Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

A review on modular construction for high-rise buildings

Huu-Tai Thai a, *, Tuan Ngo a, Brian Uy b
a
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
b
School of Civil Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Modular construction is considered as a game-changing technology since it offers faster construction, safer
Modular construction manufacturing, better quality control, and lower environmental impacts compared with the traditional onsite
Modular high-rise building construction. These benefits can be maximised in high-rise buildings due to their inherently topological modular
Inter-module connection
form and the increased number of repeatable modules. However, current applications of modular construction
Progressive collapse and structural robustness
Modular design
for high-rise buildings are very limited due to the lack of strong structural systems and joining techniques to
ensure structural integrity, overall stability, and robustness of an entirely modular building. In addition, the
unavailability of design guidelines also inhibits the construction industry in implementing such technology. With
recent advancements in structural systems and materials, there is great potential for real world applications of
modular construction in high-rise buildings. This paper presents a critical review of recent innovations in
modular construction technology for high-rise buildings with an emphasis on structural systems, joining tech­
niques, progressive collapse and structural robustness. The developments of design codes for modular con­
struction are also discussed. The paper concludes by highlighting the technical challenges that hinder the
widespread adoption of modular construction, and proposing potential solutions for future research. This review
paper is expected to be a complete reference for experts, researchers and professionals in this field of study.

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

Prefabrication construction refers to a construction process where
building components are fabricated in a factory and transported to a
construction site for installation [1]. It offers significant benefits over
traditional onsite construction such as faster and safer manufacturing,
better quality control and lower environmental impacts [2–5], thereby
leading to sustainability benefits in terms of material efficiency, reduced
onsite waste (up to 90% [6]) and improved working conditions [7,8].
The use of modular construction technologies can reduce construction
time by 50% and save cost by 20% based on a case study of recent
projects [9]. The concept of prefabrication construction is not new, but
its technology, economic demands and changing mindsets have attrac­
ted an unprecedented wave of interest and investment [9]. It is expected
to provide a solution to the affordable housing crisis by means of
providing housing supply quickly with fewer dollars [10]. Based on the
degree of prefabrication, there are three classes of prefabricated con­
struction: 1D single element, 2D panelised system and 3D volumetric
system [11,12]. Panelised and volumetric construction, also known as
modular construction, is the most efficient class of prefabricated
prefabricated in a factory before transporting it for onsite assembly.
Therefore, this method is believed to shape the future of the construction
industry [14–16]. This paper will focus on modular construction, also
known as modular integrated construction (MiC) in Hong Kong [17–20],
permanent modular construction (PMC) in US [21], and prefabricated
prefinished volumetric construction (PPVC) in Singapore [22].
There are three main construction approaches for stacking modular
units based on core, podium and infilled frame systems [23] as shown in
Fig. 1. In the core-based approach (Fig. 1a), all modules are clustered
around one or more stability cores. The modular unit is designed to resist
only vertical gravity loads over the full height of the building, whilst the
lateral forces from wind and earthquake actions are separately resisted
by the cores. Therefore, the lateral diaphragms, as well as the connec­
tions between the modules and cores should be strong enough to transfer
the lateral loads to the core structure [24–26]. The core can be con­
structed from pre-cast concrete or cast-in-situ steel–concrete composite
walls, and the building height can be maximised by providing additional
bracing systems within the floors and ceilings. In the podium-based
method (see Fig. 1b), the modular unit is placed on the top of a

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tai.thai@unimelb.edu.au (H.-T. Thai).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.09.070
Received 27 January 2020; Accepted 28 September 2020
Available online 7 October 2020
2352-0124/© 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.-T. Thai et al.
podium or platform structure which is designed as a traditional steel,
concrete or hybrid steel–concrete structure. The podium acts as a
foundation for the modular units which can be stacked or clustered
around a core for taller buildings. This method is particularly suitable
for mixed use buildings where the podium structure can provide open
space for retail or commercial use or underground car parks [27]. In the
infilled frame method, modular units are placed between the beams and
columns of a primary framing structure [28–30] as shown in Fig. 1c.
Since the primary framing structure is constructed onsite by conven­
tional methods, the overall stability of modular buildings is ensured
[31].
Modular construction is preferred in structures with repeated units
such as apartments, schools, offices, dormitories, hotels and hospitals
[35]. The benefits of modular construction will be maximised for high-
rise applications due to the increased number of repeated modules [36].
There has been a growing trend in the use of modular construction in
Australia, UK, Singapore and US where labour costs and housing
shortages are of significant concern [9]. Although modular construction
has been extensively applied for low-rise buildings over the last three
decades [21], its application for high-rise buildings is still limited (less
than 1% [37,38]). This is because the construction industry is not
confident and unfamiliar with implementing such technology due to a
lack of (i) design guidelines, (ii) strong inter-module jointing techniques,
and (iii) sufficient understanding of the structural behaviour, global
stability and structural robustness of modular buildings [36]. A recent
theoretical study [19] confirmed the feasibility of extending modular
construction to high-rise buildings if the above-mentioned technical
challenges are resolved. Therefore, current research trends of modular
high-rise buildings are focused on tackling these technical challenges.
This paper will explore recent innovations in modular construction
technologies for high-rise buildings. The review will focus on (i) recent
applications of modular technologies for high-rise buildings, (ii) struc­
tural systems for high-rise buildings, (iii) inter-module joining tech­
niques, (iv) progressive collapse and structural robustness of modular
buildings, (v) and structural design guidelines for modular buildings.
Finally, future recommendations to resolve existing technical challenges
of modular construction are provided. It should be noted that recent
reviews on modular construction were mainly focused other aspects
associated with the structural performance [39], challenges and op­
portunities of modular buildings [40], and performance of inter-module
connections [26,41]. Consequently, this review paper will be a complete
reference for experts, researchers and professionals in this field of study.
Fig. 1. Construction methods for modular high-rise buildings (a) Core [32] (b) Podium [33] (c) Infilled frame [34].
1266
Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
2. Applications of modular technologies for high-rise buildings
Modular construction has been widely used for low-rise buildings
worldwide [42], particularly in UK [43], North America [44], China
[45–47], Singapore [48] and Australia [45,49]. Despite the technical
challenges in implementing modular construction technology in high-
rise buildings, several modular high-rise buildings have been built in
recent years due to advancements in manufacturing and material tech­
nology. However, the number of modular high-rise buildings worldwide
is still limited (less than 1%) [38]. Only ten of the world’s tallest
modular buildings were reviewed herein as summarised in Table 1. It
can be seen that most of the modular high-rise buildings built with 3D
volumetric modules are based on steel, whilst concrete is commonly
used in modular high-rise buildings built by a combination of penalised
and volumetric methods.
2.1. Modular high-rise buildings in Australia
Although adopting modular building techniques slower in Australia
than international counterparts in North America, Europe and Asia, the
Australian construction industry is now experiencing rapid growth in
modular construction [50]. This is evidenced by the fact that four out of
ten of the world’s tallest modular buildings were constructed in
Australia in the last five years as shown in Table 1. Notable among them
is Collins House in Melbourne which currently sets a new record as the
world’s tallest modular building with 60 storeys.
Three out of the ten tallest modular buildings in the world were
recently constructed in Australia (all located in Melbourne) as shown in
Fig. 2 using a special structural unit called Hickory Building System
(HBS) developed by Hickory group (a pioneer in modular construction
in Australia) for high-rise prefabricated buildings [51]. HBS is a state-of-
the-art system that integrates the core, shear walls and facades of a
building into the structure [51]. The innovative HBS system is composed
of various precast panelised modules (e.g., load bearing wall, elevator
and stair cores, and lightweight concrete floors) connected onsite by wet
joints [52] as shown in Fig. 3b. Fig. 3a shows a typical module of the HBS
system with the longest one being 17 m and weighing 26 tonnes. The use
of HBS system not only reduces construction time (from 30% to 50%
compared with the conventional construction method) and minimises
material and energy waste, but also maximises quality and safety [53].
Fig. 2a shows a 60-storey Collins House project completed in 2019
using the podium-based approach. The podium structure was built with
H.-T. Thai et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

Table 1
Ten of the world’s tallest modular buildings.
No. Project Storey Year Location Modular type Material Highlight

1 Collins House 60 2019 Melbourne, 2D panel and 3D Concrete The tallest building combined both penalised and
Australia volume volumetric methods
2 J57 Mini Sky City tower 57 2015 Changsha, China 2D panel Steel The fastest built buildings upon completion (in 19 days)
3 Croydon Tower 44 2020 London, UK 3D volume Steel The tallest volumetric modular building upon
completion
4 Atira Student 44 2018 Melbourne, 2D panel and 3D Concrete Combining both penalised and volumetric methods
Accommodation Australia volume
5 La Trobe Tower 44 2016 Melbourne, 2D panel and 3D Concrete Combining both penalised and volumetric methods
Australia volume
6 Clement Canopy 40 2019 Singapore 3D volume Concrete The tallest volumetric modular building
7 B2 Tower 32 2016 New York, USA 3D volume Steel The tallest volumetric modular building upon
completion
8 T30 Tower 30 2011 Xiangyin, China 2D panel Steel The fastest built buildings upon completion (in 15 days)
9 Apex House 29 2017 London, UK 3D volume Steel The tallest volumetric modular building in Europe
10 SOHO Tower 29 2014 Darwin, Australia 3D volume Steel The tallest volumetric modular building upon
completion

Fig. 2. Prefabricated high-rise buildings in Australia using innovative HBS systems [51].

concrete by the conventional method up to level 14, whilst the
remaining storeys were constructed using HBS method [55]. The project
was completed in 29 months which is 30% faster than conventional
methods. The second tallest modular building in Australia is Atira Stu­
dent Accommodation completed in 2018 as shown in Fig. 2b. The
building also received the Construction Award of Excellence by the
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) for its innovative
and efficient construction method [56] (30% faster than conventional
construction methods [57]). The building consists of 285 HBS modules
(size of 12 × 3 × 3 m and weight of 20 tonnes [52]) installed from the
ground floor. Another modular building constructed in Australia using
HBS systems is La Trobe Tower as shown in Fig. 2c. The La Trobe project
is a 44-level residential tower completed within 19 months (30% faster
than conventional construction methods [58]). The first three levels of
the building were constructed by the conventional method, whilst the
remaining levels were constructed by the modular method using HBS
system with the largest module having dimensions of 17 × 4.5 × 3 m and
weighing 22 tonnes [54].
The tenth tallest modular building in the world (Table 1) is SOHO
Tower, which was also built in Australia using the structural systems
shown in Fig. 4a. This building also set a new record for the world tallest
modular buildings being built using the volumetric modular method
upon its completion in 2014 [59,60]. SOHO tower consists of 29 storeys
constructed using PPVC podium-based method (see Fig. 1b). The
podium structure consists of a basement and eight levels were built with
concrete using the conventional construction method, whilst the
remaining floors were constructed on the podium using steel modules as
shown in Fig. 4b. These modules have dimensions of 10 × 4.2 × 3.9 m
and a weight of 22 tonnes, and are composed of a lightweight concrete
slab, concrete ceiling beams and steel columns which were specially
designed to act as permanent formwork for concrete fill for developing
onsite composite columns (see Fig. 4b).
2.2. Modular high-rise buildings in China
The application of modular construction in high-rise buildings in
China was pioneered by Broad Sustainable Building (BSB), a subsidiarity
of Broad group, in the last decade with the development of an advanced

1267
H.-T. Thai et al.
Fig. 3. A typical HBS modular unit and wet joint (a) A typical HBS modular unit [54] (b) Wet joint [52].
Fig. 4. SOHO Tower: (a) completion [59]; (b) modular unit [60].
2D penalised construction technique for steel buildings. In this tech­
nique, more than 90% of the components of a steel building [61]
including structural members such as floor cassettes and framing sys­
tems were fabricated in BSB central factory before transportation for
onsite assembly using bolting methods.
The penalised construction technique developed by BSB has been
tested in over 30 pilot and commercial projects including a 30-storey
hotel (T30 Tower) shown in Fig. 5 and a 57-storey apartment (J57
Mini Sky Tower) shown in Fig. 6. Both T30 and J57 Mini Sky towers are
currently in the list of ten world’s tallest modular buildings summarised
in Table 1. The most remarkable feature of these towers is that they have
set the world record for the fastest built buildings. The T30 tower was
completed within only 15 days, whilst the J57 Mini Sky tower was
completed within just 19 days (with a rate of three floors per day). In
order to construct the J57 Mini Sky tower, a total of 2,736 modules
1268
Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
including structural members (floor cassettes and framing systems),
exterior walls, and mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems
were prefabricated in the BSB central factory (see Fig. 7) for four and a
half months [62]. The assembly of T30 and J57 Mini Sky towers is
illustrated in Fig. 8.
2.3. Modular high-rise buildings in Singapore
In recent years, the Singapore government has expended great efforts
to encourage the use of modular construction for residential housing
projects. Since 2014, it has been mandatory to use modular construction
in public residential buildings [22]. A series of guidebooks on design for
manufacture and assembly (DfMA) technologies were also recently
published by Building and Construction Authority of Singapore [67–70]
to provide practical guidance to practitioners on how modular buildings
H.-T. Thai et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

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

Fig. 6. J57 Mini Sky Tower [64]: (a) during construction; (b) completion.

