Low Cost Housing Low Cost Housing Low Cost Housing: Building Material Cost:65 To 70% Total Building Constructio N Cost

LOW COST HOUSING
LOW COST HOUSING
DEALS WITH EFFECTIVE

BUDGETING BUILDING
MATERIAL
COST REDUCTION THROUGH COST :65 TO
THE USE OF LOCALLY
70%
AVAILABLE MATERIALS
TOTAL
IMPROVED SKILLS AND
TECHNOLOGY
BUILDING
CONSTRUCTIO
WITHOUT SACRIFICING THE N COST
STRENGTH , PERFORMANCE
AND LIFE OF THE
STRUCTURE LABOUR
COST:30 TO
35%
BINITA NEUPANE(06),KIRAN
TRIBHUWAN UNIVERSITY
SUBJECT:LOW COST SUBEDI(14),KRITIKA SHEET
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
HOUSING ADHIKARI(15),MADHUSUDHAN NO:
PURWANCHAL CAMPUS,DHARAN
POUDEL(18),SONA GHIMIRE(40)
BACKGROUND
PERCENTAGE AND GROWTH RATE OF URBAN POPULATION
URBAN POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS

1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021 2031
Urban 461938 956721 1695719 3227879 4523821 6902867 10143254
Population
Rural population 11094045 14066118 16795378 19923544 21970683 23475186 23453778
Total Population 11555983 15022839 18491097 23151423 26494504 30378055 33597032
% Urban 3.99% 6.36% 9.17% 13.94% 17.07% 22.72% 30.19%
PROBLEM STATEMENT
•SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

THIS PROJECT HAS COMPRISED AND EXCLUDED THE FOLLOWING:
• THE DESIGN AND THE PLANNING OF THE HOUSES SHALL BE DONE IN SUCH MANNER THAT THEY
ARE SUITABLE FOR LOW INCOME GROUPS
• SINCE PREVIOUS STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT BLOCKS AND CEMENT HOLLOW BLOCKS ARE THE
MOST SUITABLE ALTERNATIVES FOR LOW-COST HOUSING, THE STUDY WILL ONLY INCLUDE THESE
TWO TECHNIQUES
• THE STUDY WILL FOCUS ON WALL MATERIALS AND THE DURABILITY OF CONSTRUCTION
DETAILS.
OBJECTIVES
•TO EXAMINE THE PRESENT HOUSING SCENARIO IN NEPAL
TO STUDY THE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS OF PEOPLE
•TO STUDY VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES WHICH CAN BE USED TO REDUCE THE COST
OF CONSTRUCTION
•STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS WHICH CAN BE USED FOR LOW COST HOUSING
•TO MAKE AVAILABLE AT AFFORDABLE COST TO DIFFERENT TARGET GROUPS OF PEOPLE
•COST ESTIMATION OF NORMAL BUILDING AND IDENTIFYING THE PERCENTAGE REDUCTION IN

COST FOR LOW COST BUILDING
•TO ACHIEVE EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF LAND AND AVOID NEGATIVE SPACES AS FAR AS
POSSIBLE
•TO EXPAND THE USE OF LOCAL SKILLS AND IMPROVE EXISTING METHODS AVOIDING COMPLEX
INFRASTRUCTURE
GROWING POPULATION DAY BY DAY
INCREASING COST OF LAND

WHY LOWCOST HOUSING IS
EASY TO BUILD
REQUIRED?
FULFIL THE NEEDS OF CONVENTIONAL
HOUSES
FAST,SAFE AND ECONOMICAL TOO
REDUCED PLINTH AREA
USE OF LOCALLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS
 USE ENERGY EFFICIENT MATERIALS WHICH

FROM WHICH AREA THE COST
CONSUMES LESS ENERGY
CAN BE REDUCED?
USE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY MATERIALS
PRE PLANNING EVERY COMPONENT OF A HOUSE

