2. Table of contents
1 Introduction Oregon BEST Agenda Development Forum Series
2 Summary
4 Common Themes: Threads Across Research Areas
6 Oregon BEST Modular Construction Research Agenda
6 Case Studies
7 Life Cycle Costing and Impact Assessment
8 Streamlining Modular Project Delivery
8 Technical Development of Components
10 Use of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) as a Modular Component
11 Special Note: Additional Research Topics
12 About Oregon BEST
13 Agenda Co-Authors
3. Oregon BEST convenes this series to provide a forum
where industry leaders collaboratively develop a
prioritized research agenda. This process provides both
improved clarity around what our partners’ innovation
needs are, and a succinct method of communicating
those needs to the research community.
Expert presentations from practitioners frame the
issues at each event, stimulating attendees in facilitated
dialogues culminating in a set of research projects that
Oregon BEST publishes and works to have funded.
This document is the sixth of these Research Agendas,
written to capture the work of the attendees of the March
6, 2014 Forum focused on defining the research that
would help bring the promise of modular construction
into more widespread practice.
Attendees of this Forum collaboratively articulated a
set of research projects that address their fundamental
challenges by answering the question, “What
technological innovation or new understanding is needed
to support increased utilization of modular construction
in building projects?“
The purpose of this report is to represent the approach
used through the Forum Series to inform the BEST
Research priorities and to briefly present the ideas and
priorities suggested at the Forum for further input from
our colleagues and allies.
Introduction
Oregon BEST Agenda
Development Forum Series
What technological innovation
or new understanding is needed
to support increased utilization
of modular construction in
building projects?”
“
MODULAR CONSTRUCTION 1
4. Oregon BEST held the sixth of its Agenda Development Forums on Modular
Construction in reflection of the topic’s importance. Prioritization of forum
topics is based on input from our Consortium, prominence in the national
dialogue, as well as recent programmatic efforts by partner organizations,
regionally and nationally, to address the defining issues. As with previous
Forums, we reviewed key reports and consulted with several industry leaders
in order to frame this discussion. Through our efforts we were able to
craft working definitions and identify the key opportunities and barriers to
innovation that would help shape discussion during the Agenda Development
Forum.
In addition to our usual Forum preparation, we also invited stakeholders and
experts to participate in a series of online surveys to help focus the content of
the forum. In our initial survey, participants identified the technological needs,
knowledge gaps, and institutional barriers that they viewed as most important
to the ensuing Forum discussion. After collating and synthesizing responses
from the initial survey, we identified 10 overarching technological and
knowledge needs and 6 fundamental barriers. In a second survey, participants
prioritized and ranked the 10 overarching needs by their immediate necessity
and feasibility. Participants also provided feedback regarding the extent to
which the 10 identified needs addressed the 6 identified barriers.
The results from our online survey series allowed us to identify 5 research
priorities from our initial list of 10 identified needs. Those priorities included:
1. The need to document cases of quality modular buildings in comparable
climates, as well as identify design principles that will inspire design and
construction teams, convince developers, and compel code officials.
2. The need to devise assessment tools that allow accurate cost and impact
comparison between conventional and modular construction at the
project level.
3. The need to generate true project cost comparisons of modular and
conventional construction methods from various trade perspectives.
4. The need to explore novel applications of modular components that
Forum Series
Format & Summary
2 BEST FORUM
Defining the Problem
Narrowing the modular vernacular
down to the most essential working
definitions was an important step in
framing this discussion.
Prefabrication
Offsite manufacturing of building
parts (e.g., processed materials,
assembled components, panelized
and modular structures).
Permanent Modular Construction
Offsite prefabrication and
preassembly of volumetric
components intended for
attachment to a permanent
foundation for the entire duration of
a building’s lifetime.
Relocatable Buildings
Volumetric components
prefabricated and preassembled
offsite that are either not attached
to a permanent foundation, or are
intended to be moved during the
lifetime of the building.
Manufactured Homes
Relocatable buildings that are
federally regulated by the US
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
Industrialized Construction
Automation of building construction
utilizing advanced equipment and
technology to minimize human
involvement.
Lean Construction
Building methods that reduce
overall material and capital
waste associated with industrial
production.
5. improve performance (e.g., seismic fittings, building
envelopes).
5. The need to develop technologies that will provide
the ability to better handle ‘custom’ elements.
These priorities formed the basis for the introductory
presentation, after which a panel of experts were asked
to present their responses to the framing question:
“What technological innovation or new understanding
is needed to support increased utilization of modular
construction in building projects?” Their responses, along
with the Forum participants’ collective interests, shaped
the resulting list of research priorities highlighted in this
agenda.
