Structures: Huu-Tai Thai, Tuan Ngo, Brian Uy

Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures
A review on modular construction for high-rise buildings

Huu-Tai Thai a, *, Tuan Ngo a, Brian Uy b
a
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
b
School of Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Modular construction is considered as a game-changing technology since it offers faster construction, safer
Modular construction manufacturing, better quality control, and lower environmental impacts compared with the traditional onsite
Modular high-rise building construction. These benefits can be maximised in high-rise buildings due to their inherently topological modular
Inter-module connection
form and the increased number of repeatable modules. However, current applications of modular construction
Progressive collapse and structural robustness
Modular design
for high-rise buildings are very limited due to the lack of strong structural systems and joining techniques to
ensure structural integrity, overall stability, and robustness of an entirely modular building. In addition, the
unavailability of design guidelines also inhibits the construction industry in implementing such technology. With
recent advancements in structural systems and materials, there is great potential for real world applications of
modular construction in high-rise buildings. This paper presents a critical review of recent innovations in
modular construction technology for high-rise buildings with an emphasis on structural systems, joining tech
niques, progressive collapse and structural robustness. The developments of design codes for modular con
struction are also discussed. The paper concludes by highlighting the technical challenges that hinder the
widespread adoption of modular construction, and proposing potential solutions for future research. This review
paper is expected to be a complete reference for experts, researchers and professionals in this field of study.
1. Introduction construction since it allows for 70% to 95% of a building [13] to be

