
[1] Boyd N, Khalfan MMA, Maqsood T. Off-site construction of apartment buildings. J
Archit Eng 2013;19:51–7.
[2] Badir YF, Kadir MRA, Hashim AH. Industrialized building systems construction in
Malaysia. J Archit Eng 2002;8:19–23.
[3] Kasperzyk C, Kim M-K, Brilakis I. Automated re-prefabrication system for buildings
using robotics. Auto Constr 2017;83:184–95.
[4] Rogan AL, Lawson RM, Bates-Brkljac N. Value and benefits assessment of modular
construction. London (UK): The Steel Construction Institute; 2000.
[5] Annan CD, Youssef MA, Naggar MHE. Effect of directly welded stringer-to-beam
connections on the analysis and design of modular steel building floors. Adv Struct
Eng 2009;12:373–83.
[6] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K. Structural response of modular buildings – an
overview. J Build Eng 2018;16:45–56.
[7] Murray-Parkes J, Bai Y, Styles A, Wang A. Handbook for the design of modular
structures, Modular Construction Codes Board. Australia: Monash University;
2017.
[8] Fathieh A, Mercan O. Seismic evaluation of modular steel buildings. Eng Struct
2016;122:83–92.
[9] Fifield LJ, Lomas KJ, Giridharan R, Allinson D. Hospital wards and modular construction: summertime overheating and energy efficiency. Build Environ
2018;141:28–44.
[10] Steinhardt DA, Manley K. Adoption of prefabricated housing–the role of country
context. Sustain Cities Soc 2016;22:126–35.
[11] Lawson RM, Grubb PJ, Prewer J, Trebilcock PJ. Modular construction using light
steel framing: an architect's guide. UK: The Steel Construction Institute; 1999.
[12] Li HX, Al-Hussein M, Lei Z, Ajweh Z. Risk identification and assessment of modular
construction utilizing fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and simulation. Can
J Civ Eng 2013;40:1184–95.
[13] Kildsgaard I, Jarnehammar A, Widheden A, Wall M. Energy and environmental
performance of multi-story apartment buildings built in timber construction using
passive house principles. Buildings 2013;3:258–77.
[14] Larsson M, Kaiser A, Girhammar UA. Multi-storey modular manoeuvres – innovative architectural stacking methodology based on three Swedish timber
building systems. World Conference on Timber Engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand. 2012. p. 63–72.
[15] Srisangeerthanan S, Hashemi MJ, Rajeev P, Gad E, Fernando S. Numerical study on
the effects of diaphragm stiffness and strength on the seismic response of multistory modular buildings. Eng Struct 2018;163:25–37.
[16] Lawson M, Ogden R, Goodier C. Design in modular construction. CRC Press; 2014.
[17] Arif M, Egbu C. Making a case for offsite construction in China. Constr Arch
Manage 2010;17:536–48.
[18] Pons O. Assessing the sustainability of prefabricated buildings. Eco-efficient Constr
Build Mater 2014:434–56.
891
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 883–893
W. Ferdous et al.
overheating in prefabricated timber housing. Build Environ 2016;103:21–35.
[81] Woo J. A post-occupancy evaluation of a modular multi-residential development in
Melbourne Australia. Procedia Eng 2017;180:365–72.
[82] Vox G, Blanco I, Schettini E. Green façades to control wall surface temperature in
buildings. Build Environ 2018;129:154–66.
[83] Landman M. Breaking through the barriers to sustainable building: Insights from
building professionals on government initiatives to promote environmentally
sound practices. USA: Tufts University; 1999.
[84] Nahmens I, Ikuma LH. Effects of lean construction on sustainability of modular
homebuilding. J Archit Eng 2012;18:155–63.
[85] Pérez-Lombard L, Ortiz J, Pout C. A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy Build 2008;40:394–8.
[86] Musa MF, Mohammad MF, Mahbub R, Yusof MR. Enhancing the quality of life by
adopting sustainable modular Industrialised Building System (IBS) in the
Malaysian construction industry. Procedia – Social Behav Sci 2014;153:79–89.