AND RATIONALIZING THE DESIGN PROCEDURE FOR
REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE COMPONENT OF A
BUILDING
TRIBHUWAN UNIVERSITY SUBJECT:LOW COST
SUBEDI(14),KRITIKA SHEET
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING HOUSING
ADHIKARI(15),MADHUSUDHAN NO:
PURWANCHAL CAMPUS,DHARAN TOPIC: CASE STUDY
LOW
EMBOIDED
LOCALLY ENERGY
AVAILABLE
MATERIALS
NON
TOXIC
SELECTIO
N OF
MATERIAL
S
POLLUTION
PREVENTING RECYCLABLE
LITERATURE REVIEW
THE
FOLLOWING
ARE THE
VARIOUS A. PLANNING C. USE OF
RECOMMENDA OF LAND AND B. DESIGN OF BUILDING
TIONS FOR LAND INDIVIDUAL MATERIALS AND
APPROACHING DEVELOPMENT BUILDING. CONSTRUCTION
TO LOW COST . TECHNOLogy.
OR COST
EFFECTIVE
HOUSING:-
PLANNING OF LAND AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
SUPPLY OF LAND
HOUSING INVOLVES BUYING OF PLOT, CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AND RECEPTION OF
SUPPLY OF LAND
ROAD (MORE LAND) AND SERVICES
Housing involves buying of plot, construction of house and reception of road (more
land) and services CREATES MORE DEMAND OF HOUSES BUT THERE IS THE SCARCITY OF
URBANIZATION
Urbanization
LAND creates more demand of houses but there is the scarcity of land
Scarcity of land increases the value of land
SCARCITY OF LAND INCREASES THE VALUE OF LAND
High priced land increases cost of housing
HIGH PRICED LAND INCREASES COST OF HOUSING
In the context of Nepal,
IN of
Out THE CONTEXT
total land inOF NEPAL,
Nepal only 16.07% is fit for agriculture.
Most
OUT OFofTOTAL
our settlements are located
LAND IN NEPAL in andISaround
ONLY 16.07% FIT FORtheAGRICULTURE
fertile land.
Haphazard
MOST OF OUR planning consumesARE
SETTLEMENTS land unnecessarily
LOCATED IN AND AROUND THE FERTILE LAND
Currently, no. of houses/hectare is only 15 units
HAPHAZARD
Standard PLANNING
density in urbanCONSUMES LAND
areas should UNNECESSARILY
be 300 houses/hectare
Continuation
CURRENTLY, of low
NO. OF density housing will
HOUSES/HECTARE destroy
IS ONLY 15 land
UNITS for growing population
STANDARD DENSITY IN URBAN AREAS SHOULD BE 300 HOUSES/HECTARE
CONTINUATION OF LOW DENSITY HOUSING WILL DESTROY LAND FOR GROWING

POPULATION
DESIGN OF THE INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
BUILDING PLAN
SHAPE OF THE BUILDING SHOULD BE SIMPLE (SQUARE OR RECTANGULAR PLAN)
AVOID CANTILEVER STRUCTURE
STAIRCASE AND CIRCULATION SPACE
STAIRCASE SHALL BE PLACED AS FAR AS POSSIBLE AT THE CENTER OF THE PLAN WHICH HELPS
IN DETERMINING THE ECONOMY OF THE PLAN
3.STOREY HEIGHT
INCREASING HEIGHT WILL NOT ONLY INCREASE THE COST OF WALLING
BUT ALSO MAKE THE ROOM UNCOMFORTABLE AND UNPROPORTIONATE
HEATING AND COOLING IS CHEAPER IN ROOMS WITH LOW HEIGHT
4.AREA OF OPENING
NORMALLY COST OF DOORS AND WINDOWS PER SQFT. IS FOUR TO FIVE

TIMES THAT OF THE WALL WITH PLASTER
OPENINGS ARE NECESSARY IN ALL HOUSES FOR LIGHT VENTILATION AND

VIEW
SMALLER THE SIZE , CHEAPER THE COST OF THE BUILDING.
BIG WINDOWS WITHOUT NECESSITY SHOULD BE AVOIDED
IN EXAMPLE TYPE 1 ALL THE WINDOW PANELS BETWEEN PILLARS ARE

OPENABLE
PRIMARY SURVEY AND DATA COLLECTION
ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS
FLY ASH BRICKS
PREFABRICATED MATERIAL
• THE COMPONENTS INCLUDE STEEL FRAMES,  MADE OF FLY ASH, LIME, GYPSUM
WOODEN PANELS, CEMENT AND GYPSUM FOR AND SAND. THESE CAN BE
FLOORS ALONG WITH FACTORY FABRICATED EXTENSIVELY USED IN ALL BUILDING
DOORS, WINDOWS, CEILINGS AND WALLS CONSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES
SIMILAR TO THAT OF COMMON
• DEPENDING ON THE REQUIREMENTS, THE BURNT CLAY BRICKS. THE FLY ASH
COMPONENTS LIKE WALL AND CEILING PANELS, BRICKS ARE COMPARATIVELY
AS WELL AS STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMES, CAN BE LIGHTER IN WEIGHT AND STRONGER
CUSTOM MADE AND THEN ASSEMBLED. THAN COMMON CLAY BRICKS.
ADVANTAGES-
• SAVES CONSTRUCTION COST
• LESS WATER SEEPAGE AND
DAMPNESS IN WALL
FERROCEMENT • LESS ENERGY CONSUMPTIOn
MOST COMMONLY APPLIED TO A MIXTURE OF

PORTLAND CEMENT AND SAND REINFORCED WITH
LAYERS OF WOVEN OR EXPANDED STEEL MESH
AND CLOSELY SPACED SMALL-DIAMETER STEEL
RODS REBAR.
BAMBOO:
• GREEN BUILDING MATERIAL, WHICH IS VERY POPULAR
DUE TO ITS LOW COST, LOW WEIGHT AND DURABILITY
BUT SHOULD BE TREATED WITH APPROPRIATE CHEMICALS
TO MAKE IT TERMITE RESISTANT.
COMPRESSED EARTH BRICK:
• DEVELOPED OUT OF MUD AND REINFORCED WITH A

