You are on page 1of 27

LOW COST HOUSING

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

have complete this task.

I thank one and all...............

Mawan Rasheed
8sem Civil Engineering

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 1

LOW COST HOUSING

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.

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 2

LOW COST HOUSING

CONTENTS:
1.1: Introduction

1.2: low cost housing

1.3: General methods

1.4: cost effective techniques

1.4.1: foundation

1.4.2: plinth

11

1.4.3 Walls

12

1.4.4 Roofs and floor

14

1.4.5 Openings

16

1.5: cost effective analysis

22

1.6: case study

24

1.7: conclusion

27

1.8: References

28

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 3

LOW COST HOUSING

Figures:
Figure 1.1: Building by recycled materials

Figure 1.2: precast RC planks

Figure 1.3: prefabricated brick panels

Figure1.4: precast hollow slab

10

Figure 1.5: arch foundation

11

Figure 1.6: under rimmed piles

12

Figure 1.7: plinth

12

Figure 1.8: rat trap bond brick

13

Figure 1.9: rat trap bond bricks

14

Figure 2.0: brick jail

15

Figure 2.1: precast RC planks

17

Figure 2.2: Ferro cement roofing channels

18

Figure 2.3: Ferro cement C beams

19

Figure 2.4: Filler slab technique

21

Figure 2.5: Arch opening

22

Figure 2.6: Case study

24

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 4

LOW COST HOUSING

TABLES
Table 1: cost analysis of low cost housing on footing work
Table 2: cost analysis of low cost housing on roofing work 23

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 5

22

LOW COST HOUSING


Chapter 1

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.

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 6

LOW COST HOUSING

1.2 LOW COST HOUSING


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.

1.3 METHODS ADOPTATION:


1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
1.3.5

RECYCLING
EXTENSIVE OR LOGICAL PLANNING
MODULAR APPROACH
PREFABRICATION
MATERIALS ADOPTATION

1.3.1: RECYCLING:
Recycled materials adopted for low cost housing includes

Wood from demolished houses


Rubbers previously used
Recycled glass and metals.
Use of disposal containers.

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.

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 7

LOW COST HOUSING

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 ,

minimum circulation space.


Economy should be considered in design of individual buildings , layout , clusters etc
While preparing the specification it should be kept in mind the cost effective

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:

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 8

LOW COST HOUSING

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


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

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

In prefabricated construction, the work at site is reduced to minimum, thereby,


enhancing the quality of work, reliability and cleanliness

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.

1.3.4: MATERIALS USED ARE:


1.3.4.1: Precast RC planks:
This system consists of precast RC planks supported over partially precast joist. RC
planks are made with thickness partly varying between 3 cm and 6 cm. There are
haunches in the plank which are tapered. When the plank is put in between the joists,
the space above 3 cm thickness is filled with in-situ concrete to get tee-beam effect of
the joists. A 3 cm wide tapered concrete filling is also provided for strengthening the
haunch portion during handling and erection. The planks have 3 numbers 6 mm dia
MS main reinforcement and 6 mm dia @ 20 cm centre to centre cross bars.

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 9

LOW COST HOUSING

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

1.3.4.3: Precast RB curve panels.


1.3.4.4: Precast hollow slabs.
Precast hollow slabs are panels in which voids are created by earthen kulars. without
decreasing the stiffness or strength. These hollow slabs are lighter than solid slabs and
thus save the cost of concrete, steel and the cost of walling and foundations too due to
less weight. The width of a panel is 300 mm and depth may vary from 100 mm to 150
mm as per the span, the length of the panel being adjusted to suit the span. The outer
sides are corrugated to provide transfer of shear between adjacent units.
Thekulars are placed inverted so as to create a hollow during precasting (Figure 9).
DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 10

LOW COST HOUSING


Extra reinforcement is provided at top also to take care of handling stresses during
lifting and placement. There is saving of about 30% in cost of concrete and an overall
saving of about 23%.(P.K.Adlakha and H.C.Puri, 2002)

Fig1.4

1.3.5: MATERIALS ADAPTATIONS: The various materials which can be used for
low cost housings are

Non eroded mud plaster

Fly ash sand lime bricks.