[87] Kandil A, El-Rayes K, El-Anwar O. Optimization research: enhancing the robustness of large-scale multiobjective optimization in construction. J Constr Eng
Manage 2010;136:17–25.
[88] Buyle M, Braet J, Audenaert A. Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;26:379–88.
[89] Kamali M, Hewage K. Development of performance criteria for sustainability
evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods. J Cleaner Prod
2017;142:3592–606.
[90] Guggemos AA, Horvath A. Comparison of environmental effects of steel- and
concrete-framed buildings. J Infrastruct Syst 2005;11:93–101.
[91] Marjaba GE, Chidiac SE. Sustainability and resiliency metrics for buildings – critical review. Build Environ 2016;101:116–25.
[92] Pons O, Wadel G. Environmental impacts of prefabricated school buildings in
Catalonia. Habitat Int 2011;35:553–63.
[93] Quale J, Eckelman MJ, Williams KW, Sloditskie G, Zimmerman JB. Construction
matters: comparing environmental impacts of building modular and conventional
homes in the United States. J Ind Ecol 2012;16:243–53.
[94] Rahman MM. Barriers of implementing modern methods of construction. J Manage
Eng 2014;30:69–77.
[95] White K, Campbell J, Cheong CD. Impact of poor building design and materials in
overseas and off-site constructed modular buildings – a case study of an IEQ investigation into the assembly of prefabricated buildings in a hot and humid climate. AIOH 33rd Annual Conference & Exhibition. Western Australia. 2015.
[96] Singleton M, Hutchinson J. The development of FRP composites in building construction. UK: Startlink Systems Ltd.; 2010.
[97] Bogenstätter U. Prediction and optimization of life-cycle costs in early design.
Build Res Info 2000;28:376–86.
[98] Blagojevich RR, Whitaker EE. Regulation of factory built structures in Illinois.
USA: Illinois Department of Public Health; 2007.
[99] Long J, Walker CP. State of North Carolina regulations for manufactured homes.
USA: Installation of Manufactured Homes; 2004.
[100] Yuan Z, Sun C, Wang Y. Design for manufacture and assembly-oriented parametric
design of prefabricated buildings. Autom Constr 2018;88:13–22.
[101] Lu Y, Wu Z, Chang R, Li Y. Building Information Modeling (BIM) for green
buildings: a critical review and future directions. Autom Constr 2017;83:134–48.
[102] Isaac S, Bock T, Stoliar Y. A methodology for the optimal modularization of
building design. Autom Constr 2016;65:116–24.
[103] Jaillon L, Poon CS. Design issues of using prefabrication in Hong Kong building
construction. Constr Manage Econ 2010;28:1025–42.
[104] Goodier C, Gibb A. Future opportunities for offsite in the UK. Constr Manage Econ
2007;25:585–95.
[105] Mao C, Shen Q, Pan W, Ye K. Major barriers to off-site construction: the developer’s perspective in China. J Manage Eng 2015;31:1–8.
[106] Mendis P, Ngo T. Unlocking the potential growth of Australia’s prefabricated
building industry. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne; 2017. p. 1–9.
[107] Khalfan MMA, Maqsood T. Current state of off-site manufacturing in Australian
and Chinese residential construction. J Constr Eng 2014;1–5.
[108] Wei Y, Wang DF, Liu JY, Yu CL, Cheng T, Zhang DG. Modularization technology
development prospects. Appl Mech Mater 2014;509:92–5.
[109] Martinez S, Jardon A, Navarro JM, Gonzalez P. Building industrialization: robotized assembly of modular products. Assem Autom 2008;28:134–42.
[110] Salama T, Salah A, Moselhi O. Configuration of hybrid modular construction for
residential buildings. Int J Inn, Manage Technol 2017;8:106–12.
