A SEMINAR REPORT ON

MODULAR CONSTRUCTION
BY
RAHUL BADJATE
(401223)
ON
14 OCTOBER 2019
Under the guidance of
Prof. R.R. YENNAWAR
In partial fulfilment for award of degree of
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU ENGINEERING COLLEGE
AURANGABAD – 431003, INDIA

1
 MGM’s
JAWAHARLALA NEHRU ENGINEERING COLLEGE
AURANGABAD

CERTIFICATE

Certified that this is a bona fide report of the seminar entitled “MODULAR
CONSTRUCTION” submitted by RAHUL BADJATE of Seventh
semester, BACHELOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING towards the partial
fulfilment of requirement as part of curriculum for the award of the Degree of
Bachelor of engineering in civil Engineering by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
Marathwada University

Seminar guide Head of department Principle

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my gratitude and indebtness to our institution, Jawaharlal Nehru

Engineering College,AURANGABAD ,which has provided us an
opportunity to fulfill the cherish desire to achieve our goal. Firstly, I wish to
express profound sense of gratitude our H.O.D. Dr. S.B. SHINDE MAM for
her kind co-operation and guidance in my seminar topic.I also acknowledge
my honorable project guide Prof. R.R YENNAWAR SIR. I also like to thank
all the staff members of CIVIL ENGINNERING who have directly and
indirectly helped me with their valuable suggestions in the successful
completion of this seminar report. Last but not the least I would like to thank
my beloved parents for their blessings, love and encouragement to
successfully complete the task by meeting all the requirements.

Rahul Badjate BE 2

Roll No. :- 401223

3
CONTENTS :-

Chapter 1 :-
I. Introduction 6
II. Need for study 6-7
III. Uses 8-9
IV. Advantages 9-10
V. Disadvantages 10-14

Chapter 2 :-
I. Literature Review 15-18

Chapter 3:-
I. Methodology 19-20
II. Construction Process 21-23
III. Technical Aspects 24-38

Chapter 4 :-
I. Case study – Precast factory Bidkin 39-45
Chapter 5 :-
I. Summary 46-47
II. References 48

4
CONTENT OF FIGURES
Figure1 :- modular unit 7
Figure 2 :- Walls attached to floors 21
Figure 3 :- Roof set in place 22
Figure 4 :- Roof Shingled and siding installed 22
Figure 5 :- Ready for Delivery to site 23
Figure 6 :- Onsite installation 23
Figure 7 :- module to foundation connection 30
Figure 8 :- Connection of parts of module 31
Figure 9 :- Precast wall mould 39
Figure 10 :- section of precast wall mould 40
Figure 11 :- Precast wall 41
Figure 12 :- Toilet block 41
Figure 13 :- Retaining wall 42
Figure 14 :- Water tank 43
Figure 15 :- lintels 44-45

5
 Chapter 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Modular building and modular homes are sectional prefabricated
building or houses that consist of multiple modules or section which are
manufactured in a remote facility and the delivered to their site of use. These
modules are assembled into a single residential building using either by a
crane or trucks. Modular building has a wide variety of uses. They will either
be used for long term temporary or permanent facilities. Such uses include
construction camps, schools and classroom, civilians and military housing
needs and industrial facilities. Modular buildings are a perfect solution in
remote and rural areas where conventional construction may not be reasonable
or even possible. Other uses have also been found for modular buildings
include churches healthcare facilities and retail offices, fast food restaurants
and cruse ship constructions. At this time modular home today can be built to
any specification and any size from a simple one to a complex one. One of the
big advantages of modular construction is that it is very rapid and it tends to
be less expensive than a site-build structure.
Manufactures are not limited by issues like inclement weather and
because they have a great deal of experience, they can put structure together
quickly and well. And they tend to be more earthquake and weather resistance
than site build structure. Modular construction concepts can be applied for all
types of buildings such as offices, commercial, residential, hotels and much
more. Recently, modular construction was used in the UK for projects such as
Raines Diary, Murray Groove and the micro-flats concepts. As shown in the
case studies, modular construction can save time in the construction schedule
and therefore may result in savings. Also, the generation of construction waste
is reduced on-site due to the off-site prefabricated modules being transported
to the site fully fitted out, hoisted and assembled

3. MODULAR HOMES
Because of similarities in the manufacturing process, some
companies (for example, Palm Harbor Homes, among many others) build both
types in their factories. Modular homes are transported on flatbed trucks rather
than being towed and lack axles and an automotive-type frame. However,
6
some of these homes are towed behind a semi-truck or totter on a frame similar
to that of a trailer.
The home is usually in two pieces and is hauled by two separate
trucks. Each frame has five or more axles, depending on the size of the home.
Once the home has reached its location, the axles and the tongue of the frame
are then removed, and the home is set on a concrete foundation by a large
crane.
Most zoning restrictions on the homes have been found to be
inapplicable or only applicable to modular homes. This occurs often after
considerable litigation on the topic by affected jurisdictions and by plaintiffs
failing to ascertain the difference. Most modern modulars, once fully
assembled are indistinguishable from site-built homes. Their roofs are usually
transported as separate units. Newer modulars also come with roofs than can
be raised during the setting process with cranes. There are also modular’s with
2 or 3 stories. As the legal differentiation between the two becomes more
codified, the market for modular homes is likely to grow

Figure1 modular unit

7
4. USES
Modular buildings have a variety of uses. They may be used for
long-term, temporary or permanent facilities such as construction camps,
schools and classrooms, civilian and military housing, and industrial facilities.
Modular buildings are used in remote and rural areas where conventional
construction may not be reasonable or possible. For example, the Halley VI
accommodation pods used for a BAS Antarctic expedition. Other uses have
included churches, health care facilities, sales and retail offices, fast food
restaurants and cruise ship construction.
Modular buildings are used for purposes ranging from singular guard shacks
to family homes to whole hospital complexes.
1. Small Uses for small modular buildings include portable buildings such as
guard houses, on-site construction offices, temporary storage facilities and
portable classrooms. Other small-building uses are residential garages and
carports, backyard storage and garden sheds playhouses, home studios or
guest houses, gazebos and small cabins in remote hunting areas.
2. Medium residential or small farm uses for medium- size buildings can be
used for living quarters and homes, barns, workshops and large garages for
multiple vehicles and RV storage. Commercial uses range from business or
office buildings, real estate sales offices, banks, machine enclosures, clean
rooms, stadium press boxes, smoking shelters and outdoor seating for
employees, cafeterias, and many other uses that are usually associated with
brick-andmortar buildings.

