Modular Construction potential advantages and common

Modular Construction potential advantages and common challenges | Masoud Veiskarami

Modular construction and overview on its

potential advantages and constraints in the

project management perspective

Author

Masoud Veiskarami

Director

Pujadas Alvarez Pablo

Masters degree in

Structural and Construction Engineering

Barcelona September 2020

EPC - Department of Project and Construction Engineering

MA

STER

FIN

AL

THES

IS


Masterrsquos Degree

Title

Author

Tutor

Speciality

Department

Date

PUJADAS AacuteLVAREZ PABLO

-

September 2020


Modular construction and overview on its potential advantages

and constraints in the project management perspective

MASOUD VEISKARAMI



Dedication

To my brother Milad one of the best executive civil engineers that I have ever seen who was and will be my role model and inspiration in construction world

دنیای در من بخش الهام و الگو که ام دیده تاکنون که اجرایی عمران مهندسین بهترین از یکی میلاد برادرم به تقدیمبود خواهد و بوده ساز و ساخت

To my parents Professor Kiomars VeisKarami who is my inspiration to pursuit post-education to be an ideal professor like him Ashraf Ahmadi who cherished and supported me all the way I am thankful for all your favours

استاد یک تا است عالی تحصیلات پیگیری برای من بخش الهام که کرمی ویس کیومرث پروفسور مادرم و پدر هب شما لطف از کرد حمایت من از و داشت گرامی مرا زندگی طول تمام در که احمدی اشرف باشم او مانند آل ایده

سپاسگزارم

To dear my friends and classmates Ali Sasani loveable Sofia and genius Junior who always were next to me and will be in my heart

من کنار در همیشه که عزیز جونیور و داشتنی دوست وفیاس ساسانی علی عزیزم های همکلاسی و دوستان برایبود خواهند من قلب در و بودند

To my valuable professors specially Professor Pablo Alvarez Pujadas who guided me to direction that helped me to discover a new perspective of civil engineering that I always was looking for

A mis valiosos profesores en especial al profesor Pablo Alvarez Pujadas quien me guioacute

hacia una direccioacuten que me ayudoacute a descubrir una nueva perspectiva de la ingenieriacutea

civil que siempre estuve buscando

To my language teachers Mr Roozbeh Kargar who made me able to write this dissertation in the most academic way without any obstacles Ms Shafie and Ms Ismaili who shared their knowledge of Spanish to help me through the courses to achieve great marks and improve my knowledge

هیچ بدون روش ترین اکادمیک به را نامه پایان این بتوانم من شد باعث که کارگر روزبه استاد من زبان اساتید به به را خود اسپانیایی زبان دانش که اسماعیلی خانم سرکار و یشفیع خانم سرکار محترم اساتید بنویسم مانعی

بهبود را خود دانش و آورم بدست را عالی نمرات تا کنند کمک من به آموزشی های دوره در تا گذاشتند اشتراکبخشم

ایرانی باد زنده ایران باد زنده

28092020


Abstract

During past century construction industry is suffering from a poor productivity rate in

comparison with the other industries To solve this problem the concept of industrialization in

construction was introduced which Modular construction is one of its methods with a not short

history However during past decade had changed its nature to be used for longer lifetime as

permanent uses

The purpose of this study is to identify the possible advantages and investigate on common

challenges related to modular construction industry in a project management perspective and intend

to find adequate solution for them The methodology of this study is a combination of quantitative

and qualitative based approaches

A multi-criterion decision-making software (MIVES) was used to measure the functionality of

advantages and their effect on final decision to use ether three modular alternatives (Steel timber

and concrete) or a traditional reinforced concrete method for building a residential project The results

showed that despite few poor performances in two environmental criteria (CO2 emission amount and

Embodied energy used during construction) in general all three modular alternatives had overcome

traditional option in every requirement where prefabricated timber modular method became the

most sustainable alternative This result can confirm the positive effect of modular construction

advantages and show its superior nature over conventional construction

In addition a qualitative online survey form was sent to modular players to confirm the

identified benefits discussion about common challenges and receive recommendations and solutions

to solve them The responds were collected from five companies with the average of 20 years of

experience in modular construction which illustrated that the advantages can be achieved in real

projects as well as the literature review and study cases on decision making process identified

On the other hand there are challenges remaining without resolution such as Lack of

partnership among participants of project conflicts by local codding in use of automation wrong

perceptions of market etc

The possible solutions could be creating an international code for modular products

advertisement on potential advantages of modular method in publicmarket updating the contract

condition and most important of all improving the cooperation between scientific investigators and

off-site industry to motivate and provide the researchers with more real data to prevent contrasts in

hypothesises and find more innovative solutions1

Keywords Sustainability Modular construction Embodied energy Prefabrication Lifecycle assessment (LCA) Building information modelling (BIM) MIVES Productivity rate Standardization


Table of Contents Table of Contents 2

1 Introduction 1

Motivations 1

Orientation of previous studies 1

Gap of knowledge 1

Objectives of the study 2

Survey among the professionals in the modular industry by Online Form 2

Decision-making among three modular methods and conventional option by MIVES 2

Limitations 2

Lack of existence of references related to the subject 2

Non-accessible information from companies and scientific articles 2

Obstacles caused by global lockdown during covid-19 pandemic 2

Organization of the thesis 3

2 State of the art 4

Productivity problem in construction industry 4

Status of productivity rate of construction industry among other industries 4

Reasons of poor productivity 6

Solutions for improvement 7

Brief on modular construction 10

History of modular construction 10

Types of modular product 15

Module architectural types 15

Module structure types 22

Types of modular buildings based on operation period 27

Common uses of modular buildings in the market 27

Construction phases 28

Literature review on possible advantages 31

Scheduling benefits 31

Economic benefits 34

Environmental Benefits 36

Health and security benefits 38

Social-Laboral benefits 39

Modular Construction role in COIVD-19 Pandemic 40

Review on common challenges 41

Initial costs 41


Architectural challenges 43

Transportation challenges 44

Wrong perceptions among public and real estate market 45

Integration of advanced software 46

Redefining the contracts 46

Supply chain-transportation-onsite assembly management errors 47

3 Common challenges in modular construction industry by a survey 48

Methodology 48

Objective 48

Role of the researcher 48

Ethical considerations 48

Survey setting 48

Development of questionnaire 49

Participant profile 50

Experience amp professions 50

Data collection 51

General information 51

Economic issues 52

Environmental status 52

Social Benefits 53

Initial costs 54

Design limitations 55

Transportation Limitations 55

Project management challenges 56

Social challenges 57

Data analysis amp conclusions 57

Advantages 57

Challenges discussion 58

4 Decision making based on potential advantages among three modular alternatives and

conventional construction method in a project by MIVES software 60

Methodology 60

Objective 60

What is MIVES 60

Data collection process 60

Case Study references 60

Input data 65


Final indicators 69

Weights 73

Data analysis 76

Indicators Values 76

Criteria Values 77

Requirement Values 81

Sustainability Values (Final decision) 83

5 Conclusions 84

Decision making process 84

Conclusions and discussion 84

ECONOMIC ndash TIME discussion 84

ENVIRONMENTAL discussion 84

SAFETY AND SOCIAL dominance by modular methods 85

FINAL DECISION MAKING BASED ON SUSTAIABLITY INDEXES 85

Effective external factors on decision 86

Future studies 86

Decision making study on two real projects with the input data of professional

modular and traditional constructors 86

Technological studies about the production line of a modular off-site plant by factory

and on-site visits 86

A survey about challenges in modular construction and its possible solutions to find

adequate solutions 86

Recommendations 87

Cooperation between industrial players and scientific researchers in offsite

construction 87

Education about industrialization in construction and its alternatives 87

Establishing international and regional adequate codes 87

Synchronizing the contract conditions with modular construction conditions 87

Education about modular construction among publicmarket and advertisements on

its potential advantages in social media etc 88

Changes in financial strategies and adapting them with off-site construction nature 88

6 References 89

Anexo 1 95

Anexo 2 102

1 Survey Q amp A 102


Figure 2 1 - Productivity status among other industries (wwwfieldwirecom) MGI study 4

Figure 2 2 - UK productivity status (Office for National Statistics -ONS) 5

Figure 2 3 - Comparison of construction productivity in regions (EUKLEMS) 5

Figure 2 4 - Value added comparison among industries (ennovacom) 6

Figure 2 5 - Poor productivity reason( Leon van Heerden on journeyappscom) 6

Figure 2 6 - Fragmentations between construction industry players and their various productivity

rates (McKinsey 2019) 7

Figure 2 7 - Block chain and smart contracts functionality in construction (enstoacom) 8

Figure 2 8 - BIM 5D model for cost and time estimation (wwwblazethreadcom) 9

Figure 2 9 - Digital construction organization (wwwbimcommunitycom) 9

Figure 2 10 - Professor Behrokh Khoshnevis the inventor of contour crafting (inhabitatcom) 10

Figure 2 11 - Crystal palace located in London was built in 1851 (bloginoxstylecom) 11

Figure 2 12 - Balloon-frame walls by Augustine Taylor (likemyplacewordpresscom) 11

Figure 2 13 - Jean Prouveacute built various modular buildings with steel porticos with a width of 8

meters (modulartch) 12

Figure 2 14 - Moshe Safdies Habitat 67 multi-capsule project (coastlineminigaragecomau) 13

Figure 2 15 - Nakagin Capsule Tower in Tokyo another example of capsule concept (archdailycom)

14

Figure 2 16 - Bathroom pods built offsite full equipped (wwwhowickltdcom) 15

Figure 2 17 - Plumbing testing off-site before transportation to the location (wwwhowickltdcom) 16

Figure 2 18 - Production line of kitchen modules (wwwhowickltdcom) 17

Figure 2 19 - Student accommodation made by modular rooms (wwwhowickltdcom) 17

Figure 2 20 - Production steps of floor cassette to walls and their attachment together

(wwwhowickltdcom) 18

Figure 2 21 - Modular trailers for temporary uses (wwwpanelbuiltcom) 19

Figure 2 22 - 68 X 56 Portable modular classrooms (wwwwillscotcom) 19

Figure 2 23 - Common Ground by Urbantainer (wwwframewebcom) 20

Figure 2 24 - Modular accommodations made from shipping containers (wwwpanelbuiltcom) 20

Figure 2 25 - An example of office complexes (wwwpanelbuiltcom) 21

Figure 2 26 - A Northeast utility used Power Distribution Centers (PDC) delivered by Wunderlich-

Malec (wmengcom) 21

Figure 2 27 - Details of 4 sided modules showing recessed corners with additional angle sections

(wwwsteelconstructioninfo) 22

Figure 2 28 - Layout of apartments using partially open sided modules alternate modules are shaded

23

Figure 2 29 - corner supported module end view amp Longitudinal edge beams of a corner supported

module (wwwsteelconstructioninfo) 24

Figure 2 30 - Modules supported by long spanning cellular beams to create open plan space at the

lower levels (wwwsteelconstructioninfo) 25

Figure 2 31 - Wooden modular structure which as an insulator wood is superior to steel or other

metals (vanguardmodularcom) 26

Figure 2 32 - Mounting of the first precast units for the Zaanstad penitentiary building (Haitsma

Beton) 26

Figure 2 33 - Contribution of different use cases in the US market (Permanent Modular Construction

report MBI 2019) 28

Figure 2 34 - Overlaps of phases in modular construction project 29

Figure 2 35 - Pre-cast blocks are often referred to as ldquocinderrdquo blocks (wwwtriumphmodularcom) 30


Figure 2 36 - Possible time saving in modular approach in comparison with traditional method

(McKinsey amp Company 2019) 31

Figure 2 37 - BIM 3D model of a modular project (wwwbdcnetworkcom) 33

Figure 2 38 - Modular project in a hard weather condition (wwwautodeskcom) 33

Figure 2 39 - Automatic modular buildings assembly (roboticslabuc3mes) 34

Figure 2 40 - In Bathroom Pods Modular Construction by jfield (wwwsurepodscom) 34

Figure 2 41 - Easy PAD foundation system (wwweasypadscouk) 35

Figure 2 42 - Ras Abu Aboud stadium built to be reused (google images) 36

Figure 2 43 - The dust of a construction site in Beijing (wwwchinaorgcn) vs Cadolto factory site

(wwwcadoltocom) 37

Figure 2 44 - various layers of a module building unit including insulations


Figure 2 45 - Compartment floor at junction with external wall and compartment wall


Figure 2 46 - New modular construction solution can be deployed as stand-alone hospitals or for use

inside convention centres arenas and temporary structures Image courtesy of HGA and The Boldt

Company (prismpubcom) 40

Figure 2 47 - Self-Sufficient Temporary Hospital with Infrastructure Image courtesy of HGA and The

Boldt Company 40

Figure 2 48 - Emergency response modular isolationcare rooms by PCL construction

(archdailycom) 41

Figure 2 49 -Balance between Initial costs and Economical benefits 42

Figure 2 50 - Spanish company INHAUS offers after-sale service for 10 years in modular projects

(casasinhauscom) 46

Figure 2 51 - synchronization between supply chain transportation and on-site assembly 47

Figure 3 1 - Online office forms for survey use 49

Figure 3 2 - Questionnaire development 50

Figure 3 3 - Participants motivations to start a modular company 51

Figure 3 4 - Re-use potential 53

Figure 3 5 - Contribution in Covid19 epidemic 53

Figure 3 6 - Post sale services por future clients 54

Figure 3 7 - effective factors in initial investments for start-up companies 54

Figure 3 8 - Lack of knowledge among designers and engineers 55

Figure 3 9 - challenges of using automation in off-site plants 56

Figure 4 1 - Floor plans of case studies considered Case A) granny flat was chosen for this study

(WAHammad 2019) 61

Figure 4 2 - Cleaner Production journal methodology for make a comparison between modular and

conventional methods (Akbarnezhad 2019) 61

Figure 4 3 - Architectural plan of residential project build with PCM and PSM (Balasbaneh 2020) 62

Figure 4 4 - Case study of residential building studied (Hammad and Akbarnezhad 2017) 62

Figure 4 5 - Framework for comparing between construction methods (Hammad and Akbarnezhad

2017) 63

Figure 4 6 - Architectural section of multi-residential building (Aye 2011) 63

Figure 4 7 - Structural elements used in modules (Aye 2011) 64

Figure 4 8 - Architectural section from the side and front of the two-story building (Quale 2012) 64


Figure 4 9 - Requirement tree and criteria for the decision-making program (MIVES) 65

Figure 4 10 - Balasbaneh Comparison in project cost (left) and CO2 (right) between PCM and PSM

alternatives 71

Figure 4 11 - Weights assigned on the Requirements criteria and Indicators in MIVES software 74

Figure 4 12 - Possible forms of the value function 75

Figure 4 13 - Value function for total project cost in MIVES 75

Figure 4 14 - Criteria normalized values 77

Figure 4 15 - Project Schedule 78

Figure 4 16 - Waste generation ratios 78

Figure 4 17 - CO2 Emission normalized values 79

Figure 4 18 - Recyclability and re-use potential of alternatives 79

Figure 4 19 - Embodied energy consumption and saving potential by reuse 80

Figure 4 20 - Safety advantage of modular construction over traditional method 80

Figure 4 21 - Social criteria 81

Figure 4 22 - Time and Economic comparison between four alternatives by normalized values

analysed by MIVES 81

Figure 4 23 - Environmental Comparison among modular approaches and traditional kind 82

Figure 4 24 - Modular dominance in safety and social requirements over conventional option 82

Figure 4 25 - Sustainability Index which makes the final decision among the alternatives 83

Figure A1 1 - Injury risks for workers (Hammad 2019) 96

Figure A1 2 - Average A-weighted equivalent sound level for construction methods (Hammad 2019)

96

Figure A1 3 - Co2 amount (Aye 2011) 97

Figure A1 4 - Total project cost (Balasbaneh 2020) 97

Figure A1 5 - Date of the articlersquos publishment to find the currency exchange rate based on the date

97

Figure A1 6 - Currency converter MYR to AUD (wwwxecomcurrencyconverter) 98

Figure A1 7 - Greenhouse gas emission (Balasbaneh 2020) 98

Figure A1 8 - Co2 emission (Aye 2011) 98


Figure A1 10 - Noise level (Hammad 2019) 100

Figure A1 11 - Greenhouse gas emission (Aye 2011) 101

Table 2 1 - 4 sided dimensional details (wwwsteelconstructioninfo) 23

Table 2 2 - Possible benefits in projects scheduling 32

Table 2 3 - Economic benefits in modular method 35

Table 2 4 - Environmental Benefits 37

Table 2 5 - Health and safety amp Social-Laboral advantages 39

Table 3 1 - Participantrsquos profiles 50

Table 4 1 - Requirement tree with all indicators which considered for decision making process 67

Table 4 2 - PSM modules data with direct data shown in green parts which no changes are needed

to be done on them 68


Table 4 3 ndash PSM modules final data with yellow parts show the calculated data based on other

studied 68

Table 4 4 - PCM data with estimated data (blue) Calculated data (yellow) 68

Table 4 5 - Qualitative indicators 69

Table 4 6 - First hand data over literature 69

Table 4 7 - Final Indicators with direct data (Green) and calculated data (Yellow) 70


Table 4 9 - Final indicators with Calculated data (Yellow) and Estimated data (Blue) 70


Table 4 11 - Final indicators for PCM 72

Table 4 12 - TRC first-hand data over literatures 72

Table 4 13 - Final indicators for TRC with direct data (green) and calculated data (yellow) 72

Table 4 14 - Final Quantitative indicators used for decision making process 72

Table 4 15 - Requirement weights 73

Table 4 16 - Weights of criteria 73

Table 4 17 - Value function for indicators in MIVES 76

Table 4 18 - Indicators normalized values 76

Table 4 19 ndash Indicator normalized values 76

Table 4 20 - Criteria normalized values 77


Table 4 22 - Requirement normalized values for four indicators 81

Table 4 23 - SI (Sustainability Indexes related to four alternatives) 83

Table A1 1 ndash Cost of project PSM (Hammad 2019) 95

Table A1 2 -Time of project PSM (Hammad 2019) 95

Table A1 3 - Energy utilized during construction (Hammad 2019) 95

Table A1 4 - Material consumption amp Embodied energy used and Embodied energy saved amp Re-use

amount (Aye 2011) 96



Table A1 6 6 - Projects cost (Hammad 2019) 99

Table A1 7 - Projects schedule (Hammad 2019 99

Table A1 8 - Energy utilised during construction process (Hammad 2019) 100

Table A1 9 - Re-use amount Embodied energy used and Embodied energy saved (Aye 2011) 101

Table A2 1 - Professional experience of the company 102

Table A2 2 - Personal experience of participant 102

Table A2 3 - Type of modules 102

Table A2 4 - Type f projects 102

Table A2 5 - Characteristics of production range 103

Table A2 6 - Motivation for doing modular construction 103

Table A2 7 - Panel production conditions 103

Table A2 8 - Level of automation 103

Table A2 9 - Laboral status 104

Table A2 10 - Recycle and Re-use 104

Table A2 11 - Innovative technology integration 104

Table A2 12 - Automation status on waste generation 104


Table A2 13 - Reduction of waste 105

Table A2 14 - Energy consumption status 105

Table A2 15 - Delivery of projects in COVID-19 pandemic period 105

Table A2 16 - Aid organization project delivery 106

Table A2 17 - Post-sale services to client 106

Table A2 18 - Initial costs 106

Table A2 19 - Effective factors on initial costs 106

Table A2 20 - Re-use effect on budget 106

Table A2 21 - positive factors about modular construction to be chosen 107

Table A2 22 - Use of BIM in projects 107

Table A2 23 - Influence of production line on design 107

Table A2 24 - Lack of knowledge among experts 108

Table A2 25 - Transportation regulation effect on projects 108

Table A2 26 ndash Transportable material choice and its effects 108

Table A2 27 - Challenges of using automation 108

Table A2 28 - Contract condition in modular industry 109

Table A2 29 - Participation status in modular projects 109

Table A2 30 - Role of outside general constructor 109

Table A2 31 - Changes in production line and its effects 110

Table A2 32 - Site preparation status 110

Table A2 33 - Challenges with sub-contractors for site preparation phase 110

Table A2 34 - Wrong perceptions for modular products 110

Table A2 35 - Solutions for wrong perceptions 111

Table A2 36 - Recommendations 111

Modular Construction potential advantages and common challenges | Masoud Veiskarami Chapter 1 Introduction

1 | P a g e

1 Introduction

Motivations

Construction industry is suffering for a poor productivity problem during the past 60 years in

comparison with other industries and industrialization in construction was suggested by the

investigators to improving the construction performance by applying production technologies and

design standardized products to be built in off-site plants By searching over the off-site methods

modular construction was found which is benefiting its high sustainability and productivity in

comparison with traditional construction approaches

One of the motivations of these study is to study the advantages of modular construction in

order to demonstrate the superior nature of modular construction over traditional methods to be

presented as a reasonable solution for productivity problem the However there are various of

opinions and argues about the beneficiary of this method so that it was decided to analyse them more

deeply in construction management perspective and even get into contact with the industry for

professional confirmation

Another motivation of this study was to contribute to development of modular construction

and find what is holding it back from developing by discovering the challenges in the modular

construction industry and find possible solutions to help for growth

Orientation of previous studies

During past two decades fewer studies in comparison with other innovative methods have

focused on this subject to analyse this method in economic environmental and functional areas to

discover the benefits and make comparisons with traditional construction methods where possible

McKinsey amp company report on 2019 had general overview on its potential advantages challenges

and its ability to raise the productivity in construction processes while introducing the benefits by

making comparisons in projectrsquos schedule budget and environmental performance among modular

and traditional methods and finally shedding a light on dark side which are the obstacles of growth in

industry and then suggesting possible solutions for improvements In addition there are numbers of

articles focusing on the environmental performance of modular buildings by doing Lifecycle

assessment (LCA) analysis on emissions waste generations and consumption primary resources etc

(Mohammad Kamali and Kasun Hewage et al 2016)

On the other side there are studies that made comparisons between traditional and modular

methods of construction to build a specific project based on BIM models and professional data bases

which led to great results that showed numbers of advantages (AWA Hammad et al 2019) (L Aye

et al 2011) (Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh at Springer-Verlag 2020)

Gap of knowledge

Taking into account of existent researches there is a gap of knowledge which leads to few

questions that still have remained without answer

bull Confirmation of these benefits that came from scientific researches by professional

players in the industry

bull Do these advantages effect the final decision to choose modular method over

conventional way

bull What are the needs of the market that could be as motivations to use modular

construction


2 | P a g e

bull What are the challenges in the industry in the professional point of view

bull Do the solutions that suggested by researchers can be applied in real projects What

are their professional solutions

Objectives of the study

The importance of this study is to resolve the mentioned questions by accomplishing the

studyrsquos objectives that are separated to be achieved by two methods which are qualitative and

quantitative

Survey among the professionals in the modular industry by Online Form

bull To confirmcorrect the data from literature reviews about benefits of modular

construction

bull Their motivations and reasons to choose modular method

bull What are the constraints and obstacles that they are facing

bull Recommendations and solutions for these problems

Decision-making among three modular methods and conventional option by MIVES

bull To discover the advantages in real study cases by comparisons between four

alternatives

bull To examinate the functionality of every alternative in several criterions

bull How much effective these benefits can be in the final decision based on the

requirements of market and their priorities

Limitations

Several obstacles were seen during the study that effected the methodology and input data

significantly Here are some examples

Lack of existence of references related to the subject

Because of the subjectrsquos novelty or less focus the quantity of references is not enough to

cover all the dimensions of study therefore few estimation hypothesis (that were proved by the

results at the end) and consultants with experts were used instead to provide the necessary

information In addition many of the scientific reports and articles were published few months or

even days before the studyrsquos conclusions so that it was decided to be used immediately to improve

the studyrsquos liability

Non-accessible information from companies and scientific articles

There are innovative companies that because of their privacy policies and protection of

innovation could not provide the necessary data about their projects by request even for academic

uses

On the other side scientific papers in some cases were protected and did not have open

access not even with educational access permissions as requests have been denied by the authors

Obstacles caused by global lockdown during covid-19 pandemic

One of the unpredicted challenges that happened during the study was the virus pandemic

that affected the world negatively and this study was not an exception From on-site project and off-

site factory visits interviews with experts in the industry etc were cancelled Numbers of regions went

to full shutdown including offices factories etc which resulted in reduction of participations in online

survey form as well Therefore it was decided to select five most suitable participants to be analysed

instead of planed massive quantity of results


3 | P a g e

Organization of the thesis

⎯ Chapter two state of the art explaining the productivity problem history types and

phases of modular construction and literature reviews on benefits and challenges

⎯ Chapter three The online survey among modular players in the industry

⎯ Chapter four MIVES multi-criteria decision-making approach

⎯ Chapter five Conclusions and findings

⎯ Chapter six Recommendations

⎯ Chapter seven references

⎯ Anexo A (Input data references)

⎯ Anexo B (Survey QampA) 2

Kewwords Sustainability Modular construction MIVES Productivity rate Prefabrication Lifecycle assessment (LCA)

Modular Construction potential advantages and common challenges | Masoud Veiskarami Chapter 2 State of the art

4 | P a g e

2 State of the art Productivity problem in construction industry

Status of productivity rate of construction industry among other industries

It has been decades that construction industry is far behind the other industries in terms of

productivity rates Attempts had been done by innovative players in the industry but still the

difference is too enormous which the demands for improvement are needed

Globally construction sector labour-productivity growth averaged 1 percent a year over the

past two decades compared with 28 percent for the total world economy and 36 percent for

manufacturing If construction productivity were to catch up with the total economy the industryrsquos

value added could rise by $16 trillion a year (McKinsey 2019)

It can be said that the building industry is one of the key industries in the general economy

The construction sector typically comprises 8-10 of the Gross Domestic Profit (GDP) of a Western

economy (McGeorge amp Palmer 2002) Therefore only 10 improvement in construction

performance can represent a 25 increase in GDP (McGeorge amp Palmer 2002) Therefore there is

no doubt that improving productivity in the building industry will contribute positively to the general

economy

Figure 2 1 - Productivity status among other industries (wwwfieldwirecom) MGI study


5 | P a g e

The UK has a problem with productivity and the construction sector has poorer productivity

growth rates than any other Simply put productivity is the amount of stuff (whether goods or

services) that is produced by a person in an amount of time UK productivity is lower than it was in

2008 and the construction industry has not seen any significant growth in productivity in the last 20

years (Figure 22)

Figure 2 2 - UK productivity status (Office for National Statistics -ONS)

Not all the regions are struggling at the same rate and the reasons which will be discused

furthermore can be the insterest of regulators to support innovations and new solutions which can

improve the productivity in construction industry(Figure 23)

Figure 2 3 - Comparison of construction productivity in regions (EUKLEMS)

The result is that between 70 and 90 of projects exceed the original planned cost and that

the overrun commonly varies between 50 and 100 of budget Construction also suffers from 57

of effort on non-value-added activities compared with 26 within manufacturing (Figure 24)

These productivity rates had experienced severalrises and downs in some periods which is

because of increase of demandas of housing that results a boost in construction industry in order to

provide the needs


6 | P a g e

Figure 2 4 - Value added comparison among industries (ennovacom)

Reasons of poor productivity

There are numbers of reasons for this poor performance The industry is extensively

regulated very dependent on public-sector demand and highly cyclical Informality and sometimes

corruption distort the market Moreover poor project management and execution insufficient skills

inadequate design processes and underinvestment in skills development RampD and innovation can

affect the productivity indirectly by decreasing the feasibility and value of the activities and add extra

costs on the project

Another key factor that causes a disruption among construction players which reduces the

average productivity rate is the lack of harmony in productivity between the players In other words

The sector divides mainly in two large-scale players involved in heavy construction such as civil and

industrial work and large-scale housing and a large number of firms engaged in fragmented

specialized trades such as mechanical electrical and plumbing work that act as subcontractors or

work on smaller projects like refurbishing single-family housing The first group manages to have 20

to 40 percent higher productivity than the second However even in the more productive heavy

construction sector there are endemic-potentially structural-challenges in meeting cost and schedule

commitments on megaprojects and players routinely subcontract specialized trades (McKinsey amp

Company 2019) (Figure 26)

Figure 2 5 - Poor productivity reason( Leon van Heerden on journeyappscom)


7 | P a g e

Figure 2 6 - Fragmentations between construction industry players and their various productivity rates (McKinsey 2019)

Solutions for improvement

Nowadays there are solutions which are being used in construction world such reshaping the

regulation rewiring the contractual framework to reshape industry dynamics rethink design and

engineering processes improve procurement and supply-chain management improve on-site

execution infuse digital technology new materials and advanced automation and reskill the

workforce Each region based on their capabilities potential and Infrastructures would take a decision

which ways can be applied to increase the productivity in construction projects in a short or long

period

bull Redefine regulation Actions include streamlining permitting and approvals processes as

Australia has done reducing informality and corruption and encouraging transparency on cost

and performance as the International Construction Measurement Standards project does Many

governments allocate grants for innovation and training Germanyrsquos Federal Ministry of Transport

and Digital Infrastructure (formerly the Federal Ministry of Transport Building and Urban

Development) for instance supports RampD through studies in building materials Best practice

regulation would include moving toward outcome-based more standardized building codes and

consolidating land to promote scale Examples include Singaporersquos move to allow cross-laminated

timber (CLT) for high-rise structures and Japanrsquos promotion of scale through land pooling

bull Re-arrange the contractual framework Establishing a ldquosingle source of truthrdquo on projects for

monitoring progress early potentially supported by collaborative technology helps to minimize

misalignments and enable joint corrective action The data already exist to fundamentally

improve the accuracy of cost and schedule estimates Where players continue to use traditional

contracts they should introduce incentives that significantly improve performance and alignment

not at a trade or package level but at the project-outcome level To move toward best practices

appropriate alternative contracting models such as integrated project delivery (IPD) help build

long-term collaborative relationships Relational contracts will need to become more prevalent

than transactional contracts Sufficient investments in up-front planning incorporating all partiesrsquo

input have been shown to raise productivity substantially Smart Contracts are another example

of these solutions which during recent years is being identified by the major players A smart

contract is a computer program or a transaction protocol respectively which is intended to


8 | P a g e

automatically execute control or document respectively legally relevant events and actions

according to the terms of a contract of an agreement or of a negotiation The objectives of smart

contracts are the reduction of need in trusted intermediators arbitrations and enforcement costs

fraud losses as well as the reduction of malicious and accidental exceptions (Tapscott Don