Solid concrete and stone blocks.

Bamboo mat boards.

Stabilised compressed earth.

Fly ash gypsum stabilized mud blocks

Clay red mud burned bricks

Precast stone blocks.

1.4: COST EFFECTIVE VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES ARE:


1.4.1: FOUNDATION: Foundation is the lowest part of structure which is
provided to distribute load to the soil thus providing base for the superstructure. in the
conventional process the excavation work is first carried out , then the earth work is
filled with the available earth and end with watering and compaction in 6 thick
layer .
DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 11

LOW COST HOUSING


1.4.1.1: Arch foundation: But for low cost housing arch foundation is used in
which walls are supported on the brick or stone masonry. For the construction of the
foundation, the use of available materials such as brick or concrete bloc can be made
to resist the lateral forces buttress at the corner. it reduces 40% of cost . Advantage of
this is that it can e used in soft soil.

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

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 12

LOW COST HOUSING


formed in stable soils. the large base diameter allows greater bearing capacity than a
straight shaft pile.
These piles are suited for expansive soils which are often subjected to seasonal
moisture variation.

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.

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 13

LOW COST HOUSING

Fig 1.7

1.4.3: Walls: Wall thickness of 6 to 9 is recommended for adoption in the


construction of walls all-round the building and 41/2 for inside walls. It is suggested to use
burnt bricks which are immersed in water for 24 hours and then shall be used for the walls

1.4.3.1: Rat-trap bond brick


It is a cavity wall construction with added advantage of thermal comfort and reduction in
the quantity of bricks required for masonry work. By adopting this method of bonding of
brick masonry compared to traditional English or Flemish bond masonry, it is possible to
reduce in the material cost of bricks by 25% and about 10to 15% in the masonry cost. By
adopting rat-trap bond method one can create aesthetically pleasing wall surface and
plastering can be avoided

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 14

LOW COST HOUSING


Fig 1.8

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.

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 15

LOW COST HOUSING


1.4.3.3: Soil cements block technology:
It is an alternative method of construction of walls using soil cement blocks in place of
burnt bricks masonry. It is an energy efficient method of construction where soil mixed
with 5% and above cement and pressed in hand operated machine and cured well and
then used in the masonry. This masonry doesnt require plastering on both sides of the
wall. The overall economy that could be achieved with the soil cement technology is
about 15 to 20% compared to conventional method of construction.

1.4.3.4: fly Ash Sand Lime Bricks:


By mixing of lime and fly ash in the presence of moisture, fly ash sand lime bricks are
made. Fly ash reacts with lime at ordinary temperature and forms a compound possessing
cementations properties. After reaction between lime and fly ash, calcium silicate
hydrates are produce which are responsible for high strength of the compound. Bricks
made by mixing lime and fly ash are therefore, chemically bounded bricks.
the bricks are manufactured with the help of hydraulic press and are dried in the
autoclave. These bricks have various advantages over clay bricks , it possess adequate
crushing strength uniform shape, smooth finish , and does not required plastering and also
are lighter in weight than ordinary clay bricks (R.K.garg 2007)

1.4.3.5: BRICK JALI:


The common burnt brick is one of mans great inventions. Five thousand years ago
bricks were made in many different shapes and sizes but, one by one, the less satisfactory
ones were discarded. Now, all over the world, with only a few exceptions, nearly all
bricks are roughly the same shape and size - that is about 9 x 4.5 x 3 inches. This is
neither accidental nor coincidence but the result of five thousand years of what we now
call R & D - research and development. Brick jail can be used instead of parapet wall or
boundary walls , it will reduce the bricks and intern reduces the cost.
Instead of using the regural lintel and window system , jail work can be used
DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 16

LOW COST HOUSING

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.