Barriers
Determining the major barriers that must be overcome in
advancing modular construction methods was a second
important step in framing the discussion. The following
challenges in particular warrant need for the research
priorities presented in this agenda.
Public Perception
Prefabricated and modular housing have held poor
reputations in the public eye ever since their early
Post-War introduction. The image of prefabricated units
as aesthetically and functionally inferior still persists
in today’s market. The impact of this misperception is
compounded by a muted awareness of the potential cost
advantages associated with modular construction. These
views erode consumer demand for modular products and
impede growth of the industry.
Institutional Fit
The low number of designers and contractors with
experience in modular construction practices constitutes
only part of a major supply-side barrier today. Forum
participants suggested that some defining characteristics
of the traditional construction industry might hinder
the competitive advancement of modular construction
approaches. Such resistance suggests that today’s
construction industry overall may offer poor institutional
fit for emerging modular technologies.
The labor constraints affecting the modular construction
industry may be in large part due to new technical
demands associated with modular approaches. Suppliers
utilizing advanced manufacturing techniques to produce
prefabricated components for onsite assembly require a
very low error tolerance. Such manufacturers have stated
that they struggle to find the necessary skilled labor
for operating the specialized equipment required. The
scarcity of modular designers can similarly be viewed as
a result of insufficient technical training for this emerging
form of project delivery.
Lastly, the traditional design-bid-build project delivery
system may also pose some challenge to the expansion
of modular construction. The building industry is
driven by demands of individual projects, which makes
it difficult for individual players to commit to a long-
term, large-scale transition in practice. Additionally, the
dominant methods in practice are optimized to reduce
legal and financial liability, not to promote efficient
reorganization of resources and approaches. This imposes
disconnects between disciplines across the building supply
chain. Such disconnects do not favor the advancement of
modular construction practices, which frequently depend
on well-coordinated multidisciplinary teams to achieve
minimal tolerances on shortened timetables.
Codes & Regulations
Some of the participants in this Agenda Development
Forum acknowledged that real or perceived regulatory
and institutional constraints (e.g., building codes, unions,
procurement SOPs, liability concerns) may keep design
teams from embracing a shift to modular construction
technology. This reluctance stems demand, which in
turn impedes growth and innovation. Where possible,
assurances must be made that modular processes and
products will meet all legal and financial requirements,
including building codes.
MODULAR CONSTRUCTION 3
6. Common Themes
Threads Across
Research Areas
4 BEST FORUM
In addition to addressing the aforementioned barriers,
the research priorities presented in this agenda also seek
to fulfill common outcomes. The following three themes
represent important benefits and goals associated with
research outcomes proposed in the next section.
Project approach and teaming
As mentioned above, modular construction projects
require close collaboration between many disciplines.
Teams of designers, architects, manufacturers, and
contractors will need to be assembled in order
to facilitate such exchanges. Successful modular
construction projects will be built on technically skilled
labor, designers and architects with experience working
on low tolerance projects, and managers capable
of coordinating diverse teams on narrow schedules.
Achieving this organizational capacity begins with
assessing technical training gaps, identifying successful
team structures, and utilizing Information Technology
tools that simplify cross-discipline communications.
Standardization
The advancement of modular construction would benefit
greatly from some degree of standardization in design,
methods, materials and project delivery. At minimum,
the standards proposed in this agenda should aid in
overcoming misconceptions of inferior quality and higher
costs associated with modular products, as well as
potential legal and practical constraints (e.g., regarding
union labor, procurement protocols). Standardized
protocols should also facilitate important future
technological innovations, such as flexible computer-
aided manufacturing systems that improve mass
customization capacity.
Inspiration and guidance
The most necessary and most feasible research gap
identified in our preliminary surveys reflected the
need for well-documented case studies of modular
construction projects. Such studies are an important
first step in reconciling the purported benefits with the
realized benefits of modular construction, but they may
also serve as an important guide to further innovation.
Indeed, most of the research priorities described below
should not simply aim to prove the efficiency, cost-
effectiveness, superior quality and aesthetic appeal of
modular products. Rather, the outputs proposed in this
agenda should also strive to provide useful information
regarding the ideal application of modular approaches,
establish suitable design principles, and encourage
artistic and technological breakthroughs.
8. 6 BEST FORUM
Oregon BEST
Modular Construction
Research Agenda
Case Studies
Facilitator: David Kenney, Oregon BEST
Problem Statement: Third party data is needed from
built modular projects to provide evidence for how
modular methods can be deployed most effectively and
for overcoming identified barriers of perception.