MIXTURE OF LIME AND CEMENT. THEY ARE
LIGHTWEIGHT, NON-TOXIC AND FIRE-RESISTANT.
• DENSE AND GENERALLY USED FOR EXTERIOR STUCCO

WORK AND ARE CONSIDERED ONE OF THE CHEAPEST
AMONG LOW-COST BUILDING MATERIALS.
INTERLOCKING BLOCKS:
• DESIGNED WITH A PROJECTION ON ONE SIDE AND A
DEPRESSION ON THE OTHER SO THAT THEY ALIGN
WITH BRICKS OF A SIMILAR TYPE, LIKE A JIGSAW
PUZZLE, TO MAKE WALLS.
• INTERLOCKING BRICKS ARE MADE OUT OF LATERITE
STONE POWDER, CEMENT AND GRAVEL.
PREFAB WALL PANEL (ECO-PANEL)- ITS USES-
RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL BUILDING
It IS A LIGHT WEIGHT INTERLOCKING OFFICE BUILDING
SANDWICH PANEL WITH THE COMPOSITION OF ANIMAL SHEDS , FENCES AND
NON ASBESTOS CALCIUM SILICATE BOARD, OTHER FARM USES
CEMENT, WATER, SAND AND EXPANDABLE
POLYSTYRENE (EPS).
ADVANTAGES OF USING ECO PANEL

OVER CONCRETE BRICK WALL
» FAST INSTALLATION, PANELS ERECTED GIVE A SIMILAR
» EASY TO INSTALL, APPEARANCE AND FEEL AS LIKE THE
» GOOD HEAT INSULATION, CONCRETE BRICK WALL.
» GOOD SOUND INSULATION, CAPACITY- HAS DURABILITY OF 70 YEARS.
36-50DB AVERAGE SURFACE DENSITY: 650KG/M3
» FIRE PROOF, PANEL CAN BE EASILY REPAIRED AND PAINTED
» WATER PROOF, TO GIVE SMOOTH FINISH.
» EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE, FOR THE ELECTRICITY AND PLUMBING,
» SPACE SAVING, CONCEALED WIRING AND PLUMBING CAN
» COST SAVING, EASILY DONE AS THE TRADITIONAL WALLS.
» QUALITY FINISH PANEL THE PANEL CAN ALSO BE BORED FOR
FRAMING, TV HANGING, AC HANGING.
HOLLOW CONCRETE BLOCK DESCRIPTION
• IS A LARGE RECTANGULAR BRICK USED • ONE OR MORE HOLLOW CORES.
IN CONSTRUCTION.
• HOLLOW CORE CONCRETE IS MORE
PORTLAND CEMENT AND AGGREGATE,
THAN 50 % SOLID.
USUALLY SAND AND FINE GRAVEL FOR
• STANDARD CONCRETE BLOCKS COME
HIGH-DENSITY BLOCKS.
IN FULL AND HALF SIZES.
• SIZE -12X8X4 INCH
• FULL-SIZE BLOCKS ARE RECTANGULAR
AND HAVE TWO CORES.
COMMON PARTS • HALF SIZE BLOCKS ARE CUBICAL AND
HAVE ONE CORE.
RAW MATERIALS REQUIRED

CEMENT PRICE IN NEPAL
SAND
GRAVELS
WATER
PRODUCTION PROCESSES
1. RAW MATERIALS
MIXING
2.BRICK/BLOCK MOLDING
3. VIBRATING &
COMPACTING 4.
CURING/DRYING
5. BRICK/BLOCK PACKING
ADVANTAGES OF HOLLOW BRICKS STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGES
HIGHLY DURABLE: THE GOOD CONCRETE • REDUCING THE VULNERABILITY
COMPACTED BY HIGH PRESSURE AND (EXPOSED TO DAMAGE) OF
VIBRATION GIVES SUBSTANTIAL STRENGTH TO DISASTROUS DAMAGE TO THE
THE BLOCK. PROPER CURING INCREASE STRUCTURE/BUILDING, DURING
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF THE BLOCKS. THE NATURAL HAZARDS
• LOW MAINTENANCE • PROVIDE AND OFFER BETTER

