Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Before proceeding with the details of the seminar i thank almighty allah for making my
seminar report a successful one.
I am deeply thankful to my seminar advisor PROF. AMARANTH SHETTI and coordinator PROF. MALLIKARJUNA HIREMATH who gave valuable information and
support to complete this seminar work with ease. Also my grateful thanks to
PROF. PHALACHANDRA H .M head of department and our honourable principal
DR .H UDAYA PRASANNA who gave support in all aspect.
I also express my gratitude towards the faculty members of civil engineering department for
their timely help and advice provided towards the preparation of this seminar report.
This acknowledgement will be incomplete without admitting the cooperation from my
beloved parents, friends, batch mates and well wishers without whose help
I w would not
Mawan Rasheed
8sem Civil Engineering
Page 1
ABSTRACTS:
Adequate shelter for all people is one of the pressing challenges faced by the developing
countries. India is currently facing a shortage of about 17.6 million houses. The dream of
owning a house particularly for low-income and middle-income families is becoming a
difficult reality. Hence, it has become a necessity to adopt cost effective, innovative and
environment-friendly housing technologies for the construction of houses and buildings for
enabling the common people to construct houses at affordable cost. This paper compares
construction cost for the traditional and low cost housing technologies. Case studies in India
are used for the investigation. Construction methods of foundation, walling, roofing and lintel
are compared. Strength and durability of the structure, stability, safety and mental satisfaction
are factors that assume top priority during cost reduction. It is found that about 26.11% and
22.68% of the construction cost can be saved by using low cost housing technologies in
comparison with the traditional construction methods in the case studies for walling and
roofing respectively. This proves that using low cost housing technologies is a cost effective
construction approach for the industry.
Page 2
CONTENTS:
1.1: Introduction
1.4.1: foundation
1.4.2: plinth
11
1.4.3 Walls
12
14
1.4.5 Openings
16
22
24
1.7: conclusion
27
1.8: References
28
Page 3
Figures:
Figure 1.1: Building by recycled materials
10
11
12
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
21
22
24
Page 4
TABLES
Table 1: cost analysis of low cost housing on footing work
Table 2: cost analysis of low cost housing on roofing work 23
Page 5
22
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Low cost housing can be considered affordable for low- and moderate-income earners if
household can acquire a housing unit (owned or rented) for an amount up to 30 percent of its
household income (Miles, 2000). In developing countries such as India, only 20% of the
population are high-income earners, who are able to afford normal housing units. The lowincome groups in developing countries are generally unable to access the housing market.
Cost effective housing is a relative concept and has more to do with budgeting and seeks to
reduce construction cost through better management, appropriate use of local materials, skills
and technology but without sacrificing the performance and structure life (Tiwari et al.,
1999). It should be noted that low cost housings are not houses which constructed by cheap
building materials of substandard quality. A low cost house is designed and constructed as
any other house with regard to foundation, structure and strength. The reduction in cost is
achieved through effective utilization of locally available building materials and techniques
that are durable, economical, accepted by users and not requiring costly maintenance (Miles,
2000). High efficiency of workers, minimize waste in design and apply good management
practices, can also be achieved. Low cost housing is a new concept which deals with effective
budgeting and following of techniques which help reducing construction cost through the use
of locally available materials along with improved skills and technologies without sacrificing
the strength, performance and life of the structure (Kumar, 1999; Civil Engineering Portal,
2008). Low cost housing technologies aim to cut down construction cost by using alternatives
to the conventional methods and inputs. It is about the usage of local and indigenous building
materials, local skills, energy saver and environment-friendly options.
Page 6
RECYCLING
EXTENSIVE OR LOGICAL PLANNING
MODULAR APPROACH
PREFABRICATION
MATERIALS ADOPTATION
1.3.1: RECYCLING:
Recycled materials adopted for low cost housing includes
Recycled materials used are inexpensive and usage of waste materials of building
construction decreases the waste load from a city. Various houses constructed using disposal
containers and packages are strong to bear the load.
Page 7
Fig 1.1
1.3.2: EXTENSIVE OR LOGICAL APPROACH:
In extensive and logical approach optimum usage of materials are preferred. Various
considerations for technical and economical analysis are
There should be a optimal space in the design considering efficiency of space ,
construction system.