Research Questions
• When and where does modular make sense? Explore
feasibility along various criteria, including but not
limited to:
• Building type; building size; climatic condition;
and whole building vs. component modularity.
• What kind of evidence exists for the following?
• Health/indoor air quality;
• Safety
• Maintenance costs
• Energy – including applicable incentives
• Envelope performance – including water tightness,
acoustic and thermal performance
• What is the impact (of the duration of time on-site in
terms e.g., cost, disruption, environmental damage,
safety)? Research should consider how these impacts
differ across various market sectors with different
attributes.
• What processes do design and construction teams
use to achieve a successful result? Who is involved in
the decision-making?
• What hidden costs or cost benefits arise in modular
construction projects over the life cycle of the
building? Consider flexibility of the building
• What are the trends among schools and their use of
modular and conventional construction?
• What are the conditions and drivers leading to
increased use of modular in rural areas, for example?
Research Projects
1. Identify a set of built projects that incorporate a
variety of types of modularity, both domestically and
internationally, to explore the research questions
identified above. Working with the owners, occupants,
and design teams, utilize the case studies to describe
the conditions that led to the resulting project. Where
international examples are used, identify places where
climatic, political, or cultural context played a role in
the project feasibility, and develop recommendations
for changes necessary to support market uptake in
North America.
2. Conduct side-by-side longitudinal comparisons of
similar or identical buildings built conventionally and
modularly.
a. Lake Washington School District built 13 building
projects simultaneously, only one of which was
modular, providing an ideal foundation for a
longitudinal study.
9. b. Any study should examine cost, schedule,
performance, energy efficiency, learning and/or
health outcomes.
Potential Resources & Collaborators
• Retailers with modular stores among their franchises
(e.g., Starbucks, Taco Bell)
• Lake Washington School District
Life Cycle Costing and Impact
Assessment
Facilitator: Michelle Anderson, DIRTT
• Problem Statement: Anecdotal evidence of the
total cost or environmental benefits of modular
construction has neither been qualified nor
substantiated through rigorous study. Achieving a
holistic comparison between construction approaches
is difficult due to the variability in costing assumptions
from industry to industry, as well as to environmental
impacts that are externalized (hidden from consumers
and not reflected in the cost). As a result, debunking
common misconceptions about the quality and cost
of modular construction demands that we design non-
proprietary tools that can be used to demonstrate the
life cycle costs or benefits of implementing modular
construction, on a project- and site-specific scale, and
within a competitive contract-bidding environment.
Desired Outcomes
• Studies and decision-making tools, informed by life
cycle cost and impact data, generated and licensed by
a third party.
• Education of Industry – made possible through
industry collaboration (for example, in the form of
third party guidance on key questions to ask when
comparing options for project approach, as well as
identifying the resources and expertise needed to
answer them).
• Standardized guidelines and techniques that could
allow more effective comparison of vendors, or
between vendors and their conventional construction
counterparts.
Research Projects
Investigate and compare the costs and impacts of
classrooms in Utah’s Jordan School District, which
are 28x60 site-built but akin to modular units. The
opportunity to compare these classrooms with their
factory-built modular counterparts offers a unique
advantage for research. Classrooms are being built to
similar specifications all over the country, making the
proposed comparison study especially useful.
Potential Resources & Collaborators
• USLCI and proprietary Life Cycle Inventory Databases
• LCA assessment software (e.g., Athena Institute, NIST’s
BEES)
• Jordan School District, UT
MODULAR CONSTRUCTION 7
Photos (Left and Right): Kah San Chako Haws, Portland, OR. Emmons Modular. NAYA Family Center, Guardian Real
Estate Development, Blazer Industries
10. 8 BEST FORUM
Streamlining Modular Project Delivery
Facilitator: Stuart Emmons, Emmons Modular
Problem Statement: Conventional project delivery
methods are inefficient and ineffective at delivering
modular buildings and integrating modular components.
This problem stems from design and construction
professionals not being proficient in the required
methods, or not having appropriate incentive to expand
their practice beyond their given specialty. These issues
present a significant barrier to achieving the cost and
impact savings promised by modular.
Desired Outcomes
• Design and construction industry professionals are
equipped with the knowledge and tools necessary
for streamlined project delivery utilizing modular
approaches to construction.
• Incentives exist for design and construction industry
professionals to broaden their roles and share
responsibilities with an integrated team.
Research Projects
1. Creation of educational and process tools that prepare
professionals throughout the supply chain to utilize
advanced methods and streamline delivery by:
a. Identifying the necessary tools available (e.g., BIM
applications) and how to use them to their best
effect in an integrated project delivery approach.
b. Providing actionable examples of successful team
structure and communication models, based on
a detailed consideration of existing contractual
arrangements (eg: AIA & ConsensusDocs) and
lessons-learned from their implementation (how to
structure a project team, what to look out for and
address early, etc.).
c. Identifying how other industries have met similar
challenges (automobile, high tech, etc.) and
providing lessons learned to inspire innovative
approaches to project delivery.
