The advantages of using modular and offsite construction compared with the traditional construction methods are numerous due to its efficiency in delivering shorter schedules, lower cost, higher quality, and better safety. However, one of the biggest challenges facing the prefabrication industry today is the inherent difference between financing traditional construction and the upfront capital requirements for modular and offsite construction. Any solution for this problem should introduce better coordination among developers, banks, financial partners, lending institutions, manufacturers, and general contractors. Financing modular construction is challenging as banks are not familiar with the characteristics of this modern industry, and it is all about risk and return. Financing also helps in reducing risk for developers and allows them to undertake projects without having the upfront capital. However, few studies in literature focused on the financial modeling for modular and offsite construction. This paper is presenting a state-of-the art literature review for current practices concerning financial modeling for modular and offsite construction. This review discusses current challenges for financing this industry, as well as the introduced initiatives by governments to facilitate financing of modular and offsite construction. Conclusions are presented regarding the current practices for funding the prefabrication industry. Furthermore, recommendations are drawn for encouraging the development of prefabricated housing, and its ability in solving the current shortage of housing in different parts of the world.

a b s t r a c tWind-induced instantaneous pressures on low building envelopes continuously vary in temporal and spatial dimensions and this may lead to significant torsional moments on the building's lateral load resisting system. Studies on wind-induced torsional loads on low buildings are very limited. Windinduced torsion provisions in the American Society of Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE/SEI 7-10, 2010), the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC, 2010), and the European Code (EN 1991(EN -1-4, 2005 were reviewed and compared for three gabled-roof (18.41) low buildings. Significant discrepancies were found among the provisions of these wind standards in evaluating torsional wind loads on low buildings. In addition, wind-induced torsional loads on low buildings have been measured in a boundary layer wind tunnel. Three low buildings, with the same plan dimensions but different gabled-roof angles (01, 18.41, 451) and two different heights (i.e. full, and half eave building height) were tested in simulated open and urban terrain exposures for different wind directions (from 01 to 1801 every 151). The experimental results were compared with current wind-induced torsional load provisions. It was found that NBCC (2010) underestimates the torsional moments on low buildings significantly.

No abstract

Limited information is available regarding wind-induced torsional loads on buildings. This paper presents results of tests carried out in a boundary layer wind tunnel using building models with the same plan dimensions (aspect ratio of 1.6) and located in a simulated open terrain exposure for different wind directions. Synchronized wind pressure measurements allowed estimating instantaneous base shear forces and torsional moments on the tested rigid building models. Results were normalized and presented in terms of shear and torsional coefficients for two load cases, namely; maximum torsion and corresponding shear, and maximum shear and corresponding torsion.Comparison of the wind tunnel test results with current torsion-and shear-related provisions in the American Standard (ASCE 7) demonstrates good agreement for low-rise buildings but differences for medium-rise buildings.

There is limited information available on wind-induced torsional loads on buildings. This paper presents results of wind tunnel tests carried out on a series of models of low-and medium-rise buildings. Four buildings with the same plan dimensions but different heights (6, 12, 25 and 50 m) were tested in a simulated open terrain exposure for different wind directions. Synchronized wind pressure measurements allowed estimating instantaneous base shear forces and torsional moments on the tested rigid building models. Results were normalized and presented in terms of mean and peak values of shear and torsional coefficients for two load cases, namely: maximum torsion and corresponding shear, and maximum shear and corresponding torsion. Comparison of the wind tunnel test results with current torsionand shear-related provisions in the American Standard as well as the Canadian and European codes demonstrates significant discrepancies. The findings of this study could assist wind code and standards committees to improve provisions for wind-induced torsional loads on buildings.