• FIRE RESISTANT RESISTANCE UNDER DYNAMIC
• PROVIDE THERMAL AND SOUND INSULATION LOADING
• ECONOMICAL
• ENVIRONMENT FRIENDLY
ARCHITECTURAL AND OTHER ADVANTAGES CONSTRUCTIONAL ADVANTAGES
• THIS CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM PROVIDES BETTER • NO ADDITIONAL FORMWORK OR
ACOUSTIC AND THERMAL INSULATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY
BUILDING.
• FASTER CONSTRUCTION: - EASY TO WORK WITH • ONLY SEMI-SKILLED LABOUR IS
BIGGER IN SIZE. REQUIRED
• RECOMMENDED FOR EARTH QUAKE RESISTANCE.
• LESS WATER ABSORPTION:- APPROX. 3 TO 4% • FASTER AND EASIER CONSTRUCTION
• ENVIRONMENTAL ECO-FRIENDLY SYSTEM, COMPARED TO THE OTHER
• THIS SYSTEM IS DURABLE AND MAINTENANCE
FREE. • COST-EFFECTIVE DISASTER RESISTANT
• NO LEACHING: - REDUCTION IN MAINTENANCE CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM
RAMMED EARTH PROCESS
SETTING LAYERS OF EARTH INTO A FORMWORK AND EXCAVATION FOR OBTAINING THE
COMPACT IT TO INCREASE ITS DENSITY AND ITS SOIL
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURE
INSERTION OF THE MIXTURE ON
COMPOSTION OF SAND,CLAY,SILT,COLOR PIGMENT THE FORMWORK
AND CEMENT THAT IS BLENDED WITH WATER TO MAKE COMPACTION
A DAMP MIXTURE
STANDARD THICKNESS OF RAMMED EARTH WALL IS

300MM
ADVANTAGES:
EXCELLENT THERMAL QUALITIES

FIREPROOF AND SOUNDPROOF MATERIAL
ECONOMICALLY VIABLE
ENERGY EFFICIENT
READILY AVAILABLE MATERIALS AND
COMPARATIVELY CHEAP
RESISTANT TO TERMITES
SOIL TO BE USED: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
THE SOIL IS TAKEN FROM THE LAND ON WHICH
IS TO BE BUILT AVOID USE OF FOSSIL FUELS BY:
 HAND COMPRESSING LOCAL
AROUND 30% SAVING IN COST EARTH ONSITE
LESS CEMENT
MINIMAL HEATING/COOLING
Impact on comfortable
living MAINTENANCE
Feature Rammed earth building
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACT
Thermal insulation Warm in winter cool in
summer STABLE,FAIR EMPLOYMENT
SKILL DEVELOPMENT
humidity Comfortable year around TRADITIONAL LOOKING,
Earthquake resistance Earthquake resilient ATTRACTIVE BUILDINGS
PRE FAB PANEL
CASE STUDY: TARA HOUSING:
• LOCATION: ALAKANANDA, NEW DELHI, INDIA
• PRINCIPLE ARCHITECT: CHARLES CORREA
• AREA: 1.48 HECTARES
• CONSTRUCTED DATE:1975-1978
• NUMBERS OF UNITS: 160 UNITS OF 2 AND 3 BED ROOMS
• DENSITY: 375 PEOPLE PER HECTARE
• CLIENT: TARA COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
• SYSTEM: REINFORCED CONCRETE, BRICK WALL
• COST: $1.48 MILLION
THE CONCEPT WAS INTRODUCE TO REHABILATE THE
1947 PARTITION AFFECTED PEOPLE WHO HAD NOWHERE
TO SETTLE DOWN AFTER THEIR RETIREMENT FROM
THEIR PROFESSIONAL LIVES.
: Vehicular path
: Pedestrian path
MATERIALS:
USUALLY REFINED EXPOSED BRICK
AND CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
REFLECTS THE ARCHITECTS
PREVAILING COMMITMENT TO THE
MODERNIST IDIOM.
CASE STUDY: TARA HOUSING:
TWO BEDROOM TYPE CONCEPT
• THE SECOND FLOOR WHICH IS  A CREATIVE VERNACULAR TYPOLOGY IN TERMS OF ARRANGING AND
LARGER THAN THE GROUND ONE PILLING THE SINGULAR FLAT INTO UNITED BLOCKS.
WITH A BIG OVERHANG THAT  THERMAL RELIEF WITH BIG OVERHANGS OVER THE UNIT AND A
RISES FURTHER APPROX.6M CENTRAL GARDEN, ALLOWING INFILTRATION OF AMPLE LIGHT
GIVES THE MIXTURE BETWEEN WITHIN THE UNITS WHILE PREVENTING THE HIGH TEMPERATURE.
SHADOW AND LIGHT.  BY SEPARATING THE OUTSIDE WORLD AND PROVIDING AN INTERIOR
• THE DUPLEX ABOVE IS ALSO GARDEN, THE BUILDING PRESERVES WELL THE PRIVATE LIFE OF THE
PUSH BACK HENCE FRONT OF FAMILY WITHIN.
THE BELOW ONE IS PROTECTED
TOO.
• IN THAT WAY ,THE WHOLE
CENTRAL GARDEN IS FULFILLED
WITH SHADOW.
THREE BEDROOM TYPE

