See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/375636301

Concrete Modular Systems for High-rise Buildings - the best practice

Conference Paper · September 2023

CITATIONS READS
0 612

3 authors, including:

Tharaka Gunawardena Priyan Mendis

University of Melbourne University of Melbourne
45 PUBLICATIONS 980 CITATIONS 500 PUBLICATIONS 14,859 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tharaka Gunawardena on 28 November 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Concrete Modular Systems for High-rise Buildings – the best practice
Tharaka Gunawardena1, Shan Kumar2 and Priyan Mendis1
1
Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of Melbourne
2
Sheldon Consulting Engineers & Swinburne University of Technology

Abstract: Modern methods of construction with offsite manufacturing are advancements from prefabricated
technologies that have existed for decades in the construction industry. They provide a platform to integrate
various modern disciplines into supplying a more holistic solution. Due to the rapid speed of construction,
reduced requirement of labour and minimised work on-site, offsite manufacturing and prefabricated building
systems are becoming more popular and perhaps a necessity for the future of the construction industry
globally. The approach to the design and construction of prefab modular building systems, especially those
with concrete, demands a thorough understanding of their unique characteristics.

The applications of prefab modular systems have expanded into tall buildings where the effect of lateral
loads, such as wind and earthquake loads, becomes critical. This paper explores how concrete modular
structural systems are designed and installed in modern high-rise applications to improve their speed of
construction while maintaining and at times improving their structural performance compared to traditional
construction. The concepts introduced in this paper will discuss areas of a modular construction including
design, manufacturing, transportation and lifting & handling. These are explained with reference to real
projects and practical applications along with guidance on using them in engineering practice.

Keywords: Modern methods of construction (MMC), concrete modular construction, DfMA, modularisation,
offsite manufacturing.

1. Introduction
A prefabricated modular building, by definition, is where an entire building or an assembly of its components
(a kit of parts) is manufactured offsite and assembled onsite from volumetric modules. Prefabrication and
modularisation have been used in construction for many decades in various forms such as dry wall systems,
structural insulated panels (SIP), precast beams, prefabricated roof trusses, prefabricated reinforcement
cages, etc.[1-5]. Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) with Offsite Manufacturing (OSM) have integrated
these different technologies with a more systematic approach. Such prefab units are mass produced in
factories with upskilled specialist workmanship, and at times with automation and robotics in an offsite
manufacturing facility, transforming the traditional site-based and labour-intensive approach to construction.
Prefab building units have been widely used for residential, commercial and public infrastructure, post-
disaster structures and many other applications around the world [1, 4, 6].

Prefabricated building systems are observed in three main types of construction, as listed below:
1. Modular (volumetric) construction: manufacturing of fully self-contained units in an offsite facility to be
transported to site to be assembled to form a complete structure.
2. Panelised construction: manufacturing of flat panel
units in an offsite facility to be transported to site to
be assembled to form a complete structure.
3. Hybrid prefab construction (semi-volumetric):
combining both panelised and modular methods
where compact modular units (pods) are used for
the highly serviced and more repeatable areas
such as kitchens and bathrooms.
Prefab modules can be built out of concrete, steel,
timber (including engineered wood products) or a
combination of these (Figure 1). The two main
benefits of prefab construction are speed of
construction (and project delivery) and reduced labour
compared to traditional methods of construction.
Some of the other benefits and features of prefab
construction are as follows:
1. The reduced need for labour, especially for Figure 1: A module that has a steel column frame and a
skilled trades such as welding, enables the lightweight concrete base during its manufacturing stage
 construction process to convert from being a labour-oriented operation to a more process-oriented
manufacturing and assembly system. Many factors such as on-site congestion, waste and pollution
can be minimised this way.
2. Enables construction to commence earlier than usual, as prefab panels or modules can be
manufactured in the factory while site preparation and foundation works get underway concurrently.
3. Prefab construction at present reduces construction time by at least 50% while significantly reducing
material waste as well, from a site-intensive building [7, 8]. This ensures that the client of the project
starts generating revenue much earlier than usual.
4. Since most work is done under-cover in a factory, the overall construction process is significantly less
vulnerable to adverse weather.
5. Most inspections can be carried out within the factory where the environment is more conducive to
manual inspections. This combined with automated quality checks ensures a higher overall quality in
modular construction compared to traditionally built structures.

