Low Cost Housing

Cost effective techniques in construction
Abstract
Our project deals with effective costing and following of techniques which help in reducing
the cost of construction through the use of cheaper alternative materials beside with
technology and improved skills without losing the power, performance and life of the
structure. There is huge misconception that low cost housing is suitable for only subnormal
works and they are built by using cheap building materials of low quality. The fact is that
Low cost housing is done by proper management of resources. Economy is also achieved by
completing the project in time. Cost of reduction is achieved by selection of more efficient
material or by improved design. Construction of low cost housing by using the low cost
construction materials increases the access to buildings by low income group peoples.
Advantages of low cost building materials are pollution prevention, Reducing Energy
Consumption and use of Natural materials, Use of Local material, Energy Efficiency, Use of
non-toxic building materials, Longitivity, durability and maintenance of building material,
Recyclability and reusability of building material and Biodegradability. The reviews on
various low cost building designs and management are presented in this paper.
Keywords: Cost effective, Low cost housing, cheap materials…
i
Index
Sr.no Description Pg.
no
1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………. 1
2 Literature review…………………………………………………………….. 2
3 3.1Mechanical splicing……………………………………………………… 6
3.1.1. Introduction……………………………………………………….. 7
3.1.1.1. Types of splicing……………………………………………. 8
3.1.2. Manufacturing and specification of couplers……………………... 9
3.1.3 Comparison of lap splice and mechanical splice………………… 10
3.2 Glass Fiber Reinforced Gypsum housing……………………………….. 12
3.2.1. Introduction……………………………………………………….. 13
3.2.2. Product dimensions and properties………………………………... 15
3.2.2.1. Mechanical properties ……………………………………... 16
3.2.3. Reinforcement requirement……………………………………….. 18
3.2.4. Cost comparison between RCC frame housing and GFRG housing 19
3.3.Filler slab………………………………………………………………... 33
3.3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………... 34
3.3.1.1. Advantages of filler slab……………………………………… 36
3.3.2. Material selection as per design……………………………………. 37
3.3.3. Comparison between filler slab and conventional slab……………. 38
3.3.3.1. Cost comparison…………………………………………….. 38
3.3.3.1. Strength comparison………………………………………… 39
3.4. Rat trap bond…………………………………………………………… 40
3.4.1. Introduction……………………………………………………….. 41
3.4.2. Material selection as per design…………………………………… 42
3.4.3. Comparison of rat trap bond and conventional brickwork………... 43
3.5. Concrete block masonry unit…………………………………………… 45
3.5.1. Introduction………………………………………………………... 46
3.5.1.1. Types of concrete blocks……………………………………. 46
3.5.2. Comparison of CLC block and conventional red brick:…………… 47
4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………... 53
5 References…………………………………………………………………… 54
ii
List of Figures
Fig. Title Page No
No
1. Types of mechanical splicing…………………………… 8
2. Installation of coupler………………………………………… 9
3. Demo GFRG building in IIT Madras campus…………............ 14
4. Dimension of GFRG panel……………………………………. 15
5. Typical cross section of GFRG panel with micro T beams….. 18
6. Building plan………………………………………………….. 19
7. Simply supported slab cross section……………………........... 34
8. Showing unwanted tension concrete…………………............... 34
9. Advantages of filler slab……………………………………….. 36
10. Filler material arrangement…………………………………….. 37
11. Rat trap bond……………………………………………............ 41
12. Modular dimension of rat trap………………………………….. 43
iii
List of Tables
Table. Title Page
No No
1 Reinforcement details………………..………………………………..… 10
2 Calculation of cost of lap splice…...…………..………………………… 10
3 Calculation of cost of couplers………………….……………………….. 11
4 Mechanical properties of GFRG board...……………………..………… 16
5 Properties of compressive strength of GFRG building pan…………….. 17
6 Comparison of reinforcement requirement for various types of houses 18
7 Measurement sheet of RCC structure……………………………………. 20
8 Abstract sheet of Rcc structure……………………………...…………… 27
9 Measurement sheet of GFRG structure…………………….……………. 28
10 Abstract sheet of GFRG structure…………………………..…………… 32
11 Material and cost comparison of filler and conventional slab…....……… 38
12 Material saving in Rat trap bond…………………………..…………….. 44
13 Cost of conventional red brick masonry…………………...….…………. 48
14 Rate of plastering of red brick masonry…………………………………. 49
15 Cost of CLC block masonry…………………………...………………… 49
16 Cost of plastering in CLC masonry…………………..………………….. 50
17 Strength comparison of red brick and concrete blocks…………….……. 52
iv
Chapter 1: Introduction
Low cost housing can be achieved by use of efficient planning and project
management, low cost materials, economical construction technologies and use of alternate
construction methods available. The profit gained from use of such methods can decrease the
cost of construction and make the low cost housing accessible to all. Affordable housing is a
general term used to define housing that is affordable to lower or middle income households.
Low-cost housing projects are characterized by an increasing demand mainly due to
urbanization. The selection of building materials should meet the needs of local circumstances
to improve value of life for the most desired ones by building innovative structures and/or by
refining existing structures. Sustainability regarding urban housing intends to progress new
approaches to succeed human settlements and integrate energy and environmental issues.
To achieve a sustainable housing project is required a balance of environmental,

economic and social issues with technical issues. Findings show that up to 60 % of the total
cost of a low-income housing project is allocated to engineering project and construction
materials. Moreover, walls organize up to 50% of a total cost of resources and up to 45% of
total building time. Material source, manufacture techniques and labour requirements all have
major impacts on the selection of wall building material. The main objective of this paper is to
give detailed review on low cost building design, planning, selecting proper building material
and construction.
1
Chapter 2: Literature survey
1. • K.Kalaipriya, R.Jayanthi, 6 June -2015, International Journal of Science and