prefabricated in a factory before transporting it for onsite assembly.
Prefabrication construction refers to a construction process where Therefore, this method is believed to shape the future of the construction
building components are fabricated in a factory and transported to a industry [14–16]. This paper will focus on modular construction, also
construction site for installation [1]. It offers significant benefits over known as modular integrated construction (MiC) in Hong Kong [17–20],
traditional onsite construction such as faster and safer manufacturing, permanent modular construction (PMC) in US [21], and prefabricated
better quality control and lower environmental impacts [2–5], thereby prefinished volumetric construction (PPVC) in Singapore [22].
leading to sustainability benefits in terms of material efficiency, reduced There are three main construction approaches for stacking modular
onsite waste (up to 90% [6]) and improved working conditions [7,8]. units based on core, podium and infilled frame systems [23] as shown in
The use of modular construction technologies can reduce construction Fig. 1. In the core-based approach (Fig. 1a), all modules are clustered
time by 50% and save cost by 20% based on a case study of recent around one or more stability cores. The modular unit is designed to resist
projects [9]. The concept of prefabrication construction is not new, but only vertical gravity loads over the full height of the building, whilst the
its technology, economic demands and changing mindsets have attrac lateral forces from wind and earthquake actions are separately resisted
ted an unprecedented wave of interest and investment [9]. It is expected by the cores. Therefore, the lateral diaphragms, as well as the connec
to provide a solution to the affordable housing crisis by means of tions between the modules and cores should be strong enough to transfer
providing housing supply quickly with fewer dollars [10]. Based on the the lateral loads to the core structure [24–26]. The core can be con
degree of prefabrication, there are three classes of prefabricated con structed from pre-cast concrete or cast-in-situ steel–concrete composite
struction: 1D single element, 2D panelised system and 3D volumetric walls, and the building height can be maximised by providing additional
system [11,12]. Panelised and volumetric construction, also known as bracing systems within the floors and ceilings. In the podium-based
modular construction, is the most efficient class of prefabricated method (see Fig. 1b), the modular unit is placed on the top of a
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H.-T. Thai).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.09.070
Received 27 January 2020; Accepted 28 September 2020
Available online 7 October 2020
2352-0124/© 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.-T. Thai et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
podium or platform structure which is designed as a traditional steel, 2. Applications of modular technologies for high-rise buildings
concrete or hybrid steel–concrete structure. The podium acts as a
foundation for the modular units which can be stacked or clustered Modular construction has been widely used for low-rise buildings
around a core for taller buildings. This method is particularly suitable worldwide [42], particularly in UK [43], North America [44], China
for mixed use buildings where the podium structure can provide open [45–47], Singapore [48] and Australia [45,49]. Despite the technical
space for retail or commercial use or underground car parks [27]. In the challenges in implementing modular construction technology in high-
infilled frame method, modular units are placed between the beams and rise buildings, several modular high-rise buildings have been built in
columns of a primary framing structure [28–30] as shown in Fig. 1c. recent years due to advancements in manufacturing and material tech
Since the primary framing structure is constructed onsite by conven nology. However, the number of modular high-rise buildings worldwide
tional methods, the overall stability of modular buildings is ensured is still limited (less than 1%) [38]. Only ten of the world’s tallest
[31]. modular buildings were reviewed herein as summarised in Table 1. It
Modular construction is preferred in structures with repeated units can be seen that most of the modular high-rise buildings built with 3D
such as apartments, schools, offices, dormitories, hotels and hospitals volumetric modules are based on steel, whilst concrete is commonly
[35]. The benefits of modular construction will be maximised for high- used in modular high-rise buildings built by a combination of penalised
rise applications due to the increased number of repeated modules [36]. and volumetric methods.
There has been a growing trend in the use of modular construction in
Australia, UK, Singapore and US where labour costs and housing
shortages are of significant concern [9]. Although modular construction 2.1. Modular high-rise buildings in Australia
has been extensively applied for low-rise buildings over the last three
decades [21], its application for high-rise buildings is still limited (less Although adopting modular building techniques slower in Australia
than 1% [37,38]). This is because the construction industry is not than international counterparts in North America, Europe and Asia, the
confident and unfamiliar with implementing such technology due to a Australian construction industry is now experiencing rapid growth in
lack of (i) design guidelines, (ii) strong inter-module jointing techniques, modular construction [50]. This is evidenced by the fact that four out of
and (iii) sufficient understanding of the structural behaviour, global ten of the world’s tallest modular buildings were constructed in
stability and structural robustness of modular buildings [36]. A recent Australia in the last five years as shown in Table 1. Notable among them
theoretical study [19] confirmed the feasibility of extending modular is Collins House in Melbourne which currently sets a new record as the
construction to high-rise buildings if the above-mentioned technical world’s tallest modular building with 60 storeys.
challenges are resolved. Therefore, current research trends of modular Three out of the ten tallest modular buildings in the world were
high-rise buildings are focused on tackling these technical challenges. recently constructed in Australia (all located in Melbourne) as shown in
This paper will explore recent innovations in modular construction Fig. 2 using a special structural unit called Hickory Building System
technologies for high-rise buildings. The review will focus on (i) recent (HBS) developed by Hickory group (a pioneer in modular construction
applications of modular technologies for high-rise buildings, (ii) struc in Australia) for high-rise prefabricated buildings [51]. HBS is a state-of-
tural systems for high-rise buildings, (iii) inter-module joining tech the-art system that integrates the core, shear walls and facades of a
niques, (iv) progressive collapse and structural robustness of modular building into the structure [51]. The innovative HBS system is composed
buildings, (v) and structural design guidelines for modular buildings. of various precast panelised modules (e.g., load bearing wall, elevator
Finally, future recommendations to resolve existing technical challenges and stair cores, and lightweight concrete floors) connected onsite by wet
of modular construction are provided. It should be noted that recent joints [52] as shown in Fig. 3b. Fig. 3a shows a typical module of the HBS
reviews on modular construction were mainly focused other aspects system with the longest one being 17 m and weighing 26 tonnes. The use
associated with the structural performance [39], challenges and op of HBS system not only reduces construction time (from 30% to 50%
portunities of modular buildings [40], and performance of inter-module compared with the conventional construction method) and minimises
connections [26,41]. Consequently, this review paper will be a complete material and energy waste, but also maximises quality and safety [53].
reference for experts, researchers and professionals in this field of study. Fig. 2a shows a 60-storey Collins House project completed in 2019
using the podium-based approach. The podium structure was built with
Fig. 1. Construction methods for modular high-rise buildings (a) Core [32] (b) Podium [33] (c) Infilled frame [34].
1266
Table 1
Ten of the world’s tallest modular buildings.
No. Project Storey Year Location Modular type Material Highlight
1 Collins House 60 2019 Melbourne, 2D panel and 3D Concrete The tallest building combined both penalised and
Australia volume volumetric methods
2 J57 Mini Sky City tower 57 2015 Changsha, China 2D panel Steel The fastest built buildings upon completion (in 19 days)
3 Croydon Tower 44 2020 London, UK 3D volume Steel The tallest volumetric modular building upon
completion
4 Atira Student 44 2018 Melbourne, 2D panel and 3D Concrete Combining both penalised and volumetric methods
Accommodation Australia volume
5 La Trobe Tower 44 2016 Melbourne, 2D panel and 3D Concrete Combining both penalised and volumetric methods
Australia volume
6 Clement Canopy 40 2019 Singapore 3D volume Concrete The tallest volumetric modular building
7 B2 Tower 32 2016 New York, USA 3D volume Steel The tallest volumetric modular building upon
completion
8 T30 Tower 30 2011 Xiangyin, China 2D panel Steel The fastest built buildings upon completion (in 15 days)
9 Apex House 29 2017 London, UK 3D volume Steel The tallest volumetric modular building in Europe
10 SOHO Tower 29 2014 Darwin, Australia 3D volume Steel The tallest volumetric modular building upon
completion
Fig. 2. Prefabricated high-rise buildings in Australia using innovative HBS systems [51].
concrete by the conventional method up to level 14, whilst the Tower, which was also built in Australia using the structural systems
remaining storeys were constructed using HBS method [55]. The project shown in Fig. 4a. This building also set a new record for the world tallest
was completed in 29 months which is 30% faster than conventional modular buildings being built using the volumetric modular method
methods. The second tallest modular building in Australia is Atira Stu upon its completion in 2014 [59,60]. SOHO tower consists of 29 storeys
dent Accommodation completed in 2018 as shown in Fig. 2b. The constructed using PPVC podium-based method (see Fig. 1b). The
building also received the Construction Award of Excellence by the podium structure consists of a basement and eight levels were built with
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) for its innovative concrete using the conventional construction method, whilst the
and efficient construction method [56] (30% faster than conventional remaining floors were constructed on the podium using steel modules as
construction methods [57]). The building consists of 285 HBS modules shown in Fig. 4b. These modules have dimensions of 10 × 4.2 × 3.9 m
(size of 12 × 3 × 3 m and weight of 20 tonnes [52]) installed from the and a weight of 22 tonnes, and are composed of a lightweight concrete
ground floor. Another modular building constructed in Australia using slab, concrete ceiling beams and steel columns which were specially
HBS systems is La Trobe Tower as shown in Fig. 2c. The La Trobe project designed to act as permanent formwork for concrete fill for developing
is a 44-level residential tower completed within 19 months (30% faster onsite composite columns (see Fig. 4b).
than conventional construction methods [58]). The first three levels of
the building were constructed by the conventional method, whilst the
remaining levels were constructed by the modular method using HBS 2.2. Modular high-rise buildings in China
system with the largest module having dimensions of 17 × 4.5 × 3 m and
weighing 22 tonnes [54]. The application of modular construction in high-rise buildings in
The tenth tallest modular building in the world (Table 1) is SOHO China was pioneered by Broad Sustainable Building (BSB), a subsidiarity
of Broad group, in the last decade with the development of an advanced
1267
Fig. 3. A typical HBS modular unit and wet joint (a) A typical HBS modular unit [54] (b) Wet joint [52].
Fig. 4. SOHO Tower: (a) completion [59]; (b) modular unit [60].
2D penalised construction technique for steel buildings. In this tech including structural members (floor cassettes and framing systems),
nique, more than 90% of the components of a steel building [61] exterior walls, and mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems
including structural members such as floor cassettes and framing sys were prefabricated in the BSB central factory (see Fig. 7) for four and a
tems were fabricated in BSB central factory before transportation for half months [62]. The assembly of T30 and J57 Mini Sky towers is
onsite assembly using bolting methods. illustrated in Fig. 8.
The penalised construction technique developed by BSB has been
tested in over 30 pilot and commercial projects including a 30-storey
hotel (T30 Tower) shown in Fig. 5 and a 57-storey apartment (J57 2.3. Modular high-rise buildings in Singapore
Mini Sky Tower) shown in Fig. 6. Both T30 and J57 Mini Sky towers are
currently in the list of ten world’s tallest modular buildings summarised In recent years, the Singapore government has expended great efforts
in Table 1. The most remarkable feature of these towers is that they have to encourage the use of modular construction for residential housing
set the world record for the fastest built buildings. The T30 tower was projects. Since 2014, it has been mandatory to use modular construction
completed within only 15 days, whilst the J57 Mini Sky tower was in public residential buildings [22]. A series of guidebooks on design for
completed within just 19 days (with a rate of three floors per day). In manufacture and assembly (DfMA) technologies were also recently
order to construct the J57 Mini Sky tower, a total of 2,736 modules published by Building and Construction Authority of Singapore [67–70]
to provide practical guidance to practitioners on how modular buildings
1268
Fig. 5. T30 Tower [63]: (a) during construction; (b) completion.
Fig. 6. J57 Mini Sky Tower [64]: (a) during construction; (b) completion.
Fig. 7. BSB factory producing panelised modules [61].
could be designed, fabricated and assembled to achieve the full benefits industry in moving towards the adoption of DfMA to enhance quality
of DfMA methods. In addition, the Singapore government also provided and productivity [71]. A list of current modular construction projects in
significant financial assistance to support Singapore’s construction Singapore is reported in Refs. [36,48], which indicated that most of
1269
Fig. 8. Installation of panelised modules: (a) frame installation for J57 Mini Sky [65]; (b) frame installation for T30 [66]; (c) floor cassette installation for T30 [66].
current modular buildings were constructed up to 20 storeys high [36]. module shapes [73] using the core-based method. Each module was
Only one project completed recently (Clement Canopy Tower) was prefabricated in an off-site factory with approximately 85% finishes for
constructed up to 40 storeys and became the tallest modular building in walls, floors, ceilings and MEP systems before being transported to the
Singapore. This tower set a new record for the world tallest concrete construction site and attached to the concrete core using wet joints as
building constructed using PPVC method [72]. The Clement Canopy shown in Fig. 9b. This project demonstrated the benefits of using the
tower is also one of the world’s tallest modular buildings as summarised PPVC method in terms of saving construction time (30%) and reducing
in Table 1. environmental impact (up to 70% onsite waste 30% off-site waste) [72].
The Clement Canopy project comprising twin towers with 505 resi
dential units as shown in Fig. 9a was constructed from 1,899 pre
fabricated prefinished volumetric concrete modules with 48 different
Fig. 9. Clement Canopy Tower constructed by PPVC method [74].
1270
2.4. Modular high-rise buildings in the UK modular high-rise buildings exceeded 10 storeys with an increased use
of steel modules was observed in recently years in US [79], the number
The UK has pioneered the development of modular construction of modular high-rise buildings over 20 storeys was quite limited. Only
technologies for high-rise buildings. Case studies on 12, 17 and 25 storey two completed modular buildings exceeding 20 storeys have been
modular high rise buildings were also presented by Lawson et al. [35]. identified, including the 32-storey B2 tower in New York completed in
This review only focuses on the ten tallest modular buildings in the 2016 which appears in the list of ten of the world’s tallest modular
world, which are summarised in Table 1, including Croydon Tower (44 buildings summarised in Table 1.
storeys) and Apex House (29 storeys). The B2 Tower project located in New York consists of 363 apart
The Croydon Tower project is composed of a 44-storey and 38-storey ments which are stacked into a 32-storey building [80] as shown in
residential tower with a total of 546 apartments. The tower is currently Fig. 12. Upon completion in 2016, B2 tower became the world’s tallest
under construction as shown in Fig. 10. When completed in early next volumetric modular building [81]. The building was constructed using
year, the tower will set a new record as the world’s tallest modular the podium-based method with 930 steel modular units stacked on a
building using PPVC method [75]. The tower was built using a combined podium structure, which was constructed with conventional concrete
core- and podium-based method with the twin cores and podium basement slabs, concrete perimeter walls and steel frame plinth [82] as
structure being conventionally constructed in concrete. The installation shown in Fig. 12a. A series of braced modular steel frames were
of modules commenced in February 2019 with 38 modules (95% finish) employed to resist the lateral wind load and seismic loads (see Fig. 12a).
per floor sitting on a 1.8 m thick concrete podium from the second floor A typical chassis frame of steel modules shown in Fig. 12b is composed
[76]. There is a total of 1,525 modules in 23 different configurations. of SHS columns (typically 150 × 150 mm), rectangular hollow section
Each module is made from corner-supported steel frames as shown in (RHS) floor beams (typically 200 × 100 mm), RHS ceiling beams
Fig. 12b with 60 mm thick square hollow sections (SHS). The sizes of the (typically 100 × 100 mm) and RHS intermediate posts (typically 50 ×
SHS columns of the steel modules vary from 300 mm (at the base module 75 mm) [83]. The floor and roof systems of the module are also made of
of the building) to 150 mm (at the top module of the building) [75]. This steel, thereby making the module quite light compared with its con
project also demonstrated the benefits of modular construction over ventional concrete counterpart (65% lighter) [82]. Due to a dispute
traditional construction methods by saving 30% construction time and between the developer and its partner, the construction of the tower was
reducing 80% construction waste [76]. delayed and took up to four years to complete.
Another modular building in the UK which appears in the list of ten
of the world’s tallest modular buildings in Table 1 is Apex House in 3. Structural systems for modular high-rise buildings
London shown in Fig. 11. This is a 29-storey student accommodation
with two eight-storey wings on two sides, which was constructed by the A modular unit is the primary load-bearing component of modular
core-based method of volumetric modular construction. A total of 679 buildings. Various structural forms of modules for modular high-rise
modules in eight different configurations were tacked on the transfer buildings have been developed and can be generally categorised into
concrete slab at the second level [77]. Each steel module was incorpo two types: 2D panelised systems and 3D volumetric systems. The 2D