3. Large modular building uses include one- and two-story office complexes,
retail shopping centers, agricultural buildings, churches, government
facilities, fire stations, barracks and entire educational campuses with libraries
and science labs. Other uses are aircraft hangars, riding and show arenas, body
shop repair bays, correctional facilities, and medical and health care
complexes.
4. Disaster Relief Earthquakes, hurricanes and other world calamities require
emergency shelters and housing for displaced persons and operations.
Modular buildings for this purpose come in single-family units, multi-person
bunk-style units and empty shells. These units require no foundation or
assembly and can be run on solar power. The empty shell units can be utilized
for clinics, staging operations and other necessary applications.

8
 5. Residential and commercial modular buildings are not mobile homes.
Modular buildings are built to state and local building codes, unlike mobile
homes, which fall under federal building codes. Modulars will look like stick-
built buildings when completed on site and in essence, become real property
just like a house. Mobiles must be attached to a permanently fixed foundation
before they are considered real property. Modular buildings have much
quicker construction times than on-site built structures at less cost due to the
control factors of building in a factory and the cost of materials, which are
usually steel, preformed concrete or other less costly building materials.
Outside labour costs are also reduced

5. Advantages
Modular buildings are very affordable because of the factory construction of
these buildings. They are cost effective compared to conventional
construction. These units are typically constructed in an enclosed facility;
therefore weather is not a factor in the construction timeline.
Material delivery fees are also out of the equation because an ample amount
of material will always be available at the facility, as opposed to being
delivered in limited quantities to the job site, nearly eliminating construction
delays, and theft of building materials from the site.
Such dwellings are often priced lower than their site-built counterparts and
are typically more cost-effective to builders and consumers. Homes can be
constructed in less time than it takes to build a home "on-site."
Manufacturers cite the following reasons for the typically lower cost/price of
these dwellings:
• Speed of Construction/Faster Return on Investment: Modular construction
allows for the building and the site work to be completed simultaneously,
reducing the overall completion schedule by as much as 50%
. • Indoor Construction: Assembly is independent of weather, which increases
work efficiency and avoids damaged building material.
• Favourable Pricing from Suppliers: Large-scale manufacturers can
effectively bargain with suppliers for discounts on materials.
• Ability to Service Remote Locations: Particularly in countries such as
Australia there can be much higher costs to build a site-built house in a remote

9
area or an area experiencing a construction boom such as mining towns.
Modular homes can be built in major towns and sold to regional areas.
• Low Waste: With the same plans being constantly built, the manufacturer
has records of exactly what quantities of materials are needed for a given job.
While waste from a site-built dwelling may typically fill several large
dumpsters, construction of a modular dwelling generates much less waste
. • Environmentally Friendly Construction Process: Modular construction
reduces waste and site disturbance compared to site-built structures.
Department Of Civil Engineering
• Flexibility: Conventional buildings can be difficult to extend, however with
a modular building you can simply add sections, or even entire floors

6. Disadvantages
Modular construction can have disadvantages as well as advantages. This
section
discusses the main disadvantages that were identified from the literature.
These
disadvantages include a need for: (1) additional material, (2) additional
construction effort, (3) additional coordination of activities, (4) increased cost,
(5) increased risk, and (6) reduced adaptability to design changes. These
disadvantages are discussed below
1.Need for Additional Material
The need for additional material is a disadvantage of modular construction
that develops from the structural requirements of the modules. The additional
material can include more or larger structural members, more bracing for
transportation loads, and redesigned (or increased capacity) structural
connections. Shelley [1990] indicates that about 30% more structural steel,
which is usually used for rigging and transporting the module, is required. The
additional material can increase costs by about 0.5%of the total project cost
[Kliewer, 1983]. Additional bracing is often placed on the modules. The
bracing, which provides the modules with strength, stiffness, and stability
during transport and erection also provides support for equipment and can
become a permanent part of the structural frame [Nahas, 1978]. Since each
module is assembled individually additional onsite connections may be

10
needed to join the modules. Additional work and construction cost are often
associated with the additional material.

2.Need for Additional Construction Effort

The need for additional construction effort is a disadvantage of modular
construction. This disadvantage includes increased effort in the following
areas: (1)planning and scheduling, (2) design and engineering, (3)
procurement, (4) fabrication, (5) inspection, and (6) transportation, handling,
and erection More planning and scheduling is required for a modular project
than a conventional project because of the greater interdependence of
planning, design,fabrication, and transportation, handling, and erection.
Detailed planning as well as detailed cost estimates are required early in the
project. Early detailed schedules are required, for example, for the design,
fabrication, and transportation activities. In fact, the actual planning phase of
a modular construction project is often lengthened compared to conventional
construction project.The additional design and engineering activity is needed
to avoid later design changes, because an assembled module must have
sufficient strength, stiffness, and stability to withstand the transportation,
handling, and erection loads, and possibly because of the connections needed
between modules. In addition to the increase in design and engineering
activity, the required effort is performed earlier in the project. The
procurement activity also increases in scope because it involves more vendors
and fabrication shops, and there is a need for rigorous fabricator and
fabrication shop evaluation In modular construction, the effort involved in the
fabrication activity increases compared with that of conventional construction
due to the transfer of onsite work into fabrication shops. The need for
inspection and supervision in fabrication shops can increase because a larger
number of workers are involved assembling the modules in
parallel in various fabrication shops Transportation, handling, and erection,
which are more complex in modular construction, set limitations on the
module dimensions and weight and must be addressed early in the planning
of the project. Transportation studies are required to thoroughly analyze the
possible transportation methods.
3.Need for Additional Coordination of Activities

