Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Building information modelling-based framework to contrast

conventional and modular construction methods through selected
sustainability factors
Ahmed WA. Hammad a, *, Ali Akbarnezhad b, Peng Wu c, Xiangyu Wang c, Assed Haddad d
a
Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW Sydney, Australia
b
School of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney, Australia
c
School of Design and Built Environment, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
d
Departamento de Construça ~o Civil, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In recent years, off-site construction has been significantly hyped as a viable solution for improving the
Received 23 April 2018 sustainability of the construction industry. There is yet an approach to be developed that can utilise
Received in revised form project-specific parameters to quantify the improvement in adopting off-site methods as opposed to
11 April 2019
conventional construction. This paper focuses specifically on modular construction as an off-site
Accepted 14 April 2019
Available online 22 April 2019
production system, where a decision support tool is proposed for contrasting conventional and
modular construction methods based on selected sustainability criteria. The framework relies on
quantifying certain measures of: i) social factors, including safety and noise pollution; ii) environ-
Keywords:
Construction method selection
mental factors, such as energy consumption, U-value of the building envelope and embodied energy;
Modular construction and iii) economic factors including time and cost of construction. Fuzzy logic, equivalent noise sum-
Off-site prefabrication mation and algorithmic mapping are utilised to quantify the sustainable measures adopted. The indices
Sustainable construction utilised to showcase the possible comparison that can be made between construction methods, are up
Embodied energy to the decision maker to decide upon. Realistic case studies, involving the construction of a granny flat
and a school are used to demonstrate the applicability of the developed framework. The modular
construction method was found to perform on average 21%, 52% and 60% better in terms of the
measures adopted for social, environmental and economic costs in contrast with the conventional
approach, for the cases considered.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction quarter of 2016, the total contribution of the construction sector to

Due to its large consumption of energy and materials, the
building and construction industry is a major contributor to sus-
tainability challenges. The sustainable development of the built
environment in response to evolving demands of today's world is a
well-recognised goal in the construction and building industry. This
is imperative particularly given that buildings comprise the ma-
jority of the urban composure of cities worldwide (Thomas, 2007).
Karausmann et al. in a report highlighted that the construction
sector is considered to be the largest consumer of materials
(Krausmann et al., 2009), contributing to 29%e44% of total waste
produced by all sectors worldwide (DEFRA, 2013). In the first
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.hammad@unsw.edu.au (A.WA. Hammad).
the GDP was assessed to be at 7.6% (Trading Economics, 2017).
These numbers are not expected to decrease anytime soon, with
the constant demand for residential projects and non-residential
construction works (Albelwi et al., 2017). Due to its economic
importance and large market share, along with its resource, energy
and carbon intensive operations, the construction sector has sub-
stantial potential for improvement in terms of sustainability (UNEP,
2009).
Among various environmental impacts of the construction and
building industry, energy use and carbon emissions have received
significant attention. This is mainly due to the high global contri-
bution to carbon emissions and energy use of the industry (Asif,
2016). Buildings are reported to account for 30% of annual green-
house gas emissions across different developed and developing
countries (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.150
0959-6526/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281
Already rated amongst the biggest per capita contributors to GHG
emission worldwide, Australia is facing growing challenges in
limiting the increasing amount of energy use and emissions due to
its growing population and the corresponding increasing demand
for infrastructure and services (DCCEE, 2012). In Australia, the en-
ergy consumption of buildings and their associated carbon foot-
print is expected to rise by about 24% over the next couple of years
(Acil Allen Consulting, 2015). In the US, the built environment ac-
counts for around 36% of total carbon emissions in the country (UN
Environment and International Energy Agency, 2017) while in
Canada the built environment accounts for 33% and 50% of energy
and natural resource consumption respectively (Industry Canada,
2011). In Norway carbon emissions from construction activities
increased by 4.2% between 2003 and 2007 (Huang and Bohne,
2012). In China, the construction industry accounts for over 50%
of the total country's energy use (Chang et al., 2010). These
resulting figures, indicating the huge impact of the construction
industry on global energy use and carbon emissions, has led to a
growing interest in examining environmental and economic im-
plications of various design and planning decisions within con-
struction (Hammad et al., 2018). A sustainable approach to
construction requires a broader perspective, which not only ac-
counts for individual sustainability parameters separately, but also
attempts to capture certain aspects of the triple bottom line of
sustainability, namely social, economic and environmental di-
mensions over the life cycle of a construction project (Jeong et al.,
2016).
A highly advocated sustainable alternative to conventional in-
situ construction is off-site prefabrication construction (Mao
et al., 2013). The numerous social, economic and environmental
benefits of off-site prefabrication, including improved safety and
productivity, and reduced waste highlight its suitability as a
potentially more sustainable alternative to conventional construc-
tion (Jaillon et al., 2009). As a construction system, off-site pre-
fabricated construction is comprised of a process where varying
degrees of particular components of a building are manufactured
and assembled in an off-site factory, and transported to be installed
on site (Bernstein et al., 2011). Given that modular construction is
one of the most efficient off-site construction methods (Kamali and
Hewage, 2017), the focus in this study is on utilising modular
construction as the off-site prefabrication method contrasted
against conventional construction methods.
The goal of this paper is to propose an automated framework
that can aid decision makers in the selection of an appropriate
construction method, based on a set of criteria that target social,
economic and environmental aspects of construction. The criteria
are up to the decision maker to decide upon; in this article a
selected number of factors are modelled to highlight the appli-
cability of the framework. Extensions of the proposed framework
to other factors of relevance are also demonstrated. By developing
the construction method comparison framework, this paper
contributes in the areas of sustainable building construction,
pollution reduction in construction and sustainability assessment
of construction methods. Developing a decision support system to
evaluate the sustainability of conventional in-situ and modular
construction methods would enable decision makers to fully grasp
the distinctions between these construction methods, leading to
better informed construction method choices. The method
developed in this paper contrasts modular and conventional
construction methods, based on evaluating a set of relevant sus-
tainability criteria in a digital platform. The paper is organised as
follows: in Section 2, a review of the relevant literature is pre-
sented. Section 3 describes the framework. A realistic case study is
then adopted to highlight the capability of the developed
approach.
1265
2. Literature review
Modular construction is characterised by having the highest
level of prefabrication, with around 80e90% of the project manu-
factured in a controlled environment (Alistair G.F. Gibb, 1999). Once
the modules are complete, they are transported to the construction
site where they are positioned in place.
The overall sustainability advantages of modular construction
compared to on-site conventional construction have been discussed
in previous studies. These include shorter construction times
(Bernstein et al., 2011), enhanced safety of workers (Smith, 2011),
higher quality control (Pan et al., 2007) and less environmental
breaches compared to conventional methods (Jia Wen et al., 2015).
Despite the benefits, the market share of modular construction still
remains below 4% in Australia (Hajkowicz, 2016), while the average
of off-site construction across the UK has been reported to be less
than 7% (KPMG, 2016). Such low adoption rates are attributed partly
to the lack of understanding of the benefits of prefabrication in
general, and modularisation in specific, for a given project (Lu, 2007).
To address such a gap, a number of efforts have been made to
compare conventional in-situ and modular construction methods
(Kamali and Hewage, 2016). Efforts have focused on environmental
impacts, rather than life cycle sustainability where a combination of
economic, environmental and social impacts are assessed (Kamali
and Hewage, 2016). Al-Hussein et al. (2009) emphasised the
distinction between modular and conventional methods in the
construction phase. This was achieved through a comparison of the
carbon footprint associated with both construction methods.
Embodied and operational energies, waste, GHG emissions and
resource consumption of modular and conventional construction
methods were compared by Kim (2008) using a life-cycle approach.
Baldwin et al. (2009) investigated waste reduction in high-rise
prefabricated and conventional residential buildings. The authors
concluded that standardisation in design and adoption of prefabri-
cation enables waste savings to be realised. Chen et al. (2010a, b)
developed a decision-support system which utilises four attributes
of a project, namely project characteristics, site conditions, market
attributes and local regulations, to determine whether the choice of
prefabrication for a project is feasible or not. Monahan and Powell
(2011) proposed a life cycle analysis framework that conducts a
partial life cycle assessment (LCA) from cradle to site, to compare the
embodied carbon of modular timber frames systems with traditional
construction approaches. Aye et al. (2012) compared the embodied
energy associated with steel and timber modular construction
methods, against conventional building approaches, through the use
of LCA. Quale et al. (2012) examined the construction phase of
modular and traditional buildings, in terms of energy consumption,
from cradle to end. Faludi et al. (2012) evaluated the environmental
performance of modular systems without contrasting them against
conventional methods.
Analysing the state-of-the-art reveals that most studies focus on
establishing the environmental advantage of modular construction,
without proposing a generalised framework that can incorporate
additional sustainability measures including social and economic
factors. The absence of a systematic framework to evaluate the
comparative benefits and costs of modular and conventional con-
struction methods (Blismas et al., 2006), particularly in terms of
triple bottom line of sustainability (Kamali and Hewage, 2017),
makes it harder to understand the real benefits and costs of each
construction approach. In the absence of systematic assessment
methods, most decisions that are made regarding the use of
modularisation are based on personal preference by clients, simple
cost analysis or anecdotal evidence (Chen et al., 2010a). Such
choices are difficult to quantitatively justify as they can vary
depending on project type, size and complexity.
1266 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281
Automatic extraction of information from digital models such as
BIM, and their use to propose an appropriate construction method
based on a set of criteria assessing economic, social and environ-
mental considerations is still lacking. As highlighted in the above
reviewed studies, the focus has been traditionally placed on envi-
ronmental impact proxies, rather than a combination of economic,
environmental and social impacts that need to be collectively
analysed to achieve sustainability in construction. Within the
environmental measure, studies tend to focus mostly on emissions
or energy, to compare the impact of different construction
methods. This is even though each dimension of sustainability is
composed of a multitude of measures that need to be combined in
order to realise the impacts of the dimension being assessed. In the
next section, a method that accounts for the three dimensional
scales of sustainability when contrasting modular and conventional
construction approaches, is presented (Blismas et al., 2006).
3. Method
In construction, importance is traditionally given to factors that
impact the cost associated with the project (Pasquire and Connolly,
2002). Recently, there has also been an interest in utilising social
and environmental measures to assess decisions adopted. As a
result, a method was developed herein for construction method
selection that combines economic, social and environmental con-
siderations, while ensuring that the evaluation of these factors is an
accurate representation. The method is expected to allow decision
makers to make better informed decisions when it comes to con-
struction method selection, and to help them satisfy requirements
set by regulators on certain sustainability factors. Fig. 1 displays the
main steps undertaken in the developed framework to compare the
sustainability performance of modular and conventional con-
struction methods. The social, environmental and economic factors
considered in the framework have been selected by considering the
main impact categories for construction projects, as determined in
the literature reviewed above. A quantitative basis for analysing the
Fig. 1. Framework to compare conventional and modular methods.
impact of modular and in-situ construction methods with regards
to each factor of the sustainability dimension is highlighted. As
shown in Fig. 1, the framework relies on three main input modules
to obtain the information required for the sustainability assess-
ment. These include: i) input data from BIM, which embeds se-
mantic information regarding the design that is desired to be
achieved in each construction method; ii) a schedule that links
activities involved in each construction method; and iii) a mapping
set composed of materials, crew and equipment that are utilised in
each construction method.
The available information is then compiled and passed on to an
algorithm that establishes a direct link between each element in
the BIM file and the set of activities making up the respective
construction method. The two most imperative factors when it
comes to social considerations impacting modular construction are
noise pollution and enhanced safety of workers (Chen et al., 2010a).
As a result, for the social analysis, an assessment of noise pollution
that is related to disturbance caused to the community is con-
ducted. The safety level associated with each construction method
is also compared.
When it comes to the environmental pillar of sustainability,
embodied and operational energy are of high relevance in con-
struction (Monahan and Powell, 2011). The environmental analysis
conducted in the framework, referred to as an energy analysis,
considers the effect of each construction method on the embodied
energy of the building as well as the U-value of the envelope. The U-
value is taken to be a measure of thermal effectiveness of the
building due to its impact om the operational energy load of the
building. For economic factors, the most relevant are time and cost,
as these are largely influential in the decision-making involved in
the AEC industry (Pasquire and Connolly, 2002). The economic
analysis focusses on computing and comparing the monetary cost
and the time taken for completing all activities associated with the
contrasted construction methods. The next sections elaborate more
on the input, algorithm and sustainability analysis conducted.
 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281
3.1. Input data
The input required in the developed framework is composed of
three major components. The first component is the BIM file that
contains all the elements that are required within the project. Each
construction method will contain specific building elements. The
importance of including the BIM files is due to the need to extract
information on the element properties and materials from which
these elements are composed. The element properties will enable
establishing a link with the schedule of activities and the cost
associated with the construction method analysed. Utilising
element properties also enables the analysis of the embodied en-
ergy and U-value associated with the building generated by each
construction method.
The second input component is a precedence network that
highlights the activities that take place during the construction
operations for each contrasted method. Information such as the
activity duration and the resource requirements for each activity
can be derived from the precedence network. Such information can
then be processed further to calculate productivity levels, noise
pollution and cost requirements that are associated with each ac-
tivity. Information from the BIM files enables the creation of a direct
link between the elements and the activities that are undertaken in
each construction method.
The third component of the input is comprised of a Mapping Set
that contains 2 different libraries. Each library is concerned with
mapping one of three parameters to the activities of the precedence
network, including the material, crew and equipment. To achieve a
link between the elements within the BIM file and the activities in
the precedence network, additional information that maps the ma-
terial types, crew size and equipment to each activity is required;
such is the purpose of developing the Mapping Set. The first library
within the Mapping Set associates the materials utilised throughout
the project with a given activity from the precedence network. The
second library links one or more of the crews required during the
construction process with an activity on the precedence network;
determining the size of the crew is based on the requirement of
human resources and equipment that are necessary to complete
the respective activity.
3.2. Sustainability assessment algorithm
All components of the input are passed on to an algorithm which
parses the information and creates an association between the el-
ements of BIM and the two main parameters that are assigned
within the Mapping Sets, namely the materials and crew required
for each activity in each construction method. The link between the
Mapping Sets, the BIM file and the precedence network, and the
pseudo-code of the algorithm, is schematically elaborated in Fig. 2.
The developed algorithm is labelled as Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 starts by looping through all elements in the BIM
model, making use of the element ID property in BIM (Eastman,
2008). Looping through the activities of the precedence network
and through the parameters making up the Mapping Sets, the al-
gorithm creates a link between the elements of the BIM file and
between the activities, materials, crew and equipment. The linking
of resources, including crew, equipment and material is subject to
both the availability of the respective resource and the demand for
resources, as specified in the precedence relationship of the activity
network diagram input. Algorithm 1 contains a condition that
adopts concepts from resource levelling in order to account for the
requirement of each activity in terms of resource demand.
Overall, the output that is produced by Algorithm 1 is given as
follows.
1267