rated with thick corner posts to transfer the vertical loads to the foun panelised system usually requires more assembly onsite, whereas the 3D
dation. The larger modules with steel bracing structures were installed volumetric system is more prefinished off-site. The assembly work of a
at the end of the two wings of the tower, whilst the smaller modules were 2D panelised system is more complex than that of a 3D volumetric
clustered around the concrete core (7.5 m square with a thickness of 0.3 system because it requires more internal finishing. However, the 2D
m). All steel modules were connected using onsite welding. panelised system offers greater flexibility than the 3D volumetric system
[9]. A combination of a 2D panelised system and 3D volumetric system,
i.e. hybrid system, can also be used in modular tall buildings to fully
2.5. Modular high-rise buildings in the US
achieve the benefits of each system. This hybrid system has been widely
used in Australia by Hickory group through the development of HBS
In terms of modular construction innovation and advancement,
systems for three out of ten of the world’s tallest modular buildings
North America lags behinds several other countries like the UK,
listed in Table 1. The 3D system is most suitable for projects with a high
Australia, Singapore and China [79]. Although a growing number of
Fig. 10. Croydon Tower [75].
1271
Fig. 11. Apex House: (a) during construction; (b) completion; (c) typical modular unit [78].
Fig. 12. B2 Tower: (a) modular structural scheme [80]; (b) typical modular unit [80]; (c) during construction [84]; (d) completion [85].
level of repeatability. Based on a case study of a four-storey building, 3.1. Panelised systems
McKinsey [9] reported that the use of a 3D system could save 24% cost
compared with the traditional construction method, whilst the corre The 2D panelised systems are popularly used in China and Australia
sponding savings of the hybrid and 2D systems are 20% and 17%, especially for modular high-rise buildings. In China, the development of
respectively. 2D panelised systems was pioneered by BSB with steel floor cassettes
and steel frames as shown in Fig. 13. These steel panels are connected
1272
Fig. 13. 2D panelised steel system: (a) floor cassettes; (b) frame [86].
onsite through bolting techniques. The panelised steel systems have tonnes for a concrete module [36]. The sizes of a typical modular unit
been successfully applied to over 30 projects including T30 Tower (30 are limited by transportation and lifting requirements. For instance, the
storeys) and J57 Mini Sky Tower (57 storeys). The development of 2D maximum width, height and length for road transportation that do not
panelised systems in Australia was pioneered by Hickory through hybrid require a police escort in Singapore are 3.4 m, 4.5 m and 12 m,
HBS systems composed of precast concrete panels. An example is shown respectively [36], whilst the allowable width in Australia and the US is
in Fig. 14, whereby concrete walls and concrete floors are connected typically around 3.5 m [9]. In addition, the maximum lifting capacity of
onsite by wet joints (see in Fig. 3b). The hybrid HBS systems have been most of tower cranes used in building projects is around 20 tonnes, and
successfully applied to three out of ten of the world’s tallest modular the cost of the tower crane with a lifting limit over 20 tonnes might
buildings including Collin House (60 storeys), Atira Student Accom increase by up to 60% [36]. Therefore, transportation and lifting re
modation (44 storeys) and La Trobe Tower (44 storeys). It should be quirements are the main constraints in determining the module size and
noted that the assembly work onsite is much simpler than the traditional hoist weight. For high-rise buildings, the modules at the base are sub
method, but it becomes more complex when combined with 3D mod jected to very large vertical loads. This leads to an increase in their
ules. In addition, this system also requires more internal finishing than member sizes and hoisting weight, thereby reducing the span of the
that of the volumetric system. modules. However, the use of short modules will result in an increased
number of inter-module joints, such that the benefits of modular con
struction are not fully maximised.
3.2. Volumetric systems
3.2.2. Module types
There are several types of 3D volumetric structural systems which
Based on the load transfer mechanisms, a 3D module can be gener
have been developed for modular high-rise buildings using either steel
ally classified as a load-bearing wall as shown in Fig. 15a and corner-
or concrete. However, steel modules are widely used for high-rise
supported frame as shown in Fig. 15b. In the former module, which is
buildings as they offer significant advantages such as sustainability,
commonly used in Singapore [36], gravity loads are transferred to the
simple connections, design flexibility, and high strength-to-weight ratio
base via the four side walls, whilst the latter module transfers gravity
[88]. It is evidenced by the fact that four out of five world’s tallest
loads through its edge beams and four corner posts [89]. The lateral
modular buildings constructed by the 3D volumetric method (see
loads due to winds and earthquakes are transferred to shear wall cores
Table 1) are based on steel modules. The main disadvantage of the
and/or bracing systems via ceilings and floors, as well as the side walls of
concrete module is its hoisting weight (25 to 30% heavier than the steel
the load-bearing wall module [89].
counterpart), which results in an increase in the cost of the tower crane.
The corner-supported module is commonly used in high-rise build
It should be noted that both timber and cold formed light-gauge steel
ings due to its high load-carrying capacity [35]. As shown in Fig. 15b,
modules are also widely used in Europe and UK. However, their appli
the chassis frame of corner-supported modules consists of corner posts
cations are limited to low-rise buildings lower than four storeys due to a
and perimeter beams which can be made from RHS (steel module) or
very low vertical loading capacity [37].
RHS infilled with concrete to make composite sections. The steel chassis
could be potentially applied to buildings over 40 storeys. Currently, the
3.2.1. Module dimensions
steel chassis is adopted in the 44-storey Croydon Tower project (see
The length of a typical modular unit is often from 6 to 12 m, whilst its
Fig. 10) with SHS column sizes varying from 300 mm (at the base
weight could vary from 15 to 20 tonnes for a steel module or 20 to 35
Fig. 14. 2D panelised concrete system [87].
1273
Fig. 15. Volumetric module: (a) load-bearing wall [90]; (b) corner-supported frame [91].
module) to 150 mm (at the top module) [75]. It should be noted that the 3.2.3. Lateral stability systems
variation of SHS column sizes in steel modules also makes the connec For high-rise buildings, lateral loads due to winds and earthquakes
tion between modules more difficult. In order to avoid this difficulty and are resisted by a separate lateral stability system such as a bracing truss
increase the load-carrying capacity of steel modules, Liew et al. [36] and shear wall core as shown in Fig. 17. The feasibility of the lateral
recently proposed a composite module comprised of a slim floor (e.g., resisting system was also examined by Hong et al. [94]. The lateral
Slimdek [92,93]), composite beams and concrete filled steel tubular stability system can be constructed from steel, concrete and hybrid
(CFST) columns as shown in Fig. 16. steel–concrete structures using either traditional construction methods
The use of different column sections can maintain the sizes of com or the modular construction method [37]. To enable the lateral loads to
posite columns. As shown in Fig. 16, SHS can be used for the modules at be transferred from the module to the lateral stability system, additional
the top levels with low gravity loads, whilst CFST is more appropriate for bracing systems should be added within the floors and ceilings of the
the modules at middle levels with larger gravity loads. CFST with high module. Also, the inter-module connections should have sufficient shear
strength concrete and high strength steel can significantly improve the strength.
strength of columns, and can thereby be used for the columns at the The bracing truss is made from structural steel in the form of pre
lower levels, which are subjected to maximum gravity loads. One can fabricated panels. This bracing system was successfully applied to the
argue that column size can be maintained by increasing the thickness of 32-storey B2 Tower in New York (Fig. 17a) and the 47-storey Leadenhall
SHS as in the case of the steel module used in the 32-storey B2 tower in building in London [95]. Unlike the bracing truss, the shear wall core
New York, in which column sizes were constantly kept at 150 mm but can accommodate lifts, stairs and service risers. Therefore, it is widely
the thickness of SHS was increased up to 38 mm. This might lead to used in modular high-rise buildings. In current practice, four out of five
higher material costs. The use of composite beams and slim floors with of the world’s tallest modular buildings constructed by the 3D volu
lightweight concrete can also reduce the hoisting weight of modules by metric method summarised in Table 1 are based on concrete shear wall
up to 40% [36]. Hence, longer span modules up to 12 m can be achieved. cores. These include the 44-storey Croydon Tower, 40-storey Clement
This leads to a reduced number of inter-module joints and maximises the Canopy, 29-storey Apex House, and 29-storey SOHO Tower. The con
advantages of modular construction in high-rise buildings. Additional crete cores can be constructed using either traditional methods such as
advantages of composite modules over steel modules include durability, slipform and jumpform or the modular method with modular precast
fire resistance, water proofing and acoustic impedance since they inherit concrete systems. Another option for the shear wall core is the composite
the merits of concrete modular construction [36]. steel–concrete-steel sandwich system, namely SpeedCore, which is first
used in Rainier Square Tower project as shown in Fig. 18. SpeedCore is
the revolutionary steel-plate composite core that eliminates the need for
Fig. 16. Composite chassis proposed by Liew et al. [36].
1274
Fig. 17. Lateral stability systems (a) Bracing truss used in B2 Tower [80] (b) Concrete core used in Croydon Tower [75].
Fig. 18. Rainier Square Tower: (a) composite panel [96]; (b) SpeedCore construction [97].
formwork and reinforcing bars used in the reinforced concrete core skilled labour, large working space, and time-consuming inspections
construction. after welding [36]. An increased number of joining techniques have
been developed for the inter-modular connection of modular steel
4. Inter-module joining techniques buildings. These connections can be classified into three different types:
(i) inter-module connection using tie rod, (ii) inter-module connection
Srisangeerthanan et al. [26] and Lacey et al. [41] recently presented using connector, and (iii) inter-module connection using bolt. For con
a review on inter-module connections in steel buildings with an crete modules, the inter-module connections require significant onsite
emphasis on performance requirements [26], and developed theoretical labour for laying the rebars and site grouting. This would reduce the
models to predict the axial, shear and bending stiffness of bolted con construction speed and nullify the benefits of modular construction for
nections [41]. In modular high-rise buildings, the connections between multi-storey buildings. Thus, the connection of concrete modules is not
modular units shown in Fig. 19 play a very important role because they considered herein.
ensure the structural integrity, overall stability and robustness of the
entire building. Although welded connection can provide rigidity be
tween adjacent modules, it is not preferred onsite as it requires highly
Fig. 19. Typical inter-module connections of modular buildings [98].
1275
4.1. Inter-module connection using tie rod Sanches et al. [104] and Sanches and Mercan [105] through the use of a
steel box placed between two modules as illustrated in Fig. 22. The steel
This type of connection has been developed to vertically connect the box with sloped sides at the top and at the bottom also acts as a base
columns of the lower modules to those of the upper modules (i.e. plate and shear key by providing shear resistance, as well as aligning the
column-to-column connection). In this connection, the vertical tyring columns of the lower and upper modules. In addition, the steel box also
between lower and upper modules is provided by using a vertical rod, provides tensile resistance through contact between the inner surface of
whilst the shear force between the lower and upper columns is resisted the hollow steel column and the steel box. The vertical tying is provided
by shear keys. The advantage of this type of connection is that it can be by the threaded rod anchored against the end plates, which is welded
installed outside the modules [99], which thereby prevents any poten offsite at the columns ends. The seismic performance and lateral resis
tial damages to internal finishes. In addition, this joining technique can tance of the connection were also studied experimentally. It was
be applied for columns with both hollow bare steel sections and CFST concluded that the proposed tie rod connection has a similar lateral
sections which are necessary for high-rise buildings to retain the same stiffness and higher energy dissipation capability compared with the
column size [100]. However, it has limited moment resistance [99] and welded connection [104]. In addition, the steel box prevented local
its performance is similar to that of a weak semi-rigid connection. This buckling in all specimens. This concept was also recently adopted by
leads to a weak framing action and lateral resistance of the whole Wang et al. [106] with the threaded rod being replaced by an installed
building. Therefore, this type of connection is not suitable for high-rise bolt.
buildings [100]. Recently, Lacey et al. [107] developed a new tie rod connection for
A tie rod connection with a shear block and pre-stressed tendon was modular steel buildings as shown in Fig. 23. In this connection, the shear
proposed by Chen et al. [101] for a corner joint – J1 (see Fig. 19) with key which is composed of hollow sections welded offside to a plate P1
concrete-filled steel tubular columns as shown in Fig. 20. In this will be connected to the columns of the lower and upper modules via a
connection, a seal plate with stiffeners and holes accommodated for pre- threaded rod and a plate P2, which is welded to the columns offsite as
stressed tendons and plugin bars need to be welded to the columns of shown in Fig. 23. An access opening will also be created in the module
modules offsite. During onsite erection, the upper module will be lifted columns to allow for the installation of the threaded rod from inside the
above the lower module (Fig. 20b) and then the plugin bar and tendon modules. This type of connection can be classified as semi-rigid [108].
will be aligned and inserted into the corresponding holes. The shear Experimental tests indicated that the proposed connection has greater
block will then be inserted into the encased hole (Fig. 20a) to resist the stiffness than existing ones [107].
shear force before dropping the upper module. The tendon will then be
stretched to a designed stress level before pouring infilled concrete into 4.2. Inter-module connection using connector
the hollow steel column. The plugin bars are adopted to prevent the
concrete from crushing and to increase the ductility of the connection Unlike the tie rod system, the installation of the connector system is
[101]. Experimental (Fig. 20c) and numerical investigations indicated quite simple and flexible because the connector can be easily welded to
that the pre-stressed connection can provide adequate strength and the beam and column of the module offsite, which have different shapes
ductility requirements without much structural failure [101,102], but it of cross-sections. Various connector systems have been developed such
is weak in providing the rotational stiffness between the lower and as Vectorbloc, self-lock, rotary and bracket connectors.
upper modules, and the connected sections were separated under lateral Vectorbloc connector: Vectorbloc is a standardised, structural, scal
bending [103]. able, modular connection system which was developed to facilitate the
In order to horizontally connect the adjacent modules, Liew et al. efficient design and assembly of modular buildings with hollow steel
[36] proposed the use of a gusset plate as shown in Fig. 21. With this section (HSS) members [109]. In this system, the horizontal and vertical
gusset plate, the perimeter joint – J2 and internal joint – J3 (see Fig. 19) modules of modular buildings are connected at their corners by means of
can be easily be connected. The gusset plate will be designed to transfer a gusset plate and an innovative cast-steel connector, which is welded to
the lateral forces to a lateral resisting system such as a wall core or the HSS members of modules in a factory. The benefit of the VectorBloc
bracing frame [36]. In addition, the gusset plate together with the shear connector is that it enables faster and easier onsite installation of both
key and base plate (welded to the columns ends offsite) will assist in beam-to-column and inter-module connections [110]. The basic com
positioning and aligning the columns of the upper modules and the ponents of the VectorBloc connector are the upper and lower blocs, the
adjacent modules. The rebar, which is used for vertical tyring between registration pin, the flat head cap screw (FHCS), the high strength socket
lower and upper modules, will be locked to the base plate by a tightened head cap screw (SHCS) and the gusset plate as shown in Fig. 24. The
coupler and can be extended by a rebar splice [99]. SHCS is employed to secure the vertical connection between lower and
A different version of the tie rod connection was also proposed by upper modules, whilst the gusset plate is adopted to establish the
Fig. 20. Tie rod connection with shear block and pre-stressed tendon [101].
1276
Fig. 21. Tie rod connection with shear key and gusset plate [36].
Fig. 22. Tie rod connection with steel box [104,105].
Fig. 23. Tie rod connection with shear key and threaded rod [107].
horizontal connection between adjacent modules. The shape of the under axial tension and compression was recently examined by Dha
gusset plate is dependent on the joint configurations (e.g., corner, napal et al. [110] as shown in Fig. 25. The results indicated that the
perimeter and internal joint). The upper bloc and the lower bloc are VectorBloc connector satisfactorily carries the design axial loads [110].
offsite welded to the HSS columns, ceiling beams and floor beams. When The failure mode of the connection under compression is ductile, but its
the modules are stacked onsite, the gusset plate is attached to the upper failure mode under tension is brittle due to sudden rupture of SHCS.
bloc by means of the FHCS as shown in Fig. 24. The registration pin is Therefore, the design of this connection needs to be improved to ensure
then used to position the upper module over the lower one. Once the ductile failure under tension.
upper and lower modules are properly aligned, they will be connected Self-lock connector: Dai et al. [111] recently developed a self-lock
by means of the SHCS to establish their vertical tyring. connector for inter-module joints of modular steel buildings as shown
The structural performance of the VectorBloc connection system in Fig. 26. Since the connector ensures the vertical connection between
1277
Fig. 24. VectorBloc connector [109].
Fig. 25. Test setup of (a) beam-column corner joint; (b) column under compression; (c) column under tension [110].