[111] Schoenborn J. A case study approach to identifying the constraints and barriers to
design innovation for modular construction. USA: Virginia Tech; 2012.
[112] Rippon JA. The benefits and limitations of prefabricated home manufacturing in
North America. Canada: The University of British Columbia; 2011.
[113] Godbole S, Lam N, Mafas M, Fernando S, Gad E, Hashemi J. Dynamic loading on a
prefabricated modular unit of a building during road transportation. J Build Eng
2018;18:260–9.
[114] Liu Z, Gu Z, Bai Y, Zhong N. Intermodal transportation of modular structure units.
World Rev Intermodal Transport Res 2018;7(2):99–123.
[115] Nester TM, Haddow AG, Shaw SW, Brevick JE, Borowski VJ. Vibration reduction
in a variable displacement engine using pendulum absorbers. SAE Technical
Paper. 2003. 2003-01-1484.
[116] Sharafi P, Mortazavi M, Samali B, Ronagh H. Interlocking system for enhancing
the integrity of multi-storey modular buildings. Autom Constr 2018;85:263–72.
[117] Chen Z, Liu J, Yu Y. Experimental study on interior connections in modular steel
buildings. Eng Struct 2017;147:625–38.
[118] Park K-S, Moon J, Lee S-S, Bae K-W, Roeder CW. Embedded steel column-tofoundation connection for a modular structural system. Eng Struct
Congress: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2012. p. 1980–90.
[42] Staib G, Dörrhöfer A, Rosenthal M. Components and systems: modular construction: design, structure, new technologies. 2008.
[43] Park HK, Ock J-H. Unit modular in-fill construction method for high-rise buildings.
KSCE J Civ Eng 2016;20:1201–10.
[44] Lawson RM, Ogden RG. Hybrid systems in light steel and modular construction.
International conference on adaptable building structures, The Netherlands. 2006.
[45] Asiz A, Smith I. Connection system of massive timber elements used in horizontal
slabs of hybrid tall buildings. J Struct Eng 2011;137:1390–3.
[46] Loss C, Piazza M, Zandonini R. Connections for steel–timber hybrid prefabricated
buildings. Part II: innovative modular structures. Constr Build Mater
2016;122:796–808.
[47] Jagt SB-vd. Examples of timber-frame buildings in the Netherlands. 2009.
[48] Lassila A. Oopeaa office for peripheral architecture: Puukuokka housing block,
Finland. 2016.
[49] McConnell JR, Fahnestock LA. Innovations in steel design: research needs for
global sustainability. J Struct Eng 2015;141:1–7.
[50] Wellman P. Record-breaking Croydon tower gets the go-ahead. UK: Radius; 2017.
[51] Bylund D. Enabling prefabricated timber building systems for commercial construction. Melbourne (Australia): Wood Solutions; 2017. p. 1–18.
[52] Hausammann R, Franke S. A modular timber construction system made with
hollow-box elements. Quebec City (Canada): WCTE; 2014.
[53] Landel P. Modern timber construction in Sweden. Copenhagen: SP Wood Building
Technology; 2015. p. 1–53.
[54] Reynolds T, Enjily V. Timber frame buildings: a guide to the construction process.
UK: BRE Centre for Timber Technology and Construction; 2006.
[55] Green E, Forster WP. More better: an evaluation of the potential of alternative
approaches to inform housing delivery in Wales. Cardiff 2017.
[56] Al-Kodmany K, Ali M. An overview of structural & aesthetic developments in tall
buildings using exterior bracing & diagrid systems. Int J High-Rise Build
2016;5:271–91.
[57] Slimdek. Multi-storey residential buildings using steel. UK: The Steel Construction
Institute; 2003.
[58] Morby A. Europe’s tallest modular tower rises at Wembley. Construction Enquirer.
UK: Richard Southall; 2017.
[59] Gardiner P. Construction of Soho apartments Darwin using volumetric modular
construction. Darwin: Engineers Australia; 2016.