Engineering Research (IJ0SER), Vol 3 Issue 6,
The objective of this study was to focus on views from the construction industry about the
difference of the two construction methods such as GFRG wall panel system and traditional
construction system based on the estimation value and also to generate some construction
management results
The main part of the project is estimating the building work for a residential house based on
the Quotation collected from five different zones for each work. The collection of quotation
includes Cost for each Material like Cement, Sand, Aggregate, etc and each activity like
Excavation, Centering work, Flooring, Plastering etc. The estimation work is carried out for
both wall panel system and conventional building system.
The scheduling of each work is also carried out by using Primavera. From scheduling we can
calculate the time requirement and time difference for every work of wall panel system and
conventional Building system.
2. Kay jayganesh, S Dinesh, R Preetha, Dec 16, International journal of engineering

research and technology, vol. 3 pp429-433
Authors carried out study on cost effective of using low cost housing Technologies in
construction, it is observed that construction methods of foundation, walling, roofing and
lintel are compared. Strength and durability, 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
building cost can be saved by consuming low cost housing technologies in assessment with
the traditional construction.
Study on Sustainable construction, it is observed that the objective in this paper were to found
if there is a belief within the commerce that sustainability means increased cost and to
investigate whether using sustainable construction methods save money by reducing a
building carbon output and running costs. Following the literature survey, a questionnaire
survey has been carried out to canvas opinions within industry. This paper will benefit
customers and designers as they can see how integrating sustainability into new buildings will
enable big savings on utility and maintenance costs once the building is operational. Study on
sustainable Housing and Building Materials for Low-income Households; it is observed that
sustainable goals for low-cost housing and applications are achievable. Measures concerning
the physical development of neighborhoods, such as urban density and connectivity are
2
equally as important as measures concerning community development. The final comprise

support for community built organizations, small housing cooperatives (or similar forms of
cooperation) and individual households – or small groups – that build and increase their
houses incrementally. Adequate design and social organization and support are preconditions
for achieving sustainability in incremental housing.
3. Vivid Gupta, Shiavam sagar, Sushant singh, M.Haroon, 17, International research
journal of research and technology, vol. 4, pp1575-1578
Many authors have reported the use of fly ash brick in the replacement of conventional clay
brick, for the purpose of cost reduction. Many papers have been published on Low Cost
Housing, some of them are:
Study on sustainable Housing and Building Materials for Low-income Households; it is

observed that sustainable goals for low-cost housing and applications are achievable.
Measures concerning the physical development of neighborhoods, such as urban density and
connectivity are equally as important as measures concerning community development. The
final comprise support for community built organizations, small housing cooperatives (or
similar forms of cooperation) and individual households – or small groups – that build and
increase their houses incrementally. Adequate design and social organization and support are
preconditions for achieving sustainability in incremental housing. Study on Earth construction
and Building materials, it is observed that in this paper earth construction has a major
expression in less developed countries, on the other hand the mimetic temptations near more
poisoning construction techniques based on reinforced concrete and bricks that fired up are
likely to favor a change near a clear unsustainable design. In order to disclosure and highlight
the importance of earth construction this article reviews some environmental benefits such as
non-renewable resource consumption, waster generation, energy consumption, carbon dioxide
emissions and indoor air quality.
4 Rinku taur, Vidya Devi, Oct 2009, ACSGE pp25-27
Authors carried out study on prefabricated building material, It was observed that In
prefabricated construction, as the components are readymade, self-supporting, shuttering and
scaffolding is eliminated with a saving in shuttering cost. Precast members can be used with
large number of repetition without causing damage to the mold whereas in conventional
method, the shuttering gets damaged due to its repetitive use because of frequent cutting,
nailing etc.
3
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.
Similar types of components are produced repeatedly in precast construction, resulting in

increased productivity and faster execution thus reducing cost.
5. M. P. Jaisingh, L. Jaisingh and B. Singh, A RC filler slab with non-autoclaved cellular

