See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/296474231

Space standardisation of low-income housing units in India

Article  in  International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis · March 2016

DOI: 10.1108/IJHMA-12-2014-0057

CITATIONS READS

2 43

2 authors:

Uttam Kumar Roy Madhumita Roy

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee Jadavpur University
14 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Master Consultancy for preparation of Zonal Development Plan for Patna Metropolitan Area (PMAA) View project

Evaluation and Vetting of smart city project DPRs for Bareilly Smart City View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Uttam Kumar Roy on 12 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


IJHMA
9,1
88
Received 12 December 2014
Revised 4 March 2015
Accepted 11 March 2015
International Journal of Housing
Markets and Analysis
Vol. 9 No. 1, 2016
pp. 88-107
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1753-8270
DOI 10.1108/IJHMA-12-2014-0057
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8270.htm
Space standardisation of
low-income housing units
in India
Uttam Kumar Roy
Architecture and Planning Department,
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India, and
Madhumita Roy
Architecture Department, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to develop a set of affordable space and dimensional standards for
market-driven low-income housing in Indian context for the purpose of mass production using
industrialised building system.
Design/methodology/approach – For this, the paper first explains the significance of
standardisation from the literature and revisits the codes and contemporary practices in industrialised
building system (IBS) in India. Next, it undertakes a market survey of ongoing/completed housing
projects to study the space/dimensions reflected in the market demand by the people. After considering
conditions like modular grid suitability and provisions of code, it identifies a set of dimensional
standards of activity spaces, emerging from the market study. It also suggests a framework of modular
units showing the incremental attachment possibility for component-based construction using IBS.
These standards and design frameworks will make the path for developing various products and
components towards an open system in India.
Findings – The paper gives an insight of the market trends of low-income housing, focusing on unit
designs and spatial elements.
Research limitations/implications – Local contextualisation during the unit designs will be
required and that is not addressed in this paper.
Practical implications – This will benefit developers, manufacturers, designers as well as
policymakers towards a market-driven housing delivery using IBS.
Social implications – As a result of this standardisation, housing delivery will be faster and there
will be more numbers of market-driven affordable housing in masses for low-income people, thus
solving housing shortage.
Originality/value – A developing country like India is a diversified country having many
geographical and social variations. Such standardisation for a space and design framework has never
been attempted before and will make a contribution for the public housing sector.
Keywords Housing market, Incremental housing, Industrialised building systems (IBS),
Low-income-group (LIG) housing, Open system, Space standards
Paper type Research paper
Authors are thankful to the co-researcher of the Energy Efficient Built Environment at Jadavpur
University for their support and also to Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee for allowing
continuing the research at the institute.
1. Introduction Low-income
Providing affordable housing for low-income people has been a challenge for all and housing units
India is no exception. Present estimated housing shortage, which has increased in past
decades, is 2.47 million (one out of ten do not have liveable house) (National Building
Organisation (NBO), 2011 and Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation,
2007). The problem is severe in urban areas where one out of six persons do not have a
liveable house. In total, 96 per cent of this shortage caters to low-income category, which 89
has been sub-categorised based on family income, in India, as lower-income group (LIG)
and economically weaker section (EWS). EWS is considered to be the poorest among all
categories, except the pavement dwellers and homeless. In developing countries, like
India, a wide variety of design and dimensions is practiced concurrently in housing
delivery. Non-standard dimensions of physical spaces are common. Irrational and
non-modular physical planning, absence of modularity and dimension standard,
involvement of non-technical persons in housing delivery are seen. However, due to lack
of any standardisation, time and cost economy is not achieved. Advantage of repetitions
towards economy of scale is not utilised. As a result, the housing delivery is less in
comparison with the increasing shortage of housing.
The government has been trying to bring various policy interventions for more
housing production. In the past couple of years, the policy reforms, like 100 per cent
foreign direct investment (FDI) in housing, repeal of ULCRA[1], Amendment of Land
Acquisition Act, Regularisation of land title certification, enabled private developers
and joint venture companies to develop “market driven affordable units” for LIG. In
most of the cases, the units are sold without subsidy or marginal cross-subsidy.
Considering the increase in and the importance of the housing shortage challenge,
especially for low-income people, India requires a radical change in the housing delivery
system to generate substantial housing stock in a faster speed. National Housing and
Habitat Policy (1998) and National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy (2007) mentioned
the necessity of a faster housing supply system to fill up the demand–supply gap for the
low-income category housing. The recent trend of developing market-driven housing
unit for low-income people is a mentionable improvement in India, though the quantity
is not sufficient enough in comparison to the shortage. More supply of housing units
using industrialised building system (IBS)[2] is capable of mitigating the housing
shortage for low-income people. Technologies for prefabrication of building
components are available, but they lack the linkages with the housing market.
Therefore, to develop a linkage between such technology and the market demand, it is
absolutely necessary to develop some dimension standards and module based on the
market demand. To achieve such faster construction, standardisation is an inevitable
stage.
The paper attempts to develop a set of affordable space and dimensional standards
for market-driven low-income housing in Indian context for the purpose of mass
production using IBS. These standards and design frameworks will pave the path for
developing various products and components for an open system in India. For this, the
paper first explains the significance of standardisation from the literature and revisits
the codes and contemporary practices in IBS in India. Next, it undertakes a market
survey of ongoing/completed housing projects to study the space/dimensions reflected
in the market demand by the people. After considering conditions like modular grid
suitability and provisions of code, it recommends a set of dimensional standards of
IJHMA activity spaces, emerging from the market study. It also suggests a framework of
9,1 modular units showing the incremental attachment possibility for component-based
construction using IBS.