[60] Cao X, Li X, Zhu Y, Zhang Z. A comparative study of environmental performance
between prefabricated and traditional residential buildings in China. J Cleaner
Prod 2015;109:131–43.
[61] Bathon LA, Bletz O, Schmidt J. Hurricane proof buildings – An innovative solution
using prefabricated modular wood-concrete-composite elements. The 9th World
Conference on Timber Engineering (WCTE). Portland, Oregon, USA. 2006.
[62] Smith I, Asiz A, Gupta G. High performance modular wood construction systems.
Fredericton (Canada): University of New Brunswick; 2007. p. 1–151.
[63] Sezen H, Shamsai M. High-strength concrete columns reinforced with prefabricated cage system. J Struct Eng 2008;134:750–7.
[64] Lukaszewska E, Fragiacomo M, Johnsson H. Laboratory tests and numerical analyses of prefabricated timber-concrete composite floors. J Struct Eng
2010;136:46–55.
[65] Lukaszewska E, Johnsson H, Fragiacomo M. Performance of connections for prefabricated timber–concrete composite floors. Mater Struct 2008;41:1533–50.
[66] Loss C, Piazza M, Zandonini R. Connections for steel–timber hybrid prefabricated
buildings. Part I: experimental tests. Constr Build Mater 2016;122:781–95.
[67] Hu F, Shi G, Bai Y, Shi Y. Seismic performance of prefabricated steel beam-tocolumn connections. J Constr Steel Res 2014;102:204–16.
[68] Lukaszewska E, Fragiacomo M. Static and dynamic (vibration) performance of
composite beams with prefabricated concrete slab. World Conference on timber
Engineering (WCTE). 2010.
[69] Shim C-S, Chung Y-S, Yoon J-Y. Cyclic behavior of prefabricated circular composite columns with low steel ratio. Eng Struct 2011;33:2525–34.
[70] Gunawardena T, Ngo TD, Mendis P. Behaviour of multi-storey prefabricated
modular buildings under seismic loads. Earthquakes Struct 2016;11:1061–76.
[71] Gunawardena T, Ngo T, Mendis P, Alfano J. Innovative flexible structural system
using prefabricated modules. J Archit Eng 2016;22:1–7.
[72] Chen W, Ye J, Bai Y, Zhao X-L. Full-scale fire experiments on load-bearing coldformed steel walls lined with different panels. J Constr Steel Res 2012;79:242–54.
[73] Chen W, Ye J, Bai Y, Zhao X-L. Improved fire resistant performance of load bearing
cold-formed steel interior and exterior wall systems. Thin-Walled Struct
2013;73:145–57.
[74] Chen W, Ye J, Bai Y, Zhao X-L. Thermal and mechanical modeling of load-bearing
cold-formed steel wall systems in fire. J Struct Eng 2014;140(8):A4013002.
[75] Arslan MH, Korkmaz HH, Gulay FG. Damage and failure pattern of prefabricated
structures after major earthquakes in Turkey and shortfalls of the Turkish
Earthquake code. Eng Fail Anal 2006;13:537–57.
[76] Harrison B F. Blast resistant modular buildings for the petroleum and chemical
processing industries. J Hazard Mater 2003;104:31–8.
[77] Song T-Y, Tao Z, Razzazzadeh A, Han L-H, Zhou K. Fire performance of blind
bolted composite beam to column joints. J Constr Steel Res 2017;132:29–42.
[78] Nguyen QT, Ngo T, Tran P, Mendis P, Zobec M, Ayea L. Fire performance of
prefabricated modular units using organoclay/glass fibre reinforced polymer
composite. Constr Build Mater 2016;129:204–15.
[79] Ferdous W, Ngo TD, Nguyen KTQ, Ghazlan A, Mendis P, Manalo A. Effect of fireretardant ceram powder on the properties of phenolic-based GFRP composites.
Compos B Eng 2018;155:414–24.