concrete blocks for sustainable Construction.
This technique of construction can be easily adopted for the construction of all types of
buildings, once the cellular concrete blocks are available in the market. This is possible if
entrepreneurs set up production units near Thermal Power Plants, where they are given flyash
free of cost and space and facilities like power and water supplied at no-profit, no loss basis.
The large scale production of the blocks will help in the problem of disposal of flyash to a
great extent. In addition, it will result in saving of cement and steel and will lead to
affordable housing.
.6. Nilinjan sengupta, Jan 2008, Current science, vol. 94, pp 38-44
Author carried out study regarding greenhouse gases emitted during construction activity and
how to reduce it by cheaper alternative techniques. It was suggested that CO2 emitted during
production of construction materials can be minimized by adopting techniques like rat trap
bond, filler slab, brick arches, and compressed earth block.
Compressed earth block: Compressed earth blocks (CEBs) are earthen bricks compressed
with hand-operated or motorized hydraulic machines. Stabilizers such as cement, gypsum,
lime, bitumen, etc. are used during production or on the surface of the bricks. In many areas
of the world, proper materials are available for making CEBs, and thus this type of block may
be a better choice than any other building material. One of the factors that affect the use of
CEBs is the mental barrier of using simple earth rather than burnt clay bricks. Non-
availability of skilled manpower and technical guidance to produce large quantities of CEB
with proper quality is also a determinant force.
4
7. Singh r, Himanshu SK, Khanna n, Feb 2013, International research journal of

engineering and technology, Vol. 2 pp1-7
Authors carried out study regarding mechanical splices and it was found out that this method
of splicing of rebars is more efficient in terms of time, money, and labour compared to lap
splices. They carried out case study at Jaypee Greens new undergoing project 'Wish Town’ and
prepared an estimate comparing lap splice and mechanical splice. It was found out that mechanical
splice saved significant amount of money in large scale project.
5
Chapter 3.1
Mechanical splicing
6
Chapter 3.1.1
Introduction.
There are three basic ways to splice the bars: Lap splices, Mechanical connections and
Welded splices. Lapped joints are not always an appropriate means of connecting reinforcing
bars. The use of laps can be time consuming in terms of design and installation and can lead
to greater congestion within the concrete because of the increased amount of rebar used. It
also increases the overall reliability of reinforcement splices. Of the three, lap splicing is the
most common and usually the least expensive. Couplers especially threaded one can simplify
the design and construction of reinforced concrete and reduce the amount of reinforcement
required. The coupler system is designed to connect two pieces of rebar together in the field
quickly and easily. Taper threaded splices utilize the time-tested, field proven taper thread for
assurance of strength, consistency and reliability while simplifying installation. Designed for
use with worldwide grades of rebar, they develop the full tension splice strength requirement
per numerous design standards
The coupler system is available in several styles to meet virtually any application. The
applications include standard bar-to-bar connections, precaging applications, hooked bar
applications, closure pours, precast connections, rebar terminations and anchorages, transition
splices, segmental construction and connections to structural steel. Most popular splicing
systems are Interlock, Quick wedge, Speed sleeve, Terminator, Lock, Form saver, Taper
thread splices, and Cad weld splices.
More and more engineers are specifying mechanical reinforcement connections overlap
splices. They've found that mechanical connections afford a reliability and consistency that
can't be found with lap splicing. Lap splices depend upon concrete for strength so they lack
structural integrity and continuity in construction. Mechanical splicing assures the
maintaining of the continuity of the Load path in the reinforcement, independent of the
condition of concrete. Mechanical splices deliver higher performance than a typical lap splice.
Generally, this is 125% -150% of the reinforcement bar Mechanical splice can bear and can
deform more than a lap splice before failure occurs. Lap splicing, which requires the
overlapping of two parallel bars, has long been accepted as an effective, economical splicing
method. Lap splices usually are in contact, but in flexural members the bars can be separated
7
by as much as 6 inches. Bond between steel and concrete transfers the load in one bar to the
concrete and then from the concrete to the other (continuing) rebar.
This transfer of load is influenced by the deformations, or ribs, on the rebar. In projects with
small bar sizes such as of number 6 or number 8, relatively low yield stress in steel and
building heights of 15 stories or less, lap splices have performed well over the long run. In
recent years, however, there has been a shift. Continuing research, more demanding designs in
concrete, new materials and the development of hybrid concrete/structural steel designs have
forced designers to consider alternatives to lap splicing. Structural concrete building frames
are being pushed to 100 stories and more. Current design practice for structural framing uses
bar sizes from number 8 to number 11 with yields of 60 or 75 ksi. And concrete strengths of
8000 to 12,000 psi are accepted by code and increasingly used. Use of higher-strength
concretes allows for shorter lap lengths. However, these concretes are more susceptible to
splitting failures, raising questions about the adequacy and reliability of lap splices.
Types of splicing:
 Taper threaded splices