11
As the interdependence of construction activities mcreases, the need for
communication and control mechanisms between activities increases. For
example, in conventional construction, the work performed on the facility at
the construction site can be inspected in place by representatives of the owner
and the responsible engineer.
However, in a modular construction project, modules are often fabricated and
assembled at various locations (perhaps in different countries) and the ease of
physically inspecting the facility and communicating among the individuals
involved in inspection is not a simple process. The need for additional
coordination is a disadvantage of modular construction that relates to the
interdependence of activities. Because many activities are performed in
parallel rather than in series as in conventional construction, there is an
increase in activity coordination [Tatum et al, 1987
The coordination of module design and engineering with module fabrication
is essential. In fact, it is favorable to include the fabrication and construction
personnel in the design activity [Annstrong, 1972]. Coordination of design
with transportation, handling, and erection is essential since transportation,
handling, and erection sets limitations on the module dimensions and weight.
Bruce Smith, project advisor with Davy McKee (London) stated "you can
make it [the module] as big as you want, provided you can move it out of the
shop" [Parkinson et al, 1982]. Proper coordination of these two activities is
needed to avoid expensive rework to reduce the size of a module to meet
transportation, handling, and erection requirements. Additional coordination
between design and procurement is required since the handling equipment
must be available, when needed. The contract for handling the module should
be fmalized prior to the conclusion of the module design [Stubbs et al,1990].
The coordination between design and permitting increases because of the
movement of the module through public/private land and/or waters to its
fmallocation onsite. This coordination may involved state, local and/or
foreign regulatory agencies depending on the project [Wells, 1979]. The
coordination between rhbrication and procurement increases because there
may be more fabrication shops involved in modular construction projects than
in conventional construction projects [Tatum et al, 1987]. The coordination
between the module fabrication and transportation is also important. The
means of transportation, for example, must be available upon completion of
module fabrication. The coordination between the transportation, handling,
and erection increases because the handling equipment used in modular
construction should have a larger lifting capacity, since most modules are
quite heavy. When handling and/or lifting the modules, adequate equipment
12
must be available to avoid equipment breakdowns and the corresponding loss
of time and money [Armstrong, 1972]. Another area of coordination in
modular construction involves quality control and foreign inspection. When a
module is fabricated in the United States, for example, and then delivered to
a construction site in another country, proper coordination of quality control
and inspection between the countries is essential to maintain the construction
schedule and to avoid delays due to rework to comply to the country's codes
and regulations. If the fabrication shops are in more than one country, the
required coordination increases [Tatum et al, 1987].
Increased Cost
Increased cost is a disadvantage in modular construction associated with the
disadvantages listed above. Glaser et al [1979] state that the additional
manhours required for design and engineering of a modular construction
project increase the design and engineering cost by approximately 10%;
Kliewer [1983] cited an engineering cost increase of 15 %. For example,
because there was a need to comply to Canadian standards as well as u.s.
standards in a particular project, Thomas C. Esper, general manager of the
Rack Structures Group, stated "we roughly doubled the engineering cost (to
approximately $100,000), but we made sure the building would work"
[Modern Steel Construction, 1991]. The additional design and engineering
cost can reduce the savings achieved in the erection activity [Armstrong,
1972]. Glaser et al [1979] state that because of the effort needed to evaluate
and select vendors, fabricators, and fabrication shops, and to administer
contracts, the cost associated with procurement increases by 20% in modular
construction projects. The costs of the fabrication and transportation activities
increase by approximately 17%and 13 %, respectively [Glaser et al, 1979].
Shelley [1990] states that the transportation cost is about 1-2% of the value of
the module. Glaser et al [1979] state that the increase in transportation cost is
mainly due to the specialized transportation methods used and the module
insurance. Cost increases also arise from the need for additional material
Despite the increased cost listed above, most modular construction projects
show a savings in installed costs over conventional construction. However,
Hesler [1990] states that the costs involved in the fIrst modular construction
project are usually greater because of inexperience. Hesler [1990] states that
the fIrst modular design by a particular team "can be 50-60% more than
conventional construction design, particularly if the job is done well. This, of
course, is only 50-60% more (than conventional construction design) or
12%of the total installed cost."

13
Increased Risk
Increased risk is another disadvantage of modular construction. Because
modular construction introduces changes to the standard project organization,
new risks develop such as those identifIed by Hesler [1990], which include
the risks of: (1) utilizing nonqualified engineering and construction fIrms, (2)
encountering module loss and/or module transport damage, (3) having
improper project management, (4) encountering problems with the fabrication
shops (in terms of capabilities and location), (5) encountering engineering and
procurement problems (in terms of timely performance and interdependency
of activities, and (6) using an "all eggs in one basket" approach.

Reduced Adaptability
Reduced adaptability to design changes is another disadvantage of modular
construction. Modular construction increases the interdependency of
construction activities, thus, changes in a design can disrupt a wide variety of
inter-related activities.Once the design has been approved and the other
interdependent activities are undertaken, the design must not change; modular
construction is not adaptable to design changes.

14
 Chapter 2
2. Literature Review
1. Modular buildings in modern construction
Author :- Elena M. Generalovaa*, Viktor P. Generalova, Anna A.
Kuznetsovaa
Review the article shows promise for developing of modern modular
construction systems in order to provide the population with affordable,
comfortable and eco-friendly housing. The paper describes the prospects and
relevance of introducing modular prefabricated units not only into low-rise
but into multi-storey and high-rise construction as well. The article considers
temporary methods of using modular units in construction. The advanced
world experience in the construction of modular buildings is analyzed. It is
emphasized that modular construction has the potential to shorten project
design and engineering time, reduce costs and improve construction
productivity. The installation of modular buildings is cost efficient, safe and
eco-friendly. Modern modular systems are based on using not only large
elements such as «block rooms» but various small 3D building elements. The
analysis result of Russian developments in the construction of modular
buildings proves that Russia has great experience in the development of 3D
reinforced concrete modules. As the research results the article shows promise
for developing of modern modular construction systems in order to provide
the population with affordable, comfortable and eco-friendly housing. The
paper describes the prospects and relevance of introducing modular
prefabricated units not only into low-rise but into multi-storey and high-rise
construction as well.

2. Trend analysis of modern high-rise construction

Author Dmitry Radushinsky1,*Andrey Gubankov 2 and Asiiat Mottaeva3
Review The article reviews the main trends of modern high-rise construction
considered a number of architectural, engineering and technological,
economic and image factors that have influenced the intensification of
construction of high-rise buildings in the 21st century The article reviews the
main trends of modern high-rise construction considered a number of

15
architectural, engineering and technological, economic and image factors that
have influenced the intensification of construction of high-rise buildings in
the 21st century. The key factors of modern high-rise construction are
identified, which are associated with an attractive image component for
businessmen and politicians, with the ability to translate current views on
architecture and innovations in construction technologies and the lobbying of
relevant structures, as well as the opportunity to serve as an effective driver in
the development of a complex of national economy sectors with the
achievement of a multiplicative effect. The estimation of the priority nature
of participation of foreign architectural bureaus in the design of super-high
buildings in Russia at the present stage is given. The issue of economic
expediency of construction of high-rise buildings, including those with only a
residential function, has been investigated. The connection between the
construction of skyscrapers as an important component of the image of cities
in the marketing of places and territories, the connection of the availability of
a high-rise center, the City, with the possibilities of attracting a "creative
class" and the features of creating a large working space for specialists on the
basis of territorial proximity and density of high-rise buildings.