[80] Adekunle TO, Nikolopoulou M. Thermal comfort, summertime temperatures and
892
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 883–893
W. Ferdous et al.
[139] Ferdous W, Manalo A, Aravinthan T. Effect of beam orientation on the static behaviour of phenolic core sandwich composites with different shear span-to-depth
ratios. Compos Struct 2017;168:292–304.
[140] Wu C, Zhang Z, Bai Y. Connections of tubular GFRP wall studs to steel beams for
building construction. Compos B Eng 2016;95:64–75.
[141] Ferdous W, Manalo A, Khennane A, Kayali O. Geopolymer concrete-filled pultruded composite beams – concrete mix design and application. Cem Concr
Compos 2015;58:1–13.
[142] Satasivam S, Bai Y, Yang Y, Zhu L, Zhao X-L. Mechanical performance of two-way
modular FRP sandwich slabs. Compos Struct 2018;184:904–16.
[143] Ferdous W, Manalo A, Van Erp G, Aravinthan T, Ghabraie K. Evaluation of an
innovative composite railway sleeper for a narrow-gauge track under static load. J
Compos Constr 2018;22:1–13.
[144] Ferdous W, Manalo A. Failures of mainline railway sleepers and suggested remedies – review of current practice. Eng Fail Anal 2014;44:17–35.
[145] Kamali M, Hewage K, Milani AS. Life cycle sustainability performance assessment
framework for residential modular buildings: aggregated sustainability indices.
Build Environ 2018;138:21–41.
[146] Griffith A. Quality assurance in building. Basingstoke (Hampshire): McMillan
Education Ltd, Houndmills; 1990.
[147] Qi Y, Fang H, Shi H, Liu W, Qi Y, Bai Y. Bending performance of GFRP-wood
sandwich beams with lattice-web reinforcement in flatwise and sidewise directions. Constr Build Mater 2017;156:532–45.
[148] Ferdous W, Bai Y, Almutairi AD, Satasivam S, Jeske J. Modular assembly of waterretaining walls using GFRP hollow profiles: components and connection performance. Compos Struct 2018;194:1–11.
[149] Ferdous W, Almutairi AD, Huang Y, Bai Y. Short-term flexural behaviour of concrete filled pultruded GFRP cellular and tubular sections with pin-eye connections
for modular retaining wall construction. Compos Struct 2018;206:1–10.
[150] Zhang L, Bai Y, Qi Y, Fang H, Wu B. Post-fire mechanical performance of modular
GFRP multicellular slabs with prefabricated fire resistant panels. Compos B Eng
2018;143:55–67.
[151] Samani P, Mendes A, Leal V, Guedes JM, Correia N. A sustainability assessment of
advanced materials for novel housing solutions. Build Environ 2015;92:182–91.
[152] Toro WM, Salenikovich A, Mohammad M, Beauregard R. Racking and bending test
for prefabricated wall panels. Maderas: Ciencia y Tecnologia. 2007;9:3–14.
[153] Satasivam S, Feng P, Bai Y, Caprani C. Composite actions within steel-FRP composite beam systems with novel blind bolt shear connections. Eng Struct
2017;138:63–73.
[154] Who UH. Hidden cities: unmasking and overcoming health inequities in urban
settings: part one – the dawn of an urban world. Japan: World Health
Organization; 2010.
[155] Anand A, Koshy A, Arora R. Modular construction market research report –
forecast to 2023, UK. 2017.
[156] Harrison G. The future is prefabricated. Australia: The University of Melbourne;
2018.
[157] CIC. The growth potential for modular buildings. Construction Intelligence Center
(CIC); 2017.
[158] Ramaji IJ, Memari AM. Information exchange standardization for BIM application
to multi-story modular residential buildings. AEI 2015:13–24.
[159] Wang N, Phelan PE, Gonzalez J, Harris C, Henze GP, Hutchinson R, et al. Ten
questions concerning future buildings beyond zero energy and carbon neutrality.
Build Environ 2017;119:169–82.
2016;110:244–57.