Tapscott Alex amp Savelyev Alexander 2016)

Figure 2 7 - Block chain and smart contracts functionality in construction (enstoacom)

bull Off-site production shift The biggest impact on productivity would come from moving toward

thinking about construction as a production system where possible encouraging off-site

manufacture minimizing on-site construction through the extensive use of pre-cast

technology assembling panels in factories and then finishing units onsite

bull Improve on-site execution There are four key approaches that are well known in the industry

but have not been universally adopted First is the introduction of a rigorous planning process

the Last Plannerreg System (LPS) is a useful tool to ensure that key activities are achieved on

time and on budget The use of integrated planning tools on a large-scale oil and gas project

for instance achieved a 70 percent increase in the projectrsquos productivity Second is reshaping

the relationship and interactions between owners and contractors and key performance

indicators (KPIs) being agreed on and used at regular performance meetings at which on-site

issues are resolved Complementing commonly used KPIs with additional forward-looking plan

conformance metrics to identify and subsequently reduce variance is critical Third is

improving the mobilization for new projects by ensuring that all pre-work (for instance

obtaining approvals and developing project milestones) has been completed prior to starting

onsite Finally there is a need for careful planning and coordination of different disciplines

on-site along with the application of lean principles to reduce waste and variability On-site

productivity can be increased by as much as 50 percent by implementing a cloud-based

control tower that rapidly assembles accurate data in near real time that is both backward-

looking and predictive (for example using plan conformance and other variability and

inventory metrics)

bull Introduce digital technology advanced automation Companies can start by making 3D

building information modelling (BIM) universal within the company alongside use of digital


9 | P a g e

collaboration tools drones and unmanned aerial vehicles for scanning monitoring and

mapping They can put themselves at the cutting edge by using platforms such as 5D BIM to

establish transparency in design costing and progress visualization (Figure 28)

Figure 2 8 - BIM 5D model for cost and time estimation (wwwblazethreadcom)

Advanced analytics enabled by the Internet of Things to improve on-site monitoring of

materials labour and equipment productivity and digital collaboration and mobility tools (such as

construction management apps loaded on mobile devices) to better track progress and collaborate in

real time (Figure 29)

Figure 2 9 - Digital construction organization (wwwbimcommunitycom)


10 | P a g e

Advanced automated equipment and tools such as bricklaying and tiling robots can accelerate

on-site execution The field of digital fabrication (dfab) is quite broad and has many applications Dfab

techniques are based on the combination of computational design methods and automated

construction processes which are typically categorized as subtractive formative or additive

(Kolarevic 2003) The use of subtractive and formative digital fabrication is becoming mainstream in

the prefabrication (off-site) of building parts (eg by using laser cutting CNC milling etc)

In recent years additive fabrication processes especially 3D printing have experienced a

rapid development in many industries As interest in additive fabrication grows research into large-

scale processes begins to reveal potential applications in construction (Labonnote et al 2016)

Existing additive dfab technologies can be classified in two big clusters on-site and off-site

construction technologies On the one hand on-site digital fabrication aims to bring additive

fabrication processes on construction sites

Sousa et al (2016) classified on-site technologies in three main categories large scale robotic

structures mobile robotic arms and flying robotic vehicles A well-known example from first category

is Contour Crafting a robotic structure for 3D printing large-scale construction developed at the

University of Southern California (Khoshnevis 2004)

Figure 2 10 - Professor Behrokh Khoshnevis the inventor of contour crafting (inhabitatcom)

bull Reskill the workforce Change in the construction sector cannot be achieved without

investment in retooling a workforce that is aging and changing its makeup through migration

Construction firms and workers need to continuously reskill and train to use the latest

equipment and digital tools In the mix should be apprenticeship programs such as the one

run by Siemens in the United Kingdom training frontline workers in core skills that are

currently underdeveloped and increasing stability in the workforce by breaking seasonality

and cyclicality

Brief on modular construction

History of modular construction


11 | P a g e

bull 1800s

In 1830 he first documented prefabricated home was created by London carpenter John

Manning for his son who was moving from England to Australia Manning built a prefabricated house

in pieces then shipped it to the Land Down Under for easy assembly In 1840 Modular construction

made its way to the United States in response to the housing needs of the California Gold Rush The

Crystal Palace was built for Britains Great Exhibition and remains one of the most famous examples

of early modular construction in 1851 Designed in less than two weeks it utilized light and

inexpensive materials such as iron wood and glass it was constructed in only a few months

Afterward the palace was dismantled moved and rebuilt at another location

Figure 2 11 - Crystal palace located in London was built in 1851 (bloginoxstylecom)

bull 1900s

Augustine Taylor a builder in Chicago devised the balloon-frame method (Figure 212)

enabling walls to be built offsite then transported to the intended construction site for speedy

assembly The rise of catalogue houses happened Between 1908 and 1940 when Sears Roebuck and

Co sold more than 500000 prefab homes through its catalogue straight to consumers At the time

these houses cost less than two-thirds of conventionally built homes and many still exist throughout

the United States

Figure 2 12 - Balloon-frame walls by Augustine Taylor (likemyplacewordpresscom)


12 | P a g e

bull WWII Housing Boom

Prefab structures continued into World War Two to meet the growing demand for mass

accommodations for military personnel So-called Quonset Huts or Nissen Huts in the UK

comprised of corrugated steel were introduced for domestic military and institutional uses

When soldiers began returning home in the United States there was a need for rapid

construction for new homes to accommodate these expanding families Once again modular

construction serviced those needs because of its efficiency reduced costs and quick construction

Today many of those units are still in use

bull Prefab in Post-war Europe

The situation in Europe was more difficult although millions of people had no place to live on

the Old Continent due to the destruction of the Second World War people were unwilling to accept

prefabricated construction In Germany which had not only lost 25 percent of its entire housing stock

to bombing but also had to integrate 12 million refugees from former German territories in Eastern

Europe one form of prefabricated housing was used extensively the Nissen Hut (similar to the

Quonset hut) An attempt was also made in post-war France to combat housing shortages with the

help of prefabricated houses In 1944 Jean Prouveacute was already commissioned by the Ministry of

Reconstruction and Urban Planning to build 800 houses as emergency shelters that could be easily

disassembled However only 400 of these Maisons agraveportique which were equipped with an axial

steel frame were ever erected Prouveacutes Alba houses developed for the Abbey Pierres homeless

organization in 1956 were also not a success (Peter Goumlssel Arnt Cobbers Oliver Jahn 2012

architectureweekcom)

Figure 2 13 - Jean Prouveacute built various modular buildings with steel porticos with a width of 8 meters (modulartch)

bull The Pre-fabulous 60s

The 1960s were a period of social transition in which attitudes towards prefabricated housing

also changed During this era which was marked by space travel the moon landing and even childrens

books that predicted weekend trips to distant galaxies prefabricated construction was discovered both

as a form of artistic expression and as a technical means of creating houses to provide a basis for new

lifestyles which seemed to be imminent in a society characterized by an extremely optimistic view of

progress

These approaches supported the idea of creating megastructures out of residential capsules

the architect Moshe Safdie who was only 24 at the time presented his megastructure Habitat 67 at

the Expo 67 in Montreal 158 housing units consisting of 354 concrete modules assembled as a

conglomerate


13 | P a g e

The British architectural group Archigram developed building structures made of residential

capsules as an architectural Utopia which could be expanded at will and joined to form entire cities

Figure 2 14 - Moshe Safdies Habitat 67 multi-capsule project (coastlineminigaragecomau)

bull Eco-conscious 70s

In 1972 the Japanese architect Kisho Kurokawa built the Nakagin Capsule Tower in Tokyo

housing cells were layered around a prefabricated concrete core to form a fourteen-story residential

tower(Figure 215) The idea of residential capsule megastructures was repeatedly revived as in Zvi

Heckers Ramot housing development in Jerusalem in 1974

The ecology movement of the 1970s brought an end to this euphoria regarding technological

progress and futuristic architectural dreams Now highly modern building materials that did not seem

to be in harmony with a return to nature such as plastic or aluminium fell into disrepute A new

perspective of view replaced as a priority to choose the material types which have the minimum

relation with non-renewable resources


14 | P a g e


bull 90s

This was further exacerbated by the fact that prefabricated elements had often been used to

build high-density housing which was now generally viewed negatively Hence prefabricated building

now came to be associated with the aesthetic and social failure of deindividualized megalomaniac

prefabricated slab housing blocks clustered on the periphery of large cities Thus the acceptance of

the prefabricated house in large parts of Europe remained low up until the 1990s

Prefabricated construction only gradually began to again emancipate itself from a homespun

cheap mass-produced image during the 1990s This is mainly due to the use of computer-operated

programs in the design and production processes The prefabricated housing industry now stands at

a juncture reminiscent of the dynamism of the 1920s and 1930s

bull Modern days

For many years now companies like Muji in Japan or BoKlok in Scandinavia and more recently

also in Poland and England have been supplying prefabricated houses in large numbers In Sweden

alone with only nine million inhabitants 14000 units are sold every year Muji offers models designed

by Kengo Kuma and Kazuhiko Namba that are as simple as they are elegant and far more interesting

than the building-kit houses offered by the multinational concerns Mitsubishi Toyota and Panasonic

(deluxemodularcom 2019)

Countries around the world have enlisted prefab and modular construction methods for

decades For example an estimate of all detached homes that are prefabricated in each country

shows a potential for growth off 84 in Sweden 5 in the United States 9 in Germany 20 in the

Netherlands and 28 in Japan

Today prefabrication and modularization are utilized in the construction of hotels apartment

buildings offices hospitals and schools in every major US city Here is a rundown of the percentage

per industry of prefabricated structures that use some form of modular construction


bull 49 of healthcare facilities

bull 42 of college buildings and dorms

bull And 42 of manufacturing buildings


15 | P a g e

Types of modular product

Module architectural types

The products can be categorized by its functions dimensions material or type of its operation

etc Here they will be introduced by their general characteristics

bull Bathroom pods

Bathroom pods are commonly used in the construction of most hotels and apartment

buildings these days and becoming used more for residential housing The main drivers for choosing

a modular pod method are

o The cost savings that can be made by building repeated designs in a factory

environment

o Higher quality finish

o Rapid installation

o No trades on site

Figure 2 16 - Bathroom pods built offsite full equipped (wwwhowickltdcom)

Pod Construction Process can be various but the most common steps can be as below

(httpswwwhowickltdcom)

Once the bathroom specification has been finalized and the design completed the

machine files are issued and the framing can be produced

The frames are rolled out of the machine ready for assembly

The panels are assembled

The panels are then fitted with the internal boarding and finished with tiles or a

waterproof lining

The walls floor and roof are joined to create the room structure and the joints sealed

The fixtures and fittings can then be installed including


16 | P a g e

o Bath or shower

o Toilets

o Basins

o Lights

o Mirrors

o Cabinets

The plumbing and electrical components are connected

The pods are then subjected to an electrical test and a pressure test to ensure there

are no leaks (Figure 217)

The pods are then sealed to prevent access ready for transportation

Once on site the pods are slid into position and connected to the power and water services

This process greatly reduces the build time as there are no requirements for trades on the site As the

pods are sealed until the building is completed there are reduced chances of them being damaged

during the building construction phase

Figure 2 17 - Plumbing testing off-site before transportation to the location (wwwhowickltdcom)

bull Kitchen pods

These pods are less common but are also becoming more frequently used All the appliances

and electrics can be fitted in the factory removing the need for work on site Kitchen pods are ideal

for renovating older or industrial buildings as all the electrical services for the building can be

integrated into the pod From student accommodation to residential flats modular kitchen pods are

suitable for a variety of different sectors and uses and because they are designed bespoke to each

clientrsquos exact specifications they can be anything from a fully fitted kitchen to a small kitchenette

Each modular unit is completely customisable from the worktops to the splashbacks and integrated

white goods


17 | P a g e

Figure 2 18 - Production line of kitchen modules (wwwhowickltdcom)

bull Volumetric and modular rooms

Volumetric and modular rooms are becoming widely used for buildings that have a repetitive

nature Common structures include

bull Hotels

bull Apartments

bull Student accommodation

bull Schools

bull Hospitals

Figure 2 19 - Student accommodation made by modular rooms (wwwhowickltdcom)


18 | P a g e

The benefits of being able to manufacture the complete unit in the factory (including the

bathrooms and fitting of furniture) are

o No weather delays

o Superior finish quality

o All the electrical and plumbing works are done in a controlled atmosphere

o The rooms are sealed before moving to site restricting unauthorized access

Modular rooms production process can be explained as below

Once the building design has been completed and the individual modules specified the

framing components can be made on a just in time basis for site delivery

A typical assembly process would consist of

The floor cassette is rolled and the flooring boards are attached along with the

required insulation and services

The wall and ceiling frames are assembled

The internal lining is fitted and painted

The wall frames are then attached to the floor cassette (Figure 220)

Figure 2 20 - Production steps of floor cassette to walls and their attachment together (wwwhowickltdcom)

The ceiling frames are then fitted

The bathroom can then be fitted and plumbed as well as the electrical fittings and

wiring

The wall and ceiling insulation is added to the frame

The fit-out can then be completed to the desired specification

A hotel module for example would feature carpets bed bedside furniture desk

wardrobe TV system air-conditioning (either vents from main system or stand-alone

unit) bathroom fittings and fixtures

Once completed the electrics are checked and the plumbing is pressure tested

A protective cover is then added for transport and the unit is delivered to site

On-site the units are craned into position and joined

The services are connected

The building is then roofed and clad to the required specification In some cases the cladding

can be fitted during the module assembly further reducing the on-site work

bull Modular Trailers

Outside of modular homes modular trailers are probably the type of modular building that

people are most familiar with These buildings have a lot of applications and are often used as a


19 | P a g e

temporary space solution These trailers can be relocated for several times and are well-equipped as

well Temporary pre-semester school classes and temporary offices can be two examples of these

trailers uses

Figure 2 21 - Modular trailers for temporary uses (wwwpanelbuiltcom)

Figure 2 22 - 68 X 56 Portable modular classrooms (wwwwillscotcom)

bull Containers

When looking at modular containers they are structures that are typically used to contain a

shiprsquos cargo When Shipping containers were originally created they were designed with modularity

in mind They were required to withstand all kinds of abuse as they journey through some of the

worldrsquos harshest climates From salt water to freezing temperatures a shipping container is meant to

handle the worst of the worst while protecting some of the worldrsquos most precious cargo Comprised

of Corten steel it is in a shipping containers DNA to protect itself from any corrosion or rust and when

they fall off the ship they can take up to a week to sink With more boxes being imported than

exported we have an opportunity to reuse something that is desperately looking for a new home

There has been a shift recently where after these buildings serve their purpose as shipping containers

they are reused fitted with windows doors HVAC units etc And made into an office environment


20 | P a g e

The biggest benefit of these containers is they are cheap very portable and easy to install on site

However since most of the time these buildings are retrofitted and remodelled into modular

buildings they usually do not have a lot of flexibility in layout or their dimensions

Figure 2 23 - Common Ground by Urbantainer (wwwframewebcom)

Shipping containers act as the exoskeleton of each module The original structure will frame

the HVAC wiring lighting plumbing appliances and wall finish materials Because containers were

built to be durable and mobile they can be transported by train tractor-trailer boat or in some cases

a powerful pickup truck Forklift pockets and corner castings allow the containers to be moved smaller

distances by crane and forklift Shipping containers empower you to move your modular structures

without sacrificing the structural integrity or damaging the modulersquos contents

Figure 2 24 - Modular accommodations made from shipping containers (wwwpanelbuiltcom)


21 | P a g e

bull Office Complexes

Office complexes will take several office modules and combine them to assemble a much

larger fully functioning office building Just like all modular construction these modules are

fabricated in a manufacturing environment except when these projects reach the job site they

function more similarly to a full-fledged construction site Generally the module will need a crane to

lift the section from the ground and place it in the correct spot to assemble the building Next the

workers will go through that module and do all things necessary to attach and hook up the piece

Then the next piece is put in place and these steps are repeated and again until the building is

finished

Figure 2 25 - An example of office complexes (wwwpanelbuiltcom)

bull Modular enclosures

For instance one of the major electric utilities in the Northeast using Modular Construction is

Wunderlich Malec Integrated Control Enclosures since 2001 A standard 16times50times11-foot enclosure

with twenty (20) protective relay and control cabinets marshalling cabinets HVAC fire and security

completely installed wired and tested at the factory prior to shipment

Figure 2 26 - A Northeast utility used Power Distribution Centers (PDC) delivered by Wunderlich-Malec (wmengcom)


22 | P a g e

Module structure types

Modular structure types can be categorized by their materials or structural formation

o Steel Modules

bull 4-sided modules

In this form of construction modules are manufactured with four closed sides to create

cellular type spaces designed to transfer the combined vertical load of the modules above and in-

plane loads (due to wind action) through their longitudinal walls The cellular space provided is limited

by the transportation and installation requirements Depending on location and exposure to wind

action the height of buildings in fully modular construction is in the range of 6 to 10 storeys Modules

are manufactured from a series of 2D panels beginning with the floor cassette to which the four wall

panels and ceiling panel are attached generally by screws The walls transfer vertical loads and

therefore the longitudinal walls of the upper module are designed to sit on the walls of the module

below


(wwwsteelconstructioninfo)

It consists of a modular structure of high strength galvanized steel which is also used as the

basis for building closure Steel physical properties make it one of the most versatile materials for

construction since it is

ELASTIC Steel does not break as it has a great strength and elasticity It is easily workable and it has

a great advantage over traditional construction

RECYCLABLE Steel is 100 recyclable

DURABLE With zinc application it can become galvanized steel which has extraordinary durability

properties


23 | P a g e

Table 2 1 - 4 sided dimensional details (wwwsteelconstructioninfo)

bull Partially open-sided modules

4 sided modules can be designed with partially open sides by the introduction of corner and

intermediate posts and by using a stiff continuous edge beam in the floor cassette The maximum

width of opening is limited by the bending resistance and stiffness of the edge member in the floor

cassette Additional intermediate posts are usually square hollow sections (SHS) so that they can fit

within the wall width



24 | P a g e

bull Open sided (corner-supported) modules

Modules may be designed to provide fully open sides by transfer of loads through the

longitudinal edge beams to the corner posts The framework of the module is often in the form of hot

rolled steel members such as Square Hollow Section (SHS) columns and Parallel Flange Channel (PFC)

edge beams that are bolted together

Figure 2 29 - corner supported module end view amp Longitudinal edge beams of a corner supported module


bull Modules supported by a primary structure

Modular units may be designed to be supported by a primary structure at a podium or

platform level In this case the supporting columns are positioned at a multiple of the width of the

modules (normally 2 or 3 modules) The beams are designed to support the combined loads from the

modules above (normally a maximum of 46 storeys) The supporting structure is designed

conventionally as a steel framework with beams and columns that align with multiples of the module

width and provides open plan space at ground floor and below ground levels This form of construction

is very suitable for mixed retail commercial and residential developments especially for residential

units above commercial areas or car parking etc particularly in urban projects


25 | P a g e

Figure 2 30 - Modules supported by long spanning cellular beams to create open plan space at the lower levels


o Wood structure

Back in the days of the very first modular buildings wood was the modular construction

material of choice and nowadays it overwhelmingly remains the most used for these projects due

to its abundance and cheaper initial costs Wood-framed modular buildings however have several

notable limitations that might give a property developer pause and may even prove more costly in the

long-term repairs

Wood often lacks the strength necessary to support large building projects especially those

of multiple stories Due to this weakness wood-framed buildings are typically no taller than a few

stories a considerable limitation for someone looking to build a hotel or apartment building as

examples

Wood is flammable and vulnerable to fire which could severely damage the structural

integrity of the building requiring replacement or even worse leading to a total collapse

Wood tends to warp over time resulting in a lower quality building in the years after

completion Combined with its susceptibility to pests and mold selecting wood for a modular

structure may prove to be the more expensive choice in the long term considering repair costsmdasheven

despite initial savings

Wood is among the most wasted materials used in modern construction On average 20 of

construction lumber typically ends up in landfills leaving a larger environmental footprint than other

alternatives (httpswwwdeluxemodularcom)

Considering all those negative points mentioned earlier there are numbers of regions that

still are oriented to wooden structures as this type of housing is part of culture of the society because

of traditional architecture etc therefore typical clients prefer to build the type of accommodation

that they trusted for many years as it became the main demand of market Accessible local resources

availability of necessary knowledge for construction and compatibility of labour forces with this

method are other reasons to be chosen over the other alternatives


26 | P a g e

Figure 2 31 - Wooden modular structure which as an insulator wood is superior to steel or other metals

(vanguardmodularcom)

o Concrete modules

Precast concrete is a well-established and efficient manufacturing industry and products

range from hollow-core slabs to beams and columns in structural frames Concrete modules can be

manufactured in two ways either from precast 2D wall floor and ceiling panels or as 3D modular

units which are generally cast with an open base Concrete modules are often used in high-security

applications as they are extremely resistant to damage

Figure 2 32 - Mounting of the first precast units for the Zaanstad penitentiary building (Haitsma Beton)


27 | P a g e

Types of modular buildings based on operation period

bull Relocatable Buildings (RB)

Relocatable modular buildings are designed to be reused or repurposed multiple times and

transported to different sites Relocatable Building as defined in the 2015 International Existing

Building Code a partially or completely assembled building constructed and designed to be reused

multiple times and transported to different building sites

bull Permanent Modular Construction (PMC)

PMC is an innovative sustainable construction delivery method utilizing offsite lean

manufacturing techniques to prefabricate single or multi-story whole building solutions in deliverable

module sections PMC buildings are manufactured in a safe controlled setting and can be constructed

of wood steel or concrete PMC modules can be integrated into site-built projects or stand alone as

a turnkey solution and can be delivered with MEP fixtures and interior finishes in less time with less

waste and higher quality control compared to projects utilizing only traditional site construction

Common uses of modular buildings in the market

o Education

Relocatable buildings have become a critical factor in managing student demographics and

increasing enrolments Relocatable classrooms are also ideal for swing space during new construction

or renovation Convenient flexible cost-effective temporary buildings can be delivered and

operational in as little as 24-hours These classrooms are measured for quality and code compliance

by state or third-party agencies through routine and random inspections testing and certification

services Customers may choose single classrooms or arrange multiple buildings in clusters to create

a campus feel MBI members supply steps decks ramps and even furniture Members also offer

lease purchase and lease-to-purchase financing for a variety of public and private school needs

These classrooms are sometimes referred to as temporary portable or mobile classrooms

o Construction-Site

Relocatable buildings have their roots in construction site trailers where speed temporary

space and relocate-ability are important Used as standard field offices construction site and in-plant

buildings are available for immediate delivery Standard construction is wood but steel units are

available to meet non-combustible requirements In-plant buildings are available as single- or two-

story units for industrial environments with noise reducing insulation and are typically moveable by

forklift and include electrical and communications wiring heating air conditioning and even

plumbing

o Healthcare

Relocatable buildings for healthcare applications are designed and constructed to

uncompromising standards of quality A customerrsquos new clinic hospital extension laboratory

diagnostic centre MRI unit dentist office or other medical facility can be open for business and

serving communities in as little as a few days Is your interest in serving patients as quickly as possible

in the safest and aesthetically pleasing environments available These facilities offer quick quiet safe

and clean buildings with an unlimited choice of interior deacutecor and furniture and equipment leasing

o General Administrative and Sales Office

When production demands increase relocatable buildings can temporarily enlarge a current

facility without permanent alterations to the site Because the space is not permanent many

companies are able to expand without the budget approval process necessary for traditional capital

expenses Relocatable offices can be single- and multi-story buildings configured to include

independent offices conference rooms and large open spaces for cubicles or other partition systems


28 | P a g e

Large and small businesses as well as local and state governments are typical users of relocatable

office space

o CommercialRetail

Earlier occupancy means quicker return on investment For retail occupancies this can mean

significant cash flow advantages Standard floorplans are available for immediate delivery while

custom buildings are built to specifications in weeks not months Unique to the modular process is

concurrent construction site-work occurs while buildings are being put together in a quality-

controlled factory Typical retail applications include new home sales centers banks golf pro shops

automobile fleet ownerships college bookstores and concession stands If a clientrsquos emerging

business needs are short-term temporary space will accommodate their financial situation space

requirements and deadlines

o Security

Relocatable buildings can be custom built for a variety of access and control situations Toll

booths tickets sales offices guard stands and weigh stations are common applications One and two-

story wood and steel buildings have straight walls or walls that are tilted to improve views and reduce

glare

o EmergencyDisaster Relief

There is simply no other means of providing fast transitional shelter and basic community

needs following natural disasters than relocatable buildings Relocatable buildings can be quickly and

efficiently deployed for emergency shelter medical and educational needs or to accommodate relief

workers

Figure 2 33 - Contribution of different use cases in the US market (Permanent Modular Construction report MBI 2019)

Construction phases

Modular construction is the process of manufacturing multiple building sections in a facility

for assembly at a remote building site The building sections called modules will fit together once

assembled on site with plumbing HVAC and electrical connections running throughout One of the

great advantages in the modular construction process is that many of the processes happen at the

same time which can cut the construction time in half There are six common steps to complete a

modular project Design amp Engineering Permits amp Approvals Site Development Plant Fabrication

Transportation and Installation


29 | P a g e

Figure 2 34 - Overlaps of phases in modular construction project

o Step 1 Design

The design phase of the modular building process creates a description of the building usually

represented by detailed plans and specifications A thorough customer consultation with a Palomar

project manager gathers the information required to develop the building plan Once this information

has been gathered the design team will produce the ideal modular building design to fit the customerrsquos

needs

o Step 2 Engineering

Each building design goes through the engineering department for an engineering review Like

site-built structures modular buildings are subject to a series of national state and local building

codes that ensure the building meets a set of standards for safety and performance State level

building codes can be superseded or augmented by local building code requirements and then must

confirm the design proposal meets all applicable building codes

o Step 3 Permits amp Approvals

A construction permit or building permit is a permit required in most jurisdictions for new

construction or major renovations Typical construction permits required can include

Site plan

Building permit

Mechanical permit

Plumbing permit

Concrete permit

Encroachment permit

Sign permit

Flood district development permit

The building owner is ultimately responsible for securing building permits for work on their

property In practice most building owners appoint the general contractor as an authorized

representative so the contractor can obtain the required permits The building owner is advised to

confirm that the general contractor has secured the proper building permits for their project Failure

to obtain the proper permits can result in significant fines penalties and even demolition of

unauthorized construction

o Step 4 Site Development

One of the advantages inherent in modular construction is that the site development and

building foundation are prepared while the modules are being fabricated at the manufacturing facility

and transported to the job site The site development and building construction processes happen

Permits

Design amp Engineering

Site Development

Plant Fabrication

TransportationOn-site installation


30 | P a g e

concurrently instead of sequentially like site-built construction Projects are developed on a variety of

geographic settings typical site development includes

Surveying

Demolition

Excavation

Grading

Site drainage

Foundation construction

Utility installation

There are two primary modular building foundation classifications on-grade and raised or full

foundation An on-grade foundation is generally for permanent installations and is more expensive A

full foundation can be used for temporary or permanent structures it is less expensive to install and

it is more cost effective to relocate the building later while causing minimal site disturbance

Figure 2 35 - Pre-cast blocks are often referred to as ldquocinderrdquo blocks (wwwtriumphmodularcom)

bull Step 5 Plant Fabrication

There are two scenarios for steel modular constructors There are few numbers of off-site

plant which built their own steel frames inside the plant because of high initial budget and it is

common that it would be cheaper to order the frames from another supplier and transfer to the

factory to assembly with other parts The steel frame is then loaded on the main factory production

line where the sub-floor is insulated and floor decking is assembled atop the steel frame As the

module moves down the production line framed wall sections are fabricated insulated and hoisted

in place The truss roof assembly is built in components at ground level before it is hoisted into place

The module proceeds down the line where mechanical electrical and plumbing services are installed

while the last of the insulation goes into place Interior finishes like drywall painting and flooring are

applied while doors and windows are installed

On the last stop of the production line the exterior finish and trim are applied before the

module is prepared for transportation

During construction at the manufacturing facility a third-party inspection agency is present to

ensure the modules are built in compliance with building code

bull Step 6 Transportation

The fabricated modules are shipped over the road by carriers that specialize in modular

building transportation In most US jurisdictions building shipping limitations are 16rsquo in width and


31 | P a g e

between 70rsquo amp 90rsquo in length per module Permissible Maximum Dimensions of Lorries in Europe and

UK for Lorry or Trailer are 4m in height 255m in width and 12m in length (International

Transportation forum)

bull Step 7 Installation

A general contractor often one specializing in modular construction will install the modules

complete any on site finish out and make the final utility connections

The choice of building foundation determines how the building will be installed Permanent

semi-permanent and on grade foundations will require the modules to be set with a crane Raised

foundations typically used for temporary buildings allow the modules to be set in place through

simple mechanical methods

With the modules in place final finish out of the interior and exterior proceeds Finish out can

include electrical and mechanical system connection between modules stairs wheelchair ramps

skirting exterior siding trim and utility connections

Literature review on possible advantages

Modular construction comes with advantages which motivates investors and innovative

constructors to apply this method on their future projects Here these benefits are being classified in

various sections such as schedule economic environmental health and safety and social-laboral

advantages

Scheduling benefits

While on-site constructors are complaining about the slow progression of construction

activities and delays on project deliveries the struggle is still to be continued to find new methods to

improve productivity and progression speed while maintaining the quality at a reasonable level

whether if its achievable or not On the other side modular construction because of numbers of

reasons is making a significant boost in term of time management in many phases As it can be seen

in figure 236 McKinsey amp Company report explains that approximately between 20 - 50

scheduling improvement can be achieved in comparison with traditional on-site construction

Figure 2 36 - Possible time saving in modular approach in comparison with traditional method (McKinsey amp Company

2019)


32 | P a g e

To be more specific literature reviews identified numbers of benefits in most of the

constructive activities from design to on-site installation As the table 22 illustrates off-site

manufacturing brings most of the time saving to the project by better coordination precise quality

management and not being affected by the on-site bad conditions Table 2 2 - Possible benefits in projects scheduling