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

could be designed, fabricated and assembled to achieve the full benefits industry in moving towards the adoption of DfMA to enhance quality
of DfMA methods. In addition, the Singapore government also provided and productivity [71]. A list of current modular construction projects in
significant financial assistance to support Singapore’s construction Singapore is reported in Refs. [36,48], which indicated that most of

1269
H.-T. Thai et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

Fig. 8. Installation of panelised modules: (a) frame installation for J57 Mini Sky [65]; (b) frame installation for T30 [66]; (c) floor cassette installation for T30 [66].

current modular buildings were constructed up to 20 storeys high [36].
Only one project completed recently (Clement Canopy Tower) was
constructed up to 40 storeys and became the tallest modular building in
Singapore. This tower set a new record for the world tallest concrete
building constructed using PPVC method [72]. The Clement Canopy
tower is also one of the world’s tallest modular buildings as summarised
in Table 1.
The Clement Canopy project comprising twin towers with 505 resi­
dential units as shown in Fig. 9a was constructed from 1,899 pre­
fabricated prefinished volumetric concrete modules with 48 different
module shapes [73] using the core-based method. Each module was
prefabricated in an off-site factory with approximately 85% finishes for
walls, floors, ceilings and MEP systems before being transported to the
construction site and attached to the concrete core using wet joints as
shown in Fig. 9b. This project demonstrated the benefits of using the
PPVC method in terms of saving construction time (30%) and reducing
environmental impact (up to 70% onsite waste 30% off-site waste) [72].

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

1270
H.-T. Thai et al.
2.4. Modular high-rise buildings in the UK
The UK has pioneered the development of modular construction
technologies for high-rise buildings. Case studies on 12, 17 and 25 storey
modular high rise buildings were also presented by Lawson et al. [35].
This review only focuses on the ten tallest modular buildings in the
world, which are summarised in Table 1, including Croydon Tower (44
storeys) and Apex House (29 storeys).
The Croydon Tower project is composed of a 44-storey and 38-storey
residential tower with a total of 546 apartments. The tower is currently
under construction as shown in Fig. 10. When completed in early next
year, the tower will set a new record as the world’s tallest modular
building using PPVC method [75]. The tower was built using a combined
core- and podium-based method with the twin cores and podium
structure being conventionally constructed in concrete. The installation
of modules commenced in February 2019 with 38 modules (95% finish)
per floor sitting on a 1.8 m thick concrete podium from the second floor
[76]. There is a total of 1,525 modules in 23 different configurations.
Each module is made from corner-supported steel frames as shown in
Fig. 12b with 60 mm thick square hollow sections (SHS). The sizes of the
SHS columns of the steel modules vary from 300 mm (at the base module
of the building) to 150 mm (at the top module of the building) [75]. This
project also demonstrated the benefits of modular construction over
traditional construction methods by saving 30% construction time and
reducing 80% construction waste [76].
Another modular building in the UK which appears in the list of ten
of the world’s tallest modular buildings in Table 1 is Apex House in
London shown in Fig. 11. This is a 29-storey student accommodation
with two eight-storey wings on two sides, which was constructed by the
core-based method of volumetric modular construction. A total of 679
modules in eight different configurations were tacked on the transfer
concrete slab at the second level [77]. Each steel module was incorpo­
rated with thick corner posts to transfer the vertical loads to the foun­
dation. The larger modules with steel bracing structures were installed
at the end of the two wings of the tower, whilst the smaller modules were
clustered around the concrete core (7.5 m square with a thickness of 0.3
m). All steel modules were connected using onsite welding.
2.5. Modular high-rise buildings in the US
In terms of modular construction innovation and advancement,
North America lags behinds several other countries like the UK,
Australia, Singapore and China [79]. Although a growing number of
Fig. 10. Croydon Tower [75].
1271
Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
modular high-rise buildings exceeded 10 storeys with an increased use
of steel modules was observed in recently years in US [79], the number
of modular high-rise buildings over 20 storeys was quite limited. Only
two completed modular buildings exceeding 20 storeys have been
identified, including the 32-storey B2 tower in New York completed in
2016 which appears in the list of ten of the world’s tallest modular
buildings summarised in Table 1.
The B2 Tower project located in New York consists of 363 apart­
ments which are stacked into a 32-storey building [80] as shown in
Fig. 12. Upon completion in 2016, B2 tower became the world’s tallest
volumetric modular building [81]. The building was constructed using
the podium-based method with 930 steel modular units stacked on a
podium structure, which was constructed with conventional concrete
basement slabs, concrete perimeter walls and steel frame plinth [82] as
shown in Fig. 12a. A series of braced modular steel frames were
employed to resist the lateral wind load and seismic loads (see Fig. 12a).
A typical chassis frame of steel modules shown in Fig. 12b is composed
of SHS columns (typically 150 × 150 mm), rectangular hollow section
(RHS) floor beams (typically 200 × 100 mm), RHS ceiling beams
(typically 100 × 100 mm) and RHS intermediate posts (typically 50 ×
75 mm) [83]. The floor and roof systems of the module are also made of
steel, thereby making the module quite light compared with its con­
ventional concrete counterpart (65% lighter) [82]. Due to a dispute
between the developer and its partner, the construction of the tower was
delayed and took up to four years to complete.
3. Structural systems for modular high-rise buildings
A modular unit is the primary load-bearing component of modular
buildings. Various structural forms of modules for modular high-rise
buildings have been developed and can be generally categorised into
two types: 2D panelised systems and 3D volumetric systems. The 2D
panelised system usually requires more assembly onsite, whereas the 3D
volumetric system is more prefinished off-site. The assembly work of a
2D panelised system is more complex than that of a 3D volumetric
system because it requires more internal finishing. However, the 2D
panelised system offers greater flexibility than the 3D volumetric system
[9]. A combination of a 2D panelised system and 3D volumetric system,
i.e. hybrid system, can also be used in modular tall buildings to fully
achieve the benefits of each system. This hybrid system has been widely
used in Australia by Hickory group through the development of HBS
systems for three out of ten of the world’s tallest modular buildings
listed in Table 1. The 3D system is most suitable for projects with a high
H.-T. Thai et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

Fig. 11. Apex House: (a) during construction; (b) completion; (c) typical modular unit [78].

Fig. 12. B2 Tower: (a) modular structural scheme [80]; (b) typical modular unit [80]; (c) during construction [84]; (d) completion [85].

level of repeatability. Based on a case study of a four-storey building,
McKinsey [9] reported that the use of a 3D system could save 24% cost
compared with the traditional construction method, whilst the corre­
sponding savings of the hybrid and 2D systems are 20% and 17%,
respectively.
3.1. Panelised systems
The 2D panelised systems are popularly used in China and Australia
especially for modular high-rise buildings. In China, the development of
2D panelised systems was pioneered by BSB with steel floor cassettes
and steel frames as shown in Fig. 13. These steel panels are connected