Energy efficiency has gained considerable importance due enegy crisis especially in
developing countries.
To develop an effective mechanism for providing appropriate technology based
shelter for economically weaker section of people
1.3.3: PREFABRICATION:
In prefabrication, housing constructions are done by prefabricated materials
It includes:
Page 8
In conventional methods, the shuttering gets damaged due to its repetitive use because
of frequent cutting, nailing etc. On the other hand, the mould for the precast
components can be used for large number of repetitions thereby reducing the cost of
the mould per unit
The execution is much faster than the conventional methods, thereby, reducing the
time period of construction which can be beneficial in early returns of the investment.
In prefabricated housing system, time is saved by the use of precast elements which
are casted off-site during the course of foundations being laid. The finishes and
services can be done below the slab immediately. While in the conventional in-situ
RCC slabs, due to props and shuttering, the work cannot be done, till they are
removed. Thus, saving of time attributes to saving of money.
Page 9
Fig 1.2
1.3.4.2: Prefabricated brick panels:
Brick panel is made of first class bricks reinforced with two MS bars of 6 mm dia and
joints filled with either 1:3 cement sand mortar or M-15 concrete. Panels can be made
in any size but generally width is 53 cm and the length between 90 cm to120 cm,
depending upon the requirement. The gap between the two panels is about 2 cms and
can be increased to 5 cms depending upon the need. A panel of 90 cm length requires
16 bricks and a panel of 120 cm requires 19 bricks (Figure 4). (P.K.Adlakha and
H.C.Puri, 2002)
Fig 1.3
Page 10
Fig1.4
1.3.5: MATERIALS ADAPTATIONS: The various materials which can be used for
low cost housings are
Page 11
Fig 1.5
1.4.1.2: Rubble Masonry: random rubble masonry in mud /cement mortar
placed in excavation over thick sandy bed.
Normally the foundation cost comes to about 10 to 15% of the total building. It is
recommended to adopt a foundation depth of 2 ft (0.6m) for normal soil like gravel
soil and red soil etc. it is suggested to adopt arch foundation in ordinary soil.
In case of black cotton soil and other soft soil, it is recommend to use ream pile
foundation , ream pile foundation have mechanically formed enlarge bases that have
been as much as 6m in diameter. The form is that of an inverted cone and can only be
Page 12
Fig1.6
1.4.2: Plinth:
It is suggested to adopt 1 ft. height above ground level for the plinth and may be
constructed with a cement mortar of 1:6. The plinth slab of 4 to 6 which is normally
adopted can be avoided and in its place brick on edge can be used for reducing the
cost. By adopting this procedure the cost of plinth foundation can be reduced by about
35 to 50%.It is necessary to take precaution of providing impervious blanket like
concrete slabs or stone slabs all round the building for enabling to reduce erosion of
soil and thereby avoiding exposure of foundation surface and crack formation.
Page 13
Fig 1.7
Page 14
Fig 1.9
1.4.3.2: Concrete blocks walling:
In view of high energy consumption by burnt brick it is suggested to use concrete block
(block hollow and solid) which consumes about only 1/3 of the energy of the burnt bricks
in its production. By using concrete block masonry the wall thickness can be reduced
from 20 cms to 15 Cms. Concrete block masonry saves mortar consumption, speedy
construction of wall resulting in higher output of labour, plastering can be avoided
thereby an overall saving of 10 to 25% can be achieved.
Page 15
Page 16
Fig 2.0
1.4.4: ROOFS AND FLOORS:
Structural floors and roofs accounts for substantial cost of the buildings in normal
situation. Therefore , nay savings achieved in floor and roof considerable reduces the
cost of construction . traditional cast insitu concrete roof involve the use of temporary
shuttering which adds to the cost of construction and time. Use of standardized and
optimized roofing components where shuttering is avoided prove to be economical,
fast and better in quality.
Some of the prefabricated roofing/flooring components found suitable in many low
cost housing projects are:
Precast RC planks.
Prefabricated brick panels.
Precast RB curve panels.
Precast RC curve channel roofing.
Precast hollow slab.
Precast concrete panels.
L panel roofing.
Trapezon panels roofing.
Un reinforced pyramidal brick roof.