The set L, which links each element in the BIM file to an activity
of the precedence network for each construction method

The set M, which links each element in the BIM file to a material
m2M. Set M represents the set of all materials that are utilised
in both construction methods

The set C, which links each element in the BIM file to a crew
c2C. Set C represents the set of all crew (equipment and
personnel) required for each activity of each construction
method.

X is the set of all links formed between activities i and crew c

The set Ad corresponds to the set of all activities involved in a
given construction method d
The creation of links between the elements in BIM and the
precedence network is achieved through a matching algorithm
developed in Dynamo (Autodesk, 2017). Dynamo is an open source
visual programming tool that enables algorithmic design in Revit, a
BIM software (“Autodesk Inc.,” 2018). Since each element that is
included in the BIM file is associated with a unique ID and prop-
erties that reflect its type, a link between each of the elements and
the libraries produced by Algorithm 1 (i.e. algorithm output) can be
established.
The research presented herein aims to present the main con-
cepts underlying an automated framework for recommending
appropriate construction methods to adopt, based on a set of fac-
tors that are proxy measures of the three main pillars of sustain-
ability. Additional factors for each sustainability parameter can be
further investigated through slight modification of the code in Fig. 2
to allow for inclusion of more factors in the decision-making pro-
cess. In the following section, the analysis conducted to evaluate
each construction method based on the three dimensions of sus-
tainability are discussed.
4. Sustainability analysis for construction method
The approach utilised in this study is based on quantifying the
factors reflecting each sustainability pillar that can be adopted in
the decision-making process. Risk assessment via risk distribution
and fuzzy logic (Islam et al., 2017), is used to assess the safety
measure in the social analysis; noise-level measurement is used for
noise pollution assessment (Standards Australia, 2010a, b);
embodied and operational energy quantification is achieved via use
of cradle-to-grave assessment and U-value calculation respectively
(Hammad et al., 2018); while for the economic parameter, factors
such as time and cost are quantified based on the utilisation of
schedules, productivity databases and cost indices (Kaming et al.,
1997). The next sections highlight the quantification methods in
detail for each sustainability parameter targeted. It is important to
note that with slight modification, a weighted approach is possible
in the developed method, where the decision maker can associate
higher weights with factors that influence their construction
method selection decisions the most.
4.1. Factors for social analysis
In order to analyse the social impacts of the construction
methods being examined, two surrogate measures are adopted,
Fig. 3. The first measure captures the safety aspect associated with
each activity involved in each construction method. This is based on
historical data which can be accumulated from past projects. In
order to calculate the safety level linked with each construction
method, an accumulated measure that accounts for risk distribu-
tion of the activities, the probability of occurrence of an accident
and its corresponding consequence level is used. An a priori map-
ping is created where each activity is linked to a i) number of
1268 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281

Fig. 2. Algorithm 1, which links BIM with activities and this creates mapping sets.

Fig. 3. Framework for conducting social analysis.

possible hazards; and ii) the consequence level associated.