In addition design can the ability to be applied in multiple projects instead of just one which

accelerates the project schedule significantly Various overlaps in modular construction can save lots

of time in projects such as site preparations off-site manufacturing and on-site installation with each

other

The acceleration in design process which would be ideal for schedule-critical projects (for

instance emergency accommodation for people who are affected by natural causes) also Long-lead

items can be stocked Fabrication can start and finish earlier in this case In the real state point of view

in the design phase there is one huge benefit which will be so handy when nearly ldquoshovel-readyrdquo

design documentation is needed for clients and site selectors (wwwmcminnvillebusinesscom)

The simplicity precision and clarity of the design plans in modular projects can increase the

possibility of using advanced software such as BIM which reduce the period time of designing phase

significantly With the increasing the possibility of integration of BIM in construction project

incorporating modular building technologies into project becomes more developed and

manufacturing and construction process could be streamlined (Na Lu and Thomas Korman 2010)

About 90 percent of the build activity takes place indoors which means the building process

is nearly guaranteed to stay on schedule That predictability and reliability enable you to count on

timely project completion If a skilled modular crew only spends half the time building your structure

than a site-built crew would your labour cost also gets cut in half

Because of stability of production location there are numbers of advanced technologies

which are being used in other industries production lines that can be used in these off-site facilities in

order to improve the productivity and reduce the timeline of the activities


33 | P a g e

Figure 2 37 - BIM 3D model of a modular project (wwwbdcnetworkcom)

The nature and outdoor construction have always mutual effects on each other mostly in a

disfavour way Site conditions often cause negative impacts on the activities which lead delays quality

insurances or stop them because of safety matters In result the project schedule can be changed and

most of the times unpredictive delays will take place in the timelines In addition there are sites which

the possibility of on-site construction for most of the year is almost zero percent or if exists would be

limited because of life risks for workforce A reasonable solution for these cases is off-site construction

which in most of them reduce the nature effects Thus factory-based production can make a

revolutionary impact on the project scheduling In modular method 60-90 of the construction work

is completed in a closed factory environment and this mitigates the impact of unfavourable weather

(FLORI MURESAN on ny-engineerscom)

Figure 2 38 - Modular project in a hard weather condition (wwwautodeskcom)


34 | P a g e

Machinery equipment can take place in mentioned phase instead of human labour which can

boost the productivity quality as well as the time reduction Robotic assembly is one the efficient

examples of this technology One of the very first EU projects carried out in the Robotics Lab

(httproboticslabuc3mes) located at the Carlos III University named FutureHome-IF7 project The

done research was focused in the robotization and industrialisation of the final stage of the

construction process by mean of modular construction (Martinez 2008)

Figure 2 39 - Automatic modular buildings assembly (roboticslabuc3mes)

Economic benefits

Economic advantages can always attract investors to develop innovations Since in a project

time and cost have a direct and mutual relation with each other most of the benefits which were

mentioned earlier in the schedule section can also make positive impact in projectrsquos economy In

some cases these benefits equal to the initial costs which will be discussed later in challenges As it

was mentioned earlier the design plans can be repeated multiple times in projects because of

similarity of requirements that can save design costs in future budgets

Modular building because of their standardization and classification in design phase can be

more compatible with advanced such as BIM (building information modelling) BIM technology in its

5D phase does cost estimating material quantifications and pricing to be automatically generated

and modified while changes are applied for each building module (Na Lu and Thomas Korman 2010)

Figure 2 40 - In Bathroom Pods Modular Construction by jfield (wwwsurepodscom)


35 | P a g e

Foundations do not have complexity in modular buildings because of weight of the modules

which have to be manufactured lightly in order to be transported simpler to the location

Figure 2 41 - Easy PAD foundation system (wwweasypadscouk)

Also because of the high quality and precise off-site execution there are fewer reworks in

modular products which can save costs in projects Off-site manufacturing provides more economic

benefits such as reduction of salary wages due to a smaller number of workers and more specialized

ones and adding values to each hour of work by increasing productivity to the activities

Moreover massive orders of Materials to the supplier can bring more quality to the material

multiple discounts on each offer and add more stability in prices of material in instable markets Table 2 3 - Economic benefits in modular method


36 | P a g e

Environmental Benefits

A highlight among the modular constructionrsquos benefits is in the environmental point of view

Since the modular buildings are friendly with environment many clients are willing to change their

method to this ecological approach in order to make their projects more sustainable and promote

their product in the market as an innovative constructor in the industry such as ldquoGrupo Consentinordquo

which not only builds modules that are available to use solar panels as energy supplier but recycle

many structural and non-structural elements and reuse them in another projects Waste management

can be applied simply in modular construction by reduction in waste during off-site production recycle

and reuses in elements in several projects use of automation can secure waste reduction at a high

rate It has been proven that modular construction can reduce waste by up to 90 thanks to off-site

construction (JAHNAVI SAJIP ny-engineerscom)

Agostinho Mendonccedila in 2018 did a research about reuse in construction industry which

shows a great improvement in terms of sustainability During 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar football

fans will have the opportunity to enjoy the stunning views of Doharsquos skyscrapers and be marvelled at

the unique Ras Abu Abod Stadium Its design concept results in a good cost-efficient arena with an

elegant curved square form

Figure 2 42 - Ras Abu Aboud stadium built to be reused (google images)

This innovative stadium will also allow it to be completely disassembled after the World Cup

Precisely many elements of the arena including all 40000 seats the containers and even the roof

will be reused providing valuable infrastructures to sports and non-sports projects elsewhere

Moreover off-site manufacturing can reduce emissions much more than conventional

method In 2009 Al-Hussein et al focused on the construction phase of modular and conventional

buildings and compared their CO2 equivalent emissions They analysed a 42-suite multi-family four-

story residential modular building located in Alberta Canada All the construction activities needed

for this building and a similar conventional building such as material delivery transportation

workforce trips equipment usage and winter heating were identified separately Therefore CO2

emissions from each of these activities were quantified The authorsrsquo analyses showed that modular

processes led to a 43 reduction in CO2 emissions compared to on-site processes


37 | P a g e

Table 2 4 - Environmental Benefits

While the on-site construction disturbs the sitersquos neighbourhood with noise dust congestion

and waste modular construction performs better by providing minimal project site disturbance

(Mohammad Kamali2016) Since most of the construction process takes place offsite there is less

impact on the project surroundings Modular construction reduces the number of vehicles and heavy

equipment required on site which translates into reduced pollution and less site disruption

Figure 2 43 - The dust of a construction site in Beijing (wwwchinaorgcn) vs Cadolto factory site (wwwcadoltocom)

Energy consumption in the occupancy phase of modular buildings dominates the other life

cycle phases This phase alone accounts for more than 70 and up to 98 of energy consumption and

consequent impacts over the life cycle of buildings while the contribution of the construction phase

is relatively small (M Kamali 2016) Sustainable material selection optimum modular factory


38 | P a g e

location and availability of labour which lead to less embodied energy consumption are effective

opportunities to reduce the life cycle energy consumption and the subsequent environmental

impacts In addition a smart design of insulation which is advanced in modular buildings can achieve

a high amount of energy use saving during the operation phase

Figure 2 44 - various layers of a module building unit including insulations (wwwsteelconstructioninfo)

Health and security benefits

When it comes to safety modular method can offer advantages for both phases (construction

and operation) to workers and future users Converting possibly dangerous on-site activities to an off-

site plant that there the supervision and control is much higher can reduce the accidents for the

workforces and the products It is obvious that the safety plan can be applied much more efficient in

a factory environment Not only is there a reduced risk of slips trips and falls ndash particularly as work

at height is reduced but there is also a reduction in onsite activity thus ensuring health and safety

always remains a top priority from start to finish

Furthermore if necessary factory operations can continue 247 with less risk of noise and

disruption to workers Work is also unaffected by the weather and other environmental delays which

could result in the project being turned around even quicker

On the other side during the operation phase safety can be improved for instance fire

protection can be designed by using multiple insulations and protectors inside the panels

One of the examples is Actavorsquos plan for Ensuring everyonersquos safety is at the heart of Actavo

what does and in line with this they have developed the HEART (Help Eliminate All Risks Today)

procedure Devised and implemented in the continuous effort to create an accident and incident-free

environment the HEART behavioural safety observation process sets the whole Actavo teamrsquos

expectation every injury is preventable so do not let any happen (Hannah Vickers b4edcom)

Modular construction generally achieves these requirements using fire-resistant plasterboard

conforming to BS EN 520 Alternative materials such as cement particle board and gypsum fibre board

may also be used in combination with plasterboard as the facing layer In residential construction

each dwelling usually forms a separate fire compartment All walls and floors that provide a separating

function between compartments require 60 minutes fire resistance In hotels and other residential

buildings each bedroom may form its own compartment (wwwsteelconstructioninfo)


39 | P a g e

Figure 2 45 - Compartment floor at junction with external wall and compartment wall (wwwsteelconstructioninfo)

Social-Laboral benefits

Most of the mentioned benefits including economic scheduling environmental and safety

advantages have direct effect on social well-being as well Therefore they can also be named in this

section Future users can benefit from the quality of building energy savings etc which leads to

costumerrsquos satisfaction among the public Due to the shorter on-site schedule there are fewer

negative impacts on local businesses urban beauty image than conventional constructions Also

modular construction demands more skilled workforce and experts which can create more jobs for

these group of labour in the regions that struggle with high unemployment rates

In addition every industry needs to trust innovations in order to improve the science and help

the innovator to break limitations and explore new alternatives to solve problems Modular

construction as it was mentioned can be a great solution for the productivity problem in construction

industry and by applying these method it is possible to even find more solutions in the future which

can increase these rate more or solve other problems that nowadays are common among players of

construction industry Table 2 5 - Health and safety amp Social-Laboral advantages


40 | P a g e

Modular Construction role in COIVD-19 Pandemic

Recognizing the urgent need to create modular critical care units for rapidly growing numbers

of COVID-19 patients HGA Architects and Engineers partnered with Boldt Construction to design and

build a new system within a noticeably short timeframe ldquoThe initial idea was to provide rapid

response for hospitals and build a product with off-the-shelf readily available parts because we did

not know what the supply chain would be like Over the course of three weeks we went from concept

to full design and fabrication was underwayrdquo reports Ben Bruns executive vice president of Boldt

Construction in Appleton Wis (Rapid Response by Barbara Horwitz-Bennett 2020) The final product

was a prefabricated modular solution for assembling field hospitals capable of providing airborne

infection isolation rooms

Figure 2 46 - New modular construction solution can be deployed as stand-alone hospitals or for use inside convention

centres arenas and temporary structures Image courtesy of HGA and The Boldt Company (prismpubcom)

These Strategic Temporary Acuity-Adaptable Treatment (STAAT) units are isolation units with

enough clearance for safe bed transfers and accommodate equipment and a reclining chair These

multifunctional modules can be used as supplemental interior isolation rooms within an existing

system of care as a modular system connected to an existing hospitalrsquos infrastructure or as a self-

sufficient temporary hospital with its own infrastructure

Figure 2 47 - Self-Sufficient Temporary Hospital with Infrastructure Image courtesy of HGA and The Boldt Company


41 | P a g e

PCL Construction has come up with a similar solution in collaboration with Thor Plumbing and

Heating f-BLOK Architecture EH Price Industries and P4 Electrical Contractors Called ldquoQuaran-Tin

Podsrdquo the units are emergency response modular isolationcare rooms that provide temporary and

reusable emergency isolation for care and treatment of COVID-19 patients Each unit is self-contained

with built-in power heating and cooling as well as connections for medical gas oxygen and vacuum

Highly scalable and customizable the pod is continuously negatively pressurized and all the exhaust

is HEPA filtered Citizen Care Pod is a smart screening and testing pod that integrates intelligent

technology within a modular design to support a safe responsible recovery for governments

businesses and communities Customizable with the capabilities to enable full-on mobile COVID-19

testing in high-traffic environments the project will help in testing screening and eventually

vaccination on a mass scale (Christele Harrouk on archdailycom)

Figure 2 48 - Emergency response modular isolationcare rooms by PCL construction (archdailycom)

The Citizen Care Pod is a turnkey solution that accelerates recovery for businesses and public

institutions such as airports offices sports and entertainment complexes construction sites and

more by rebuilding staff and customer confidence that your organization is equipped to ensure their

safety

Unfortunately the COVID-19 pandemic is only intensifying the housing crisis Further

complicating the issue is the fact that a significant percentage of skilled labour workers will be retiring

within the next couple years which will significantly impact the construction industry As stated in

MBIrsquos ldquoThe US Construction Industry A National Crisis Loomingrdquo there are currently not enough

skilled workers to build all of the projects that need to be built in the same manner in which they have

been built in the past ldquoThere is no other choicerdquo advises Hardiman ldquoIt is now time for our

policymakers to start looking at alternative ways to build everything and we think that modular

construction should be a part of that solutionrdquo Along these lines the COVID-1 Response Page also

includes links to articles illustrating how MBI membersrsquo systems and facilities are currently being used

in housing infrastructure and COVID-19-related projects

Review on common challenges

Initial costs


42 | P a g e

To start the modular construction method in an area there will be a significant investment

to establish a production plan and then designing team who must work alongside the execution

engineers parallelly in the design phase

factory cost Like any other industry modular construction demands a production line which

is an off-site plan with a supply chain based on 3D volumetric products First the off-site plan must be

designed based on the local requirements amount of demands availability of experts and labours and

budget that manufactures are willing to invest on this technology These factories are mostly

expensive to be build and the issue of production costs will always be a barrier to innovation in

modular construction because both the client and the architect will expect lower fabrication costs

However the art of every industrial innovative player is to study the economic pros and cons

of issued technology and then the industrial expert by doing couple trade-offs between the benefits

and disadvantages can make the decision whether to apply the new method or not Modular

construction is not an exception of this fact A local study can tell the investors if the approach would

be reasonable in all term and not only economic terms for the society or not Thus due to the

economic benefits that were mentioned earlier in numbers of regions which the labour salaries are

higher and the balance between transportation costs primary material access and costs experts

existence local market and their demand of real state and initial costs is more favourable modular

construction can be the best solution to apply On the other hand nowadays there are numbers of

region which the investors of industry are eager to use innovative method with higher costs that have

positive influence on environment and public health in which modular construction is more friendly

than the conventional method

Figure 2 49 -Balance between Initial costs and Economical benefits

First design costs and errors By changing the traditional construction products a change of

design is also demanded Modular design can be based by the production linersquos technologies the

budget of manufacturer and the final products quantity and quality In the earlier discussions about

design phase the complexity of 3D volumetric design had been mentioned and surely in the first

attempts would be expensive for the manufacturer However if the design could focus more on the

standardization of elements repetition in production line and consider integrate with modern design

software in order to provide more executive details and minimize the future errors and reworks the

rework cost can be eliminated and the design sample can be used for numbers of projects as a

catalogue with few changes Therefore by having these advantages the initial design cost can be

recovered soon and even make more benefit by the time


43 | P a g e

Architectural challenges

One of the main group of experts who have argues about modular buildings are the

architectures who always suffer from limitations that this approach puts on their design process Most

of these challenges are mentioned below

bull Manufacturing technologies effect on the design One of the challenges which the manufacturers

can struggle is to consider a production line that be able to produce a wide range of product so

that there will be fewer limitations on the design phase This goal can often be impossible because

of the predicted budget of investors limited area of production plant and lack of technologies

Thus it is the architect who must be flexible with the production line and its boundaries

Moreover it is the art of the architect which can maintain a balance between ability of production

line and attractivity and innovation of the final product for the market and the industry

bull Transportation boundaries on architecture It is a fact that the transportation of modular

construction have puts limitations on the architectrsquos works The modules must obey the

obligations and regulations of the region that want to be transported in Therefore architects

must design modules which are transportable and minimize negative economic and timing effects

for the project In addition in the designing process environmental aspects which can be

happening during the transportation phase must be considered

bull Regional architecture specializations There are cases in which an off-site production plant ships

same model of modules for numbers of projects which are going to be assembled in variety of

regions with different climate cultural architecture and local construction regulations which can

surely have negative effects on the regionrsquos construction industry real estate market and cultural

architecture aspects For instance the harmony of the angel of sunlight and the windows

formation and dimensions in a residential building located in eastern region and western ones

which reduce or increase the sunlight absorption inside the building for the residents In this case

if the same form of modules will be transported and assembled without of any changes the

unsatisfaction of future users can be increased and in a result the demands can be reduce

significantly which could cause a failure for the real estate and construction industry of the region

In terms of architectural culture modular manufacturers must consider the traditional

architecture of the location in the designs in order to make sure that the harmony will be kept

among the present buildings and modular ones

bull Lack of knowledge about modular buildings among architects Manufacturers argue about the

lack of enough knowledge of architects about the modular fabrication process The third-party

inspections and approval process Transportation methods and its boundaries Onsite assembly

procedures The cross section of a modular structure which can reduce their understandings from

manufacturerrsquos demands of project and result a unsuitable design for the final products These

disagreements come with every innovation in civil engineering society which architect must follow

their lead most of the time The solution for this cause is to educate the architects by planning

workshops by the manufacturers or internships during a project so that architects can improve

their knowledge and gain actual experiences by observe and participating in real projects

bull Unfeasible on-site finishing Common architectural innovative designs focus a lot on finishing

works in order to gain attentions of buyer and improve attractiveness of buildings There are

different views about this subject Some manufacturers think that the finishing process must be

as simple as possible or minimize the schedule and costs on-site to benefit from the project On

the other hand architects believe that the modular buildings are not attractive enough because

of repetition in their design and try to focus on finishing process to make them desirable to the

market or improve the products in architectonic point of view


44 | P a g e

Transportation challenges

By transferring most of the construction activity to the off-site plant transportation plays a

vital role in the projects so that in case of poor logistic management can damage numbers of benefits

which were achieved in the factory plant

bull Dimensional and weight barriers based on type of transportation The type and technologies of

every modular constructorrsquos logistics can affect the project from the design phase to the on-site

assembly These effects can change the dimensions weight and structural features of the product

For instance modular structures transported on a flatback trailer will be limited in length width

and weight based on the physical capacity of the truck Components fit into shipping containers

are best suited for projects overseas because the structural integrity of the containers allows for

unorganized stacking However components will be limited by the interior dimensions of the

container in length width and height (Joseph M Schoenborn 2012)

bull Long distance transportation and lack of existence of local factory Off-site plants are not

available for every site location in numbers of states or even regions yet because of poor

development of these method in those regions Therefore in some cases the modules must

shipped even overseas to the site location to be assembled Long distance and its possible

difficulties during ground or marine transportation can bring extra costs for the project which

must be studied economically before the biding process

bull State regulations on structures dimensions and strategic issues Estate laws can always put

boundaries on construction industry and modular constructors are not an exception Every region

has its structural and transportation regulation which limits the final product In addition estate

approval during transportation phase can harm the projectrsquos scheduling program and put delays

on the arrivals or even occasional penalties which causes extra costs in the budget

bull Negative effects from environment on the modules during the transportation While the

modules are being transported to the site these products are in direct exposure to the

environment such as sunlight rain wind and other natural causes By the time possible damages

can be appeared in the modules which in some cases can be too critical that module need to be

repaired or replaced to be used On the other hand ground transportations can cause vibrations

on the trucks and its loads and the intensity of damage generally increases with the roughness of

the road surface which in some creates cracks or more critical damages on the structural element

installations or finishing The solution is to use To minimise transportation difficulties the vehicle

having vibration absorber can be used to minimise damage due to vibration and additional

precautions need to be considered for wider modules while low bed transport vehicles are

preferable for transporting taller modules (W Ferdows 2019) Moreover loading and offloading

processes must be carefully done by precise strategy and adequate equipment in order to avoid

the harms on the products

bull Transportable materials There are two terms which force modular constructors to use advanced

and high-quality materials transportation and design situations Transportation as it mentioned

earlier puts limitations on the final product and force the constructors to use material which have

less weight more against resistance road vibrations and endurance against sunlight and humidity

exposures In one word these materials must be part of a final product which can be

transportable Often these materials add costs on the project because they are more expensive

than the ones which have been used in conventional buildings All properties need to be

structurally sound in situ but units built using offsite construction methods also need to be

structurally sound whilst being raised and lowered throughout the transportation and assembly

stages of the process Key structural elements such as beams columns and potentially walls and

floors must be repeated in three-dimensional modules for transportation purposes This can


45 | P a g e

significantly increase material costs depending on the material choice and level of design

optimization (McKinsey amp Company 2019)

On the other hand numerous benefits which modular construction has in terms of material

such as less reworks discount on massive offers no exposure to natural causes and its off-site storage

and less waste during the production can assure the constructors that these challenges can overcome

the fact that modular buildings work better than conventional ones in a material criteria

Wrong perceptions among public and real estate market

Innovation without correct publicity brings wrong perception among people and markets

Also errors bad experiences of users and unprofessional works can change the mindsets quickly by

unsatisfying the users and in result investors During a period in past off-site accommodations were

mostly for temporary uses with low quality material and less functional features The demands of

permanent housing raised after a break such as world wars for those who lost their houses and

refugees that wanted to live abroad Therefore numbers of companies started to modify their off-site

products in order to have more lifetime and serviceability However there were constructors who

could not provide buildings with better functional services and the users became unsatisfied and lost

their trust in these products This wrong perception had been raised even until now that off-site

building such as modular ones will not serve a long lifetime and have low quality material incommode

and unattractive design and a poor functionality Obliviously bad perception of people will reduce the

demands and destroys the market as well

Today the industry recognizes the need for durable construction for even temporary uses

making it possible to move and re-use full buildings So a lack of knowledge among consumers as to

what is possible can prevent design innovation In order to overcome the stigma sometimes associated

with modular construction manufacturers attempt to offer a built product indistinguishable from one

built onsite Therefore the industry advertises a direct alternative to onsite construction In a

comparative analysis of the two processes time savings and worker safety stand out as the primary

advantages of modular construction over onsite construction The building manufacturing process

itself construction in a controlled environment with access to advanced technology is an evolution

of the art of building which is traditionally slow to evolve The modular building industry therefore

should advertise a different building product altogether featuring design innovation and ingenuity

executed through advanced building techniques (Joseph M Schoenborn 2012)

Moreover in order to raise the demands among the public who can be future users a range

of positive publicity about the environmental advantages such as less emission economic savings like

less energy bills cheaper and easier maintenance processes during the operation phase and faster

construction process which help them to be accommodate sooner can create a positive mindset

among the public In addition post-sell services from constructors such as better assurance policies

for buyers maintenance services and offering loans to customers who are in emergency

accommodation needs can change the market significantly


46 | P a g e

Figure 2 50 - Spanish company INHAUS offers after-sale service for 10 years in modular projects (casasinhauscom)

Integration of advanced software

As it mentioned before modular construction can benefit from using innovative software in

their designing phase in order to be more precise on planning and provide detail for the production

line One of these software programs is BIM which can be used in design construction phase on-site

assemble and even operation phase However despite its advantages there will be some challenges

as well The greatest challenge of using BIM in construction project is the implementation process

itself regardless of the software capabilities Development of accurate BIM model requires extensive

resources and in-depth knowledge of construction methods and process Most small or medium firm

could not afford the special team and man hours to aligning BIM (Na Lu and Thomas Korman 2010)

Other than finance and organizational issues the project team has experienced legal challenges as

well The use of BIM technology encourages multi-disciplinary collaboration which contrasts to

defining responsibility to each party and then assigning liability issues among the parties In addition

using BIM models instead of traditional contract documents raises questions on insurance coverage

and confidentiality exposure Ownership and control of the model use and distribution of the model

and intellectual property rights are some of the issues that need to be addressed while BIM

implementation being adopted in construction industry

Redefining the contracts

Due to the changes over the responsibilities of every participants the amount of their

influence on projectrsquos activities and transferring most of the work to the off-site plant a new way to

contracting is needed in order to optimize the relationship between the owner designers and

manufacturers during all phases of the project Here are some of the common types of contracts which

are being used among modular building industry

bull Design-build The architect modular manufacturer and onsite general contractor are

hired as a team and assume the responsibilities of design and construction together DB contract can

be named one of most traditional types of contracts that would create an integration between all the

parties of a project Due to the design-build nature of modular construction a close partnership is

demanding during the project phases

bull Design-bid-build After the architectrsquos design has been approved by the client a

competitive bidding process takes place This results in a greater disconnect between parties The

common gap between participate happen a lot in this type of contract which frequently can cause


47 | P a g e

misunderstandings about responsibilities of each expert incomplete information about the project

design or executive details and lack of transparency among the participants

bull Negotiated bid The modular manufacturer is hired first by the client to find the

appropriate architect and onsite general contractor that can be hired within the constraints of a

budget This concept may increase bonding between experts and improve everyonersquos understandings

about many aspects of the project But the budget will decide whether the quality level design

enhancement can meet the clientrsquos requirements or not In addition in case of clientrsquos approval the

question would be the future userrsquos satisfaction can be achieved or not due to the budget limitations

on the project quality level

bull Certified Modular Architect (CMA) A sustained relationship between an architect

and a manufacturer can be developed over multiple projects Therefore a certification process

providing training and continuing education can be introduced to the modular building industry An

architect intimately familiar with modular construction is best suited to handle coordination issues

that arise when work is being done in the factory and onsite simultaneously A it mentioned earlier

architects understanding and knowledges is critical to avoid possible mistakes and unsuitable designs

for modules Therefore this certified education which can be called as a semi-professional internship

for the design team in order to be present at every phase of the project

Supply chain-transportation-onsite assembly management errors

One of the main objectives to use prefabricated elements in construction is to raise the

productivity in execution phase which is mostly happens in off-site plant As it mentioned before there

is a supply chain in manufacturing plant and its productivity is depended to many key factors which

will happen outside of the factory Continuity of assembly operation is one of them which would be

happening in parallel with off-site supply chain After the modules were prepared to be transported

to the site the transportation system must be synchronized with the factory delivery and assembly

demands If any delays may happen during the transportation would affect the both origin and

destination scheduling storage policies and demands

On the other hand assembly line also must on-time and well-communicated with off-site

plant experts because any changes in execution phase can make huge negative impacts on supply

chain productivity Therefore these three important phases must plan based by on-site demands

supply chain productivity execution management and transportation systems

Figure 2 51 - synchronization between supply chain transportation and on-site assembly

Modular Construction potential advantages and common challenges | Masoud Veiskarami Chapter 3 Online Survey about challenges

48 | P a g e

3 Common challenges in modular construction industry by a

survey Methodology

Objective

This study used qualitative research and specifically a grounded theory methodology to

uncover more information about advantages of modular construction and its constraints or barriers

to develop this method in the market Qualitative research emphasizes the influence of the researcher

on the data collected

Role of the researcher

In this study I acted as the sole researcher who was responsible to design questions based by

literature reviews and then by creating an online survey form try to collect the data from the

participants

Ethical considerations

To protect the rights and guarantee the safety of participantrsquos information following actions

were done

1) The research objective and process were made clear to the participants

2) The collected data was used for research objectives only

3) Only eligible participants who are modular constructors and manufacturers were

chosen for this survey

4) The access option to the survey information gave to the participants after the

research was finished

5) The anonymity of the participants was maintained

6) The name of the participant and their brand was remained confidential for all roles

even the researcher to obey the law of data protection

Survey setting

Due to the emergency restrictions which caused by a virus pandemic across the world several

options were unavailable to be done such as face to face interviews factory visits and project site

practices Therefore online interview was the only solution which can be happen without any danger

for participants and researcher In most regions construction companies are suffering from a full shut

down on their production line and on-site projects so that access to these participants became even

harder than usual Thus an online survey form by office forms was chosen for this research so that

the participants can answer the form questions at any time and location with ease to answer by

multiple accesses to the formrsquos link (Figure 31)

This survey forms had been sent by email to the official addresses that were mentioned in

their websites for contact The priority in choosing the recipients were the construction managers

project managers and executive engineers so that the information will be collected from the operation

managers who have the most technical experience and have the most knowledge with construction

phases from off-site production to on-site installation This could also help the survey to find the

challenges during the construction that were not able to be visited due to the restrictions of global

pandemic


49 | P a g e

Figure 3 1 - Online office forms for survey use

The estimated time was reduced to 13min with the most important questions to improve the

efficiency and be timely reasonable for the participants

Development of questionnaire

After hours of study on numbers of articles which have focused on challenges in modular

construction industry several were found that have lack of scientific scope and recommended

solutions Therefore many of the questions were designed to first shed a light on the potential

advantages which have not been mentioned specific and completely unknown for the industry For

instance the social benefits which came immensely useful during the COVID-19 pandemic for health

centres and medical infrastructure etc Moreover a lack of inconsistency between industry and

science came to notice which shown a massive gap between these two important roles in construction

industry This gap explains that the scientific researchers in some areas have the minimum contact

with industrial players in construction world in comparison with other industries which the opposite

situation is applied To fill this gap questions were designed in a way which have an origin of scientific

researches and direct and first-hand information from the construction industry players which are

constructors modules manufacturers etc

Development path of questions can be explained as critical path to the best details of each

criteria than can obtain useful information from participants In terms of advantages the benefits

which were identified from literatures were ordered and asked form participants to be confirmed and

validated by the industry players in real project cases For instance in an environmental point of view

Reduction in Energy Consumption was identified in literatures and had been asked among participants

to confirm the hypothesis that modular construction can reduce the energy consumption in

comparison with traditional methods (Figure 32)


50 | P a g e

Figure 3 2 - Questionnaire development

Participant profile

Experience amp professions

As the ldquoTable 31rdquo explains information from five companies have been selected for this

survey with variety of backgrounds from pioneers to well-experienced players in industry with over

than 120 years of experience in the modular construction society as constructors and modular

manufacturers The experts who answered have different roles in the industry from CEO to architect

and sales managers so that the data can have more perspectives of views on the questions such as

sales market and design process to project management Table 3 1 - Participantrsquos profiles

Because of diversity in the influence of challenges between massive international builders and

local players these five companies responds have been compared to each other from company C

which is a local constructor to company E that is currently executing modular projects in 80 countries

with approximately 6000 modules build annually

Types of materials in some cases can have different statistics in results For instance in

modular construction which steel and wood modules are more often used in projects can produce

various amount of CO2 emissions and waste or recycle process can be done with more ease For that

reason these survey all types of materials are considered including steel modules concrete modules

and wood modules There is also an argue that some benefits and challenges cannot be seen in unique

projects with more repetition in production of elements and mass production such as hotels and

schools while in residential projects can exists more than the others To cover all the contrasts of