[119] Reising RMW, Shahrooz BM, Hunt VJ, Neumann AR, Helmicki AJ, Hastak M. Close
look at construction issues and performance of four fiber-reinforced polymer
composite bridge decks. J Compos Constr 2004;8:33–42.
[120] Zhou A, Coleman JT, Temeles AB, Lesko JJ, Cousins TE. Laboratory and field
performance of cellular fiber-reinforced polymer composite bridge deck systems. J
Compos Constr 2005;9:458–67.
[121] Zhou A, Keller T. Joining techniques for fiber reinforced polymer composite bridge
deck systems. Compos Struct 2005;69:336–45.
[122] Papastergiou D, Lebet JP. New steel-concrete connection for prefabricated composite bridges. Stahlbau 2011;80:894–903.
[123] Manalo A, Aravinthan T, Fam A, Benmokrane B. State-of-the-art review on FRP
sandwich systems for lightweight civil infrastructure. J Compos Constr
2016;21:1–16.
[124] Qiu C, Ding C, He X, Zhang L, Bai Y. Axial performance of steel splice connection
for tubular FRP column members. Compos Struct 2018;189:498–509.
[125] Chiang Y-H, Chan EH-W, Lok LK-L. Prefabrication and barriers to entry—a case
study of public housing and institutional buildings in Hong Kong. Habitat Int
2006;30:482–99.
[126] Hong J, Shen GQ, Li Z, Zhang B, Zhang W. Barriers to promoting prefabricated
construction in China: a cost–benefit analysis. J Cleaner Prod 2018;172:649–60.
[127] Pan W, Gibb AGF, Dainty ARJ. Perspectives of UK housebuilders on the use of
offsite modern methods of construction. Constr Manage Econ 2007;25:183–94.
[128] Pinsent-Masons. Modular construction in UK housing – an overview of the market,
the players and the issues, UK. 2017.
[129] Jaillon L, Poon CS. Sustainable construction aspects of using prefabrication in
dense urban environment: a Hong Kong case study. Constr Manage Econ
2008;26:953–66.
[130] Arashpour M, Bai Y, Aranda-mena G, Bab-Hadiashar A, Hosseini R, Kalutara P.
Optimizing decisions in advanced manufacturing of prefabricated products: theorizing supply chain configurations in off-site construction. Autom Constr
2017;84:146–53.
[131] Arashpour M, Kamat V, Bai Y, Wakefield R, Abbasi B. Optimization modeling of
multi-skilled resources in prefabrication: theorizing cost analysis of process integration in off-site construction. Autom Constr 2018;95:1–9.
[132] Lešić V, Martinčević A, Vašak M. Modular energy cost optimization for buildings
with integrated microgrid. Appl Energy 2017;197:14–28.
[133] Ferdous W, Manalo A, Aravinthan T, Fam A. Flexural and shear behaviour of
layered sandwich beams. Constr Build Mater 2018;173:429–42.
[134] Ferdous W, Manalo A, Aravinthan T. Bond behaviour of composite sandwich panel
and epoxy polymer matrix: Taguchi design of experiments and theoretical predictions. Constr Build Mater 2017;145:76–87.
[135] Manalo A. Structural behaviour of a prefabricated composite wall system made
from rigid polyurethane foam and Magnesium Oxide board. Constr Build Mater
2013;41:642–53.
[136] Ferdous W, Manalo A, Van Erp G, Aravinthan T, Kaewunruen S, Remennikov A.
Composite railway sleepers – recent developments, challenges and future prospects. Compos Struct 2015;134:158–68.
[137] Nguyen QT, Tran P, Ngo TD, Tran A, Mendis P. Experimental and computational
investigations on fire resistance of GFRP composite for building façade. Compos B
Eng 2014;62:218–29.
[138] Ferdous W, Manalo A, Aravinthan T, Van Erp G. Properties of epoxy polymer
concrete matrix: effect of resin-to-filler ratio and determination of optimal mix for
composite railway sleepers. Constr Build Mater 2016;124:287–300.
893