The risk distributions for each activity are generated using fuzzy ð5
logic, through a trapezoidal function adapted from (Chen and Vi ¼ xi mi ðxÞ ci2A (1)
Hwang, 1992), Table 1. The risk exposure level is set as xε½0; 5. A
0
de-fuzzification function, which relies on the centroid method
(Zimmermann, 2013), is then used to estimate the value of risk The higher the risk measure Vi , the more exposed are the
exposure, Vi , based on the fuzzy set defined in Table 1, via the use of workers involved to injury in the activity. The process is repeated
Eq. (1) for each activity, iεA: for all activities involved in each construction method.
It is important to note that the definitions presented in Table 1
will be based on the perception of the contractor hired on each
Table 1 project; the levels can be modified to suit operation requirements
Fuzzy set definition for social analysis.
specific to the project at hand. The overall method will remain the
Impact Interpretation Trapezoidal function mðxÞ same as that described herein.
Critical Very high impact (4, 4.5, 5, 5) A second surrogate measure of the social cost for construction
Serious High Impact (3, 3.75, 3.75, 4.5) projects is the noise pollution emitted from the construction pro-
Moderate Moderate Impact (1.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3.5) cess (Hammad et al., 2016). In this study, the noise level is
Minor Small Impact (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2) measured in accordance with the Australian standards for noise
Negligible No substantive impact (0, 0, 0.5, 1)
calculation of construction activities (Standards Australia, 2010a).
 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281
The process is again depicted in Fig. 3. As an initial step, the
equivalent average level, LAeqi is determined for each activity i2A
involved in each construction method. The duration of each activity
is a required input to calculate noise pollution, which depends on
the productivity of the crew performing the activity, and can
therefore vary from one contractor to another. With this in mind,
the durations are calculated based on contractor's historical pro-
ductivity values or based on productivity values reported in avail-
able cost databases such as RSMeans (RSMeans, 2017). Adjustments
that account for the size, shape, barriers and acoustic properties of
the region surrounding the environment in which the construction
activities are taking place are taken into consideration in calcu-
lating the noise pollution. Eq. (2) is then used to combine the effects
of all these factors into a single measure of noise over the assessed
period, T, namely the equivalent A-weighted sound level LAeqT;i for
each activity:
1 X
LAeqT;i ¼ 10log10 te;i 100:1Le;i ci2A
T more than a single layer, with each layer comprised of a different
e2E
where, te represents the time of operation of noise-producing
equipment eεE involved in each activity and Le;i denotes the
equivalent sound level of equipment involved in the operation of
each activity.
4.2. Factors for environmental analysis
The energy analysis embedded in the developed framework to
contrast conventional and modular construction methods, is based
on quantifying the energy requirements during the operation and
assembly/construction phase of the building. This is achieved
through adopting relevant surrogate measures, including thermal
efficiency and embodied energy. Fig. 4 highlights the overview of
the factors considered in the energy analysis.
4.2.1. Energy efficiency
The choice of conventional vs modular construction methods
can potentially influence the operational energy load of the build-
ing through differences in the materials used in the structure and
the exterior envelope, which in turn lead to differences in thermal
Fig. 4. Energy analysis comprised of calculating operational and embodied energy.
1269
mass and U-value of the building (Aksamija, 2013; Ficco et al.,
2015). Theoretically speaking, any material adopted in conven-
tional construction can still be utilised on buildings constructed
through the modular construction method. In reality, modular
manufacturing firms restrict themselves to certain material types
in order to ensure enhanced production rates (Lawson et al., 2011).
This study reflects this current practice by associating common
material types with both construction methods.
Given its considerably higher influence on energy efficiency, in
terms of thermal transmittance of the building, compared to other
factors, the U-value of the building's envelope (external walls and
roof) is used as a surrogate measure to characterise the relative
effect of conventional and modular construction methods on the
energy efficiency of the building (Ficco et al., 2015; Robinson et al.,
2017).
A 2-dimensional approach, based on the parallel method, is
used to analyse the U-value of the structures’ envelopes. This
approach is adopted because the wall elements are composed of
(2)
material (Advanced Buildings, 2010), hence creating a discrepancy
in the conductance of the layer. Such instances require the use of a
weighted average of thermal transmittances and so the average
transmittances of heat flow travel paths through the concerned
layer is utilised.
4.2.2. Embodied energy
The choice of modular construction method over conventional
construction method leads to considerable differences in the con-
struction operations involved and is therefore expected to result in
variations in the embodied energy of the building. In this study, the
cradle to gate embodied energy is used as a surrogate measure of
environmental impacts. The cradle to service embodied energy can
be calculated by adding the cradle to gate embodied energy of the
material to the energy utilised during the construction process
(Akbarnezhad and Xiao, 2017).
4.2.2.1. Construction energy. The amount of energy expended dur-
ing the construction process for each construction method is
examined by estimating the amount of diesel and electricity
consumed by construction equipment throughout the construction
1270 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281
phases (this includes transportation of material to site). Eq. (3) is
adopted to obtain the energy requirement during the construction
phase for each activity iεA:
X the weather (Abd El-Razek et al., 2008), whereas for modular
CEi ¼ t e fe ðiÞ ci2A
e2E
where CE denotes the total construction energy for each activity
involved, in MJ, t e is the time of operation of the equipment asso-
ciated with activity i, as obtained from the mapping produced by
the algorithm, fe ðiÞ is a generalised function for each equipment
utilised, which describes the energy requirement of equipment
involved in activity i.
4.2.2.2. Cradle to gate embodied energy. The cradle to gate
embodied energy accounts for the energy required to extract,
manufacture, construct and transport materials between different
processing facilities and to the construction site. The embodied
energy factors can be obtained from inventories such as (Hammond
and Jones 2008). The following equation is used to estimate the
embodied energy associated with each construction method, Eq.
(4):
X each element of the BIM file, using the element ID property in BIM.
CG ¼ EEi;m Qi;m
ði;mÞ2W
where CG denotes the total cradle to gate energy, W is the set of
links formed between activities i and material m, as determined by
Algorithm 1 of Fig. 2, EEi;m refers to the embodied energy (in MJ/kg)
associated with material m belonging to activity i, while Qi;m is the
quantity of material m linked to activity i.
4.3. Factors for economic analysis
Fig. 5 shows the method adopted in this study to perform the
economic analysis. Two measures that are critical to the economic
assessment of the contrasted construction methods are the time
and the associated monetary costs (Ozcelik, 2016). A fuzzy logic
approach, like the one presented above (see Eq. (1) and Table 1), is
Fig. 5. Framework for conducting economic analysis.
adopted to account for uncertainty in terms of possible delays, and
hence compute the duration of each activity. For conventional
construction methods, the main source of delay is considered to be
(3) construction, delays occur mostly due to machine breakdown (Zhai
et al., 2015). A set of scenarios are utilised to reflect probabilities
associated with events resulting in delay for both methods. In this
framework, this is achieved through one of two alternative
methods: i) historical data that are relevant to the individual firm/
entity utilising the construction method; and ii) sampling from an
exponential distribution which is commonly accepted in the liter-
ature as accounting for risk (Balakrishnan, 1996). The precedence
networks of each construction method are used as the basis for
determining the time of completion.
Factors modelled in the framework that can influence the time
and cost expended in each construction method include the crew
size (involving workers and equipment), and material required
(Kaming et al., 1997); both are impacted by the activities associated
with each construction method.
For each construction method, the input data, comprised of a
priori mapping sets as described earlier, are embedded into the BIM
model via Algorithm 1. One or more materials become linked to
(4) The required crew and equipment are linked to the elements within
BIM via a combination of mapping sets and the element IDs. The
algorithm is then linked to a rates database in order to compute the
time and cost associated with each construction method. The time
associated with each construction method, dεY is derived using the
following equation, Eq. (5):
c
X X X Q i;m
timed ¼ þ OTd cd2Y (5)
P ci;m
i2Ad c2C: m2M
ði;cÞ2X ði;mÞ2W
where the set A0 d corresponds to the set of all activities involved in a
given construction method d, and X 0 is the set of all links formed
c
between activities i and crew c. The variable Q i;m represents the
quantity of material of type m associated with activity i that will
 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281
require crew c to be assigned to it. The variable P ci;m represents the
productivity of crew c assigned to deal with material m associated
with activity i. OTd denotes the turnaround time between the
breaking of ground and occupancy of the building constructed
using each of the construction methods.
Set X is formed as follows:
n o
X ¼ ði; cÞ : i2Ad ; dεY; c2C; db : ðb; iÞ2L∧ðb; cÞ2C
While the set W is formed as follows:
W ¼ fði; mÞ : i2Ad ; dεY; m2M; db : ðb; iÞ2L∧ðb; mÞ2Mg with b
being the building element extracted from the BIM file.
All the above sets are generated via use of the Algorithm 1.
The cost of each construction method is derived using the
following equation, Eq. (6):
X X X Fig. 6B. Again, the scores given in the matrix are based on a Likert
costd ¼ km c
i;d þ ki;d
i2A c2C: m2M
ði;cÞ2X ði;mÞ2W
where km c
i;d and ki;d refer to the cost of material procurement of ac-
tivity i belonging to construction method d, and the cost of crew c
assigned to activity i belonging to construction method d,
respectively.
The productivity associated with each activity, as a function of
time and monetary cost, can be calculated once the materials and
crew size are linked with the elements of BIM. It is important to
note that both time and cost of the two construction methods
contrasted depend directly on the precedence network adopted in
each method.
5. Framework extension
The framework and Algorithm 1, presented in Figs. 1 and 2
respectively, can be extended to encompass a broader number of
sustainability factors, subject to the availability of associated da-
tabases to allow for quantifying the respective factors. In order to
demonstrate how the extension can be made possible, an example
is presented in Fig. 6. The aesthetics of a given building is of interest,
as a social factor, along with the total level of waste produced, as an
environmental factor (See upper and bottom rows in Fig. 6A). The
supporting database column in Fig. 6A indicates the additional in-
formation that needs to be inserted in the framework of Fig. 1, while
the Link Creation column highlights the minor adjustment that
needs to be carried out on Algorithm 1 presented in Fig. 2. All
symbols and notations adopted are the same as the ones defined
above; new notation will be defined herein.
Starting with the aesthetics parameter, Fig. 6B gives the pro-
cedure that would be adopted to quantify the attractiveness of the
building design. A total of five building component families are
utilised in the example to assess the aesthetics parameter in a
building design, namely Façade, Windows, Walls, Ceilings and
Columns. For brevity purposes only two elements for each family
are displayed for each construction method assessed in Fig. 6B.
After extracting the relevant supporting databases, comprised of
families of the project from the BIM file, and as indicated in the top
portion in Fig. 6A, the quantification of the attractiveness level
associated with an element that composes the building project
ensues. This quantification can be achieved via a survey conducted
on a representative sample of relevance to the decision-making
process; the survey in the example presented is based on a Likert
scale from 1 to 7, where a value of 7 is given to the element of
highest attractiveness. The top portion of Fig. 6B indicates the value
of attractiveness beneath each element considered in bold. Since a
total of two elements are considered for each family group, and
1271
since there exists five overall families in this example, the total
number of possible combinations for elements making up the
project is given as 25 ¼ 32. As a result, 32 values for scf , indicating
the score associated with each family, and summed over all the
elements making up a design combination, are computed and
contrasted.
The lower portion of Fig. 6B considers the impact of the joint
interaction of elements on the resulting aesthetics of the building,
denoted as isf ;f 0 , where f and f ’ are two separate elements from
different families. This joint impact is modelled via the use of a
preference matrix, where the Coherence, Complexity, Legibility and
Mystery of the resulting design due to joint contribution of selected
elements from each family, are assessed (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989).
The resulting matrix contains 10 rows and columns for each
element within the family, labelled from f1 to f10, as displayed in
(6) scale, and are summed up to give the second term of the equation
PP
used to calculate the aesthetics parameter, isf ;f 0 .
In Fig. 6C, the computation of the waste levelf 0 f parameter, shown
in the bottom row of Fig. 6A, is demonstrated. The framework of
Fig. 1 is extended such that the material waste dataset, shown in
Fig. 6C, is added. Algorithm 1 of Fig. 2 needs to be slightly adjusted to
account for the mapping between the material waste database and:
i) the activities set L; and 2) material set M. The total material
consumed by activity l, cml , is derived from the BIM file using Al-
gorithm 1, and this is then multiplied by the waste rate, wm , for each
material involved. When summed over all materials associated
with each activity, the result is the total waste produced by the
PP
assessed construction method, wm cml .
m l
It is important to note that the proposed framework relies on
quantifying the impacts that each assessed construction method
will have on the sustainability factors embedded in the framework.
Any qualitative factor that is desired to be embedded needs to
somehow be quantified (see for instance quantification of aes-
thetics in Fig. 6B, and quantification of waste level in Fig. 6C).
6. Case study
Two case studies are examined to demonstrate the applicability
of the developed framework. The first case study, Case A, is related
to the construction of a granny flat in Sydney, Australia. The floor
plan of the design of the granny flat is displayed in Fig. 7A. The
second case study, Case B, is a public school, comprised of a 3-storey
building, located in the Central Coast, Australia (Fig. 7B). The choice
of the case projects is made as both project types lend themselves
effectively to the construction methods being contrasted. Projects
similar to both case studies have been previously built in Australia
using both construction methods. The aim in the analysis presented
is to display the validity of the developed framework in comparing
construction methods across the dimensions of sustainability
modelled in this study, and in the selection of a method that is
appropriate across all measures assessed.
6.1. Project description
The total floor area of Case A is 63m2 (8:7 m x 7:2 m). Each storey
in Case B has a floor area of 740 m2 , with each storey height set at
4m. When adopting modular construction, the granny flat is
designed from 2 modules; each module is 3:6 m x 8:7 m. For the
school, a total of 54 modules are designed corresponding to 7 main
school departments, each with 4 classes; each module is designed
to have a length dimension of 3:6 m and a width of 4:2 m. Table 2
reports the material quantities associated with each building, as
quarried from their respective BIM files.
The structural design of both case studies satisfy the Australian
1272 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281