2. Literature study
IBS, using prefabricated building components, has been shown to be effective in
90 achieving speed, cost-effectiveness and quality in mass housing (Shaari and Ismail,
2004). IBS is categorised into two categories based on its supply method: open
system and closed system (Sarja, 1998; Thanoon et al., 2003). A closed system is
based on client’s design and pre-caster’s design. The first category is designed to
meet a spatial requirement of the client, that is, the spaces required for various
functions in the building as well as the specific architectural design. In this instance,
the client’s needs are paramount and the pre-caster is always forced to produce a
specific component for a building. On the other hand, the production based on
pre-caster’s design includes designing and producing a uniform type of building or
a group of building variants, which can be produced with a common assortment of
component (Thanoon et al., 2003). Closed system does not allow flexibility for the
users or the designers to develop many alternatives or add parts of components in
future. Open system involves the integration of many sub-systems from various
manufacturers. Open system ensures flexibility for users as well as increased
supply of housing units. In view of the limitations inherent in the closed system, an
open system allows the pre-caster to produce a limited number of elements with a
predetermined range of product and, at the same time, maintaining architectural
aesthetic value (Thanoon et al., 2003). To achieve this, there are various
prerequisites. For example, positional and dimensional coordination (DC) of
building parts and their interfaces are a tool and condition for industrialisation and
probably a leaner construction process (Cuperus, 2003). An illustration explaining
simplified stages of IBS is shown in Figure 1 (Sarja, 1998; Warszawski, 1999). It
shows that the standardisation is the essential and unavoidable stage followed by
dimensional and modular coordination to achieve the prefabrication (partial/full)
and mechanisation to reach industrialisation. The first two stages (1 and 2)
essentially deal with the architectural design language where as the next stages (3
and 4) deal with the delivery of that design through a faster mode of construction
(Figure 1).
Dimensions of activity spaces are the outcome of the design process and are
subjected to satisfy user’s need which changes through time. To address this, changes
an open building or skeletal system of design and construction using prefabricated

1.Standardizaon

2. Dimensional and
Modular Coordinaon

3. Prefabricaon

4. Mechanisaon
Figure 1.
Stages of IBS 5. Industrialisaon
components has been suggested by Habraken (1961); Sarja (1998); Warszawski (1999) Low-income
and Cuperus (2003). In order to accommodate unknown future changes, Habraken (1961) housing units
suggested different levels of decision making in the building process such as tissue,
support and infill. Thus, open building is a multi-faceted concept, with technical,
organisational and financial solutions for built environment that can adapt to the
changing needs (Cuperus, 2001). Thus, DC and standardisation have been identified
notably by Sarja (1998) and Warszawski (1999) as an integral stage of industrialisation 91
of the building process.
The standardisation and modularisation are the essential platforms on which
products for building components are developed using quality function deployment
(QFD) (Akao, 1990), modular function deployment (MFD) (Erixon, 1998) and design for
variety (DFV) (Martin and Ishii, 2002). Standardisation means the establishment of
systematic regulations to achieve optimal technical and economic solutions of recurring
problems. This is achieved by predetermined sizes, dimensions and interfaces as well as
a limitation of variety, which ensures interchangeability and compatibility as well as
flexibility. This is done by the use of standardised modules (Womack et al., 1990). Gibb
states that the standardisation of components and products is the foundation for further
development of the house-building industry, achieved through continual improvement
in the same way as in other industrial sectors (Gibb, 2001). Modularisation is a way of
dividing a structural system into limited and standardised elements, modules that are
provided with common interfaces. Modules with the same interfaces are given different
content, and with a limited set of different module types, unique end-products or
structures are designed (Johnson and Bröms, 2000). Dimensional standardisation
followed by modular co-ordination suggests the following benefits for a design
framework for open system:
• Variety generation: It creates a basis on which the variety of types and sizes of
building components can be minimised. Through a rationalised method of
construction, each component is designed to be interchangeable with other similar
ones and, hence, provides a maximum degree of freedom and choice offered to the
designer (Warszawski, 1999).
• Interchangeability: It allows for easy adoption of prefabricated components to any
layout and for their interchangeability within the building. This is achieved by
defining the location of each component in the building with reference to a
common modular grid rather than with a reference to other components
(Warszawski, 1999).

A simple illustration in Figure 2 shows how a lack of supply of affordable quality

housing and absence of dimension standards results in irrational designs and generates
the need for dimension standards and a modular design framework. This framework
eventually generates more housing stocks and can offer better utilisation of space,
speedier construction, reduction of waste and more variety (Figure 2). Various scholars
categorised systematically the architectural elements for standardisation, including
Habraken (1961), Wikberg et al. (2009), etc.
Developed countries have experienced the DC followed by mechanisation and
industrialisation in the housing sector since the 1970s. The problem of joinery and
interconnection in building elements has resulted to research for management of joinery.
Cuperus (2003) opined that changes in building process have resulted in an interesting
IJHMA Lack of supply of Non-standardized
affordable quality design leading to
9,1 housing
Irrational design
configuration wastage of materials
and time delay
Absence of
dimensional standard

92 Modular Designs of
Formulation of
components and
More housing Dimension Standards
building
stock

Figure 2. • Faster construction.

