NICMAR

TOPIC COMPARATIVE STUDY OF COST AND

RISK MANAGEMENT IN RCC AND
PREFABRICATED BUILDING.

Submitted by

PARAG KAMLAKAR PAL (AG16045)

PRAVEEN KUMAR GEHLOT (AG16081)
DATLA SRI TEJA BABU (AG16010)

PGP ACM 10th Batch NICMAR GOA

(2016-2018)

Under the Guidance of

NAME OF GUIDE PROF. KEDAR PHADKE.

NICMAR GOA

A Mini Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the academic requirements for

Post Graduate Programme in Advanced Construction Management (PGP ACM)

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH
GOA CAMPUS

March 2017
Table of Contents

1 ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... 7

2 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION................................................................. 8

2.1 Background of Study ..................................................................................... 8

2.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................ 9

2.3 General Discussion on Study ...................................................................... 10

2.4 Importance of Study .................................................................................... 11

2.5 Need of Study .............................................................................................. 12

2.6 Objectives of Study ..................................................................................... 13

2.7 Scope of Study ............................................................................................ 14

2.8 Methodology of Study ................................................................................. 15

2.8.1 General...........................................................................................................15

2.8.2 Plan Preparation.............................................................................................15

2.8.3 Estimation of quantities..................................................................................15

2.8.4 Project duration..............................................................................................15

2.8.5 Risk management...........................................................................................16

2.8.6 Cost analysis...................................................................................................16

2.8.7 Result and discussion.....................................................................................16

2.8.8 Conclusion......................................................................................................16

3 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................... 18

3.1 Project duration.................................................................................................21

Page 2 of 29
 3.2 Project cost analysis..........................................................................................23

4 CHAPTER THREE SUMMARY.................................................................... 25

4.1 Research conclusion..........................................................................................25

5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 26

6 LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. 28

7 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ 29

Page 3 of 29
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank all those who have helped in carrying out the research.

Sign 1

PARAG KAMLAKAR PAL (AG16045)

Sign 2

PRAVEEN KUMAR GEHLOT (AG16081)

Sign 3

DATLA SRI TEJA BABU (AG16010)

NICMAR GOA

March 2017

Page 4 of 29
 DECLARATION

We hereby declare that the Mini Thesis Titled Comparative study of cost and risk
management in RCC and prefabricated building being Submitted by us; PARAG
KAMLAKAR PAL , PRAVEEN KUMAR GEHLOT , DATLA SRI TEJA BABU in
partial fulfillment of the academic requirements for Post Graduate Programme in
Advanced Construction Management (PGP ACM) at National Institute of
Construction Management and Research Goa Campus is entirely our own research
work under the guidance of Prof. KEDAR PHADKE NICMAR Goa and this Mini
Thesis has not been submitted before by us for any degree or examination in any
other Institute or University.

Sign 1

PARAG KAMLAKAR PAL (AG15001)

Sign 2

PRAVEEN KUMAR GEHLOT (AG16081)

Sign 3

DATLA SRI TEJA BABU (AG16010)

NICMAR GOA

March 2017

Page 5 of 29
 CERTIFICATE

I hereby Certify that the Mini Thesis Titled Comparative study of cost and risk
management in RCC and prefabricated building being Submitted by PARAG
KAMLAKAR PAL, PRAVEEN KUMAR GEHLOT, DATLA SRI TEJA BABU in
partial fulfillment of the academic requirements for Post Graduate Programme in
Advanced Construction Management (PGP ACM) at National Institute of
Construction Management and Research Goa Campus is entirely own research
work of students under my guidance and this Mini Thesis has not been submitted
before for any degree or examination in any other Institute or University to the best
of my Knowledge

(Prof. KEDAR PHADKE)