1272
H.-T. Thai et al.
Fig. 13. 2D panelised steel system: (a) floor cassettes; (b) frame [86].
onsite through bolting techniques. The panelised steel systems have
been successfully applied to over 30 projects including T30 Tower (30
storeys) and J57 Mini Sky Tower (57 storeys). The development of 2D
panelised systems in Australia was pioneered by Hickory through hybrid
HBS systems composed of precast concrete panels. An example is shown
in Fig. 14, whereby concrete walls and concrete floors are connected
onsite by wet joints (see in Fig. 3b). The hybrid HBS systems have been
successfully applied to three out of ten of the world’s tallest modular
buildings including Collin House (60 storeys), Atira Student Accom­
modation (44 storeys) and La Trobe Tower (44 storeys). It should be
noted that the assembly work onsite is much simpler than the traditional
method, but it becomes more complex when combined with 3D mod­
ules. In addition, this system also requires more internal finishing than
that of the volumetric system.
3.2. Volumetric systems
There are several types of 3D volumetric structural systems which
have been developed for modular high-rise buildings using either steel
or concrete. However, steel modules are widely used for high-rise
buildings as they offer significant advantages such as sustainability,
simple connections, design flexibility, and high strength-to-weight ratio
[88]. It is evidenced by the fact that four out of five world’s tallest
modular buildings constructed by the 3D volumetric method (see
Table 1) are based on steel modules. The main disadvantage of the
concrete module is its hoisting weight (25 to 30% heavier than the steel
counterpart), which results in an increase in the cost of the tower crane.
It should be noted that both timber and cold formed light-gauge steel
modules are also widely used in Europe and UK. However, their appli­
cations are limited to low-rise buildings lower than four storeys due to a
very low vertical loading capacity [37].
3.2.1. Module dimensions
The length of a typical modular unit is often from 6 to 12 m, whilst its
weight could vary from 15 to 20 tonnes for a steel module or 20 to 35
Fig. 14. 2D panelised concrete system [87].
1273
Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
tonnes for a concrete module [36]. The sizes of a typical modular unit
are limited by transportation and lifting requirements. For instance, the
maximum width, height and length for road transportation that do not
require a police escort in Singapore are 3.4 m, 4.5 m and 12 m,
respectively [36], whilst the allowable width in Australia and the US is
typically around 3.5 m [9]. In addition, the maximum lifting capacity of
most of tower cranes used in building projects is around 20 tonnes, and
the cost of the tower crane with a lifting limit over 20 tonnes might
increase by up to 60% [36]. Therefore, transportation and lifting re­
quirements are the main constraints in determining the module size and
hoist weight. For high-rise buildings, the modules at the base are sub­
jected to very large vertical loads. This leads to an increase in their
member sizes and hoisting weight, thereby reducing the span of the
modules. However, the use of short modules will result in an increased
number of inter-module joints, such that the benefits of modular con­
struction are not fully maximised.
3.2.2. Module types
Based on the load transfer mechanisms, a 3D module can be gener­
ally classified as a load-bearing wall as shown in Fig. 15a and corner-
supported frame as shown in Fig. 15b. In the former module, which is
commonly used in Singapore [36], gravity loads are transferred to the
base via the four side walls, whilst the latter module transfers gravity
loads through its edge beams and four corner posts [89]. The lateral
loads due to winds and earthquakes are transferred to shear wall cores
and/or bracing systems via ceilings and floors, as well as the side walls of
the load-bearing wall module [89].
The corner-supported module is commonly used in high-rise build­
ings due to its high load-carrying capacity [35]. As shown in Fig. 15b,
the chassis frame of corner-supported modules consists of corner posts
and perimeter beams which can be made from RHS (steel module) or
RHS infilled with concrete to make composite sections. The steel chassis
could be potentially applied to buildings over 40 storeys. Currently, the
steel chassis is adopted in the 44-storey Croydon Tower project (see
Fig. 10) with SHS column sizes varying from 300 mm (at the base
H.-T. Thai et al.
Fig. 15. Volumetric module: (a) load-bearing wall [90]; (b) corner-supported frame [91].
module) to 150 mm (at the top module) [75]. It should be noted that the
variation of SHS column sizes in steel modules also makes the connec­
tion between modules more difficult. In order to avoid this difficulty and
increase the load-carrying capacity of steel modules, Liew et al. [36]
recently proposed a composite module comprised of a slim floor (e.g.,
Slimdek [92,93]), composite beams and concrete filled steel tubular
(CFST) columns as shown in Fig. 16.
The use of different column sections can maintain the sizes of com­
posite columns. As shown in Fig. 16, SHS can be used for the modules at
the top levels with low gravity loads, whilst CFST is more appropriate for
the modules at middle levels with larger gravity loads. CFST with high
strength concrete and high strength steel can significantly improve the
strength of columns, and can thereby be used for the columns at the
lower levels, which are subjected to maximum gravity loads. One can
argue that column size can be maintained by increasing the thickness of
SHS as in the case of the steel module used in the 32-storey B2 tower in
New York, in which column sizes were constantly kept at 150 mm but
the thickness of SHS was increased up to 38 mm. This might lead to
higher material costs. The use of composite beams and slim floors with
lightweight concrete can also reduce the hoisting weight of modules by
up to 40% [36]. Hence, longer span modules up to 12 m can be achieved.
This leads to a reduced number of inter-module joints and maximises the
advantages of modular construction in high-rise buildings. Additional
advantages of composite modules over steel modules include durability,
fire resistance, water proofing and acoustic impedance since they inherit
the merits of concrete modular construction [36].
Fig. 16. Composite chassis proposed by Liew et al. [36].
1274
Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
3.2.3. Lateral stability systems
For high-rise buildings, lateral loads due to winds and earthquakes
are resisted by a separate lateral stability system such as a bracing truss
and shear wall core as shown in Fig. 17. The feasibility of the lateral
resisting system was also examined by Hong et al. [94]. The lateral
stability system can be constructed from steel, concrete and hybrid
steel–concrete structures using either traditional construction methods
or the modular construction method [37]. To enable the lateral loads to
be transferred from the module to the lateral stability system, additional
bracing systems should be added within the floors and ceilings of the
module. Also, the inter-module connections should have sufficient shear
strength.
The bracing truss is made from structural steel in the form of pre­
fabricated panels. This bracing system was successfully applied to the
32-storey B2 Tower in New York (Fig. 17a) and the 47-storey Leadenhall
building in London [95]. Unlike the bracing truss, the shear wall core
can accommodate lifts, stairs and service risers. Therefore, it is widely
used in modular high-rise buildings. In current practice, four out of five
of the world’s tallest modular buildings constructed by the 3D volu­
metric method summarised in Table 1 are based on concrete shear wall
cores. These include the 44-storey Croydon Tower, 40-storey Clement
Canopy, 29-storey Apex House, and 29-storey SOHO Tower. The con­
crete cores can be constructed using either traditional methods such as
slipform and jumpform or the modular method with modular precast
concrete systems. Another option for the shear wall core is the composite
steel–concrete-steel sandwich system, namely SpeedCore, which is first
used in Rainier Square Tower project as shown in Fig. 18. SpeedCore is
the revolutionary steel-plate composite core that eliminates the need for
H.-T. Thai et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

Fig. 17. Lateral stability systems (a) Bracing truss used in B2 Tower [80] (b) Concrete core used in Croydon Tower [75].

Fig. 18. Rainier Square Tower: (a) composite panel [96]; (b) SpeedCore construction [97].

formwork and reinforcing bars used in the reinforced concrete core
construction.
4. Inter-module joining techniques
Srisangeerthanan et al. [26] and Lacey et al. [41] recently presented
a review on inter-module connections in steel buildings with an
emphasis on performance requirements [26], and developed theoretical
models to predict the axial, shear and bending stiffness of bolted con­
nections [41]. In modular high-rise buildings, the connections between
modular units shown in Fig. 19 play a very important role because they
ensure the structural integrity, overall stability and robustness of the
entire building. Although welded connection can provide rigidity be­
tween adjacent modules, it is not preferred onsite as it requires highly
skilled labour, large working space, and time-consuming inspections
after welding [36]. An increased number of joining techniques have
been developed for the inter-modular connection of modular steel
buildings. These connections can be classified into three different types:
(i) inter-module connection using tie rod, (ii) inter-module connection
using connector, and (iii) inter-module connection using bolt. For con­
crete modules, the inter-module connections require significant onsite
labour for laying the rebars and site grouting. This would reduce the
construction speed and nullify the benefits of modular construction for
multi-storey buildings. Thus, the connection of concrete modules is not
considered herein.

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

1275
H.-T. Thai et al.
4.1. Inter-module connection using tie rod
This type of connection has been developed to vertically connect the
columns of the lower modules to those of the upper modules (i.e.
column-to-column connection). In this connection, the vertical tyring
between lower and upper modules is provided by using a vertical rod,
whilst the shear force between the lower and upper columns is resisted
by shear keys. The advantage of this type of connection is that it can be
installed outside the modules [99], which thereby prevents any poten­
tial damages to internal finishes. In addition, this joining technique can
be applied for columns with both hollow bare steel sections and CFST
sections which are necessary for high-rise buildings to retain the same
column size [100]. However, it has limited moment resistance [99] and
its performance is similar to that of a weak semi-rigid connection. This
leads to a weak framing action and lateral resistance of the whole
building. Therefore, this type of connection is not suitable for high-rise
buildings [100].
A tie rod connection with a shear block and pre-stressed tendon was
proposed by Chen et al. [101] for a corner joint – J1 (see Fig. 19) with
concrete-filled steel tubular columns as shown in Fig. 20. In this
connection, a seal plate with stiffeners and holes accommodated for pre-
stressed tendons and plugin bars need to be welded to the columns of
modules offsite. During onsite erection, the upper module will be lifted
above the lower module (Fig. 20b) and then the plugin bar and tendon
will be aligned and inserted into the corresponding holes. The shear
block will then be inserted into the encased hole (Fig. 20a) to resist the
shear force before dropping the upper module. The tendon will then be
stretched to a designed stress level before pouring infilled concrete into
the hollow steel column. The plugin bars are adopted to prevent the
concrete from crushing and to increase the ductility of the connection
[101]. Experimental (Fig. 20c) and numerical investigations indicated
that the pre-stressed connection can provide adequate strength and
ductility requirements without much structural failure [101,102], but it
is weak in providing the rotational stiffness between the lower and
upper modules, and the connected sections were separated under lateral
bending [103].
In order to horizontally connect the adjacent modules, Liew et al.
[36] proposed the use of a gusset plate as shown in Fig. 21. With this
gusset plate, the perimeter joint – J2 and internal joint – J3 (see Fig. 19)
can be easily be connected. The gusset plate will be designed to transfer
the lateral forces to a lateral resisting system such as a wall core or
bracing frame [36]. In addition, the gusset plate together with the shear
key and base plate (welded to the columns ends offsite) will assist in
positioning and aligning the columns of the upper modules and the
adjacent modules. The rebar, which is used for vertical tyring between
lower and upper modules, will be locked to the base plate by a tightened
coupler and can be extended by a rebar splice [99].
A different version of the tie rod connection was also proposed by
Fig. 20. Tie rod connection with shear block and pre-stressed tendon [101].
1276
Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
Sanches et al. [104] and Sanches and Mercan [105] through the use of a
steel box placed between two modules as illustrated in Fig. 22. The steel
box with sloped sides at the top and at the bottom also acts as a base
plate and shear key by providing shear resistance, as well as aligning the
columns of the lower and upper modules. In addition, the steel box also
provides tensile resistance through contact between the inner surface of
the hollow steel column and the steel box. The vertical tying is provided
by the threaded rod anchored against the end plates, which is welded
offsite at the columns ends. The seismic performance and lateral resis­
tance of the connection were also studied experimentally. It was
concluded that the proposed tie rod connection has a similar lateral
stiffness and higher energy dissipation capability compared with the
welded connection [104]. In addition, the steel box prevented local
buckling in all specimens. This concept was also recently adopted by
Wang et al. [106] with the threaded rod being replaced by an installed
bolt.
Recently, Lacey et al. [107] developed a new tie rod connection for
modular steel buildings as shown in Fig. 23. In this connection, the shear
key which is composed of hollow sections welded offside to a plate P1
will be connected to the columns of the lower and upper modules via a
threaded rod and a plate P2, which is welded to the columns offsite as
shown in Fig. 23. An access opening will also be created in the module
columns to allow for the installation of the threaded rod from inside the
modules. This type of connection can be classified as semi-rigid [108].
Experimental tests indicated that the proposed connection has greater
stiffness than existing ones [107].
4.2. Inter-module connection using connector
Unlike the tie rod system, the installation of the connector system is
quite simple and flexible because the connector can be easily welded to
the beam and column of the module offsite, which have different shapes
of cross-sections. Various connector systems have been developed such
as Vectorbloc, self-lock, rotary and bracket connectors.
Vectorbloc connector: Vectorbloc is a standardised, structural, scal­
able, modular connection system which was developed to facilitate the
efficient design and assembly of modular buildings with hollow steel
section (HSS) members [109]. In this system, the horizontal and vertical
modules of modular buildings are connected at their corners by means of
a gusset plate and an innovative cast-steel connector, which is welded to
the HSS members of modules in a factory. The benefit of the VectorBloc
connector is that it enables faster and easier onsite installation of both
beam-to-column and inter-module connections [110]. The basic com­
ponents of the VectorBloc connector are the upper and lower blocs, the
registration pin, the flat head cap screw (FHCS), the high strength socket
head cap screw (SHCS) and the gusset plate as shown in Fig. 24. The
SHCS is employed to secure the vertical connection between lower and
upper modules, whilst the gusset plate is adopted to establish the
H.-T. Thai et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

Fig. 21. Tie rod connection with shear key and gusset plate [36].

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

Fig. 23. Tie rod connection with shear key and threaded rod [107].

horizontal connection between adjacent modules. The shape of the
gusset plate is dependent on the joint configurations (e.g., corner,
perimeter and internal joint). The upper bloc and the lower bloc are
offsite welded to the HSS columns, ceiling beams and floor beams. When
the modules are stacked onsite, the gusset plate is attached to the upper
bloc by means of the FHCS as shown in Fig. 24. The registration pin is
then used to position the upper module over the lower one. Once the
upper and lower modules are properly aligned, they will be connected
by means of the SHCS to establish their vertical tyring.
The structural performance of the VectorBloc connection system
under axial tension and compression was recently examined by Dha­
napal et al. [110] as shown in Fig. 25. The results indicated that the
VectorBloc connector satisfactorily carries the design axial loads [110].
The failure mode of the connection under compression is ductile, but its
failure mode under tension is brittle due to sudden rupture of SHCS.
Therefore, the design of this connection needs to be improved to ensure
ductile failure under tension.
Self-lock connector: Dai et al. [111] recently developed a self-lock
connector for inter-module joints of modular steel buildings as shown
in Fig. 26. Since the connector ensures the vertical connection between

1277
H.-T. Thai et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

Fig. 24. VectorBloc connector [109].

Fig. 25. Test setup of (a) beam-column corner joint; (b) column under compression; (c) column under tension [110].

