P. 1
Management Development Program Eco-friendly Construction Practices

Management Development Program Eco-friendly Construction Practices

|Views: 86|Likes:
Published by api-27477209

More info:

Published by: api-27477209 on Oct 16, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/09/2014

pdf

text

original

Management Development Program

Eco-friendly Construction Practices
Feb 11, 2005

Anjali & Kiran Kalamdani ‘K I M A Y A’

Three Frames of Reference

♦ 1. Shodhgram at

Gadchiroli a tribal village project by Dr. Abhay and Rani Bang

Sevagram at Wardha

♦ 2. A vision for the twenty first century village by

Mahatma Gandhi which wonderfully balances ECOLOGY, ECONOMY & SOCIAL JUSTICE !

Hundertwasser Haus - Vienna

♦ 3. Tree tenants, window

rights and salvaged relics used to enrich urban living in urban public housing.

HEAVIER ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF THE URBAN SETTLEMENT

TRIBAL

RURAL

URBAN

QUICK ASSESSMENT USING THE WEB FOR 3 INSTITUTIONS
♦ The web was used to get a quick feedback on the building practices

employed by the firm in the recent past. Three medium sized buildings with similar uses and sizes were compared to demonstrate the efficacy of the TOOL. ♦ The judgement of the partners was used to give rankings of bad, average, good, and excellent to the various sustainability indicators. ♦ Climate responsiveness of a building, which was not considered at all during the workshop, was introduced, as it was considered a prime factor in assessing sustainability. ♦ Non availability of data for ecological indicators was seen as a problem. The judgement of the partners here was used to give values to the indicators.

INFLUENCE OF LOCATION
Factors affected by location of site in Urban Area: •Land Cost, availability and buildability (FSI) •Returns on Investment •Material and labour Transport Cost

NICMAR MVM

SAWAB

GRAPHICAL EVALUATION TOOL USING 11 INDICATORS
♦ Total

Built

Area: 1938.02 sq.m ♦ Cost Rs 87,93,548/(Rs. 421.69/ sft) ♦ Building Technology used: RCC frame, Brick infill walls
SCHOOL FOR MAHARASHTRA VIDYA MANDAL

MVM SCHOOL, LAW COLLEGE ROAD, PUNE
Client’s participation in the project was encouraged

External Facade Main Concerns: An easy to use and visually stimulating building for the user agegroup at a reasonable cost.

Façade of internal courtyard

Conventional R.C.C. frame with burnt brick masonary infill panels.

GRAPHICAL EVALUATION TOOL USING 11 INDICATORS
♦ Total

Built Area: 16,400 sft ♦ Cost Rs 32,80,000/(Rs. 200/ sft) ♦ Main Building Technology used: Ferrocrete/ Concrete blocks/ Brick

NICMAR CAMPUS AT BALEWADI

NICMAR is characterised by a low-rise campus developed over a period of three years. It encouraged experiments with cost-effective and ecologically sustainable building techniques. The campus is an outdoor museum of NINE different building techniques.

USE OF COST-EFFECTIVE TECHNIQUES AT NICMAR

Hostel Block for 40 students

Jali using concrete blocks in the Canteen Various classrooms have unique roof forms resulting from different building techniques

GRAPHICAL EVALUATION TOOL USING 11 INDICATORS
♦ Total

SAWAB PUBLIC SCHOOL NAIGAON village, PUNE DIST.

Built Area: 33,000 sft. ♦ Cost Rs. 75,00,000/(Rs. 225/ sft) ♦ Main Building Technology used: Steel Portals/ Rat-trap brickwork

SAWAB PUBLIC SCHOOL

A Residential School for Mr. Shaikh Jaweed Sarfraz at Naigaon, Near Prayagdham, Uruli Kanchan, Pune, has had a number of teething problems, despite good intentions.