Mini Thesis Guide

NICMAR GOA

March 2017

Dr. INDRASEN SINGH

Dean

NICMAR GOA CAMPUS

Page 6 of 29
1 ABSTRACT

i. BACKGROUND

Prefabricated buildings is well known technology in which some standardized units

which are manufactured in factories are used for fast construction. Though the
technology is developed many years ago but the implementation is not up the mark
in our country. In this study we have carried out detailed study of comparison cost
and risk management of PFB & RCC buildings, go through number of literature &
found the facts associated with it. As urbanization is rapidly growing the
construction of residential area is perpetrating intensely and at the same time the
world is also facing the energy resource shortage. Hence there is a need to modify
the housing design and construction technologies which are used in the country to
reduce the cost. There is a need to focus on such materials which along with
traditional construction materials that are concrete and steel will satisfy the
properties like thermal conductivity, embodied energy, durability, sound insulation,
earthquake resistance & strength. The use of expanded polystyrene wall (EPS) which
are made from small beads of polystyrene mixed with pentane as the blowing agent
are best suitable for such purpose. The unit weight of EPS embedded structure is up
to 35% less than the conventional concrete structure and the pre-assembled units
reduces the overall cost of structure significantly. Hence, EPS embedded structure
results in a sustainable and economical structure. An efficiently designed pre-
engineered building can be lighter than the conventional steel buildings by up to
30%. Lighter weight equates to less steel and a potential price savings in structural
framework. This new technique is widely adopted in industrial sector.

ii. PURPOSE & AIM

AIM of the research is to compare the cost and risk management of prefabricated
building with RCC building.

iii. FEASIBLE & SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION

How to improve the cost and risk management in PFB & RCC building.

Page 7 of 29
2 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background of Study

A prefabricated building, informally a prefab, is a building that is manufactured and

constructed using prefabrication. It consists of factory-made components or units that
are transported and assembled on-site to form the complete building. Buildings have
been built in one place and reassembled in another throughout history. Possibly the
first advertised prefab house was the "Manning cottage". A London carpenter, Henry
Manning, constructed a house that was built in components, then shipped and
assembled by British emigrants. This was published at the time (advertisement,
South Australian Record, 1837) and a few still stand in Australia. Pre fabricated
buildings are generally low rise buildings however the maximum eave height can go
up to 25 to 30 meters. Low rise buildings are ideal for offices, houses, showrooms,
shop fronts etc. The application of pre fabricated buildings concept to low rise
buildings is very economical and speedy. Buildings can be constructed in less than
half the normal time especially when complemented with the other engineered sub
systems.

Commercial RCC buildings construction take so much of time and the material
requirement for the construction also more as compared to the prefabricated
buildings ex. brick, sand, cement, aggregates, formwork, steel frames, paints,
wooden frames and doors. As it take so much of time in construction of building it
tends to increase the cost of the labor and materials. So as an alternative to
commercial building the prefabricated building can reduce time of construction and
some amount of cost of the building, also the PFB can be fireproof, more resistive to
the earthquake at certain range and any type of architectural appearance can simply
construct.

Page 8 of 29
2.2 Problem Statement

It is observe from literature review that the prefabricated construction can be easier,
cheaper, and great time saver as compared with RCC buildings. This can be widely
adopted and commonly used in public housing development projects. Also this
method has already applied with success in the production of mass public housing
blocks and projects. Indications are that cost has been cut, quality improved and
construction time dramatically reduced. Prefabricated construction represents
reliable, quality and cost-saving means to construct as compared with RCC
buildings. Prefabricated construction technique give better quality of installations in
buildings, improvement of sound control, higher living comfort, increased
efficiencies in overall construction and installation costs. The prefabricated
construction is capable of providing improved environmental performance over
conventional RCC buildings construction methods. From the literature reviews it is
found that the PFB or Precast or PEB buildings construction very fast construction,
proper cost control, limited time need for construction and reliable in different
conditions like different risk involves as compared to the RCC buildings.

Comparison of cost and risk management of prefabricated buildings with reinforced

cement concrete buildings, which can help to determine the cost management i.e.
direct and indirect cost for the both buildings, different risk involves like Natural
risks, Stakeholder risk, Financial risk, Occupational risk and different risk in
construction. From literature reviews we found that there is only cost comparison
between precast or PEB with RCC buildings but PFB with RCC buildings not yet
done with different risk involves.