IN THE SHAPE OF
“L”, THIS TYPE DESIGN FEATURES
SEEMS TO BE THE PROJECT TAKES BIG ADVANTAGES FROM
DIFFICULT TO NATURAL RESOURCES LIKE LIGHTING AND
ATTACH IN THE VENTILATION AND ALL FAMILIES SHARE THESE
MIDDLE OF A FEATURES EQUALLY.
CLUSTER AND ALL
OF THEN ARE
LOCATED IN THE
OUTER-MOST.
CASE STUDY ON TERAI HOUSE: RAJBANSHI HOUSE
MATERIAL
INTRODUCTION
• MUD – PLINTH, PLASTERING
LOCATION: HALDIBARI, THE WALL
JHAPA • BAMBOO-BAMBOO MAT
TYPE :TRADITIONAL HOUSE WALL, BOUNDARY WALL
AREA: 10 DHUR • TIMBER-POST, BEAM
STOREY: SINGLE STOREY • CGI SHEET- ROOF
ABOUT HOUSE COVERING (EARLIER-
-RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE. THATCH ROOF WAS USED)
-TWO ROOM( ONE MAIN HALL FOR PARENTS BED ROOM AND • THATCH-BOUNDARY WALL
GRAIN STORAGE AND OTHER ROOM FOR CHILDREN).
-SEPARATE KITCHEN FROM MAIN HOUSE.
-SLOPE ROOF(TWO SIDES)
-DECORATED CIRCULAR COLUMN ON FRONT OF THE
HOUSE(DALAN)
FEATURES
-VERNACULAR ARCHITECTURE
-TRADITIONAL
SEPARATE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE
KITCHEN -LOCAL MATERIALS
-BOUNDARY WALL :CULTURAL
MOSTLY SETTLE IN GROUP FEATURES
POST –TSUNAMI HOUSING
LOCATION: KIRINDA,SRILANKA MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION
AREA OF SINGLE UNIT: 71SQ TECHNOLOGY
METRES COMPRESSED EARTH BLOCKS
• NUMBER OF UNITS: 67 (CEB)
• COST PER UNIT: USD15,000  COMPRESSED MIXTURE OF
• OVERALL COST: USD 1.7 MILLION SUNBAKED CLAY
• SITE AREA: 15900 SQ METERS  CEMENT
CLAY TILES WERE USED ON THE
ROOF, ON TOP OF THE TIMBER
TRUSSES
WOODEN PANELS USED FOR
FOLDING DOORS BETWEEN THE
HALL AND THE ROOFED COURT
DESIGN TECHNOLOGY
THE HOUSES WERE DESIGNED TO ALLOW MAXIMUM
CROSS VENTILATION
• THE OPEN COURT SPACE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING

WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A SHADED, VENTILATED AREA
WHERE INHABITANTS COULD CARRY OUT VARIOUS
IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS, SUCH AS EATING, SOCIALIZING
AND REPAIRING FISHING NETS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT
THE SEPARATION OF THE HALL AND THE ROOFED COURT

WITH FOLDING DOORS WAS DESIGNED WITH WOMEN’S
PRIVACY IN MIND, SO THAT WOMEN COULD REMAIN
UNSEEN BY GUESTS
A CASE STUDY ON –MUSAHAR BASTI OF BARDIBAS
FIRST ATTEMPT FROM
PROJECT INFORMATION- PRIVATE SECTOR TO
PROJECT NAME – UNIFIED BUILD THE DWELLING
MUSAHAR MODEL VILLAGE FOR MARGINAL
PROJECT LOCATION – MAHOTTARI-2, GROUPS IN NEPAL AND
BARDIBAS THE CAMPAIGN BEGAN
BUILT BY- DHURMUS SUNTALI RIGHT AFTER THE
FOUNDATION EARTHQUAKE 2015.
TOTAL PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION – 95
DAYS
TOILETS – ONE INSIDE HOME
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD – 54
TAP – ONE IN EACH
POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD – 5
HOUSEHOLD
TOTAL STOREYS – 2
NATURE OF HOUSE –
AREA OF HOUSEHOLD – 3.5 DHUR
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT,
TOTAL AREA OF PROJECT – 15 KATHHA
FLOOD/LANDSLIDE
TOTAL AREA OF HOUSE – 872 SQ.FT
RESISTANT, DISABLE
(GROUND FLOOR 22*22, FIRST FLOOR
FRIENDLY, CHILD FRIENDLY
22*18)
BENEFICIAL FAMILY NUMBER
HEIGHT OF HOUSE – 19 FT
– 53
NUMBER OF ROOMS – FOUR
TYPE OF BENEFICIARIES –
AREA OF ROOMS- 9*10
MOST DISADVANTAGED AND
UNDERPRIVILEGED
COMMUNITY
• DWELLING DENSITY IS 103.88 PER HECTARE AND POPULATION DENSITY IS 721 PER
HECTARE.
•
ETHNICITY – MAJHI, DUSADH, HAJAM, MUSAHAR.
• INVESTMENT PER HOUSE –AROUND 10LAKH( WITH ALL INFRASTRUCTURE)

•
TOTAL INVESTMENT - AROUND FIVE CRORE
CONSTRUCTED INFRASTRUCTURE – 53
• RESIDENTIAL HOUSES, A COMMUNITY HALL, A TEMPLE, A CHILDREN PARK, ONE