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

the lower and upper modules by means of a friction self-locked mech­
anism, a bolting system is not required as in the case of a Vectorbloc
connector. Hence, it can be installed quickly and easily. However, the
lateral connection between adjacent modules is not considered, and this
connector is only suitable for corner joints. In the self-lock connector
system, the joint boxes need to be welded offsite to the beams and corner
columns of modules. Then a stud will be offsite welded to the top surface
of the joint box for alignment and vertical tyring purposes. During the
onsite erection, the upper module will be hoisted above the stud and its
position will be adjusted to align with the lower module via the stud.
Once the upper module is properly positioned with the lower module, it
will be laid down so that the stud can plug into the assembly hole of the
joint box of the upper module to form the connection.
The structural performance of the connector under cyclic loading
was experimentally tested by Dai et al. [111]. The joint specimens
represent the corner joint of a 19-storey modular steel building. The

1278
H.-T. Thai et al.
results indicated that the connector is reliable, and no slip occurs before
failure. The failure mode is fracture or buckling at the root of the beam
[111]. The joint exhibits excellent seismic performance with good
ductility and energy absorption. The joint stiffness is about 80% of the
limit of a rigid joint according to Eurocode 3 classification. Therefore, it
can be classified as a semi-rigid connection [111].
Rotary connector: This joining technique was applied to a modular
dormitory building in China as shown in Fig. 27a. In this connection, the
beam and column of modules will be welded offsite to the corner fitting,
similar to the joint box of the self-lock connector system. During onsite
erection, the upper module is lifted above the lower module. Then, the
rotary connector is inserted into the corner fitting of the lower module.
Once the upper module is properly aligned with the lower module, they
will be connected by means of the rotary connector. Access holes are also
created at two sides of the corner fitting for installation purposes (see
Fig. 27b). The rotary connector is used to vertically connect the lower
and upper modules. However, the lateral connection between adjacent
modules is not ignored. Therefore, this joining technique is suitable for
the corner and perimeter connections of low-rise and mid-rise modular
buildings [112]. Experimental testing on the behaviour of the rotary
connector system was carried out by Chen et al. [112] as shown in
Fig. 27c. The results indicated that local buckling is the governing failure
mode, which occurs at the top plate of the corner fitting of the lower
module, and the rotational stiffness of the connection is equivalent to
that of semi-rigid connection.
Bracket connector: The bracket connector was used in China and its
structural performance under shear, tension and combined actions was
experimentally tested by Doh et al. [113] as shown in Fig. 28. In this
connection, the horizontal connection between adjacent modules and
the vertical connection between the lower and upper modules are ach­
ieved by means of bolting. As shown in Fig. 28, the cube-shaped bracket
connector is comprised of steel plates with cut-out holes for bolt
installation. The test results indicated that the failure mode of the
connector is caused by prying of the bolts.
4.3. Inter-module connection using bolt
Bolted connection is considered as an alternative solution to the
onside welding approach due to its fast and easy installation and better
quality control. Various bolting techniques have been developed for
inter-module connections of modular steel buildings. A review on inter-
module bolted connections for modular steel buildings was conducted
by Lacey et al. [41] to study the analytical models for estimating the
stiffness of inter-module bolted connections under axial tension, shear,
bending moment and combined actions.
Bolted connection with plugin device: Fig. 29a illustrates a bolted
connection with a plugin device developed by Chen et al. [114,115] for
Fig. 27. Rotary connector [112].
1279
Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
inter-module connections of modular steel buildings. In this connection,
a high-strength bolting system is used to establish the vertical connec­
tion between the lower and upper modules, whilst a cast plugin device is
adopted to establish the horizontal connection between adjacent mod­
ules. The HSS floor beams and ceiling beams will also be strengthened by
offsite welding cover plates and intermediate plates (see Fig. 29) to
prevent local buckling of the SHS beams under tensile forces from the
bolts. The cast plugin device has four square tubes to horizontally con­
nect four adjacent modules of the internal joint of modular buildings.
During onsite erection, the columns of the upper modules will be
inserted into the plugin device for alignment. Then, the long stay bolts
will be installed to vertically connect the ceiling beams of the lower
module to the floor beams of the upper module. The seismic behaviour
of the connection was experimentally and numerically investigated by
Chen et al. [114,115] for the corner joint [114] and perimeter joint
[115] of modular steel buildings. The results showed that all connection
specimens have reasonable energy dissipation capacity, post yielding
deformation capacity and connection ductility, although fracture is their
governing failure mode. In addition, the connection stiffness is also
pronounced and needs to be considered in the design.
Bolted connection with welded cover plate: Deng et al. [116,117]
developed a new bolted jointing technique for inter-module connections
of modular steel buildings using a welded cover plate as a gusset plate as
shown in Fig. 30a. In this connection, a cruciform gusset plate is used to
vertically and horizontally connect the modules by means of bolting. To
create room for the bolt installation, an access opening will be created by
cutting the column side wall. In order to bolt the gusset plate with the
module columns, a column cover plate is also welded to the bottom of
the upper column and the top of the lower column as shown in Fig. 30a,
and this welding is done in a factory. During onsite erection, the gusset
plate will be inserted into the gap between two lower modules first. Two
upper modules will be then lifted on the gusset plate. Once the upper and
lower modules are properly aligned, they will be vertically and hori­
zontally bolted to the gusset plate through the access opening. Finally, a
cover plate is onsite welded to the columns to replace the cut portions.
The behaviour of the connection under static and cyclic loadings was
also experimentally investigated by Deng et al. [116,117] for the corner
joint (Fig. 30b) [116] and perimeter joint (Fig. 30c) [117] of modular
steel buildings. The results indicated that this joining technique can
provide satisfactory connection ductility, but its strength and stiffness
are limited and consequently, it can be classified as semi-rigid connec­
tion [116,117]. Since this joining technique does not require onsite
welding, it is not suitable for the inter-module connections of modular
steel buildings as it requires highly skilled labour and working space
[36].
Bolted connection with connection plate: This type of connection was
recently developed by Cho et al. [118] for the perimeter joint of modular
H.-T. Thai et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

Fig. 28. Bracket connector [113].

Fig. 29. Bolted connection with plugin device: (a) connection concept [115]; (b) test setup of corner joint [114]; (c) test setup of perimeter joint [115].

Fig. 30. Bolted connection with welded cover plate: (a) connection concept; (b) test setup of corner joint [116]; (c) test setup of perimeter joint [117].

steel buildings. As shown in Fig. 31a, an external connection plate is
used to vertically and horizontally connect the modules by means of
normal bolt and blind bolt systems. Since the blind bolt can be installed
from the outside of a hollow section, it will be used in the area connected
to the hollow section columns. In contrast, the normal bolt will be used
in the area connected to C-shaped beams. An experimental study showed
that the blind bolt does not fail before the structural components of the
module when subjected to cyclic loading [118]. A similar version of this
connection was also developed by Lee et al. [119,120] to connect the
modules with hollow section columns and C-shaped beams. Different
types of connection plates are used to accommodate different joint
configurations as shown in Fig. 31b. However, the vertical connection
between the columns of the lower module and the upper module is not
considered as in the case of Cho et al. [118]. The experimental and
numerical results indicated that this type of connection can be classified
as a rigid connection and the failure mode is due to the local buckling of
C-shaped beams.
Bolted connection with extended endplate: In this connection, the

1280
H.-T. Thai et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

Fig. 31. Bolted connection with connection plate (a) perimeter joint with blind bolting technique [118] (b) Various connection plates for different joint configu­
rations [121].

extended endplate will be offsite welded to the column ends of modules.
This assembly will then be connected onsite using bolting techniques.
Different versions of bolted endplate connections have been proposed
for prefabricated high-rise steel buildings. For example, Liu et al.
[122–124] proposed a bolted endplate connection to connect the pre­
fabricated columns and beams of multi-storey steel buildings as shown
in Fig. 32a. In this connection, the prefabricated beam needs to be
welded with a vertical connecting plate and a column base in the fac­
tory. Experimental and numerical results showed that the connection
exhibits very good seismic performance in terms of energy absorption
capability, ductility and bearing capacity [122]. The failure mode is due
to fracture of the offsite welds rather than bolt necking [124]. This type
of connection was also numerically evaluated by Naserabad et al. [125]
and Torbaghan et al. [126]. Gunawardena [127] and Lacey et al. [128]
examined the shear behaviour of the bolted endplate connection be­
tween the columns of adjacent modules as shown in Fig. 32b and c,
respectively. The seismic performance of this connection was also
numerically examined by Sendanayake et al. [129]. Lacey et al. [128]
added an interlocking pin and a horizontal connecting plate P2 (see
Fig. 32c) to improve the shear stiffness and shear resistance [128]. The
interlocking pin is also used for aligning purposes. The idea of using an
interlocking system was proposed by Sharafi et al. [130] to improve the

Fig. 32. Bolted connection with extended endplate: (a) Beam-to-column joint [124]; (b) column-to-column joint [127]; (c) column-to-column joint with interlocking
pin [128].