Page 9 of 29
2.3 General Discussion on Study

Mass housing target can be achieved by replacing the conventional building method
to the prefabricated building construction, because it is observe that the prefabricated
construction can be easier, cost effective, and great time saver in the construction of
large number of similar buildings. This can be widely adopted and commonly used
in public housing development projects. Also this method has already applied with
success in the production of public housing blocks and projects. Indications are that
cost has been cut, quality improved and construction time dramatically reduced.
Prefabricated construction represents reliable, quality and cost-saving means to
construct. Prefabricated construction technique give better quality of installations in
buildings, improvement of sound control, higher living comfort, increased
efficiencies in overall construction and installation costs. The cost comparison in
essential to determine the cost saving between the PFB and the RCC building with
respect to time, also the material requirement and there availability for construction.

Risk management in building benefits from this kind of process too, at an enterprise
and at a project level.

Occupational risk: Injury, possibly fatal, to a worker because of behavior,

methodologies or technologies used, weather or a third party.

Financial risk: Such as unmanaged growth, lack of sales of buildings, rising interest
rates, problems with the economy, and increases in building supply prices.

Contractual risk: Penalties you may have to pay for not completing a job on time.

Project risk: Lack of proper project management, inadequate company policies or

lack of application of such policies, miscalculation of time and resources required,
and more.

Stakeholder risk: Problems of communication, misunderstanding on the deliverables

or closeout of a building project, insufficiency of stakeholder funds.

Natural risks: Floods, earthquakes, and other phenomena that damage construction
sites or make access for work impossible.

Competition: Pressure to match price or delivery terms offered by a competitor,

possibly putting your profitability at risk or straining your resources, loss of a project
or opportunity to a competitor, and more.
Page 10 of 29
2.4 Importance of Study

In construction industry the time management is very important which tends to

increase the cost of the project, from research paper we found that the prefabricated
buildings are constructed within limited time because the steel sections availability in
the market and the method to construct the buildings are very fast so that it can
reduce time of construction, cost overrun can be minimize.

Our topic include the cost comparison and risk management comparison between the
PEB and RCC buildings. Cost comparison between the PEB and RCC building help
to identify the cost difference and economical building for the construction also the
cost required for construction help to analysis of the inventory management i,e which
material cost more and how they classify according to their use in construction of the
building.

Risk management comparison study is important to study the what are the different
risk involves in the construction of the PEB and RCC buildings.

The study of cost and risk management help to identify the Lack of proper project
management, Natural risks, Stakeholder risk, Financial risk, Occupational risk
and different risk in construction.

Page 11 of 29
2.5 Need of Study

The study of cost comparison and risk management is worth because it help to
determine the economical construction of building. Now days the bridges
construction are also precast member so they help to fast construction so that cost
overrun most probably can not happen.

Normally the people construct the home of reinforced cement concrete but for the
construction more material needed which cost more money and time and after
construction lots of leakage, corrosion of reinforcement and cracks such problem can
occurs, the earthquake can cause the failure in RCC buildings instead of that the PFB
can deflect only up to permissible limit which follow its own behavior so it resist the
building under earthquake. So this study can influence the life cycle of people they
will get more benefit in terms of cost and safety. This study helps to identify the cost
and different risk involve in the construction of PEB & RCC buildings.

Page 12 of 29
2.6 Objectives of Study

1. Analysis of study shall result in cost comparison between PEB & RCC building
and life cycle cost in construction projects to process proper economic decision
analysis, which helps taking decisions on investments.

2. Collection of Information shall help in cost overrun and proper inventory

management in construction of building and managing the cost of the project.

3. Providing Solution to the problem shall result in reduction in risk in the

construction of buildings, time management and introduction of new rapid
construction technology with new parameter like fire proof, earthquake resistive.

This study shall improve the field of existing research in such a way that the cost
overrun and risk management can be examine and it helps to reduce the indirect cost
of the structure. PEB building are design with the future expansion, it is simple
because changes can rapidly made in comparison with future expansion would be
more difficult and more likely costlier. The erection process of PEB is easy, fast, step
by step and with proper process of casting of the members of the structure and in
RCC building erection is slow and extensive field labor is required. Heavy
equipment often needed in RCC building.

Page 13 of 29
2.7 Scope of Study

In PFB and RCC building it is feasible to analyze the time management, cost
overrun, various risk involves, transportation of prefab units of constructions,
requirement of time for the building construction by using project management
software and their comparison, all these parameter are feasible for analyze as a part
of study.