Fig. 6. Example of how framework can be extended to cover additional factors: A) logical steps to adopt B) example of social computation C) example of environmental
computation.
 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281
Fig. 7. Floor plans of case studies considered Case A) granny flat; Case B) school.
National Construction Code (Australian Institute of Building, 2016)
and the Australian standards for Concrete: AS3600, (Standards
Australia, 2009), Steel: AS4100, (Standards Australia, 1998), Timber:
AS 1720.1 (Standards Australia, 2010b) and Masonry: AS3700
(Standards Australia, 2011). The structural design of the modular
components in modular construction also satisfy the Australian
Cold-formed Steel Standard: AS 4600 (Standards Australia, 2005).
The brevity of the discussion presented herein is maintained by
doing the following:
i) The building elements within the BIM file are grouped into 4
major categories, namely Foundations, Flooring Structures,
Frame and Roof.
ii) The stages of the work schedule for both construction methods
are defined so that the most influential activities are included in
the analysis, Fig. 8. Differences exist between the stages within a
given construction method. For conventional construction,
when the granny flat is constructed (Fig. 8A), Stage 1 relates to
site preparation and foundation construction, Stage 2 is associ-
ated with the slab on grade construction, Stage 3 is the brick
work and framing required for external building envelope, along
with interior partitions, while Stage 4 is related to the roof and
internal finishes.
For the school, where conventional construction is adopted
(Fig. 8B), Stage 1 relates to site preparation and foundation again,
Stage 2 relates to ground floor construction and 1st floor columns,
Stage 3 is associated with the 2nd floor construction, while Stage 4
defines the period for construction of the top level forming the roof
structure of the building, along with the internal finishes
associated.
In the case of modular construction (Fig. 8C), Stage 1 is the
excavation work required on-site, the rolling of cold-formed steel
and the welding of the building chassis. Stage 2 involves the as-
sembly of the frame using the cold-formed steel. Stage 3 is the
transportation of the hot rolled steel and assembled cold-formed
steel to the assembly points. Stage 4 involves the assembly of ele-
ments into modules. Services, including the mechanical and
plumbing rough-ins along with the finishes are considered in Stage
5.
Note that the above division of stages for each construction
method can be organised into as many stages to suit the decision
1273
maker's requirements; the adopted division in this study is only for
demonstration purposes.
The linked library created via Algorithm 1, which associates the
construction activities of each construction method, with the ma-
terial database and the crews required, is displayed in Table 3.
It is important to note that the data in Table 3 is designed to
reflect common building practices in Australia for both construc-
tion methods being contrasted. The developed framework can be
utilised in regions outside Australia where varying equipment and
materials are handled, with minimal adjustments required. Mate-
rial consumption will be impacted by the productivity of workers;
in this study, the productivity rates specified in RS Means
(RSMeans, 2017) are adopted. The framework can be expanded to
account for other sustainability factors that have not been reported
in this study, via the integration of suitable libraries in Algorithm 1.
6.2. Structural design considerations
The floor system in Case A is assumed to be non-roof load area,
since the walls are not load bearing. For Case B, the floor system is
assumed to be roof load area since the floors are supporting the
combined roof, wall and floor loads within the structure. A struc-
tural system of portal beams and columns is non-existent in the
granny flat when modular construction is adopted since the
structure dead loads are not significant. In terms of the school
design, the modules are supported via a steel frame consisting of
200 mm  90 mm Parallel Flange Channel (PFC) beams and portal
beams, along with 75 mm  75 mm square hollow section (SHS)
columns.
6.3. Sustainability analysis
In this section, the sustainable analysis conducted on the case
studies is described. The collected data from both Case A and Case B
pertains to the analysis that is required to be performed within the
developed framework. As such, the data was grouped according to
the sustainability dimension considered.
A precise explanation of the analysis conducted for each of the
sustainability parameters is given in the following subsections.
6.3.1. Social analysis
The results of the social analysis are targeted towards
1274 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281

quantifying the workers injury risks along with the noise disrup-

Roof Battens ¼ 140 m

Roof battens ¼ 692 m

tion caused by both construction methods. The injury risk analysis

Insulation ¼ 19.5 m3

Roof sheet ¼ 740 m2

Roof battens ¼ 51 m
Insulation ¼ 140 m3

Insulation ¼ 555 m3
Roof joists ¼ 163 m

Roof sheet ¼ 64 m2

Roof frame 75 mm
Concrete ¼ 108 m3 Concrete ¼ 222 m3

Insulation ¼ 33 m3
Roof tiles ¼ 65 m2

light steel ¼ 30 m
is conducted via adoption of fuzzy set theory after consultation

Flashing ¼ 210 m
Screed ¼ 444 m3

Flashing ¼ 30 m
with the contractors involved on each case study, while the noise
pollution during the construction process is calculated based on
common noise levels of equipment utilised in the construction of
Roof

both case studies. This is detailed below.