3. Structural Response of Modular Buildings

Author Andrew Lacey Wensu Chen Kaiming Bi
Review This paper presents a state-of-the-art review of modular building
structures. First, structural forms and construction materials are presented as
a brief introduction to the modular structures. Prefabrication by off-site
manufacturing leads to a reduced overall construction schedule, improved
quality, and reduced resource wastage. Modular building is therefore
increasingly popular and promoted. With the recent promotion a number of
relevant studies have been completed, however, a review of the design,
construction, and performance of modular buildings under different loading
conditions is lacking. This paper presents a state-of-the-art review of modular
building structures. First, structural forms and construction materials are
presented as a brief introduction to the modular structures. Modular building
is shown to refer not to a single structure type, but a variety of structural
systems and materials. These modular structures might perform differently to
similar traditional structures and the structural performance is highly
dependent on inter- and intra-module connections. The structural response of
modules to different hazards is then considered, followed by the current
design practice and methodology. As a currently developing area there is great

16
potential for innovation in modular structures and several key research areas
are identified for further work

4. Modular Construction and its adaption in India

Author Palakd Sachdev
Review The primary objective of this paper is to provide a review of
the potential for modular construction and its need in multistoreyd
commercial buildings in India

5. KNOWLEDGE-BASED APPROACH TO MODULAR

CONSTRUCTION DECISION SUPPORT
Author By Mirza B. Murtaza, ~ Deborah J. Fisher, z Member, ASCE,
and Miroslaw J. Skibniewski, 3 Member, ASCE
Review The present paper focuses on the decision-making
methodology involved in deciding whether or not to use modular
construction techniques in building a petrochemical or power plant. The
paper identifies those factors that help construction owners and
engineers involved in conceptual project design The present paper
focuses on the decision-making methodology involved in deciding
whether or not to use modular construction techniques in building a
petrochemical or power plant. The paper identifies those factors that
help construction owners and engineers involved in conceptual project
design in their modularization
decisions and proposes a formal framework for decision-making
support. A computerized knowledge-based system assisting in this task
is presented and discussed. The system performs feasibility analysis
based upon various factors classified into five influencing factor
categories--plant location; labor-related; environmental and
organizational; project characteristics; and project risks. The system
also performs an economic analysis to determine the impact of
modularization oncost and schedule. The performance of the system is
validated comparing its recommendations
with those of the experts in the construction industry. A statistical
hypothesis test, conducted on the recommendations of the system and
those of the experts, proves the system's credibility.

17
6. Prefabricated foundations for 3D modular housing
Author :- Ester Pujadas, Josep Llorens , Spg Faas Moonen
Review :- Three-dimensional prefabrication of housing has been the
subject of extensive literature, but few houses have actually been built.
However, the numbers are now high enough to carry out an on-site
analysis, in order to confirm or refute the expectations of fully or nearly
fully prefabricated structures. It was surprising to find that many or
most of the buildings’ foundations were constructed in situ,even though
prefabricated solutions exist in the industry.This article presents
available solutions for prefabricated foundations, critically describes
the foundations of 3D modular housing that has recently been
constructed in Catalonia, and analyses the advisability (or
inadvisability) of
industrializing the foundations of this type of building.

7. Comparison Between Modular Building Technology and

Traditional Construction
Author :- Mindaugas Daukšys
Review :- This article presents a comparison of modular construction
technology with traditional constructionbased on the results of the
survey. The aim of the survey was to find out experts opinion about
modular
construction, the innovative way of building and its advantages and
disadvantages compared to traditional building method. The results of
the survey showed that modular construction has more pros than cons
compared with the traditional construction method and is more
economical and saves more time and materials.

18
 Chapter 2
1.Current design practice and methodology

Design guidelines and theoretical analysis

General design guidance is available for light steel framed modules in the
existing literature . In current practice, guidance is drawn from the traditional
literature. A limit state approach is adopted for design criteria considering
stability, strength, and serviceability. Building serviceability is satisfied by
adherence to overall drift limits and acceleration limits for human comfort.
For example, for wind loading, Mendis et al and Griffis report on acceleration
and drift limits. Modules should also satisfy serviceability criteria during
transport and lifting. Limited guidance is available and current practice is
based largely on practical experience. Serviceability during transport and
lifting is mainly concerned with the potential for damage to finishes and
equipment. Therefore, guidance can be found in existing literature such as
Griffis For example, to control cracking of partition walls during transport and
handling, limits of module height/500 and span/500 can be adopted for lateral
acceleration and gravity loads. Design of MSB connections is similarly based
on the traditional literature due to the lack of modular specific guidelines. For
bolted connections, Gunawardena and Styles et al. showed structural
behaviour can be established using finite element analysis based on
comparison with laboratory testing. The resulting force-deformation or
moment-rotation behaviours can then be incorporated into a simplified global
model of the building structure. For example, Gunawardena has demonstrated
the use of link elements to model horizontal connections using ETABS and
SAP2000.
As for traditional structures, simplified SDOF models are available following
the standard texts such as Biggs Clough and Penzien ], and Chopra ]. Hao et
al. provided a review of current practice and its limitations for blast-resistant
analysis. The limitations of SDOF models include assumptions regarding
loading conditions, response mode and deflection shape No theoretical
analysis models developed specifically for modular buildings are identified in
the literature. From low-rise construction, modular buildings are known to
behave as rigid bodies, for example overturning and sliding due to wind

19
loading ]. This understanding of modular behaviour could be extended to
multi-storey stacked assemblies, adopting a rigid module, flexible inter-
connection approach. Extensive research has been reported on the rocking
response of rigid structures. Hao and Zhou provide a summary of the
development up to 2011. The rocking and sliding response is known to be
highly non-linear. For example, stability depends on structure slenderness,
and ground motion amplitude, frequency and duration The existing
knowledge of rigid bodies could be applied to modular buildings and could
form the basis of theoretical analysis for multiple hazards.

20
2. CONSTRUCTION OF MODULAR HOMES
Modular components are typically constructed indoors on assembly
lines. An assembly line track moves the modules from one workstation to the
next. Initially the panels for produced flat floors, for both roofs, efficiency
walls and and ceilings safety."Flow Line" are all principles are employed in
the factory, the floors and bathroom pods are brought together before moving
on to have walls and ceilings erected to form a rigid box. The module then
continues along the line becoming increasingly more complete as it is flush
jointed, painted, wired, plumbed and over-clad.
The completed module then emerges from the end of the flow line for delivery
to site. Independent building inspectors are on site to supervise the
construction and Modular Buildings ensure that all building codes are adhered
during assembly. While modules can take one to three months to be
constructed, they can take only 10 days. They are transported to the building
site and assembled by a crane.
The placement of the modules may take from several hours to several days.
Once assembled, modular buildings are essentially indistinguishable from
typical site-built structures. While mobile manufactured buildings often
decrease in value over time, a well-built modular building should have the
same longevity as its site-built counterpart, increasing in value over time