Page 14 of 29
2.8 Methodology of Study

Steel industry is growing rapidly in almost all the parts of the world. The use of steel
structures is not only economical but also eco friendly at the time when there is a
threat of global warming. Here, economical word is stated considering time and
cost. Time being the most important aspect, steel structures (Pre fabricated) is built
in very short period and one such example is Pre Engineered Buildings (PEB). Pre
Engineering building means steel building system which is predesigned and
prefabricated. In this study, know the Cost effective tool which helps to utilize the
optimum cross-sections of steel.

2.8.1 General

This chapter presents the method of the study on comparison of prefabrication

construction with conventional RCC building construction. A residential building is
taken for comparing and it includes the preparation of plan, data collection from
different research papers and from established buildings, estimation of quantities,
determination of project duration and different risk management.

2.8.2 Plan Preparation

Plan preparation is done for residential building to estimate the quantities of

conventional and precast constructions. Double storey building is taken to estimate
the quantities.

2.8.3 Estimation Of Quantities

Estimation is used to find out the requirement of the materials for both the
constructions. The details of the materials which are used in the construction from
the research papers and from construction companies were collected. By getting
these details we can estimate the quantities of the materials.

2.8.4 Project Duration

Project duration of the each construction of building will calculate from the
calculation and from some companies and compares the time of completion period
by using Critical Path method with Primavera P6. In such manner the time
requirement for PEB building and RCC building can be determine through which the
time comparison can be done.
Page 15 of 29
2.8.5 Risk management

Risk management in the construction project management is a comprehensive and

systematic way of identifying, analyzing and responding to risk to achieve the
project objective. To identify different risks in construction of PEB & RCC building
like occupational risks, financial risks, contractual risks, project risks, Stakeholder
risk, natural risk and competition in both buildings.

2.8.6 Cost Analysis

This is the main factor which is considered in the project is to find out the
comparison of cost analysis of double storey building for the prefab construction and
conventional RCC building construction. In this analysis we want to consider the
resources of labor, material and machineries.

2.8.7 Results and discussion

After the analysis of cost of both PFB & RCC buildings it is most important to
compare it to get the cost variation between both buildings, also discussion require
for time management for construction of both buildings from P6 software to reduce
cost with respect to time. Also discussion on the risk management for the both
buildings needed to get proper results.

2.8.8 Conclusion

Conclusion based on the all results and discussion from the comparison of PFB &
RCC buildings in terms of cost, time & risk.

Page 16 of 29
 .
Fig 1. Flow Chart of Work Methodology

Page 17 of 29
3 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

Based on the Prefabrication and RCC building literatures are collected and found
that in the current situation the construction of buildings are very difficult thing
around the world due to over contest and necessities of client requirements. Quality
of On-site buildings are mainly affected by several reasons like poor quality of
materials, environmental factors, wastage of materials, etc..,. This comparison of cost
and risk management study will used to recognize factors for good quality of
production/construction at low cost.

Mass production prefabricated building components (precast faade, precast stair

flight, drywall and semi-precast floor planking) reduce cost and save time, with
added advantage of taking some of the most awesome work out of the process. Faster
erection capabilities and fewer manpower requirements make prefabrication the
most viable option for public housing construction. According to the study carried
out by Tam (2002), there could be a 43 percent reduction in site labor consumption if
there is a shift from the in-situ site casting to prefabrication design.

At the same time, prefabrication offers clients better performance to fulfill all
requirements, such as:
1. Opportunities for good architecture
2. Fire resistant material
3. Healthy buildings
4. Reduced energy consumption through the ability to store heat in the concrete.
5. Environmentally friendly way of building with optimum use of materials,
recycling of waste products, less noise and dust etc.

Shri P K Adlakha, Shri H C Puri [3] describes prefabrication as In India, adoption of

prefabrication building techniques has many merits in the context of availability of
materials, labor and technical skills. Advantages of prefabrication are:

1. In prefabricated construction, as the components are readymade, self supporting,

shuttering and scaffolding is eliminated with a saving in shuttering cost.

2. In traditional construction, the repetitive use of shuttering is limited, as it gets

damaged due to 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.