Fig. 26. Self-lock connector [111].
the lower and upper modules by means of a friction self-locked mech onsite erection, the upper module will be hoisted above the stud and its
anism, a bolting system is not required as in the case of a Vectorbloc position will be adjusted to align with the lower module via the stud.
connector. Hence, it can be installed quickly and easily. However, the Once the upper module is properly positioned with the lower module, it
lateral connection between adjacent modules is not considered, and this will be laid down so that the stud can plug into the assembly hole of the
connector is only suitable for corner joints. In the self-lock connector joint box of the upper module to form the connection.
system, the joint boxes need to be welded offsite to the beams and corner The structural performance of the connector under cyclic loading
columns of modules. Then a stud will be offsite welded to the top surface was experimentally tested by Dai et al. [111]. The joint specimens
of the joint box for alignment and vertical tyring purposes. During the represent the corner joint of a 19-storey modular steel building. The
1278
results indicated that the connector is reliable, and no slip occurs before inter-module connections of modular steel buildings. In this connection,
failure. The failure mode is fracture or buckling at the root of the beam a high-strength bolting system is used to establish the vertical connec
[111]. The joint exhibits excellent seismic performance with good tion between the lower and upper modules, whilst a cast plugin device is
ductility and energy absorption. The joint stiffness is about 80% of the adopted to establish the horizontal connection between adjacent mod
limit of a rigid joint according to Eurocode 3 classification. Therefore, it ules. The HSS floor beams and ceiling beams will also be strengthened by
can be classified as a semi-rigid connection [111]. offsite welding cover plates and intermediate plates (see Fig. 29) to
Rotary connector: This joining technique was applied to a modular prevent local buckling of the SHS beams under tensile forces from the
dormitory building in China as shown in Fig. 27a. In this connection, the bolts. The cast plugin device has four square tubes to horizontally con
beam and column of modules will be welded offsite to the corner fitting, nect four adjacent modules of the internal joint of modular buildings.
similar to the joint box of the self-lock connector system. During onsite During onsite erection, the columns of the upper modules will be
erection, the upper module is lifted above the lower module. Then, the inserted into the plugin device for alignment. Then, the long stay bolts
rotary connector is inserted into the corner fitting of the lower module. will be installed to vertically connect the ceiling beams of the lower
Once the upper module is properly aligned with the lower module, they module to the floor beams of the upper module. The seismic behaviour
will be connected by means of the rotary connector. Access holes are also of the connection was experimentally and numerically investigated by
created at two sides of the corner fitting for installation purposes (see Chen et al. [114,115] for the corner joint [114] and perimeter joint
Fig. 27b). The rotary connector is used to vertically connect the lower [115] of modular steel buildings. The results showed that all connection
and upper modules. However, the lateral connection between adjacent specimens have reasonable energy dissipation capacity, post yielding
modules is not ignored. Therefore, this joining technique is suitable for deformation capacity and connection ductility, although fracture is their
the corner and perimeter connections of low-rise and mid-rise modular governing failure mode. In addition, the connection stiffness is also
buildings [112]. Experimental testing on the behaviour of the rotary pronounced and needs to be considered in the design.
connector system was carried out by Chen et al. [112] as shown in Bolted connection with welded cover plate: Deng et al. [116,117]
Fig. 27c. The results indicated that local buckling is the governing failure developed a new bolted jointing technique for inter-module connections
mode, which occurs at the top plate of the corner fitting of the lower of modular steel buildings using a welded cover plate as a gusset plate as
module, and the rotational stiffness of the connection is equivalent to shown in Fig. 30a. In this connection, a cruciform gusset plate is used to
that of semi-rigid connection. vertically and horizontally connect the modules by means of bolting. To
Bracket connector: The bracket connector was used in China and its create room for the bolt installation, an access opening will be created by
structural performance under shear, tension and combined actions was cutting the column side wall. In order to bolt the gusset plate with the
experimentally tested by Doh et al. [113] as shown in Fig. 28. In this module columns, a column cover plate is also welded to the bottom of
connection, the horizontal connection between adjacent modules and the upper column and the top of the lower column as shown in Fig. 30a,
the vertical connection between the lower and upper modules are ach and this welding is done in a factory. During onsite erection, the gusset
ieved by means of bolting. As shown in Fig. 28, the cube-shaped bracket plate will be inserted into the gap between two lower modules first. Two
connector is comprised of steel plates with cut-out holes for bolt upper modules will be then lifted on the gusset plate. Once the upper and
installation. The test results indicated that the failure mode of the lower modules are properly aligned, they will be vertically and hori
connector is caused by prying of the bolts. zontally bolted to the gusset plate through the access opening. Finally, a
cover plate is onsite welded to the columns to replace the cut portions.
The behaviour of the connection under static and cyclic loadings was
4.3. Inter-module connection using bolt
also experimentally investigated by Deng et al. [116,117] for the corner
joint (Fig. 30b) [116] and perimeter joint (Fig. 30c) [117] of modular
Bolted connection is considered as an alternative solution to the
steel buildings. The results indicated that this joining technique can
onside welding approach due to its fast and easy installation and better
provide satisfactory connection ductility, but its strength and stiffness
quality control. Various bolting techniques have been developed for
are limited and consequently, it can be classified as semi-rigid connec
inter-module connections of modular steel buildings. A review on inter-
tion [116,117]. Since this joining technique does not require onsite
module bolted connections for modular steel buildings was conducted
welding, it is not suitable for the inter-module connections of modular
by Lacey et al. [41] to study the analytical models for estimating the
steel buildings as it requires highly skilled labour and working space
stiffness of inter-module bolted connections under axial tension, shear,
[36].
bending moment and combined actions.
Bolted connection with connection plate: This type of connection was
Bolted connection with plugin device: Fig. 29a illustrates a bolted
recently developed by Cho et al. [118] for the perimeter joint of modular
connection with a plugin device developed by Chen et al. [114,115] for
Fig. 27. Rotary connector [112].
1279
Fig. 28. Bracket connector [113].
Fig. 29. Bolted connection with plugin device: (a) connection concept [115]; (b) test setup of corner joint [114]; (c) test setup of perimeter joint [115].
Fig. 30. Bolted connection with welded cover plate: (a) connection concept; (b) test setup of corner joint [116]; (c) test setup of perimeter joint [117].
steel buildings. As shown in Fig. 31a, an external connection plate is modules with hollow section columns and C-shaped beams. Different
used to vertically and horizontally connect the modules by means of types of connection plates are used to accommodate different joint
normal bolt and blind bolt systems. Since the blind bolt can be installed configurations as shown in Fig. 31b. However, the vertical connection
from the outside of a hollow section, it will be used in the area connected between the columns of the lower module and the upper module is not
to the hollow section columns. In contrast, the normal bolt will be used considered as in the case of Cho et al. [118]. The experimental and
in the area connected to C-shaped beams. An experimental study showed numerical results indicated that this type of connection can be classified
that the blind bolt does not fail before the structural components of the as a rigid connection and the failure mode is due to the local buckling of
module when subjected to cyclic loading [118]. A similar version of this C-shaped beams.
connection was also developed by Lee et al. [119,120] to connect the Bolted connection with extended endplate: In this connection, the
1280
Fig. 31. Bolted connection with connection plate (a) perimeter joint with blind bolting technique [118] (b) Various connection plates for different joint configu
rations [121].
extended endplate will be offsite welded to the column ends of modules. to fracture of the offsite welds rather than bolt necking [124]. This type
This assembly will then be connected onsite using bolting techniques. of connection was also numerically evaluated by Naserabad et al. [125]
Different versions of bolted endplate connections have been proposed and Torbaghan et al. [126]. Gunawardena [127] and Lacey et al. [128]
for prefabricated high-rise steel buildings. For example, Liu et al. examined the shear behaviour of the bolted endplate connection be
[122–124] proposed a bolted endplate connection to connect the pre tween the columns of adjacent modules as shown in Fig. 32b and c,
fabricated columns and beams of multi-storey steel buildings as shown respectively. The seismic performance of this connection was also
in Fig. 32a. In this connection, the prefabricated beam needs to be numerically examined by Sendanayake et al. [129]. Lacey et al. [128]
welded with a vertical connecting plate and a column base in the fac added an interlocking pin and a horizontal connecting plate P2 (see
tory. Experimental and numerical results showed that the connection Fig. 32c) to improve the shear stiffness and shear resistance [128]. The
exhibits very good seismic performance in terms of energy absorption interlocking pin is also used for aligning purposes. The idea of using an
capability, ductility and bearing capacity [122]. The failure mode is due interlocking system was proposed by Sharafi et al. [130] to improve the
Fig. 32. Bolted connection with extended endplate: (a) Beam-to-column joint [124]; (b) column-to-column joint [127]; (c) column-to-column joint with interlocking
pin [128].
1281
integrity of multi-storey modular buildings. The behaviour of bolted Nonlinear dynamic analysis is the most accurate method because it gives
endplate column-to-column connections under a combined action was detailed time history responses, from which peak values can directly be
also investigated by Liu et al. [131,132] for combined bending moment used for the performance assessment. However, it is too computationally
and shear force [131] and combined bending moment, shear force and intensive.
axial compression [132]. It was found that the bolts in the tensile region Although significant research has been conducted on the progressive
experience significant levels of prying when the bolted endplate collapse and robustness of traditional buildings based on ALP ap
connection is subjected to combined bending moment, shear force and proaches [133], limited studies on modular buildings have been re
axial compression [132]. ported due to the complexity involved in the modelling of the
discontinuity at the connections between modules [136]. Since those
5. Progressive collapse and structural robustness of modular connections are weak and classified as semi-rigid joints [139,140], their
buildings behaviour has significant effect on the overall performance of the whole
modular building [141,142]. Therefore, they should be included in the
Progressive collapse of a building occurs when vertical load-bearing analysis and design of modular buildings. Different approaches have
components fail (initially localised damage that eventually propagates been proposed for modelling inter-modular connections of modular
throughout the entire structural system) due to extreme events such as buildings. For example, Annan [143] and Annan et al. [144–146]
fire, explosions and impacts. To avoid progressive collapse, the structure developed a joint model composed of rigid elastic segments and pin joint
should be designed to have adequate integrity or robustness which is elements in SeismoStruct software for the vertical welded connections of
defined as the capability to resist progressive collapse by developing steel modules as shown in Fig. 33a. The rigid elements were used to
alternative load paths (ALP) by means of strength, continuity and represent the rigid zones of beam-to-column joints, whilst the pin joint
ductility. After the Ronan Point collapse in 1968, extensive studies on elements were used to capture the independent rotation between the
the progressive collapse and structural robustness of traditional onsite columns of the upper and lower modules. The accuracy of this model
buildings have been conducted, and code provisions for the structural was also verified with experimental results [146]. This model was
robustness of buildings were also introduced. A comprehensive review modified by Sultana and Youssef [147] for vertical bolted connections of
of the research and practice on progressive collapse of traditional steel-braced modules as shown in Fig. 33b. A similar technique was
buildings, and the development of provisions for robustness in interna employed by Fathieh and Mercan [148,149] using OpenSees software to
tional codes can be found in Refs. [133–135]. However, research on the model the vertical connection of steel modular buildings for seismic
progressive collapse and robustness of modular buildings is very limited evaluation. Simplified models for bolted and tie rod connections were
due to their complex behaviour [136]. also developed by Gunawardena et al. [150] for seismic analysis and
The robustness of buildings against progressive collapse can be Chua et al. [136] for progressive collapse analysis of steel modular
designed using four basic approaches: (i) tying force prescriptive rules; buildings as shown in Fig. 34, respectively. Gunawardena et al. [150]
(ii) alternative load path (ALP) methods; (iii) key element design employed the spring element in RUAUMOKO software to simulate the
methods; and (iv) risk-based methods [135]. The tying force prescriptive lateral connection between adjacent modules, whilst Chua et al. [136]
rule is an indirect design approach as it implicitly considers resistance to used the pin element in ETABS software to model the vertical tie rod
progressive collapse by prescribing minimum tie force requirements in connection between the upper and lower modules. Recently, Shan et al.
terms of strength, continuity and ductility. This method is widely rec [19] also proposed three simplified connection models in ETABS for
ommended in many codes for structures with low risk of progressive modular high-rise buildings including module-module, module-to-core
collapse. ALP approaches are deterministic and direct methods as they and module-to-podium connections as shown in Fig. 35. The effect of
explicitly consider robustness through the analysis of the structure based various modelling techniques of joints on lateral behaviour of modular
on the notional member removal concept, and evaluate the capability of buildings was also examined by Chua et al. [151].
a structure to redistribute additional loads from local damaged areas. An early study on the progressive collapse and structural robustness
Therefore, they are the most widely used and accepted by almost design of modular buildings was conducted by Lawson et al. [137,152] based
codes [133]. The key element method also known as the enhanced local on both experimental [152] and analytical [137] approaches. The re
resistance approach is a direct design approach, where key elements sults showed that the tying force of inter-modules required for redis
(members whose failure can trigger a progressive collapse) are designed tributing the gravity loads from damaged areas is relatively small.
to resist accidental loads to avoid local failure. Some codes use a Therefore, ALP method is the most appropriate means for assessing the
notional load of 34 kN/m2 (corresponding to 5 psi), which is the pres robustness of modular buildings, whilst the tying force method is suit
sure estimated from the gas explosion of Ronan Point, to represent able for light steel modular buildings with multiple inter-connections
various extreme events [133]. However, this becomes problematic for between the components [137]. Numerical studies on the structural
light steel modular buildings as they cannot resist such high blast robustness of steel modular buildings were recently carried out by Chua
pressure of 34 kN/m2 [137]. The risk-based method is an indirect et al. [136] and Luo et al. [153] using the ALP method associated with
approach which implicitly considered the risk of collapse by means of nonlinear static analysis. Chua et al. [136] simulated the progressive
building classification and design methods recommended for each risk collapse of a 40-storey building under a column loss scenario using
category [133]. Further discussions about these methods can be found in ETABS (see Fig. 36a) to examine the structural robustness of modular
Refs. [133,135]. high-rise buildings. They concluded that the modular building consid
In the ALP methods, different levels of analysis including linear static ered adequately robust to resist progressive collapse due to (i) catenary
analysis, nonlinear static (pushdown) analysis, and nonlinear dynamic action developed in floor beams, and (ii) the high redundancy of
analysis are accepted. A dynamic load factor less than 2.0 is multiplied structural members [136]. However, their study is limited to a single
by the loads used the static analysis to account for the dynamic effect scenario of column removal. In contrast, Luo et al. [153] carried out a
due to sudden removal of notional load-bearing members. Linear static very comprehensive investigation of the progressive collapse and
analysis is the simplest which ignores all sources of nonlinearities. structural robustness of modular buildings by simulating a 5-storey steel
Therefore, it gives highly conservative results. In contrast, nonlinear building under different scenarios using LS-DYNA (see Fig. 36b). They
static analysis or advanced analysis can provide more accurate results as concluded that the most critical scenario occurs when removing the
it accounts for both geometric and material nonlinearities, and the load modules near the end corner of a modular building. The results indicated
distribution mechanism due to sudden removal of critical members. This that the robustness of modular buildings can be improved with the in
method is also referred to as pushdown analysis since it involves the crease in the number of modules per floor (i.e., increase the number of
increase of gravity loads due to the sudden removal of columns [138]. inter-module connections), and the strength and stiffness of inter-
1282
Fig. 33. Modelling of connections of modular steel braced frame in SeismoStruct software (a) Welded connection [144,145] (b) Bolted connection [147].
Fig. 34. Simplified models of inter-module connections (a) Bolted connection model [150] (b) Tie rod connection model in ETABS [136].
Fig. 35. Simplified models in ETABS for modular high-rise buildings [19]: (a) inter-module connection; (b) module-to-core connection; (c) module-to-
podium connection.
module connections. mechanism [154]. In addition, the initial eccentricities of modular