Figure 2 Walls attached to floors

21
 Figure 3 Roof set in place

Figure 4 Roof Shingled and siding installed

22
Figure 5 Ready for Delivery to site

Figure 6 Onsite installation

23
3. STANDARDS AND ZONING CONSIDERATION
Typically, modular dwellings are built to local, state or council
code: dwellings built in a given manufacturing facility will have differing
construction standards depending on the final destination of the modules.
Steel and or wood framing are common options for building a modular home.
Modular home designs can be customised for local zoning codes. For
example, homes built for final assembly in a hurricane-prone area may include
additional bracing to meet local building codes.
Some US courts have ruled that zoning restrictions applicable to
mobile homes do not apply to modular homes since modular homes are often
assembled with a permanent foundation. Additionally, in US, valuation
differences between modular homes and site-built homes are often negligible
in real estate appraisal practice; modular homes in some market areas be
evaluated the same way as traditionally built dwellings of similar quality.
In Australia manufactured home parks are governed by additional
legislation that does not apply to permanent modular homes. Possible
developments in equivalence between modular and sitebuilt housing types for
the purposes of real estate appraisals, financing and zoning may increase the
sales of modular homes over time

24
 4.CHARACTERISTICS OF MODULAR BUILDING

Mobile homes are built in a factory and are designed to be moved

(once and uncommonly, perhaps once again) on its own wheels attached to its
own frame to a site where a foundation is prepared and connections to utilities
are made . The different charecteristics of modular buildings are described
below
1.BUILDING STRENGTH
According to manufacturers, modular homes are generally designed
to be initially stronger than traditional homes by, for example, replacing nails
with screws and adding glue to joints. This is supposed to help the modules
maintain their structural integrity as they are transported on trucks to the
construction site.
Despite manufacturer claims that the modular home is initially built
to be stronger than a traditional home, it is difficult to predict the final building
strength since it needs to endure transportation stresses that traditional homes
never experience. When FEMA studied the destruction wrought by Hurricane
Andrew in Dade County Florida, they concluded that modular and masonry
homes fared best compared to other construction.
Typically, a modular home contains about 10 to 20 percent more
lumber compared to traditional stick-built homes. This is because modules
need to be transported to the job site and the additional lumber helps keep
them stable.

2.DURABILITY AND LIFE CYCLE OF MODULAR CONSTRUCTION

The life cycle expectancy of modular construction is the same as
conventional, and in a world where sustainability is gaining momentum each
day, there are also several basic principles intrinsic to the modular
construction process that make it more ecofriendly than conventional
construction. The module-to-module combination of the units appears to have
provided an inherently rigid system that performed much better than
conventional residential framing. The life cycle expectancy of modular
construction is the same as conventional, and in a world where sustainability
is gaining momentum each day, there are also several basic principles intrinsic

25
to the modular construction process that make it more ecofriendly than
conventional construction.
They spend significantly less on-site time, a result of a shortened
construction cycle, (the outcome of the simultaneous activities of on-site
development and off-site building construction), notably minimises the
overall impact on a site. And finally, modular construction methods and
materials allow a building to be more readily “deconstructed” and moved to
another location should need arise, so complete building reuse or recycling is
an integral part of the design technology.
Many of the life cycle reports and research focus on the environmental
life cycle of a building rather than its economic life cycle. And while non
traditional methods such as modular construction are comparable to
traditional methods in terms of economic life cycle, modular construction
provides significant advantages in terms of environmental life cycle analysis.
This advantage is a result of a combination of less materials waste on
the initial site coupled with the fact that modular structures are designed for
deconstruction at the end of their useful life much more so that traditional
buildings, thus reducing the amount of materials waste in landfills upon
demolition.
After Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992, FEMA’s Mitigation Assessment
Team conducted a study of various building types and how well they
weathered the storm. In their summary the Mitigation Assessment team
concluded that the masonry buildings and wood-framed modular buildings
performed relatively well.” The report went on to state that overall, relatively
minimal structural damage was noted in modular housing developments. The
module-to-module combination of the units appears to have provided an
inherently rigid system that performed much better than conventional
residential framing.
This is documented research from a government agency attesting to the
fact that modular construction is a more durable and rigid building system
than conventional construction. Another example of modular construction’
durability can be seen in San Antonio. The Hilton Palacio del Rio Hotel is a
21-storey concrete modular hotel built in 1968, still in use today, this believed
to be the tallest modularly-constructed facility in the United States.

26
3. COST AND TIME SAVINGS
Modular construction projects continue to become more common as
homebuyers learn more about them and better understand the construction
process. Using streamlined production process it delivers higher efficiency
and a higher quality house. The prefab construction speed is faster than on-
site construction since manufacturers build your house inside a factory and
weather cannot cause delays. Weather delays in site-built construction can
greatly increase labour costs. Home buyers also don't get stuck with the tab
for wasted building materials exposed to wind, rain, snow and general rot at
the building site of old fashioned construction.
Prefab home prices will vary depending where you live. A general
guide is that stick-built houses cost upwards of $150 per square foot while
mobile or manufactured homes will cost $40-$80 per sq. ft. Modular housing
prices will be about $90-$150 per sq. ft. For more precise pricing estimates,
use our directory of home builders. These veteran builders will be able to give
you accurate construction prices based on personal building situation and your
preferred floor plan.
Custom appearance like traditional home prefabricated modular
homes allow you to afford the home that has all the options you want. You
can have a basement, multiple levels, extra bedrooms, increased energy
efficiency and additional insulation. Modular builders allow you to select
different custom options so you can have the floor plan of your dreams.
Modular housing looks just like traditionally built homes. The big
difference is that these prefab homes are pre-built in factories and assembled
on-site. This process provides time savings since construction on the modular
building can begin in the factory while the site preparation work is being done
(leveling of ground, laying foundation, etc.) and weather delays don't slow
down the factory construction.

4.SURFACES AND FINISHES

Modular buildings can be assembled on top of multiple foundation
surfaces, such as a crawl space, stilts (for areas that are prone to flooding), full
basements or standard slab at grade. They can also be built to multi-story
heights. Motels and other multifamily structures have been built using
modular construction techniques. The height that a modular structure can be
built to depends on jurisdiction but a number of countries, especially in Asia,

27
allow them to be built to 24 floors and possibly even more. Exterior wall
surfaces can be finalize in the plant production process or in the case of
brick/stone veneers field applications may be the builder’s choice. Roof
systems also can be a part of separate from applied in the field after the basic
installation is completed