The reason why • Efficient spaces & lifestyle
• Reduction of wastage and cost
dimensional • Better finishing and User Satisfaction
standard is required • More options for Developers

change in thinking about modular co-ordination. Industrialised systems are able to

simplify the production and thereby achieve cost reduction and higher quality at the
same time. The present trend of industrialised housing system is towards offering
customised solution maintaining the cost reduction through the economy of scale. The
trend is called as mass customised housing. Apart from the MCH, the recent debate and
ongoing deliberations are in the areas like energy efficient models of housing units using
IBS.
The categories and the stages of IBS can be traced back in the development model
given by Sarja (1998) as follows:
• local material ⫹ manual ⫹ in situ;
• industrial materials ⫹ manual ⫹ in situ;
• industrial material and equipment ⫹ manual assembly ⫹ in situ;
• partial prefabrication;
• closed building concept with prefabricated components and modules;
• closed building concept ⫹ CAD design and production;
• open building system with many suppliers ⫹ CAD (design and production); and
• open building system from network of companies, total design thinking and
development of design, assembly and finishes.

India stands in Stages 3 and 4. Systemic change in the housing is a well-accepted

option for faster delivery of housing. A shift from onsite conventional construction
to offsite manufacturing of buildings and/or its components can deliver speedier
housing. The myth that India, which has abundant unskilled labour, is not suitable
for prefabricated housing system continued till the 1990s. It has been shown by Roy Note
et al. (2008) that out of the various factors responsible for creating barriers for not
achieving the housing target, a faster system of housing supply is the most
important one followed by lower affordability. It is mentioned by various authors
like Jain (2007), Chattopadhyay (2008), Adalakha and Puri (2003) and Roy et al.
(2008) that for India, the mass production of housing by component-based partial
prefabricated/IBS will be suitable to combat this increasing housing shortage. Jain
mentioned that India is a vast country with wide variation in its topography, living Low-income
patterns and socio-economic conditions. The concept of industrialisation of housing housing units
in India should be decentralised and not the Western model of organised
centralisation. With its diversity, India should adopt prefabrication by the masses
rather than massive prefabrication (Jain, 2007).
Industrialised housing will address the major economic group falling in the EWS
and LIG mainly. However, mainstream housing developed by owner/developer in 93
the conventional way will continue to exist in an inclusive manner with the
industrialised form of housing to cater all the cross-section of society. The
socio-cultural and flexible needs of the people have to be satisfied through new
design, new materials and new construction technology both in the owner-built and
the manufactured housing categories to make it an inclusive approach
(Chattopadhyay, 2008). In spite of such deliberations by scholars, there are some
significant research gap in the linkage between the space standards and the
affordable low-income housing market. The potential of offsite construction linked
with the design standards has not been tested for low-income housing. Therefore,
the mass production of housing through IBS is possible if appropriate study on the
dimensional and modular coordination for housing in India is in place. The next
section will discuss the methodology for the study and parameters.

3. Methodology, assumptions and parameters of the study

3.1 Methodology of the study (Figure 3)
The paper attempts to develop a set of affordable space and dimensional standards
for market-driven low-income housing for the purpose of mass production using
IBS. The conventional approach to develop space standards has been centred on the
designer. Deriving space standards based on the market demand has not been
followed in the predominant literature due to many reasons, including the
robustness of volume of study, etc. However, here in this study, it basically adopts
a case study approach to link such design language (standards) with the market
analysis of low-income housing. For this, it has already explained the significance of
standardisation from the literature (Section 2). Next, it will revisit the codes and
contemporary practices in IBS in India (Section 4). Finally, it undertakes a market
survey of ongoing/completed housing projects to study the space/dimensions

Literature study

Market study Check with the

national Codes
Findings, analysis
and development of
modular Reference from
dimensions Contemporary practices

Check with the Figure 3.

Identified Modular
dimension and module Grid and basic Methodology
Module adopted for evolving
the dimension
Developing variety with expansion option
within market range standards
IJHMA reflected in the market demand by the people (Section 5). After considering
9,1 conditions like modular grid suitability and provisions of code, it recommends a set
of dimensional standards of activity spaces, emerging from the market study. It also
suggests a framework of modular units showing the variety with expansion
possibility for component-based construction using IBS.
To enumerate the standards of functional space, a market survey was conducted
94 during the year 2011-2013. Total 17 projects have been selected, and out of those, more
than 25 types of one bed room layout having a saleable area of 400 ⫾ 100 sq.ft have been
analysed. All functional room dimensions have been analysed as per the existing
dimensions. The length and breadth have been considered separately (Appendix A1)
and expressed as dimensions L and B. After compiling the range of dimensions of the
parameters as mentioned in Table VII (and in Appendix A1, in details), the arithmetic
average of all dimensions of activity spaces has been derived.
Naturally, the average shows “non-modular” dimensions. This has been rounded
up to a standard modular dimension (e.g. if an average is 2,975 mm, then 3,000 mm
has been taken as the standard modular value). Standard deviations are calculated
to determine the range of variations. After this, a range of modular dimensions
(maximum and minimum), considering the standard deviation of the ranges
available, are identified.
An analysis for the appropriate grid sizes for the particular user group has been done
separately. Following this, standard modular dimensions in the multiple of 3M are
marked as “Priority” standards. Proposed standard dimensions have been checked to
comply with the corresponding average and range (considering standard deviation) of
carpet area and aspect ratio of length and breadth of each activity space. Recommended
standard dimensions are clear dimensions in principle. The grid line refers to the typical
module assumed as the clear dimension excluding the wall thickness. Considering these
standard dimensions (average, minimum and maximum of all activity spaces) as clear
dimensions, the rentable/usable area has been calculated. Each corresponding size of the
total unit is cross-checked with the other statutory standards/benchmarks as well as
reference of users/social requirements from the literature, and finally, three
sub-alternatives with their expansion/attachment options based on the open building
principle are shown.