60 of participants

can acheive a 30-40

reduction energy

consumption

A Our homes are not positive from an energy

perspective

B We can finish a 4 months traditional project in 8-10 weeks and Energy consumption of a factory is known and relatively constant on a weekly

E 30 reduction in energy consumption

Modular construction can

reduce the energy consumption up

to 30 in compariosn with

conventional methods

QsCompany A B C D E

Years of company experience 10-15 10-15 20-30 20-30 30-50

Position of participant CEO Sales Manager Design Architect Quantity Surveyor Foreign Trade Manager

Professional experience 15 13 30 NA 3

No of employeesfactoryModules build annually 801200 1301490 151- 50280 25026000

Type of material(WoodSteelConcrete) W amp S W W W S amp Conter amp fiber cabins

Types of Projects (ResedentialSchoolsHospitalCommercial) R R amp S amp C R R amp S amp C amp H R amp S amp C amp H

Use of BIM Yes No No No No

Level of automation 20 reaching up to 80 20 Off-site 60 On-site 20 20 60


51 | P a g e

information these companies have been selected that are involved in all types of modular building

projects including residential hospitals schools and commercials buildings

As it mentioned before BIM program can advance the projects in many ways however

unfortunately among these participants only company A is able to benefit from this software from 0

to 100 of the project Therefore the further arranged interview focused on BIM Function was

cancelled and may be done in the future investigations

Automation can play an important role in improving the productivity and sustainability of

construction processes as a part of ldquoindustrialization in constructionrdquo movement Among survey

participants the minimum automation level in off-site plants is 20 and maximum of 60 and in on-site

activities can be up to 40 In addition company A claimed that in near future their automation can

reach up to 80 which is an innovative move in construction industry On the other hand company

with over than 6000 modules build annually have a significant 60 of automation in their plant which

shown a massive interest of investment on this technology In addition automation application

difficulty have direct relation with the type of materials used in modules and type of the projects which

as Table 31 illustrates company E with the most variety in project types and materials use have

achieved a huge success in application of automation with a level of 60 which also helped a lot to

expand their market overseas

Data collection

General information

All the received information has been attached in ldquoAnnex 1rdquo where the responds are not

edited and mentioned in the original shape Here are the shorter versions of responds

bull Motivations to choose modular construction over traditional

To bring the attention of investors to an innovative method reasonable motivations are

needed which can be the current demands of market economic profits and environmental benefits

Therefore it was necessary to identify the motivations of these companies to start a modular

construction form Economic advantage for most of these has a priority not just for being profitable

but for being able to develop their dominance in the future On the other hand innovation has an

approximately same amount of interest which explain the reason behind choosing modular method

that is one of the most innovative off-site construction methods in the industry

The fact that mentioned before in literature reviews high demands in the market and the lack

of provide by construction players is one of most important reasons to apply a fast and high-quality

solution for reach the satisfaction of housing market Shorter schedule and environmental benefits

took the next places of priority in motivations for these companies which are also important for sure

Figure 3 3 - Participants motivations to start a modular company

28

9

18

18

27

Economic benefits

Enviromental benefits

Shorter schedule due to the need

High demands of housing in themarket and lack of provide

Innovation


52 | P a g e

bull Built in factory panelssubcontracted panels used in modules

All five companies are manufacturing the panels that used in modules by their own inside the

off-site plant which as it mentioned earlier the selected participants have a variety of production rates

and by this information that they are able build their own panels it can be said that their production

is 100 off-site However in the case of company E which is a massive international modular player

there are some types of modules that are being provided from domestic market because of economic

feasibility issues

Economic issues

bull No of labourLess wages of salaryAdded value in each hour of workneed of

special workforce

Generally the participants mentioned that there fewer number of workers are needed on and

off site in comparison with traditional method About the amount of salary wages company A

confirms that for each hour of work off-site less amount wages are being paid to workers On the other

hand the shorter schedule of projects in modular projects can reduce the payments as well The fact

that most of the participants are emphasizing is that the efficiency of work and added value of

activities off-site are much more than the on-site traditional projects where company A acclaimed

that in terms of efficiency ldquo1 hour in the factory is equal to 4 hours on-siterdquo

Environmental status

bull Life cycle duration of products and material recycle

Company B acclaimed that they do have multiple solutions for each materials that theyrsquore

using in their modules for instance the unusable drywalls and PVC materials which they send for

recycling or the woods that would use into mulch products or for heating by others

Company E told that their products have a 50 years life span which is the same as a lifetime of

traditional build residential house However company C have some difficulties in recycle and reuse of

their elements because of unportable feature of their products

bull Integration the modules with other innovative technologies

Four of these five companies confirmed that their products have the option to integrate with

other innovative technologies such as self-powered homes by solar panels and also using advanced

insulation technics made by non-petroleum materials in their panels to reduce the energy

consumption during operation phase

bull Waste reduction

Company A acclaimed that their production line generates significant amount of 70 less

waste in comparison with traditional method The rest of the companies focused on carbon footprint

reduction and were able to reduce it 15 less that traditional method by choosing environmentally

friendly technologies in production and wise choice of materials for their products

bull Reuse of structural and non-structural elements in projects

Three of five participants confirmed that they have the ability to re-use their products in the

next projects in order to reduce the waste and energy consumption during the manufacturing

processes Type of the projects and material have the direct relation with the potential of reusability

in elements and due to the variety that the participant have in both criterions the potential is variable


53 | P a g e

Figure 3 4 - Re-use potential

bull Reduction in Energy Consumption

Company E mentions that modular construction can achieve a 30 of energy saving in

comparison with traditional site-build method while company A acclaimed that their homes are not

positive from an energy perspective Company B gave more details on energy consumption by making

a comparison between off-site activities and on-site traditional construction and acclaimed that due

to the shorter schedules in off-site production energy consumptions can be reduced up to 50 They

mentioned that ldquoEnergy consumption of a factory is known and relatively constant on a weekly

monthly and annual basis A competent and experienced modular builder can many times finish the

entire project using modules in 8-10 weeks from ground-breaking to issuance of the CO A similar site-

built house could require as much as 4 months for the same completionrdquo

Social Benefits

bull Delivery of projects for emergency services during COVID-19 Period

As it mentioned earlier due to the virus pandemic that is happening at moment in all around

the world a rapid response is needed more than ever for emergency services for health organizations

and according to this survey one of these companies is providing products for this cause which can be

a good news and accounted as a social benefits for this method of construction

Figure 3 5 - Contribution in Covid19 epidemic

bull Providing post-sale services for clients

In contrast with conventional construction which just have the responsibility until the delivery

of the project modular constructors because of their industrial profile have the ability to offer post-

No40

Yes60

Reuse the structuralnon-structural elements projects

No

Yes


54 | P a g e

sale services to the clients such maintenances upgrades etc due to the results of this survey four of

these five companies confirmed the availability of post-sale services for their clients

Figure 3 6 - Post sale services por future clients

Initial costs

bull Initial investment and its Payback period

Company A claims that their initial investment to establish their company was about 20 million

Canadian dollar and its payback period was 5 years Company E had the amount of 15 million USD with

the same 5 years period However company C like many of the older players in modular construction

industry who started way earlier cannot estimate their initial investment

bull Factors that can change the initial costs

There are factors which can make a change in initial costs of companies The participants

prioritized these 6 chosen factors starting with product types and production range with 31 of

importance among others Level of automation took 25 share of the pie chart which has direct

relation with the initial costs Off-site plantrsquos location has 19 of efficiency on starting costs and

furthermore the quantity of sub-contracted players in the projects achieved 13 of the graph Finally

financing and design enhancement have the minimum equal shares of 6 which despite of being the

last factors have the efficiency on initial costs as well

Figure 3 7 - effective factors in initial investments for start-up companies

6

25

31

13

19

6

Factors that effect on initial costs

Design enhancment Level of automation

Product types and production range Less sub-contracted

site location Financing


55 | P a g e

Design limitations

bull Design boundaries caused by production line

Company A mentioned the subassemblies as the main element to be considered in design

phase while company D and company B introduce a maximum dimension for their production lines to

be economically viable for transportation costs In addition to those company C and company E

confirmed that there are no boundaries for the designer caused by the production lines because of

their wise choice of prefabrication methods

bull Lack of knowledge from architectsdesign engineers about production processes

transportation limitations etc

One of the main problems of start-up companies and the experts who join the modular

construction industry is the lack of knowledge about off-site processes and transportation limits

Three of five participants confirmed that there is lack of knowledge in these area from designers

Figure 3 8 - Lack of knowledge among designers and engineers

Transportation Limitations

bull Transportation regulation effects on modular projects

Three of five participants confirmed that the regulation by transport administrative can be

harmful for the projects such as extra costs or time delays on schedule Company A mentioned the

time delays in giving permits to the manufacturers and constructors which can damage the

synchronization between production line and on-site installation by reducing the speed of

transportation of elements to the site Company B added information about transportation system of

some states in America which use the term ldquoSuper Loadsrdquo to put limits on oversized shipping that

increases the cost and time on the project On the other side Company C as a strategy to avoid this

problem used legal load limits in their design instructions so that their products will obey the

regulations

bull Transportation boundaries on material choice and project costs

Company B D and E confirmed that the terms of special transportable material will not add

extra costs on the project Company A acclaimed that the extra costs by transportation can be offset

by speed of production and reduced financing costs for the project


56 | P a g e

Project management challenges

bull Difficulties in using automation in off-site production

In this survey based on literature reviews 4 main reasons for difficulties of using automation

in off-site production were selected to ask the participants Integration with advanced software and

high expenses of application in production line took approximately 60 of importance among others

Codding problem is another major problem in this subject which have 28 of pie chart In addition

company A demanded ldquoAn international coddingrdquo as a solution for this problem The last section

belongs to ldquolower salaries of manual processesrdquo which has the minimum importance of 14 among

participants

Figure 3 9 - challenges of using automation in off-site plants

bull Contracting problems

Starting with company A which acclaims that every state has its own code and the lack of a

universal code can bring challenges for modular players

Company B explained about the misunderstanding by final client who is the end home buyer

who ldquobelieves the factory to be the builder and the actual independent builder to be a sales agent

for the factoryrdquo Their recommended solution for this problem is to define the relationship between

the participants of projects their responsibilities by social media and requiring the builders customer

to sign a disclosure acknowledgement from that describes the relationship in detail

Company C mentioned a financial challenge caused by the banks in the projects that are

financed by them (Banks) which do not consider the project done until erected on-site This issue

creates pressure on cash flow of project where bank finance is involved The only problem that

company E consider in terms of contracts is lack of timing on project delivery which is generally causes

by constructors or general contractors

bull Lack of synchronization between projectrsquos participants

To begin with company A believes that there is a lack of quality partners on site They explain

that the problem starts when on-site participants realize the advantages of modular construction they

tend to increase their prices for services which can increase the final prices of project Another

challenge which modular projects can face is the lack of delivery of project on agreed time with an

unacceptable quality of on-site execution Company B mentioned that the responsibility of ensuring

28

29

29

14

Difficulties in using automation in off-site production

Codding Integration with advanced software Cost Lower salaries of manual processes


57 | P a g e

that the work is done properly belongs to the builder which any ldquodelays in this can result in postponed

transport of product and interest through demurrage charges

bull Sub-contractor for site planning and foundation phase

Company A uses local subcontractors for their site planning and foundation phases because

of variety of locations of their projects and ease of using local subcontractors Company B have only

the responsibility of modules production and defines the customer (the general

contractorindependent builder) responsibility to execute rest of the project phases have sub-

contractors if needed Company C does have sub-contractors for site-preparations and foundation

phases under direct supervision and the reason to not performing by their own is the high costs of

required equipment and not being portable for each project

bull Technology gap between sub-contractor and modular constructor

The only issue that were mentioned by participant is where company A recommended to ldquoto

educate most local subs on our process and reason for doing things a certain wayrdquo

Company B and C acclaimed that there are no challenges for the off-site production

Social challenges

bull Wrong perceptions among public and market

The only value that the market considers choosing modular method over traditional

construction is to be cheaper Company A says

According to company B experience in USA majority of people the media and even

professional engineers do not understand the capabilities of modular construction Many people

continue to confuse this form of construction with HUD on frame products

Another wrong perception that the publicmarket believes is that the prefabrication methods

limits the design options while Company C believe confirms that the reverse is the case

bull Solutions for resolving the wrong perceptions

Company A believes by using one of the main advantages of modular construction which is

shorter schedule the market can be dominated by modular projects and the more cases they deliver

the more recognised this method would be among the public and at the end the superior nature of

modular approach can be proved Company B addresses a solution in a form of cooperation between

builders manufacturers architects and engineers to educate the public by national entities such as

Modular Home Builders Association Company C acclaimed that advertising the modular advantages

among the public would be enough

Data analysis amp conclusions

The data from this survey can be used as an input data and prioritizations for the next chapter

which is decision-making process between four alternatives The solutions and recommendation will

be repeated at the recommendations at the final chapter as well Here are the conclusions about

advantages and challenges in modular construction mentioned by professional participants

Advantages

Economic benefits Generally apart from the other benefits as the participants mentioned

that there fewer number of workers are needed on and off site in comparison with traditional method

and Due to the shorter schedule of projects in modular projects can reduce the payments wages

Other fact that most of the participants are emphasizing is that the efficiency of work and added value

of activities off-site are much more than the on-site traditional projects

Environmental benefits Due to the variety of solutions for each material that they are using

in their modules there is high potential to send the used elements for recycling or would use into

mulch products A long lifetime span is acclaimed for the products which is close to the traditional


58 | P a g e

ones Majority of participants confirmed the literature concept that their products have the option to

integrate with other innovative technologies such as self-powered homes by solar panels and also

using advanced insulation technics made by non-petroleum materials in their panels to reduce the

energy consumption during operation phase In the waste management term there is a possibility for

production lines to generate significant amount of 70 less waste in comparison with traditional

method Moreover about carbon footprint reduction there is ability to reduce it 15 less that

traditional method by choosing environmentally friendly technologies in production and wise choice

of materials for products While there is argue that modular construction can achieve a 30 of energy

saving in comparison with traditional site-build method there are claims that their homes are not

positive from an energy perspective However this idea mentioned that by making a comparison

between off-site activities and on-site traditional construction due to the shorter schedules in off-site

production energy consumptions can be reduced up to 50

Social benefits As it was mentioned in literature reviews there are social benefits in modular

construction that can improve the satisfaction of clients Post-sale services for customers are possible

which is completely opposite to the traditional projectrsquos conditions

Challenges discussion

Initial costs It is obvious that a high amount of investment is needed to stablish an off-site

plant to start prefabrication of construction elements but the payback period is not that long that put

boundaries for start-up future players due to the collected information There are factors which can

make a change in initial costs of companies that are prioritized by the participants starting with

product types and production range level of automation which has direct relation with the initial

costs Off-site plantrsquos location the quantity of sub-contracted players in the projects and finally

financing and design enhancement have the minimum equal shares

Financial aids Financial assists which are crucial for kind of projects that are dependent to

these aids are not harmonized with modular project processes where there are argues that until the

first deliveries of elements to the site location and their assembly these aids are not reachable This

issue creates pressure on cash flow of project where bank finance is involved Changes in contract

conditions and education for financial supporters are recommended solutions to improve the

partnerships in projects

Design boundaries it was mentioned the subassemblies as the main element to be

considered in design phase while some players introduce a maximum dimension for their production

lines to be economically viable for transportation costs However there a possibility to eliminate the

boundaries for the designer by the production lines because by wise choice of prefabrication product

types

Lack of education The idea of lack of education among engineers and architects about off-

site construction methods was proved by the collected information which have to be resolved by

updating the education resources to innovative methods that can improve the productivity rates and

sustainability

Transportation regulations negative effects it is confirmed that the regulation by transport

administrative can be harmful for the projects such as extra costs or time delays on schedule Time

delays in giving permits to the manufacturers and constructors which can damage the synchronization

between production line and on-site installation by reducing the speed of transportation of elements

to the site A strategy to avoid this problem used legal load limits in their design instructions so that

their products will obey the regulations

Choice of transportable material effect In contrast with literature review which mentioned

the idea of extra costs by choices of transportable material this survey confirmed that the term of


59 | P a g e

special transportable material will not add extra costs on the project Moreover the extra costs by

transportation can be offset by speed of production and reduced financing costs for the project

Automation use challenges Integration with advanced software and high expenses of

application in production line took approximately 60 of importance among others Codding problem

is another major problem in this subject In addition ldquoAn international coddingrdquo was mentioned as a

solution for this problem Every state has its own code and the lack of a universal code can bring

challenges for modular players ldquolower salaries of manual processesrdquo has the minimum importance

Defining responsibilities boundaries There is a misunderstanding by final client who is the

end home buyer who ldquobelieves the factory to be the builder and the actual independent builder to

be a sales agent for the factoryrdquo Their recommended solution for this problem is to define the

relationship between the participants of projects their responsibilities and requiring the builders

customer to sign a disclosure acknowledgement from that describes the relationship in detail

Lack of partnership among projectrsquos participants There is a lack of quality partners on site

The problem starts when on-site participants realize the advantages of modular construction they



unacceptable quality of on-site execution The professionals answered that the responsibility of

ensuring that the work is done properly belongs to the builder which any ldquodelays in this can result in

postponed transport of product and interest through demurrage chargesrdquo

Wrong perception of publicmarket The only value that the market considers choosing

modular method over traditional construction is to be cheaper while majority of people the media

and even professional engineers do not understand the capabilities of modular construction Many

people continue to confuse this form of construction with HUD on frame products Another wrong

perception that the publicmarket believes is that the prefabrication methods limits the design

options while some players believe that the reverse is the case Therefore by using one of the main

advantages of modular construction which is shorter schedule the market can be dominated by

modular projects and the more cases they deliver the more recognised this method would be among

the public and at the end the superior nature of modular approach can be proved Another solution is

a form of cooperation between builders manufacturers architects and engineers to educate the

public by national entities such as Modular Home Builders Association

Modular Construction potential advantages and common challenges | Masoud Veiskarami Chapter 4 Decision making process among modular and traditional alternatives with MIVES

60 | P a g e

4 Decision making based on potential advantages among three

modular alternatives and conventional construction method in a

project by MIVES software Methodology

Objective

To identify the advantages of modular construction in comparison with traditional method

literature review can be made and by analysing each criterion such as economic and environmental

criteria potential benefits can be recognised However to find out how much practical these benefits

are in the market several trade-offs must be done by professional tools such as project management

software programs which can take decisions based on the input data that receive

The objective of these thesis is to examine the practicality of modular construction by taking

the best decision among 4 alternatives including a conventional armed concrete building with steel

modular concrete modular and timber modular methods and see that the mentioned advantages can

lead the methods to become the best option to choose for building the project as a project

management point of view

What is MIVES

In order to make the most sustainable and reasonable decision among the alternatives a multi-

criteria decision-making program was used called ldquoMIVESrdquo MIVES is the acronym for Modelo

Integrado de Valor para una Evaluacioacuten Sostenible which means Integrated Value Model for a

Sustainable Assessment It is a multi-criteria methodology for decision making It allows transferring

the different characteristics of the objects to be evaluated to a series of homogeneous and

quantifiable parameters which facilitate the objectification of the choice

The MIVES methodology consists of creating a model that defines all the characteristic

features of the elements to be evaluated assigning them a function that allows converting the

different peculiarities of the alternatives into a common unit which we will call value Once the

amount of value for each alternative is obtained it can be used for a sustainable evaluation

(wwwdecaupcedu)

Data collection process

Case Study references

bull Journal of Cleaner Production (WAHammad 2019)

(httpsdoiorg101016jjclepro201904150)

This Fabolous multi-criteria comparison was done between two methods of conventional and

steel modular building in two cases case A which is a normal residential building and case B a school

building to measure the sustainability level of them in economic environmental and social areas The

location of this was considered in Sydney and central coast Australia and four BIM models had been

designed for each alternative in both cases The total floor area of Case A is 63 m2 (87m x 72m)

When adopting modular construction the granny flat is designed from 2 modules each module is

36m x 87m Case A was chosen as the study case to focus on because of type of the project that is

residential building


61 | P a g e

Figure 4 1 - Floor plans of case studies considered Case A) granny flat was chosen for this study (WAHammad 2019)

The purpose of this journal is to add sustainability criteria as main factors for constructors to

make a multi-dimension decision whether to use Modular construction for a project or continue with


Figure 4 2 - Cleaner Production journal methodology for make a comparison between modular and conventional methods

(Akbarnezhad 2019)

bull A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of concrete and steel-prefabricated

prefinished volumetric construction structures in Malaysia (Ali Tighnavard

Balasbaneh 2020)

(httpsdoiorg101007s11356-020-10141-3)

This researchrsquos focus is to compare two types of volumetric modules function in terms of cost

and LCA factors such as Greenhouse emission etc on a residential project with the approximate area

of 105m2 located in Malaysia based on local regulations Prefabricated Concrete Modules (PCM) and

Prefabricated Steel Modules (PSM) were considered for this project Recently Malaysian

administrative system has been pushing the companies and researchers to investigate on these types


62 | P a g e

of construction methods in order to measure the benefits and obstacles of using them in future project

and try to resolve the productivity problem in construction industry The construction industry in

Malaysia has been labelled ldquounproductiverdquo for its reliance on a large labour force and its use of non-

prefabricated strategies at a proper scale (Balasbaneh 2020)

Figure 4 3 - Architectural plan of residential project build with PCM and PSM (Balasbaneh 2020)

bull Modular vs Conventional Construction A Multi-Criteria Framework Approach

published at ISARC 2017 (AWA Hammada and A Akbarnezhad 2017)

This paper did a comparative analysis in cost time and carbon emissions by BIM models

Material and equipment libraries and existent databases on a project in the North-West of Sydney

involves the construction of a granny flat with dimensions 14 m by 16 m

Figure 4 4 - Case study of residential building studied (Hammad and Akbarnezhad 2017)

The framework of this papers based on the BIM model analysis with input data project actual

projectrsquos budget material and equipment used in the construction and environmental information in

database and then a comparative study on emissions during constructionmanufacturing schedule

and costs of project for crew material and equipment (Figure 45)


63 | P a g e

Figure 4 5 - Framework for comparing between construction methods (Hammad and Akbarnezhad 2017)

bull Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable

building modules published on Energy and Building (Lu Aye 2011)

(httpsdoiorg101016jenbuild201111049)

Aye and his team did a LCA study on three alternatives PSM PCM and PTM which were used

in a multi-residential building with 63 apartment units with area of 63 m2

Figure 4 6 - Architectural section of multi-residential building (Aye 2011)

The modules in this study were categorized in 4 main elements Exterior walls with insulation

panels Interior walls used for internal separation which mostly build with timber frames and plaster

boards Floors with plywood material on topping in all alternatives and ceilings with thick plaster

boards and steel concrete and timber parts as main elements (Figure 47)


64 | P a g e

Figure 4 7 - Structural elements used in modules (Aye 2011)

bull Comparing Environmental Impacts of Building Modular and Conventional Homes in

the United States published at Construction Matters (John Quale 2012)

(httpsdoiorg101111j1530-9290201100424x)

Quale did also a comparative analysis focused on Environmental emissions on two PTM and

Conventional Timber building Three residential modular companies generally representative of the

eastern US modular industry supplied data on completed projects for this study including utility

bills worker commuting information building materials and waste procedures construction

schedules employee schedules and other relevant information (Quale 2012) 186 m2 two-story

home that is a model for one of the companies involved in the study

Figure 4 8 - Architectural section from the side and front of the two-story building (Quale 2012)


65 | P a g e

Input data

4221 Alternatives

Four alternatives were selected for these study which are one conventional armed concrete

(Reinforced concrete RC) structure prefabricated steel modules (PSM) prefabricated concrete

modules (PCM) and prefabricated timber modules(PTM) that are most common solutions used by

contractors in the construction industry

4222 Requirement tree

These are groups of criteria which define a function to be evaluated A requirement usually

has several criteria Five requirements were selected based by literature review and the expertrsquos

opinions collected by survey among industrial players who were the participants of this questionnaire

Economic R1 time R2 environmental R3 safety R4 and social R5 requirements arranged in a way that

can examine the advantages adequately Time requirement were separated from economic one

because of importance due to high priority that have in the market to be chosen by the constructors

and clients In other words some clients and private builders choose the prefabrication methods such

as modular construction to save more time due to tight schedule that the project have Social and

safety requirements usually not being considered in sustainable decision-making processes but on this

study were included because the sustainability is not the only factor in project management

4223 Criteria

For each requirement a series of criteria are defined Criteria are the specific concepts that

the indicators contain the minimum unit to be quantified (wwwdecaupcedu) Each criterion was

chosen based on the importance among others efficiency on the project and availability of actual

amount and quantities in real cases over literature resources In other words the both advantages

and their functionality that modular construction have in comparison with traditional methods were

the main drivers to choose a criterion for each requirement as it mentioned earlier For economic

requirement cost of the project R1C1 was the only criteria that was considered which in the literatures

is expected to save 20 by choosing modular method in final cost (McKinsey amp Company 2019) while

experts in survey believe that the cost of transportation of prefabricated elements to the site can

compensate the difference with traditional method To examine these two opinions these criteria was

chosen In Time section the projectrsquos schedule R2C1 was only criteria to measure the important

advantage that the modular construction has Both literatures and expert agreed the time saving that

modular approach can bring to the project which is about 50

Figure 4 9 - Requirement tree and criteria for the decision-making program (MIVES)

R1 - Economic

R1C1 - Project cost

R2 - Time

R2C1 - Project schedule

R3 - Environmental

R3C1 - Energy consumption

R3C2 - Waste generation

R3C3 - Material consumption

R3C4 - Noise Polution

R3C5 - Greenhouse gas emission

R3C6 - Recycle

R3C7 - Embodied energy

R4 - Saftey

R4C1 - Injury risks

R4C2 - Protection from natural cuases

R5 - Social

R5C1 - Job status

R5C2 - Quality


66 | P a g e

Seven criteria were chosen to cover the environmental requirements for this decision-making

process based on the available data in literatures However in this section not only advantages of

modular methods were considered but in some areas conventional reinforced concrete showed

better results and this fact can improve the liability and practicality of final decision For instance the

embodied energy of steel modular building is 30 more than the conventional during the construction

but the saving caused by re-useability of element in modular method can almost compensate the gap

between these two methods Energy consumption R3C1 which is the energy consumed during the

constructionfabrication amount of Waste generated R3C2 in all alternatives Material consumption

R3C3 in each method Noise pollution R3C4 Greenhouse gas emission R3C5 Recycle of elements R3C6

and Embodied energy for each method were chosen in this section

Safety issue as it has mentioned before was added to decide further than sustainability

concept boundaries which include two criteria Injury risk for workers R4C1 and Protection of project

from nature causes R4C2

Finally Social benefits which are not as main factors to be considered by construction players

to use the modular methods but are important enough to pay attention and were compared as well

by two criteria Job status R5C1 and Quality R5C2

4224 Indicators

The indicators for this study came directly from scientific articles which most of them were

published few months ago and it can be said that the data which were used for this study is updated

with the latest achievements in modular construction industry

To begin with for economic measurements two indicators for the project cost were selected

total project cost R1C1I1 and costs stability R1C1R2 Total project cost R1C1I1 for conventional RC

alternative means the final cost of construction including all the activities until the delivery of building

In modular alternatives PSM PCM and PTM includes the module fabrication in off-site plants

transportation installation on-site and final finishing of building after the assembly phase All

indicators are based on ldquoAustralian dollarsrdquo units (AUSD) because of the recourse quantities that was

used for this study which will be discussed more later Second indicator which is the costs stability

(R1C1R2) was chosen because of the common off-site production economic advantage that is

stabilizing the costs for the projectrsquos budget because of high quality of product more repetition of

elements and more accurate supervision on activities which leads to less reworks and less extra costs

etc

Total project schedule R2C1I1 is the first indicator for time requirement which include the

amount of time to fabricate transport and final assembly of the modules on-site in modular

alternatives and the final schedule of the conventional project during construction activities until the

delivery of the building which all are based on ldquodaysrdquo it was mentioned earlier that in off-site

production the project schedule can be estimated and controlled more adequately so that second

indicator which is time stability R2C1I2 was introduced to the study

Environmental requirement was studied in various features as it said before in 7 criteria which

shows the complexity of comparisons between alternatives First indicator is the Energy utilized during

construction R3C1I1 based on ldquoMJrdquo units Solid Waste R3C2I1 is the only indicator for Waste

generation criteria that focuses on the amount () of waste which was produced during

constructionfabrication activities in all four activities In material consumption criteria the total

amount of materials that was used for constructionfabrication of elements R3C3I1 is appointed as an

indicator to compare the benefits in each alternative based on ldquoKgrdquo Noise reduction in off-site

construction is another benefit that it has and to discuss this fact among the alternatives Average A-

weighted equivalent sound level of each construction equipment R3C4I1 based on ldquodBrdquo units was

focused on Greenhouse gas emission among alternatives was measured in CO2 that was produced

during constructionfabrication activities R3C5I1 based on ldquoKGrdquo units Two indicators were introduced


67 | P a g e

for recycle criteria between four alternatives recyclability or possibility of recycling of elements

R3C6I1 and Re-use of elements (Products) in projects R3C6I2 based on Percentages Embodied energy

was the last criteria which was focused on with two indicators Embodied energy used R3C7I1 in ldquoGjrdquo

units and Embodied energy saved by re-use of elements in percentages among alternatives

For safety measurements two indicators were selected for two criteria which are injury risk

level R4C1I1 for injury risk criteria and Protection level R4C2I1 for protection from nature causes both

in a qualitative unit

Job stability R5C1I1 for comparing the job status in terms of security of jobs among two

methods and new job creation R5C1I2 to analyse the possibility of providing new job positions which

is crucial in these era in construction industry were chosen in qualitative unit

The last criteria in social requirement which is quality of projects was presented with one

indicator of quality satisfaction of client R5C2I1 in qualitative unit to compare the clientrsquos satisfaction

level between alternatives Table 4 1 - Requirement tree with all indicators which considered for decision making process

Requirements Criteria Indicators

(R1) Economic (R1C1) Project Cost (R1C1I1) Total Project Cost

(R1C1I2) Cost Stability

(R2) Time (R2C1) Project schedule (R2C1I1) Total Project Schedule

(R2C1I2) Time Stability

(R3) Environmental

(R3C1) Energy Consumption (R3C1I1) Energy Utilized during construction

(R3C2) Waste Generation (R3C2I1) Solid Waste

(R3C3) Material Consumption (R3C3I1) Material Consumed in project

(R3C4) Noise Pollution (R3C4I1) Average A-weighted Equivalent sound Level of each instrument