 Form saver
 Interlock
 CADWELD
 Quick wedge
 Speed sleeve
 Terminator
 Lock type
Figure 1 TYPES OF MECHANICAL SPLICING
8
Chapter 3.1.2
Manufacturing and specification of couplers
Generally couplers are manufactured from mild steel, but in some cases alloys of different
metals can also be used. The material should be such that couplers meet the minimum
strength requirement (125% of yield strength of rebar). The manufacturing of couplers
includes different basic steps as cutting, boring, threading, finishing. Every manufacturer
gives his own specifications regarding coupler selection. A very important aspect of coupler
selection is selection of material and specification given for them
Steps to install a coupler
 The coupler is normally supplied to a reinforcing bar, ready to be installed and cast in
concrete.
 After casting of the concrete and when ready to extend, remove the plastic end cap
from the coupler, position the continuation bar in the sleeve and rotate the bar into
the coupler.
 Continue to screw the bar into the coupler until tight and
 To ensure correct installation, tighten the joint to the specified torque using a
calibrated torque wrench on the continuation bar
Figure 2 Installation of coupler
9
Chapter 3.1.3
Comparison of lap splice and mechanical splice
A case study was carried out at SRA’s project site, Andheri. It was an under construction site
where traditional lap splice technique was used to splice the bars in columns. Only one
column up till 5 storeys was considered. Size of bars used were 32mm. 25mm. and 20mm in
columns only. Floor to floor height was 3 meter. Lap length was calculated by IS- 456
Table 1: reinforcement details
Number of Number of Number of

Floor
32mm bar 25mm bar 20mm bar
G.f 16 8 0
1 16 8 0
2 0 24 0
3 0 16 8
4 0 16 4
5 0 16 4
Table 2: Calculation of cost of lap splice

Total
Total
Diameter overlap Cost/kg Total
Sr.no Weight/kg weight
of bar length of steel cost
(kg)
(M)
1 32 49.28 6.32 311.45 50 15572.5

2 25 105.6 3.86 407.616 50 20380.8
3 20 15.36 2.47 37.93 50 1896.5
Total
cost 37850
10
Table 3: Calculation of cost of couplers
Number Unit rate

Bar
of coupler of Total rate
diameter
required coupler
32 32 90 2880
25 88 90 7920
20 16 90 1440
12240
This report has included calculations for only 1 column whose details were available from the
site. This shows that couplers are an effective and an economic replacement of lap splice. This
coupler used at the site is known as “tapered thread” it is the simplest type of coupler. This
report shows how couplers have effectively saved a huge amount of money in a single
building. The total couplers cost Rs. 12240 which is very less when compared to lap slice.
Cost of lap splice was Rs. 37850.
The report concludes that the added structural and economic advantages of mechanical splices
over laps make the benefit-to-cost ratio extremely attractive because mechanical splices give
the structures added toughness and load path continuity that laps cannot offer. The
reinforcement couplers not only provide strength to the joints but are they are also an
economic means of connections of two bars. The taper-threaded splice is a widely used
mechanical splicing system worldwide.
11
Chapter 3.2
Glass fiber reinforced gypsum housing
12
Chapter 3.2.1.
Introduction:
Glass Fiber Reinforced Gypsum (GFRG) Panel branded as Rapid wall is a building panel
product, made of calcined gypsum, plaster, reinforced with glass fibers, for Mass-scale
building construction, was originally developed and used since 1990 in Australia. The panel,
manufactured to a thickness of 124mm under carefully controlled conditions to a length of 12
m and height of 3m, contains cavities that may be unfilled, partially filled or fully filled with
reinforced concrete as per structural requirement. Experimental studies and research in
Australia, China and India have shown that GFRG panels, suitably filled with plain reinforced
concrete possesses substantial strength to act not only as load bearing elements but also as
shear wall, capable of resisting lateral loads due to earthquake and wind. GFRG panel can
also be used advantageously as in-fills (no-load bearing) in combination with RCC framed
columns and beams (conventional framed construction of multi-storey building) without any
restriction on number of stories micro-beams and RCC screed (acting on T-beam) can be used
as floor/ roof slab.
The GFRG Panel is manufactured in semi-automatic plant using slurry of calcined gypsum
plaster mixed with certain chemicals including water repellent emulsion and glass fiber
rovings, cut, spread and imbedded uniformly into the slurry with the help of screen roller. The
panels are dried at a temperature of 275o C before shifting to storage area or the cutting table.
The wall panels can be cut as per dimensions & requirements of the building planned. It is an
integrated composite building system using factory made prefab load bearing cage panels &
monolithic cast-in situ RC in filled for walling & floor/roof slab, suitable for low rise to
medium rise (single to 10 storeys) building.
13
Figure 3 Demo GFRG building in IIT Madras campus
GFRG panels may generally be used in following ways:
 As load Bearing Walling – With cavities filled with reinforced concrete is suitable for
multi – storeyed housing. In single or two storeyed construction, the cavities can
remain unfilled or suitably filled with non – structural core filling such as insulation,
sand, quarry dust, polyurethane or light weight concrete
 As partition walls in multi storeyed frame buildings. Panels can also be filled
suitably. Such walls can also be used as cladding for industrial buildings or sport
facilities etc.
 As compound walls / security walls.
 As horizontal floor slabs / roof slabs with reinforced concrete micro beams and
screed (T-beam action). This system can also be used in inclined configuration, such
as staircase waist slab and pitched roofing.
14
Chapter 3.2.2.
Product dimension and properties:
These design guidelines are applicable to GFRG building panels, presently manufactured as
Rapid wall®, for the typical dimensions and material properties described in this manual.
Typical dimensions of a GFRG building panel are 12.0m × 3.0m × 0.124 m, as shown in Fig.
4. Each 1.0 m segment of the panel contains four ‘cells’. Each cell is 250 mm wide and 124
mm thick, containing a cavity 230 mm × 94 mm, as shown in Fig. 3.2. The various cells are
inter‐connected by solid ‘ribs’ (20 mm thick) and ‘flanges’ (15 mm thick), comprising
gypsum plaster, reinforced with 300 ‐ 350 mm glass fiber roving, located randomly but
centrally. The skin thickness is 15 mm and rib thickness is 20 mm
Figure 4 Dimension of GFRG panel
15
Mechanical properties:
Table 4: Mechanical properties of GFRG board