6.4. Injury risks

Concrete ¼ 135 m3 Steel ¼ 11 t

Table 4 displays the injury risks, in terms of hazards to workers,

associated with the activities in each construction method, while
Stair

n/a

n/a

Fig. 9 displays a chart highlighting the average safety hazards

associated with each activity in each construction method for both

200PFC ¼ 144 m
140PFC ¼ 288 m
cases considered. The values in Fig. 9 are obtained through the de-
Beam System

Steel ¼ 14.5 t

fuzzification approach highlighted earlier (see Eq. (1)).

(0.3  0.6)

As can be seen from Fig. 9, for both the case studies, the results
indicate a considerably lower risk of injury in modular construc-
n/a

Light gauge steel frame n/a

tion, compared to conventional construction. For Case A, the ac-

Vapour barrier ¼ 96 m2

tivities associated with modular construction are on average 25%

Insulation Type 1 ¼ 96

10 mm CFC ¼ 4000 m2
Plasterboard ¼ 96 m2

10 mm CFC ¼ 400 m3

less hazardous to workers compared to those of conventional

6 mm internal PVC
Masonry ¼ 270 m3 450  450 ¼ 40 þ 40þ40 ¼ 120 columns Insulation Type 4
Timber ¼ 96 m2

construction. For Case B, modular construction is 40% less hazard-

Vapour barrier

Plasterboard ¼
studs ¼ 10.3 m

lining ¼ 72 m2
Internal Walls

Steel ¼ 286 m
90 mm Light

ous, suggesting an increase in benefits of modular construction in

terms of safety risk mitigation with an increase in the size of the
project. This high safety level associated with modular construction
m2

is attributed to the controlled environment in which the activities

are conducted, permitting for better risk identification and miti-
gation (Lawson et al., 2011).
The results show that for a given construction method, Case A is
always associated with a lower risk level, in comparison to Case B.
Reinforced concrete columns

The construction process involved in a large project, such as the one

*PFC: Parallel Flange Channel; CFC: Compressed fibre cement; SHS: Square Hollow Section; PVC: Polyvinyl chloride.

in Case B, is likely to be associated with more activities that are

prone to a greater level of risk due to the shear amount of work
75  75 SHS ¼ 312 m
Formwork ¼ 900 m3

involved. For conventional construction, Case A is 36% less risky

compared to Case B, while for modular construction, the risk
Steel ¼ 12 t

associated with Case A is 19% lower relative to that associated with

Columns

Case B.
Insulation ¼ 990 m3 98 m3
n/a

n/a

6.5. Noise
Bricks ¼ 220 m3

75SHS ¼ 216 m
Bricks ¼ 25 m3
External Walls

To determine the noise pollution associated with each con-

Steel ¼ 556 m
75 mm Light

90 mm Light
110PFC ¼ 48

Steel ¼ 56 m

struction method, the resultant LAeq at 10 m for equipment

involved in the corresponding methods are obtained from common
construction noise databases and standards (Standards Australia,
2010a). These are given in Table 5.
It is important to note that the noise calculation is performed on
Flooring Structure (plus

Purlin C181 ¼ 2673 m

the actual construction site; in the case of modular construction,

Formwork ¼ 200 m2 Formwork ¼ 2525 m2

C115 Purlin ¼ 115 m

chassis for modular)

Concrete ¼ 444 m3

this will be the location where the building is erected, and not the
Formwork ¼ 7 m2
Concrete ¼ 36 m3

380PFC ¼ 810 m
Formwork ¼ 1.5 m2 400 PFC ¼ 52 m

400 PFC ¼ 52 m
200PFC ¼ 63 m

factory in which the modules are produced. The durations in Table 5

Formwork ¼ 2.5 m2 Steel ¼ 0.7 t

Steel ¼ 31 t

are a representative of the average working hours of the respective

Material associated with each construction method.

equipment involved in the activities of each construction method,

as specified by the contractors involved in Case A and Case B. Total
noise pollution is calculated over a duration of 8 h (i.e. T ¼ 8 in Eq.
Formwork ¼ 87 m2

(2)).
Bitumen ¼ 740 m2

Concrete ¼ 0.6 m3
Concrete ¼ 45 m3

Concrete ¼ 25 m3
Bitumen ¼ 13 m2

Bitumen ¼ 93 m2
Concrete ¼ 1 m3

Bitumen ¼ 6 m2

When calculating the resultant noise levels using Eq. (2), a fixed
Steel ¼ 0.130 t

Steel ¼ 0.642 t
Steel ¼ 3.85 t

Steel ¼ 0.04 t
Construction Case Foundation

distance of 30 m is assumed between the noise sources and the

closest sensitive receiver external to the project (i.e. school or
hospital). A total of 4 receivers are assumed to be located on each
side of the site in which construction is taking place.
The results of Fig. 10 show a noticeable reduction in the
Conventional A

A
B

magnitude of the highest level of noise at sensitive receivers

through adoption of modular construction in place of conventional
Modular
Method

construction (72 dB (A) vs 78 dB (A)). This can be attributed to the

Table 2

fact that in conventional construction a majority of construction

work is performed onsite, whereas most of the activities involved in
 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281
Fig. 8. Construction stages in A) conventional granny flat; B) conventional school; C) modular construction.
modular construction are performed off-site, with minimal work
required on site. Due to completion of most modular construction
activities in enclosed off-site factories, noise disruption on-site due
to modular construction is expected to be less than that generated
by conventional methods. Project size contributes to the total noise
produced during the construction process. This is evident from
Fig. 10 in that the average noise levels in Case A are always lower
than those in Case B irrespective of the construction method
adopted.
6.5.1. Environmental analysis
In this section, the details of the environmental analysis con-
ducted on the case studies are described.
6.6. Energy efficiency
Table 6 shows the U-values associated with both construction
methods. As can be seen, the U-values of the walls and roofs for the
conventional construction method in both buildings are lower than
those associated with buildings constructed using modular con-
struction. This is due to the higher thermal efficiency of both the
bricks and the roof tiles adopted in the wall composition and roofs
of the conventional building respectively, in comparison to the
building envelope materials adopted in the modular construction
method. The difference is not that significant; the U-values of the
modular-constructed building can be modified to match con-
structions using the conventional method through use of insulating
material with a higher R-value (Su, 2017). It should be noted that
the differences observed in the U-values resulting from the
1275
contrasted construction methods are due to variances in the ma-
terials used for the external envelope in both building methods. In
cases where the choice of modular construction does not result in
changes in the type of the material used for the exterior walls, no or
minimal differences in terms of operational energy implications are
expected between modular and conventional construction.
6.7. Construction energy
The energy utilised by each construction method for construc-
tion of Case A and Case B at each stage, is given in Table 7. As can be
seen, across all stages of construction (see Fig. 8), adopting modular
construction reduces construction energy by 56% and 31% for Case A
and Case B, respectively.
The energy rates calculated in Table 7 are obtained based on fuel
and electricity consumption rates of equipment listed in Table 3, as
obtained from RS Means. The rates are then multiplied by the
duration of the project, obtained from the project schedule, to get
the overall amount of energy use in with the construction phase of
each construction method. Within conventional construction op-
erations, diesel consumption was highest during the excavation
and concrete pouring stages. The concrete pump adopted in the
projects consumes 1.1 L of diesel for every 1 m3 of concrete deliv-
ered. It is important to note that these rates may vary depending on
the size and amount of work involved in the project case being
examined. In terms of modular construction, electricity use was
highest for the cold forming process and during the handling of
materials and building elements within the factory, via the over-
head cranes.
1276 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281

Table 3
Library generated via Algorithm 1.