buildings due to installation tolerances as shown in Fig. 37, which are
6. Structural design guidelines for modular buildings significantly important for the overall performance of a building, are
different with those of conventional buildings. Therefore, significant
Current design practices for modular buildings are based on the efforts [22,42,68,89,154–157] have been made to develop design
conventional design guides of traditional buildings, which are not suit guidelines for modular buildings on the basis of conventional codes.
able for modular buildings they possess different characteristics. For Notable among them are the design guides developed by Lawson et al.
example, the process of manufacture and assembly of modular units [157] on the basis of British and European codes, and the design
generates short-term loading which may influence the load-transfer handbook developed by Murray-Parkes et al. [154] on the basis of
1283
Fig. 36. Progressive collapse simulations of steel modular buildings (a) Column removal collapse [136] (b) Module removal collapse [153].
Fig. 37. Construction tolerances of modular buildings [157].
Australian codes [158]. Structural design guidelines of modular build European practices, however, the structural design of modular members
ings should account for the effects of construction tolerances and is based on Eurocode 3 for steel members (Part 1–1 for hot-rolled steel
structural robustness [89], as well as the short-term loading generated [162] and Part 1–3 for cold-formed steel [163]) and Eurocode 2 for
during hoisting and transportation [68]. concrete members [164].
In order to rationally evaluate the stability of columns, Li et al.
6.1. Design of structural components of modular units [140,165] developed analytical formulas to calculate the effective
length factor K of columns in non-sway [140] and sway [165] steel
In current practices, the structural design of modular members is buildings accounting for the joint stiffness. Numerical results indicated
based on limit state design principles. According to the handbook for the that the assumed pinned connections between upper and lower modules
design of modular structures [154], the modular members (e.g., beams, is not conservative, and thus the joint stiffness should be taken into
columns, load-bearing walls and floors) can be designed using the pro account for the design of modular buildings. The equations of the
visions provided in Australian codes for conventional buildings such as effective length factor K of CFST columns with tendon connections in
AS 4100 for steel members [159], AS/NZS 4600 for cold-formed steel modular units were also developed by Deng et al. [166] and Chen et al.
members [160] and AS 3600 for concrete members [161]. In the UK and [167].
1284
6.2. Design of inter-module connections of a single load-bearing member may not lead to a progressive collapse
of the entire building due to the high redundancy of structural elements
Inter-module connections used in steel modular buildings is gener [136]. Therefore, all possible scenarios which could yield an adverse
ally classified as semi-rigid types [41] as illustrated in Fig. 38a, and their effect to the overall structure should be considered [154]. Fig. 39 il
behaviours have a significant influence on the response and lateral lustrates two extreme scenarios of entire module loss. The removal of a
resistance of the entire modular building [142]. Current design practices corner module will cause the modules above to act as cantilevers (see
of inter-module connections of steel buildings are based on the pro Fig. 39a), whilst the removal of an internal module will cause the
visions given by Eurocode 3 (Part 1–8) [168] and AISC 360–16 [169]. modules above to span over the affected modules (see Fig. 39b) [137].
According to Eurocode 3, the behaviour of a joint characterised by three
parameters: (i) initial rotational stiffness Sint, (ii) moment resistance MRd
6.4. Structural analysis
and (iii) rotation capacity ϕCd as shown in Fig. 38b. The initial stiffness
and moment resistance can be predicted using the component method in
Similar to conventional onsite buildings, the structural analysis of
which the entire joint will be decomposed into individual basic com
modular buildings can be performed using the following methods: (i)
ponents represented by springs with their own stiffness and strength.
linear elastic analysis (the most simple method ignoring both geometric
Once the stiffness and strength of each individual component are ob
and material nonlinearities, (ii) nonlinear elastic analysis (only geo
tained, the initial stiffness and moment resistance of the joint can be
metric nonlinearity considered), (iii) nonlinear inelastic analysis or
derived by assembling the contributions of each component on the basis
advanced analysis (the most accurate method considering both geo
of the force transfer mechanism. The application of the component
metric and material nonlinearities), and (iv) nonlinear time-history
method to composite joints can be found in Refs. [170–172].
analysis (for earthquake design [178]). Since the structural compo
nents of connected modules are discontinuous, the behaviour of inter-
6.3. Structural robustness design of modular buildings module connections should be included in the modelling of modular
buildings to accurately capture the global behaviour of entire buildings
Robustness is the ability of a structure to resist its progressive [36]. Various simplified techniques for modelling the inter-modular
collapse due to extreme events such as fire, explosions and impacts. The connections of modular buildings as shown in Figs. 33–35 can be uti
structural robustness design of a building ensures that the building is lised along with beam models available structural analysis software, e.
able to develop alternative load paths to redistribute additional loads g., ETABS, SAP2000, RUAUMOKO, SeismoStruct, OpenSees, ABAQUS,
from damaged areas in the event of a local failure. The design guidelines LS-DYNA, etc. In addition, the lateral stiffness of the floor diaphragm
for structural robustness were incorporated in international codes system in each module should be taken into account in the analysis to
[173–177]. In current practices, the tying force method and ALP method accurately predict the global sway behaviour of the entire building
are commonly used in the robustness design of modular buildings [153]. [179].
The tying force is an indirect design approach which implicitly considers In the nonlinear analysis, geometric imperfections due to construc
robustness by prescribing minimum levels of tying force requirements, tion tolerances can be implicitly considered using the equivalent
whilst ALP is a direct method which explicitly considers robustness by notional horizontal load approach. For modular buildings, a notional
direct analysis of the structure under member loss to assess its ability in horizontal force at each floor is taken as a minimum of 1% of the
redistributing loads from local damaged areas. factored gravity load acting on each module [157]. This figure is twice
In the tying force method, the minimum requirements of the hori the value of 0.5% recommended for conventional onsite buildings,
zontal tying force between adjacent modules and vertical tying force which indicates that higher tolerances are allowed in modular con
between the upper and lower modules are 26% and 40% of the total load struction [89]. However, the value of 1% is only applicable to modular
applied to the module, respectively. These values are recommended buildings with up to 12 storeys and rigid inter-module connections [89].
based on a numerical study carried out by Lawson and Richards [89] on For high-rise modular buildings with lateral load resisting systems such
a steel module under corner support removal accounting for the as a concrete core wall, the lateral tolerance will be reduced as module
torsional stiffness of the module due to the diaphragm action of the wall. alignment can be adjusted alongside the core wall. Therefore, a notional
In the ALP method, the structural robustness of modular buildings is horizontal force of 0.5% as recommended by Eurocode 3 for conven
established by a scenario-based approach where either the entire mod tional buildings is adopted [36].
ules or parts of a module (column, beam or shear wall) are selectively
removed. This is the most appropriate approach for the robust design of 7. Engineering challenges and recommended solutions for
light steel modular buildings [137]. Liew et al. [36] stated that the future research
removal of an entire module as recommended in design guidelines
[154,157] is unreasonable. Therefore, only corner column removal is Although the benefits of modular construction can be maximised in
considered in their study. For modular buildings, however, the removal high-rise buildings due to the increased number of repeated modules,
Fig. 38. Joint moment-rotation characteristics from Eurocode 3 Part 1–8.
1285
Fig. 39. Robustness scenarios in modular buildings [137].
most of the success stories of adopting modular construction technolo structural robustness of the entire building. As reviewed in Section 4,
gies are currently limited to low-rise buildings. It is worth noting that there have been an increasing number of joining techniques developed
less than 1% of modular high-rise buildings [38] constructed recently recently for modular steel buildings. However, the current techniques
using the panelised method or volumetric method are based on wet result in limited strength and stiffness, which may not be suitable for
joining techniques for inter-module connections, which require signifi high-rise building applications. In addition, they also require a certain
cant onsite labour for laying rebars and site grouting. Consequently, the level of onsite labour. Therefore, there is a need for future research to
speed and efficiency of modular construction is reduced. In addition, develop smart joining techniques, which are not only stronger for high-
technical complexities and the unavailability of design codes of practice rise applications, but also easy to install. In addition, the new joining
have hindered the widespread adoption of modular construction [154]. technique should be robust enough to be applicable to a wide range of
Therefore, further research needs to be conducted in the future to joint configurations and novel modules with composite members. With
develop the next generation of modular construction, and enable these techniques, modular buildings can be built taller, faster and
modular buildings to be built taller, faster, safer and more efficient than cheaper.
current practices allow. The areas, in the authors’ opinions, which
should be considered for future research are described hereafter. 7.3. Computational tools
7.1. Lightweight and durable modular units Proper modelling of modular high-rise buildings is crucial to predict
the lateral stability and progressive collapse for the robust design of
Current modular buildings are based on either steel or concrete modular buildings. Current modelling techniques are based a simplified
modules. However, both steel and concrete modules have their own 1D “line” beam element available from commercial packages. This beam
merits and shortcomings. A steel module is 20 to 35% lighter than a element is only applicable for modules with homogeneous sections (steel
concrete module [36], but its fire resistance, and sound and thermal or concrete). For the novel module with steel and concrete composite
insulation is lower. In terms of construction speed, however, the sections, 3D solid and shell elements should be used to accurately cap
installation of the steel module is faster than that of a concrete module as ture the inelastic behaviour of composite materials. However, the use of
it involves bolted connections instead of in-situ grouted joints. The 3D solid elements is extremely computationally expensive as it involves
heaviness of a concrete module will reduce its length because of hoisting a larger number of elements, especially for tall buildings. Therefore,
weight constraints, which thereby results in an increased number of future research should be conducted to develop a robust computational
modules and connections. Therefore, future research should focus on tool for advanced analysis and robustness design of modular composite
developing a novel module which is stronger, lighter and durable, buildings. The computational tool should be based on a 1D “line” beam
thereby enabling modular buildings to be built taller. element with fibre hinge concept. It is therefore not only computation
Recently, Liew et al. [36] proposed the use of composite modules ally efficient for daily use in design offices by structural engineers, but
that combines the benefits of both steel and concrete modules for also accurate in terms of capturing geometric and material non
modular high-rise buildings. Lightweight concrete was also employed linearities, local buckling of steel, confining effect in concrete and the
for a composite floor to reduce the hoisting weight and maximise the interaction between steel and concrete by means of the fibre concept.
span of a module (up to 12 m based on a preliminary analytical study). Therefore, modular buildings can be built more efficiently with this
The lightweight composite floor system was also successfully applied to computational tool.
the Leadenhall building in London in terms of pre-cast floor system
[180]. With recent advancements in construction materials, high 7.4. Design provisions
strength steel and high strength concrete can be used to reduce the size
of the composite columns at the lower levels of high-rise buildings, A reliable design method for modular buildings is crucial as poor
which are subjected to maximum gravity loads. design has significant impacts on their overall cost. Current design
practices for modular buildings are based on conventional design
7.2. Smart joining techniques guidelines for traditional buildings, which are not suitable. For example,
the provisions of the design of structural members of modules can be
Inter-module connections play a significant role in modular build referred to Eurocode 3 Part 1–1 [162] and AS 4100 [159] (for hot-rolled
ings because they ensure the structural integrity, overall stability and steel members), Eurocode 3 Part 1–3 [163] and AS 4600 [160] (for cold-
1286
formed steel members), Eurocode 2 [164] and AS 3600 [161] (for [7] Jiang Y, Zhao D, Wang D, Xing Y. Sustainable performance of buildings through
modular prefabrication in the construction phase: A comparative study.
concrete members), Eurocode 4 [181] and AS/NZS 2327 [182] (for
Sustainability 2019;11:5658.
composite steel–concrete members), Eurocode 3 (Part 1–8) [168] and [8] Kamali M, Hewage K. Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical
AISC 360–16 [169] (for joints), and Eurocode 1 Part 1–7 [175] and AS/ review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;62:1171–83.
NZS 1170.0 [177] (for structural robustness). The structural design [9] McKinsey. Modular construction: From projects to products, from https://www.
mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-insights/mo