(R3C5) Greenhouse Gas Emission (R3C5I1) Co2 in constructionfabrication

(R3C6) Recycle (R3C6I1) Recyclability of Elements

(R3C6I2) Re-use of elements

(R3C7) Embodied Energy (R3C7I1) Embodied Energy Used

(R3C7I2) Embodied Energy Saved

(R4) Safety (R4C1) Injury Risks (R4C1I1) Injury Risk Level

(R4C2) Protection from Nature Causes (R4C2I1) Protection Level

(R5) Social (R5C1) Job Status

(R5C1I1) Job Stability

(R5C1I2) New Job Creation

(R5C2) Quality (R5C2I1) Quality Satisfaction of Client

The input data for indicators are categorized in 4 types direct data calculated data estimated

data and qualitative data The reason for not having only direct data is the lack of enough literature

researches on this subject and in some cases the data were published two months before the date of

this study The variety of alternatives which is the first time that a study is going to analyse 3 modular

alternatives and a traditional method added difficulty to find useful data to do the decision making

reliable Moreover 5 articles were used for finding the correct data which each of them focused on

different alternatives The orientation of this study is the Cleaner Production journal by professor

Hammad that was published in 2019 which was mentioned earlier The reason of this orientation is

that most of the data came from this article and is more updated than the others


68 | P a g e

bull Direct Data

The direct data were the information that was related precisely to the alternatives without

any needs to change For instance the cost of the construction in Hammadrsquos article which can be used

without any changes The green parts on the Table 42 shows the direct data which are related to the

Hammadrsquos article Table 4 2 - PSM modules data with direct data shown in green parts which no changes are needed to be done on them

bull Calculated Data

In many indicators because of lack of existence in directly related data for alternatives a sort

of calculations were needed to change the data from other articles that related to alternatives that

are not focused in main case (Hammadrsquos article) to actual data based on the area of main article by

using accurate coefficients and ratios For instance in Hammadrsquos article CO2 was not estimated for

Prefabricated Steel Modules (PSM) alternative but Ayersquos CO2 data which is for total area of 3943m2

with 63 apartments each area of 628 m2 (close to 625 m2 area of Hammadrsquos granny flat) was used

by dividing on 63 apartments units so that results 54079 kg of CO2 for steel modular equivalent for

main case The yellow parts show the calculated data for indicators

3407000119896119892 1198881199002 divide 63 119906119899119894119905119904 (6251198982) = 54079119896119892 1198881199002 for steel modules in main case

Table 4 3 ndash PSM modules final data with yellow parts show the calculated data based on other studied

bull Estimated Data

Third type of input data were the necessary data which are not existed on any of literatures

of have to be estimated based on the qualitative information professional survey which have been

done before the decision making process (Chapter 3) and researcherrsquos opinions Fortunately in many

areas the data could be applied on other alternatives because of similarity of activities off-site and

onsite For instance for PCM alternative the noise and Injury risk level are approximately the same

the indicators of PSM case that have mentioned in Hammadrsquos article which are shown in green parts

in Table 42 because of similarity of off and on site activities during construction

The blue parts are the estimated data that were considered for PCM alternative based on

mentioned resources For instance the time indicator can be predicted 24 days few days more the

steel modules which is around 22 days because of the fact that concrete modules are heavier than

steel ones and has more complexity in structure for being produced that adds difficulties on

transportation process which leads to more delays on the schedule Table 4 4 - PCM data with estimated data (blue) Calculated data (yellow)

Refrences Cost Time CO2 Material Waste Noise Injury riskEnergy utilized Re-useEmbodied energyEmb saved

Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593

Balasbaneh 222580 9623

Akbarnezhad 97000 28 68768

Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813

Units AUDMLYR Days kg tons dB - MJ GJ


Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813

Units AUD Days kg kg dB - MJ GJ


Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



69 | P a g e

bull Qualitative Data

This data was added because of two reasons first the lack of existence of direct data on

literatures and improve the literatures background on this subject and secondly to have more

influence from variety of benefits that modular construction has on the decision making process

Numbers of literatures insisted on advantages that can affect the decision making but did not

included on their data analyses at the end and this research decided to include these data and see

that how much functional can be in the decision making between alternatives in point of project

management view For instance cost stability which is better coordinated in off-site construction and

can be considered as an advantage to the decision making is not included in the literatures during

analysis and in this study is a vital factor for the economic criteria In order to add this indicator a

qualitative range was considered from 0 to 10 and four alternatives based on their functionality in cost

stability in project budget were compared to each other Traditional reinforced concrete building

which because of common reworks etc have less stability in final budget estimation On the other

side PSM and PTM which have the most repetition in manufacturing processes and ease of production

because of material type have the maximum cost stability of 9 out 10 among the others and PCM that

has less ease in production have less cost stability than other modular alternatives with 8 out of 10 Table 4 5 - Qualitative indicators

Final indicators

bull Prefabricated Steel Modules indicators (PSM)

As it mentioned before the direct data which are shown in green at table 46 do not need any

changes as they belong to the main case study while other indicators are still needed to be calculated

estimated and often considered qualitatively Aye case study have the closest data to the main case

study because of similarity of project type and dimensions so that the necessary indicators such as

material consumption waste generation percentage re-use amount and embodied energy indicators

can be calculated from this analytical study (For more information about indicators resources please

see Annex 1-A) Table 4 6 - First hand data over literature

A simple calculation is needed and that is dividing the CO2 emission Material

consumption and Embodied energy used amounts in Aye project on 63 apartment units with the

same area of 625 as main case in Hammads residential flat ldquoWaste amountrdquo ldquore-use of elementsrdquo

and ldquoembodied energy savedrdquo can be applied on the main case because of similarity of material

choices

IndicatorsAltertanives TRC PSM PCM PTM

Cost stability 6 9 8 9

Time stability 6 9 8 9

Recycleability of elements 3 8 7 9

Protection level 2 9 9 9

Job stability 5 8 8 8

New job creation 3 8 8 8

Quality satisfaction 5 9 8 9


Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593



Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813



70 | P a g e

Table 4 7 - Final Indicators with direct data (Green) and calculated data (Yellow)

bull Prefabricated Timber Modules indictors (PTM)

As it can be seen in table 48 there are no enough data over literature in many areas and due

to the necessities for this study a range of calculations and estimation have to be made based on the

similarity of projects among study cases and survey information Table 4 8 - First hand data over literature

Starting with Cost of the project which an ldquoestimationrdquo based on literature review information

and qualitative comparisons (John quale 2012) (Lu Aye2011) that is approximately 45000 AUD

because it proved that the cost of Timer modules is even cheaper than Steel Modules due to simplicity

of material choice and structure design The schedule of PTM building is shorter than the other

alternative because of numbers of reasons such as less weight of elements which can lead to faster

transportation loading and offload in assembly process on-site In addition the manufacturing lines

are simpler than other modular alternatives because of high repetitions and simplicity in design

For ldquocarbon emissionrdquo and ldquomaterial consumptionrdquo Aye project was used by diving on 63

apartment units which have the same area of 625 m2 as main case In terms of ldquowaste generationrdquo a

unique article was used (by Doyoon 2008) which did a LCA study on Timber modular building and the

amount of wastematerial consumed was about 9 The Noise level and Injury risk can be applied

from other modular alternative because of similarity of construction activities and equipment used

for fabrication Energy utilized during construction of Timer modules have the minimum amount in

comparison with other alternatives because of simplicity of material choice and design enhancement

so that was estimated 80MJ which is slightly less than steel modules with 86 MJ

Re-use of elements in timber modular elements was confirmed by survey among the

constructors over than 70 with a life span of 50 years Embodied Energy used was collected from

Aye case study dividing on 63 apartments units as same as other cases which equals to 65671 GJ

(Table 49) Table 4 9 - Final indicators with Calculated data (Yellow) and Estimated data (Blue)

bull Prefabricated Concrete Modules indicators (PCM)

The least focus on modular alternative was on Concrete Modules which is because of few uses

that this method has among the projects Balasbaneh study focused on a comparison between Steel

modules and Concrete modules in total project cost and LCA Table 4 10 - First hand data over literature


Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813


Refrences Cost Time CO2 Material Waste Noise Injury risk Energy utilized Re-use Embodied energy Emb saved

Aye 2500000 996 356 41373 691

Quale 13600



Final 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691




Units MLYR Days kg tons dB - MJ GJ


71 | P a g e

However the currency of this economic analysis is not as AUD (Australian Dollars) as the main

study Therefore to calculate the cost and CO2 footprint corresponding to main study case a ratio

was obtained between concrete modules amounts and steel modules in Balasbaneh study and then

multiplied to the steel modules quantities in Hammadrsquos main case and resulted project cost of

5188603 AUD and 46442 kg of CO2 emissions

Figure 4 10 - Balasbaneh Comparison in project cost (left) and CO2 (right) between PCM and PSM alternatives

239380 divide 222580 = 1075478 119862119900119904119905 119903119886119905119894119900 (Balasbaneh study case)

482446 times 1075478 = 5188603 119860119880119863 Total project cost of PCM

8264 divide 9623 = 085877 1198621198742 119903119886119905119894119900

54079 times 085877 = 46442 119896119892 CO2 of PCM

The time indicator was estimated based on steel modules but with this difference that

concrete modules weight more than steel ones so that puts pressure on the transportation and

assembly phases and causes delays in the schedule as a result 24 days was predicted to finish the

project

There is no available information on the literature with specific quantitative details however

based on the qualitative structural information prefabricated concrete modules PCM because of their

similarity of material choice to conventional model have a massive material use in comparison with

Steel and Timber alternatives so that an estimated total material consumed of 20000kg assigned for

this indicator (Aye 2011) (Balasbaneh 2020)

Waste generation have a higher ratio in this alternative because of material choices which

generate more waste than other modular alternatives With this fact in mind the waste ratio

considered slightly more than steel kind with 10 (Aye 2011)

Noise level and Injury risk can be applied from other types because of similarity of equipment

and construction activities in all three modular alternatives (Hammad 2019)

Energy utilized during construction in PCM Alternative can be estimated more than steel ones

because of types of materials used in these modules and their high weight with value of 90MJ (Aye

2011)

The structural elements are ldquonotrdquo built in material which have a high recyclability potential so

that decreases the Re-use ratio to 20 approximately in comparison with other modular alternatives

(Aye 2011)


72 | P a g e

Embodied energy used amount and its potential saving have the minimum value in a

qualitative comparison with other alternatives which respectively values of 800GJ and 60 were

estimated for them (Aye 2011) Table 4 11 - Final indicators for PCM

bull Traditional Reinforced Concrete (TRC) final indicators

The highest focus over the literature is to make a comparison between one of the modular

options and a traditional method which results more availability for direct data for Traditional method

The main case study is not an exception with almost half of the value are available directly such as

Project cost Time Noise level Injury risk and Energy utilized during construction which are shown in

green at table 412 (Hammad 2019) Table 4 12 - TRC first-hand data over literatures

Nevertheless still there are values that must be calculated over literature Green gas emission

indicator and Embodied Energy used were calculated form Ayersquos case study by dividing the values on

63 apartment units which results 3620635kg Co2 emission and 6033 GJ of 625 m2 area as same as

main case study (Aye 2011) (Hammad 2019)

Material consumption have the same methodology as carbon footprint with final value of

626825kg which is massively higher from modular alternatives (Aye 2011) (Hammad 2019)

Waste generation was calculated qualitatively from a literature resource called ldquoModular

Construction for Multifamily Affordable Housingrdquo by WSP which acclaims that the conventional site-

built method produces around 25 times more construction waste (WSP 2018) Thus TRC waste

generation is more than 25 times of modular ones with the value of 15

Two values of Re-use and Embodied energy saved by Re-use of elements were obtained from

Ayersquos case study respectively 22 and 322 (Aye 2011) Table 4 13 - Final indicators for TRC with direct data (green) and calculated data (yellow)

In general the table 414 shows the References and final indicator values that were used for decision

making process (Direct data are shown in Green Calculated data in yellow and estimated data in

blue)

Table 4 14 - Final Quantitative indicators used for decision making process


Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



Hammad 812298 6598 71 217 198

Akbarnejad 120000 67 84672

Aye 2281000 3949 22 38008 322



Final 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322



PSM 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813

PTM 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691

PCM 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60

TRC 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322


Refrence Ham Aye Balas Hammad Balas Aye Aye Doyoon WSP Aye Hammad Hammad Hammad Aye Aye Aye


73 | P a g e

Weights

The Weights (Pesos in MIVES) which are one of the most important factors in decision making

process have be assigned on the data in a way that the priority of each section in terms of efficiency

and importance can decide which value will have among the others AHP method was used to assign

weights on the data In AHP you get the weights through the subjective importance of each element

with respect to the others (Alejandro Josa 2012)

bull Weights of requirments

The importance of requirmenets was assumed based on proffessional survey among

constructors architects sales agents and clients in order to know the demands of market and make

the decision rely on what market expects from a innovative method According to the survey time

reduction is the first priority for choosing the modular methods by constructors and future clients so

than acheived 30 of weight Economic issues came after the time factor because of unconsistency

between responds about cost saving on the budget or offseting the expenses gap by tarnsportation

extra costs on the project Economic requirement has 27 of weight In some regions the priority of

choosing an innovative method are environmental emissions waste generation and recycleability of

products Therefore environmental requirement came after the economic one with 25 of weight

As it mentioned before Social and safety advantages are included in this decision making

process with respectly weights of 13 and 5 because of their less priorities among clients and market

players Table 4 15 - Requirement weights

Requirement Economic Time Environmental Safety Social

Weights 27 30 25 13 5

bull Weights of criteria

In cost and time of project which are single criteria have 100 of weights However for

instance in environmental and AHP method must be used to assign the weights based on the

importance in an environmental consideration The amount of emission that construction activities

can produce and the amount of negative effect on the global environment have been considered for

AHP method in weight assignment process Energy consumption and material consumption have the

priority to consider in LFA analysis because the consumption of primary resources have to be

minimized in a project at the first step and then the emission have to be reduced by changing the

processes etc Finally the ability to re-use and recycle and elements must be improved (Mohammad

Kamali 2017) (John Quale 2012) (Marta Gangolells 2014) Therefore Energy Consumption and

Material consumption have the most weight of 17 Embodied energy with 16 and waste generation

Greenhouse Gas emission and Recycle achieved 15 of weight At last noise Pollution took the least

priority of weights with 5 Table 4 16 - Weights of criteria

bull Weights of Indicators

Both of Economic and Time indicators divided to two sub-categories project cost and time and

their stability ratios with 80 and 20 weights by AHP method

Criteria that are single indicator obviously have 100 of weights However there are two

indicators in recycle criteria Recyclability and Re-use of elements with 40 and 60 weight

respectively Moreover Embodied Energy have is divided to Embodied energy used which is more

CriteriaEnergy

consumption

Waste

generation

Material

Consumption

Noise

pollution

Greenhouse

gas emissionRecycle

Embodied

energy

Weights 17 15 17 5 15 15 16


74 | P a g e

important than the other that is saving in embodied energy by re-use because as it mentioned before

in the first place the use have to be minimized and then actions such as re-use of elements have to be

done 70 of weight for Embodied energy use and 30 for Saved Embodied energy are assigned Job

stability and New job creation with weights of 50 each are the Job status indicators (Figure 411)

Figure 4 11 - Weights assigned on the Requirements criteria and Indicators in MIVES software

Value function play an important role on deciding which comparative final value can each

indicator have among the other indicators for each alternative To evaluate the sustainability index

(Is) of each alternative solution value functions assigned and were used (Alarcon et al 2011) The

generic form of a value function is represented by Table 417 which allows to assess the sustainability

(satisfaction) associated with each indicator by transforming the physical units to a dimensionless

value between 00 and 10

Equation 4 1 - Functionality of value function elements

In Eq (41) B is the value of indicator(Iind) for Xmin Xmin is the minimum abscissa value in the

indicator interval assessed X is the abscissa value for the indicator assessed Pi is a shape factor which

defines whether the curve is concave (Pi lt 1) convex (Pi gt 1) linear (Pi = 1) or S-shaped (Pi gt 1) (see

figure 412) Ci approximates the abscissa at the inflexion point Ki tends towards (Iind) at the inflexion

point B the factor that prevents the function from exceeding the range (0 1) is obtained by Eq (42)

Xmax being the abscissa value of the indicator that gives a response value of 1 for increasing value

functions


75 | P a g e

Equation 4 2 - B value equation

Figure 4 12 - Possible forms of the value function

Due to the lack of existence of resources for assigning the specific value functions for modular

alternatives some hypotheses that can increase the feasibility and sustainability of project were

considered for the shape P K and C values to select the best form of abacus

In the other side maximum and minimum satisfaction points were selected on the

expectations of a project management view For instance in total project cost indicator case

minimum satisfaction point is 82000 AUD that is slightly more than the traditional reinforced concrete

alternative project cost (812298 AUD) because of the fact that those alternatives should be

considered as a reasonable options which can make saving in final budget Moreover the same rule

can be applied for maximum satisfaction point which is close to the Timber Modular alternative (45000

AUD) to minimize the final budget as much as possible The shape of the abacus was selected as

Convex shape (Convexa in MIVES) because even the least economic saving that an alternative can

achieve have a positive effect on the satisfaction of project and can be given any positive points in a

scale of ldquo0 to 10rdquo But the more the curve closes to the traditional alternative budget the les

satisfaction it can receive (Figure 413)

Figure 4 13 - Value function for total project cost in MIVES


76 | P a g e

The following Table 417 includes the value functions which were used for the rest of the

indicators Table 4 17 - Value function for indicators in MIVES

Data analysis

Indicators Values

Indicator data were translated to general normalized values shown in Table 418 amp 419 based

on the given value functions that earlier assigned This step is crucial for next analyses which will be

done to result the criteria and requirement values which lead to sustainability Indexes that can take

the multi-criteria decision As it can be seen these values have the same range of 0 to 1 so that can be

compared in with a common unit Comparisons are obvious in this level because of single value

orientation of each indicator however on following analysis there will be multi-criteria comparisons

which can achieve useful data for future decision-making process Table 4 18 - Indicators normalized values

Table 4 19 ndash Indicator normalized values

Indicators Lower limit Upper limit Max satisfaction Min satisfaction P K C Shape

Total Project Cost 30000 90000 43000 82000 05 05 79900 Concave

Cost stability 0 10 10 5 05 05 55 Concave

Total Project Time 20 75 20 68 05 05 632 Concave

Time stability 0 10 10 5 05 05 55 Concave

Energy Utilized 75 220 80 205 05 05 1925 Concave

Solid Waste 0 100 0 18 08 05 162 Concave

Material Consum 10000 70000 12000 63000 05 05 57900 Concave

Noise Level 58 78 62 72 05 05 71 Concave

CO2 32000 60000 32000 55000 05 05 52700 Concave

Recyclability 0 10 10 0 05 05 1 Concave

Re-use 0 100 60 0 05 05 20 Concave

Embodied energy 600 950 600 915 05 05 8835 Concave

Embodied saved 0 100 90 30 05 05 36 Concave

Injury risk 0 4 155 22 05 05 2135 Concave

Protection level 0 10 10 0 1 001 1 Lineal

Job stability 0 10 9 4 1 001 45 Lineal

New job creation 0 10 10 0 05 05 5 Concave

Quality Satisfaction 0 10 10 0 1 001 5 Lineal

R1C1I1 R1C1I2 R2C1I1 R2C1I2 R3C1I1 R3C2I1 R3C3I1 R3C4I1 R3C5I1

TRC 016 051 024 051 027 029 01 034 092

PSM 094 092 098 092 098 082 099 088 023

PCM 09 081 097 081 097 059 093 088 065

PTM 098 092 1 092 1 064 097 088 085


TRC 073 026 1 024 024 021 02 063 05

PSM 095 094 023 095 094 09 08 092 09

PCM 092 068 064 077 094 09 08 092 08

PTM 098 084 092 085 094 09 08 092 09


77 | P a g e

Criteria Values

MIVES analysed each criterion by single or multi-indicator normalized values and resulted

values with a same range of 0 to 1 for following comparisons Table 4 20 - Criteria normalized values

Table 4 21 - Criteria normalized values

To begin with Project Cost (R1C1) criteria values shows that Almost three modular

alternatives performed 3 times more than the traditional method positively caused by hugely less total

project cost (R1C1I1) and great cost stability (R1C1I2) in project final budget The minimum value

belongs to PTM with 097 and slightly more than PSM and PCM is the next alternative with a value of

088 and at last TRC with 023 (Figure 414)

Figure 4 14 - Criteria normalized values

The comparison between modular alternatives in terms of which one can save time on the

schedule is close and it can be said that all three can make the project executed more than 3 times

shorter than traditional approach Timber steel and concrete options with respectively 098 097 and

094 values were compared to the conventional concrete method with 029 value (Figure 415)

R1C1 R2C1 R3C1 R3C2 R3C3 R3C4

TRC 023 029 028 029 009 032

PSM 094 097 099 083 099 088

PCM 088 094 096 059 094 088

PTM 097 098 101 064 096 088

R3C5 R3C6 R3C7 R4C1 R4C2 R5C1 R5C2

TRC 091 045 083 024 021 040 052

PSM 024 096 048 095 090 088 092

PCM 064 077 072 095 090 088 080

PTM 085 091 096 095 090 088 092


78 | P a g e

Figure 4 15 - Project Schedule

ldquoEnergy saving potentialrdquo in modular methods are close to the maximum satisfaction point

with timber solution and steel modules while concrete option is on the chase with 096 While

Traditional alternative only have 28 of satisfaction level

ldquoWaste generationrdquo among the alternatives have a different attitude while traditional method

with value of 029 has the most ratio of material waste production modular alternatives are

performing better where steel option have the most reduction with value of 083 and follow to that

timber and concrete options respectively 064 and 054 values PCM alternative as it said before

because of similarity of material choice to TRC have the minimum performance among the other

three (Figure 416)

Figure 4 16 - Waste generation ratios

ldquoMaterial consumptionrdquo criteria are dominated by modular methods which have a high

satisfaction with over than 09 normalized values while TRC performance can be concerning for the

primary resources with 01 normalized value

Previously on this report the fact was mentioned that off-site construction can benefit the

environment with noise reduction during construction activities based on literatures and this study

confirms this advantage by 088 values of all three modular alternatives and 032 value of traditional

RC which is less than half of modular options


79 | P a g e

A highlight of this study is about the comparison of CO2 Emissions of alternatives during the

constructionfabrication activities which traditional method have the minimum contamination with a

value of 091 and follow to that Timber option with 085 which is close to the TRC method Later to

that Concrete modules have a value of 064 and the minimum satisfaction belongs to the steel

modules with 024 normalized value This result bring uncertainty to the fact that modular

construction can reduce the Greenhouse gas emission to 30 over the literature review

Figure 4 17 - CO2 Emission normalized values

This study shows that the prefabricated steel modules have the highest potential of recycle

and re-sue in the projects among the other options with a value of 096 because of the material choice

repetition in element manufacturing and long lifetime of structural parts which were mentioned in

literatures Slightly less than PSM Timber solution have 091 value that can confirm the concept of

recyclability for wooden modules which was mentioned by participants in professional survey as well

Figure 4 18 - Recyclability and re-use potential of alternatives

There is a discussion about the amount of embodied energy used during the lifetime of each

alternative and the potential of future saving by re-use of elements in projects which effect the total

embodied energy consumption in construction

As the Figure 419 explains traditional method has the maximum satisfaction level in terms

of consumption while steel modules have the least satisfaction of life cycle embodied energy used of


80 | P a g e

023 PTM have a better value of 091 which shows that Timber solution can be reliable among the

others

However this study resulted that the most re-use value belongs to steel option with 095

value that and other two timber and concrete modules respectively with 085 and 077 can

compensate the gap with traditional method that has only 024 Totally PTM was able to offset the

difference by the re-use potential and achieve the most satisfaction total value of 096 Later

traditional reinforced concrete method with 088 still proves its abilities over other two modular

alternatives

Figure 4 19 - Embodied energy consumption and saving potential by reuse

In terms of safety modular alternatives because of their off-site nature can provide a high

satisfaction level with values of 095 in injury risks for workers and 090 protection from nature causes

which confirms the theory of safety advantage of modular construction over traditional methods from

literature studies (Figure 420)

Figure 4 20 - Safety advantage of modular construction over traditional method

Social benefits which were mentioned in literature review section also had been examined in MIVES

system and the job stability and job creation in modular construction can benefits the construction

society in significant way among the regions that have employability ratio problem


81 | P a g e

Figure 4 21 - Social criteria

Requirement Values

After analysis on criteria functions general values of each requirement were related to

alternatives achieved which can examinate all four construction methods to know which option is

more suitable in terms of Economic time environmental safety and social issues

The Table 422 below demonstrates the Requirements normalized values for each alternative Table 4 22 - Requirement normalized values for four indicators

bull Economic and Time requirements

As the graph illustrates Modular methods have a significant performance in economic and

time terms with the maximum values of 097 and 094 in Time and 098 and o97 in Economic

requirement for Timber and then Steel modules-based methods respectively Traditional reinforced

concrete option showed a poor functionality in cost and time of project with minimum values of o29

and 023 in order (Figure 422)

Figure 4 22 - Time and Economic comparison between four alternatives by normalized values analysed by MIVES

Requirements Economic Time Environmental Safety Social

TRC 023 029 045 022 046

PSM 094 097 075 093 088

PCM 088 094 078 093 084

PTM 097 098 088 093 088


82 | P a g e

bull Environmental requirement

Generally all three modular approaches have beaten the traditional method with almost

double of normalized values in comparison

Despite the poor performance of steel modules in Greenhouse gas emissions and Embodied

Energy used in construction in total numbers proved that can provide the environmental demands

better than traditional option with a value of 075 which is third modular alternative in overall

Prefabricated Timber modules obtained the maximum value of 088 which claims not only

most economic option but environmentally friendly among other relatives and following to that

Concrete modules with value of 078 shows its liability to be chosen in case of need while the

traditional concrete method which includes most of the used materials n PCM but in a on-site plant

only can achieve a satisfaction value of 045 among the others (Figure 423)

Figure 4 23 - Environmental Comparison among modular approaches and traditional kind

bull Safety and social requirements

The dominance of Modular construction in safety and social requirements over conventional

option can be seen in Figure 424 which can raise the possibility of modular methods to be the best

decision over the traditional option to construct this residential project As it was mentioned before

these two criteria must be considered in any decision-making process because of their high

importance in construction industry

Figure 4 24 - Modular dominance in safety and social requirements over conventional option


83 | P a g e

Sustainability Values (Final decision)

Finally the sustainability Indexes can be obtained to claim which alternative will be decided

as the most sustainable option for the main studyrsquos project to be build The needs of market such as

short project schedule cheaper budget reduction in environment emissions and ability to

recyclereuse safety measures and social benefits put effects on this decision as previously

mentioned

Table 423 explains that Prefabricated Timber Modules (PTM) is most sustainable alternative

among the other with a perfect normalized value of 094This could be because of its shorter schedule

of construction lowest total budget and excellency in environmental performance among the other

alternatives

The second-best alternative is Prefabricated Steel modular method which achieved a value of

09 that is slightly less than the PTM option In couple areas Steel modules had poor results even less

than traditional method however due to priorities of market and industry this alternative was able

to compensate its gaps and beat the conventional option and other PCM relative Table 4 23 - SI (Sustainability Indexes related to four alternatives)

Prefabricated concrete acclaimed the sustainability value of 088 which is more than double

the traditional of its kind (032) which shows the superior nature of off-site construction even in closest

material choice to the conventional construction methods This fact explains the fact that materials

enhancement is not the only factor that can improve the sustainability of a method but off-site plant

fabrication standardization of elements use of automation and applying the concept of repetition on

production line can make a significant impact on sustainability performance

Figure 4 25 - Sustainability Index which makes the final decision among the alternatives

TRC PSM PCM PTM

SI 032 090 088 094

Modular Construction potential advantages and common challenges | Masoud Veiskarami Chapter 5 Conclusions amp future studies

84 | P a g e

5 Conclusions Decision making process



criteria etc However to find out how much practical these benefits are in the market several trade-

offs must be done by professional tools such as project management software programs which can

take decisions based on the input data that receive MIVES software was used in this study to

examinate these benefits The resources for this type of studies are limited due to the lack of focus or

newfound nature of this subject and only five of them were selected because of their variety of their

criterion studies reliability and accuracy of data Requirements criteria indicators and weights that

were used in MIVES had been selected based on demands of market and professional opinions

received from the survey and availability of data over references After assigning the value functions

which are related to satisfaction level on each criterion (For instance cost reduction time saving and

minimization of emissions) normalized values were achieved that can be compared between

alternatives with range of 0 to 1

Conclusions and discussion

ECONOMIC ndash TIME discussion

bull Decision-making result

Generally all three modular alternatives have beaten the traditional method with almost

double of normalized values Modular methods had a significant performance in economic and time

terms with the maximum values in Time and Economic requirements for Timber and then Steel

modules Traditional reinforced concrete option showed a poor functionality in cost and time of

project with minimum values

Literature reviews information

These Results confirm the 50 of time saving in projectrsquos schedule (McKinsey amp Company

report 2019) and 20 of cost reduction on the budget which was mentioned also in numbers of

literatures

Professional survey confirmation

In addition the claims from professional participants in survey about the 50 cost reduction

due to the added value of every hour of work in comparison with traditional stick and build on-site

method can be approved even far more those expectations

ENVIRONMENTAL discussion

bull Recyclability and re-use potential

This study showed that the prefabricated steel modules have the highest potential of recycle

and re-sue in the projects among the other options because of the material choice repetition of

elements in manufacturing line and long lifetime of structural parts which were mentioned in

literatures Slightly less than PSM Timber solution can confirm the concept of recyclability for wooden

modules which was mentioned by participants in professional survey as well

bull Embodied energy used and saving by re-use

There is a discussion over the literature and survey participants about the amount of

embodied energy used during the lifetime of each alternative and the potential of future saving by re-

use of elements in projects which effect the total embodied energy consumption in construction

where one of the companies acclaims that ldquoour homes are not positive in energy consumption

aspectrdquo Traditional method has the maximum satisfaction level in terms of consumption while steel