1281
H.-T. Thai et al.
integrity of multi-storey modular buildings. The behaviour of bolted
endplate column-to-column connections under a combined action was
also investigated by Liu et al. [131,132] for combined bending moment
and shear force [131] and combined bending moment, shear force and
axial compression [132]. It was found that the bolts in the tensile region
experience significant levels of prying when the bolted endplate
connection is subjected to combined bending moment, shear force and
axial compression [132].
5. Progressive collapse and structural robustness of modular
buildings
Progressive collapse of a building occurs when vertical load-bearing
components fail (initially localised damage that eventually propagates
throughout the entire structural system) due to extreme events such as
fire, explosions and impacts. To avoid progressive collapse, the structure
should be designed to have adequate integrity or robustness which is
defined as the capability to resist progressive collapse by developing
alternative load paths (ALP) by means of strength, continuity and
ductility. After the Ronan Point collapse in 1968, extensive studies on
the progressive collapse and structural robustness of traditional onsite
buildings have been conducted, and code provisions for the structural
robustness of buildings were also introduced. A comprehensive review
of the research and practice on progressive collapse of traditional
buildings, and the development of provisions for robustness in interna­
tional codes can be found in Refs. [133–135]. However, research on the
progressive collapse and robustness of modular buildings is very limited
due to their complex behaviour [136].
The robustness of buildings against progressive collapse can be
designed using four basic approaches: (i) tying force prescriptive rules;
(ii) alternative load path (ALP) methods; (iii) key element design
methods; and (iv) risk-based methods [135]. The tying force prescriptive
rule is an indirect design approach as it implicitly considers resistance to
progressive collapse by prescribing minimum tie force requirements in
terms of strength, continuity and ductility. This method is widely rec­
ommended in many codes for structures with low risk of progressive
collapse. ALP approaches are deterministic and direct methods as they
explicitly consider robustness through the analysis of the structure based
on the notional member removal concept, and evaluate the capability of
a structure to redistribute additional loads from local damaged areas.
Therefore, they are the most widely used and accepted by almost design
codes [133]. The key element method also known as the enhanced local
resistance approach is a direct design approach, where key elements
(members whose failure can trigger a progressive collapse) are designed
to resist accidental loads to avoid local failure. Some codes use a
notional load of 34 kN/m2 (corresponding to 5 psi), which is the pres­
sure estimated from the gas explosion of Ronan Point, to represent
various extreme events [133]. However, this becomes problematic for
light steel modular buildings as they cannot resist such high blast
pressure of 34 kN/m2 [137]. The risk-based method is an indirect
approach which implicitly considered the risk of collapse by means of
building classification and design methods recommended for each risk
category [133]. Further discussions about these methods can be found in
Refs. [133,135].
In the ALP methods, different levels of analysis including linear static
analysis, nonlinear static (pushdown) analysis, and nonlinear dynamic
analysis are accepted. A dynamic load factor less than 2.0 is multiplied
by the loads used the static analysis to account for the dynamic effect
due to sudden removal of notional load-bearing members. Linear static
analysis is the simplest which ignores all sources of nonlinearities.
Therefore, it gives highly conservative results. In contrast, nonlinear
static analysis or advanced analysis can provide more accurate results as
it accounts for both geometric and material nonlinearities, and the load
distribution mechanism due to sudden removal of critical members. This
method is also referred to as pushdown analysis since it involves the
increase of gravity loads due to the sudden removal of columns [138].
1282
Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
Nonlinear dynamic analysis is the most accurate method because it gives
detailed time history responses, from which peak values can directly be
used for the performance assessment. However, it is too computationally
intensive.
Although significant research has been conducted on the progressive
collapse and robustness of traditional buildings based on ALP ap­
proaches [133], limited studies on modular buildings have been re­
ported due to the complexity involved in the modelling of the
discontinuity at the connections between modules [136]. Since those
connections are weak and classified as semi-rigid joints [139,140], their
behaviour has significant effect on the overall performance of the whole
modular building [141,142]. Therefore, they should be included in the
analysis and design of modular buildings. Different approaches have
been proposed for modelling inter-modular connections of modular
buildings. For example, Annan [143] and Annan et al. [144–146]
developed a joint model composed of rigid elastic segments and pin joint
elements in SeismoStruct software for the vertical welded connections of
steel modules as shown in Fig. 33a. The rigid elements were used to
represent the rigid zones of beam-to-column joints, whilst the pin joint
elements were used to capture the independent rotation between the
columns of the upper and lower modules. The accuracy of this model
was also verified with experimental results [146]. This model was
modified by Sultana and Youssef [147] for vertical bolted connections of
steel-braced modules as shown in Fig. 33b. A similar technique was
employed by Fathieh and Mercan [148,149] using OpenSees software to
model the vertical connection of steel modular buildings for seismic
evaluation. Simplified models for bolted and tie rod connections were
also developed by Gunawardena et al. [150] for seismic analysis and
Chua et al. [136] for progressive collapse analysis of steel modular
buildings as shown in Fig. 34, respectively. Gunawardena et al. [150]
employed the spring element in RUAUMOKO software to simulate the
lateral connection between adjacent modules, whilst Chua et al. [136]
used the pin element in ETABS software to model the vertical tie rod
connection between the upper and lower modules. Recently, Shan et al.
[19] also proposed three simplified connection models in ETABS for
modular high-rise buildings including module-module, module-to-core
and module-to-podium connections as shown in Fig. 35. The effect of
various modelling techniques of joints on lateral behaviour of modular
buildings was also examined by Chua et al. [151].
An early study on the progressive collapse and structural robustness
of modular buildings was conducted by Lawson et al. [137,152] based
on both experimental [152] and analytical [137] approaches. The re­
sults showed that the tying force of inter-modules required for redis­
tributing the gravity loads from damaged areas is relatively small.
Therefore, ALP method is the most appropriate means for assessing the
robustness of modular buildings, whilst the tying force method is suit­
able for light steel modular buildings with multiple inter-connections
between the components [137]. Numerical studies on the structural
robustness of steel modular buildings were recently carried out by Chua
et al. [136] and Luo et al. [153] using the ALP method associated with
nonlinear static analysis. Chua et al. [136] simulated the progressive
collapse of a 40-storey building under a column loss scenario using
ETABS (see Fig. 36a) to examine the structural robustness of modular
high-rise buildings. They concluded that the modular building consid­
ered adequately robust to resist progressive collapse due to (i) catenary
action developed in floor beams, and (ii) the high redundancy of
structural members [136]. However, their study is limited to a single
scenario of column removal. In contrast, Luo et al. [153] carried out a
very comprehensive investigation of the progressive collapse and
structural robustness of modular buildings by simulating a 5-storey steel
building under different scenarios using LS-DYNA (see Fig. 36b). They
concluded that the most critical scenario occurs when removing the
modules near the end corner of a modular building. The results indicated
that the robustness of modular buildings can be improved with the in­
crease in the number of modules per floor (i.e., increase the number of
inter-module connections), and the strength and stiffness of inter-
H.-T. Thai et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

Fig. 33. Modelling of connections of modular steel braced frame in SeismoStruct software (a) Welded connection [144,145] (b) Bolted connection [147].

Fig. 34. Simplified models of inter-module connections (a) Bolted connection model [150] (b) Tie rod connection model in ETABS [136].

Fig. 35. Simplified models in ETABS for modular high-rise buildings [19]: (a) inter-module connection; (b) module-to-core connection; (c) module-to-
podium connection.

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

6. Structural design guidelines for modular buildings
Current design practices for modular buildings are based on the
conventional design guides of traditional buildings, which are not suit­
able for modular buildings they possess different characteristics. For
example, the process of manufacture and assembly of modular units
generates short-term loading which may influence the load-transfer
buildings due to installation tolerances as shown in Fig. 37, which are
significantly important for the overall performance of a building, are
different with those of conventional buildings. Therefore, significant
efforts [22,42,68,89,154–157] have been made to develop design
guidelines for modular buildings on the basis of conventional codes.
Notable among them are the design guides developed by Lawson et al.
[157] on the basis of British and European codes, and the design
handbook developed by Murray-Parkes et al. [154] on the basis of

1283
H.-T. Thai et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

Fig. 36. Progressive collapse simulations of steel modular buildings (a) Column removal collapse [136] (b) Module removal collapse [153].

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

Australian codes [158]. Structural design guidelines of modular build­
ings should account for the effects of construction tolerances and
structural robustness [89], as well as the short-term loading generated
during hoisting and transportation [68].
6.1. Design of structural components of modular units
In current practices, the structural design of modular members is
based on limit state design principles. According to the handbook for the
design of modular structures [154], the modular members (e.g., beams,
columns, load-bearing walls and floors) can be designed using the pro­
visions provided in Australian codes for conventional buildings such as
AS 4100 for steel members [159], AS/NZS 4600 for cold-formed steel
members [160] and AS 3600 for concrete members [161]. In the UK and
European practices, however, the structural design of modular members
is based on Eurocode 3 for steel members (Part 1–1 for hot-rolled steel
[162] and Part 1–3 for cold-formed steel [163]) and Eurocode 2 for
concrete members [164].
In order to rationally evaluate the stability of columns, Li et al.
[140,165] developed analytical formulas to calculate the effective
length factor K of columns in non-sway [140] and sway [165] steel
buildings accounting for the joint stiffness. Numerical results indicated
that the assumed pinned connections between upper and lower modules
is not conservative, and thus the joint stiffness should be taken into
account for the design of modular buildings. The equations of the
effective length factor K of CFST columns with tendon connections in
modular units were also developed by Deng et al. [166] and Chen et al.
[167].