guidelines for modular structures remain unavailable [36,40]. There dular-construction-from-projects-to-products; 2019.
fore, there is a need for future research to develop provisions for the [10] Thomson J. Modular construction: A solution to affordable housing challenges.
structural design of modular buildings. With the new design codes, Cornell Real Estate Rev 2019;17:90–7.
[11] Smith RE. Prefab Architecture: A Guide to Modular Design and Construction.
modular buildings can be built safer, which will enable the construction John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
industry to implement advanced modular technologies for high-rise [12] Boafo FE, Kim J-H, Kim J-T. Performance of modular prefabricated architecture:
buildings. Case study-based review and future pathways. Sustainability 2016;8:558.
[13] Mortice Z. Can this Chicago apartment factory make new homes affordable? from
https://www.citylab.com/design/2019/07/chicago-new-construction-apartment
8. Conclusions -affordable-rent-skender/592444/; 2019.
[14] World Economic Forum. Shaping the future of construction: A breakthrough in
mindset and technology; 2016.
Modular construction has demonstrated significant benefits in terms [15] Harrison G. The future is prefabricated, from https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/
of saving construction time, reducing cost and more importantly alle articles/the-future-is-prefabricated; 2018.
viating environmental impacts when compared with traditional onsite [16] Davies G. The future of DfMA is the future of construction. Eng Excellence J 2013:
1–77.
construction. The modular method possesses several advantages which
[17] Pan W, Hon CK. Modular integrated construction for high-rise buildings. Proc Inst
are well suited for high-rise buildings and can thereby shape the future Civ Eng Munic Eng 2019:doi: 10.1680/jmuen.1618.00028.
of the construction industry. This paper has provided a comprehensive [18] Ruoheng Z, J ZAS, Saeed T, Jennifer W. Long-standing themes and new
developments in offsite construction: The case of UK housing. Proc Inst Civ Eng
review of recent developments of modular technologies with an
Civ Eng 2019;172:29–35.
emphasis on structural aspects of modular buildings including structural [19] Shan S, Looi D, Cai Y, Ma P, Chen M-T, Su R, et al. Engineering modular
systems, inter-module connections, structural analysis and structural integrated construction for high-rise building: a case study in Hong Kong. Proc
design. Although modular construction is widely used in low-rise Inst Civ Eng Civ Eng 2019;172:51-57.
[20] Pan W, Su R, Cai Y, Young B. Engineering modular systems for high-rise
buildings, its applications to high-rise buildings are still limited. The buildings: an update. Proc Inst Civ Eng Civ Eng 2018;171:148-148.
technical challenges hindering the widespread adoption of modular [21] Jellen A, Memari A. The state-of-the-art application of modular construction to
construction for high-rise buildings were highlighted and discussed. multi-story residential building. Proceedings of the 1st Residential Building
Design & Construction Conference 2013:284–293.
Some potential solutions to tackle these challenges were also recom [22] Building and Construction Authority. Code of practice on building design/
mended for future research including: (i) developing a composite buildability, Singapore; 2017.
module with lighter and stronger structural members, (ii) developing a [23] Park HK, Ock J-H. Unit modular in-fill construction method for high-rise
buildings. KSCE J Civ Eng 2016;20:1201–10.
smart joining technique with higher strength and stiffness and easy to [24] Srisangeerthanan S, Hashemi MJ, Rajeev P, Gad E, Fernando S. Numerical study
install, (iii) developing a computationally efficient computer tool for on the effects of diaphragm stiffness and strength on the seismic response of
advanced analysis and daily design of modular tall buildings, and (iv) multi-story modular buildings. Eng Struct 2018;163:25–37.
[25] Srisangeerthanan S, Javad Hashemi M, Rajeev P, Gad E, Fernando S. A review of
developing design guidelines for accelerating the real world application
diaphragm behaviour and connections for multi-story modular buildings.
of modular construction. By resolving technical challenges, modular Proceedings of the Australian Structural Engineering Conference ASEC 2018:
buildings can be built taller with the new composite modules, faster (and 566–573.
[26] Srisangeerthanan S, Hashemi MJ, Rajeev P, Gad E, Fernando S. Review of
cheaper) with the smart joining technique, safer with new design pro
performance requirements for inter-module connections in multi-story modular
visions, and more efficiently with computationally efficient tools. buildings. J Build Eng 2020;28:101087.
[27] Lawson RM, Ogden RG. Hybrid light steel panel and modular systems. Thin-
Walled Struct 2008;46:720–30.
Declaration of Competing Interest
[28] Lawson RM. Building design using modules. The Steel Construction Institute
2007:1–16.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [29] Lawson RM. Light steel modular construction. The Steel Construction Institute
2012:1–8.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
[30] Lawson RM. Modular construction in light steel framing for residential buildings.
the work reported in this paper. The Steel Construction Institute 2016:1–46.
[31] Ramaji IJ, Memari AM. Identification of structural issues in design and
Acknowledgements construction of multistory modular buildings. Proceedings of the 1st Residential
Building Design & Construction Conference 2013:294–303.
[32] Built Offsite. New 29-storey modular build towers over London, from http://bu
This is research was supported by the Australian Research Council iltoffsite.com.au/issue-04/new-29-storey-modular-build-towers-london/; 2019.
(ARC) under its Future Fellowship Scheme (Project No: FT200100024), [33] Vectorbloc. Scalable precision modular construction system; 2016.
[34] Yesterland. An urban legend about Disney’s contemporary, from https://www.
and the University of Melbourne under a Start-up Grant awarded to the yesterland.com/contemporary.html; 2010.
first author. The financial support is gratefully acknowledged. The au [35] Lawson RM, Ogden RG, Bergin R. Application of modular construction in high-
thors are also grateful to the researchers who provide their permissions rise buildings. J Archit Eng 2012;18:148–54.
[36] Liew JYR, Chua YS, Dai Z. Steel concrete composite systems for modular
for reprinting most of the figures and photos in this paper. construction of high-rise buildings. Structures 2019;21:135–49.
[37] Mills S, Grove D, Egan M. Breaking the pre-fabricated ceiling: Challenging the
References limits for modular high-rise. Proceedings of CTBUH International Conference
2015:416–425.
[38] Pan W, Yang Y, Yang L. High-rise modular building: Ten-year journey and future
[1] Deluxe Modular. The differences between prefab and modular construction, from
development. Construction Research Congress 2018:523–532.
https://www.deluxemodular.com/learning-center/modular-vs-prefab; 2019.
[39] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K. Structural response of modular buildings – An
[2] Lawson RM, Grubb PJ, Prewer J, Trebilcock PJ. Modular construction using light
overview. J Build Eng 2018;16:45–56.
steel framing: An architect’s guide. The Steel Construction Institute 1999:1–105.
[40] Ferdous W, Bai Y, Ngo TD, Manalo A, Mendis P. New advancements, challenges
[3] Yu Y, Chen Z. Rigidity of corrugated plate sidewalls and its effect on the modular
and opportunities of multi-storey modular buildings – A state-of-the-art review.
structural design. Eng Struct 2018;175:191–200.
Eng Struct 2019;183:883–93.
[4] Stern D. Steel-framed modular construction for high-rise hotels, from https
[41] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K. Review of bolted inter-module connections in
://www.hotel-online.com/press_releases/release/steel-framed-modular-const
modular steel buildings. J Build Eng 2019;23:207–19.
ruction-for-high-rise-hotels-what-you-need-to-kno; 2017: 1–12.
[42] Lawson RM, Ogden RG, Popo-Ola SO. Design considerations for modular open
[5] Jin R, Hong J, Zuo J. Environmental performance of off-site constructed facilities:
building systems. Open House Int 2011;36:44–53.
A critical review. Energy Build 2020;207:109567.
[6] WRAP. Waste reduction potential of offsite volumetric construction. WAS 003-
003: Offsite Construction Case Study; 2018: 1–11.
1287
[43] Taylor S. Off-site production in the UK construction industry- A brief overview, [77] Construction Manager. Modular housing hits the heights in north London, from
from https://www.buildoffsite.com/content/uploads/2015/04/HSE-off-site_pro http://www.constructionmanagermagazine.com/onsite/modular-h6its-heig5hts-
duction_june09.pdf; 2015. nor4th-london/; 2017.
[44] Velamati S. Feasibility, benefits and challenges of modular construction in high [78] Vision Modular Systems. Apex house, Wembley (student accommodation), from
rise development in the united states: A developer’s perspective. Master thesis, https://www.visionmodular.com/portfolio-item/apex-house-wembley-stu
Center for Real Estate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2012. dent-accommodation/; 2019.
[45] Khalfan MMA, Maqsood T. Current state of off-site manufacturing in Australian [79] Modular Building Institute. Permanent Modular Construction Report; 2018.
and Chinese residential construction. J Constr Eng 2014;2014:5. [80] Edelson D, Farnsworth D. Delivering the world’s tallest volumetric modular
[46] Han YJ, Zhu WZ. The development of modular building in China. Proceedings of apartment building. Proceedings of CTBUH International Conference 2018.
the International Conference on Applied Mechanics, Electronics and [81] Stinson L. The world’s tallest modular building may teach cities to build cheaper
Mechatronics Engineering (AMEME2016) 2016:1–4. housing, from https://www.wired.com/2016/11/cities-can-learn-worlds-tallest-
[47] Jiang L, Li Z, Gao Y. Constraints on the promotion of prefabricated construction in modular-building/; 2016.
China. Sustainability 2018;10:2516–7. [82] Farnsworth D, Principal A. Modular tall building design at Atlantic Yards B2.
[48] Building and Construction Authority. Construction productivity and Proceedings of CTBUH International Conference 2014:492–499.
prefabrication in Singapore; 2017. [83] Kim J. Development of modular building systems made of innovative steel
[49] Navaratnam S, Ngo T, Gunawardena T, Henderson D. Performance review of sections and wall configurations. Master thesis, School of Civil Engineering and
prefabricated building systems and future research in Australia. Buildings 2019;9: Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology; 2019.
38. [84] The Skyscraper Center. 461 Dean, from https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/build
[50] McGowan S. Fabricating the future. Ecolibrium Magazine, from https://www. ing/461-dean/14897; 2019.
airah.org.au/Content_Files/EcoLibrium/2014/May14/05-14-Eco-003.pdf; 2014: [85] StreetEasy. 461 Dean Street, from https://streeteasy.com/building/461-dean-st
32–42. reet-brooklyn; 2019.
[51] Hickory Building Innovation. Hickory building systems: Overview of [86] Inhabitat. World’s tallest prefab tower is now complete in China, from htt
prefabricated structural system, from https://www.hickory.com.au/docs/hic ps://inhabitat.com/broad-sustainable-building-completes-worlds-tallest-
kory-building-systems-overview.pdf; 2019. prefab-tower-in-china/broad-sustainable-buildings-sky-city-tallest-prefab-2;
[52] Kumar S. Innovative application of horizontal and vertical wet joints in 2015.
prefabricated modular buildings. Proceedings of the Australian Structural [87] Hickory Building Innovation. Hickory building innovation, from https://www.
Engineering Conference ASEC 2018:498–505. youtube.com/watch?v=oXxqL9nlMKQ; 2018.
[53] Argyrou G. Industrializing the construction process to build Australia’s tallest [88] English S, Brown B. An introduction to steel and concrete modular construction.
prefabricated structure. Proceedings of CTBUH International Conference; 2018. Proceedings of the 1st Residential Building Design & Construction Conference
[54] Kumar S. Hickory building system (HBS) innovation and successful application in 2013:326–333.
a 44 storey building in Melbourne. Proceedings of the Australian Structural [89] Lawson RM, Richards J. Modular design for high-rise buildings. Proc Inst Civ Eng
Engineering Conference ASEC; 2016:465–475. Struct Build 2010;163:151–164.
[55] Hickory Building Innovation. Collins House, from https://www.hickory.com. [90] Lawson RM, Ogden RG, Pedreschi R, Grubb PJ, Popo-Ola SO. Developments in
au/projects/collins-house/; 2019. pre-fabricated systems in light steel and modular construction. Struct Eng 2005;
[56] Smisek P. Building prefabricated student residences in Melbourne, from http 83:28–35.
s://www.theb1m.com/video/building-prefabricated-student-residences-in-melb [91] Vectorbloc. Precision HHS connection system for modular buildings; 2016.
ourne; 2019. [92] Lawson RM, Ogden RG. Hybrid systems in light steel and modular construction.
[57] Hickory Building Innovation. Atira Student Accommodation, from https://www. Proceedings of the International Conference on Adaptable Building Structures
hickory.com.au/projects/la-trobe-student-accommodation/; 2018. 2006:252–256.
[58] Hickory Building Innovation. La Trobe Tower , from https://www.hickory.com. [93] Ahmed IM, Tsavdaridis KD. The evolution of composite flooring systems:
au/projects/la-trobe-tower; 2016. applications, testing, modelling and eurocode design approaches. J Constr Steel
[59] Gardiner P. The construction of a high-rise development using volumetric Res 2019;155:286–300.
modular met hodology. Paper presented at: Proceedings of CTBUH International [94] Hong S-G, Lee JH, Cho B-H, Ha TH. Structural design of high-rise modular
Conference; 2015. building systems. Proceedings of 37th IABSE Symposium, Madrid 2014;102:
[60] Irwinconsult. SOHO Apartments , from http://www.irwinconsult.com.au/case_st 1397–1043.
udies/soho-apartments-case-study/; 2014. [95] Young A, Annereau N, Butler A, Smith B. Case study: The Leadenhall Building,
[61] Caulfield J. Asia’s modular miracle, from https://www.bdcnetwork.com/asia London. CTBUH J 2013:12–7.
’s-modular-miracle; 2016. [96] AISC. SpeedCore: How does it work? from https://www.aisc.org/why-steel/inno
[62] Generalova EM, Generalov VP, Kuznetsova AA. Modular buildings in modern vative-systems/SpeedCore/how-does-it-work/; 2019.
construction. Procedia Eng 2016;153:167–72. [97] Gevers J. Building Rainier Square, Part 1: The Revolutionary Core, from
[63] The Skyscraper Center. T30 Hotel, from https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/ https://lewisbuilds.com/building-rainier-square-the-revolutionary-core; 2019.
building/t30-hotel/14432; 2015. [98] Thai H-T. Numerical study of a novel self-lock connection for modular tall
[64] The Skyscraper Center. J57 Mini Sky City, from http://www.skyscrapercenter. buildings. Proceedings of Indian Structural Steel Conference - (ISSC 2020),
com/building/j57-mini-sky-city/19743; 2015. Hyderabad, India 2020.
[65] Lee M. Mini Sky City,19 days 57-story building, from https://www.youtube. [99] Pang DS, Liew JR, Dai Z, Wang Y. Prefabricated prefinished volumetric