PARKING AREA, WAITING PLACE, CHAUTARA, FOUR PUBLIC TOILETS, FIVE PUBLIC
TAPS, FOUR METER WIDE ROAD ALONG WITH CANAL AND A VIEW TOWER
Wall materials 9”thk brick wall
Roofing materials CGI sheet
U-value of walling 1.96 W/m2-

materials K
Embodie d energy 580.19

for walling
materials (per
100m2 in
Early house of basti GJ)
U-value of roofing 61 W/m2-K

materials
Embodied energy
for roofing
materials(per cu.m
in MJ)
Door materials Wood

and
board
Window Aluminiu
materials m
and glass
SITE ANALYSIS
NEPAL SUNSARI DHARAN KHORIA BASTI-15 THE SITE

SWOT ANALYSIS
WEAKNESS
STRENGTH
PROBLEM OF EXISTING SQUATTER
SUFFICIENT LAND FOR PLANNING.
SETTLEMENT.
LOW LAND PRICE.
LACK OF EDUCATION AND PERSONAL HYGIENE.
ABUNDANT OPEN SPACE.
NO UNIFORM DESIGN PATTERN
WELL MANAGED INFRASTRUCTURE.
ECONOMICALLY BACKWARD
LEAST POPULATED.
NEARBY TEMPO STATION.
NOT AFFECTED BY FLOOD. THREAT
NEAR BY FOREST AREA.
OPPORTUNITY
FLOOD PRONE ZONE.
NEAR FOREST AREA CAN BE USED
ACCIDENTIAL FIRE.
FOR THE ANIMAL HUSBANDARY.
FOREST AREA ENCROACHMENT.
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES AT THE
VOILENT ACTIVITIES (ROBEERY, THIEF,ETC)
NEARBY OF THE CRICKET GROUND.
UNIFROM ARCHITECTURAL PATTERN CAN BE
DEVELOPED. BINITA NEUPANE(06),KIRAN
PHYSICAL FEATURE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERSTICS
AREA : (43,916.59 SQ. M)
NO. OF HOUSEHOLD: 122 HOUSES
SHAPE : IRREGULAR (LONGITUDINAL ALONG
THE SEUTI RIVER) OCCUPATION : CONSTRUCTION WORKER, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY,
FOREIGN EMPLOYMENT, SMALL SHOPS
LAND FORMS : BOUNDED BY RIVER IN ONE
SIDE CASTE : TAMANG (MAJORITY), RAI, LIMBU, CHEETRI, BRAHMIN
SLOPE : ALMOST PLAIN EDUCATION : LOW LITERACY RATE
SOIL TYPE : CLAY WITH GRAVEL. PUBLIC SPACES : CRICKET GROUND, SCHOOL FIELD. HEALTH POST
NATURAL RESOURCES : SMALL BUSHES ,

SOME TREES, STONE, BAMBOO
ROAD SIZE- MAIN ROAD 36 FEET AND

SECONDARY ROADS 20 FEET
SECTION AT X-X
PLOT SIZE- MINIMUM 5 DHUR AND
MAXIMUM 1 KATHA.
CULTURAL ASPECT
TEMPLE AND CHRUCH ARE SITUATED
NEAR THE SITE. SECTION AT Y-Y
1..GRAVEL ROAD 5.GOVERNMENTAL SCHOOL
6.RIVER’S GABION WALL

2.TEMPO STAND
7.CRICKET GROUND
3.SCHOOL GROUND
4.HEALTH POST
8.SEUTI BRIDGE
PROGRAMME FORMULATION
N
1)COMMERCIAL ZONE
-RENTAL SHOP
2)RESIDENTIAL ZONE
-ECONOMICALLY WEAK GROUP
(APARTMENT)
-LOW INCOME GROUP(ROW