Page 17
Fig 2.1
1.4.4.2: Precast Curved Brick Arch Panel Roofing:
This roofing is same as RB panel roofing except that the panels do not have any
reinforcement. A panel while casting is given a rise in the centre and thus an arching
action is created.
An overall economy of 30% has been achieved in single storeyed building and 20%
in two or three storeyed buildings (Figure 7). (P.K.Adlakha and H.C.Puri,
2002)
Page 18
cast with simple timber/ steel moulds and are easy for manual handling with simple
lifting and hoisting gadgets. L-Panel roofing is quite lighter in weight, economic in
construction and sound in performance and durability. In addition to roof, the Lpanels
can be used for making loft, cooking platforms, parapets and many other minor
elements of buildings and structures. The techniques has been used widely in many
mass housing programme in the country. (figure:10) (R.K.Garg, 2008)
Raw material:
Cement, fine aggregates (10mm and below), sand , steel, chicken mesh, welded mesh.
Page 19
Figure2.2
Page 20
Figure 2.4
1.4.5: Opening In The Form Of Arch With Local Materials:
Arches are an economical and aesthetic means of spanning openings. Arches can be a
cost effective alternative to the lintels. The traditional RCC lintels which are costly can be
replaced by brick arches for small spans and save construction cost up to 3040% over
the traditional method of construction.
Page 21
Fig 2.5
Page 22
No
Item
Rate
(US$)
Unit
Conventional brickwork
Quantity Amount(US$)
Materials
1
Bricks
No
0.02
350.00
7.00
284.00
5.68
0.09
4.13
0.17
0.05
0.40
2.47
Sand
m3
0.32
0.28
No
6.17
0.67
Labour
Mason (highly
skilled)
Unskilled labour
No
1.70
0.35
0.60
0.35
0.60
No
No
1.49
1.05
0.80
1.19
1.06
2.96
1.56
3.14
1.96
2.08
0.34
0.25
0.42
0.42
17.71
13.08
Savings
26.11%
Table 2: Cost analysis of the traditional construction methods and the low cost housing technologies used in
the case studies for 1m3 of roofing (Works Department, 2002)
No
Item
Rate
(US$)
Unit
Conventional slab
Quantity
Filler slab
Amount (US$)
Quantity
Amount(US$)
Materials
m3
38.6
1.00
38.6
0.80
30.88
Reinforcement
ton
36.12
0.80
28.89
0.38
13.72
ton
3.87
0.80
3.09
0.38
1.47
Mangalore tiles
No
0.06
N/A
N/A
65.00
4.14
Concrete, including
labour
Labour
1
No
1.49
N/A
N/A
0.20
0.30
Unskilled labour
No
1.06
N/A
N/A
0.80
0.85
0.11
0.11
84.32
65.20
Savings
1.6:
CASE
HISTORIES
CONSTRUCTION
USING
22.68%
IN
COST-
INDIA
DEMONSTRATIONS
EFFECTIVE
&
DISASTER
Page 23
VAMBAY-ministry of HUPA
Location of site:
laggere, Bangalore
No. Of units:
252(ground +2)
252 sq.ft
Unit consist of :
Rs 60000
Rs 218/-
2. Walling:
3. Roof/ floor
IPS flooring
Page 24
Figure 2.6
Page 25
CONCLUSION
The dream of owning a house particularly for low-income and middle-income families is
becoming a difficult reality. It is necessary to adopt cost effective, innovative and
environment-friendly housing technologies for the construction. This paper examined the cost
effectiveness of using low cost housing technologies in comparison with the traditional
construction methods. Two case studies in India were conducted. It was found that about
26.11% and 22.68% of the construction cost, including material and labour cost, can be saved
by using the low cost housing technologies in comparison with the traditional construction
methods for walling and roofing respectively. This proves the benefits and the trends for
Implementing low cost housing technologies in the industry.
Page 26
REFERENCE
http://www.gharexpert.com
http://www.fs.fed.us
http://www.greenstone.org
http://manajemenproyekindonesia.com/
http://sepindia.org/
http://lauriebaker.net/
Low cost housing- an analogical study of the current practices & technologies byvastu shilpa foundation
www.wikipedia.com
Page 27