Mechanical Property Nominal Value Remark
Unit weight 0.433 kN/m 2
Modulus of elasticity 7500 N/mm2

Uni‐axial compressive
160 kN/m
strength, Puc
Strength obtained from longitudinal
compression / tension tests with ribs
Uni‐axial tensile strength, Tuc 34 ‐ 37 kN/m
extending in the longitudinal
direction
Ultimate shear strength, Vuc 21.6 kN/m
Out‐of‐plane moment
capacity, Rib parallel to span, 2.1 kNm /m
Muc
Out‐of‐plane moment
capacity, Rib perpendicular to 0.88 kNm /m
span, Muc‐perp
Mohr hardness 1.6
Out‐of‐plane flexural rigidity,
3.5×1011Nmm2 /m
EI, Rib parallel to span
Out‐of‐plane flexural rigidity,

1.7×1011Nmm2 /m
EI, Rib perpendicular to span
Coefficient of thermal
12×10‐6 mm/mm / o C
expansion
1.0 % : 1hr 3.85 % Average water absorption by weight
Water absorption
: 24hr % after certain hours of immersion
Fire resistance: Structural
140/140/140 minutes
adequacy/Integrity/Insulation
Sound transmission class
40 dB
(STC)
16
Table 5: Properties of compressive strength of GFRG building panel

Property Nominal Value Remark
Obtained from longitudinal compression
Uni‐axial compressive strength,
1310 kN/m2 tests with ribs in the longitudinal
Puc (Both ends hinged)
direction
Uni‐axial compressive strength,

Puc (one end fixed and other 1360 kN/m2 Same as above
end hinged)
Ultimate shear strength, V 61 kN/m2 Longitudinal cracks (parallel to the ribs)
Fire resistance: Structural 241/241/241

CSIRO, Australia
adequacy/Integrity/Insulation minutes
17
Chapter 3.2.3.
Reinforcement requirement:
Table 6:Comparison of reinforcement requirement for various types of houses
Infilling & Additional infilling and
Reinforcement Required reinforcement required, if
Sr.no House Type for walls any
Every 4th cavity to be Other cavities may be

infilled with M20 suitably filled with
Single storey concrete and 1Y‐ concrete or alternative
1 House (Duplex) 10mm Fe 415 bar materials
Every 4th cavity to be

infilled with M20
Two storeyed concrete and 1Y‐
2 House 10mm Fe 415 bar — as above —
Every 4thcavity to be All cavities of walls 3X &

infilled with M20 6X in storey 1 to be
Three storeyed concrete and 1Y‐ infilled with M20 concrete
3 House 10mm Fe 415 bar and 2Y‐ 8mm Fe 415
All cavities of walls 3X &
Every 4thcavity to be 6X in storeys 1 and 2 to
infilled with M20 be infilled with M20
Four storeyed concrete and 1Y‐ concrete and 2Y‐8mm Fe
4 House 10mm Fe 415 bar 415
In roof/floor slab panels can be used as flexural slab, whose strength can be significantly
enhanced by embedding ‘micro beams’, filled with reinforced concrete. Unfilled GFRG
panels can be used as pitched roofs for single storeyed small span buildings. Some nominal
filling with reinforcement may be done at eaves and ridge locations
Figure 5: Typical cross‐section of panel with micro beams
18
Chapter 3.2.4.
Cost comparison between RCC frame housing and GFRG housing
The estimation work is carried out for both GFRG panel system and conventional RCC
building system. Measurement sheet is prepared using partly center line and partly cross wall
method. From this comparative we can calculate the cost difference for each work of
construction activity.
Figure 6: Building plan
Plan used is same for both GFRG and conventional RCC frame technique. However
foundation built in GFRG technique is step footing and in conventional RCC technique is
isolated footing. Item rates were taken from DSR Pune 2016.
19
Table 7: Measurement sheet of RCC structure

Sr.
Description No. Length(m) Breadth(m) Depth(m) Quantity
No.
Earthwork in excavation for
1
foundation
i) For column
1,7,9,10,11,12 6 2 2 1.95 46.8
2,3,4,&6 4 2.2 2.2 1.95 37.75
5&8 2 2.4 2.4 1.95 22.46
For panel walls 1
a) Outer 1 7.8 0.6 0.6 2.81
b) base 1 7.96 0.6 0.6 2.84
c) Left side 1 3.4 0.6 0.6 1.22
d) For right side 1 3.7 0.6 0.6 1.35
e) For toe wall 1.4 0.6 0.5 0.42
115.63m3
2 Matt concrete
1) For columns
a) 1,7,9,10,11,&12 6 2 2 0.075 1.8
b)2,3,4,&6 4 2.2 2.2 0.075 1.45
c) 5&8 2 2.4 2.4 0.075 0.86
d) For panel wall
Outer
Back 7.8 0.6 0.15 0.7
Right-side 7.9 0.6 0.15 0.71
Left side 3.7 0.6 0.15 0.33
3.4 0.6 0.15 0.31
For toe wall 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.08
6.52m3
20
3 R.C.C M20 grade