1.1 High rise applications of Offsite Manufactured Concrete Modules

One good example for a modular building system that

specifically cater to high rise applications was
developed by the Hickory Group of Australia. HBS
(Hickory building systems) and its structural modules
form a construction method that enables high-rise
structures to be manufactured offsite using a series of
interchangeable, prefabricated componentry (Figure 2).
These components can then be assembled into a
structural unit, transported to site and installed with
minimum skilled labour or trades onsite. As shown in
Figure 2, the structural units are formed with a steel
column structure founded on a lightweight concrete
floor. The preassembled curtainwall or façade will Figure 3: A schematic view of an HBS (hickory building
ensure that once installed, a particular floor will be fully systems) module
enclosed from its perimeters, allowing further work to be
carried out onsite without the need for extra peripheral
falsework or safety nets.
Although this may not a identify as a fully volumetric method, considering
the site-logistics and what trades are most economical to be left to be
completed onsite, this method has well-observed benefits for high rise
applications. Offsite manufacturing here reduces the overall logistical
burden as majority of the construction materials can be delivered to the point
of fabrication in a factory rather than delivering and storing on a congested
building site.
In developing this HBS system, a number of key innovations had been
developed in order to address the shortcomings of panelised and other
contemporary modular systems that were in the Australian market at the
time. The key systems (shown in Figures 2,3 & 5) that were developed
include:
• A rapid shear wall and core wall construction system, where
prefabricated wall elements together with its reinforcement were
integrated into a structural module and sprayed with concrete onsite, a
method that is better known as shotcreting
• Precast, load-bearing walls integrated into the modular system by
sliding in between modules after onsite installation of modules
• Lightweight concrete floor system embedded in structural modules Figure 2: La trobe tower - 43 storey
(integrated in-factory) to enable efficient transportation and installation modular building constructed using
• Preassembled curtain wall system (integrated in-factory) as part of the the HBS modular system
structural modules; and
• Fully kitted modular bathroom pods (SYNC Pods that were also developed by Hickory Group) that can
be installed onsite as individual plug-in units
This method has so far been successfully implemented in many high rise projects across Australia including
the 43-storey La Trobe Tower in Melbourne (Figure 3), a 46-storey student accommodation building in
Melbourne, the 60-storey Collins House building in Melbourne and the 17-storey Peppers Kings Square
Hotel in Perth.
Considering other applications in Australia, the use of modular construction in public infrastructure is a
highlight. It has been heavily used in applications such as railway stations and schools with somewhat of a
smaller coverage in other types such as hospitals, police stations and childcare & aged care facilities [4].

1.2 Design Process and Stages in a Highrise Modular Project

The design process of a modular building takes a somewhat different and an arguably improved approach
compared to traditional construction projects (Figure 4). This is mainly due to the necessity of completing
the project in a much shorter time frame. The structural design takes place centred around the particular
prefab builder while the specific design task maybe subcontracted to an outside structural design firm. The
collaboration of both the builder and the structural engineer is critically important in achieving an efficient
design process in a modular project. An efficient design process can only be achieved with continuous
consultation with the builder and particularly their in-house personnel that look after construction logistics
and procurement.

Figure 4: A typical DfMA (design for manufacturing and assembly) process for a prefab construction alongside other
related activities that occur concurrently with each phase of the DfMA process [1]

The design phase shown in Figure 3, takes a design for manufacturing and assembly (DfMA) format, when
structured properly. In such a DfMA setup, all relevant faculties of the design, i.e., architectural, structural,
MEP and interior designs integrate along with the necessary detailing and planning for its in-factory
manufacturing, transportation and on-site handling and assembly. A building information modelling (BIM)
framework would then integrate all abovementioned details. Here, the traditional quantity surveying or cost
estimation activity evolves into a much broader process involving logistics and procurement. Principles of
‘Lean Manufacturing’ has been adopted to incorporate logistics management of both in-factory and on-site
work in recent research[9, 10] and is gradually being adopted by prefab builders, especially the ones that
have a degree of automation within their facilities. Concepts of blockchain and cryptocurrency have also
been considered in recent research for developing smart procurement methods and smart contracts to add
further dimensions to prefab building processes[11-13]. In a high rise project, simply due to the large amount
of materials and systems being used, and the amount of stakeholders involved, an efficient procurement
and logistics strategy is compulsory and needs to be supported by a BIM framework.