1284
H.-T. Thai et al.
6.2. Design of inter-module connections
Inter-module connections used in steel modular buildings is gener­
ally classified as semi-rigid types [41] as illustrated in Fig. 38a, and their
behaviours have a significant influence on the response and lateral
resistance of the entire modular building [142]. Current design practices
of inter-module connections of steel buildings are based on the pro­
visions given by Eurocode 3 (Part 1–8) [168] and AISC 360–16 [169].
According to Eurocode 3, the behaviour of a joint characterised by three
parameters: (i) initial rotational stiffness Sint, (ii) moment resistance MRd
and (iii) rotation capacity ϕCd as shown in Fig. 38b. The initial stiffness
and moment resistance can be predicted using the component method in
which the entire joint will be decomposed into individual basic com­
ponents represented by springs with their own stiffness and strength.
Once the stiffness and strength of each individual component are ob­
tained, the initial stiffness and moment resistance of the joint can be
derived by assembling the contributions of each component on the basis
of the force transfer mechanism. The application of the component
method to composite joints can be found in Refs. [170–172].
6.3. Structural robustness design of modular buildings
Robustness is the ability of a structure to resist its progressive
collapse due to extreme events such as fire, explosions and impacts. The
structural robustness design of a building ensures that the building is
able to develop alternative load paths to redistribute additional loads
from damaged areas in the event of a local failure. The design guidelines
for structural robustness were incorporated in international codes
[173–177]. In current practices, the tying force method and ALP method
are commonly used in the robustness design of modular buildings [153].
The tying force is an indirect design approach which implicitly considers
robustness by prescribing minimum levels of tying force requirements,
whilst ALP is a direct method which explicitly considers robustness by
direct analysis of the structure under member loss to assess its ability in
redistributing loads from local damaged areas.
In the tying force method, the minimum requirements of the hori­
zontal tying force between adjacent modules and vertical tying force
between the upper and lower modules are 26% and 40% of the total load
applied to the module, respectively. These values are recommended
based on a numerical study carried out by Lawson and Richards [89] on
a steel module under corner support removal accounting for the
torsional stiffness of the module due to the diaphragm action of the wall.
In the ALP method, the structural robustness of modular buildings is
established by a scenario-based approach where either the entire mod­
ules or parts of a module (column, beam or shear wall) are selectively
removed. This is the most appropriate approach for the robust design of
light steel modular buildings [137]. Liew et al. [36] stated that the
removal of an entire module as recommended in design guidelines
[154,157] is unreasonable. Therefore, only corner column removal is
considered in their study. For modular buildings, however, the removal
Fig. 38. Joint moment-rotation characteristics from Eurocode 3 Part 1–8.
1285
Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
of a single load-bearing member may not lead to a progressive collapse
of the entire building due to the high redundancy of structural elements
[136]. Therefore, all possible scenarios which could yield an adverse
effect to the overall structure should be considered [154]. Fig. 39 il­
lustrates two extreme scenarios of entire module loss. The removal of a
corner module will cause the modules above to act as cantilevers (see
Fig. 39a), whilst the removal of an internal module will cause the
modules above to span over the affected modules (see Fig. 39b) [137].
6.4. Structural analysis
Similar to conventional onsite buildings, the structural analysis of
modular buildings can be performed using the following methods: (i)
linear elastic analysis (the most simple method ignoring both geometric
and material nonlinearities, (ii) nonlinear elastic analysis (only geo­
metric nonlinearity considered), (iii) nonlinear inelastic analysis or
advanced analysis (the most accurate method considering both geo­
metric and material nonlinearities), and (iv) nonlinear time-history
analysis (for earthquake design [178]). Since the structural compo­
nents of connected modules are discontinuous, the behaviour of inter-
module connections should be included in the modelling of modular
buildings to accurately capture the global behaviour of entire buildings
[36]. Various simplified techniques for modelling the inter-modular
connections of modular buildings as shown in Figs. 33–35 can be uti­
lised along with beam models available structural analysis software, e.
g., ETABS, SAP2000, RUAUMOKO, SeismoStruct, OpenSees, ABAQUS,
LS-DYNA, etc. In addition, the lateral stiffness of the floor diaphragm
system in each module should be taken into account in the analysis to
accurately predict the global sway behaviour of the entire building
[179].
In the nonlinear analysis, geometric imperfections due to construc­
tion tolerances can be implicitly considered using the equivalent
notional horizontal load approach. For modular buildings, a notional
horizontal force at each floor is taken as a minimum of 1% of the
factored gravity load acting on each module [157]. This figure is twice
the value of 0.5% recommended for conventional onsite buildings,
which indicates that higher tolerances are allowed in modular con­
struction [89]. However, the value of 1% is only applicable to modular
buildings with up to 12 storeys and rigid inter-module connections [89].
For high-rise modular buildings with lateral load resisting systems such
as a concrete core wall, the lateral tolerance will be reduced as module
alignment can be adjusted alongside the core wall. Therefore, a notional
horizontal force of 0.5% as recommended by Eurocode 3 for conven­
tional buildings is adopted [36].
7. Engineering challenges and recommended solutions for
future research
Although the benefits of modular construction can be maximised in
high-rise buildings due to the increased number of repeated modules,
H.-T. Thai et al.
Fig. 39. Robustness scenarios in modular buildings [137].
most of the success stories of adopting modular construction technolo­
gies are currently limited to low-rise buildings. It is worth noting that
less than 1% of modular high-rise buildings [38] constructed recently
using the panelised method or volumetric method are based on wet
joining techniques for inter-module connections, which require signifi­
cant onsite labour for laying rebars and site grouting. Consequently, the
speed and efficiency of modular construction is reduced. In addition,
technical complexities and the unavailability of design codes of practice
have hindered the widespread adoption of modular construction [154].
Therefore, further research needs to be conducted in the future to
develop the next generation of modular construction, and enable
modular buildings to be built taller, faster, safer and more efficient than
current practices allow. The areas, in the authors’ opinions, which
should be considered for future research are described hereafter.
7.1. Lightweight and durable modular units
Current modular buildings are based on either steel or concrete
modules. However, both steel and concrete modules have their own
merits and shortcomings. A steel module is 20 to 35% lighter than a
concrete module [36], but its fire resistance, and sound and thermal
insulation is lower. In terms of construction speed, however, the
installation of the steel module is faster than that of a concrete module as
it involves bolted connections instead of in-situ grouted joints. The
heaviness of a concrete module will reduce its length because of hoisting
weight constraints, which thereby results in an increased number of
modules and connections. Therefore, future research should focus on
developing a novel module which is stronger, lighter and durable,
thereby enabling modular buildings to be built taller.
Recently, Liew et al. [36] proposed the use of composite modules
that combines the benefits of both steel and concrete modules for
modular high-rise buildings. Lightweight concrete was also employed
for a composite floor to reduce the hoisting weight and maximise the
span of a module (up to 12 m based on a preliminary analytical study).
The lightweight composite floor system was also successfully applied to
the Leadenhall building in London in terms of pre-cast floor system
[180]. With recent advancements in construction materials, high
strength steel and high strength concrete can be used to reduce the size
of the composite columns at the lower levels of high-rise buildings,
which are subjected to maximum gravity loads.
7.2. Smart joining techniques
Inter-module connections play a significant role in modular build­
ings because they ensure the structural integrity, overall stability and
1286
Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
structural robustness of the entire building. As reviewed in Section 4,
there have been an increasing number of joining techniques developed
recently for modular steel buildings. However, the current techniques
result in limited strength and stiffness, which may not be suitable for
high-rise building applications. In addition, they also require a certain
level of onsite labour. Therefore, there is a need for future research to
develop smart joining techniques, which are not only stronger for high-
rise applications, but also easy to install. In addition, the new joining
technique should be robust enough to be applicable to a wide range of
joint configurations and novel modules with composite members. With
these techniques, modular buildings can be built taller, faster and
cheaper.
7.3. Computational tools
Proper modelling of modular high-rise buildings is crucial to predict
the lateral stability and progressive collapse for the robust design of
modular buildings. Current modelling techniques are based a simplified
1D “line” beam element available from commercial packages. This beam
element is only applicable for modules with homogeneous sections (steel
or concrete). For the novel module with steel and concrete composite
sections, 3D solid and shell elements should be used to accurately cap­
ture the inelastic behaviour of composite materials. However, the use of
3D solid elements is extremely computationally expensive as it involves
a larger number of elements, especially for tall buildings. Therefore,
future research should be conducted to develop a robust computational
tool for advanced analysis and robustness design of modular composite
buildings. The computational tool should be based on a 1D “line” beam
element with fibre hinge concept. It is therefore not only computation­
ally efficient for daily use in design offices by structural engineers, but
also accurate in terms of capturing geometric and material non­
linearities, local buckling of steel, confining effect in concrete and the
interaction between steel and concrete by means of the fibre concept.
Therefore, modular buildings can be built more efficiently with this
computational tool.
7.4. Design provisions
A reliable design method for modular buildings is crucial as poor
design has significant impacts on their overall cost. Current design
practices for modular buildings are based on conventional design
guidelines for traditional buildings, which are not suitable. For example,
the provisions of the design of structural members of modules can be
referred to Eurocode 3 Part 1–1 [162] and AS 4100 [159] (for hot-rolled
steel members), Eurocode 3 Part 1–3 [163] and AS 4600 [160] (for cold-
H.-T. Thai et al.
formed steel members), Eurocode 2 [164] and AS 3600 [161] (for
concrete members), Eurocode 4 [181] and AS/NZS 2327 [182] (for
composite steel–concrete members), Eurocode 3 (Part 1–8) [168] and
AISC 360–16 [169] (for joints), and Eurocode 1 Part 1–7 [175] and AS/
NZS 1170.0 [177] (for structural robustness). The structural design
guidelines for modular structures remain unavailable [36,40]. There­
fore, there is a need for future research to develop provisions for the
structural design of modular buildings. With the new design codes,
modular buildings can be built safer, which will enable the construction
industry to implement advanced modular technologies for high-rise
buildings.
8. Conclusions
Modular construction has demonstrated significant benefits in terms
of saving construction time, reducing cost and more importantly alle­
viating environmental impacts when compared with traditional onsite
construction. The modular method possesses several advantages which
are well suited for high-rise buildings and can thereby shape the future
of the construction industry. This paper has provided a comprehensive
review of recent developments of modular technologies with an
emphasis on structural aspects of modular buildings including structural
systems, inter-module connections, structural analysis and structural
design. Although modular construction is widely used in low-rise
buildings, its applications to high-rise buildings are still limited. The
technical challenges hindering the widespread adoption of modular
construction for high-rise buildings were highlighted and discussed.
Some potential solutions to tackle these challenges were also recom­
mended for future research including: (i) developing a composite
module with lighter and stronger structural members, (ii) developing a
smart joining technique with higher strength and stiffness and easy to
install, (iii) developing a computationally efficient computer tool for
advanced analysis and daily design of modular tall buildings, and (iv)
developing design guidelines for accelerating the real world application
of modular construction. By resolving technical challenges, modular
buildings can be built taller with the new composite modules, faster (and
cheaper) with the smart joining technique, safer with new design pro­
visions, and more efficiently with computationally efficient tools.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This is research was supported by the Australian Research Council
(ARC) under its Future Fellowship Scheme (Project No: FT200100024),
and the University of Melbourne under a Start-up Grant awarded to the
