Imperial College of Engineering & Research,

Wagholi, Pune.

PRESENTATION
ON
STUDY AND ANALYSIS OF LOW COST
HOUSING BASED ON TECHNIQUES AND
MATRIAL
Presented by1. Mr. Nikhil Mohire
(BA30)
2. Mr. Siddharth Sonsale
(BA10)
3. Mr. Pratik Zurunge
(BA31)
4. Mr. Dhiraj Bala Tapkir
(BA43)
Under the guidance of-

Prof.A.W. Dhawale
17/1/14

ICOER CIVIL DEPT

CONTENTS1. Introduction
2.Aim and Objective
3.Construction materials
4.Construction techniques
5.Case study
6.Conclusion
7. References

17/1/14

INTRODUCTION

India is developing country having only 20%

population of higher
income group.
Need of cost effective houses for low income
group.
Many people are willing to buy the house due to
the rising price and costs incurred.

Low cost
houses are constructed without
sacrificing
performance and structure life.
The main goal is that the construction activities
should
ICOER CIVIL DEPT
17/1/14
contribute
to sustainable
development for the3

LOW COST HOUSING?

Effective budgeting & techniques.

Use of locally available materials.

Use of improve skills & technology .

No sacrifice in strength, performance & life

of structure.

17/1/14

AIM

study and analysis of various construction

materials
and techniques for low cost housing.

17/1/14

OBJECTIVES
1) To reduce cost of construction by using various alternative
construction materials.
2) To adopt cost effective, innovative, environmental friendly housing
technologies for low cost housing.
3) To save money & also maintaining building quality.
4) To provide important need & dream of low income earners to have
their own home with individual needs.

17/1/14

LITERATURE REVIEW

17/1/14

The Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural

Engineering and
Construction.

Cost Effectiveness of using Low Cost

Housing
Technologies in Construction.
Vivian W. Y. Tam1*

Findings

Western Sydney

1 School of Engineering, University of

This paper examined cost effectiveness of using low

cost housing
technologies in comparison with traditional
construction methods.
It was found that about 26.11% & 22.68% of
construction cost
17/1/14
including
material and labour cost reduced in

A perspective study on fly ashlimegypsum

bricks and hollow
blocks for low cost housing
development.
Sunil
Kumar*
Department of Civil Engineering, Harcourt
Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur 208002,
India
Received 17 April 2001; received in
revised form 22 April 2002; accepted 31 May
2002

17/1/14

METHODOLOGY
This study is based on literature and field survey.

The focus of the study is to find out issues resulted from low cost
house extension projects that affect the construction activities.

The field study is divided into three parts On site observation on construction activities to investigate and
examine construction activities carried out by the contractors.

Finding new construction techniques to implement them in

construction of building.
.

17/1/14

Continue
Study of low cost construction materials from
projects under
construction and recently completed.
After completion of these processes , site
observations will
carried out to gather primary data.

This data will help to determine the research

basis and direction.
Reviews of other works from literature survey
will become the
backbone of this research.

17/1/14

11

Construction Materials &

Technologies

1) Rat-trap Bond Technology.

2) Filler Slab Technology
3) Aluform Technology
4) Gypsum Area Seperation Wall
17/1/14

12

Rat trap Bond Technology

17/1/14

13

ADVANTAGES
Alternative brick bonding system for English &
Flemish bond.
Reduction in number of bricks upto 25%.
Reduction in number of joints.
Reduction in mortor consumption.
Reduction in cost of brickwork upto 10%.
No need of Plastering for outside face.
Thermally comfortable.

17/1/14

14

Filler Slab Technology

17/1/14

15

ADVANTAGES

17/1/14

16

FILLER SLAB

17/1/14

17

For 1 m3 : RCC Filler slab vs. Conventional

Solid RCC Slab.
1.61 bags (19% saving) = Rs 418/ m 3 saving
in cement cost.
0.09 m3 less sand (19% saving) = Rs 21/ m 3 saving
in sand cost.
0.18 m3 less aggregates (19% saving) = Rs 127/ m 3 saving
in aggregates cost.
10 kg less steel/m3 of slab casted = Rs 500/m 3 saving in
reinforcement
cost.

17/1/14

18

Gypsum Area Separation Wall System

17/1/14

19

FEATURES
Light in weight.
Provides 2 hr. fire protection.
Sound Proof.
Use upto four stories in height.

17/1/14

20

Gypsum Area Separation Wall

17/1/14

21

ADVANTAGES
Allow to have more usable space.
Ideal for light weight commercial construction.
No need of expensive scaffolds systems.
Reduction in footing and structural requirements.
Lower cost as compare to traditional masonary
wall.
Reduces labour and material cost.
Faster installation as compare to regular masonary
17/1/14
22
wall.

Aluform Technology

17/1/14

23

FEATURES

Consist of light weight aluminium frame.

Efficient and flexible.

High degree of perfection.

Environmental Friendly.

17/1/14

24

ADVANTAGES

Nullifies the use of wood thereby is a Green

technology.
Cut down the need for conventional brick work.
Unsurpassed construction speed.
Cost effective for mass production.
Panels can be reused over 150 times.
Erected using unskilled labour
.
17/1/14

25

CASE STUDY

17/1/14

ICOER CIVIL DEPT

11

1) Naiknavare Developers Pvt. Ltd.

( Hadapsar )

CITY
( Pune )

STATE

Maharashtra

PROJECT NAME
Rehabilitation Project

Hadapsar

Slum
( PMC )

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY Developers Pvt.

17/1/14

Naiknavare
Ltd.

27

Naiknavare Developers Pvt. Ltd. ( Hadapsar

)

17/1/14

28

Sr.No.

PARAMETERS

DESCRIPTION

1)

Concrete

M20 + Fly Ash ( 25% )

2)

Sand

Natural Sand < Crush

Sand

3)

Aggregate

Light weight aggregate

4)

Plaster

Internal

Gypsum

External

Crush Sand

5)

Tiles

Ceramic Tiles

6)

Flooring

Vitrified Flooring

7)

Doors

Teak Wood

8)

Windows

M. S. Fabrication

9)

Drainage Pipe

R.C.C.

10)

Partition Wall Thickness

150MM

11)

Slab Thickness

130 MM

12)

Paint

OBD / Dry Distemper

17/1/14

29

3) MEGA PROJECT- MHADA (Proposed Case

Study)

CITY

STATE

Maharashtra

PROJECT NAME
Project

Virar ( Thane)

Mega MHADA

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY - M/S B. G. Shirke

Construction
Technology Pvt.
Ltd.
17/1/14
30

Conclusion

17/1/14

31

REFERENCES
1) Kumar A (1999). Sustainable building technology for mass
application, Development Alternatives Newsletter. 9(11), pp. 1-4.
2) Tiwari P, Parikh K and Parikh J (1999). Structural design
considerations in house builder construction model: a
multiobjective optimization technique, Journal of Infrastructure
System. 5(3), pp. 75-90.
3) Works Department (2002). Revised schedules of rates 2000
works department and analysis of rates, Works Department,
4) India.
5) Swiss Agency For Development And Cooperation (SDC). 2008.
Asia brief partnership results making the Vietnamese brick
sector sustainable.
17/1/14

THANK YOU

17/1/14