2. Modularisation
The first design activity that occurs once a developed architectural design reaches a prefab builder’s office,
is the modularisation of the given floor plans. For a rectangular or a similarly simple floor plan, it could be
as straightforward as dividing up a given plan into segments, of which the sizes represent the viable modular
or panel dimensions. However, every modularisation activity requires the builder to consider a number of
key parameters prior to arriving at the feasible module dimensions and their arrangement. Some of these
key considerations are listed below:
Architectural constraints—The spacial arrangements in the architectural design will dictate where
possible modular splits can be organised. The locations and dimensions of architectural features such as
windows, openings, facades, etc. will add to this decision. An architectural design created with prefab in
mind from the beginning, will result in a quite straightforward modularisation process.
Transportation limitations—The capability of the fleet of trucks that a particular prefab builder has access
to will dictate the maximum length of a module. While, for example, in Australia, the maximum allowable
length for transportation is 30 m (Table 1), most trucks can carry modules up to about 16 m in length. The
lane widths of the relevant arterial road network will reflect upon the allowed maximum width for
transportation and for volumetric modules this is one of the main design limitations. With escort vehicles in
front and in the back, a 5 m maximum is allowed in Australia (Table 1), and similar limits apply in other
countries as well. Similarly, if the prefab units are to be shipped, the volume and weight constraints of the
vessel will also apply, in addition to the transportation limitations and regulations that apply to the embarking
and disembarking countries or regions.
Table 1. Dimension and weight limits to be followed in Victoria, Australia by vehicles transporting houses
and prefabricated buildings[14]

Dimension Maximum Limit

Width 5.0 m

Height 1 5.0 m

Length 30.0 m

Weight 2 43 tonnes

1
The total allowable height includes 1.2 m of trailer deck height (i.e., the height of modules or panels need to be less
than 3.8 m). 2 The total allowable weight includes the weight of the steer axle concession, which varies according to the
vehicle.
Lifting and handling limitations—Prefab modules need to be designed to dimensions and weights that
are practical when it comes to lifting and handling both onsite as well as within the manufacturing facility. If
modules are to be shipped, the lifting and handling limitations at ports will also apply. Depending on the
capacities of cranes that are typically used by the prefab builder, and the site access conditions of the
particular project site (which dictates the lifting angles and distances), the weight of each module will need
to be limited. The additional weights of the lifting rigs and chains also need to be considered here. At least
a preliminary understanding of the lifting and handling strategy of a particular project needs to be known for
an efficient modularisation.
Onsite installation—The sequence of installation and access to structural connections are important to be
considered when dividing up a structure into modules. One of the main intentions of a prefab structure is to
reduce the necessity for skilled trades to be on site. Therefore, the onsite installation needs to reduce skilled
activities such as welding to a minimum. The connections also need to be safely and conveniently
accessible minimising the need for temporary falsework as much as possible.
Manufacturing process—The modularisation activity needs to consider the dimensions of various activity
stations of the manufacturing plant and its sequence of operations. The modules need to move around the
facility from one station to another without the need to restructure their geometries and without hindering
the normal operations of the factory.
Preliminary locations of structural columns and connections — The locations of columns and their
structural connections are critical considerations during modularisation. In contrast to a traditional structural
design, the locations of structural columns will not only relate to the eventual structure, but also to the
structural integrity of a given module during its transportation, lifting and handling stages, since the lifting
connectors (lifting eyes or connections to a rig) should ideally be located on the structural columns.
Preliminary locations and dimensions of service spaces (MEP)—At least a preliminary concept of the
required spaces for mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) services such as service ducts and ceilings
and heavily serviced areas such as toilets and kitchens needs to be known at the modularisation stage.
Modular splits will need to be arranged accordingly, and any necessary alterations could be sorted via a
well-formed BIM platform and by communicating with the architects and building services engineers.

The abovementioned parameters in a modularisation activity will affect key decision variables that depend
on these parameters. Project cost and logistical items such as labour and equipment requirements related
to the manufacturing process, lifting and handling, transportation and any other part of the project will
depend on the outcomes of the modularisation activity.