first author. The financial support is gratefully acknowledged. The au­
thors are also grateful to the researchers who provide their permissions
for reprinting most of the figures and photos in this paper.
References
[1] Deluxe Modular. The differences between prefab and modular construction, from
https://www.deluxemodular.com/learning-center/modular-vs-prefab; 2019.
[2] Lawson RM, Grubb PJ, Prewer J, Trebilcock PJ. Modular construction using light
steel framing: An architect’s guide. The Steel Construction Institute 1999:1–105.
[3] Yu Y, Chen Z. Rigidity of corrugated plate sidewalls and its effect on the modular
structural design. Eng Struct 2018;175:191–200.
[4] Stern D. Steel-framed modular construction for high-rise hotels, from https
://www.hotel-online.com/press_releases/release/steel-framed-modular-const
ruction-for-high-rise-hotels-what-you-need-to-kno; 2017: 1–12.
[5] Jin R, Hong J, Zuo J. Environmental performance of off-site constructed facilities:
A critical review. Energy Build 2020;207:109567.
[6] WRAP. Waste reduction potential of offsite volumetric construction. WAS 003-
003: Offsite Construction Case Study; 2018: 1–11.
1287
Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
[7] Jiang Y, Zhao D, Wang D, Xing Y. Sustainable performance of buildings through
modular prefabrication in the construction phase: A comparative study.
Sustainability 2019;11:5658.
[8] Kamali M, Hewage K. Life cycle performance of modular buildings: A critical
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;62:1171–83.
[9] McKinsey. Modular construction: From projects to products, from https://www.
mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-insights/mo
dular-construction-from-projects-to-products; 2019.
[10] Thomson J. Modular construction: A solution to affordable housing challenges.
Cornell Real Estate Rev 2019;17:90–7.
[11] Smith RE. Prefab Architecture: A Guide to Modular Design and Construction.
John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
[12] Boafo FE, Kim J-H, Kim J-T. Performance of modular prefabricated architecture:
Case study-based review and future pathways. Sustainability 2016;8:558.
[13] Mortice Z. Can this Chicago apartment factory make new homes affordable? from
https://www.citylab.com/design/2019/07/chicago-new-construction-apartment
-affordable-rent-skender/592444/; 2019.
[14] World Economic Forum. Shaping the future of construction: A breakthrough in
mindset and technology; 2016.
[15] Harrison G. The future is prefabricated, from https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/
articles/the-future-is-prefabricated; 2018.
[16] Davies G. The future of DfMA is the future of construction. Eng Excellence J 2013:
1–77.
[17] Pan W, Hon CK. Modular integrated construction for high-rise buildings. Proc Inst
Civ Eng Munic Eng 2019:doi: 10.1680/jmuen.1618.00028.
[18] Ruoheng Z, J ZAS, Saeed T, Jennifer W. Long-standing themes and new
developments in offsite construction: The case of UK housing. Proc Inst Civ Eng
Civ Eng 2019;172:29–35.
[19] Shan S, Looi D, Cai Y, Ma P, Chen M-T, Su R, et al. Engineering modular
integrated construction for high-rise building: a case study in Hong Kong. Proc
Inst Civ Eng Civ Eng 2019;172:51-57.
[20] Pan W, Su R, Cai Y, Young B. Engineering modular systems for high-rise
buildings: an update. Proc Inst Civ Eng Civ Eng 2018;171:148-148.
[21] Jellen A, Memari A. The state-of-the-art application of modular construction to
multi-story residential building. Proceedings of the 1st Residential Building
Design & Construction Conference 2013:284–293.
[22] Building and Construction Authority. Code of practice on building design/
buildability, Singapore; 2017.
[23] Park HK, Ock J-H. Unit modular in-fill construction method for high-rise
buildings. KSCE J Civ Eng 2016;20:1201–10.
[24] Srisangeerthanan S, Hashemi MJ, Rajeev P, Gad E, Fernando S. Numerical study
on the effects of diaphragm stiffness and strength on the seismic response of
multi-story modular buildings. Eng Struct 2018;163:25–37.
[25] Srisangeerthanan S, Javad Hashemi M, Rajeev P, Gad E, Fernando S. A review of
diaphragm behaviour and connections for multi-story modular buildings.
Proceedings of the Australian Structural Engineering Conference ASEC 2018:
566–573.
[26] Srisangeerthanan S, Hashemi MJ, Rajeev P, Gad E, Fernando S. Review of
performance requirements for inter-module connections in multi-story modular
buildings. J Build Eng 2020;28:101087.
[27] Lawson RM, Ogden RG. Hybrid light steel panel and modular systems. Thin-
Walled Struct 2008;46:720–30.
[28] Lawson RM. Building design using modules. The Steel Construction Institute
2007:1–16.
[29] Lawson RM. Light steel modular construction. The Steel Construction Institute
2012:1–8.
[30] Lawson RM. Modular construction in light steel framing for residential buildings.
The Steel Construction Institute 2016:1–46.
[31] Ramaji IJ, Memari AM. Identification of structural issues in design and
construction of multistory modular buildings. Proceedings of the 1st Residential
Building Design & Construction Conference 2013:294–303.
[32] Built Offsite. New 29-storey modular build towers over London, from http://bu
iltoffsite.com.au/issue-04/new-29-storey-modular-build-towers-london/; 2019.
[33] Vectorbloc. Scalable precision modular construction system; 2016.
[34] Yesterland. An urban legend about Disney’s contemporary, from https://www.
yesterland.com/contemporary.html; 2010.
[35] Lawson RM, Ogden RG, Bergin R. Application of modular construction in high-
rise buildings. J Archit Eng 2012;18:148–54.
[36] Liew JYR, Chua YS, Dai Z. Steel concrete composite systems for modular
construction of high-rise buildings. Structures 2019;21:135–49.
[37] Mills S, Grove D, Egan M. Breaking the pre-fabricated ceiling: Challenging the
limits for modular high-rise. Proceedings of CTBUH International Conference
2015:416–425.
[38] Pan W, Yang Y, Yang L. High-rise modular building: Ten-year journey and future
development. Construction Research Congress 2018:523–532.
[39] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K. Structural response of modular buildings – An
overview. J Build Eng 2018;16:45–56.
[40] Ferdous W, Bai Y, Ngo TD, Manalo A, Mendis P. New advancements, challenges
and opportunities of multi-storey modular buildings – A state-of-the-art review.
Eng Struct 2019;183:883–93.
[41] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K. Review of bolted inter-module connections in
modular steel buildings. J Build Eng 2019;23:207–19.
[42] Lawson RM, Ogden RG, Popo-Ola SO. Design considerations for modular open
building systems. Open House Int 2011;36:44–53.
H.-T. Thai et al.
[43] Taylor S. Off-site production in the UK construction industry- A brief overview,
from https://www.buildoffsite.com/content/uploads/2015/04/HSE-off-site_pro
duction_june09.pdf; 2015.
[44] Velamati S. Feasibility, benefits and challenges of modular construction in high
rise development in the united states: A developer’s perspective. Master thesis,
Center for Real Estate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2012.
[45] Khalfan MMA, Maqsood T. Current state of off-site manufacturing in Australian
and Chinese residential construction. J Constr Eng 2014;2014:5.
[46] Han YJ, Zhu WZ. The development of modular building in China. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Applied Mechanics, Electronics and
Mechatronics Engineering (AMEME2016) 2016:1–4.
[47] Jiang L, Li Z, Gao Y. Constraints on the promotion of prefabricated construction in
China. Sustainability 2018;10:2516–7.
[48] Building and Construction Authority. Construction productivity and
prefabrication in Singapore; 2017.
[49] Navaratnam S, Ngo T, Gunawardena T, Henderson D. Performance review of
prefabricated building systems and future research in Australia. Buildings 2019;9:
38.
[50] McGowan S. Fabricating the future. Ecolibrium Magazine, from https://www.
airah.org.au/Content_Files/EcoLibrium/2014/May14/05-14-Eco-003.pdf; 2014:
32–42.
[51] Hickory Building Innovation. Hickory building systems: Overview of
prefabricated structural system, from https://www.hickory.com.au/docs/hic
kory-building-systems-overview.pdf; 2019.
[52] Kumar S. Innovative application of horizontal and vertical wet joints in
prefabricated modular buildings. Proceedings of the Australian Structural
Engineering Conference ASEC 2018:498–505.
[53] Argyrou G. Industrializing the construction process to build Australia’s tallest
prefabricated structure. Proceedings of CTBUH International Conference; 2018.
[54] Kumar S. Hickory building system (HBS) innovation and successful application in
a 44 storey building in Melbourne. Proceedings of the Australian Structural
Engineering Conference ASEC; 2016:465–475.
[55] Hickory Building Innovation. Collins House, from https://www.hickory.com.
au/projects/collins-house/; 2019.
[56] Smisek P. Building prefabricated student residences in Melbourne, from http
s://www.theb1m.com/video/building-prefabricated-student-residences-in-melb
ourne; 2019.
[57] Hickory Building Innovation. Atira Student Accommodation, from https://www.
hickory.com.au/projects/la-trobe-student-accommodation/; 2018.
[58] Hickory Building Innovation. La Trobe Tower , from https://www.hickory.com.
au/projects/la-trobe-tower; 2016.
[59] Gardiner P. The construction of a high-rise development using volumetric
modular met hodology. Paper presented at: Proceedings of CTBUH International
Conference; 2015.
[60] Irwinconsult. SOHO Apartments , from http://www.irwinconsult.com.au/case_st
udies/soho-apartments-case-study/; 2014.
[61] Caulfield J. Asia’s modular miracle, from https://www.bdcnetwork.com/asia
’s-modular-miracle; 2016.
[62] Generalova EM, Generalov VP, Kuznetsova AA. Modular buildings in modern
construction. Procedia Eng 2016;153:167–72.
[63] The Skyscraper Center. T30 Hotel, from https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/
building/t30-hotel/14432; 2015.
[64] The Skyscraper Center. J57 Mini Sky City, from http://www.skyscrapercenter.
com/building/j57-mini-sky-city/19743; 2015.
[65] Lee M. Mini Sky City,19 days 57-story building, from https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=PyxwgLYbAk0; 2015.
[66] SkyCity. 30-story building built in 15 days, from https://www.youtube.com/w
atch?v=Hdpf-MQM9vY; 2012.
[67] Building and Construction Authority. Design for manufacturing and assembly
(DfMA) prefabricated mechanical electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems,
Singapore; 2018.
[68] Building and Construction Authority. Design for manufacturing and assembly
(DfMA) prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction, Singapore; 2018.
[69] Building and Construction Authority. Design for manufacturing and assembly
(DfMA) - BIM essential guide, Singapore; 2018.
[70] Building and Construction Authority. Design for manufacturing and assembly
(DfMA) - Connections for advanced precast concrete systems, Singapore; 2018.
[71] Wong D. Parliament: Construction industry gets $295m to adopt new technology,
from https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/construction-industry-gets-295m-t
o-adopt-new-technology; 2019.
[72] Dezeen. World’s tallest modular tower is now Clement Canopy in Singapore, from
https://www.dezeen.com/2019/07/02/clement-canopy-worlds-tallest-modular-
tower-bouygues/; 2019.
[73] CTBUH. Two 40-story towers completed in Singapore, from https://www.ctbuh.
org/news/two-40-story-towers-completed-in-singapore/; 2019.
[74] Bouygues Construction. Bouygues Batiment International Modular Solutions -
Clement Canopy, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULj6S7-GMnw;
2018.
[75] Building. The sky’s the limit: See the world’s tallest modular tower in Croydon,
from https://www.building.co.uk/buildings/the-skys-the-limit-see-the-worlds-
tallest-modular-tower-in-croydon/5101741.article; 2019.
[76] Construction News. Croydon’s modular tower: ‘You don’t take chances building a
skyscraper’, from https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/buildings/project-report
s/101-george-street-22-05-2019/; 2019.
1288
Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
[77] Construction Manager. Modular housing hits the heights in north London, from
http://www.constructionmanagermagazine.com/onsite/modular-h6its-heig5hts-
nor4th-london/; 2017.
[78] Vision Modular Systems. Apex house, Wembley (student accommodation), from
https://www.visionmodular.com/portfolio-item/apex-house-wembley-stu
dent-accommodation/; 2019.
[79] Modular Building Institute. Permanent Modular Construction Report; 2018.
[80] Edelson D, Farnsworth D. Delivering the world’s tallest volumetric modular
apartment building. Proceedings of CTBUH International Conference 2018.
[81] Stinson L. The world’s tallest modular building may teach cities to build cheaper
housing, from https://www.wired.com/2016/11/cities-can-learn-worlds-tallest-
modular-building/; 2016.
[82] Farnsworth D, Principal A. Modular tall building design at Atlantic Yards B2.
Proceedings of CTBUH International Conference 2014:492–499.
[83] Kim J. Development of modular building systems made of innovative steel
sections and wall configurations. Master thesis, School of Civil Engineering and
Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology; 2019.
[84] The Skyscraper Center. 461 Dean, from https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/build
ing/461-dean/14897; 2019.
[85] StreetEasy. 461 Dean Street, from https://streeteasy.com/building/461-dean-st
reet-brooklyn; 2019.
[86] Inhabitat. World’s tallest prefab tower is now complete in China, from htt
ps://inhabitat.com/broad-sustainable-building-completes-worlds-tallest-
prefab-tower-in-china/broad-sustainable-buildings-sky-city-tallest-prefab-2;
2015.
[87] Hickory Building Innovation. Hickory building innovation, from https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=oXxqL9nlMKQ; 2018.
[88] English S, Brown B. An introduction to steel and concrete modular construction.
Proceedings of the 1st Residential Building Design & Construction Conference
2013:326–333.
[89] Lawson RM, Richards J. Modular design for high-rise buildings. Proc Inst Civ Eng
Struct Build 2010;163:151–164.
[90] Lawson RM, Ogden RG, Pedreschi R, Grubb PJ, Popo-Ola SO. Developments in
pre-fabricated systems in light steel and modular construction. Struct Eng 2005;
83:28–35.
[91] Vectorbloc. Precision HHS connection system for modular buildings; 2016.