concrete including
Shuttering,Fixing and
Placing ,reinforcement in
position
i) Column Footings
Nos.1,7,9,10,11,12,
a) Rectangular portion 6 2 2 0.15 3.6
b) Trapezoidal portion Nos 6 0.30/6(4+0.105+4*2.05) 3.69
2,3,4,6
a)Rectangular portion 4 2.2 2.2 0.2 3.87
b) Trapezoidal portion Nos 4 0.30/6(2.2+(0.30*0.35)+4*2.47) 3 2.96
5&8
ii) Columns
1,7,9,10,11,12 6 0.2 0.25 4.92 1.48
2,3,4&6 4 0.2 0.3 4.87 1.17
5&8 2 0.2 0.35 4.87 0.68
iii)Beams connecting 2 13.5 0.2 0.4 2.16
columns 3,6,9,2,14,7,10
1,2,3 7.13 0.2 0.3 0.43
10,11,12 7.2 0.2 0.3 0.43
7,8,9 7.1 0.2 0.3 0.43
2&5 5.1 0.2 0.3 0.31
4,5,&6 7.05 0.2 0.3 0.42
8&11 4.45 0.2 0.3 0.27
Beams marked as
a 3.25 0.2 0.3 0.2
b 5.1 0.2 0.3 0.31
c 3.95 0.2 0.3 0.24
d 2.75 0.2 0.3 0.17
iv) Lintels
Band lintel over door and 43.6 0.2 0.15 1.31
windows situated in panel
walls
Lintels over opening in
internal walls over
D 4 1.3 0.1 0.15 0.08
D1 2 1.2 0.1 0.15 0.04
D2 2 1.1 0.1 0.15 0.03
C.G 1 1.65 0.1 0.15 0.02
v) Sunshade
W1 8 1.5 0.45 0.075 0.43
W2 3 1.2 0.45 0.08 0.13
W3 2 0.9 0.45 0.08 0.07
D 1 1.5 0.45 0.08 0.05
over D&W1 1 3 0.45 0.08 0.11
vi)Roof slab including 14.3 7.9 0.1 11.3
staircase
21
Deduction for staircase 5.35 3 0.1 -1.61

38.85
4 Steel and its bending
i) footing slab@0.8% 0.8/100*16.34@7850Kg/m3 1026.152
1.2/10
ii) columns @1.2% 3.33 7850 313.855
0
iii) beam @1% 1/100*5.37@7850Kg/m3 421.54
0.8/10
iv)Roofslab @0.8% 9.61 7850 603.51
0
iii) Sunshade @0.4% 0.4/100*0.79@7850Kg/m3 24.81
iv) In staircase @0.8% 0.8/100*3.64@7850Kg/m3 262.504
0.6/10
v) Lintels @0.6% 1.48*7850kg/m3 69.71
0
vii) Staircase
a) Base of toe wall 2.8 0.25 0.2 0.14
b) waist slab of flight 2 2.79 1.4 0.15 1.17
c) Midlanding 2.8 1.4 0.2 1.17
d) Landing at first floor 2.8 1.5 0.15 0.63
e) Steps 18 1.41/2*0.25 0.17 1.07
40.96
m3
22
2722.081
I class B.W in C.M (1:6) in
5
foundation& plinth
For panels
i)L1 7.13 0.2 1.05 1.5
ii) L2 7.2 0.2 1.05 1.51
iii) S1 13.5 0.2 1.05 2.83
iv) S2 13.48 0.2 1.05 2.83
8.67m3
Earthfilling in foundation
6 (1/5)*115.63 23.13
trenches
17.656m3
7 Sandfilling in plinth 13.9 7.35 0.43 43.93
a) Deduction for portion
2 0.2 0.35 0.43 -0.06
occupied by column 5and 8
b) Stair portion 1.4 0.2 0.43 -0.12
43.78m3
23
8 I class B.W in C.M (1:6) in super

structure for panel walls
L1 7.13 0.2 2.8 3.99
L2 7.2 0.2 2.8 4.03
S1 13.5 0.2 2.8 7.56
S2 13.48 0.2 2.8 7.7
Deduction for
D 2 1 0.2 2.1 -0.84
W1 9 1.2 0.2 1.2 -2.59
W2 3 0.9 0.2 1.2 -0.65
W3 2 0.6 0.2 0.7 -0.17
Band lintel over panel walls 43.6 0.2 0.7 -1.31
Columns 1,7,9,11,12 6 0.2 0.25 2.8 -0.84