Construction Activities Construction Material Equipment Human Resources

Method

Conventional Excavation Backfill Hydraulic excavator; Compactor excavator Operator

Brick Laying (exterior wall) Brick Grout pump 1-3 Bricklayer
Formwork Timber Crane (tower or mobile); Club hammer; electric 1-3 Carpenter; 1 Equipment
Saw; drill operator
Concreting Concrete; Steel On-site crane; concrete pump; concrete mixer; gas 1-3 Cement finisher; 1e3
engine vibrator; disc cutter Labourer; 1e3 Rodman
Wall framing (interior) Timber; Fibre-glass insulation Crane (tower or mobile) 1-3 Carpenter; 1 Equipment
operator
Floor framing Timber Crane (tower or mobile) 1-2 Carpenter; 1 Equipment
operator
Roof framing Timber; Fibre-glass insulation Crane (tower or mobile) 1-3 Carpenter; 1e3 Roofer; 1
Equipment operator
Mechanical and electrical rough Electrical wiring, PVC pipes; Metal e 1-3 Plumber; 1e3 Labourer
in and services ducts
Interior Finishes Plasterboard; Paint; Tiles e 1-3 Painter; 1e3 Tiler; 1e3
Carpenter
Modular Set up perimeter chassis for Steel, Paint Paint sprayer; Welder, Gas Engine; Sandblaster 1-2 Welder; 1e2 Steel painter; 1
building e3 Labourer
Floor framing Cold-formed Steel Cold-rolling machine; Overhead crane; Club 1-3 Carpenter; 1e3 Labourer
hammer; Drill
Wall framing Cold-formed Steel; Fibre-glass Cold-rolling machine; Overhead crane; Club 1-3 Carpenter; 1e3 Labourer
insulation hammer; Drill
Roof framing Cold-formed Steel; steel mesh; Cold-rolling machine; Overhead crane; Club 1-3 Carpenter; 1e3 Roofer; 1e3
Fibre-glass insulation hammer; Drill Labourer
Mechanical and electrical rough Electrical wiring, PVC pipes; Metal e 1-3 Plumber; 1e2 Labourer
in and services ducts
Interior Finishes Plasterboard; Paint; Tiles; PVC e 1-3 Painter; 1e3 Tiler; 1e3
lining Carpenter
Set up Foundations Concrete, Steel Concrete pump; Concrete mixer; Gas engine 1-3 Labourer
vibrator
Transport modules to site e 13.5 m Flatbed truck 1 Operator; 1e3 Labourer
Assemble building e Crane (mobile or tower) 1 Operator; 1e3 Labourer

Table 4
Injury risk to workers associated with each activity in each construction method.

Construction Method Activities Case A Case B

Conventional Excavation (3, 3.75, 3.75, 4.5) (4, 4.5, 5, 5)

Brick Laying (exterior wall) (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2) (1.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3.5)
Formwork (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2) (1.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3.5)
Concreting (1.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3.5) (3, 3.75, 3.75, 4.5)
Wall framing (interior) (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2) (1.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3.5)
Floor framing (1.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3.5) (3, 3.75, 3.75, 4.5)
Roof framing (3, 3.75, 3.75, 4.5) (4, 4.5, 5, 5)
Mechanical and electrical rough in and services (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2) (1.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3.5)
Interior Finishes (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2) (1.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3.5)

Modular Set up perimeter chassis for building (3, 3.75, 3.75, 4.5) (4, 4.5, 5, 5)
Floor framing (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2) (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2)
Wall framing (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2) (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2)
Roof framing (1.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3.5) (1.5, 2.5, 2.5, 3.5)
Mechanical and electrical rough in and services (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2) (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2)
Interior Finishes (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2) (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2)
Set up Foundations (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2) (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2)
Transport modules to site (3, 3.75, 3.75, 4.5) (3, 3.75, 3.75, 4.5)
Assemble building (0.5, 1.25, 1.25, 2) (3, 3.75, 3.75, 4.5)

6.8. Material embodied energy
Embodied energy coefficients utilised in this section are adopted
from the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) (Hammond et al.,
2008).
Fig. 11 provides a comparative display between the embodied
energy in the conventional and modular buildings for both cases. In
particular, the figure displays the embodied energy for different
materials utilised in both case studies for the two types of buildings
analysed.
As can be seen, for both cases considered, the greatest
contributor to the embodied energy of the buildings is steel (on
average at 38% contribution for conventional construction method).
This is particularly evident in the conventional construction of Case
B because the project size is relatively large and hence contains a
large amount of steel reinforcement in the footings, walls and
columns. For Case B when modular construction is adopted, the
portal beams and frames that support the overall structure of the
building are composed of steel, hence contributing to around 17% of
embodied energy. In Case A, since the building is small, there is no
need for a portal structure to act as a supporting frame and hence
the contribution of steel to embodied energy is almost zero.
 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281 1277

Table 7
Energy utilised during construction process, in MJ.

Stage Conventional Modular

Case A Case B Case A Case B

Stage 1 24 220 23.43 213

Stage 2 57 255 12.96 108
Stage 3 54 251 26.39 203
Stage 4 63 272 11.9 85
Stage 5 e e 11.25 75

Sum 198 998 85.93 684

Fig. 9. De-fuzzification results indicating injury risk level of each construction method.

Table 5
Equipment utilised and associated noise levels.

Construction Method Equipment Noise (LAeq @ 10 m dB(A)) Duration (hrs)

Conventional Disc Cutter 84 5

Club hammer 79 6
Electric Saw 81 5
Drill 92 4
Material Hoist 68 4

Modular Club hammer 79 3

Drill 92 2
Welding 82 5
Electric Saw 81 2

Fig. 10. Average A-weighted equivalent sound level for construction methods analysed.

Concrete, paint and brick are other materials that contribute

considerably to embodied energy of conventional construction,
Table 6 assessed to be at 19%, 13% and 12% respectively for Case A, while for
U-values associated with the building envelope in each method. Case B, the contribution is higher, measured at 20%, 14% and 13%,
respectively.
Construction Method Element Case A Case B
Fig. 12 shows the contribution to the embodied energy of the
Conventional Wall 0.25 0.35 main building elements considered in both building types for both
Roof 0.15 0.14
Modular Wall 0.35 0.35
cases. It is important to note that brick and timber are consumed
Roof 0.25 0.14 mostly by the walls and roof in conventional construction (89% and
1278 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281

Fig. 11. Embodied energy in material composition of Case A and Case B.

Fig. 12. Contribution to embodied energy by element type.

71%, respectively), while reinforced concrete constitutes the
flooring system (90%). In contrast, the material volume that dom-
inates the modular construction method is that associated with the
cold-formed steel, representing 67% of total material volume.
The results also reveal that floors contribute the greatest to the
embodied energy in conventional construction, representing 38.5%
and 28.5% for Case A and Case B respectively; in Case B the contri-
bution is slightly lower since the concrete is also used in other el-
ements such as the columns, beams and foundation.
For the modular buildings analysed in the case study, their
structures are comprised of cold-formed steel; hence the use of
timber in the modular construction of the two buildings examined
is irrelevant. Overall, since for the case studies analysed steel stud
walls are adopted, the overall embodied energy associated with the
wall and roof enclosures is higher than if timber were adopted. As a
result, additional benefits, in terms of embodied energy can be
realised by adopting timber in place of cold-formed steel. This will
come at a cost of having to deal with difficulties associated with
timber, including termite issues.
6.8.1. Economic analysis
In this section, the time and cost required to complete the
construction of both building types examined are analysed. It is
important to note that in order to perform the cost estimate of each
construction method, some of the quantities extracted from BIM
(reported in Table 2) have been converted into a unit of measure
that matches a common unit that aligns with the cost estimates.
Prices adopted are extracted from Cordell and Rawlinson
 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281 1279

Table 8
Cost of construction methods for Case A and Case B.

Activities Case A Total Cost (AUD$) Case B Total Cost (AUD$)

Conventional Method Excavation 7473.6 90702.17

Brick Laying 17856.2 303442.92
Formwork 2220 90775.2
Concreting 16872 689891.52
Wall framing 2880 122952
Floor framing 0 29037.6
Roof framing 5760 19358.4
Mechanical and electrical rough in and services 1204 21935.16
Interior Finishes 26964 404939.36

S 81,229.8 1,773,034.33

Modular Set up perimeter chassis for building 3588 23465.52

Floor framing 2659.6 47008.43
Wall framing 1725 12622.2
Roof framing 3264 21346.56
Mechanical and electrical rough in and services 1204 21935.16
Interior Finishes 26964 404939.36
Excavation 6920 73165.54
Transport modules to site 1200 15696
Assemble building 720 26846.7

S 48,244.6 647,025.5

Table 9
Productivity of construction methods for Case A and Case B.