2. Developing tools to help build bridges across the
entire integrated project team, such as protocols to
help transition design and construction documents
(BIM) into construction phase tools like Construction
Operations Building Information Exchange (COBie).
Technical Development of Components
Facilitator: Steve Clem, Skanska USA
Problem Statement: Many of the barriers identified
by participants, even if perceptual or outdated, have
some basis in real experience. Furthering technical
development of modular construction is one avenue to
overcoming those barriers. Take for example:
• Overcoming a lack of awareness of potential cost
advantages associated with modular construction
by resolving known quality problems at connection
points, or in material selection.
11. • Overcoming a general misperception of the cost
impact associated with modular construction by
identifying elements of modular construction that
present the greatest challenges to first cost or
installed cost, developing innovative alternatives, and
demonstrating life cycle cost and value advantages
over conventional construction.
• Overcoming the barriers presented by the traditional
design-bid-build project delivery system by creating
standardized connection points and design tools.
Desired Outcomes
• Standardized connection points that can be utilized
for improved quality construction.
• Material solutions for balancing first cost and
construction quality.
• Technically robust design tools to facilitate industry
adoption of modular design.
Research Questions
• What components of modular buildings are
challenged by current code requirements? Perform
testing to demonstrate code compliance of more
sustainable alternatives.
• How can modular buildings be better designed for
delivery?
• Hoisting
• Supply logistics – acceptable dimensions for
highway transport are determined by local and
state jurisdictions.
• Can standard regulations be developed to improve
interstate trade, where it impacts competitiveness?
• (e.g., Oregon’s width limit is set at 16’, where
elsewhere in the country, the limits are often set
at 20’.)
Potential Resources & Collaborators
• Industry organizations, unions, and government
agencies such as: NIST/NSF, MCA, AGC, NECA,
ASHRAE, NIBS, CSI, AISC, NFPA, UL, ASTM,
ICC, Building Codes Division, Departments of
Transportation, and AIA.
• Companies innovating in shipping: CSX, FedEx, UPS,
MAERSK, Amazon
MODULAR CONSTRUCTION 9
Left: Building Information Modeling is a critical tool for effective communication across the design, fabrication, and construction supply chain
Center: A building being assembled with cross-laminated timber panels, photo provided by Structurlam Products LP
Right: Interior of the SAGE classroom on display at Greenbuild - the Smart Academic Green Environment was designed by Portland State University
in collaboration with the Oregon Solutions Green Modular Classroom Team
12. 10 BEST FORUM
Use of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) as
a Modular Component
Facilitator: Renee Loveland
Problem Statement: There is an opportunity in the
Cascadia region for in the modular industry to utilize a
growing Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) resource that
has yet to be seized. Multiple entities are exploring
opportunities for this technology in the United
States. Oregon State University is one such entity,
having initiated a CLT demonstration project, with 14
manufacturers on board to provide support and funding.
The potential benefits from CLT are its low environmental
impact and aesthetic appeal. However, the technology is
nascent and penetration into the modular construction
industry is potentially limited by a lack of performance
data associated with CLTs made with North American
wood species. An additional lack of access may arise
from tendency among builders in the region to rely more
heavily on Canadian timber products in lieu of Oregon
CLT.
Research Questions
• What is the real market potential for CLT in North
America?
• What environmental and economic implications are
there in a scenario of widespread CLT use?
• What are the roadblocks that are preventing the
widespread use of CLT in North America [lack of ICC-
ES evaluation report (ESR) etc.]?
Research Projects
• A survey of components of modular construction that
could be replaced with CLT, and where the market
could embrace CLT most readily.
• The following aspects must be compared, at a
minimum:
• Structural performance
• Thermal performance – including moisture
• Acoustic performance
• Economical performance/cost-effectiveness
• For greatest success at market adoption as industry
slowly invests in the capacity to manufacture CLT
domestically, the modular market should be surveyed
to identify CLT panel dimensions that would be most
readily adopted at scale.
• Feasibility and impact study of the scaling of a North
American CLT market.
• Can supply support demand? At what scale?
• What environmental/downstream impacts would
result from market adoption at various scales?
• What net economic impacts would result from broad
adoption? What other industries might experience a
negative impact?
Potential Resources & Collaborators
• Lech Muszynski, Oregon State University, Lech.