5. Component materials
Prefabricated components should be as light as possible as they are
transported sometimes long distances. Traditional materials of steel, concrete
and timber are commonly used. The potential applications of composite
sandwich structures have not been well explored [32]. Manalo et al. [33] gives
an overview of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) sandwich systems in the
context of lightweight civil infrastructure. Many of the developing materials
presented by Manalo et al. [33] may find application in modular buildings. To
date such composite systems have been developed for application as roof, wall
or floor components. Some examples of composite materials are given in
Table 2. Use of FRP composite materials for complete modular building
façades is appealing although their performance, especially with respect to
wind-borne debris impact and fire, is a developing area. In addition, the design
and manufacture of reliable jointing systems is noted as a challenge which has
received growing research attention
USE COMPOSITE ADVANTAGE
MATERIAL
Wall Rigid polyurethane Environment,
foam stud frame with lightweight, low cost
magnesium oxide
cladding
Floor Glass FRP web-flange Lightweight, strength,
sandwich, adhesively high serviceability
bonded stiffness, corrosion
resistance, low thermal
conductivity
Floor FRP-steel composite Lightweight, high
beam system strength, corrosion
resistance, low thermal
conductivity

28
Floor Glass fibre reinforced Lightweight, acceptable
cement, polyurethane, strength, 5% damping
steel laminate
floor Steel-timber composite Lightweight, sustainable
Roof Cold-formed steel – Lightweight, efficient
timber sheet composite material use, simple
beam, or truss fabrication, low cost,
renewable and reusable
materials

29
Module to foundation connection

Foundations may consist of in situ or precast concrete footings, bored

concrete piles, augered steel piles, or some combinations. Low rise modular
buildings located in areas with high lateral loading may be vulnerable to
overturning and sliding failures if not adequately restrained by connection to
an appropriate foundation. Building modules are commonly connected by
chains, cables, keeper plates or welding to concrete or steel piles, or large
mass concrete footings. Each connection type has associated disadvantages
including tensioning requirements for chain and cable. In medium and high-
rise construction foundations are more substantial. Base plates may be
incorporated in modules and fixed to cast-in anchors, or welded on site to
accessible cast-in plates. Park et al. [45] developed an embedded column
connection (Fig. 5), as an alternative to the traditional cast-in or post-fixed
steel bearing plate. This connection was developed to ensure best use of the
full column strength and provide good ductility. The disadvantages include
the requirement for site welding between MSB columns and the end plate.

Figure 7 module to foundation connection

30
Figure 8 Connection of parts of module

31
 Chapter 3

Technical aspects
Transport and handling
Modules are designed to be lifted, with designated lift points provided
on the module. They are usually lifted by a crane, although forklifts may be
used in the manufacturer’s yard. The number and positioning of lift points is
often determined by deflection criteria chosen to protect fragile components.
Lift points are typically positioned in from each end, reducing member design
actions and deformation of the chassis. General guidance on the design of
lifters is available in existing documents, for example, American Standard
and DNV Offshore Standard
The stiffness of a whole module is likely to be influenced by internal
and external linings and manufacturers may test complete modules to
establish composite stiffness. For transportation, including road, rail and sea,
the loading is defined by acceleration coefficients, for example 0.8g forward,
0.5g rearward, and 0.5g transverse during road transportation. General
guidance is available in the existing documents, for example, the CTU Code
for cargo transport units (CTU). Transit bracing is often provided, particularly
in open modules, to strengthen the structural frame and increase stiffness to
help control damage to fragile components.
Few studies on the response of modular buildings to transport and
handling have been reported. Smith et al. investigated transport and handling
for single storey timber framed modules. Field testing and numerical
modelling using SAP2000 were conducted and the relevant data is provided
in the referenced report. It was reported that the main form of damage was
cracking of internal plasterboard linings. This was caused by the
Load Characteristics Design Criteria Transport & Handling Lifting: dynamic
amplification depending on module and lift arrangement; Transport:
acceleration coefficients in three orthogonal directions Stability, strength and
serviceability; Deflection criteria to protect components, e.g. h/500, L/500
Wind Load Low frequencies, ~0.01 to 2.5Hz; Mean component and
fluctuating component (gust-factor approach) Stability, strength,