HOUSING)
-LOW MIDDLE INCOME

GROUP(INDIVIDUAL HOUSING)
3)COMMUNAL ZONE
1) USE OF EXISTING INVENTORY
-COMMUNITY HALL
2) LINEAR PATTERN
-EXISTING HEALTHPOST
3)RECTANGULAR FORM
-EXISTING SCHOOL
4)MIX TYPE OF HOUSING
CONCEPT AND DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 2)ZONING
FARMING
1)ROAD NETWORK
COMMUNAL
ZONE
COMMER
APARTME
CIAL
NT
ZONE RESIDENTIAL
ZONE(LIG+LMI
G)
COMMERCIAL ZONE
COMMUNAL ZONE
RESIDENTIAL ZONE(LIG+LMIG)
APARTMENT(EWG)
FARMING
SITE PLAN N
Existing HOUSING TECHNOLOGY Site surrounding
BYE LAWS TARGET GROUPS
.-VERY FEW MODERN RCC STRUCTURE 1.WEST AND NORTH –NON SQUATTER
-STEEL FRAME STRUCTURES SETTLEMENT WITH GOOD ROAD FACILITIES AND
MINIMUM
-TYPICAL 4 ANNA
WOODEN OF LAND
POST,MUD ANDFOR BUILDING
TIN ROOF HOUSES MODERN HOUSES
CONSTRUCTION
-HOUSES ARE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT USING BEAMS AND 2.EAST- RIVER ALONG WHICH THE ANOTHER
MERGING 2,3 PLOTS INTO 1 SO THE TARGET
PILLARS SQUATTER SETTLEMENT EXISTS NAMED AS ‘
GROUPS CAN
-SEPARATE SPACEAFFORD
FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY IN BACKWARD DEURALI’
-SPACE FOR KITCHEN GARDENING IS AVAILABLE IN EACH MIDDLE INCOME
3.SOUTH- GROUP
FOREST AREA
HOUSES ALONG WITH BIG TREES IN BACKYARDS Family members:6(2
grandparents, 2 parents,
2 children)
No. of rooms:5
TARGET
LOWER INCOME GROUPS ECONOMICALLY
GROUP
WEAK SECTOR
Family members:5(1
grandparent, 2 parents, Family members:4(2
2 children) parents, 2 child)
No. of rooms:4 No. of rooms: 2
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY l INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING TITLE:- RELOCATION OF THE SQUATTER SETTLEMENT DATE:-
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE l PURWANCHAL CAMPUS SUBJECT :- LOW COST HOUSING 2078/01/31
BINITA NEUPANE(06) l KIRAN SUBEDI(14) l KRITIKA ADHAKARI(15) l MADHU SUDHAN PAUDEL(18) l SONA GHIMIRE(40)
GROUND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
BUILT-UP AREA: 35m2

LENGTH:
BREADTH:
NO.OF STOREY:2
EACH FLOOR HT:3m
NO.OF BUILDING UNITS:32
NO.OF FAMILY
ACCOMODATION:4
MATERIAL USED: HOLLOW
CONCRETE BLOCKS
FRONT ELEVATION BACK ELEVATION
INDIVIDUAL HOUSING
BUILT-UP AREA: 35m2
LENGTH:
BREADTH:
NO.OF STOREY:2
EACH FLOOR HT:3
NO.OF BUILDING UNITS:18
NO.OF FAMILY ACCOMODATION:5
MATERIAL USED:RAMMED EARTH
GROUND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
FRONT ELEVATION BACK ELEVATION
APARTMENT
CONCEPT OF COURTYARD
CREATING AN OPEN SPACE IN
THE CENTER PART OF THE
THREE
BUILDINGS( APARTMENTS) SO
AS TO GIVE AN ESSENCE OF
COMMON PLAZA
SPACE( COURTYARD
GROUND FLOOR PLAN APARTM

ENT
CENTR
APARTM AL APARTM
ENT OPEN ENT
SPACE
FRONT ELEVATION COURTYARD VIEW
SECTION THROUGH A-A
PRECAST PANEL LAYOUT
DETAILS OF PANEL
FOOTING DETAIL
COMMERCIAL WITH
RESIDENTIAL
W/C COMMERCIAL WITH RESIDENCE:
STAIRCASE W/C STAIRCASE W/C
2.9mx STORAGE
2.9mx STAIRCASE 2.9mx 5.3m
3mx 2.7m 3mx 2.7m 5.3m KITCHEN
5.3m 2.8mx 3mx 2.7m LENGTH OF GROUND FLOOR=
+DINNING
3.1m 2.7mx 4.5m 11m
BALCONY LENGTH OF FIRST AND TOP
2.7mx 4.5m FLOOR= 9m
BREADTH= 8m
BED ROOM NO.OF BUILDING UNITS= 4
SHOP NO.2 3.7mx 2.9m
SHOP NO.1 2.9mx 5.3m
NO.OF FAMILY
3.1mx 4.0m BED ROOM TERRACE ACCOMODATION= 4
3.8mx 4.0m 7.7mx 4.0m
BALCONY
3.7mx 1.0m
LOBBY FIRST FLOOR PLAN TOP FLOOR PLAN
8.0mx 2.0m AREA= 72 SQ.M AREA= 38.4 SQ.M
GROUND FLOOR PLAN

AREA= 88 SQ.M
FRONT ELEVATION PERSPECTIVE
WATER SUPPLY LAYOUT:
WATER IS SUPPLIED MAIN PIPE

THROUGH PIPE SYSTEM
THROUGH THE MAIN PIPE SUB-MAIN PIPE
AND SUB-MAIN PIPE
SEWERAGE SYSTEM LAYOUT:
• THE SEPTIC TANK FOR HOUSES IN EACH SECTOR A,B,C,D FOR SEWER LINE
AROUND 100 PEOPLE IS DESIGNED.
• SEPTIC TANK IS ACCORDING TO IS 2470 i.e. 7.5m x2.65m FOR
HUNDRED PEOPLE.
• TOTAL OF 4 SEPTIC TANK AND SOAK PIT IS LOCATED IN
DIFFERENT PLACES.
• MANHOLES ARE PROVIDED IN EVERY JUNCTION OF THE ROAD.
DRAINAGE SYSTEM LAYOUT:
• WATER FROM FOOF OF THE EVERY HOUSE, APARTMENT DRAINAGE LINE