Muszynski@oregonstate.edu
13. MODULAR CONSTRUCTION 11
Special Note
Additional Research Topics
Products and Materials
This agenda’s exploration of CLT is intrinsically product-
specific as a result of the State of Oregon’s interest in
exploring the potential applications and benefits of value-
added wood products, and as a result of Oregon BEST’s
identification of wood sciences as a research area of
excellence in the state.
The respective session within the Forum explored one
specific material, but a similar process of exploring the
material needs of modular construction generally would
be of interest to in future discussions. Take, for example,
the following fundamental questions: “What materials are
most needed by modular construction? What properties
must those materials have?” Such a dialogue can and
should explore products that might not yet exist, or which
cross multiple material categories. In this approach,
any number of strategies - concrete, bioplastics, glass,
wheatboard - might generate comparable benefits.
Code Barriers
Although not a central topic of discussion, several Forum
participants addressed the need for code changes that
would streamline the delivery of high-performance,
safe modular buildings. Participants identified issues
for possible exploration, either to allow for emerging
technologies, or to ensure that certain issues unique to
modular construction were adequately addressed by
code. Those issues included, but are not limited to:
• Cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) plumbing
• Performance testing
• Performance-based specs
• Progressive collapse
• Fire-resistance
14. 12 BEST FORUM
About
Oregon BEST
Oregon BEST is the nexus for clean technology innovation. We build capability, convene collaborations, and
accelerate the solutions to environmental challenges that deliver prosperity in all corners of Oregon.
We work in a unique role, exercising a powerful lever
outside of, but connected with, existing programs and
systems to promote the effective expansion of
renewable energy and resource conservation, as well
as green buildings and communities.
We make targeted, strategic investments in facilities,
projects, and people positioned to have maximum
impact on Oregon’s green economy and meet our
state’s most important public needs. We build intellectual
assets through investments and networking; we convene
experts to promote informed innovation; and we
accelerate business success by mentoring startup
businesses and investing in projects that help them move
closer to private investment and customer revenue.
We serve the people, the environment, and the economy
of Oregon — a state leading America in green job
creation by tackling the nation’s biggest energy and
environmental challenges.
By cultivating the commercialization
of sustainable built environment
products and services and renewable
energy generation Oregon BEST
has made great strides toward
helping Oregon realize some of our
enormous potential. Oregon BEST
exemplifies the pioneering spirit
and commitment to innovation
based on Oregon’s competitive
advantages that will continue to
drive Oregon’s economy while
contributing to the greater good.”
Tobias Reed, State Representative Dist. 27, Chair, House
Committee on Transportation and Economic Development
“
15. Agenda
Co-Authors
ATTENDEES
Michelle Anderson, DIRTT Environmental Solutions
Martin Anderson, American Institute of Steel Construction
Pam Armstrong, Environments
Leilanie Bruce, Brightworks
Richard Burnham, RF Stearns
Derek Burres, ModSpace
Karen Chase, Oregon Housing & Community Services
Steve Clem, Skanska
Alan Duer, M SPACE
Stuart Emmons, Emmons Modular
Ross Farland, DeZine Works!
Kimberly Gibb, Environments
Pat Humphrey, Bent Level Construction
Mike Iannone, DIRTT Manufacturing
Renee Loveland, Gerding Edlen
Jeff McDonald, Daily Journal of Commerce
Amy Nagy, Portland Development Commission
Mark Perniconi, Charles Pankow Foundation
Jim Rasmussen, Modern Building Systems
John Roth, Blazer Industries
John Seaver, Stratford Building Corp.
Scott Semrau, CH2MHILL
Elin Shepard, PECI
Rock Shetler, Blazer Industries
Robin Wengert, Green Rising Construction
RESEARCHERS
Daniel Borello, Oregon State University
John Gambatese, Oregon State University
Jeff Kline, University of Oregon
H.W. Chris Lee, Oregon State University
Dale Northcutt, University of Oregon
Sergio Palleroni, Portland State University
Erick Polk, Oregon Institute of Technology
Ryan Smith, University of Utah
Jason Stenson, University of Oregon
Report prepared by:
Johanna Brickman
Director of Collaborative Innovation
Oregon BEST
Email: jo.brickman@oregonbest.org
Phone: 503-725-9641
and
Pablo Barreyro
Agenda Development Intern
Oregon BEST
MODULAR CONSTRUCTION 13
16. Oregon BEST Agenda Development Forum Series Sponsors
1600 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 122 Portland, Oregon 97201
503-725-9849 oregonbest.org
Modular Construction Research Agenda Forum Co-Hosts
Cover PHOTO courtesy of Woodworks
showing Sherpa brand timber connector