32
serviceability (inter-storey & overall deflection, and vibration); Deflection
limits for serviceability limit state, e.g. H/600 for total drift and h/500 for
inter-storey drift [61] Debris Impact Local impact Local penetration, opening
area for internal pressure calculation Earthquake Ground motion with
frequency contents in the range of 0.5 to 25Hz; Excites fundamental, low
vibration modes resulting in a global structural response Damage criteria –
displacement based i.e. ductility ratio & inter-storey drift e.g. 1.5% inter-
storey drift Design criteria – life safety, collapse prevention Blast Short
duration; local response for close-in blast, might lead to progressive collapse;
For far field blast, uniformly distributed loading Descriptive building damage
level and component response Fire High temperature Fire resistance level
(time) lifting practices with road transport propagating cracks. It was
recommended that areas for further work included the development of
laboratory techniques to simulate transport under controlled conditions and
the development of dampers to reduce dynamic forces.
Wind :- Natural hazards such as cyclones and tornadoes encompass multiple
actions including both primary wind loading, and secondary debris impact and
water ingress. Wind loads are characterised by low frequencies,
approximately 0.01 to 2.5Hz, and mean and fluctuating components [71-73].
Design criteria are typically based on stability, strength and serviceability by
considering inter-storey deflection, overall deflection, and vibration [74]. For
example, the limits of H/600 for total building drift and h/500 for inter-storey
drift [61] are specified, where H is the total building height and h is the storey
height. Generally, structures are regarded as wind sensitive if the fundamental
frequency is less than 1Hz, and slenderness ratio is greater than five [62, 74,
75]. Static analysis is therefore appropriate for buildings with height less than
50m [74], based on an empirical formula for the fundamental frequency [76,
77]. However, results presented in the literature for modular buildings suggest
a value of 30m could be more appropriate, with a frequency of approximately
1Hz obtained numerically for a 10-storey modular building [17] (refer Section
6.3.3). Therefore, dynamic analysis is required for modular buildings over
30m high. No studies are identified to address cyclonic wind loads for
modular buildings.
Few studies on the response of modular structures to wind loading have been
conducted. Gunawardena et al. [78] presented base shear and storey drift
results for static analysis of a 10-storey modular building with wind loading
applied following AS 1170.2:2011 [62] for Region A, Terrain Category 4.
Three different cases of inter-connection were considered for this building –
rigid connection by a rigid floor diaphragm, flexible connection by a semi-
33
rigid diaphragm, and no connection. The results indicated the actual structural
behaviour fell between that for the semi-rigid diaphragm and no diaphragm.
Styles et al. [47] investigated the effect of joint rotational stiffness on the
response to wind loading for an 11-storey modular building. It was reported
that increasing horizontal inter-module and intra-module connection stiffness
effectively reduced inter-storey drift due to wind load. Intra-module
connection stiffness was shown to have a greater effect than horizontal inter-
module connection stiffness. It is indicated that further studies are needed to
address the factors including vertical inter-module connection stiffness and
building height
Earthquake
Earthquakes are characterised by ground motions with predominant
frequencies in the range of 0.5 to 25Hz, which normally excite the
fundamental and low vibration modes of engineering structures and result in
global structural responses [71, 72]. Extensive research works have been
carried out to investigate the seismic behaviours of traditional building
structures, and displacement-based damage criteria such as the ductility ratio
and inter-storey drift ratio are widely used by the design guides to measure
their seismic performances [72]. For example, Australian Seismic Design
Code AS 1170.4 [64] specifies an inter-storey drift limit of 1.5% for the
ultimate limit state. Modular buildings, due to their obvious advantages, are
increasingly used in areas with high seismic hazard. Their seismic
performances are, however, not adequately understood because they are a
relatively new structural form. The rocking and sliding response of modules
after connection damage could be the governing response modes. In such
cases the conventional displacement-based criteria such as drift ratio may no
longer be applicable to quantify modular building damage. Therefore, it is
essential to investigate the performance of modular buildings under
earthquake loadings and further propose the corresponding criteria to evaluate
their seismic performances.
Seismic responses
Very limited studies on the seismic responses of modular structures have been
conducted and these studies mainly focused on the MSB-braced frames.
Annan et al. [20] conducted experimental studies on the hysteretic behaviours
of an MSB-braced frame and a regular concentrically-braced frame with
similar physical characteristics. It is reported that both specimens showed
stable and ductile behaviour up to very high drift ratio (3.5%). The MSB frame
was more vulnerable to column bending deformation, whereas the traditional
34
frame was vulnerable to the out of plane buckling of bracing. Annan et al. [21]
further conducted incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) for 2-, 4- and 6-storey
two-dimensional (2D) MSB-braced frames. It is reported that the selected
MSB-braced frames exhibit a predominantly first-mode response (e.g. the
mass participation factors for the 2-storey frame are 94% for the 1st mode and
5% for 2nd mode, similarly, for the 4-storey frame, the percentages are 81%
and 15% respectively, and for the 6-storey frame, the values are 77% and
17%) and limited redistribution of internal forces can result in concentration
of inelasticity at the first level. Fathieh and Mercan [22] conducted non-linear
static pushover and IDA analyses for 2D and 3D MSB-braced 4-storey
frames. It verified the concentration of inelasticity at the first level due to
limited internal force redistribution and brace inelasticity, and found the 2D
model overestimated the structural capacity against incipient collapse because
torsional response was not accounted for in the 2D model. Gunawardena et al.
[24] conducted nonlinear time history analysis for a freestanding 10-storey
modular building subject to six selected ground motions. Column hinge
formation was found unavoidable in severe ground motions and column
ductility was important to redistribute post yield loads. It was indicated that
further studies are needed to investigate dynamic behaviours for mid- to high-
rise modular buildings.
Over-strength and ductility
In the seismic analyses of traditional engineering structures, forces derived
from an elastic response spectrum analysis are adjusted to allow for the
ductility and other reserved strength. AS 1170.4 adopts a structural ductility
factor (µ) and structural performance factor (Sp) as a measure of the ability to
withstand inelastic displacement and other reserved strength respectively. For
the modular structures, Annan et al. investigated the inelasticity of modular
buildings by conducting non-linear static pushover analyses for 2-, 4- and 6-
storey 2D MSB-braced frames. The over-strength factor (R0=1/Sp) and
structural ductility (µ) are reported as per the National Building Code of
Canada (NBCC]. Two methods were used to calculate the column actions due
to bracing – the SRSS (Square Root of the Sum of the Squares) method and
the DS (Direct Summation) method. The SRSS method was found to be
unconservative and so the DS approach was recommended. The ductility,
which is calculated as the ratio of the ultimate drift (Δu) to the yield
displacement (Δy) i.e. Δu/Δy, is shown to reduce with increasing MSB frame
height. The values range from 4.6 to 1.8 for 2- to 6-storey MSB-braced
frames. The variation with height is reported to occur for two reasons. First,
the yield displacement of braces increases with increasing frame height due
35
to a decrease in brace slenderness (i.e. the brace section size is not constant)
Second, the ultimate drift is determined by the redistribution of load after the
compression brace yields The vertical inter-module connections affect this
ability to redistribute load, and the affect increases with increasing frame
height Similarly, the overstrength factor, which is calculated as the ratio of
the ultimate load to the design load, is shown to reduce with increasing height
The values range from 2.5 to 1.9 for 2- to 6-storey MSB-braced frames. The
variation with height is again related to the ability to redistribute internal force
[18]. Similar results are reported for steel moment resisting frame (SMRF)
modules. Choi et al. conducted non-linear static pushover analyses for 3- and
5-storey SMRF modules with varying inter-module connection type and
stiffness, and reported overstrength factors between 2.15 and 3.76 for the 3-
storey frames, and between 1.19 and 1.94 for the 5-storey frames. For each
frame height, the SMRF frames with greater inter-connection stiffness had
greater overstrength factor.
Fire
Fire resistance is a major challenge for modular buildings. Concerns have
been reported considering the use of flammable materials and the presence of
a void between modules which may permit a fire to spread These concerns are
similar to those raised in the case of the fire at Grenfell Tower, London, UK
]. However, studies into the fire performance of modular structures are
limited. One study considered fire simulation for a container building ] and
several studies investigated the performance of developing composite
materials such as fibre reinforced polymer (FRP). Composite materials have
advantages which make them well suited to application in modular building.
They are lightweight with high strength and stiffness and offer flexibility in
shape However, they generally have low fire resistance and their performance
as a building envelope is not well known Ngo et al. investigated the
performance of an office building constructed from modules with glass FRP
composite components forming the façade. This study provides insight into
the fire performance based on numeric analysis. Nguyen et al. investigated the
addition of fire retardant to improve fire performance. Models were developed
to predict “fire growth index and total heat release” for “organoclay/glass fibre
reinforced polymer (GFRP) laminates” The performance was then considered
for an office building with façade consisting of GFRP laminate on foam core.
The addition of organoclay is found to prevent flash-over and horizontal flame
spread. Fire performance studies are therefore mostly related to the
development of FRP materials with no studies identified for modular steel

36
buildings. In current practice, fire resistance time requirements are satisfied
by providing layers of protective cladding and fire stops to control fire spread