com/watch?v=PyxwgLYbAk0; 2015. construction joining techniques review. Proceedings of the Modular and Offsite
[66] SkyCity. 30-story building built in 15 days, from https://www.youtube.com/w Construction (MOC) Summit 2016:249–256.
atch?v=Hdpf-MQM9vY; 2012. [100] Liew JYR. Innovation in modular building construction. Proceedings of the 9th
[67] Building and Construction Authority. Design for manufacturing and assembly International Conference on Advances in Steel Structures - (ICASS 2018) 2018:
(DfMA) prefabricated mechanical electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems, 1–14.
Singapore; 2018. [101] Chen Z, Li H, Chen A, Yu Y, Wang H. Research on pretensioned modular frame
[68] Building and Construction Authority. Design for manufacturing and assembly test and simulations. Eng Struct 2017;151:774–87.
(DfMA) prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction, Singapore; 2018. [102] Chen A, Chen Z, Wang H, Chai G. The moment strength and pretension
[69] Building and Construction Authority. Design for manufacturing and assembly calculations of a new pretensioned modular building connection. Proceedings of
(DfMA) - BIM essential guide, Singapore; 2018. the 17th National Sumposium on Structural Engineering in Tianjin, China 2017.
[70] Building and Construction Authority. Design for manufacturing and assembly [103] Yu Y, Chen Z, Chen A. Experimental study of a pretensioned connection for
(DfMA) - Connections for advanced precast concrete systems, Singapore; 2018. modular buildings. Steel Compos Struct 2019;31:217–32.
[71] Wong D. Parliament: Construction industry gets $295m to adopt new technology, [104] Sanches R, Mercan O, Roberts B. Experimental investigations of vertical post-
from https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/construction-industry-gets-295m-t tensioned connection for modular steel structures. Eng Struct 2018;175:776–89.
o-adopt-new-technology; 2019. [105] Sanches R, Mercan O. Vertical post-tensioned connection for modular steel
[72] Dezeen. World’s tallest modular tower is now Clement Canopy in Singapore, from buildings. Proceedings of the 12th Canadian Conference on Earthquake
https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/02/clement-canopy-worlds-tallest-modular- Engineering, Quebec, Canada 2019.
tower-bouygues/; 2019. [106] Wang Y, Xia J, Ma R, Xu B, Wang T. Experimental study on the flexural behavior
[73] CTBUH. Two 40-story towers completed in Singapore, from https://www.ctbuh. of an innovative modular steel building connection with installed bolts in the
org/news/two-40-story-towers-completed-in-singapore/; 2019. columns. Appl Sci 2019;9:3468.
[74] Bouygues Construction. Bouygues Batiment International Modular Solutions - [107] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K, Tallowin FJ. Shear behaviour of post-tensioned
Clement Canopy, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULj6S7-GMnw; inter-module connection for modular steel buildings. J Constr Steel Res 2019;162:
2018. 105707.
[75] Building. The sky’s the limit: See the world’s tallest modular tower in Croydon, [108] Choi KS, Kim HJ. An analytical study on rotational capacity of beam-column
from https://www.building.co.uk/buildings/the-skys-the-limit-see-the-worlds- joints in unit modular frames. Int J Civ Environ Struct Constr Archit Eng 2015;9:
tallest-modular-tower-in-croydon/5101741.article; 2019. 100–3.
[76] Construction News. Croydon’s modular tower: ‘You don’t take chances building a [109] Vectorbloc. Tall modular building system; 2016.
skyscraper’, from https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/buildings/project-report [110] Dhanapal J, Ghaednia H, Das S, Velocci J. Structural performance of state-of-the-
s/101-george-street-22-05-2019/; 2019. art VectorBloc modular connector under axial loads. Eng Struct 2019;183:
496–509.
1288
[111] Dai X-M, Zong L, Ding Y, Li Z-X. Experimental study on seismic behavior of a General Conference of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering, Toronto,
novel plug-in self-lock joint for modular steel construction. Eng Struct 2019;181: Canada 2005:GC-352.
143–64. [142] Styles AJ, Luo FJ, Bai Y, Murray-Parkes JB. Effects of joint rotational stiffness on
[112] Chen Z, Liu Y, Zhong X, Liu J. Rotational stiffness of inter-module connection in structural responses of multi-story modular buildings. Proceedings of the
mid-rise modular steel buildings. Eng Struct 2019;196:109273. International Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Construction 2016:
[113] Doh J-H, Ho NM, Miller D, Peters T, Carlson D, Lai P. Steel bracket connection on 457–462.
modular buildings. J Steel Struct Constr 2016;2:121–7. [143] Annan CD. Applicability of traditional design procedures to modular steel
[114] Chen Z, Liu J, Yu Y, Zhou C, Yan R. Experimental study of an innovative modular buildings. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The
steel building connection. J Constr Steel Res 2017;139:69–82. University of Western Ontario; 2008.
[115] Chen Z, Liu J, Yu Y. Experimental study on interior connections in modular steel [144] Annan CD, Youssef MA, El Naggar MH. Seismic overstrength in braced frames of
buildings. Eng Struct 2017;147:625–38. modular steel buildings. J Earthquake Eng 2009;13:1–21.
[116] Deng E-F, Zong L, Ding Y, Dai X-M, Lou N, Chen Y. Monotonic and cyclic response [145] Annan CD, Youssef MA, El Naggar MH. Seismic vulnerability assessment of
of bolted connections with welded cover plate for modular steel construction. Eng modular steel buildings. J Earthquake Eng 2009;13:1065–88.
Struct 2018;167:407–19. [146] Annan CD, Youssef MA, El Naggar MH. Experimental evaluation of the seismic
[117] Deng E-F, Zong L, Ding Y, Luo Y-B. Seismic behavior and design of cruciform performance of modular steel-braced frames. Eng Struct 2009;31:1435–46.
bolted module-to-module connection with various reinforcing details. Thin- [147] Sultana P, Youssef MA. Seismic performance of modular steel-braced frames
Walled Struct 2018;133:106–19. utilizing superelastic shape memory alloy bolts in the vertical module
[118] Cho B-H, Lee J-S, Kim H, Kim D-J. Structural performance of a new blind-bolted connections. J Earthquake Eng 2018:1–25.
frame modular beam-column connection under lateral loading. Appl Sci 2019;9: [148] Fathieh A, Mercan O. Seismic evaluation of modular steel buildings. Eng Struct
1929. 2016;122:83–92.
[119] Lee S, Park J, Shon S, Kang C. Seismic performance evaluation of the ceiling- [149] Fathieh A, Mercan O. Three-dimensional, nonlinear, dynamic analysis of modular
bracket-type modular joint with various bracket parameters. J Constr Steel Res steel buildings. Struct Congr 2014:2466–77.
2018;150:298–325. [150] Gunawardena T, Ngo T, Mendis P. Behaviour of multi-storey prefabricated
[120] Lee SS, Bae KW, Park KS, Hong SY. An experimental evaluation of structural modular buildings under seismic loads. Earthquakes Struct 2016;11:1061–76.
performance for the beam to column joints in unit modular system. J Kor Soc [151] Chua YS, Liew JYR, Pang SD. Modelling of connections and lateral behavior of
Steel Constr 2013;25:255–65. high-rise modular steel buildings. J Constr Steel Res 2020;166:105901.
[121] Lee S, Park J, Kwak E, Shon S, Kang C, Choi H. Verification of the seismic [152] Lawson RM, Aromaa P, Saaksvuori O. Demonstration of modular construction in
performance of a rigidly connected modular system depending on the shape and the renovation of existing concrete and masonry buildings. Report EUR 20595;
size of the ceiling bracket. Materials 2017;10:263. 2003.
[122] Liu XC, Pu SH, Zhang AL, Xu AX, Ni Z, Sun Y, et al. Static and seismic experiment [153] Luo FJ, Bai Y, Hou J, Huang Y. Progressive collapse analysis and structural
for bolted-welded joint in modularized prefabricated steel structure. J Constr robustness of steel-framed modular buildings. Eng Fail Anal 2019;104:643–56.
Steel Res 2015;115:417–33. [154] Modular Construction Codes Board. Handbook for the design of modular
[123] Liu XC, Pu SH, Zhang AL, Zhan XX. Performance analysis and design of bolted structures. Monash University; 2017.
connections in modularized prefabricated steel structures. J Constr Steel Res [155] Patrick H. Structural design of high rise volumetric building systems using hot-
2017;133:360–73. rolled steel. Proc Inst Civ Eng Civ Eng 2019;172:45–50.
[124] Liu XC, Xu AX, Zhang AL, Ni Z, Wang HX, Wu L. Static and seismic experiment for [156] Hough MJ, Lawson RM. Design and construction of high-rise modular buildings
welded joints in modularized prefabricated steel structure. J Constr Steel Res based on recent projects. Proc Inst Civ Eng Civ Eng 2019;172:37-44.
2015;112:183–95. [157] Lawson RM, Ogden R, Richards J. Design in Modular Construction. CRC Press
[125] Naserabad AA, Ghasemi MR, Shabakhty N, Arab HG. Evaluation of three support 2014.
shapes on behavior of new bolted connection BBCC in modularized prefabricated [158] Sertorio A. Overview of the handbook for the design of modular structures.
steel structures. Int J Steel Struct 2018;18:1639–53. Proceedings of CTBUH International Conference 2017.
[126] Torbaghan MK, Sohrabi MR, Kazemi HH. Investigating the behavior of specially [159] Sertorio A. Overview of the handbook for the design of modular structures.
pre-fabricated steel moment connection under cyclic loading. Adv Steel Constr Proceedings of CTBUH International Conference; 2017.
2018;14:412–23. [160] Standards Australia. AS/NZS 4600 Cold-formed steel structures; 2018.
[127] Gunawardena T. Behaviour of Prefabricated Modular Buildings Subjected to [161] Standards Australia. AS 3600 Concrete structures; 2018.
Lateral Loads. PhD thesis, Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The [162] EN1993-1-1. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules and
University of Melbourne; 2016. rules for buildings; 2005.
[128] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K. New interlocking inter-module connection for [163] EN1993-1-3. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-3: General rules -
modular steel buildings: Experimental and numerical studies. Eng Struct 2019; Supplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting; 2006.
198:109465. [164] EN1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules
[129] Sendanayake SV, Thambiratnam DP, Perera N, Chan T, Aghdamy S. Seismic and rules for buildings; 2004.
mitigation of steel modular building structures through innovative inter-modular [165] Li G-Q, Cao K, Lu Y. Column effective lengths in sway-permitted modular steel-
connections. Heliyon 2019;5:e02751. frame buildings. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build 2019;172:30-41.
[130] Sharafi P, Mortazavi M, Samali B, Ronagh H. Interlocking system for enhancing [166] Deng E-F, Yan J-B, Ding Y, Zong L, Li Z-X, Dai X-M. Analytical and numerical
the integrity of multi-storey modular buildings. Autom Constr 2018;85:263–72. studies on steel columns with novel connections in modular construction. Int J
[131] Liu XC, He XN, Wang HX, Yang ZW, Pu SH, Ailin Z. Bending-shear performance of Steel Struct 2017;17:1613–26.
column-to-column bolted-flange connections in prefabricated multi-high-rise [167] Chen Y, Hou C, Peng J. Stability study on tenon-connected SHS and CFST columns
steel structures. J Constr Steel Res 2018;145:28–48. in modular construction. Steel Compos Struct 2019;30:185–99.
[132] Liu XC, He XN, Wang HX, Zhang AL. Compression-bend-shearing performance of [168] EN1993-1-8. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-8: Design of joints;
column-to-column bolted-flange connections in prefabricated multi-high-rise 2005.
steel structures. Eng Struct 2018;160:439–60. [169] AISC 360-16. Specification for structural steel buildings; 2016.
[133] Adam JM, Parisi F, Sagaseta J, Lu X. Research and practice on progressive [170] Thai HT, Uy B. Rotational stiffness and moment resistance of bolted endplate
collapse and robustness of building structures in the 21st century. Eng Struct joints with hollow or CFST columns. J Constr Steel Res 2016;126:139–52.
2018;173:122–49. [171] Thai HT, Uy B. Application of Eurocode 4 to blind bolted endplate composite
[134] Huber JAJ, Ekevad M, Girhammar UA, Berg S. Structural robustness and timber joints with CFST columns. The 2015 World Congress on Advances in Structural
buildings – A review. Wood Mat Sci Eng 2019;14:107–28. Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM15); 2015.
[135] Arup. Review of international research on structural robustness and [172] Thai HT. Application of the component method to bolted endplate composite
disproportionate collapse. Department for Communities and Local Government; beam-to-CFST column joints. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium
2011. on Tubular Structures XVI 2018:239–245.
[136] Chua Y, Liew JYR, Pang S. Robustness of prefabricated prefinished volumetric [173] Building Code of Australia. National construction code (NCC). 2019.
construction (PPVC) high-rise building. Proceedings of the 12th international [174] DoD - Department of Defence. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) - design of
conference on Advances in Steel-Concrete Composite Structures - (ASCCS 2018); buildings to resist progressive collapse, with change 3 (UFC 4-023-03); 2016.
2018:913–919. [175] EN1991-1-7. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-7: General actions -
[137] Lawson PM, Byfield MP, Popo-Ola SO, Grubb PJ. Robustness of light steel frames Accidental actions; 2006.
and modular construction. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build 2008;161:3-16. [176] GSA - General Services Administration. Alternate path analysis & design
[138] Xu G, Ellingwood BR. An energy-based partial pushdown analysis procedure for guidelines for progressive collapse resistance; 2013.
assessment of disproportionate collapse potential. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67: [177] Standards Australia. AS/NZS 1170.0 Structural design actions - General
547–55. principles; 2002.
[139] Annan CD, Youssef MA, El-Naggar MH. Effect of directly welded stringer-to-beam [178] Gunawardena T, Ngo T, Mendis P, Alfano J. Innovative flexible structural system
connections on the analysis and design of modular steel building floors. Adv using prefabricated modules. J Archit Eng 2016;22:05016003.
Struct Eng 2009;12:373–83. [179] Srisangeerthanan S, Javad Hashemi M, Rajeev P, Gad E, Fernando S. Influence of
[140] Li G-Q, Cao K, Lu Y, Jiang J. Effective length factor of columns in non-sway diaphragm flexibility on the seismic performance of multi-story modular
modular steel buildings. Adv Steel Constr 2017;13:412–26. buildings. Proceedings of the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society (AEES)
[141] Annan CD, Youssef MA, El Naggar MH. Analytical investigation of semi-rigid floor Conference, Canberra, Australia; 2017.
beams connection in modular steel structures. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual
1289
[180] Stehle J. DfMA for composite floor structures. Eng Excellence J. 2013:20–5. [182] Standards Australia. AS/NZS 2327 Composite structures - Composite steel-
[181] EN1994-1-1. Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures - Part concrete construction in buildings; 2017.
1-1: General rules and rules for buildings; 2004.
1290