Page 18 of 29
3. In prefabricated housing system, there is saving of time as the elements can be
casted before hand during the course of foundations being laid and even after laying
slab, 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. Saving of time means saving of money.

4. In prefabricated construction, there is better quality control, shape and size of

precast elements. Therefore, in structural design, full advantage of properties of
cement and steel can be exploited.

5. In precast construction, similar type of components is produced repeatedly,

resulting in increased productivity and economy in cost too.

6. In precast construction, the construction is not affected due to weather, rain, wind
etc

For the construction of RCC buildings more amount of the labor workforce and
different methods are used, labor in RCC buildings are not so much trained so that
the methods use in the RCC building construction tends to formation of the major
faults like cracks, seepage, differential settlement.

From the literature review we found that lots of comparison between the PEB and
RCC building in terms of design, delivery, foundation, erection and cost, time
requirement, architecture appearance, future expansion and different risk involves in
both construction.

Some methodology use by the researchers to identify the cost comparison between
PEB & RCC building in such manner that they follow one process like plan
preparation, data collection from different companies, estimation quantities for the
both buildings, also project duration, different risk involves and cost estimate of the
building. Plan preparation of the both buildings are different from each other like
RCC building plan contain the RCC footing, plinth beam, columns, beams, walls,
windows, door and slab projection in comparison with the PEB building it's plan
contain the RCC footing, anchor bolt in the foundation, I- section steel column
section and beam sections which are easily available in the market also composite
slab sheet, modular stair case so these are the material comparison between the both
buildings.

Also the data collection from the different respective construction companies helps
to determine the time requirement, cost needed per square feet for each of the

Page 19 of 29
buildings also the labor cost and different skilled or unskilled labor requirements for
the construction for the both buildings can be simply helps to distinguish the PEB &
RCC buildings. Different risk involves in PEB & RCC buildings like occupational
risks, financial risks, contractual risks, project risks, Stakeholder risk, natural risk
and competition found out in both buildings.

Cost analysis i.e. direct cost and indirect cost in construction like direct cost means
the cost of the materials and indirect cost means the cost of the labor, machineries,
water supply cost, and cost extended due to the natural risk. So the proper project
duration can reduce the indirect cost of the buildings, from the different research
paper we found that the RCC buildings indirect cost always increase because of the
time and because of time the material cost also increase which tends to increase the
direct cost of the RCC building in comparison with the PEB building the direct cost
is normally fixed but the lesser amount of the indirect cost require. From the
literatures reviews we found that there is no any proper inventory management that
can help to maintain the material and cost of the buildings.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 135, 1995
edition, defines Life Cycle Cost (LCC) as the total dollar cost of owning, operating,
maintaining, and disposing of a building or a building system over a period of time.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is an economic evaluation technique that
determines the total cost of owning and operating a facility over period of time. Life
Cycle Cost Analysis can be performed on large and small buildings or on isolated
building systems. Many building owners apply the principles of life cycle cost
analysis in decisions they make regarding construction or improvements to a facility.

It is important to note that the usefulness of a LCCA lies not in the determination of
a total cost of a project alternative, but in the ability to compare the cost of project
alternatives and to determine which alternative provides the best value per spent.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis is an essential design process for controlling the initial and
the future cost of building ownership. LCCA can be implemented at any level of the
design process and can also be an effective tool for evaluation of existing building
systems. LCCA can be used to evaluate the cost of a full range of projects, from an
entire site complex to a specific building system component.

Keeping this definition in mind, one can breakdown the LCC equation into the three
variables:

1. The pertinent costs of ownership.

Page 20 of 29
2. The period of time over which these costs are incurred.

3. The discount rate that is applied to future costs to equate them with present day
costs.

Certain costs are involves in LCCA are direct cost like initial cost, salvage value,
future investment, residual cost, annually fixed cost. Another is indirect cost which
consists the motorist delay cost, vehicle operating cost, accident costs.LCCA source
of information for our literature review from State of Alaska - Department of
Education & Early Development Alaska School Facilities Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Handbook 1st Edition.