Experimental testing
Testing is typically conducted either to demonstrate compliance with
performance requirements (i.e. proof testing) or to determine the capacity for
design purposes (i.e. prototype testing). As a new developing application,
structural design of modular buildings has a greater emphasis on prototype
testing, rather than reliance on standardised or pre-qualified detailing.
Prototype modules may be constructed to establish overall composite stiffness
including cladding, test lining response to transport and lifting actions, and to
test the fit and tolerance of connection systems. Table 8 gives a summary of
test methods for modular buildings and
Guideline Application scope and notes The Steel Construction Institute (SCI)
P272 [11], SCI P302 [9], SCI P348 [14] Architectural and general guidance
on typical details for light steel framed modules Prefab Architecture: A Guide
to Modular Design and Construction [3] General background, applications,
and case studies for modular buildings Design in Modular Construction [4]
General guidance on modular buildings with an emphasis on light steel framed
modules and case studies Code of Practice for Packing of Cargo Transport
Units [69] General guidance on transport actions for container units
Handbook for the Design of Modular Structures [118] General guidance on
design and construction aspects with an emphasis on Australian codes and
standards
prefabricated components. The documentation of test methods for modular
buildings is limited and standard methods are not available in some cases. For
blast loading no modular specific methods are available and a summary of
current practice is provided by Hao et al

Component Description
Module Transport and handling – field testing, measurement of
wind speed/pressure, deformation & accelerations
Module Overturning – wind tunnel, rigid body scale model
Module In-plane shear (racking test)

37
Module Progressive collapse – general methods include
laboratory simulated column removal and field testing
Module Dynamic properties – field testing, to determine
fundamental frequency, damping ratio, mode shape
Module Frame Cyclic seismic test – symmetric reversed-cyclic loading
history
Panel- In-plane shear, compressive / tensile / concentrated load,
Wall,roof,floor transverse flexural load (two-point or bag method)
Connections Evaluation of inter-module connections
Module Simulated wind-borne debris impact
Envolope

38
 Chapter 4

Case Study
Industrial visit:- Nandadeep precast factory Bidkin, Aurangabad
1. Precast walls moulds :-

Figure 1

39
2.Section of precast wall mould with reinforcement

Figure 2

Figure 3

40
 3. Precast wall :- figure 5
Height :- 1.5m
Wall thickness:- 100mm
Reinforcement :- 12mm
Dead weight is nominal

Figure 4

41
 4. Toilet block mould

Figure 5
Precast toilet block
 Plumbing and electrification is done while casting
 Can withstand the load upto 40KN

Figure 6

42
 5. Retaining wall
 Reinforcement :- 8mm
 Height:- 6.5m
 Thickness:- 100mm

Figure 7

Curing of components

43
 Figure 8

Water tank
Thickness :- 150mm

Figure 9

Lintel beams

44
 Figure 10

Figure 11

45
 Chapter 5

Summary
Modular building refers to the application of a variety of structural systems
and building materials. Modular buildings perform differently to similar
traditional structures owing to the requirements of site interconnection for
modular building. Analysis, design and construction technologies of modular
building are currently under further development and several key areas are
identified for further study.
1. Overall module size is limited by transport capabilities and internal
layouts are limited by the requirement for structural elements. Greater
flexibility in internal layout could be provided by a reduction in
structural member sizes, and reduction in the number of braces, shear
walls and columns.
2. There remains a need for efficient lightweight systems which also
address issues of robustness. At the same time, there is also a need to
develop new lightweight materials for specific application in
prefabrication and modular building. The performance with respect to
wind-borne debris impact and fire are developing areas.
3. Accumulated damage must be considered for portable buildings
subject to repeated and fatigue loading. In other cases where a module
might be transported only once or twice in its life, damage during
transport and in situ degradation are worth studying. This affects the
performance for all hazard types, yet published quantitative studies are
limited.
4. Connections are key to the performance of modular buildings. The
design and fabrication of reliable connection systems is a major
challenge. Further research is required to better define the performance
of existing connection systems and limit the potential for overdesign
due to limited understanding.
5. The current studies on modular building under earthquake are limited
to 10 storeys. Further studies are needed to investigate the dynamic
behaviour due to earthquake ground motion for mid- to high-rise
modular buildings.

46
6. No studies have been identified to address dynamic wind loading, or
cyclonic wind loading for modular buildings. Further studies are
needed to investigate the dynamic response of modular buildings under
wind loading.
7. Further studies are needed to investigate the behaviour of mid- to
high-rise modular buildings subject to blast loading. In addition,
progressive collapse studies considered only light steel framed modules
and container buildings. Modular steel buildings may be vulnerable due
to the use of connections with limited ductility, which is worth
studying.

47
 Chapter 6
REFRENCES:-
1. Lacey, Andrew William; Chen, Wensu; Hao, Hong; Bi, Kaiming (2018). "Structural
Response of Modular Buildings
– An Overview". Journal of Building Engineering.
2. Lacey, Andrew William; Chen, Wensu; Hao, Hong; Bi, Kaiming (2019). "Review of
bolted inter-module
connections in modular steel buildings". Journal of Building Engineering.
3. "HUD- Manufactured Housing and Standards"
(https://web.archive.org/web/20160504145914/http://portal.hud.go
v/hudportal/HUD?src=%2Fprogram_offices%2Fhousing%2Framh%2Fmhs%2Ffaq).
.
4. "Halley VI Research Station – British Antarctic Survey" (https://www.bas.ac.uk/polar-
operations/sites-and-facilitie
s/facility/halley/). Bas.ac.uk. Retrieved 2016-05-03.
5. "Why Build Modular?" (http://www.modular.org/htmlPage.aspx?name=why_modular).
Modular.org. Retrieved
2016-05-03.
6. "Modular Construction Advantages & Modern Day Applications – Commercial
Structures Corp" (http://comstruc.c
om/modular-construction-advantages/). Commercial Structures Corp. 2017-07-26.
Retrieved 2018-03-09.
7. "Current Practices and Future Potential in Modern Methods of Construction"
(http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wr
ap/Modern%20Methods%20of%20Construction%20-%20Summmary.pdf) (PDF).
Retrieved 2017-09-10.
8. "7 Benefits of Prefabricated Construction – Construction World"
(http://www.constructionworld.org/7-benefits-pref
abricated-construction/). Constructionworld.org. 2016-03-28. Retrieved 2018-03-09.
9. "High-rise housing going modular" (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/01/high-rise-
housing-going-modular/).
News.blogs.cnn.com. Retrieved 2015-10-15.
10. "Structural Insulated Panels |Green Modular" (http://www.green-
modular.com/blog/structural-insulated-panels/).
Green Modular. Retrieved 2016-04-14.
11. "Modular Building and the USGBC's LEED ™ Version 3.0 2009 Building Rating
System" (http://modular.org/mark
eting/documents/Modular_09V3LEED.pdf) (PDF).
12. "Pros and Cons of a Commercial Modular Building"
(http://www.modulartoday.com/pros-cons.html).
www.modulartoday.com. Retrieved 2015-10-15.

48