2,3,4&6 4 0.2 0.3 2.8 -0.67
5&8 2 0.2 0.35 2.8 -0.39
15.82m3
9 10cm thick Brickwall in C.M (1:6)
in G.F
a) Front Bedroom 1 7.3 2.8 20.44
b) Between Bedroom 1 4.25 2.8 11.9
c) Between toilet & kitchen 2.8 2.8 7.84
d) Betwwen kitchen & dining 2.5 2.8 7
e) Kitchen upto store 4.5 2.8 12.6
f) Drawing room upto staircase 4.5 2.8 12.6
g) Toilet ofdrawing room 1.2 2.8 3.36
h) Front of staircase and toilet 3.6 2.8 10.08
i) Staircase inside walks 3.75 2.8 10.5
89.88
Deduction for openings
D 4 1 2.1 -8.4
D1 2 0.9 2.1 -3.78
D2 2 0.8 2.1 -3.36
C.G 1 1.4 2.1 -2.94
Lintel over
D 4 1.3 0.15 -0.78
D1 2 1.2 0.15 -0.36
D2 2 1.1 0.15 -0.33
C.G 1 1.7 0.15 -0.25
-20.2
69.68
24
10 2.5cm thick DPC in C.C (1:3:6)

with waterproofing compound
over panel wall
L1 7.13 0.2 1.43

L2 7.2 0.2 1.44
S1 13.5 0.2 2.7
S2 13.48 0.2 2.69
Deduction for Door 2 1 1.2 -0.4
7.86m2
11 7.5cm thick floor bed concrete 13.9 7.5 104.25
over brick flat soiling
Deduct for columns 2 0.2 0.35 -0.14
Toe wall 1 2.8 0.2 -0.56
103.57m2
10 2.5cm thick C.M concrete
flooring
a) Bedrooms 2 4.5 3.7 33.3
b) Dining room 1 4.6 3 13.8
c) Kitchen 1 3.3 2.5 8.25
d) Drawing room 1 4.5 3.6 16.2
e) Passage 1 2.5 1.2 3
f) Store 1 2.8 2.5 7
g) Toiled 1 2.8 1.25 3.5
h) Entrance under stair 1 5.15 2.8 14.42
99.47m2
ADDITIONAL FOR
a) D (in 20cm wall) 2 1 0.2 0.4
b) D (in 10cm wall) 4 1 0.1 0.4
c) D1 2 0.9 0.1 0.18
d) D2 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.07
100.52m2
12 Teakwood work in Door and
Window frame
i) D 6 5.26 0.12 0.1 0.38
ii) D1 2 5.16 0.12 0.6 0.123
iii) D2 2 5.06 0.12 0.1 0.121
iv) W1 9 4.1 0.12 0.1 0.518
v) W2 3 4.2 0.12 0.1 0.159
vi) W3 2 2.6 0.12 0.1 0.062
1.355m3
25
26
13 3.5cm thick teakwood shutter

in doors and windows
i) D 6 0.83 2.02 10.05
ii) D1 2 0.73 2.02 2.92
iii) D2 2 0.63 2.02 2.54
W1 9 1.03 1.03 9.59
W2 3 0.73 1.03 2.26
W3 2 0.43 0.53 0.46
27.82m2
14 12mm thick plastering in C.M
(1:6) in inside and outside walls
Inside
Bedroom 2 16.4 2.8 91.89
Dining Room 12.2 2.8 34.16
Kitchen 11.6 2.8 32.48
Drawing room 13.8 2.8 38.64
Toilet with Drawing Room 6.6 2.8 18.48
Store 10.6 2.8 29.68
Toilet with Bedroom 8.1 2.8 22.68
267.96
Outside walls of kitchen 2.7 2.8 7.56
Toilet with Drwawing 1.5 2.8 4.2
Store with toilet 3.75 2.8 10.5
Staircase 15.9 2.8 44.52
Deduction for Doors and
Windows
D (20cm wall) 2 1 2.1 -4.2
D(10cm wall) 4 1 2.1 -8.4
D1 2 0.9 2.1 -3.78
D2 2 0.8 2.1 -3.36
C.G 1 1.4 2.1 -2.94
Deduction for steps 18 1/2 *0.25.0.17 -0.38
Waist slab 2 2.79 0.15 -0.88
Outside plastering 41.31 3.4 140.45
Deduction for windows
W1 9 1.2 1.2 -12.96
W2 3 0.9 1.2 -3.24
W3 2 0.6 0.7 -0.84
434.24
27
28
15 2 coats of decorative cement 44.4 3.9 173.16

paint on external walls
i) W1 9 1.2 1.2 12.96
ii) W2 3 0.9 1.2 3.24
iii) W3 2 0.6 1.2 0.84
156.12m2
ADDITIONAL FOR Chajjas
i) W1 upper 8 1.5 0.45 5.4
ii) W1 bottom 8 1.5 0.45 5.4
iii) W1 side 16 0.45 0.05 0.02
Window2
i) upper 3 1.2 0.45 1.62
ii) bottom 3 1.2 0.45 1.62
iii) side 4 0.45 0.05 0.02
window3
i) upper 2 0.9 0.45 1.35
ii) bottom 2 0.9 0.45 1.35
iii) side 4 0.45 0.05 0.02
D and W1 upper 1 3 0.45 0.67
bottom 1 3 0.45 0.67
side 2 0.45 0.05 0.02
D-upper 1 1.5 0.45 0.67
D-bottom 1 1.5 0.45 0.67
D-side 2 0.45 0.05 0.02
20.152m2
175.92
m2
16 2 coats of oil painting inside 119.55 3.3 394.515
walls
Deduction for Doors and -23.24
Window
371.27
Ceiling
Same as flooring 100.52
471.79m2
29
Table 8: Abstract sheet of RCC structure