USE OF COST EFFECTIVE TECHNIQUES AT SAWAB PUBLIC SCHOOL
Doors and Window made using recycled pine wood. Local craft skills were used in brickwork

Clay tiles on recycled pine battens/purlins on steel Portal Frame, with Rat Trap bond Brickwork

A COMPARISON OF THE 3 CASES

MVM

NICMAR

SAWAAB

•CONVENTIONAL BUILDING TECHNIQUES RESULT IN LARGER ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS •IMBALANCES IN VARIOUS FACTORS ARE EASILY READABLE IN GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION

Building : Saraswati Complex at Hadapsar most common 5 5 9 7 9 4 8 6.5 5 5 3 3.5 6 4.5 4 This Higher --> non Sustainable building 5.14 Energy Consumed Calculated in 'Energy_calculator' 3.55 Waste generator Calculated in 'Waste Calculator' 9.82 Water Management Calculated in 'Water man Calc' 8.33 renewable Energy Calculated in 'Renewable Calc' 9.69 Green Cover Calculated in 'Green Cover Calc' 5.02 Net Investment Calculated in 'Financial Calc' 7.24 Operation and Maintena Calculated in 'Financial Calc' 6.17 return on investment Calculated in 'Financial Calc' 5.05 Debt Equity ratio Calculated in 'Financial Calc' 4.18 Employment GenerateCalculated in 'Employment Calc' 5.05 User response Calculated in 'Response Calc' 4.17 Recognition and awar Calculated in 'Recognition Calc' 5.91 Labour Welfare Calculated in 'welfare Calc' 4.96 Cost of Degradation Calculated in 'Degradation Calc' 3.25 Appropriate Technolo Calculated in 'Technology Calc' 87.54 total marks scored Higher --> non Sustainable 84.50 most common practice 150 max marks

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 F1 F2 F3 F4 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

Sustainability Chart
E1 S6 S5 S4 S3 S2 S1
4.96 5.91 6 4.17 3.5 5.05

10.00
5.14 5

E2
5
3.55

9 E3 7

9.82

4.5

4 3.25 0.00

8.33

E4
99.69 E5

3
4.18

4 5.02
5.05 5 7.24

5

F1
6.17 6.5

8

F4

F3

F2

WorkSheet:

Chart Maker The Building Footprint

most common practice

Eco friendly material in interiors – Recycled Pine
Museum of Land Records Department of Survey and Settlement Govt. of Maharashtra

Savitribai Phule Memorial for PMC at Bhavani Peth

Use of Calcium Silicate Brickwork, steel windows and Basalt stone plinths

Use of Calcium Silicate Brickwork, steel windows at Moraya Gosavi Samadhi Chinchwad

Eco friendly furniture using recycled pine for a resurgent Auto Industrial Unit

PRACTICAL EVALUATION TOOL SOME INDICATORS TOWARDS A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
♦ Sustainability of a building is a subjective virtue that cannot be

assessed precisely due to lack of sufficient data and agreement on sustainability standards and benchmarks. ♦ Assigning index values to each of the indicator can be used to evolve a measuring system for the sustainability of a building. This will minimize the subjectivity inherent in the human angle if not completely eliminate it. ♦ A guiding body should be formed that would authorise the valuers for Sustainable Building Practice and constantly refine the tools. ♦ Differences of building type, project size, region and frame of reference will demand varied weightages on different indicators.

PRACTICAL EVALUATION TOOL SOME INDICATORS TOWARDS A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
♦ A database of such evaluations over a period of time will

help the guiding institution to authoritatively promote, guide and compare SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PRACTICES. ♦ Construction Financing Institutions, Planning Authorities and Institutes of Professionals could be asked to insist on evaluations and lend finance, give permissions or credibility/subsidies based on evaluations.

STAKEHOLDERS OF THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE
♦ CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ♦ BLDG. MATERIAL MFG. INDUSTRY ♦ GOVT. AND ITS REGULATORY BUREAUCRACY ♦ INSTITUTIONS WORKING IN THESE AREAS ♦ CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES ♦ ASSESSORS: Professionals with min 10 years of

experience in relevant areas of environment, construction, social work.

Our structures are far away from those of the birds and the bees. Let us try and understand how they build with nature …………

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->