Figure 5: Modularisation of a high rise floor using the HBS System

3. Structural Design

3.1 Structural Design Criteria

As identified in the Australian design standards, a structural design should comply with three main design
criteria, namely:
1 Stability;
2 Serviceability; and
3 Strength.
Similar requirements apply in international codes of practice and guidelines that use a ‘limit state design’
approach where some may refer to these as ultimate and serviceability limit states using certain load
combinations to cover stability. None of these requirements would and should change in designing a
prefabricated building. While prefabrication and offsite manufacturing are the methods used to replace
traditional construction, the finished structure is still a building used to serve the same functions. While these
basic principles need no change for modular structures, the authors are quite supportive of modifying the
already existing structural design standards to incorporate additional requirements that arise from
complexities such as transportation, lifting and handling in modular projects. A good example for such an
inclusion of prefab concepts into a traditional design standard is the latest version of the Australian concrete
design code, AS3600:2018[15], where new clauses were added to provide guidelines on minimum levels of
strength and safety to prefabricated concrete structures, especially in the design of connections[16, 17].
In terms of identifying the loads acting on a given prefab structure, as in any traditional structural design,
the relevant usage, probability factors and importance levels need to be determined according to its
architectural design and the relevant codes of practice (for example, for structures built in Australia,
AS1170.0: 2002 provides guidance on choosing importance levels according to their intended purpose and
usage, with further guidance on load combinations and probability of exceedance; AS1170.1:2002 provides
guidance on minimum live loads; AS1170.2: 2021 provides guidance on minimum wind loads to consider
and AS1170.4: 2007 provides guidance on minimum earthquake loads to consider[18-21]).
Depending on the usual practice of the prefab builder and the nature of their manufacturing facilities, the
main structural system could be designed with either concrete, timber, steel or a mix of these. This extends
to wall frames being either softwood or LGS (light gauge steel) and the choice of building envelope as well.
Having prior knowledge of the finishing materials and their weights adds an extra advantage to the overall
structural design, since there would be much less uncertainty on the weights of finishes and cladding
(especially since there is minimal opportunity for these choices to be changed later, as the project timeline
is very short). The exact values of their weights with a higher reliability can be used in determining some of
the superimposed dead loads such as those for cladding, partitions and finishes, and these would usually
end up being lower than the values used in common design practice.

3.2 Structural Design for Transportation, Lifting and Handling

The structural design of a modular building needs to comprehensively accommodate the transportation,
lifting and handling strategy of a given project and the relevant capabilities of the modular builder and its
subcontractors. In this regard, there are two main temporary conditions that the structural design needs to
consider, namely:
1. Temporary loads; and
2. Temporary support conditions.
Temporary Loads

Any form of construction, traditional or prefab needs

to consider temporary loads in its design. In an in-situ
construction, temporary loads are usually in the form
of temporary live loads such as the weight of
equipment, formwork and storage materials on slabs,
in addition to the live load of construction workers.
There may also be temporary thermal stresses on
exposed structural elements. However, since the on-
site time and activity is minimal in a prefab
construction, temporary loads mostly act on modules
during their transport, lifting and handling stages.
These loads that act on a module or panel during its Figure 6: A temporary cross bracing applied between two
temporary columns in a prefabricated volumetric module (all
transportation can be estimated according to the to be removed after installation).
findings of some recent studies[22-24]. Although the
stiffness of temporary bracing and the permanent
structural frame should be checked against these loads, proper guidance on transportation-induced loading
has not yet adequately appeared in the design standards of buildings. Much more research on this subject
needs to be carried out. For the time being, it is prudent to overdesign the temporary bracings to withstand
any forces that the structure may undergo during all stages of its movement within the factory, on-route to
site, and on-site during installation, since temporary bracings can be reused many times. As a result, as
shown in Figure 6, temporary bracings and temporary columns are a common feature in modular
construction today.