3.2 Assumptions and parameters

• It is assumed here that the current practices of frame construction use components
in floors, columns, walls, etc., as the suitable option for low-income housing on the
basis of past works by M/S Siporex (Section 3.4). The use of AAC blocks as
walling and flooring elements is suitable.
• The LIG group refers to a wide range of economy group in several states of India.
The Government of India adopts an area up to 300 sq.ft for EWS and 301-599 sq.ft
for LIG (MOHUPA, 2011). In this paper, a one bed room apartment having a
saleable area of 400 ⫾ 100 sq.ft, which an LIG family having an income of Rs
10,000 per month (as of 2012) can afford, has been considered.
• Recommended standard dimensions are clear dimensions in principle. The grid
line refers to the clear dimension excluding the wall thickness.
 • Non-structural components such as fixtures, like electrical, plumbing, sanitary Low-income
and kitchen accessories, painting and other surface treatments, and furniture and housing units
moveable components are not dealt with here.
• The present study considers the following parameters (Table I).

4. Codes and practices on IBS in India

4.1 Provisions in the national codes 95
Internationally, a modular dimension of 100 mm has been conceived as one module (1M).
In India, considering the prevalent building code, National Building Code (NBC, 2005)
has dealt with the prefabricated concrete elements in buildings. IS 15916-2010 provides
the basic rules for Dimensional and Modular Coordination and is given in Table II. The
next section shows the major and relevant works conducted by the private sector and
institutions in the areas of IBS in India.

4.2 Practices by Shirke group of company and Siporex India (source: company website
and interviews)
In India, M/s B.G. Shirke has been delivering housing using industrialised methods for
several years, though it is confined only in some specific areas of India. BGSCTPL also
pioneered and patented the “3-S” system in India – a system using partial pre-cast
structural components, such as dense-concrete hollow-core columns, dense concrete
partially pre-cast beams, lintels, staircases, etc., and Siporex blocks and slabs to achieve
strength, safety and speed (Table III).
The company has so far executed more than 200,000 dwelling units using “3 S”
system, both in India and overseas, in all types of climatic conditions and heavy rainfall
areas. At present, it executes very large housing, industrial and commercial projects in
India on turnkey lump sum basis by the use of proven prefabricated products and/or
also by the conventional methods and materials. “3S” system of building construction
has been used successfully for high-rise residential buildings up to 25 storeys. A typical

Category Spaces/elements Study parameters and its scope

Horizontal members Bed rooms 1 and 2, living cum Horizontal lengths and breadth of activity
dining, kitchen, toilet 1 and 2, space (i.e. interior dimensions) Table I.
verandah/balcony Parameters for the
Overall area Rentable/usable area in horizontal plane market study

Planning grids
Type of buildings Horizontal direction Vertical direction

Industrial buildings 15 M 2M
Other buildings 3M M
Table II.
Notes: In case of internal columns, the grid lines shall coincide with the centre lines of columns; in case Provisions for
of external columns and columns near the lift and stair wells, the grid lines shall coincide with centre dimension standards
lines of the column in the topmost storey in IS 15916-2010 code
IJHMA housing project constructed using prefabricated components is shown in Figure 4, and
9,1 the standard prefabricated block sizes are given in Table IV.

4.3 The IIA–CCPS initiatives

The Confederation of Construction Products and Services (CCPS) has undertaken
96 product standardisation initiatives with Indian Institute of Architects (IIA). It has
identified doors and windows as important construction products, where industry is
ready to standardize. The collaboration has already done a nation-wide survey and
recommended a few dimensional standards as given in the table. It is visible from above
that dimensions as marked in italics are not conforming to the recommendations of the
IS codes (Table V).