Structures: Huu-Tai Thai, Tuan Ngo, Brian Uy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures: Huu-Tai Thai, Tuan Ngo, Brian Uy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures: Huu-Tai Thai, Tuan Ngo, Brian Uy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

A review on modular construction for high-rise buildings

1. Introduction construction since it allows for 70% to 95% of a building [13] to be

Fig. 5. T30 Tower [63]: (a) during construction; (b) completion.

Fig. 7. BSB factory producing panelised modules [61].

Fig. 9. Clement Canopy Tower constructed by PPVC method [74].

Fig. 10. Croydon Tower [75].

Fig. 14. 2D panelised concrete system [87].

Fig. 16. Composite chassis proposed by Liew et al. [36].

Fig. 19. Typical inter-module connections of modular buildings [98].

Fig. 22. Tie rod connection with steel box [104,105].

Fig. 24. VectorBloc connector [109].

Fig. 26. Self-lock connector [111].

Fig. 27. Rotary connector [112].

Fig. 28. Bracket connector [113].

module connections. mechanism [154]. In addition, the initial eccentricities of modular

Fig. 37. Construction tolerances of modular buildings [157].

Fig. 38. Joint moment-rotation characteristics from Eurocode 3 Part 1–8.

Fig. 39. Robustness scenarios in modular buildings [137].

You might also like