BUILDNG AND GROUND ARE COLLECTED TO A DRIANAGE
SYSTEM WHICH IS ON EVERY ROAD WITH MANHOLES.
BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM
LIVING LIVING LIVING LIVING LIVING LIVING LIVING

KITCHEN LIVING KITCHEN ROOM KITCHEN ROOM KITCHEN ROOM KITCHEN ROOM KITCHEN ROOM KITCHEN ROOM KITCHEN ROOM
ROOM
EWS ( APARTMENT)
CONCEPT OF COURTYARD
CREATING AN OPEN SPACE

IN THE CENTER PART OF THE
THREE
BUILDINGS( APARTMENTS)
SO AS TO GIVE AN ESSENCE APARTMENT
OF COMMON PLAZA
SPACE( COURTYARD)
CENTRAL
APARTMENT OPEN APARTMENT
SPACE

Low Cost Housing Low Cost Housing Low Cost Housing: Building Material Cost:65 To 70% Total Building Constructio N Cost

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Low Cost Housing Low Cost Housing Low Cost Housing: Building Material Cost:65 To 70% Total Building Constructio N Cost

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LOW COST HOUSING

LOW COST HOUSING

DEALS WITH EFFECTIVE

URBAN POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS

Total Population 11555983 15022839 18491097 23151423 26494504 30378055 33597032

% Urban 3.99% 6.36% 9.17% 13.94% 17.07% 22.72% 30.19%

•SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

TO STUDY THE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS OF PEOPLE

•TO MAKE AVAILABLE AT AFFORDABLE COST TO DIFFERENT TARGET GROUPS OF PEOPLE

•COST ESTIMATION OF NORMAL BUILDING AND IDENTIFYING THE PERCENTAGE REDUCTION IN

INCREASING COST OF LAND

FAST,SAFE AND ECONOMICAL TOO

REDUCED PLINTH AREA

USE OF LOCALLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS

 USE ENERGY EFFICIENT MATERIALS WHICH

PRE PLANNING EVERY COMPONENT OF A HOUSE

STANDARD DENSITY IN URBAN AREAS SHOULD BE 300 HOUSES/HECTARE

CONTINUATION OF LOW DENSITY HOUSING WILL DESTROY LAND FOR GROWING

AVOID CANTILEVER STRUCTURE

STAIRCASE AND CIRCULATION SPACE

HEATING AND COOLING IS CHEAPER IN ROOMS WITH LOW HEIGHT

NORMALLY COST OF DOORS AND WINDOWS PER SQFT. IS FOUR TO FIVE

OPENINGS ARE NECESSARY IN ALL HOUSES FOR LIGHT VENTILATION AND

SMALLER THE SIZE , CHEAPER THE COST OF THE BUILDING.

BIG WINDOWS WITHOUT NECESSITY SHOULD BE AVOIDED

IN EXAMPLE TYPE 1 ALL THE WINDOW PANELS BETWEEN PILLARS ARE

MOST COMMONLY APPLIED TO A MIXTURE OF

COMPRESSED EARTH BRICK:

• DEVELOPED OUT OF MUD AND REINFORCED WITH A

• DENSE AND GENERALLY USED FOR EXTERIOR STUCCO

ADVANTAGES OF USING ECO PANEL

RAW MATERIALS REQUIRED

• LOW MAINTENANCE • PROVIDE AND OFFER BETTER

STANDARD THICKNESS OF RAMMED EARTH WALL IS

EXCELLENT THERMAL QUALITIES

THREE BEDROOM TYPE

• THE OPEN COURT SPACE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING

THE SEPARATION OF THE HALL AND THE ROOFED COURT

• INVESTMENT PER HOUSE –AROUND 10LAKH( WITH ALL INFRASTRUCTURE)

• RESIDENTIAL HOUSES, A COMMUNITY HALL, A TEMPLE, A CHILDREN PARK, ONE

Roofing materials CGI sheet

U-value of walling 1.96 W/m2-

Embodie d energy 580.19

U-value of roofing 61 W/m2-K

Door materials Wood

NEPAL SUNSARI DHARAN KHORIA BASTI-15 THE SITE

SLOPE : ALMOST PLAIN EDUCATION : LOW LITERACY RATE

NATURAL RESOURCES : SMALL BUSHES ,

ROAD SIZE- MAIN ROAD 36 FEET AND

6.RIVER’S GABION WALL

-LOW INCOME GROUP(ROW

-LOW MIDDLE INCOME

4)MIX TYPE OF HOUSING

BUILT-UP AREA: 35m2

FRONT ELEVATION BACK ELEVATION

GROUND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN

FRONT ELEVATION BACK ELEVATION

GROUND FLOOR PLAN APARTM

FRONT ELEVATION COURTYARD VIEW

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

FRONT ELEVATION PERSPECTIVE

WATER IS SUPPLIED MAIN PIPE