Erection and
Building element Production assembly Materials used

Foundation – Manual RCC

Floor slabs Offsite mechanized Mix of manual and RCC, AAC
system mechanized mode
Column and beam Do Do RCC
Table III. Wall blocks/panels Do Do Light-weight concrete
Construction systems Finishing and fixtures Onsite Manual Conventional
adopted by M/S B G
Shirke Notes: RCC ⫽ Reinforced Cement Concrete; AAC ⫽ Autoclaved Aerated Concrete

Figure 4.
(a) Arrangement of
prefabricated
components (extreme
top left and centre);
(b) General view of a
completed project
(New Hindu Mills)
(extreme top right);
(c) Roof plan
showing the
arrangement of
prefabricated
components (left); (d)
Typical unit plan
and clustering
configuration in the
floor plan (top)
 Slabs Blocks Wall panels
Length Width Thickness Length Width Thickness Length Width Thickness

1 to 4 mt 600 mm 125/150 mm 650 mm 240 mm 75/100/125/150/200 mm 1 to 3 mt 600 mm 75/100 mm

Source: Siporex India

India
Table IV.
97
housing units
Low-income

adopted by Siporex
of slabs and blocks
Standard dimension
IJHMA 5. Market study
9,1 5.1 Profile of the study area (Kolkata)
The market-based supply of low-income housing was facilitated after 2000 following the
liberalisation and approval of 100 per cent FDI in housing by the Government of India.
Thus, the public supply of housing for LIG first came as an outcome of joint venture
companies in the city of Kolkata and around. Currently, the JV models have been
98 encouraged across the country among all the major cities. Housing projects already built
in Kolkata and around should be the best examples for the study. As mentioned in
Section 3, total 17 projects have been studied (Table VI). Needless to say, the space
standards and designed modules will be applicable to all geo-climatic regions of India
with appropriate alteration locally as per the geo-climatic condition and socio-economic
profile of the target population.

5.2 Findings from market study

Research findings are based on the dimensional ranges/modularity for activity areas,
quantity and composition activity areas and essential parameters like density/floor
area/FAR, efficiency of spatial plans from the floor plans, etc.

Components Suggested standard dimensions (in mm)

Table V. Doors Width Height
Dimensional 750, 900, 1,000, 1,200 2,100, 2,400
standards of opening Windows Sill Width Height
in residential 450, 900 750, 900, 1,050, 1,200, 1,350, 1,500, 1,650 1,200, 1,500, 1,650, 1,950
buildings proposed
by CCPS and IIA Source: IIA and CCPS

Serial no. Name of project Developers

1 Sunrise Junction Bengal Park Chambers

2 Anahita Bengal Peerless
3 Animikha
4 Avishikta
5 Alaktika
6 Punya Braja Dham
7 Greenwood Elements Bengal Shrachi
8 New Shrachi Garden
9 Tinkanya, Neera Bengal Shelter
10 Malancha Bengal DCL
11 Highland Willow Bengal Bellany
12 Ambition Bengal Greenfields
13 Sugam Park Sugam Homes
14 Aponalaya Reside, Ritika
Table VI. 15 Trinayani Merlin
List of the projects 16 Green Gardens BGA Realtors
studied 17 Amra Kunja
Generally, the size of units varies across the projects. Generally, LIG units have an area Low-income
from 360 sq.ft to 500 sq.ft. Wide varieties of dimensions are seen across the projects and housing units
unit designs under study. Some projects show higher dimensional standards for living
and sleeping areas. Dimensions are non-modular and fragmented, leading to the
wastage of materials and extra cost for the customer. It appears that dimensions have
evolved from the maximum use of the available land and buildable area (i.e. floor area
ratio, FAR), and no rational modularity has been reflected even within the same projects 99
in some cases (Table VII and Appendix A1 for details).
The usable area (i.e. rentable area) is almost 69 per cent of the saleable area
mentioned by the developers for each unit for LIG. This is higher than the
corresponding figure for middle-income group (MIG) (Roy et al., 2009). Within the
domain of the same developer, the dimensions vary from project to project, and even
within the same project, it differs within unit typologies. Modularity in arranging
the space articulation or functional dimensions is not followed; rather, the space
articulation has been driven by available land area or shape of the land instead of
space usability in most of the cases.
The internal partitions between the activity spaces are rigid, and there is no scope
for personalisation during design or construction. Thus, the absence of flexibility
and interchangeability in the functional spaces (like kitchen, dining, living, etc.)

Dimensions as per market trend (in mm)

Dimension Dimension Average area
Serial Rooms/activity range L1 range L2 (L1 ⫻ L2) in
number areas (length) Average L1 (breadth) Average L2 Sq.m

Predominant configurations
1 Living–Dining 4,700-2,900 3,586 4,000-2,100 2,994 10.7
(Hall)
2 Bed room 1 3,910-2,700 3,261 3,300-2,700 2,913 9.5
(larger)
3 Kitchen 3,000-1,200 2,165 2,080-900 1,576 3.4
4 Toilet 1 3,000-1,210 2,132 1,400-910 1,239 2.6
5 Verandah/balcony 2,850-900 1,525 1,250-800 1,094 1.7
Average useable/rentable area 28 (301 sq.ft)
Additional features (5 to 10% cases)
6 Toilet 2 1,225 1,225 965 965 1.2
7 Bed Room 2 2,650 2,650 2,400 2,400 6.4
(smaller)
Total usable/rentable area including additional features 35.5 (382 sq.ft)

Notes: Average is the arithmetic average of all dimensions available within all projects for a single
side. For living cum dining not having a single regular rectangular shape (i.e. separate living dining), the
equivalent area summing up two or more rectangles considering average breadth of them is shown; Table VII.
generally, one bed room is larger than the other. Living and dining area is merged in a single rectangular Existing dimensions
space except a few (10-15%) units of activity spaces
IJHMA limits the usability of the space in the fullest extent. Only 4 projects out of total 17
9,1 show open kitchen as the only presence of flexibility in the design of the activity
spaces.
Further, low-income families being larger than other economic groups need more
than one toilet space. This could be achieved by dividing the bath and water closet
area without increasing the saleable floor space. However, only a single project
100 shows such flexibility in design. Therefore, the opportunity to create more from the
less has been lost in the design and construction. As a result, the low-income families
are not getting the full value for their hard earned money. Nevertheless, they have
very few options, as the net supply of such houses through conventional system is
limited.