The source of information for Time and Cost analysis of Construction of Steel
Framed Composite Floor with Concrete Floor Structure from 26th International
Symposium (ISARC 2009) also Comparison of pre engineering building and steel
building with cost and time effectiveness from IJISET - International Journal of
Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 1 Issue 10, December 2014.
There is research gap in the comparison cost of PEB & RCC building and LCCA
between the both buildings, also the different risks involves are the gap between the
PEB & RCC buildings. From some research paper we found that the comparison
between the project duration calculated from primavera P6 software and cost for
both double story buildings shown in following tables respectively with graphical
representation.

3.1 Project Duration

DESCRIPTION
S.No DURATION
(Type of work of buildings)
Sub Structure - (Site
cleaning, Earthwork,
1 22 Days
Foundation, Basement,
Soil filling& Consolidation.)
Super Structure
2 (Wall panels framing and 12 Days
Roofing slabs.)
Finishing Works
(Electrical, Plumbing
3 31 Days
Painting, Tiling, and
Windows, Extra items.)

Table 3.1.1 Total Duration for Prefabrication Construction

Page 21 of 29
 DESCRIPTION
S.No DURATION
(Type of work of buildings)

Sub Structure - (Site cleaning,

1 Earthwork, Foundation, Basement, 22 Days
Soil filling & Consolidation.)
Super Structure (Columns, Lintel
2 & sunshade, Beams, Roof slabs, 52 Days
Brick work, Plastering.)
Finishing Works (Electrical,
Plumbing Painting, Tiling, and
3 54 Days
Installation of doors & Windows,
Extra items.)

Table 3.1.2 Total Duration for Conventional Construction

60

50

40
Duration

30 Sub Structure
Super Structure
20
Finishing Works

10

0
Prefabricated building (PFB) RCC building
Type of work of buildings

Fig 2. Comparison duration for prefab and RCC building in three different stages

From above observation researchers found that the time required for the construction
of prefabricated building i.e. (PFB) is more less that the construction of reinforced
cement concrete (RCC) building. Above graphs and table represent the duration
comparison which help to distinguish building which construct with very less time.
So PFB building can construct rapidly than RCC building.
Page 22 of 29
3.2 Project cost analysis

Sr.no DESCRIPTION COSTS(Rs)

Sub Structure - (Site cleaning,
1 Earthwork, Foundation, Basement, 5,26,000.0
Soil filling& Consolidation.)
24,23,000.0
Super Structure- (Wall panels
2 framing and Roofing slabs.)
Finishing Works (Electrical,
43,51,000.0
plumbing, Painting, Tiling, and
3 Installation of doors & Windows,
Extra items.)

Table 3.2.1 Total cost for prefabrication construction

Sr.no DESCRIPTION COSTS(Rs)

Sub Structure (Site cleaning,
1 Earth work, Foundation, Basement, 5,26,000.00
Soil filling& Consolidation.)
Super Structure (Columns,
2 Lintel& sunshade, Beams, Roof 1024000.00
slabs, Brick work, Plastering.)
Finishing Works (Electrical,
Plumbing, Painting, Tiling, and
3 44,69,000.00
Installation of doors& Windows,
Stair case, Extra items.)

Table 3.2.2 Total cost for RCC building construction Material and labor cost for total
project

Page 23 of 29
 50
45
40
35
Cost in Lakhs

30
25 Sub-structure
20 Super structure
15 Finishing works
10
5
0
Prefabricated building Reinforced concrete building
Type of work of buildings

Fig 3. Comparison of total project cost for both prefab and conventional construction
of double storey building

From the above graph and tabular data we found that the prefabricated construction
for individual double storey residential building cost is 13% more than the
conventional RCC construction. This is main drawback for prefabricated
construction which is not economical to construct in this case. At the same time the
prefabricated construction is easy to work and reduces the project duration, is
reduced by 63 days when compared to the conventional. Its the main advantages for
prefabricated construction and also it helps when there is labor shortage. RCC
building cost is less than the PFB building.

Page 24 of 29
4 CHAPTER THREE SUMMARY

The gap identify us in literature review which is already evaluated in cost

comparison between precast building and RCC building also the risk management
and LCCA evaluated in precast buildings and commercial buildings.

In earlier research the cost comparison between PEB & RCC buildings has not been
covered yet and risk management and LCCA in PEB & RCC buildings also not
cover.