85 | P a g e

modules have the least satisfaction of life cycle embodied energy used PTM have a better value of

091 which shows that Timber solution can be reliable among the others However this study resulted

that the most re-use value belongs to steel option and other two timber and concrete modules

respectively can compensate the gap with traditional method Totally PTM was able to offset the

difference by the re-use potential and achieve the most satisfaction Later traditional reinforced

concrete method still proves its abilities over other two modular alternatives

bull Greenhouse gas emission

Despite the poor performance of steel modules (PSM) in Greenhouse gas emissions that bring

uncertainty to the fact that modular construction can reduce the Greenhouse gas emission to 30

over the literature review and Embodied Energy used in construction proved that can provide the

environmental demands better than traditional option which is third modular alternative in overall

comparison

bull Most environmentally friendly alternative

Prefabricated Timber modules obtained the maximum value which achieves not only most

economic option but environmentally friendly among other relatives Following to that Concrete

modules shows its liability to be chosen in case of need while the traditional concrete method which

includes most of the used materials of PCM but in an on-site plant only can achieve the minimum

value

Comparison with literature review information and survey outputs

This comparison explains the truth about the concept of being environmentally friendly about

modular construction that have been mentioned in various scientific articles (McKinsey amp Company

report 2019) (M Kamali 2016) and the survey results which confirmed the concept in real cases at

the market over years of experience

SAFETY AND SOCIAL dominance by modular methods


option was resulted which can raise the possibility of modular methods to be the best decision over

the traditional option to construct this residential project As it was mentioned before these two

criteria must be considered in any decision-making process because of their high importance in

construction industry Social benefits which were mentioned in literature review section also had been

examined in MIVES system and the job stability and job creation in modular construction can benefits

the construction society in significant way among the regions that have employability ratio problem

FINAL DECISION MAKING BASED ON SUSTAIABLITY INDEXES

Prefabricated Timber Modules (PTM) is most sustainable alternative among the other with a

perfect normalized value of 094This could be because of its shorter schedule of construction lowest

total budget and excellency in environmental performance among the other alternatives




to compensate its gaps and beat the conventional option and other PCM relative



material choice to the conventional construction methods This result explains the fact that materials





86 | P a g e

Effective external factors on decision

The decision was made for the best alternative in terms of sustainability for a specific

residential case located in Sydney Australia among three modular options and one traditional

method However there are factors which can affect the final decision obviously Such as the location

of the project which the availability of primary resources can change the or alternatives or number of

indicators The local market and their demands for specific products can be crucial for choosing the

best method which affect the priorities of weights Regulation of every regions as it was mentioned

before can change the project requirements and indicators

The type of the project was a residential building that has its own characteristics but for

instance a school or hospital project would demand a higher functionality and lifetime because of their

distinctive operation kind and evidentially can be considerable in decision-making process to the end

step Special project due to their unique requirements often do not consider all criterions For

instance emergency health stations demanded during the Virus pandemic period have their own

material choose design enhancement and priorities on requirements

Future studies

Due to novelty of this subject there are numbers of studies still remained without coverage

which might be studied in future


modular and traditional constructors

Due to the lack of information over literature there were so many elements that have been

estimated by hypothesis and survey information therefore it is crucial to find these data in order to

do a precise study with real numbers These data can be obtained by requests to industry players to

have access of real project details including budget schedule material consumptions etc By this

action the liability of the study can be improved and accurate results can be achieved Thus a

decision-making process can be done to find out which alternative can be more sustainable


and on-site visits

There are still uncertainties about the status of use of automation productivity rate etc which

have to be analysed closely Modular construction was suggested as an example of industrialization in

construction industry to improve the productivity rate but corresponding to past survey the majority

of constructors are not benefiting from automation in their production lines and assembly processes

A study is needed on different phases of a project that have to be monitored and analysed scientifically

in order to find challenges errors and possible solutions to make this method even more sustainable


adequate solutions

Challenges have to focused more on this method because its players are still suffering from

the incompatibility of construction industry and the projectrsquos old conditions with innovative solutions

Series of interviews with experts factory visits etc have to be done to hear the voices of them and

then researchers to find solutions to update the industry and help them for growth

Modular Construction potential advantages and common challenges | Masoud Veiskarami Chapter 6 Recommendations

87 | P a g e

Recommendations


construction

Numbers of contrasts where found in the data and results among literatures professional

participants of survey and the decision-making study which shows a poor status of cooperation

between scientific researchers and professional players in the construction industry It is obvious that

the real data from the constructors designers etc in real projects are more reliable than scientific

estimation which in this case were based on BIM models and approximate calculations without any

interruption effects of common challenges in industry There were few participants who did not want

to share their project details in public or even education purposes or in a case one of the most

innovative players in modular industry responded their lack of available time to respond the survey

by direct email These attitudes can increase the gap between two vital elements for improvement

which are science and industry in construction society and to reduce it cooperation must be increased

specially in off-site society

Education about industrialization in construction and its alternatives

The idea of lack of education among engineers and architects who enter the professional

society about off-site construction methods was proved by the collected information from survey

participants which can cause problems in the projectrsquos design coordination and execution processes

These series of errors must be resolved by updating the education resources about innovative

methods such as off-site construction industrialization in construction concept rather than traditional

on-site methods that still occupy most of the educational courses these actions can improve the

common challenges in construction industry such as productivity problem and sustainability rate by

encouraging the researchers even far beyond the boundaries of investigations and make the way

possible to find more innovative solutions such as robotic fabrication 3D concrete printing etc

Establishing international and regional adequate codes

Use of automation is suggested by the researchers and industry players to raise the

productivity and sustainability in construction as the other industries which resulted positively

However constructors and manufacturers are suffering from a lack of exitance of international united

codding for their production line and boundaries and uncertainties by local regulations

To resolve these issues participants addressed an international code similar to what on-site

traditional methods have which the responsibility of creation of these codes are on the shoulders of

researchers and professional experts with a mutual partnership that is only possible with cooperation

of industry with science as it mentioned before

Synchronizing the contract conditions with modular construction conditions

There are numbers of problems in terms of contract conditions such as misunderstanding by

final client who is the end home buyer who ldquobelieves the factory to be the builder and the actual

independent builder to be a sales agent for the factoryrdquo one of the participants mentioned A

recommended solution for this problem is to define the relationships between the participants of

projects their responsibilities For instance requiring the builders customer to sign a disclosure

acknowledgement from that describes the relationship in detail In addition there is a lack of quality

partners on site The problem starts when on-site participants realize the advantages of modular

construction they tend to increase their prices for services which can increase the final prices of

project Another challenge which modular projects can face is the lack of delivery of project on agreed

time with an unacceptable quality of on-site execution The professionals answered that the


88 | P a g e

responsibility of ensuring that the work is done properly belongs to the builder which any ldquodelays in

this can result in postponed transport of product and interest through demurrage chargesrdquo

These problems must be solved by defining unique types of contracts that are adapted with

the off-stie construction nature and be obeyed by all the participants globally


its potential advantages in social media etc


construction is to be cheaper while majority of people the media and even professional engineers do

not understand the capabilities of modular construction Many people continue to confuse this form

of construction with HUD on frame products Another wrong perception that the publicmarket

believes is that the prefabrication methods limits the design options while some players believe that

the reverse is the case Therefore by using one of the main advantages of modular construction which

is shorter schedule the market can be dominated by modular projects and the more cases they

deliver the more recognised this method would be among the public and at the end the superior

nature of modular approach can be proved Another solution is a form of cooperation between


Modular Home Builders Association Many of these wrong perception and misunderstandings can be

clarified by well-organized advertisements about several advantages that modular construction have

in comparison with conventional methods

Changes in financial strategies and adapting them with off-site construction nature

Financial assists which are crucial for kind of projects that are dependent to these aids are

not harmonized with modular project processes where there are argues that until the first deliveries

of elements to the site location and their assembly these aids will not be reachable This issue creates

pressure on cash flow of project where bank finance is involved Changes in contract conditions and

education for financial supporters are recommended solutions to improve the partnerships in

projects

Modular Construction potential advantages and common challenges | Masoud Veiskarami Anexo A

89 | P a g e

6 References 1) Balasbaneh AT Ramli MZ A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of concrete and

steel-prefabricated prefinished volumetric construction structures in Malaysia Environ Sci

Pollute Res (2020) httpsdoiorg101007s11356-020-10141-3

2) Doran D and Giannakis M (2011) An examination of a modular supply chain a

construction sector perspective Supply Chain Management Vol 16 No 4 pp 260-

270 httpsdoiorg10110813598541111139071

3) Lawson RM Ogden RG Bergin R 2012 Application of modular construction in high-rise

buildings Journal of Architectural Engineering httpsdoi101061(ASCE)AE1943-

55680000057

4) Diez R et al (2007) lsquoAUTMOD3 The Integration of Design and Planning Tools for Automatic

Modular Constructionrsquo International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems httpsdoi

1057725671

5) Lee J Park M Lee H ampamp Hyun H (2019) Classification of Modular Building

Construction Projects Based on Schedule-Driven Approach Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management 145(5) 04019031 httpsdoi101061(asce)co1943-

78620001656

6) Barbosa F Woetzel J Mischke J Ribeirinho M Sridhar M Parsons M Brown S

(2018 July 09) Reinventing construction through a productivity revolution Retrieved

September 28 2020 from httpswwwmckinseycomindustriescapital-projects-and-

infrastructureour-insightsreinventing-construction-through-a-productivity-revolution

7) Quale J Eckelman MJ Williams KW Sloditskie G and Zimmerman JB (2012)

Construction Matters Comparing Environmental Impacts of Building Modular and

Conventional Homes in the United States Journal of Industrial Ecology 16 243-253

httpsdoi101111j1530-9290201100424x

8) Horwitz-Bennett Barbara (2020) Rising to the challenge sl Modular Building Institute

(MBI)

9) Lu N amp Korman TM (2010) Implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in

Modular Construction Benefits and Challenges

10) Institute Modular Building 2019 Permanent Modular Construction Canada Modular

Building Institute

11) Josa A (2012) Introduccioacuten a MIVES y el anaacutelisis multicriterio Jornada sobre la Importancia

de un meacutetodo para la toma de decisiones modelo MIVES para una ingenieriacutea sostenible


90 | P a g e

12) Aye L Ngo T Crawford R H Gammampila R amp Mendis P (2012) Life cycle greenhouse

gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules Energy and

buildings 47 159-168

13) Kamali M amp Hewage K (2016) Life cycle performance of modular buildings A critical

review Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 62 1171-1183

14) Lawson M Ogden R Goodier C (2014) Design in Modular Construction London CRC

Press httpsdoiorg101201b16607

15) Generalova E M Generalov V P amp Kuznetsova A A (2016) Modular buildings in modern

construction Procedia engineering 153 167-172

16) Thompson J (2019) Modular Construction A Solution to Affordable Housing Challenges

Cornell Real Estate Review 17(1) 21

17) Modular construction for multifamily affordable housing (2018) WSP

httpscdnymawscomwwwnibsorgresourceresmgrosccepa-modular-construction-

forpdf

18) Hammad A W A amp Akbarnezhad A (2017) Modular vs conventional construction a

multi-criteria framework approach In ISARC Proceedings of the International Symposium on

Automation and Robotics in Construction (Vol 34) IAARC Publications

19) Ferdous W Bai Y Ngo T D Manalo A amp Mendis P (2019) New advancements

challenges and opportunities of multi-storey modular buildingsndashA state-of-the-art review

Engineering Structures 183 883-893

20) Bertram N Fuchs S Mischke J Palter R Strube G amp Woetzel J (2019) Modular

construction From projects to products McKinsey amp Company Capital Projects amp

Infrastructure 1-34

21) Hsu P Y Aurisicchio M amp Angeloudis P (2020) Optimal logistics planning for modular

construction using multi-stage stochastic programming Transportation Research Procedia

46 245-252

22) Rausch C Nahangi M Perreault M Haas C T amp West J (2017) Optimum assembly

planning for modular construction components Journal of computing in civil engineering

31(1) 04016039

23) Connor G Jones C E amp Finney S J (2014) Easing future low voltage congestion with an

AC chopper voltage regulator httpsdoi 101061(ASCE)CO1943-78620001001

24) Ahn Y H amp Kim K T (2014) Sustainability in modular design and construction a case

study of lsquoThe Stackrsquo International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban

Development 5(4) 250-259


91 | P a g e

25) Gunawardena D Mendis P Ngo D Aye L amp Alfano J (2014) Sustainable prefabricated

modular buildings httpsdoi 10131402148473920

26) Olearczyk J Al-Hussein M Bouferguene A amp Telyas A (2009) Virtual construction

automation for modular assembly operations In Construction Research Congress 2009

Building a Sustainable Future (pp 406-415)

27) Woźniak-Szpakiewicz E (2016) EU migrant crisis and increasing demand for modular

construction modular social housing complex for refugees in Munich In Back to the Sense

of the City International Monograph Book (pp 921-931) Centre de Poliacutetica de Sogravel i

Valoracions

28) Wunderlich-Malec 2019 The Modular Solution to Reduce Total Construction Costs

httpswwwslidesharenetJoelGil2wuderlich-malec-engineering-modular-construction

29) HAMMAD AWA AKBARNEZHAD A WU P WANG X and HADDAD A 2019 Building

information modelling-based framework to contrast conventional and modular construction

methods through selected sustainability factors Journal of Cleaner Production [en liacutenea] vol

228 pp 1264ndash1281 ISSN 0959-6526 DOI httpsdoiorg101016jjclepro201904150

Disponible en httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0959652619312296

30) HONG J SHEN GQ LI Z ZHANG B and ZHANG W 2018 Barriers to promoting

prefabricated construction in China A costndashbenefit analysis Journal of Cleaner Production

[en liacutenea] vol 172 pp 649ndash660 ISSN 0959-6526 DOI

httpsdoiorg101016jjclepro201710171 Disponible en

httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0959652617324782

31) LOPEZ D and FROESE TM 2016 Analysis of Costs and Benefits of Panelized and Modular

Prefabricated Homes Procedia Engineering [en liacutenea] vol 145 pp 1291ndash1297 ISSN 1877-

7058 DOI httpsdoiorg101016jproeng201604166 Disponible en


32) NEELAMKAVIL J 2009 Automation in the Prefab and Modular Construction Industry [en

liacutenea] Sl sn DOI 1022260ISARC20090018 Disponible en

httpwwwiaarcorgpublicationsproceedings_of_the_26th_isarcautomation_in_the_pref

ab_and_modular_construction_industryhtml

33) SANTIAGO M ALBERTO J MARIA NJ and PATRICIA G 2008 Building industrialization

robotized assembly of modular products En M ONORI (ed) Assembly Automation [en

liacutenea] vol 28 no 2 pp 134ndash142 ISSN 0144-5154 DOI 10110801445150810863716

Disponible en httpsdoiorg10110801445150810863716

34) McGeorge D amp Zou P X (2012) Construction management new directions John Wiley amp

Sons

35) Fieldwire (2018) Why the Construction Industry Is Stuck in the Past

httpswwwfieldwirecomblogis-construction-stuck-in-the-1960s


92 | P a g e

36) Construction industry - Office for National Statistics (2019) ONS

httpswwwonsgovukbusinessindustryandtradeconstructionindustry

37) Timmer M P O Mahony M amp Van Ark B (2007) EU KLEMS growth and productivity

accounts an overview International Productivity Monitor 14 71

38) Smith A (2011 September 22) Agile and Lean for Construction SlideshareNet

httpswwwslidesharenetadrianlsmithagile-and-lean-for-construction-9384237

39) The massive opportunity of digitization in Engineering amp Construction (2019)

JourneyappsCom httpsjourneyappscomblogmassive-opportunity-digitization-

engineering

40) Tapscott D amp Tapscott A (2018) Blockchain Revolution How the Technology Behind

Bitcoin and Other Cryptocurrencies Is Changing the World (Reprint ed) Portfolio

41) Can Blockchain Fix the Construction Industryrsquos Productivity Problem (2018) Enstoa

httpsenstoacomblogcan-blockchain-fix-construction-industrys-productivity-problem

42) Itanola M (2019 June 5) Hey Quantity Surveyor is BIM going to take your job Blaze

Threads httpswwwblazethreadcomhey-quantity-surveyor

43) BIM Community (2017) Remodeling Construction Industry with Digitization BIM and

Reality Capture httpswwwbimcommunitycomnewsload563remodeling-

construction-industry-with-digitization-bim-and-reality-capture

44) Kolarevic B (2003) Digital production Architecture in the digital age design and

manufacturing 38-63

45) Labonnote N Roslashnnquist A Manum B amp Ruumlther P (2016) Additive construction State-

of-the-art challenges and opportunities Automation in construction 72 347-366

46) Kapoutsis A C Chatzichristofis S A Doitsidis L de Sousa J B Pinto J Braga J amp

Kosmatopoulos E B (2016) Real-time adaptive multi-robot exploration with application to

underwater map construction Autonomous robots 40(6) 987-1015

47) Khoshnevis B (2004) Automated construction by contour craftingmdashrelated robotics and

information technologies Automation in construction 13(1) 5-19

48) R Alice (2019) CRYSTAL PALACE SHOWER TALK httpsbloginoxstylecomencrystal-

palace

49) Eba (2014) HISTORY ldquoballoon framingrdquo the first prefabricated building system (US)

Architecture for the 99 httpslikemyplacewordpresscom20140214history-balloon-

framing-the-first-prefabricated-building-system-us

50) Peter Goumlssel Arnt Cobbers Oliver Jahn (2012) A Brief History of Prefab ArchitectureWeek

httpwwwarchitectureweekcom20121003design_1-1html


93 | P a g e

51) Merin G (2018) AD Classics Habitat 67 Safdie Architects ArchDaily

httpswwwarchdailycom404803ad-classics-habitat-67-moshe-safdie

52) Sveiven M (2018) AD Classics Nakagin Capsule Tower Kisho Kurokawa ArchDaily

httpswwwarchdailycom110745ad-classics-nakagin-capsule-tower-kisho-kurokawa

53) Modular Building Experience | Deluxe Modular (2020)

httpswwwdeluxemodularcomexperience

54) Applications | Modular Construction | Bathroom Pods (2020) Howick Ltd

httpswwwhowickltdcomapplicationsmodular-constructionbathroom-pods

55) Project types (2018) Panel built httpswwwpanelbuiltcomblogmodular-building-types

56) Mobile Mini Merger - WillScot (nd) Willscot httpswwwwillscotcomAboutMobile-

Mini-Merger

57) Teague L (2017) Urbantainer breaks down the negative stereotypes of modular building

Frameweb httpsframewebcomarticleurbantainer-breaks-down-the-negative-

stereotypes-of-modular-building

58) Modular construction (nd) SteelconstructionInfo

httpswwwsteelconstructioninfoModular_construction

59) Modular V (2020) What Is Modular Building Construction Your Ultimate Guide Vanguard

httpsvanguardmodularcomabout-modular

60) Permanent Modular Construction Annual Report 2019 | Modular Building Institute (2019)

MBI httpswwwmodularorgHtmlPageaspxname=pmc-2019-home

61) Modular Construction Foundation (2020) Triumph Modular

httpswwwtriumphmodularcomabout-triumphour-servicesconstruction-

managementfoundations

62) Weights and Dimensions (2020) ITF httpswwwitf-oecdorgweights-and-dimensions

63) Sajip J (2019) Modular Construction A Sustainable Building Method NY-Engineers

httpswwwny-engineerscomblogmodular-construction-a-sustainable-building-

methodWeights and Dimensions (2020 August 28) ITF httpswwwitf-oecdorgweights-

and-dimensions

64) Muresan F (2019) What is Modular Construction NY-Engineers httpswwwny-

engineerscomblogwhat-is-modular-construction

65) ADVANTAGES of using SurePods prefabricated modular bathroom pods (nd) SurePods

httpswwwsurepodscomspeed


94 | P a g e

66) EasyPads - The easy-to-use foundation system for modular buildings (2019 March 23)

EasyPads - Foundation System httpseasypadscouk

67) Honrubia M amp Mendonccedila A (2019 June 18) The Benefits of Reusable and Modular

Constructions Ennomotive httpswwwennomotivecomreusable-modular-

constructions

68) Cosentino (2020) Discover Cosentino and all the characteristics of its materials

httpswwwcosentinocom

69) Al-Hussein M Manrique J D amp Mah D (2009) North Ridge CO2 analysis report

comparison between modular and on-site construction University of Alberta Canada

70) Vickers H (2017) Modular construction 4 health and safety benefits Building 4 Education

httpsb4edcomArticlefour-health-and-safety-benefits-of-modular-construction

71) PRISM (2020) HGA and The Boldt Company build STAAT ModTM critical care units to

address the COVID-19 hospital bed shortage PRISM Modular construction 4 health and

safety benefits Building 4 Education httpsb4edcomArticlefour-health-and-safety-

benefits-of-modular-construction

72) Harrouk C (2020 September 28) Mayor of London Launches Housing Design App to

Transform Construction ArchDaily httpswwwarchdailycomauthorchristele-harrouk

73) Schoenborn J (2012) A case study approach to identifying the constraints and barriers to

design innovation for modular construction (Doctoral dissertation Virginia Tech)

74) Casas prefabricadas inHAUS (nd) servicio post-venta casa modular archivos InHAUS

httpscasasinhauscomfranceestagservicio-post-venta-casa-modular

75) Catalunya U U P (nd) MIVES mdash Departamento de Ingenieriacutea Civil y Ambiental mdash UPC

Universitat Politegravecnica de Catalunya UPC httpsdecaupceduesproyectosmives

76) Kim D (2008) Preliminary Life Cycle Analysis of Modular and Conventional Housing in

Benton Harbor MI (Doctoral dissertation)

77) Gangolells M Casals M Forcada N amp Macarulla M (2014) Analysis of the

implementation of effective waste management practices in construction projects and sites

Resources conservation and recycling 93 99-111

78) Alarcon B Aguado A Manga R amp Josa A (2010) A Value Function for Assessing

Sustainability Application to Industrial Buildings Sustainability 3(1) 35ndash50

httpsdoi103390su3010035


95 | P a g e

Anexo 1

a) Indicators resources

o Prefabricated Steel Modular (PSM)

Table A1 1 ndash Cost of project PSM (Hammad 2019)

Table A1 2 -Time of project PSM (Hammad 2019)

Table A1 3 - Energy utilized during construction (Hammad 2019)


96 | P a g e

Figure A1 1 - Injury risks for workers (Hammad 2019)


Table A1 4 - Material consumption amp Embodied energy used and Embodied energy saved amp Re-use amount (Aye 2011)


97 | P a g e

Figure A1 3 - Co2 amount (Aye 2011)

o Prefabricated Concrete Modular (PCM)

Figure A1 4 - Total project cost (Balasbaneh 2020)



98 | P a g e

Figure A1 6 - Currency converter MYR to AUD (wwwxecomcurrencyconverter)

Figure A1 7 - Greenhouse gas emission (Balasbaneh 2020)

o Prefabricated Timber Modular (PTM)

Figure A1 8 - Co2 emission (Aye 2011)


99 | P a g e


o Traditional Reinforced Concrete (TRC)

Table A1 6 6 - Projects cost (Hammad 2019)

Table A1 7 - Projects schedule (Hammad 2019


100 | P a g e

Table A1 8 - Energy utilised during construction process (Hammad 2019)


Figure A1 10 - Noise level (Hammad 2019)


101 | P a g e

Figure A1 11 - Greenhouse gas emission (Aye 2011)

Table A1 9 - Re-use amount Embodied energy used and Embodied energy saved (Aye 2011)

Modular Construction potential advantages and common challenges | Masoud Veiskarami Anexo B

102 | P a g e

Anexo 2 1 Survey Q amp A

Q How many years of experience do your company have in modular construction

industry Table A2 1 - Professional experience of the company

Company Responses

A 10-15

B 10-15

C 20-30

D 20-30

E 30-50

Q How many years of experience do you have in the modulartraditional construction

and what is your job position Table A2 2 - Personal experience of participant

Company Responses

A 15 years

B 13 years sales manager

C 30 years of which the last 25 have been as design architect

D Quantity Surveyor

E 3 years Foreign Trade Manager

Q What types of modules your company products in terms of material Table A2 3 - Type of modules

Company Responses

A Wood Steel

B Wood

C Wood

D Wood

E Counter and Fibber cabins Steel

Q Which types of projects you did so far Table A2 4 - Type f projects

Company Responses

A Residential houses

B Schools Residential houses Commercial buildings

C Residential houses

D Schools Residential houses Hospital Commercial buildings

E Schools Residential houses hospital Commercial buildings


103 | P a g e

Q Num of employees num of factories and num of modules build Table A2 5 - Characteristics of production range

Company Responses

A 80 employees 1 factory 200 modsyear

B 130 1 490

C 15

D 50 Employees 2 factories 80 build

E 250 employees 2 factories 100000 m2 prefabricated 5000 containers 1000 cabinets TURKEY

Q What was your motivation to choosework in modular construction Table A2 6 - Motivation for doing modular construction

Company Responses

A High demands in market and lack of provide Innovation

B Economic profit

C Environmental benefits High demands in market and lack of provide Innovation Shorter construction schedule due to need Economic profit

D Shorter construction schedule due to need Innovation

E Economic profit

Q Do you have sup-contracts for your panels or they had built in your factories what

is the reason for this decision Table A2 7 - Panel production conditions

Company Responses A build our own

B PE design and approvals fire suppression design and installation ceramic tile Energy Star design and inspection are all subcontracted

C All built in house in our own workshop We have developed our own unique systems which are not available elsewhere

D build in factory - programme cost

E

EPS isolated panels are produced in our factories The other are being purchased from domestic market Standard is EPS isolation and its fixed costs are lower because of quantity The others are not standard investment in production is not feasible

Q What is the level of automation technologies you use in off-site and on-site

production and assembly Table A2 8 - Level of automation

Company Responses

A Extraordinarily little today investing in this heavily this year want to get to 80

B 20

C Off-site 60 on site 20

D 20

E 60


104 | P a g e

Q Does A modular project have a smaller number of labours Less wages of salary off-

site and on-site due to specialization of workforce Does the more value added in

each hour of work can compensate Table A2 9 - Laboral status

Company Responses

A Fewer labour hours and at less cost per hour 1 hour in the factory is equal to 4 on site

B Prefabricated systems-built modular construction generally has a smaller on-site labour force for a shorter period

C Labour similar but more efficient working off site

D Yes (less no of workers and wages) - no need for special work force

E -

Q Do you have any case of recycle and reuse the structuralnon-structural elements in

your projects Table A2 10 - Recycle and Re-use

Company Responses

A Yes

B Yes

C No

D No

E Yes

Q Do you upgrade the modules with other environmentally friendly technologies such

as solar panels in your projects Please give us some examples Table A2 11 - Innovative technology integration

Company Responses

A Our homes are all self-powered only company in the world to be doing this

B

This factory allows for site installation of solar panels and other energy savings processes on site by the independent builderbuyer of our modular building materials Modular makes the most sense to be used by architects and builders with environmentally friendly tech

C

Modules (flat packed floor wall and roof components) are constructed of ply and highly insulated with non-petroleum-based insulation (recycled glass as a fibre) Solar panels fitted as an add on to completed building

D None yet not been asked

E Solar technology is YES

Q Automation in off-site production generates less or more waste of material There

are some argues about less waste generation in manual activities because of better

sense of material resistance by normal labour (wooden material for instance) Table A2 12 - Automation status on waste generation

Company Responses

A we are not automated yet but believe automation will be much more efficient use of materials

B In our experience as a custom modular manufacturer automation has a significant cost that may not be recoverable for many months if not years- millions of dollars in cost of


105 | P a g e

components set up and training versus hourly wage and benefits of trained factory workers

C Waste is much reduced and a proportion of the waste is remanufactured to smaller items or sold on to handymen

D Would be less waste but we do not use much automation

E -

Q How much reduction does off-site modular construction has in generating ldquowasterdquo in

comparison with traditional construction methods Table A2 13 - Reduction of waste

Company Responses

A 70 less waste

B I am unable to provide an answer to this question

C

As we are timber people emissions are low regardless of construction methods Steel and concrete use are kept to a minimum and these are the high emission materials

D We are still working on our carbon footprint

E 15 less carbon emission

Q How much reduction has in ldquoenergy consumptionrdquo off-site in comparison with

conventional on-site construction What about during the operation phase Table A2 14 - Energy consumption status

Company Responses

A Our homes are not positive from an energy perspective

B

Energy consumption of a factory is known and relatively constant on a weekly monthly and annual basis The modular components for a two-box ranch style house require 3 workdays on our factory floor and 4 more days in final finish prior to shipment A competent and experienced modular builder can many times finish the entire project using modules in 8-10 weeks from ground-breaking to issuance of the CO A similar site-built house could require as much as 4 months for the same completion

C Not assessed but doubt there is much difference


E 30 energy saving

Q Did you deliver any projects for providing emergency services in Covid-19 period You

can mention the projects in the other section Table A2 15 - Delivery of projects in COVID-19 pandemic period

Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes

Q Did you construct any projects for world aid organizations and charities You can

mention them in the other section


106 | P a g e

Table A2 16 - Aid organization project delivery

Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes

Q Do you offer post-sale services to your clients Table A2 17 - Post-sale services to client

Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C Yes

D Yes

E Yes

Q How much was your initial costs estimate (Factory set up etc) How long was the

investmentrsquos payback period Table A2 18 - Initial costs

Company Responses

A 20 million Canadian dollar 5-year payback

B What costs Factory set up or cost of modular product sold to builders What about labour engineering transportations etchellip

C The business has been building up over decades so it is not possible to isolate specific costs

D -

E 15 million USD 5 years

Q Which factors can change the initial costs Table A2 19 - Effective factors on initial costs

Company Responses

A Level of automation Product types and production range Less sub-contracts Site location

B Design of modular building- ie roof system high wind heavy snow loads etchellip Product types and production range Site location

C Financing Level of automation Product types and production range Less sub-contracts

D Level of automation Product types and production range Site location

E Level of automation Product types and production range

Q Can component re-use building portability and the life cycle value of materials be

used as a strategy to ldquocompensaterdquo for higher initial construction costs Table A2 20 - Re-use effect on budget