5.3 Analysing grid and basic module sizes

Dimension standards for the basic module and grids have been analysed (Table VIII)
based on the parameters like opening compatibility, modularity, multiplicity and
convenience.
Using the grids of 300, 600 and 900 is desirable as per the above table. However, to
make the grid system working in variable dimensions, it appears that 300 mm is the best
option and is suitable for the basic module.

5.4 Identified modular dimension

Considering the findings (Section 5.2) and base module size (Section 5.3) as mentioned
above, identified modular dimensions are illustrated in Table IX.
The priority standard expressed above denote the convenient aspect ratio expressed
as a proportion of whole numbers (e.g. 3:2, 4:3, 6:5 etc.). LIG have maximum ranges of
dimensions due to larger standard deviation except for the living cum dining hall. Next
section provides the configuration possibility and unit design options.

6. Discussion and recommendations

Considering the priority dimensional standards in the preceding sub-section, the
configuration possibility of activity spaces are shown in Figure 5. LIG people build
their houses gradually depending on their increasing income and affordability
towards housing. Many authors (Section 2) pointed that even in the formal housing,
this feature may be embedded through a framework of open system. The starting
point of an affordable house for low-income people can be basic and at the bare
minimum. Following this, an increasing design framework is shown with the
addition of a single/double module of space standards of activity rooms. Such
framework is categorised into three categories named as “Starter Unit”, “Comfort
Unit” and “Aspirant Unit”. The possible composition is shown in Table X, with the
incremental options.

7. Conclusion and way forward

The paper attempted to develop a linkage between the market responses based on
the affordability in housing for the low-income people and the improved
construction system (IBS) which is capable of delivering more in a given time. The
linkage has been represented here through a design language based on basic
modular dimensions of interior space and overall unit size with its expansions
 Weightage of each grid module option
Parameters 1,000 mm 900 mm 750 mm 600 mm 450 mm 300 mm Assumptions

Opening compatibility 1 3 2 1 2 3 Standards adopted as per IIA-CCPS (see

(door/window etc) Section 4.2)
Door sizes 1,200, 900, 750
Window sizes in the multiple of 300 mm
Modularity (M ⫽ 100 mm) 2 3 1 3 1 3 Multiple of 3M (as per IS code) ⫽ 3
as per NBC Multiple of M ⫽ 2
Non-multiple of M ⫽ 1
Multiplicity for making 1 2 1 3 2 3 Standard dimensions for
modular activity spaces bed room: 3,600/3,300, 3,000
Living dining: 3,000,
4,200/4,500/4,800/5,100/5,400/5,700/6,000
Kitchen: 2,700/2,400, 1,800
Toilet: 2,400/2,100/1,800, 1,500/1,200
Convenience in handling 1 1 2 3 3 3 Head load for an single labour is around
24-32 kg which is equivalent to RCC
component of 600 ⫻ 300 ⫻ 75
Total weightage (absolute
numbers) 5 9 6 10 8 12
Ranking 5 3 5 2 4 1

Notes: 3 ⫽ Complying more than 60%; 2 ⫽ complying more than 30% to below 60%; 1 ⫽ complying below 30%

Table VIII.
101
housing units
Low-income

various grid systems

Evaluation matrix of
 9,1

spaces
102
IJHMA

Table IX.
Identified modular
dimension of activity
Dimension L1 (length) Dimension L2 (breadth)
Functional Average Average
spaces modular Range SD modular Range SD Proposed average

Living-dining 3,600 3,000, 3,100, 3,200, 3,300, 3,400, 600 3,000 2,500, 2,600, 2,700, 2,800, 2,900, 3,000, 500 3,600 ⫻ 3,000
3,500, 3,600, 3,700, 3,800, 3,900, 3,100, 3,200, 3,300, 3,400, 3,500
4,000, 4,100, 4,200
Bed room 1 3,300 3,500, 3,400, 3,300, 3,200, 3,100 200 3,000 3,200, 3,100, 3,000, 2,900, 2,800 200 3,300 ⫻ 3,000
(larger)
Bed room 2 2,700 2,600, 2,700 2,400 2,400 2,600 ⫻ 2,400
Kitchen 2,100 2,700, 2,600, 2,500, 2,400, 2,300, 500 1,600 1,900, 1,800, 1,700, 1,600, 1,500, 1,400, 300 2,100 ⫻ 1,600
2,200, 2,100, 2,000, 1,900, 1,300
1,800, 1,700
Toilet 1 1,200 2,600, 2,500, 2,400, 2,300, 2,200, 500 1,200 1,400, 1,300, 1,200, 1,100, 1,000 200 2,100 ⫻ 1,200
(larger) 2,100, 2,000, 1,900, 1,800, 1,700,
1,600
Toilet 2 1,200 1,200, 1,300 1,000 1,000, 900 1,200 ⫻ 900
Balcony 1,500 1,900, 1,800, 1,700, 1,600, 1,500, 400 1,100 1,300, 1,200, 1,100, 1,000, 900 200 1,500 ⫻ 1,100
1,400, 1,300, 1,200, 1,100