1.4.4.1: Precast RC Plank Roofing System:


This system consists of precast RC planks supported over partially precast joist. RC
planks are made with thickness partly varying between 3 cm and 6 cm. There are
haunches in the plank which are tapered. When the plank is put in between the joists,
the space above 3 cm thickness is filled with in-situ concrete to get tee-beam effect of
DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 17

LOW COST HOUSING


the joists. A 3 cm wide tapered concrete filling is also provided for strengthening the
haunch portion during handling and erection. The planks have 3 numbers 6 mm dia
MS main reinforcement and 6 mm dia @ 20 cm centre to centre cross bars.

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)

1.4.4.3: Precast hollow slabs roofing


Precast hollow slabs are panels in which voids are created by earthen kulars. without
decreasing the stiffness or strength. These hollow slabs are lighter than solid slabs and
thus save the cost of concrete, steel and the cost of walling and foundations too due to
less weight. The width of a panel is 300 mm and depth may vary from 100 mm to 150
mm as per the span, the length of the panel being adjusted to suit the span. The outer
sides are corrugated to provide transfer of shear between adjacent units.
Thekulars are placed inverted so as to create a hollow during precasting (Figure 9).
Extra reinforcement is provided at top also to take care of handling stresses during
lifting and placement. There is saving of about 30% in cost of concrete and an overall
saving of about 23%.(P.K.Adlakha and H.C.Puri, 2002)
DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 18

LOW COST HOUSING

1.4.4.4: L- Pan roofing


The pre cast full span RC L-panel is of section L. The L- panels are supported on
parallel gable walls and are used for sloped roof of a building. The RC units can be

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)

1.4.4.5: Ferro Cement Roofing Channels:


Ferro is an innovative term used to describe the latest technology where the term
ferro stands for steel or iron and cement stands for binding and cementatious
materials.
Salent features

Speedy installation no shuttering required


30% cost reduction over RCC roofing.
Lower dead load on walls.
Usable as an intermediate load.

Raw material:
Cement, fine aggregates (10mm and below), sand , steel, chicken mesh, welded mesh.

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 19

LOW COST HOUSING

Figure2.2

1.4.4.6: Ferro Cement C- Beams/Rafter:


For structural application as beams in roofing. It is cost effective prefabricated
technology, it reduces the construction time and simple technology. Here two C beam
joined in opposite direction makes an I beam.
Properties of product: compressive strength 250 kg/cm2
Raw materials ;
Cement , sand , aggregate , steel, plyproplyne, fibre,admixture, wielded mesh.

1.4.4.7: Filler Slab Technique:


The filler slab technique is based on the principle that for roofs which are simply
supported, the upper part of the slab is subjected to compressive forces and lower part
of the slab experience tensile forces. The filler slab is based on the principle that for
roofs which are simply supported, the upper part of the slab is subjected to
compressive forces and the lower part of the slab experience tensile forces. Concrete
is very good in withstanding compressive forces and steel bears the load due to tensile
forces. Thus the lower tensile region of the slab does not need any concrete except for
holding the steel reinforcements together.
Therefore in a conventional RCC slab lot of concrete is wasted and it needs extra
reinforcement due to added load of the concrete which can otherwise be replaced by
low-cost and light weight filler materials, which will reduce the dead weight as well
as the cost of the slab to 25% (as 40% less steel is used and 30% less concrete)
DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 20

LOW COST HOUSING


The filler slab is a mechanism to replace the concrete in the tension zone. The filler
material, thus, is not a structural part of the slab. By reducing the quantity and weight
of material, the roof become less expensive, yet retains the strength of the
conventional slab. The most popular filler material is the roofing tile. Mangalore tiles
are placed between steel ribs and concrete is poured into the gap to make a filler slab.
The structure requires less steel and cement and it is also a good heat insulator.
Conventional tests by different institutions and laboratories has proved the load
bearing capacity of filler slab and found it no less in performance from the
conventional R.C.C. slab. Since filler roof tiles are firmly bonded to and covered by
concrete, it does not collapse under the impact of say, a coconut falling on the roof.