Company Responses

A -


107 | P a g e

B

We use many lumber cut-offs PVC drainpipes and conduit and dry wall pieces over many modular orders Unusable drywall shingle and PVC pieces are collected and sent out for recycling Wood is collected and recycled into mulch product or used for heating by others

C Not easily Our methods (flat pack) due not lend themselves to building portability

D -

E 50 years life span of the products

Q Which factors did you consider for choosing modular construction over traditional

method Table A2 21 - positive factors about modular construction to be chosen

Company Responses

A traditional construction is broken

B

Speed ease and cost of overall construction Transportation costs and boundaries Local salary wages Existence of experts Environmentally friendly

C Transportation costs and boundaries Local salary wages Existence of experts Environmentally friendly

D Transportation costs and boundaries Local salary wages

E Transportation costs and boundaries Local salary wages Environmentally friendly

Q Do use BIM in your projects what are the challenges in using BIM Table A2 22 - Use of BIM in projects

Company Responses

A 100 BIM from conceptual to finished models

B No

C No

D No

E No

Q What effects the production line can have on the design Are there any boundaries

on the architectural design Table A2 23 - Influence of production line on design

Company What effects the production line can have on the design Are there any boundaries on the architectural design

A No you just need to design with our subassemblies in mind

B This factory maximum module dimension capability is 15rsquo9

C Workshop prefabrication gives the architect far more design freedom

D Width of building for transport to make economically viable

E No

Q Is there any lack of knowledge from architects or design engineers in modular industry

about production line processes transportation limitations etc


108 | P a g e

Table A2 24 - Lack of knowledge among experts

Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C NA

D Yes

E Yes

Q How state transport regulation and approval can harm the projects in cost and time

Have you experience delays in your schedules because of those Table A2 25 - Transportation regulation effect on projects

Q Does the concept of transportable materials add extra costs on the project Do the

reduction of material waste and multiple discounts can ldquocompensate the lossrdquo Table A2 26 ndash Transportable material choice and its effects

Company

Does the concept of transportable materials add extra costs on the project Do the reduction of material waste and multiple discounts can ldquocompensate the lossrdquo

A Transportation costs are offset by speed of production and reduced financing costs for the project

B Not significantly

C See 26 The reverse applies

D No

E No

Q What are the difficulties in using automation in off-site production processes Table A2 27 - Challenges of using automation

Company Responses

A Codding Integration with advanced software

B Cost

C -

D Integration with advanced software

E Codding Cost Lower salaries of manual processes by labour

Company

How state transport regulation and approval can harm the projects in cost and time Have you experience delays in your schedules because of those

A Yes Some areas are slow to respond

B

Yes Some states in the US are more difficult to ship oversized and ldquosuper loadsrdquo through This adds both time and expense to the projects

C No Our company prefabricates and flat packs so all components are within or close to legal load limits

D No

E Yes


109 | P a g e

Q Which problems exist in modular construction in terms of contracts What are the

solutions Table A2 28 - Contract condition in modular industry

Q What are the challenges in defining responsibilities among participants of a project

due to the changing most of the activities to precast solutions Table A2 29 - Participation status in modular projects

Company

What are the common errors than can harm the synchronization of productivity between off-site production transportation and on-site installation progress For instance less demands on-site caused

A Lack of quality partners on site that see the benefits of modular and therefore increase their pricing

B

The builder owns the responsibility to ensure that site work is done on time and correctly Delays in this can result in postponed transport of product and interest through demurrage charges

C Provided control is tight none

D -

E -

Q Considering all components are prefabricated offsite what is the role of an outside

general contractor Table A2 30 - Role of outside general constructor

Company Responses

A will always need some component of site work to complete the project

B

An outside general contractor is the independent builder The modular factory is a material vendor to the general contractor The general contractor is responsible for all site work and permits as well as storage- installation- and finish of the modular product forming the house or structure they are building

C We do not use outside general contractors All stages from earliest concept design to completed building are in house

Q How often advantageous changes must be done in the production line and what are

the challenges

Company Which problems exist in modular construction in terms of contracts What are the solutions

A Every state has a different building code need a universal code

B

In some cases the end home buyer believes the factory to be the builder and the actual independent builder to be a sales agent for the factory Our company addresses this through accuracy in the relationship described on our website and social media as well as requiring the builders customer to sign a disclosure acknowledgement from that describes the relationship in detail

C Banks do not recognise work done until it is erected on site This creates cash flow pressure where bank finance is involved

D -

E Delivery on time


110 | P a g e

Table A2 31 - Changes in production line and its effects

Company Responses

A Slows down production

B This company incorporates changes to product materials or procedures between orders A change in process will not occur that affects only some of the components of an order

C Not sure I can answer that ion the space All means of production have advantages and challenges We have chosen methods and stick to them

Q Do you have sub-contracted players involved in your project for site preparation and

foundation phase etc why Table A2 32 - Site preparation status

Company Do you have sub-contracted players involved in your project for site preparation and foundation phase etc why

A Yes Because we are selling in many geographic areas we need local representation

B No This is the responsibility of our customer- the general contractorindependent builder

C Yes Under direct supervision Their equipment is expensive and not portable It makes sense to use local contractors for footings

D -

E Yes

Q If the onsite foundation is constructed by an outside general contractor are there

additional challenges at the interface in terms of a technology gap the equipment or

tools used the construction experience of workers or in scheduling and phasing of

construction Table A2 33 - Challenges with sub-contractors for site preparation phase

Q What are the wrong perceptions about modular products among market and public Table A2 34 - Wrong perceptions for modular products

Company What are the wrong perceptions about modular products among market and public

A that their only quality is being cheaper

B

In the USA many people the media and even professional engineers do not understand the capabilities of modular construction Many people continue to confuse this form of construction with HUD on frame products

C With our methods (flat pack) that prefabrication reduces the design options The reverse is the case

Company

If the onsite foundation is constructed by an outside general contractor are there additional challenges at the interface in terms of a technology gap the equipment or tools used the constructionhellip

A we need to educate most local subs on our process and reason for doing things a certain way

B Not that directly affects the factory

C No

D -

E -


111 | P a g e

Q What strategies are taken among manufacturers to either improve the public

perception of modular construction or to promote its advantages to architects and

potential clients Table A2 35 - Solutions for wrong perceptions

Company

What strategies are taken among manufacturers to either improve the public perception of modular construction or to promote its advantages to architects and potential clients

A Going fast Proving the superior nature of our homes by getting more of them into the world

B

There is some cooperation between builders manufacturers architects and engineers to educate the public The national entity is the Modular Home Builders Association See httpswwwmodularhousingcom

C Nothing specific We advertise our advantages and it is enough

Q Any other challenges and recommended solutions for them that you want to add

please Table A2 36 - Recommendations

Company Responses

A -

B -

C The capital cost of equipment Specialised digital equipment is expensive making it difficult for small and medium companies to enter the market


Masterrsquos Degree

Title

Author

Tutor

Speciality

Department

Date

PUJADAS AacuteLVAREZ PABLO

-

September 2020


Modular construction and overview on its potential advantages

and constraints in the project management perspective

MASOUD VEISKARAMI



Dedication





سپاسگزارم











28092020


Abstract





permanent uses





























1 Introduction 1

Motivations 1


Gap of knowledge 1




Limitations 2


























Initial costs 41









Methodology 48

Objective 48



Survey setting 48




Data collection 51


Economic issues 52


Social Benefits 53

Initial costs 54






Advantages 57




Methodology 60

Objective 60

What is MIVES 60



Input data 65


Final indicators 69

Weights 73

Data analysis 76


Criteria Values 77



5 Conclusions 84








Future studies 86







Recommendations 87


construction 87







6 References 89

Anexo 1 95

Anexo 2 102




















14













Malec (wmengcom) 21




23








Beton) 26


report MBI 2019) 28













(wwwcadoltocom) 37









Boldt Company 40


(archdailycom) 41



(casasinhauscom) 46












(WAHammad 2019) 61






2017) 63







alternatives 71



















96




97


















studied 68






































































1 | P a g e

1 Introduction

Motivations
































Gap of knowledge






conventional way


construction


2 | P a g e







quantitative



construction






alternatives




Limitations













uses











3 | P a g e













4 | P a g e















economy



5 | P a g e





years (Figure 22)











provide the needs


6 | P a g e





















7 | P a g e









period























8 | P a g e



























inventory metrics)




9 | P a g e











10 | P a g e
























and cyclicality




11 | P a g e

bull 1800s










bull 1900s






the United States



12 | P a g e





























progress




conglomerate


13 | P a g e















14 | P a g e


bull 90s










bull Modern days



















15 | P a g e





bull Bathroom pods





environment



o No trades on site









waterproof lining




16 | P a g e

o Bath or shower

o Toilets

o Basins

o Lights

o Mirrors

o Cabinets










bull Kitchen pods








white goods


17 | P a g e





bull Hotels

bull Apartments


bull Schools

bull Hospitals



18 | P a g e



o No weather delays
















wiring
















19 | P a g e



trailers uses



bull Containers












20 | P a g e













21 | P a g e









finished









22 | P a g e



o Steel Modules










below










properties


23 | P a g e










24 | P a g e


















25 | P a g e



o Wood structure





long-term repairs




examples

















26 | P a g e



o Concrete modules








27 | P a g e















o Education










o Construction-Site







plumbing

o Healthcare














28 | P a g e


office space

o CommercialRetail









o Security




glare





workers


Construction phases









29 | P a g e


o Step 1 Design





needs










Site plan

Building permit

Mechanical permit

Plumbing permit

Concrete permit

Encroachment permit

Sign permit












Permits


Site Development

Plant Fabrication



30 | P a g e



Surveying

Demolition

Excavation

Grading

Site drainage



























31 | P a g e


















advantages

Scheduling benefits









2019)


32 | P a g e








other



















33 | P a g e














34 | P a g e








Economic benefits













35 | P a g e











36 | P a g e






























37 | P a g e













38 | P a g e































39 | P a g e

















40 | P a g e




















41 | P a g e
















safety












Initial costs


42 | P a g e


































43 | P a g e
















































44 | P a g e

















































45 | P a g e







































46 | P a g e

































47 | P a g e

































48 | P a g e


survey Methodology

Objective








participants



were done










Survey setting















pandemic


49 | P a g e

























50 | P a g e


Participant profile



















60 of participants

can acheive a 30-40

reduction energy

consumption


perspective







QsCompany A B C D E










51 | P a g e


















Data collection

General information
















28

9

18

18

27

Economic benefits




Innovation


52 | P a g e







feasibility issues

Economic issues


special workforce
































53 | P a g e












Social Benefits










No40

Yes60


No

Yes


54 | P a g e




Initial costs















6

25

31

13

19

6






55 | P a g e

Design limitations























regulations






56 | P a g e









participants





















28

29

29

14




57 | P a g e















Social challenges






















Advantages










58 | P a g e


































types




sustainability










59 | P a g e
































60 | P a g e




Objective











What is MIVES











(wwwdecaupcedu)














61 | P a g e






(Akbarnezhad 2019)



Balasbaneh 2020)

(httpsdoiorg101007s11356-020-10141-3)







62 | P a g e

















63 | P a g e













64 | P a g e




(httpsdoiorg101111j1530-9290201100424x)









65 | P a g e

Input data

4221 Alternatives
















4223 Criteria















R1 - Economic

R1C1 - Project cost

R2 - Time


R3 - Environmental






R3C6 - Recycle


R4 - Saftey

R4C1 - Injury risks


R5 - Social

R5C1 - Job status

R5C2 - Quality


66 | P a g e

















4224 Indicators














etc



















67 | P a g e



















(R3) Environmental


























68 | P a g e

bull Direct Data
















bull Estimated Data














Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593



Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813



Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813



Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



69 | P a g e

















Final indicators













choices










Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593



Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813



70 | P a g e






























Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813



Aye 2500000 996 356 41373 691

Quale 13600



Final 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691






71 | P a g e









8264 divide 9623 = 085877 1198621198742 119903119886119905119894119900

54079 times 085877 = 46442 119896119892 CO2 of PCM




project













2011)



(Aye 2011)


72 | P a g e
























blue)



Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



Hammad 812298 6598 71 217 198

Akbarnejad 120000 67 84672

Aye 2281000 3949 22 38008 322



Final 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322



PSM 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813

PTM 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691

PCM 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60

TRC 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322




73 | P a g e

Weights




















Weights 27 30 25 13 5




















CriteriaEnergy

consumption

Waste

generation

Material

Consumption

Noise

pollution

Greenhouse

gas emissionRecycle

Embodied

energy

Weights 17 15 17 5 15 15 16


74 | P a g e



















functions


75 | P a g e



















76 | P a g e



Data analysis

Indicators Values


















CO2 32000 60000 32000 55000 05 05 52700 Concave


Re-use 0 100 60 0 05 05 20 Concave









TRC 016 051 024 051 027 029 01 034 092

PSM 094 092 098 092 098 082 099 088 023

PCM 09 081 097 081 097 059 093 088 065

PTM 098 092 1 092 1 064 097 088 085


TRC 073 026 1 024 024 021 02 063 05

PSM 095 094 023 095 094 09 08 092 09

PCM 092 068 064 077 094 09 08 092 08

PTM 098 084 092 085 094 09 08 092 09


77 | P a g e

Criteria Values















TRC 023 029 028 029 009 032

PSM 094 097 099 083 099 088

PCM 088 094 096 059 094 088

PTM 097 098 101 064 096 088


TRC 091 045 083 024 021 040 052

PSM 024 096 048 095 090 088 092

PCM 064 077 072 095 090 088 080

PTM 085 091 096 095 090 088 092


78 | P a g e










three (Figure 416)










79 | P a g e




















80 | P a g e


others






alternatives











81 | P a g e


Requirement Values













TRC 023 029 045 022 046

PSM 094 097 075 093 088

PCM 088 094 078 093 084

PTM 097 098 088 093 088


82 | P a g e





















83 | P a g e






mentioned




alternatives












TRC PSM PCM PTM

SI 032 090 088 094


84 | P a g e


























literatures



















85 | P a g e












comparison






value





























86 | P a g e















Future studies












and on-site visits








adequate solutions






87 | P a g e

Recommendations


construction











































88 | P a g e


























projects


89 | P a g e






270 httpsdoiorg10110813598541111139071



55680000057



1057725671




78620001656








httpsdoi101111j1530-9290201100424x


(MBI)




Building Institute




90 | P a g e














forpdf









Infrastructure 1-34



46 245-252



31(1) 04016039







91 | P a g e









Valoracions


























Sons




92 | P a g e









engineering











manufacturing 38-63









palace







93 | P a g e











Mini-Merger

















and-dimensions






94 | P a g e





constructions




























95 | P a g e

Anexo 1







96 | P a g e





97 | P a g e






98 | P a g e






99 | P a g e






100 | P a g e





101 | P a g e




102 | P a g e




Company Responses

A 10-15

B 10-15

C 20-30

D 20-30

E 30-50



Company Responses

A 15 years



D Quantity Surveyor



Company Responses

A Wood Steel

B Wood

C Wood

D Wood



Company Responses







103 | P a g e


Company Responses


B 130 1 490

C 15




Company Responses


B Economic profit



E Economic profit







E




Company Responses


B 20


D 20

E 60


104 | P a g e




Company Responses





E -



Company Responses

A Yes

B Yes

C No

D No

E Yes



Company Responses


B


C







Company Responses




105 | P a g e




E -



Company Responses

A 70 less waste


C






Company Responses


B




E 30 energy saving



Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes




106 | P a g e


Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes


Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C Yes

D Yes

E Yes



Company Responses




D -



Company Responses








Company Responses

A -


107 | P a g e

B



D -




Company Responses


B






Company Responses


B No

C No

D No

E No








E No




108 | P a g e


Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C NA

D Yes

E Yes





Company



B Not significantly


D No

E No


Company Responses


B Cost

C -



Company



B



D No

E Yes


109 | P a g e





Company



B



D -

E -



Company Responses


B




the challenges



B



D -

E Delivery on time


110 | P a g e


Company Responses










D -

E Yes








B



Company




C No

D -

E -


111 | P a g e




Company



B





Company Responses

A -

B -



Dedication





سپاسگزارم











28092020


Abstract





permanent uses





























1 Introduction 1

Motivations 1


Gap of knowledge 1




Limitations 2


























Initial costs 41









Methodology 48

Objective 48



Survey setting 48




Data collection 51


Economic issues 52


Social Benefits 53

Initial costs 54






Advantages 57




Methodology 60

Objective 60

What is MIVES 60



Input data 65


Final indicators 69

Weights 73

Data analysis 76


Criteria Values 77



5 Conclusions 84








Future studies 86







Recommendations 87


construction 87







6 References 89

Anexo 1 95

Anexo 2 102




















14













Malec (wmengcom) 21




23








Beton) 26


report MBI 2019) 28













(wwwcadoltocom) 37









Boldt Company 40


(archdailycom) 41



(casasinhauscom) 46












(WAHammad 2019) 61






2017) 63







alternatives 71



















96




97


















studied 68






































































1 | P a g e

1 Introduction

Motivations
































Gap of knowledge






conventional way


construction


2 | P a g e







quantitative



construction






alternatives




Limitations













uses











3 | P a g e













4 | P a g e















economy



5 | P a g e





years (Figure 22)











provide the needs


6 | P a g e





















7 | P a g e









period























8 | P a g e



























inventory metrics)




9 | P a g e











10 | P a g e
























and cyclicality




11 | P a g e

bull 1800s










bull 1900s






the United States



12 | P a g e





























progress




conglomerate


13 | P a g e















14 | P a g e


bull 90s










bull Modern days



















15 | P a g e





bull Bathroom pods





environment



o No trades on site









waterproof lining




16 | P a g e

o Bath or shower

o Toilets

o Basins

o Lights

o Mirrors

o Cabinets










bull Kitchen pods








white goods


17 | P a g e





bull Hotels

bull Apartments


bull Schools

bull Hospitals



18 | P a g e



o No weather delays
















wiring
















19 | P a g e



trailers uses



bull Containers












20 | P a g e













21 | P a g e









finished









22 | P a g e



o Steel Modules










below










properties


23 | P a g e










24 | P a g e


















25 | P a g e



o Wood structure





long-term repairs




examples

















26 | P a g e



o Concrete modules








27 | P a g e















o Education










o Construction-Site







plumbing

o Healthcare














28 | P a g e


office space

o CommercialRetail









o Security




glare





workers


Construction phases









29 | P a g e


o Step 1 Design





needs










Site plan

Building permit

Mechanical permit

Plumbing permit

Concrete permit

Encroachment permit

Sign permit












Permits


Site Development

Plant Fabrication



30 | P a g e



Surveying

Demolition

Excavation

Grading

Site drainage



























31 | P a g e


















advantages

Scheduling benefits









2019)


32 | P a g e








other



















33 | P a g e














34 | P a g e








Economic benefits













35 | P a g e











36 | P a g e






























37 | P a g e













38 | P a g e































39 | P a g e

















40 | P a g e




















41 | P a g e
















safety












Initial costs


42 | P a g e


































43 | P a g e
















































44 | P a g e

















































45 | P a g e







































46 | P a g e

































47 | P a g e

































48 | P a g e


survey Methodology

Objective








participants



were done










Survey setting















pandemic


49 | P a g e

























50 | P a g e


Participant profile



















60 of participants

can acheive a 30-40

reduction energy

consumption


perspective







QsCompany A B C D E










51 | P a g e


















Data collection

General information
















28

9

18

18

27

Economic benefits




Innovation


52 | P a g e







feasibility issues

Economic issues


special workforce
































53 | P a g e












Social Benefits










No40

Yes60


No

Yes


54 | P a g e




Initial costs















6

25

31

13

19

6






55 | P a g e

Design limitations























regulations






56 | P a g e









participants





















28

29

29

14




57 | P a g e















Social challenges






















Advantages










58 | P a g e


































types




sustainability










59 | P a g e
































60 | P a g e




Objective











What is MIVES











(wwwdecaupcedu)














61 | P a g e






(Akbarnezhad 2019)



Balasbaneh 2020)

(httpsdoiorg101007s11356-020-10141-3)







62 | P a g e

















63 | P a g e













64 | P a g e




(httpsdoiorg101111j1530-9290201100424x)









65 | P a g e

Input data

4221 Alternatives
















4223 Criteria















R1 - Economic

R1C1 - Project cost

R2 - Time


R3 - Environmental






R3C6 - Recycle


R4 - Saftey

R4C1 - Injury risks


R5 - Social

R5C1 - Job status

R5C2 - Quality


66 | P a g e

















4224 Indicators














etc



















67 | P a g e



















(R3) Environmental


























68 | P a g e

bull Direct Data
















bull Estimated Data














Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593



Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813



Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813



Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



69 | P a g e

















Final indicators













choices










Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593



Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813



70 | P a g e






























Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813



Aye 2500000 996 356 41373 691

Quale 13600



Final 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691






71 | P a g e









8264 divide 9623 = 085877 1198621198742 119903119886119905119894119900

54079 times 085877 = 46442 119896119892 CO2 of PCM




project













2011)



(Aye 2011)


72 | P a g e
























blue)



Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



Hammad 812298 6598 71 217 198

Akbarnejad 120000 67 84672

Aye 2281000 3949 22 38008 322



Final 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322



PSM 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813

PTM 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691

PCM 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60

TRC 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322




73 | P a g e

Weights




















Weights 27 30 25 13 5




















CriteriaEnergy

consumption

Waste

generation

Material

Consumption

Noise

pollution

Greenhouse

gas emissionRecycle

Embodied

energy

Weights 17 15 17 5 15 15 16


74 | P a g e



















functions


75 | P a g e



















76 | P a g e



Data analysis

Indicators Values


















CO2 32000 60000 32000 55000 05 05 52700 Concave


Re-use 0 100 60 0 05 05 20 Concave









TRC 016 051 024 051 027 029 01 034 092

PSM 094 092 098 092 098 082 099 088 023

PCM 09 081 097 081 097 059 093 088 065

PTM 098 092 1 092 1 064 097 088 085


TRC 073 026 1 024 024 021 02 063 05

PSM 095 094 023 095 094 09 08 092 09

PCM 092 068 064 077 094 09 08 092 08

PTM 098 084 092 085 094 09 08 092 09


77 | P a g e

Criteria Values















TRC 023 029 028 029 009 032

PSM 094 097 099 083 099 088

PCM 088 094 096 059 094 088

PTM 097 098 101 064 096 088


TRC 091 045 083 024 021 040 052

PSM 024 096 048 095 090 088 092

PCM 064 077 072 095 090 088 080

PTM 085 091 096 095 090 088 092


78 | P a g e










three (Figure 416)










79 | P a g e




















80 | P a g e


others






alternatives











81 | P a g e


Requirement Values













TRC 023 029 045 022 046

PSM 094 097 075 093 088

PCM 088 094 078 093 084

PTM 097 098 088 093 088


82 | P a g e





















83 | P a g e






mentioned




alternatives












TRC PSM PCM PTM

SI 032 090 088 094


84 | P a g e


























literatures



















85 | P a g e












comparison






value





























86 | P a g e















Future studies












and on-site visits








adequate solutions






87 | P a g e

Recommendations


construction











































88 | P a g e


























projects


89 | P a g e






270 httpsdoiorg10110813598541111139071



55680000057



1057725671




78620001656








httpsdoi101111j1530-9290201100424x


(MBI)




Building Institute




90 | P a g e














forpdf









Infrastructure 1-34



46 245-252



31(1) 04016039







91 | P a g e









Valoracions


























Sons




92 | P a g e









engineering











manufacturing 38-63









palace







93 | P a g e











Mini-Merger

















and-dimensions






94 | P a g e





constructions




























95 | P a g e

Anexo 1







96 | P a g e





97 | P a g e






98 | P a g e






99 | P a g e






100 | P a g e





101 | P a g e




102 | P a g e




Company Responses

A 10-15

B 10-15

C 20-30

D 20-30

E 30-50



Company Responses

A 15 years



D Quantity Surveyor



Company Responses

A Wood Steel

B Wood

C Wood

D Wood



Company Responses







103 | P a g e


Company Responses


B 130 1 490

C 15




Company Responses


B Economic profit



E Economic profit







E




Company Responses


B 20


D 20

E 60


104 | P a g e




Company Responses





E -



Company Responses

A Yes

B Yes

C No

D No

E Yes



Company Responses


B


C







Company Responses




105 | P a g e




E -



Company Responses

A 70 less waste


C






Company Responses


B




E 30 energy saving



Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes




106 | P a g e


Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes


Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C Yes

D Yes

E Yes



Company Responses




D -



Company Responses








Company Responses

A -


107 | P a g e

B



D -




Company Responses


B






Company Responses


B No

C No

D No

E No








E No




108 | P a g e


Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C NA

D Yes

E Yes





Company



B Not significantly


D No

E No


Company Responses


B Cost

C -



Company



B



D No

E Yes


109 | P a g e





Company



B



D -

E -



Company Responses


B




the challenges



B



D -

E Delivery on time


110 | P a g e


Company Responses










D -

E Yes








B



Company




C No

D -

E -


111 | P a g e




Company



B





Company Responses

A -

B -



Abstract





permanent uses





























1 Introduction 1

Motivations 1


Gap of knowledge 1




Limitations 2


























Initial costs 41









Methodology 48

Objective 48



Survey setting 48




Data collection 51


Economic issues 52


Social Benefits 53

Initial costs 54






Advantages 57




Methodology 60

Objective 60

What is MIVES 60



Input data 65


Final indicators 69

Weights 73

Data analysis 76


Criteria Values 77



5 Conclusions 84








Future studies 86







Recommendations 87


construction 87







6 References 89

Anexo 1 95

Anexo 2 102




















14













Malec (wmengcom) 21




23








Beton) 26


report MBI 2019) 28













(wwwcadoltocom) 37









Boldt Company 40


(archdailycom) 41



(casasinhauscom) 46












(WAHammad 2019) 61






2017) 63







alternatives 71



















96




97


















studied 68






































































1 | P a g e

1 Introduction

Motivations
































Gap of knowledge






conventional way


construction


2 | P a g e







quantitative



construction






alternatives




Limitations













uses











3 | P a g e













4 | P a g e















economy



5 | P a g e





years (Figure 22)











provide the needs


6 | P a g e





















7 | P a g e









period























8 | P a g e



























inventory metrics)




9 | P a g e











10 | P a g e
























and cyclicality




11 | P a g e

bull 1800s










bull 1900s






the United States



12 | P a g e





























progress




conglomerate


13 | P a g e















14 | P a g e


bull 90s










bull Modern days



















15 | P a g e





bull Bathroom pods





environment



o No trades on site









waterproof lining




16 | P a g e

o Bath or shower

o Toilets

o Basins

o Lights

o Mirrors

o Cabinets










bull Kitchen pods








white goods


17 | P a g e





bull Hotels

bull Apartments


bull Schools

bull Hospitals



18 | P a g e



o No weather delays
















wiring
















19 | P a g e



trailers uses



bull Containers












20 | P a g e













21 | P a g e









finished









22 | P a g e



o Steel Modules










below










properties


23 | P a g e










24 | P a g e


















25 | P a g e



o Wood structure





long-term repairs




examples

















26 | P a g e



o Concrete modules








27 | P a g e















o Education










o Construction-Site







plumbing

o Healthcare














28 | P a g e


office space

o CommercialRetail









o Security




glare





workers


Construction phases









29 | P a g e


o Step 1 Design





needs










Site plan

Building permit

Mechanical permit

Plumbing permit

Concrete permit

Encroachment permit

Sign permit












Permits


Site Development

Plant Fabrication



30 | P a g e



Surveying

Demolition

Excavation

Grading

Site drainage



























31 | P a g e


















advantages

Scheduling benefits









2019)


32 | P a g e








other



















33 | P a g e














34 | P a g e








Economic benefits













35 | P a g e











36 | P a g e






























37 | P a g e













38 | P a g e































39 | P a g e

















40 | P a g e




















41 | P a g e
















safety












Initial costs


42 | P a g e


































43 | P a g e
















































44 | P a g e

















































45 | P a g e







































46 | P a g e

































47 | P a g e

































48 | P a g e


survey Methodology

Objective








participants



were done










Survey setting















pandemic


49 | P a g e

























50 | P a g e


Participant profile



















60 of participants

can acheive a 30-40

reduction energy

consumption


perspective







QsCompany A B C D E










51 | P a g e


















Data collection

General information
















28

9

18

18

27

Economic benefits




Innovation


52 | P a g e







feasibility issues

Economic issues


special workforce
































53 | P a g e












Social Benefits










No40

Yes60


No

Yes


54 | P a g e




Initial costs















6

25

31

13

19

6






55 | P a g e

Design limitations























regulations






56 | P a g e









participants





















28

29

29

14




57 | P a g e















Social challenges






















Advantages










58 | P a g e


































types




sustainability










59 | P a g e
































60 | P a g e




Objective











What is MIVES











(wwwdecaupcedu)














61 | P a g e






(Akbarnezhad 2019)



Balasbaneh 2020)

(httpsdoiorg101007s11356-020-10141-3)







62 | P a g e

















63 | P a g e













64 | P a g e




(httpsdoiorg101111j1530-9290201100424x)









65 | P a g e

Input data

4221 Alternatives
















4223 Criteria















R1 - Economic

R1C1 - Project cost

R2 - Time


R3 - Environmental






R3C6 - Recycle


R4 - Saftey

R4C1 - Injury risks


R5 - Social

R5C1 - Job status

R5C2 - Quality


66 | P a g e

















4224 Indicators














etc



















67 | P a g e



















(R3) Environmental


























68 | P a g e

bull Direct Data
















bull Estimated Data














Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593



Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813



Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813



Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



69 | P a g e

















Final indicators













choices










Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593



Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813



70 | P a g e






























Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813



Aye 2500000 996 356 41373 691

Quale 13600



Final 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691






71 | P a g e









8264 divide 9623 = 085877 1198621198742 119903119886119905119894119900

54079 times 085877 = 46442 119896119892 CO2 of PCM




project













2011)



(Aye 2011)


72 | P a g e
























blue)



Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



Hammad 812298 6598 71 217 198

Akbarnejad 120000 67 84672

Aye 2281000 3949 22 38008 322



Final 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322



PSM 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813

PTM 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691

PCM 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60

TRC 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322




73 | P a g e

Weights




















Weights 27 30 25 13 5




















CriteriaEnergy

consumption

Waste

generation

Material

Consumption

Noise

pollution

Greenhouse

gas emissionRecycle

Embodied

energy

Weights 17 15 17 5 15 15 16


74 | P a g e



















functions


75 | P a g e



















76 | P a g e



Data analysis

Indicators Values


















CO2 32000 60000 32000 55000 05 05 52700 Concave


Re-use 0 100 60 0 05 05 20 Concave









TRC 016 051 024 051 027 029 01 034 092

PSM 094 092 098 092 098 082 099 088 023

PCM 09 081 097 081 097 059 093 088 065

PTM 098 092 1 092 1 064 097 088 085


TRC 073 026 1 024 024 021 02 063 05

PSM 095 094 023 095 094 09 08 092 09

PCM 092 068 064 077 094 09 08 092 08

PTM 098 084 092 085 094 09 08 092 09


77 | P a g e

Criteria Values















TRC 023 029 028 029 009 032

PSM 094 097 099 083 099 088

PCM 088 094 096 059 094 088

PTM 097 098 101 064 096 088


TRC 091 045 083 024 021 040 052

PSM 024 096 048 095 090 088 092

PCM 064 077 072 095 090 088 080

PTM 085 091 096 095 090 088 092


78 | P a g e










three (Figure 416)










79 | P a g e




















80 | P a g e


others






alternatives











81 | P a g e


Requirement Values













TRC 023 029 045 022 046

PSM 094 097 075 093 088

PCM 088 094 078 093 084

PTM 097 098 088 093 088


82 | P a g e





















83 | P a g e






mentioned




alternatives












TRC PSM PCM PTM

SI 032 090 088 094


84 | P a g e


























literatures



















85 | P a g e












comparison






value





























86 | P a g e















Future studies












and on-site visits








adequate solutions






87 | P a g e

Recommendations


construction











































88 | P a g e


























projects


89 | P a g e






270 httpsdoiorg10110813598541111139071



55680000057



1057725671




78620001656








httpsdoi101111j1530-9290201100424x


(MBI)




Building Institute




90 | P a g e














forpdf









Infrastructure 1-34



46 245-252



31(1) 04016039







91 | P a g e









Valoracions


























Sons




92 | P a g e









engineering











manufacturing 38-63









palace







93 | P a g e











Mini-Merger

















and-dimensions






94 | P a g e





constructions




























95 | P a g e

Anexo 1







96 | P a g e





97 | P a g e






98 | P a g e






99 | P a g e






100 | P a g e





101 | P a g e




102 | P a g e




Company Responses

A 10-15

B 10-15

C 20-30

D 20-30

E 30-50



Company Responses

A 15 years



D Quantity Surveyor



Company Responses

A Wood Steel

B Wood

C Wood

D Wood



Company Responses







103 | P a g e


Company Responses


B 130 1 490

C 15




Company Responses


B Economic profit



E Economic profit







E




Company Responses


B 20


D 20

E 60


104 | P a g e




Company Responses





E -



Company Responses

A Yes

B Yes

C No

D No

E Yes



Company Responses


B


C







Company Responses




105 | P a g e




E -



Company Responses

A 70 less waste


C






Company Responses


B




E 30 energy saving



Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes




106 | P a g e


Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes


Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C Yes

D Yes

E Yes



Company Responses




D -



Company Responses








Company Responses

A -


107 | P a g e

B



D -




Company Responses


B






Company Responses


B No

C No

D No

E No








E No




108 | P a g e


Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C NA

D Yes

E Yes





Company



B Not significantly


D No

E No


Company Responses


B Cost

C -



Company



B



D No

E Yes


109 | P a g e





Company



B



D -

E -



Company Responses


B




the challenges



B



D -

E Delivery on time


110 | P a g e


Company Responses










D -

E Yes








B



Company




C No

D -

E -


111 | P a g e




Company



B





Company Responses

A -

B -




1 Introduction 1

Motivations 1


Gap of knowledge 1




Limitations 2


























Initial costs 41









Methodology 48

Objective 48



Survey setting 48




Data collection 51


Economic issues 52


Social Benefits 53

Initial costs 54






Advantages 57




Methodology 60

Objective 60

What is MIVES 60



Input data 65


Final indicators 69

Weights 73

Data analysis 76


Criteria Values 77



5 Conclusions 84








Future studies 86







Recommendations 87


construction 87







6 References 89

Anexo 1 95

Anexo 2 102




















14













Malec (wmengcom) 21




23








Beton) 26


report MBI 2019) 28













(wwwcadoltocom) 37









Boldt Company 40


(archdailycom) 41



(casasinhauscom) 46












(WAHammad 2019) 61






2017) 63







alternatives 71



















96




97


















studied 68






































































1 | P a g e

1 Introduction

Motivations
































Gap of knowledge






conventional way


construction


2 | P a g e







quantitative



construction






alternatives




Limitations













uses











3 | P a g e













4 | P a g e















economy



5 | P a g e





years (Figure 22)











provide the needs


6 | P a g e





















7 | P a g e









period























8 | P a g e



























inventory metrics)




9 | P a g e











10 | P a g e
























and cyclicality




11 | P a g e

bull 1800s










bull 1900s






the United States



12 | P a g e





























progress




conglomerate


13 | P a g e















14 | P a g e


bull 90s










bull Modern days



















15 | P a g e





bull Bathroom pods





environment



o No trades on site









waterproof lining




16 | P a g e

o Bath or shower

o Toilets

o Basins

o Lights

o Mirrors

o Cabinets










bull Kitchen pods








white goods


17 | P a g e





bull Hotels

bull Apartments


bull Schools

bull Hospitals



18 | P a g e



o No weather delays
















wiring
















19 | P a g e



trailers uses



bull Containers












20 | P a g e













21 | P a g e









finished









22 | P a g e



o Steel Modules










below










properties


23 | P a g e










24 | P a g e


















25 | P a g e



o Wood structure





long-term repairs




examples

















26 | P a g e



o Concrete modules








27 | P a g e















o Education










o Construction-Site







plumbing

o Healthcare














28 | P a g e


office space

o CommercialRetail









o Security




glare





workers


Construction phases









29 | P a g e


o Step 1 Design





needs










Site plan

Building permit

Mechanical permit

Plumbing permit

Concrete permit

Encroachment permit

Sign permit












Permits


Site Development

Plant Fabrication



30 | P a g e



Surveying

Demolition

Excavation

Grading

Site drainage



























31 | P a g e


















advantages

Scheduling benefits









2019)


32 | P a g e








other



















33 | P a g e














34 | P a g e








Economic benefits













35 | P a g e











36 | P a g e






























37 | P a g e













38 | P a g e































39 | P a g e

















40 | P a g e




















41 | P a g e
















safety












Initial costs


42 | P a g e


































43 | P a g e
















































44 | P a g e

















































45 | P a g e







































46 | P a g e

































47 | P a g e

































48 | P a g e


survey Methodology

Objective








participants



were done










Survey setting















pandemic


49 | P a g e

























50 | P a g e


Participant profile



















60 of participants

can acheive a 30-40

reduction energy

consumption


perspective







QsCompany A B C D E










51 | P a g e


















Data collection

General information
















28

9

18

18

27

Economic benefits




Innovation


52 | P a g e







feasibility issues

Economic issues


special workforce
































53 | P a g e












Social Benefits










No40

Yes60


No

Yes


54 | P a g e




Initial costs















6

25

31

13

19

6






55 | P a g e

Design limitations























regulations






56 | P a g e









participants





















28

29

29

14




57 | P a g e















Social challenges






















Advantages










58 | P a g e


































types




sustainability










59 | P a g e
































60 | P a g e




Objective











What is MIVES











(wwwdecaupcedu)














61 | P a g e






(Akbarnezhad 2019)



Balasbaneh 2020)

(httpsdoiorg101007s11356-020-10141-3)







62 | P a g e

















63 | P a g e













64 | P a g e




(httpsdoiorg101111j1530-9290201100424x)









65 | P a g e

Input data

4221 Alternatives
















4223 Criteria















R1 - Economic

R1C1 - Project cost

R2 - Time


R3 - Environmental






R3C6 - Recycle


R4 - Saftey

R4C1 - Injury risks


R5 - Social

R5C1 - Job status

R5C2 - Quality


66 | P a g e

















4224 Indicators














etc



















67 | P a g e



















(R3) Environmental


























68 | P a g e

bull Direct Data
















bull Estimated Data














Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593



Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813



Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813



Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



69 | P a g e

















Final indicators













choices










Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593



Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813



70 | P a g e






























Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813



Aye 2500000 996 356 41373 691

Quale 13600



Final 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691






71 | P a g e









8264 divide 9623 = 085877 1198621198742 119903119886119905119894119900

54079 times 085877 = 46442 119896119892 CO2 of PCM




project













2011)



(Aye 2011)


72 | P a g e
























blue)



Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



Hammad 812298 6598 71 217 198

Akbarnejad 120000 67 84672

Aye 2281000 3949 22 38008 322



Final 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322



PSM 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813

PTM 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691

PCM 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60

TRC 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322




73 | P a g e

Weights




















Weights 27 30 25 13 5




















CriteriaEnergy

consumption

Waste

generation

Material

Consumption

Noise

pollution

Greenhouse

gas emissionRecycle

Embodied

energy

Weights 17 15 17 5 15 15 16


74 | P a g e



















functions


75 | P a g e



















76 | P a g e



Data analysis

Indicators Values


















CO2 32000 60000 32000 55000 05 05 52700 Concave


Re-use 0 100 60 0 05 05 20 Concave









TRC 016 051 024 051 027 029 01 034 092

PSM 094 092 098 092 098 082 099 088 023

PCM 09 081 097 081 097 059 093 088 065

PTM 098 092 1 092 1 064 097 088 085


TRC 073 026 1 024 024 021 02 063 05

PSM 095 094 023 095 094 09 08 092 09

PCM 092 068 064 077 094 09 08 092 08

PTM 098 084 092 085 094 09 08 092 09


77 | P a g e

Criteria Values















TRC 023 029 028 029 009 032

PSM 094 097 099 083 099 088

PCM 088 094 096 059 094 088

PTM 097 098 101 064 096 088


TRC 091 045 083 024 021 040 052

PSM 024 096 048 095 090 088 092

PCM 064 077 072 095 090 088 080

PTM 085 091 096 095 090 088 092


78 | P a g e










three (Figure 416)










79 | P a g e




















80 | P a g e


others






alternatives











81 | P a g e


Requirement Values













TRC 023 029 045 022 046

PSM 094 097 075 093 088

PCM 088 094 078 093 084

PTM 097 098 088 093 088


82 | P a g e





















83 | P a g e






mentioned




alternatives












TRC PSM PCM PTM

SI 032 090 088 094


84 | P a g e


























literatures



















85 | P a g e












comparison






value





























86 | P a g e















Future studies












and on-site visits








adequate solutions






87 | P a g e

Recommendations


construction











































88 | P a g e


























projects


89 | P a g e






270 httpsdoiorg10110813598541111139071



55680000057



1057725671




78620001656








httpsdoi101111j1530-9290201100424x


(MBI)




Building Institute




90 | P a g e














forpdf









Infrastructure 1-34



46 245-252



31(1) 04016039







91 | P a g e









Valoracions


























Sons




92 | P a g e









engineering











manufacturing 38-63









palace







93 | P a g e











Mini-Merger

















and-dimensions






94 | P a g e





constructions




























95 | P a g e

Anexo 1







96 | P a g e





97 | P a g e






98 | P a g e






99 | P a g e






100 | P a g e





101 | P a g e




102 | P a g e




Company Responses

A 10-15

B 10-15

C 20-30

D 20-30

E 30-50



Company Responses

A 15 years



D Quantity Surveyor



Company Responses

A Wood Steel

B Wood

C Wood

D Wood



Company Responses







103 | P a g e


Company Responses


B 130 1 490

C 15




Company Responses


B Economic profit



E Economic profit







E




Company Responses


B 20


D 20

E 60


104 | P a g e




Company Responses





E -



Company Responses

A Yes

B Yes

C No

D No

E Yes



Company Responses


B


C







Company Responses




105 | P a g e




E -



Company Responses

A 70 less waste


C






Company Responses


B




E 30 energy saving



Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes




106 | P a g e


Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes


Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C Yes

D Yes

E Yes



Company Responses




D -



Company Responses








Company Responses

A -


107 | P a g e

B



D -




Company Responses


B






Company Responses


B No

C No

D No

E No








E No




108 | P a g e


Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C NA

D Yes

E Yes





Company



B Not significantly


D No

E No


Company Responses


B Cost

C -



Company



B



D No

E Yes


109 | P a g e





Company



B



D -

E -



Company Responses


B




the challenges



B



D -

E Delivery on time


110 | P a g e


Company Responses










D -

E Yes








B



Company




C No

D -

E -


111 | P a g e




Company



B





Company Responses

A -

B -










Methodology 48

Objective 48



Survey setting 48




Data collection 51


Economic issues 52


Social Benefits 53

Initial costs 54






Advantages 57




Methodology 60

Objective 60

What is MIVES 60



Input data 65


Final indicators 69

Weights 73

Data analysis 76


Criteria Values 77



5 Conclusions 84








Future studies 86







Recommendations 87


construction 87







6 References 89

Anexo 1 95

Anexo 2 102




















14













Malec (wmengcom) 21




23








Beton) 26


report MBI 2019) 28













(wwwcadoltocom) 37









Boldt Company 40


(archdailycom) 41



(casasinhauscom) 46












(WAHammad 2019) 61






2017) 63







alternatives 71



















96




97


















studied 68






































































1 | P a g e

1 Introduction

Motivations
































Gap of knowledge






conventional way


construction


2 | P a g e







quantitative



construction






alternatives




Limitations













uses











3 | P a g e













4 | P a g e















economy



5 | P a g e





years (Figure 22)











provide the needs


6 | P a g e





















7 | P a g e









period























8 | P a g e



























inventory metrics)




9 | P a g e











10 | P a g e
























and cyclicality




11 | P a g e

bull 1800s










bull 1900s






the United States



12 | P a g e





























progress




conglomerate


13 | P a g e















14 | P a g e


bull 90s










bull Modern days



















15 | P a g e





bull Bathroom pods





environment



o No trades on site









waterproof lining




16 | P a g e

o Bath or shower

o Toilets

o Basins

o Lights

o Mirrors

o Cabinets










bull Kitchen pods








white goods


17 | P a g e





bull Hotels

bull Apartments


bull Schools

bull Hospitals



18 | P a g e



o No weather delays
















wiring
















19 | P a g e



trailers uses



bull Containers












20 | P a g e













21 | P a g e









finished









22 | P a g e



o Steel Modules










below










properties


23 | P a g e










24 | P a g e


















25 | P a g e



o Wood structure





long-term repairs




examples

















26 | P a g e



o Concrete modules








27 | P a g e















o Education










o Construction-Site







plumbing

o Healthcare














28 | P a g e


office space

o CommercialRetail









o Security




glare





workers


Construction phases









29 | P a g e


o Step 1 Design





needs










Site plan

Building permit

Mechanical permit

Plumbing permit

Concrete permit

Encroachment permit

Sign permit












Permits


Site Development

Plant Fabrication



30 | P a g e



Surveying

Demolition

Excavation

Grading

Site drainage



























31 | P a g e


















advantages

Scheduling benefits









2019)


32 | P a g e








other



















33 | P a g e














34 | P a g e








Economic benefits













35 | P a g e











36 | P a g e






























37 | P a g e













38 | P a g e































39 | P a g e

















40 | P a g e




















41 | P a g e
















safety












Initial costs


42 | P a g e


































43 | P a g e
















































44 | P a g e

















































45 | P a g e







































46 | P a g e

































47 | P a g e

































48 | P a g e


survey Methodology

Objective








participants



were done










Survey setting















pandemic


49 | P a g e

























50 | P a g e


Participant profile



















60 of participants

can acheive a 30-40

reduction energy

consumption


perspective







QsCompany A B C D E










51 | P a g e


















Data collection

General information
















28

9

18

18

27

Economic benefits




Innovation


52 | P a g e







feasibility issues

Economic issues


special workforce
































53 | P a g e












Social Benefits










No40

Yes60


No

Yes


54 | P a g e




Initial costs















6

25

31

13

19

6






55 | P a g e

Design limitations























regulations






56 | P a g e









participants





















28

29

29

14




57 | P a g e















Social challenges






















Advantages










58 | P a g e


































types




sustainability










59 | P a g e
































60 | P a g e




Objective











What is MIVES











(wwwdecaupcedu)














61 | P a g e






(Akbarnezhad 2019)



Balasbaneh 2020)

(httpsdoiorg101007s11356-020-10141-3)







62 | P a g e

















63 | P a g e













64 | P a g e




(httpsdoiorg101111j1530-9290201100424x)









65 | P a g e

Input data

4221 Alternatives
















4223 Criteria















R1 - Economic

R1C1 - Project cost

R2 - Time


R3 - Environmental






R3C6 - Recycle


R4 - Saftey

R4C1 - Injury risks


R5 - Social

R5C1 - Job status

R5C2 - Quality


66 | P a g e

















4224 Indicators














etc



















67 | P a g e



















(R3) Environmental


























68 | P a g e

bull Direct Data
















bull Estimated Data














Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593



Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813



Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813



Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



69 | P a g e

















Final indicators













choices










Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593



Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813



70 | P a g e






























Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813



Aye 2500000 996 356 41373 691

Quale 13600



Final 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691






71 | P a g e









8264 divide 9623 = 085877 1198621198742 119903119886119905119894119900

54079 times 085877 = 46442 119896119892 CO2 of PCM




project













2011)



(Aye 2011)


72 | P a g e
























blue)



Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



Hammad 812298 6598 71 217 198

Akbarnejad 120000 67 84672

Aye 2281000 3949 22 38008 322



Final 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322



PSM 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813

PTM 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691

PCM 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60

TRC 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322




73 | P a g e

Weights




















Weights 27 30 25 13 5




















CriteriaEnergy

consumption

Waste

generation

Material

Consumption

Noise

pollution

Greenhouse

gas emissionRecycle

Embodied

energy

Weights 17 15 17 5 15 15 16


74 | P a g e



















functions


75 | P a g e



















76 | P a g e



Data analysis

Indicators Values


















CO2 32000 60000 32000 55000 05 05 52700 Concave


Re-use 0 100 60 0 05 05 20 Concave









TRC 016 051 024 051 027 029 01 034 092

PSM 094 092 098 092 098 082 099 088 023

PCM 09 081 097 081 097 059 093 088 065

PTM 098 092 1 092 1 064 097 088 085


TRC 073 026 1 024 024 021 02 063 05

PSM 095 094 023 095 094 09 08 092 09

PCM 092 068 064 077 094 09 08 092 08

PTM 098 084 092 085 094 09 08 092 09


77 | P a g e

Criteria Values















TRC 023 029 028 029 009 032

PSM 094 097 099 083 099 088

PCM 088 094 096 059 094 088

PTM 097 098 101 064 096 088


TRC 091 045 083 024 021 040 052

PSM 024 096 048 095 090 088 092

PCM 064 077 072 095 090 088 080

PTM 085 091 096 095 090 088 092


78 | P a g e










three (Figure 416)










79 | P a g e




















80 | P a g e


others






alternatives











81 | P a g e


Requirement Values













TRC 023 029 045 022 046

PSM 094 097 075 093 088

PCM 088 094 078 093 084

PTM 097 098 088 093 088


82 | P a g e





















83 | P a g e






mentioned




alternatives












TRC PSM PCM PTM

SI 032 090 088 094


84 | P a g e


























literatures



















85 | P a g e












comparison






value





























86 | P a g e















Future studies












and on-site visits








adequate solutions






87 | P a g e

Recommendations


construction











































88 | P a g e


























projects


89 | P a g e






270 httpsdoiorg10110813598541111139071



55680000057



1057725671




78620001656








httpsdoi101111j1530-9290201100424x


(MBI)




Building Institute




90 | P a g e














forpdf









Infrastructure 1-34



46 245-252



31(1) 04016039







91 | P a g e









Valoracions


























Sons




92 | P a g e









engineering











manufacturing 38-63









palace







93 | P a g e











Mini-Merger

















and-dimensions






94 | P a g e





constructions




























95 | P a g e

Anexo 1







96 | P a g e





97 | P a g e






98 | P a g e






99 | P a g e






100 | P a g e





101 | P a g e




102 | P a g e




Company Responses

A 10-15

B 10-15

C 20-30

D 20-30

E 30-50



Company Responses

A 15 years



D Quantity Surveyor



Company Responses

A Wood Steel

B Wood

C Wood

D Wood



Company Responses







103 | P a g e


Company Responses


B 130 1 490

C 15




Company Responses


B Economic profit



E Economic profit







E




Company Responses


B 20


D 20

E 60


104 | P a g e




Company Responses





E -



Company Responses

A Yes

B Yes

C No

D No

E Yes



Company Responses


B


C







Company Responses




105 | P a g e




E -



Company Responses

A 70 less waste


C






Company Responses


B




E 30 energy saving



Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes




106 | P a g e


Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes


Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C Yes

D Yes

E Yes



Company Responses




D -



Company Responses








Company Responses

A -


107 | P a g e

B



D -




Company Responses


B






Company Responses


B No

C No

D No

E No








E No




108 | P a g e


Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C NA

D Yes

E Yes





Company



B Not significantly


D No

E No


Company Responses


B Cost

C -



Company



B



D No

E Yes


109 | P a g e





Company



B



D -

E -



Company Responses


B




the challenges



B



D -

E Delivery on time


110 | P a g e


Company Responses










D -

E Yes








B



Company




C No

D -

E -


111 | P a g e




Company



B





Company Responses

A -

B -



Final indicators 69

Weights 73

Data analysis 76


Criteria Values 77



5 Conclusions 84








Future studies 86







Recommendations 87


construction 87







6 References 89

Anexo 1 95

Anexo 2 102




















14













Malec (wmengcom) 21




23








Beton) 26


report MBI 2019) 28













(wwwcadoltocom) 37









Boldt Company 40


(archdailycom) 41



(casasinhauscom) 46












(WAHammad 2019) 61






2017) 63







alternatives 71



















96




97


















studied 68






































































1 | P a g e

1 Introduction

Motivations
































Gap of knowledge






conventional way


construction


2 | P a g e







quantitative



construction






alternatives




Limitations













uses











3 | P a g e













4 | P a g e















economy



5 | P a g e





years (Figure 22)











provide the needs


6 | P a g e





















7 | P a g e









period























8 | P a g e



























inventory metrics)




9 | P a g e











10 | P a g e
























and cyclicality




11 | P a g e

bull 1800s










bull 1900s






the United States



12 | P a g e





























progress




conglomerate


13 | P a g e















14 | P a g e


bull 90s










bull Modern days



















15 | P a g e





bull Bathroom pods





environment



o No trades on site









waterproof lining




16 | P a g e

o Bath or shower

o Toilets

o Basins

o Lights

o Mirrors

o Cabinets










bull Kitchen pods








white goods


17 | P a g e





bull Hotels

bull Apartments


bull Schools

bull Hospitals



18 | P a g e



o No weather delays
















wiring
















19 | P a g e



trailers uses



bull Containers












20 | P a g e













21 | P a g e









finished









22 | P a g e



o Steel Modules










below










properties


23 | P a g e










24 | P a g e


















25 | P a g e



o Wood structure





long-term repairs




examples

















26 | P a g e



o Concrete modules








27 | P a g e















o Education










o Construction-Site







plumbing

o Healthcare














28 | P a g e


office space

o CommercialRetail









o Security




glare





workers


Construction phases









29 | P a g e


o Step 1 Design





needs










Site plan

Building permit

Mechanical permit

Plumbing permit

Concrete permit

Encroachment permit

Sign permit












Permits


Site Development

Plant Fabrication



30 | P a g e



Surveying

Demolition

Excavation

Grading

Site drainage



























31 | P a g e


















advantages

Scheduling benefits









2019)


32 | P a g e








other



















33 | P a g e














34 | P a g e








Economic benefits













35 | P a g e











36 | P a g e






























37 | P a g e













38 | P a g e































39 | P a g e

















40 | P a g e




















41 | P a g e
















safety












Initial costs


42 | P a g e


































43 | P a g e
















































44 | P a g e

















































45 | P a g e







































46 | P a g e

































47 | P a g e

































48 | P a g e


survey Methodology

Objective








participants



were done










Survey setting















pandemic


49 | P a g e

























50 | P a g e


Participant profile



















60 of participants

can acheive a 30-40

reduction energy

consumption


perspective







QsCompany A B C D E










51 | P a g e


















Data collection

General information
















28

9

18

18

27

Economic benefits




Innovation


52 | P a g e







feasibility issues

Economic issues


special workforce
































53 | P a g e












Social Benefits










No40

Yes60


No

Yes


54 | P a g e




Initial costs















6

25

31

13

19

6






55 | P a g e

Design limitations























regulations






56 | P a g e









participants





















28

29

29

14




57 | P a g e















Social challenges






















Advantages










58 | P a g e


































types




sustainability










59 | P a g e
































60 | P a g e




Objective











What is MIVES











(wwwdecaupcedu)














61 | P a g e






(Akbarnezhad 2019)



Balasbaneh 2020)

(httpsdoiorg101007s11356-020-10141-3)







62 | P a g e

















63 | P a g e













64 | P a g e




(httpsdoiorg101111j1530-9290201100424x)









65 | P a g e

Input data

4221 Alternatives
















4223 Criteria















R1 - Economic

R1C1 - Project cost

R2 - Time


R3 - Environmental






R3C6 - Recycle


R4 - Saftey

R4C1 - Injury risks


R5 - Social

R5C1 - Job status

R5C2 - Quality


66 | P a g e

















4224 Indicators














etc



















67 | P a g e



















(R3) Environmental


























68 | P a g e

bull Direct Data
















bull Estimated Data














Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593



Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813



Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813



Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



69 | P a g e

















Final indicators













choices










Hammad 482446 2131 645 163 8593



Aye 3407000 871 5 50 56778 813



70 | P a g e






























Final 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813



Aye 2500000 996 356 41373 691

Quale 13600



Final 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691






71 | P a g e









8264 divide 9623 = 085877 1198621198742 119903119886119905119894119900

54079 times 085877 = 46442 119896119892 CO2 of PCM




project













2011)



(Aye 2011)


72 | P a g e
























blue)



Final 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60



Hammad 812298 6598 71 217 198

Akbarnejad 120000 67 84672

Aye 2281000 3949 22 38008 322



Final 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322



PSM 482446 2131 54079 138254 5 645 163 8593 50 9012 813

PTM 45000 20 39375 1580952 9 645 163 80 70 65671 691

PCM 5188603 24 46442 20000 10 645 163 90 20 800 60

TRC 812298 6598 3620635 626825 15 71 217 198 22 6033 322




73 | P a g e

Weights




















Weights 27 30 25 13 5




















CriteriaEnergy

consumption

Waste

generation

Material

Consumption

Noise

pollution

Greenhouse

gas emissionRecycle

Embodied

energy

Weights 17 15 17 5 15 15 16


74 | P a g e



















functions


75 | P a g e



















76 | P a g e



Data analysis

Indicators Values


















CO2 32000 60000 32000 55000 05 05 52700 Concave


Re-use 0 100 60 0 05 05 20 Concave









TRC 016 051 024 051 027 029 01 034 092

PSM 094 092 098 092 098 082 099 088 023

PCM 09 081 097 081 097 059 093 088 065

PTM 098 092 1 092 1 064 097 088 085


TRC 073 026 1 024 024 021 02 063 05

PSM 095 094 023 095 094 09 08 092 09

PCM 092 068 064 077 094 09 08 092 08

PTM 098 084 092 085 094 09 08 092 09


77 | P a g e

Criteria Values















TRC 023 029 028 029 009 032

PSM 094 097 099 083 099 088

PCM 088 094 096 059 094 088

PTM 097 098 101 064 096 088


TRC 091 045 083 024 021 040 052

PSM 024 096 048 095 090 088 092

PCM 064 077 072 095 090 088 080

PTM 085 091 096 095 090 088 092


78 | P a g e










three (Figure 416)










79 | P a g e




















80 | P a g e


others






alternatives











81 | P a g e


Requirement Values













TRC 023 029 045 022 046

PSM 094 097 075 093 088

PCM 088 094 078 093 084

PTM 097 098 088 093 088


82 | P a g e





















83 | P a g e






mentioned




alternatives












TRC PSM PCM PTM

SI 032 090 088 094


84 | P a g e


























literatures



















85 | P a g e












comparison






value





























86 | P a g e















Future studies












and on-site visits








adequate solutions






87 | P a g e

Recommendations


construction











































88 | P a g e


























projects


89 | P a g e






270 httpsdoiorg10110813598541111139071



55680000057



1057725671




78620001656








httpsdoi101111j1530-9290201100424x


(MBI)




Building Institute




90 | P a g e














forpdf









Infrastructure 1-34



46 245-252



31(1) 04016039







91 | P a g e









Valoracions


























Sons




92 | P a g e









engineering











manufacturing 38-63









palace







93 | P a g e











Mini-Merger

















and-dimensions






94 | P a g e





constructions




























95 | P a g e

Anexo 1







96 | P a g e





97 | P a g e






98 | P a g e






99 | P a g e






100 | P a g e





101 | P a g e




102 | P a g e




Company Responses

A 10-15

B 10-15

C 20-30

D 20-30

E 30-50



Company Responses

A 15 years



D Quantity Surveyor



Company Responses

A Wood Steel

B Wood

C Wood

D Wood



Company Responses







103 | P a g e


Company Responses


B 130 1 490

C 15




Company Responses


B Economic profit



E Economic profit







E




Company Responses


B 20


D 20

E 60


104 | P a g e




Company Responses





E -



Company Responses

A Yes

B Yes

C No

D No

E Yes



Company Responses


B


C







Company Responses




105 | P a g e




E -



Company Responses

A 70 less waste


C






Company Responses


B




E 30 energy saving



Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes




106 | P a g e


Company Responses

A No

B No

C No

D No

E Yes


Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C Yes

D Yes

E Yes



Company Responses




D -



Company Responses








Company Responses

A -


107 | P a g e

B



D -




Company Responses


B






Company Responses


B No

C No

D No

E No








E No




108 | P a g e


Company Responses

A Yes

B No

C NA

D Yes

E Yes





Company



B Not significantly


D No

E No


Company Responses


B Cost

C -



Company



B



D No

E Yes


109 | P a g e





Company



B



D -

E -



Company Responses


B




the challenges



B



D -

E Delivery on time


110 | P a g e


Company Responses










D -

E Yes








B



Company




C No

D -

E -


111 | P a g e




Company



B





Company Responses

A -

B -


Documents

Modular Construction potential advantages and common