Notes: SD ⫽ standard deviation; italicised dimensions are priority standards and conforms base module (3M)
 Low-income
housing units

103

Figure 5.
Configuration
possibility of activity
spaces with
standardised spaces

options and variety. Therefore, it will bridge the gap between theory and practice
also. This design framework will benefit primarily the designers and developers to
respond the low-income housing demand in a tested modular platform discussed
here, the prospective manufacturers of components who will get essential standards
for manufacturing components and also policymakers to frame policy concerning
the supply of low-income housing units using IBS. Needless to mention, all the
possible design configurations within the standard domain, as discussed in the
preceding sections, may not be equally suitable for all cities and towns, and
therefore, they need suitable contextualisation. There can be a number of design
options based on the frameworks discussed above.
This study is expected to give way for the further research in the following ways:
• Connection and coordination between the units at the beginning and the
attachments. A multi-disciplinary research is required to evolve that. Structural
and architectural integration is the prime requirement to ensure that the
construction is expanded and increased.
• The possibility of application of shape grammar to achieve at least some degree of
customisation for the low-income housing units. It is believed here that smaller
units as mentioned here need customisations, and the extent and typology of such
customisation might be a great area of study.
• The design framework presented here is based on the assumption that a
component-based system containing frames will be applicable for a country like
India. However, the panel construction can be explored for low-income housing,
and adequate research and development efforts may be provided.
 9,1

104

Table X.
IJHMA

Composition of
housing module
Names of activity 1 HK 1 BHK 1⫹ BHK
Category of dwelling activity spaces Starter unit (21 sq.m/225 sq.ft) Comfort unit (28 sq.m/300 sq.ft) Aspirant unit (35 sq.m/375 sq.ft)

Living zone Hall YES YES YES

Sleeping zone Bed room 1 Attachable YES YES
Bed room 2 – Attachable YES
Cooking zone Kitchen PARTLY YES YES
Private zone Toilet/WC 1 YES YES YES
Toilet/WC 2 – – Attachable
Semi-open zone Verandah Attachable Attachable YES
Usability at the beginning Net carpet area

Multi-module

Usability after attachment of Net carpet area

suitable modules (as shown
in the figure)
Notes Low-income
1. Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act (ULCRA), which is a state act, restricts individual housing units
land ownership beyond 500 sq.m in urban areas of India.
2. Definition of IBS: An innovative process of construction that uses the concept of
mass-production of industrialised systems, produced at the factory or onsite within controlled
environments; it includes the logistic and assembly aspect of it, done in proper coordination
with thorough planning and integration (adopted from Kamar et al., 2011). 105

References
Adalakha, P.K. and Puri, H.C. (2003), “Prefabrication building methodologies for low cost
housing”, IE (I) Journal, Vol. 84.
Akao, Y. (1990), QFD: Quality Function Deployment – Integrating Customer Requirements into
Product Design, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Chattopadhyay, S. (2008), New Essays on Inclusive Housing, Macmillan India, New Delhi, p. 151.
Cuperus, Y. (2003), “Mass customization in housing an open building/lean construction”, Dense
Living Urban Structures International Conference on Open Building, 23-26 October, Hong
Kong.
Cuperus, Y.J. (2001), “An introduction to open building”, The Ninth Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Erixon, G. (1998), “Modular function deployment – a method for product modularization”, PhD
thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Gibb, A.G.F. (2001), “Standardization and pre-assembly – distinguishing myth from reality using
case study research”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 307-315.
Habraken, N.J. (1961), Supports an Alternative to Mass Housing, London 1972, Amsterdam 1961
(Dutch version).
Jain, A.K. (2007), “Building systems for housing”, Journal of Indian Institute of Architects, Vol. 72
No. 11.
Johnson, T. and Bröms, A. (2000), Profit Beyond Measure, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Kamar, M., Hamid, Z.A., Azman, A., Ahamad, S. (2011), “Industrialized Building System (IBS):
revisiting issues of definition and classification”, International Journal of Emerging
Science, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 120-132.
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) (2015), available at: https://
mhada.maharashtra.gov.in
Martin, M.V. and Ishii, K. (2002), “Design for Variety: developing standardized and modularized
product platform architecttures”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 213-235.
MOHUPA (2007), Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation,
National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy, National Housing and Habitat Policy 1998.
MOHUPA (2011), Government of India, Guidelines for Affordable Housing in Partnership,
MOHUPA.
National Building Code (NBC) (2005), Government of India, New Delhi.
National Building Organization (NBO) (2011), Government of India, Housing Data.
Roy, U.K., Roy, M. and Saha, S. (2008), Mass-Industrialized Housing to Combat Consistent Housing
Shortage in Developing Countries: Towards an Appropriate System for India, IAHS World
Congress on Housing, Kolkata, Vol. 36.
IJHMA Roy, U.K., Roy, M. and Saha, S. (2009), “Space standardisation for dimensional coordination of a
MIG housing unit based on market trend in India”, Journal of Institution of Engineers,
9,1 Architectural Engineering Division, Kolkata, Vol. 9, pp. 1-7.
Sarja, A. (1998), Open and Industrialised Building, International Council for Building Research, E
FN Spoon, London.
Shaari, S.N. and Ismail, E. (2004), Roadmap-Industrialised Building System (2003-2010), CIDB
106 News, Kuala Lumpur.
Thanoon, W.A., Peng, L.W., Kadir, M.R.A., Jaafar, M.S. and Salit, M.S. (2003), “The essential
characteristics of industrialized building system”, International Conference on
Industrialized Building Systems, 10-11 September, Kuala Lumpur.
Warszawski, A. (1999), Industrialized and Automated Building System, E&FN Spon,
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, US and Canada.
Wikberg, F., Ekholm, A. and Jensen, P. (2009), “Configuration with architectural objects in
industrialised house-building”, CIB W078 2009, available at: http://itc.scix.net/cgi-bin/
works/Show?w78-2009-1-19
Womack, J., Jones, D. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World– The Story of
Lean Production, Harper Perennial, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Uttam Kumar Roy can be contacted at: uttamkroy@hotmail.com
 Sl Living zone
Bed Room 1 Bed Room 2 Kitchen Toilet 1 Toilet 2 Utility/ Lobby Verandah
no. Hall Carpet*
SBA
Name of project Developers Area
L B AR L B AR L B AR L B AR L B AR L B AR L B AR L B AR