Temporary Support Conditions

In an in-situ construction, it is common to observe temporary boundary conditions such as temporarily
unbraced columns or lift core that is usually cast ahead of the rest of the building. Similarly, in a prefab
modular structure, the transportation, lifting and handling stages and even the installation stage would
impose temporary support conditions on prefab units.
For example, there are situation where temporary cantilevers are imposed on modules during their
transportation due to their width being larger than the width of the truck bed. Such situations need to be
foreseen by the structural engineer, especially since the details of the fleet of trucks accessible to the prefab
builder are known beforehand.
When it comes to the lifting of modules, top lifts and bottom lifts are the two main methods of lifting
modular and panelised units. A top lift is commonly arranged with adjustable spreaders and chains or a
more stable lifting rig (external steel frame) that lift a unit from the top. These top lifts should ideally be
carried out by connecting the lifting mechanism to structural columns which are adequately stiff to carry the
tensile force applied on them when
the full weight of the prefab unit acts
upon them. Bottom lifts are carried out
by connecting the lifting mechanism to
the bottom of the module or panel,
usually arranged with a single
spreader beam on top.
Lifting stability can be provided by
designing for suitable lifting capacity
from the mobile crane (or the tower
crane). Most lifts end up being
unstable and shaky due to the
selection of cranes with capacities
with an allowable lifting weight only
just above the actual weight of the
prefab unit. It is observed in practice
that a fairly stable lift can be achieved
Figure 7: A module being lifted using a 'top-lift' method where lifting rig
(a laterally braced steel frame) provides more stability during the lift by selecting a mobile crane with a
capacity that results in an allowable lifting weight which is around 2 to 3 times the actual weight of the prefab
unit being lifted [1]. The extra cost for hiring a larger capacity crane would be soon offset by achieving a
faster installation due to having a more stable lift. It also helps to have a structural design that enables an
even weight distribution in the horizontal plane of the module (on floors and ceilings), so that the module
can be level-lifted without them being tilted to a side.

5. Prototyping

Prototyping is an essential part of the process which allows a modular builder to inspect the installation
process beforehand. Since there is no room for error once the modules reach the construction site, all
measures must be taken to ensure accuracy while the units are still within the builder’s manufacturing
facility. All aspects related to buildability, such as access to connections, safety of installers, accuracy of
installing sequence and adequacy of tolerances can all be checked during a well-organised prototyping
activity. Figure 8 shows a full-scale prototyping of the previously mentioned HBS modules building carried
out at an offsite manufacturing facility. In a full-scale prototyping, the modules would at times be fully
disassembled from their inter-modular connections before being transported to site to be assembled again.
Therefore, while prototyping is meant to discover all practical issues as previously discussed, it also stands
as a testament to the full reusability and relocatability of such prefab modules.

Figure 8: Prototyping of the HBS concrete modules and testing them for lifting and installation

While most modular builders would prefer a full-scale prototyping of the real structure, the continuous
increase in the demand for prefabricated buildings may not allow for this in the future. Rapid prototyping
methods such as 3D printing combined with many AI (artificial intelligence) methods would be a suitable
solution to carry out accurate, small-scale and quick prototyping tasks requiring much less human input.

6. Performance Testing and areas for improvement

Prefabricated modular structural systems tend to fall outside the normal deemed to satisfy (DTS) domain of
compliance at times, especially in the Australian context. Therefore, performance testing becomes an

Figure 9: Testing of the compressive strength of shot-creted core wall prototypes using core samples
essential part of prefabricated buildings, until such time that all forms of prefabrication is recognised and
fully stipulated in design standards.Figure 9 shows extensive prototype testing being carried out to prove
the achievement of compressive strength and overall quality achieved in preparing the shotcrete core walls
of the HBS system to be applied at the 43-storey La Trobe tower. The prototype tests for concrete strength
have shown that 50 MPa and 65 MPa shotcrete specimens had achieved their respective design strengths
by 28 days.
It is also seen that many other performance issues related to areas such as fire resistance, acoustics and
hygrothermal performance constantly pose similar issues with compliance as most standards still refer to
building detailing with reference to traditional construction methods.
One of the least developed areas in prefab is using offsite manufacturing for the mechanical, electrical and
plumbing (MEP) works, commonly known as building services. Only a handful of recent research work has
captured the need for modular MEP systems and introduced concepts to practically implement them[25-
28]. However, the industry uptake of these concepts seems to be slow. There is a critical need to modularise
MEP systems in prefab buildings since the installation of building services currently takes up a considerable
amount of time and remains a bottleneck in most prefab design and construction schedules. Modular MEP
systems need to be adopted more frequently for them to be recognised and regulated by design standards
and for them to develop further to fill a critical gap in the prefab industry. Design for building acoustics,
thermal and fire performance could also be included in this category and similar need for more detailed
research as well as industry uptake exists in making these systems integrated more efficiently into the
modular or prefab setup[29-31].