Activities Case A Days to completion Case B Days to Completion

Conventional Method Excavation 5.40 30.06

Brick Laying 12.70 99.00
Formwork 3.70 69.40
Concreting 0.74 13.88
Wall framing 16.00 313.33
Floor framing 0.00 74.00
Roof framing 14.40 22.20
Mechanical and electrical rough in and services 3.04 25.43
Interior Finishes 10.00 68.89

S 65.98 716.20

Modular Set up perimeter chassis for building 0.33 1.33

Floor framing 0.18 1.91
Wall framing 0.09 0.42
Roof framing 0.17 0.66
Mechanical and electrical rough in and services 3.04 33.91
Interior Finishes 10.00 91.85
Excavation 5.00 40.08
Transport modules to site 0.50 4.00
Assemble building 2.00 45.61

S 21.31 219.78

(Cordell Commercial/industrial Building Cost Guide, 2017;
Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook, 2017); these are
multiplied with the quantity of material needed during each stage
of the construction process, as obtained through combining the
BIM files with the work schedules. The prices adopted also reflect
the design work that is required for each construction method.
Table 8 shows the costs of both construction methods applied to
Case A. As can be seen, the overall cost of the building using the
modular method is 40% less than the cost expended if adopting a
conventional approach (AUD $48,245 vs AUD $81,230). This
disparity between both methods is mostly the result of the
expensive concrete costing used in the conventional construction
approach.
For Case B, the modular approach is found to be cheaper,
resulting in 64% less monetary cost compared to conventional
construction (AUD $647,025.5 vs AUD $1,773,034). Again this is
mostly due to the expensive concreting activity in conventional
construction. The brick laying activity contributes 17% of the total
cost; such an activity is not required in modular construction
method considered in the cases studied.
Table 9 shows the productivity of each activity involved in each
construction method for both cases. Both on-site construction time
and in-house fabrication time is considered in the analysis. In Case
A, the greatest time is spent on roof construction when conven-
tional construction is adopted; this time is reduced by 98% by
adoption of modular construction. Overall, for Case A, a total time
saving of 67.7% results when modular construction is adopted
instead of a conventional approach. For Case B, the greatest time is
spent on wall framing in conventional construction; this is reduced
by 99% in modular construction. The reason for this significant
saving is due to the automated procedure that is adopted in
modular factories for producing the framing of buildings. In con-
ventional construction, the reliance is mostly on manual labour
work, hence leading to large amounts of time being spent on in-
dividual activities. Overall, for Case B, a total time saving of 69% can
be achieved if modular construction is adopted.
1280 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281
It is important to note that the cost and productivity calculations
for each method assumes that the work is continuous without any
disruptions. For conventional construction, on rainy days, the
project will be delayed since activity needs to halt. This is an issue
that modular construction does not face, since the working envi-
ronment is controlled inside a factory setting.
The aim in the analysis presented is to display the validity of the
proposed framework in comparing construction methods across all
dimensions of sustainability modelled in this study, and in the se-
lection of a method that is appropriate across all measures
assessed.
7. Insights and recommendations
In contrast to traditional approaches presented in the literature
for construction method selection, the developed framework in this
paper enables the integration of factors that relate to all three pil-
lars of sustainability. The approach amalgamates various sustain-
ability factors, with reliance on a digital platform integrated with
automated algorithms to quantify the criteria enforced. Compared
to the literature, the approach developed herein incorporates
automated methods. For instance, Kim (2008) utilised a life cycle
approach to contrast between conventional and modular con-
struction with no emphasis on the utilisation of digital platforms
for information extraction, while focussing on energy and GHG
emissions. Al-Hussein et al. (2009) emphasised carbon dioxide
emissions as the major factor for contrasting conventional and
modular construction methods. Monahan and Powell (2011)
focussed only on timber structures, whereas the approach herein
can be used for any construction structure if suitable material da-
tabases are embedded in the algorithm of Fig. 2.
The choice between conventional and modular construction is
dependent on the specific case example examined. Based on the
results presented above, the framework indicates that for the case
analysed in this study, the modular construction method was the
better alternative in terms of minimising risk injury of workers,
noise pollution generated by the project, and construction energy
utilised. The U-value associated with materials adopted in the
conventional construction method for the cases analysed was
lower than that utilised in modular construction. Embodied energy
was highly dependent on the exact material choice in each con-
struction method. Finally, in terms of the construction costs
involved, modular construction was found to be cheaper for both
building types contrasted, compared to costs involved in the con-
ventional construction method.
As was seen in the examined case study, the use of the frame-
work can sometimes reveal that modular construction is more cost
effective to adopt, hence leading to increased adoption rates for
clients that are concerned with the most cost-effective construction
method, instead of relying on the conventional construction
approach. It is important to note that cost is project related, and so
the cheapest construction method to select will depend on the case
being examined.
Utilising the presented approach enables the generation of
several useful insight to decision makers when it comes to selecting
a construction method. For instance, the framework can reveal the
division of energy requirements across the various stages of con-
struction for both modular and conventional construction methods.
Since the framework relies on a digital platform, the automation of
the sustainability assessment can be made easier. The framework
can also be easily expanded to cover additional factors in each
sustainability parameter being assessed, if databases that capture
characteristics of interest are made available. This is achieved via
the integration of a library associated with the sustainability factor
desired to be captured within Algorithm 1.
8. Conclusion
This paper presented a framework to compare conventional and
modular construction methods, based on economic, social and
environmental factors. The framework relies on the integration of
BIM files, along with project schedules, material databases, and
crew compositions, in order to estimate the parameters for each
sustainability factor considered. An algorithm was developed to
provide a link between all databases utilised in the framework. To
test the validity of the developed framework, a case study incor-
porating two different project-use types was examined. Overall, the
results of the case study indicated that adoption of modular con-
struction may lead to considerable benefits with regards to all
sustainability measures considered in the developed framework. In
particular, adoption of modular construction in Case Project A and
Case Project B led to 4% and 8% reduction in maximum noise level,
56% and 31% reduction in operational energy use, 53% and 61%
reduction in embodied energy, 25% and 40% reduction in risk of
injury, and 40% and 63% reduction in costs of the project, respec-
tively, when compared to adoption of conventional construction. In
line with previous research work, the reported results indicate that
modular construction has environmental and social advantages in
terms of minimising pollution and risk of injury over the conven-
tional construction approach. While the projects considered in this
study are representative of small and medium size construction
projects, it should be noted that the results of the sustainability
analysis reported should not be generalised to other cases.
The developed approach is aimed at enabling the decision
maker to analyse the various sustainability factors that influence
decisions associated with the selection of an appropriate con-
struction method. The approach does not always favour a particular
construction method, and the yielded results would change
depending on the case examined. The developed framework is
robust enough to allow changes to the databases that comprise the
sustainability parameters. Adjustments can hence be made to the
framework to suit the operations undergone by the firm/entity
utilising the framework as a decision support system for con-
struction method selection. There are some limitations of the
developed framework. The consideration of only two factors for
each sustainability parameter, instead of focussing on a range of
factors constitutes a limitation. With slight modification of the
framework and algorithm presented in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively,
additional factors can be modelled and assessed, as was demon-
strated in Fig. 6. Future work will also look at integrating the
framework with a mathematical optimisation model in order to
design the buildings through dimensioning of elements along with
selection of appropriate material types.
References
Abd El-Razek, M.E., Bassioni, H.A., Mobarak, A.M., 2008. Causes of delay in building
construction projects in Egypt. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 134, 831e841. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:11(831).
Acil Allen Consulting, 2015. COMMERCIAL BUILDING DISCLOSURE. Department of
Industry and Science.
Advanced Buildings, 2010. Building Envelope.
Akbarnezhad, A., Xiao, J., 2017. Estimation and minimization of embodied carbon of
buildings: a review. Buildings 7, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings7010005.
Aksamija, A., 2013. Sustainable Facades: Design Methods for High-Performance
Building Envelopes. John Wiley & Sons.
Al-Hussein, M., Manrique, J.D., Mah, D., 2009. North Ridge CO2 Analysis Report:
Comparison between Modular and On-Site Construction. University of Alberta.
Albelwi, N., Kwan, A., Rezgui, Y., 2017. Using material and energy flow analysis to
estimate future energy demand at the city level. Energy procedia. In: Interna-
tional Conference e Alternative and Renewable Energy Quest, AREQ 2017, 1-3
February 2017, Spain, vol. 115, pp. 440e450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.
2017.05.041.
Asif, M., 2016. Growth and sustainability trends in the buildings sector in the GCC
region with particular reference to the KSA and UAE. Renew. Sustain. Energy
 A.WA. Hammad et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 1264e1281
Rev. 55, 1267e1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.042.
Australian Institute of Building, 2016. Volume 1 NCC- National Construction Code.