So we plan to focus on the cost comparison, risk management, time evaluation and
LCCA between both PEB and RCC buildings to cover the research gap.

4.1 RESEARCH CONCLUSION

Their research conclusion is the cost of the PEB or Precast is more than the RCC
buildings and the time require for the construction OF PEB or Precast buildings is so
less as compared with the RCC buildings and from LCCA researchers found that
cost incurred in the construction of both the buildings. PFB building construction can
be use for the mass house construction where the fast construction require also the
PFB buildings can be use for large construction. The prefab construction for
individual double storey residential building cost is 13% more than the conventional
construction. This is main drawback for prefab construction which is not economical
to construct. At the same time the prefab construction is easy to work and reduces
the project duration, is reduced by 63 days when compared to the conventional. Its
the main advantages for prefab construction and also it helps when there is labor
shortage. Prefab construction have more advantages and procurement in
industrialized, heavy infrastructures. But in individual houses there are lot of
constraints and lack of knowledge its get struggling to implement on construction
site, at this stage conventional RCC construction is economical and comfortable
when compared to the prefabrication construction.

Page 25 of 29
5 REFERENCES

[1] Adlakha PK and Shri H C Puri., APRIL (2003) Prefabrication Building

Methodologies For Low Cost Housing IE(I) Journal vol.84.

[2] Christabel M F Ho and Raymond W M Wong., April (2002) Prefabrication

Building Construction System Adopted In Hong Kong vol..pp383-390I.

[3] Dari J Oehlers and Mark A Bradford (1999), Elementary Behaviour of

Composite Steel and Concrete Structural Members, Butterworth and Heinmann.

[4] Handbook on Composite Construction-Multi-Storey Buildings-Part-3, (2002),

Institute for Steel Development and Growth (INSDAG).

[5] Jonson R P (1975), composite structures of Steel and Concrete; Vol. 1: Beams,
Columns, Frames and Applications in Building. Granada. 1975.

[6] Linda Brock and James Brown APRIL (2003), The Prefabricated House In The
Twenty-First Century: What We Can Learn From Japan? IE (I) Journal vol.6.

[7] Moving Buildings,http://www.maq.org.au/publications/resources/moving03.html,

2005.

[8] N.Dineshkumar, P.Kathirvel, 'Comparative Study on Prefabrication Construction

with Cast In-Situ Construction of Residential Buildings ,ISSN 2348 7968,pp 527-
532.

[8] P. K. Shri Adlakha and H. C. Shri Puri, Prefabrication Building Methodologies

for Low Cost Housing, IE(I) Journal AR, (2003), pp 2034.

[9] Prefabricated Building Market UK 2004 Summary of report contents,

AMAResearch, UK, June 2005.

[10] R.P. Johnson, MA, MICE, Composite Structure of Steel and Concrete, (Vol-
1, Blackwell, scientific publication, UK 1987.

[11] R.P. Johnson, MA, MICE, Composite Structure of Steel and Concrete(Vol-
II Blackwell, scientific publication, UK, 1987

Page 26 of 29
[12] Tam C. M (2002). Impact on structure of labour market resulting from large-
scale implementation of prefabrication Advanced in Building Technology. Vol. 1.
Pp399-403, Hong Kong.

[13] Using Prefabrication In Housing Summary, http://www.cmhc-

schl.gc.ca/en/imquaf/afho/afadv/ cote/usprho/index.cfm

[14] Xudong Zhao and Saffa Riffat,' Prefabrication in house constructions', School
of the Built Environment, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Page 27 of 29
6 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TABLE DETAILS PAGE NO

Total Duration for
Table 3.1.1 Prefabrication Construction 21

Total Duration for

Conventional Construction
Table 3.1.2 22

Total cost for RCC building

Table 3.2.2 construction Material and 23
labor cost for total project
Total cost for prefabrication
construction
Table 3.2.1 23

Page 28 of 29
7 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. FIGURE DETAILS PAGE NO

Fig 1 Flow Chart of Work Methodology 17

Comparison duration for prefab and RCC building in three

different stages
Fig 2 22

Comparison of total project cost for both prefab and

Fig 3 conventional construction of double storey building 24

Page 29 of 29