5. Concluding Remarks

Modular construction and offsite manufacturing have remarkably transformed modern construction by
reducing onsite activities and the construction time. The inclusion of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly
(DfMA) is enabling a rapid evolution in the construction industry and design practice by creating better-
performing prefab systems that reduce factory overheads and enable more automation. A combination of
these technologies will help to deliver projects even faster while generating higher profit margins for
investors. In addition to faster constructions, modular construction will also create a more quality-oriented
construction practice and a safer working environment for upskilled building technicians.
The structural design of high rise modular systems and their connections still need to follow the basic
principles of structural design and satisfy strength, serviceability and stability criteria. In a fundamental
sense, modular systems should not differ by any means from traditional structural systems in achieving the
required performance. Designers need to provide the capability of easy installation on site, and easy
accessibility to connections even after installation. The overall geometry, rigidity and weight of modules will
need to satisfy lifting, transportability and assembly criteria to make any prefabricated system viable.
Where skilled labour is diminishing as a resource globally, it would be prudent to invest more in modular
construction and offsite manufacturing, supported by more detailed research. Further, prefab builders would
also benefit from various economies of scale by having a factory-oriented process incorporating various
levels of automation with minimum on-site activity. The disassembly and reusability aspects add another
dimension into the long-term value, by improving the sustainability and reducing the overall carbon footprint
of a construction. Automation in manufacturing, with the use of robotics, and enhanced productivity, with
the use of artificial intelligence, can further enhance the future value of offsite manufacturing.

4. Acknowledgement

This work was funded by the Australian Research Council Industrial Transformation Research Programme,
IC150100023: ARC Training Centre for Advanced Manufacturing of Prefabricated Housing.