Autodesk, 2017. Dynamo.
Autodesk Inc [WWW Document], 2018. Autodesk Revit. http://www.autodesk.com/
products/revit-family/overview.
Aye, L., Ngo, T., Crawford, R.H., Gammampila, R., Mendis, P., 2012. Life cycle
greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable
building modules. Energy Build. 47, 159e168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.
2011.11.049.
Balakrishnan, K., 1996. Exponential Distribution: Theory, Methods and Applications.
CRC Press, Florida.
Baldwin, A., Poon, C.-S., Shen, L.-Y., Austin, S., Wong, I., 2009. Designing out waste in
high-rise residential buildings: analysis of precasting methods and traditional
construction. Renew. Energy, Special Issue: Building and Urban Sustainability
34, 2067e2073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.02.008.
Bernstein, H.M., Gudgel, John E., Laquidara-Carr, Donna, 2011. Prefabrication and
Modularization: Increasing Productivity in the Construction Industry. National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
Blismas, N., Pasquire, C., Gibb, A., 2006. Benefit evaluation for off-site production in
construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 24, 121e130. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01446190500184444.
Chang, Y., Ries, R.J., Wang, Y., 2010. The embodied energy and environmental
emissions of construction projects in China: an economic inputeoutput LCA
model. Energy Policy, Energy Efficiency Policies and Strategies with regular
papers 38, 6597e6603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.030.
Chen, S.-J., Hwang, C.-L., 1992. Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods.
In: Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Lecture Notes in Economics and
Mathematical Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 289e486. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-642-46768-4_5.
Chen, Y., Okudan, G.E., Riley, D.R., 2010a. Sustainable performance criteria for
construction method selection in concrete buildings. Autom. ConStruct. 19,
235e244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.10.004.
Chen, Y., Okudan, G.E., Riley, D.R., 2010b. Decision support for construction method
selection in concrete buildings: prefabrication adoption and optimization.
Autom. ConStruct. 19, 665e675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.02.011.
Cordell Commercial/industrial Building Cost Guide, 2017. Reed Construction Data,
Queensland.
DCCEE, 2012. Australia's Emissions Projections. Department of Environment, Can-
berra, Australia.
DEFRA, 2013. A Rationale for Waste Prevention in England. Department for Envi-
ronment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK.
Eastman, C.M., 2008. BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for
Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. John Wiley & Sons.
Faludi, J., Lepech, M.D., Loisos, G., 2012. Using life cycle assessment methods to
guide architectural decision-making for sustainable prefabricated modular
buildings. J. Green Build. 7, 151e170. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.7.3.151.
Ficco, G., Iannetta, F., Ianniello, E., d'Ambrosio Alfano, F.R., Dell'Isola, M., 2015. U-
value in situ measurement for energy diagnosis of existing buildings. Energy
Build. 104, 108e121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.06.071.
Gibb, Alistair G.F., 1999. Off-site Fabrication: Prefabrication, Pre-assembly and
Modularisation. Wiley.
Hajkowicz, S., 2016. Prefabricated vs conventional building e which will win out?
[WWW document]. Sourceable (accessed 10.27.17). https://sourceable.net/
prefabricated-vs-conventional-building-the-battle-for-the-future/.
Hammad, A.W.A., Akbarnezhad, A., Rey, D., 2016. A multi-objective mixed integer
nonlinear programming model for construction site layout planning to mini-
mise noise pollution and transport costs. Autom. ConStruct. 61, 73e85. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.10.010.
Hammad, A.W., Akbarnezhad, A., Oldfield, P., 2018. Optimising embodied carbon
and U-value in load bearing walls: a mathematical Bi-objective mixed integer
programming approach. Energy Build. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.
05.061.
Hammond, G., Jones, C., Lowrie, F., Tse, P., 2008. Inventory of Carbon & Energy: ICE.
Sustainable Energy Research Team, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Bath Bath.
Huang, L., Bohne, R.A., 2012. Embodied air emissions in Norway's construction
sector: input-output analysis. Build. Res. Inf. 40, 581e591. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09613218.2012.711993.
Industry Canada, 2011. Buildings. Corporate Social Responsibility.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
(AR4): Climate Change 2007.
Islam, M.S., Nepal, M.P., Skitmore, M., Attarzadeh, M., 2017. Current research trends
and application areas of fuzzy and hybrid methods to the risk assessment of
construction projects. Adv. Eng. Inf. 33, 112e131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.
2017.06.001.
Jaillon, L., Poon, C.S., Chiang, Y.H., 2009. Quantifying the waste reduction potential
of using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Manag.
29, 309e320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.02.015.
Jeong, H., Broesicke, O.A., Drew, B., Li, D., Crittenden, J.C., 2016. Life cycle assessment
of low impact development technologies combined with conventional
centralized water systems for the City of Atlanta, Georgia. Front. Environ. Sci.
Eng. 10, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-016-0851-0.
Jia Wen, T., Chin Siong, H., Noor, Z.Z., 2015. Assessment of embodied energy and
1281
global warming potential of building construction using life cycle analysis
approach: case studies of residential buildings in Iskandar Malaysia. Energy
Build. 93, 295e302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.12.002.
Kamali, M., Hewage, K., 2016. Life cycle performance of modular buildings: a critical
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 62, 1171e1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2016.05.031.
Kamali, M., Hewage, K., 2017. Development of performance criteria for sustain-
ability evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods.
J. Clean. Prod. 142, 3592e3606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.108.
Kaming, P.F., Olomolaiye, P.O., Holt, G.D., Harris, F.C., 1997. Factors influencing
construction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indonesia. Constr.
Manag. Econ. 15, 83e94. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461997373132.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective.
CUP Archive.
Kim, D., 2008. Preliminary Life Cycle Analysis of Modular and Conventional Housing
in Benton Harbor, MI.
KPMG, 2016. Smart Construction: How Offsite Manufacturing Can Transform Our
Industry. KPMG.
Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., Fischer-
Kowalski, M., 2009. Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during
the 20th century. Ecol. Econ. 68, 2696e2705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2009.05.007.
Lawson, R.M., Ogden, R.G., Bergin, R., 2011. Application of modular construction in
high-rise buildings. J. Archit. Eng. 18, 148e154.
Lu, N., 2007. Investigation of Designers' and General Contractors' Perceptions of
Offsite Construction Techniques in the United States Construction Industry.
Diss.
Mao, C., Shen, Q., Shen, L., Tang, L., 2013. Comparative study of greenhouse gas
emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction
methods: two case studies of residential projects. Energy Build. 66, 165e176.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.033.
Monahan, J., Powell, J.C., 2011. An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern
methods of construction in housing: a case study using a lifecycle assessment
framework. Energy Build. 43, 179e188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.
09.005.
Ozcelik, M., 2016. Criteria for the selection of construction method at the ovit
mountain tunnel (Turkey). KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 20, 1323e1328. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12205-015-0055-3.
Pan, W., Gibb, A.G.F., Dainty, A.R.J., 2007. Perspectives of UK housebuilders on the
use of offsite modern methods of construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 25,
183e194. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600827058.
Pasquire, C.L., Connolly, G.E., 2002. Leaner construction through off-site
manufacturing. In: Proc. 11th Annual Conference, International Group for
Lean Construction. Presented at the International Group for Lean Construction,
Brazil, pp. 263e266.
Quale, J., Eckelman, M.J., Williams, K.W., Sloditskie, G., Zimmerman, J.B., 2012.
Construction matters: comparing environmental impacts of building modular
and conventional homes in the United States. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, 243e253. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00424.x.
Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook, 2017. Rawlinsons Publishing.
Robinson, A.J., Lesage, F.J., Reilly, A., McGranaghan, G., Byrne, G., O'Hegarty, R.,
Kinnane, O., 2017. A new transient method for determining thermal properties
of wall sections. Energy Build. 142, 139e146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.
2017.02.029.
RSMeans, 2017. RSMeans Cost Data. John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, R.E., 2011. Prefab Architecture: A Guide to Modular Design and Construction.
John Wiley & Sons.
Standards Australia, 1998. AS 4100 - Steel Strucutres.
Standards Australia, 2005. AS/NZS 4600 Cold-Formed Steel Structures.
Standards Australia, 2009. AS 3600 - Concrete Structures.
Standards Australia, 2010a. Standards Australia 2010, Guide to Noise and Vibration
Control on Construction, Demolition and Maintenance Sites, AS2436.
Standards Australia, 2010b. AS 1720.1 Timber Structures - Design Methods.
Standards Australia, 2011. AS 3700 - Masonry Structures.
Su, B., 2017. Field studies to investigate winter indoor thermal conditions of me-
chanically ventilated houses with different R-value building envelopes. Int. J.
Vent. 16, 308e322. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733315.2016.1252147.
Thomas, D., 2007. Architecture and the Urban Environment. Routledge.
Trading Economics, 2017. Australia GDP from Construction 1974-2017 [WWW
Document]. URL tradingeconomics.com/australia/gdp-from-construction
(accessed 12.1.17).
UN Environment and International Energy Agency, 2017. Towards a Zero-Emission,
Efficient, and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector, GLOBAL STATUS
REPORT 2017. UN.
UNEP, 2009. Buildings and Climate Change e a Summary for Decision-Makers.
United Nations Environmental Programme, Sustainable Buildings and Climate
Initiative, Paris, France.
Zhai, Y., Zhong, R.Y., Huang, G.Q., 2015. Towards operational hedging for logistics
uncertainty management in prefabrication construction. Ifac-pap. 15th IFAC
Symposium onInformation Control Problems inManufacturing 48, 1128e1133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.235.
Zimmermann, H.-J., 2013. Fuzzy Set TheorydAnd its Applications. Springer Science
& Business Media.