View publication stats

1
Sunrise Junction
Bengal Park
3990 3300 1.2 3500 3300 1.1 2490 1500 1.7 2390 1250 1.9 1600 910 1.8 353.6
Appendix
Chambers
2
Anahita Bengal Peerless 3600 3065 1.2 3150 3125 1 2250 1800 1.3 3000 1200 2.5 1200 1075 1.1 320.5 440
3
Animikha 3800 2800 1.4 3200 2900 1.1 2100 1800 1.2 1875 1200 1.6 1250 1000 1.3 292.4
4
Avishikta 3300 2925 1.1 3355 2750 1.2 2000 1500 1.3 1800 1050 1.7 1125 1050 1.1 1450 1250 1.2 287.7
5
Alaktika 3300 2950 1.1 3350 2975 1.1 2225 2080 1.1 2275 1260 1.8 1490 1070 1.4 309.5
6
Punya Braja Dham 3500 3500 1 2425 1500 1.6 2400 1375 1.7 1500 900 1.7 1400 1000 1.4 235.8 338
7
Greenwood Elements Bengal Shrachi 2500 2400 1 2700 2700 1 2400 1500 1.6 2400 1300 1.8 900 900 1 1200 1200 1 239.3 397
8
New Shrachi Garden 4475 2800 1.6 3225 2900 1.1 2300 1500 1.5 2400 1300 1.8 2000 1100 1.8 329.5 537
9
Tinkanya, Neera Bengal Shelter 3475 2775 1.3 3225 2450 1.3 2650 2400 1.1 1675 1500 1.1 2175 1200 1.8 2850 950 3 341.1 475
10
Malancha Bengal DCL 3050 3000 1 3200 2900 1.1 1700 1450 1.2 2170 1200 1.8 1200 900 1.3 1100 1000 1.1 276.0 403
11
Highland Willow Bengal Bellany 4140 3000 1.4 3275 2950 1.1 2130 1525 1.4 2000 1400 1.4 302.4 362
12
Ambition Bengal Greenfields 3225 3000 1.1 3300 3000 1.1 2775 1800 1.5 2775 1300 2.1 1825 1800 1 338.2 385
13
Sugam Park Sugam Homes 4040 4000 1 3300 2700 1.2 2515 1800 1.4 2080 1245 1.7 1775 1250 1.4 369.9 496
14
Aponalaya Reside, Ritika 4,700 3050 1.5 3100 3075 1 2,175 1825 1.2 1250 965 1.3 1225 965 1.3 1550 1275 1.2 346.2 480
15
Trinayani Merlin 3000 3000 1 3000 3000 1 2400 1600 1.5 2300 1200 1.9 1600 1100 1.5 283.4 425
16
Green Gardens BGA Realtors 2900 2100 1.4 3000 3000 1 1200 900 1.3 1750 1513 1.2 900 800 1.1 210.0
17
Amra Kunja 3050 2425 1.3 3650 3050 1.2 1210 910 1.3 1210 910 1.3 1210 600 2 1525 900 1.7 245.4 407
18
Fortune Township NA 4500 3800 1.2 3910 2740 1.4 3000 1875 1.6 2130 1425 1.5 1210 910 1.3 403.9 573
19
Standard Deviation 616.9 461.8 1.3 268.0 198.4 1.4 475.1 303.0 1.6 451.9 151.9 3 215.0 164.3 1.3 442.0 227.9 1.9 51.3 69.0

Average 3586 2994 1.2 3261 2913 1.1 2650 2400 1.1 2165 1576 1.4 2132 1239 1.7 1225 965 1.3 1187 870 1.4 1525 1094 1.4 304.7 439.8

Notes: BR = bed room; Liv-Din = living cum dining; Kit = kitchen; Bal = Balcony; Dim = dimensions; Cr = carpet area (net area
within the walls); AR = aspect ratio between length and breadth

under study
Table AI.
107

dimensions of
housing units
Low-income

activity spaces (LIG)

Details of existing