5. References

[1] T. Gunawardena and P. Mendis, "Prefabricated Building Systems - Design and Construction,"
Encyclopedia, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 70-95, 2022, doi: 10.3390/encyclopedia2010006.
[2] T. Gunawardena, T. Ngo, P. Mendis, and J. Alfano, "Innovative Flexible Structural System Using
Prefabricated Modules," Journal of Architectural Engineering, vol. 22, no. 4, 2016 2016, doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000214.
[3] T. Gunawardena, "Behaviour of prefabricated modular buildings subjected to lateral loads," 2016.
[Online]. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/123961
[4] T. Gunawardena, P. Mendis, T. Ngo, B. Rismanchi, and L. Aye, "Effective use of Offsite
Manufacturing for Public Infrastructure Projects in Australia," presented at the International
Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Construction 2019 (ICSIC), Cambridge, UK, 2019. [Online].
Available: https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/abs/10.1680/icsic.64669.267.
[5] H. Rajanayagam et al., "Evaluation of inter-modular connection behaviour under lateral loads: An
experimental and numerical study," Journal of Constructional Steel Research, vol. 194, p. 107335,
2022/07/01/ 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2022.107335.
[6] N. Satheeskumar, N. Tuan, G. Tharaka, and H. David, "Performance Review of Prefabricated
Building Systems and Future Research in Australia," Buildings, article vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 38-38, 02/01/
2019, doi: 10.3390/buildings9020038.
[7] L. Aye, T. Ngo, R. H. Crawford, R. Gammampila, and P. Mendis, "Life cycle greenhouse gas
emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules," Energy Build., vol. 47,
pp. 159-168, 2012/04/01/ 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.11.049.
[8] R. M. Lawson, R. G. Ogden, and R. Bergin, "Application of Modular Construction in High-Rise
Buildings," Journal of Architectural Engineering, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 148-154, 2012, doi:
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000057.
[9] P. A. N. Peiris, F. K. P. Hui, T. Ngo, C. Duffield, and M. G. Garcia, "A Case Study on Early Stage
Adoption of Lean Practices in Prefabricated Construction Industry," in ICSECM 2019, Singapore,
R. Dissanayake, P. Mendis, K. Weerasekera, S. De Silva, and S. Fernando, Eds., 2021// 2021:
Springer Singapore, pp. 589-600.
[10] S. Sepasgozar, F. K. P. Hui, S. Shirowzhan, M. Foroozanfar, L. Yang, and L. Aye, "sustainability
Lean Practices Using Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Digital Twinning for Sustainable
Construction," Sustainability, vol. 13, p. 161, 12/25 2020, doi: 10.3390/su13010161.
[11] A. Hijazi Amer, S. Perera, N. Calheiros Rodrigo, and A. Alashwal, "Rationale for the Integration of
BIM and Blockchain for the Construction Supply Chain Data Delivery: A Systematic Literature
Review and Validation through Focus Group," Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, vol. 147, no. 10, p. 03121005, 2021/10/01 2021, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0002142.
[12] S. Nanayakkara, S. Perera, S. Senaratne, G. T. Weerasuriya, and H. M. N. D. Bandara, "Blockchain
and Smart Contracts: A Solution for Payment Issues in Construction Supply Chains," Informatics,
vol. 8, no. 2, p. 36, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9709/8/2/36.
[13] M. N. N. Rodrigo, S. Perera, S. Senaratne, and X. Jin, "Potential Application of Blockchain
Technology for Embodied Carbon Estimating in Construction Supply Chains," Buildings, vol. 10, no.
8, p. 140, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/10/8/140.
[14] Vicroads. "Transporting Houses and Prefabricated Buildings."
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/heavy-vehicle-industry/heavy-vehicle-road-
safety/transporting-houses-and-prefabricated-buildings (accessed July 2023).
[15] AS 3600:2018 Concrete structures, S. Australia, 2018.
[16] T. Jayasinghe, T. Gunawardena, and P. Mendis, "A comparative study on minimum shear
reinforcement provisions in codes of practice for reinforced concrete beams," Case Studies in
Construction Materials, article vol. 15, no. e00617-, 12/01/ 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00617.
[17] T. Jayasinghe, T. Gunawardena, and P. Mendis, "Advancements in Concrete Technology for Offsite
Manufactured Buildings and Infrastructure Systems," presented at the CONCRETE 2021, Concrete
Institute of Australia’s Biennial National Conference, Perth, Australia, 2021.
[18] AS 1170.0:2002 Structural design actions General principles, S. Australia, 2002.
[19] AS 1170.1:2002 Structural design actions Permanent, imposed and other actions, S. Australia,
2002.
[20] AS 1170.4:2007 Structural design actions, Part 4: Earthquake actions in Australia, S. Australia,
2007.
[21] AS 1170.2:2021 Structural design actions Wind actions, S. Australia, 2021.
[22] S. Godbole, N. Lam, M. Mafas, S. Fernando, E. Gad, and J. Hashemi, "Dynamic loading on a
prefabricated modular unit of a building during road transportation," Journal of Building Engineering,
vol. 18, pp. 260-269, 2018/07/01/ 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.03.017.
 [23] S. Godbole, N. Lam, M. M. M. Mafas, and E. Gad, "Pounding of a modular building unit during road
transportation," Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 36, p. 102120, 2021/04/01/ 2021, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.102120.
[24] S. Godbole, N. Lam, and M. M. Mohamed Muhinadeen, "Vehicle–road interaction analysis for
pounding between cargo and trailer-bed," Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 547-567,
2021/04/03 2021, doi: 10.1080/00423114.2019.1697459.
[25] T. Samarasinghe, P. Mendis, L. Aye, and T. Vassos, "Applications of Design for Excellence in
Prefabricated Building Services Systems," presented at the The 7th International Conference on
Sustainable Built Environment (ICSBE), December 2016, 2016.
[26] T. Samarasinghe, P. Mendis, L. Aye, D. Gunawardena, and R. Karunaratne, "BIM and modular
MEP systems for super-tall and mega-tall buildings," 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://hdl.handle.net/11343/197525.
[27] T. Samarasinghe, T. Gunawardena, P. Mendis, M. Sofi, and L. Aye, "Dependency Structure Matrix
and Hierarchical Clustering based algorithm for optimum module identification in MEP systems,"
Automation in Construction, vol. 104, pp. 153-178, 2019/08/01/ 2019, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.03.021.
[28] P. Weerasinghe et al., "An optimum construction strategy for multi-story residential prefabricated
modular buildings," presented at the ZEMCH 2018 International Conference, Melbourne, Australia,
2018.
[29] J. Amitha, N. Satheeskumar, G. Tharaka, M. Priyan, and A. Lu, "Airborne and impact sound
performance of modern lightweight timber buildings in the Australian construction industry," Case
Studies in Construction Materials, article vol. 15, no. e00632-, 12/01/ 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00632.
[30] M. Caniato, F. Bettarello, A. Ferluga, L. Marsich, C. Schmid, and P. Fausti, "Acoustic of lightweight
timber buildings: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 80, pp. 585-596,
2017/12/01/ 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.110.
[31] M. Caniato, F. Bettarello, A. Ferluga, L. Marsich, C. Schmid, and P. Fausti, "Thermal and acoustic
performance expectations on timber buildings," (in English), Build. Acoustics, Article vol. 24, no. 4,
pp. 219-237, Dec 2017, doi: 10.1177/1351010x17740477.

View publication stats