[92] Lawson RM, Ogden RG. Hybrid systems in light steel and modular construction.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Adaptable Building Structures
2006:252–256.
[93] Ahmed IM, Tsavdaridis KD. The evolution of composite flooring systems:
applications, testing, modelling and eurocode design approaches. J Constr Steel
Res 2019;155:286–300.
[94] Hong S-G, Lee JH, Cho B-H, Ha TH. Structural design of high-rise modular
building systems. Proceedings of 37th IABSE Symposium, Madrid 2014;102:
1397–1043.
[95] Young A, Annereau N, Butler A, Smith B. Case study: The Leadenhall Building,
London. CTBUH J 2013:12–7.
[96] AISC. SpeedCore: How does it work? from https://www.aisc.org/why-steel/inno
vative-systems/SpeedCore/how-does-it-work/; 2019.
[97] Gevers J. Building Rainier Square, Part 1: The Revolutionary Core, from
https://lewisbuilds.com/building-rainier-square-the-revolutionary-core; 2019.
[98] Thai H-T. Numerical study of a novel self-lock connection for modular tall
buildings. Proceedings of Indian Structural Steel Conference - (ISSC 2020),
Hyderabad, India 2020.
[99] Pang DS, Liew JR, Dai Z, Wang Y. Prefabricated prefinished volumetric
construction joining techniques review. Proceedings of the Modular and Offsite
Construction (MOC) Summit 2016:249–256.
[100] Liew JYR. Innovation in modular building construction. Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference on Advances in Steel Structures - (ICASS 2018) 2018:
1–14.
[101] Chen Z, Li H, Chen A, Yu Y, Wang H. Research on pretensioned modular frame
test and simulations. Eng Struct 2017;151:774–87.
[102] Chen A, Chen Z, Wang H, Chai G. The moment strength and pretension
calculations of a new pretensioned modular building connection. Proceedings of
the 17th National Sumposium on Structural Engineering in Tianjin, China 2017.
[103] Yu Y, Chen Z, Chen A. Experimental study of a pretensioned connection for
modular buildings. Steel Compos Struct 2019;31:217–32.
[104] Sanches R, Mercan O, Roberts B. Experimental investigations of vertical post-
tensioned connection for modular steel structures. Eng Struct 2018;175:776–89.
[105] Sanches R, Mercan O. Vertical post-tensioned connection for modular steel
buildings. Proceedings of the 12th Canadian Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Quebec, Canada 2019.
[106] Wang Y, Xia J, Ma R, Xu B, Wang T. Experimental study on the flexural behavior
of an innovative modular steel building connection with installed bolts in the
columns. Appl Sci 2019;9:3468.
[107] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K, Tallowin FJ. Shear behaviour of post-tensioned
inter-module connection for modular steel buildings. J Constr Steel Res 2019;162:
105707.
[108] Choi KS, Kim HJ. An analytical study on rotational capacity of beam-column
joints in unit modular frames. Int J Civ Environ Struct Constr Archit Eng 2015;9:
100–3.
[109] Vectorbloc. Tall modular building system; 2016.
[110] Dhanapal J, Ghaednia H, Das S, Velocci J. Structural performance of state-of-the-
art VectorBloc modular connector under axial loads. Eng Struct 2019;183:
496–509.
H.-T. Thai et al.
[111] Dai X-M, Zong L, Ding Y, Li Z-X. Experimental study on seismic behavior of a
novel plug-in self-lock joint for modular steel construction. Eng Struct 2019;181:
143–64.
[112] Chen Z, Liu Y, Zhong X, Liu J. Rotational stiffness of inter-module connection in
mid-rise modular steel buildings. Eng Struct 2019;196:109273.
[113] Doh J-H, Ho NM, Miller D, Peters T, Carlson D, Lai P. Steel bracket connection on
modular buildings. J Steel Struct Constr 2016;2:121–7.
[114] Chen Z, Liu J, Yu Y, Zhou C, Yan R. Experimental study of an innovative modular
steel building connection. J Constr Steel Res 2017;139:69–82.
[115] Chen Z, Liu J, Yu Y. Experimental study on interior connections in modular steel
buildings. Eng Struct 2017;147:625–38.
[116] Deng E-F, Zong L, Ding Y, Dai X-M, Lou N, Chen Y. Monotonic and cyclic response
of bolted connections with welded cover plate for modular steel construction. Eng
Struct 2018;167:407–19.
[117] Deng E-F, Zong L, Ding Y, Luo Y-B. Seismic behavior and design of cruciform
bolted module-to-module connection with various reinforcing details. Thin-
Walled Struct 2018;133:106–19.
[118] Cho B-H, Lee J-S, Kim H, Kim D-J. Structural performance of a new blind-bolted
frame modular beam-column connection under lateral loading. Appl Sci 2019;9:
1929.
[119] Lee S, Park J, Shon S, Kang C. Seismic performance evaluation of the ceiling-
bracket-type modular joint with various bracket parameters. J Constr Steel Res
2018;150:298–325.
[120] Lee SS, Bae KW, Park KS, Hong SY. An experimental evaluation of structural
performance for the beam to column joints in unit modular system. J Kor Soc
Steel Constr 2013;25:255–65.
[121] Lee S, Park J, Kwak E, Shon S, Kang C, Choi H. Verification of the seismic
performance of a rigidly connected modular system depending on the shape and
size of the ceiling bracket. Materials 2017;10:263.
[122] Liu XC, Pu SH, Zhang AL, Xu AX, Ni Z, Sun Y, et al. Static and seismic experiment
for bolted-welded joint in modularized prefabricated steel structure. J Constr
Steel Res 2015;115:417–33.
[123] Liu XC, Pu SH, Zhang AL, Zhan XX. Performance analysis and design of bolted
connections in modularized prefabricated steel structures. J Constr Steel Res
2017;133:360–73.
[124] Liu XC, Xu AX, Zhang AL, Ni Z, Wang HX, Wu L. Static and seismic experiment for
welded joints in modularized prefabricated steel structure. J Constr Steel Res
2015;112:183–95.
[125] Naserabad AA, Ghasemi MR, Shabakhty N, Arab HG. Evaluation of three support
shapes on behavior of new bolted connection BBCC in modularized prefabricated
steel structures. Int J Steel Struct 2018;18:1639–53.
[126] Torbaghan MK, Sohrabi MR, Kazemi HH. Investigating the behavior of specially
pre-fabricated steel moment connection under cyclic loading. Adv Steel Constr
2018;14:412–23.
[127] Gunawardena T. Behaviour of Prefabricated Modular Buildings Subjected to
Lateral Loads. PhD thesis, Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The
University of Melbourne; 2016.
[128] Lacey AW, Chen W, Hao H, Bi K. New interlocking inter-module connection for
modular steel buildings: Experimental and numerical studies. Eng Struct 2019;
198:109465.
[129] Sendanayake SV, Thambiratnam DP, Perera N, Chan T, Aghdamy S. Seismic
mitigation of steel modular building structures through innovative inter-modular
connections. Heliyon 2019;5:e02751.
[130] Sharafi P, Mortazavi M, Samali B, Ronagh H. Interlocking system for enhancing
the integrity of multi-storey modular buildings. Autom Constr 2018;85:263–72.
[131] Liu XC, He XN, Wang HX, Yang ZW, Pu SH, Ailin Z. Bending-shear performance of
column-to-column bolted-flange connections in prefabricated multi-high-rise
steel structures. J Constr Steel Res 2018;145:28–48.
[132] Liu XC, He XN, Wang HX, Zhang AL. Compression-bend-shearing performance of
column-to-column bolted-flange connections in prefabricated multi-high-rise
steel structures. Eng Struct 2018;160:439–60.
[133] Adam JM, Parisi F, Sagaseta J, Lu X. Research and practice on progressive
collapse and robustness of building structures in the 21st century. Eng Struct
2018;173:122–49.
[134] Huber JAJ, Ekevad M, Girhammar UA, Berg S. Structural robustness and timber
buildings – A review. Wood Mat Sci Eng 2019;14:107–28.
[135] Arup. Review of international research on structural robustness and
disproportionate collapse. Department for Communities and Local Government;
2011.
[136] Chua Y, Liew JYR, Pang S. Robustness of prefabricated prefinished volumetric
construction (PPVC) high-rise building. Proceedings of the 12th international
conference on Advances in Steel-Concrete Composite Structures - (ASCCS 2018);
2018:913–919.
[137] Lawson PM, Byfield MP, Popo-Ola SO, Grubb PJ. Robustness of light steel frames
and modular construction. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build 2008;161:3-16.
[138] Xu G, Ellingwood BR. An energy-based partial pushdown analysis procedure for
assessment of disproportionate collapse potential. J Constr Steel Res 2011;67:
547–55.
[139] Annan CD, Youssef MA, El-Naggar MH. Effect of directly welded stringer-to-beam
connections on the analysis and design of modular steel building floors. Adv
Struct Eng 2009;12:373–83.
[140] Li G-Q, Cao K, Lu Y, Jiang J. Effective length factor of columns in non-sway
modular steel buildings. Adv Steel Constr 2017;13:412–26.
[141] Annan CD, Youssef MA, El Naggar MH. Analytical investigation of semi-rigid floor
beams connection in modular steel structures. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual
1289
Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290
General Conference of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering, Toronto,
Canada 2005:GC-352.
[142] Styles AJ, Luo FJ, Bai Y, Murray-Parkes JB. Effects of joint rotational stiffness on
structural responses of multi-story modular buildings. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Construction 2016:
457–462.
[143] Annan CD. Applicability of traditional design procedures to modular steel
buildings. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The
University of Western Ontario; 2008.
[144] Annan CD, Youssef MA, El Naggar MH. Seismic overstrength in braced frames of
modular steel buildings. J Earthquake Eng 2009;13:1–21.
[145] Annan CD, Youssef MA, El Naggar MH. Seismic vulnerability assessment of
modular steel buildings. J Earthquake Eng 2009;13:1065–88.
[146] Annan CD, Youssef MA, El Naggar MH. Experimental evaluation of the seismic
performance of modular steel-braced frames. Eng Struct 2009;31:1435–46.
[147] Sultana P, Youssef MA. Seismic performance of modular steel-braced frames
utilizing superelastic shape memory alloy bolts in the vertical module
connections. J Earthquake Eng 2018:1–25.
[148] Fathieh A, Mercan O. Seismic evaluation of modular steel buildings. Eng Struct
2016;122:83–92.
[149] Fathieh A, Mercan O. Three-dimensional, nonlinear, dynamic analysis of modular
steel buildings. Struct Congr 2014:2466–77.
[150] Gunawardena T, Ngo T, Mendis P. Behaviour of multi-storey prefabricated
modular buildings under seismic loads. Earthquakes Struct 2016;11:1061–76.
[151] Chua YS, Liew JYR, Pang SD. Modelling of connections and lateral behavior of
high-rise modular steel buildings. J Constr Steel Res 2020;166:105901.
[152] Lawson RM, Aromaa P, Saaksvuori O. Demonstration of modular construction in
the renovation of existing concrete and masonry buildings. Report EUR 20595;
2003.
[153] Luo FJ, Bai Y, Hou J, Huang Y. Progressive collapse analysis and structural
robustness of steel-framed modular buildings. Eng Fail Anal 2019;104:643–56.
[154] Modular Construction Codes Board. Handbook for the design of modular
structures. Monash University; 2017.
[155] Patrick H. Structural design of high rise volumetric building systems using hot-
rolled steel. Proc Inst Civ Eng Civ Eng 2019;172:45–50.
[156] Hough MJ, Lawson RM. Design and construction of high-rise modular buildings
based on recent projects. Proc Inst Civ Eng Civ Eng 2019;172:37-44.
[157] Lawson RM, Ogden R, Richards J. Design in Modular Construction. CRC Press
2014.
[158] Sertorio A. Overview of the handbook for the design of modular structures.
Proceedings of CTBUH International Conference 2017.
[159] Sertorio A. Overview of the handbook for the design of modular structures.
Proceedings of CTBUH International Conference; 2017.
[160] Standards Australia. AS/NZS 4600 Cold-formed steel structures; 2018.
[161] Standards Australia. AS 3600 Concrete structures; 2018.
[162] EN1993-1-1. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings; 2005.
[163] EN1993-1-3. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-3: General rules -
Supplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting; 2006.
[164] EN1992-1-1. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings; 2004.
[165] Li G-Q, Cao K, Lu Y. Column effective lengths in sway-permitted modular steel-
frame buildings. Proc Inst Civ Eng Struct Build 2019;172:30-41.
[166] Deng E-F, Yan J-B, Ding Y, Zong L, Li Z-X, Dai X-M. Analytical and numerical
studies on steel columns with novel connections in modular construction. Int J
Steel Struct 2017;17:1613–26.
[167] Chen Y, Hou C, Peng J. Stability study on tenon-connected SHS and CFST columns
in modular construction. Steel Compos Struct 2019;30:185–99.
[168] EN1993-1-8. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-8: Design of joints;
2005.
[169] AISC 360-16. Specification for structural steel buildings; 2016.
[170] Thai HT, Uy B. Rotational stiffness and moment resistance of bolted endplate
joints with hollow or CFST columns. J Constr Steel Res 2016;126:139–52.
[171] Thai HT, Uy B. Application of Eurocode 4 to blind bolted endplate composite
joints with CFST columns. The 2015 World Congress on Advances in Structural
Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM15); 2015.
[172] Thai HT. Application of the component method to bolted endplate composite
beam-to-CFST column joints. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium
on Tubular Structures XVI 2018:239–245.
[173] Building Code of Australia. National construction code (NCC). 2019.
[174] DoD - Department of Defence. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) - design of
buildings to resist progressive collapse, with change 3 (UFC 4-023-03); 2016.
[175] EN1991-1-7. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-7: General actions -
Accidental actions; 2006.
[176] GSA - General Services Administration. Alternate path analysis & design
guidelines for progressive collapse resistance; 2013.
[177] Standards Australia. AS/NZS 1170.0 Structural design actions - General
principles; 2002.
[178] Gunawardena T, Ngo T, Mendis P, Alfano J. Innovative flexible structural system
using prefabricated modules. J Archit Eng 2016;22:05016003.
[179] Srisangeerthanan S, Javad Hashemi M, Rajeev P, Gad E, Fernando S. Influence of
diaphragm flexibility on the seismic performance of multi-story modular
buildings. Proceedings of the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society (AEES)
Conference, Canberra, Australia; 2017.
H.-T. Thai et al. Structures 28 (2020) 1265–1290

[180] Stehle J. DfMA for composite floor structures. Eng Excellence J. 2013:20–5. [182] Standards Australia. AS/NZS 2327 Composite structures - Composite steel-
[181] EN1994-1-1. Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures - Part concrete construction in buildings; 2017.
1-1: General rules and rules for buildings; 2004.

1290