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.

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 21

LOW COST HOUSING

Fig 2.5

1.5: COST EFFECTIVENESS OF USING LOW COST HOUSING


TECHNOLOGIES
The construction methods of walling and roofing are selected for the detail cost analysis
based on available resources from the interviews. Table 1 and Table 2 summarise the cost
analysis of the traditional construction methods and the low cost housing technologies in the
case studies for walling and roofing respectively. It is 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. Suggestion for reducing construction cost in this paper is of general
nature and it varies depending upon the nature of the building to be constructed and budget of
the owner. However, it is necessary that good planning and design methods shall be adopted
by utilizing the services of an experienced engineer or an architect for supervising the work,
thereby achieving overall cost effectiveness. 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. Table 1: Cost analysis of the traditional
construction methods and the low cost housing technologies used in the
case studies for 1m3
of walling (Works Department, 2002)

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 22

LOW COST HOUSING


Table 1: Cost analysis of the traditional construction methods and the low cost housing technologies used in
the case studies for 1m3 of footing (Works Department, 2002)

No

Item

Rate
(US$)

Unit

Conventional brickwork

Rat-trap bonded brickwork

Quantity Amount (US$)

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

Cement (10kg bag)

No

6.17

0.67
Labour

Mason (highly

skilled)

Mason (2nd class )

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

Add 2% tools and plant charges

0.34

0.25

Add for scaffolding- superstructure: 0.42/m3

0.42

0.42

Total (per m3)

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

Steel cutting, bending

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

Mason (2nd class )

No

1.49

N/A

N/A

0.20

0.30

Unskilled labour

No

1.06

N/A

N/A

0.80

0.85

Add 2% tools and plant charges

0.11

0.11

Total (per m3)

84.32

65.20

Savings

1.6:

CASE

HISTORIES

CONSTRUCTION

USING

22.68%

IN
COST-

INDIA

DEMONSTRATIONS

EFFECTIVE

&

DISASTER

RESISTANT TECHNOLOGIES BMTPCS INITIATIVES


BMTPC has been promoting cost-effective & environment- friendly building materials &
construction techniques in different regions of the country. During recent past the council has
DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 23

LOW COST HOUSING


been laying emphasis on putting up demonstration structures utilising region specific
technologies . Such efforts for demonstrating innovative technologies have created a much
better impact and helped in building up confidence and acceptability in private & public
construction agencies, professional & contractors. Details of the major projects handled by
them are given as under:-

1 Demonstration housing project at laggerre , Bangalore, Karnataka.


Project profile name of scheme:

VAMBAY-ministry of HUPA

Location of site:

laggere, Bangalore

No. Of units:

252(ground +2)

Built up area of a unit:

252 sq.ft

Unit consist of :

2 room , 1kitchen, 1 bath room, 1 WC

Cost per unit:

Rs 60000

Cost per sqft:

Rs 218/-

Nodal state agency:

Karnataka slum clearance board

Technology and specification


1. Foundation:

Random rubble stone masonry

2. Walling:

Solid concrete blocks for 200 mm thick walls

Clay brick of partition wall

RCC plinth band for earthquake resistance

3. Roof/ floor

RC filler slab using clay brick as fillers in ground

RC slab for second floor

IPS flooring

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 24

LOW COST HOUSING


4. Doors and window:

Precast RCC door frames

Coir polymer door shutters

Steel sheet window shutter

Laggere, Bangalore, karnataka

Figure 2.6

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 25

LOW COST HOUSING

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.

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 26

LOW COST HOUSING

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

DEPT OF CIVIL ENGG

Page 27