Ite
Quantit
m Particulars of items unit Rate Per Amount
y
no.
Earthwork in excavation in loose
1 115.63 m3 207.5 m3 23993.22
soil
Matt concrete M10 grade in
2 6.52 m3 4153.13 m3 27078.41
foundation
R.C.C M20 grade concrete
including centering shuttering
3 40.96 placing and fixing reinforcement m3 7291.3 m3 298651.65
in position but excluding steel
and its bending
4 25.53 Steel and its bending quintal 5586 quintal 152050.92
Ist class brick work in C.M (1:6)
5 8.67 in foundation and plinth for m3 5483.55 m3 47542.38
panel wall
6 23.13 Earth filling in foundation m3 112.4 m3 2599.81
7 43.78 sand filling in plinth m3 910.25 m3 39850.75
I class Brickwork in C.M (1:6)in
8 15.82 m3 6835.1 m3 108131.28
super structure for panel walls
10 cm thick Ist class brickwork in
9 69.68 m2 1021.2 m2 71157.22
C.M (1:6)in G.F
2.5 cm thick DPC in cement
concrete (1:3:6) with
10 7.86 m2 286.58 m2 2252.52
waterproofing compound over
panel walls
7.5cm thick floor bed concrete
11 103.57 m2 588.9 m2 60992.37
brick flat soiling
2.5 cm thick cement concrete
12 97.02 m2 257.02 m2 24936.08
flooring
Teakwood work in door and 83705.1
13 1.355 m3 m3 113920.45
window frame 4
35mm thick teakwood in door
14 27.8 m2 3876.95 m2 107779.21
and windows
12mm thick plastering in C.M
15 434.24 m2 213.65 m2 92775.38
(1:6) inside and outside walls
2 coat decorative cement paint
16 434.24 m2 39 m2 6860.58
on external walls
17 471.79 2 coat of oil paint inside walls m2 58.4 m2 27552.54
Total 1208124.77
contingencies@3% 36243.74
W.C.
establishment@1.5 18121.87
%
1262490.38
30
Table 9: Measurement sheet of GFRG structure

Sr Description No Length Breadth Depth Quantity
. . (m) (m) (m)
no
1 Earthwork in excavation for 1 78.394 0.8 1 62.7152
foundation
2 I class B.W in C.M (1:6) in

foundation and plinth
i) First step 1 79.594 0.6 0.3 14.32
ii) Second step 1 80.794 0.4 0.3 9.69
iii) Third step and plinth 1 81.994 0.2 0.7 11.47
35.48m3
3 P.C.C in foundation 1 78.394 0.8 0.1 6.271m3
4 Glass fibre r/f gypsum panel
in super structure
i)As vertical member Ground 1 82.45 3 247.35
floor
ii) As slabs 14.22 7.772 110.51784
iii) Staircase
a) Waist slab of flight 2 2.79 1.4 3.906
b) Midlanding 2 2.8 1.4 3.92
c) Landindg at first floor 2 2.8 1.5 4.2
369.89384
Deductions for openings
D 4 1 2.1 8.4
D1 2 0.9 2.1 3.78
D2 2 0.8 2.1 3.36
C.G 1 1.4 2.1 2.94
Lintels over 0
D 4 1.3 0.15 0.78
D1 2 1.2 0.15 0.36
D2 2 1.1 0.15 0.33
C.G 1 1.7 0.15 0.255
-20.205
349.76sq.m
31
Sr.no Description No. Length Breadth Depth Quantity

(m) (m) (m)
5 R.C.C M20 grade concrete
including Shuttering, Fixing
and Placing ,reinforcement
in position
i) Plinth beam 1 82.45 0.124 0.6 6.134
ii) Cavities in vertical wall 64 0.23 0.094 3 4.151
a) 1st floor 19 0.23 0.094 3 1.23
iii) Cavities in slabs 21 7.772 0.23 0.094 3.52
iv) Cavities in staircase
a) Flight 6 2.1 0.23 0.094 0.27
b) Landing 3 2.8 0.23 0.094 0.181
v) Lintel
a) D 4 1.3 0.124 0.15 0.096
b) D1 2 1.2 0.124 0.15 0.044
c) D2 2 1.1 0.124 0.15 0.04
d)W1 9 1.5 0.124 0.15 0.24
e) W2 3 1.2 0.124 0.15 0.06
f) W3 2 0.9 0.124 0.15 0.03
vi) Screed in slab 14.22 7.772 0.015 1.66
17.656
m3
6 Sand filling 13.9 7.35 0.43 43.93
in plinth
a) Deduction for plinth beam 40.15 0.2 1 8.03
for interior walls
35.9m3
7 Steel and its bending
i) In vertical wall cavities 0.37/100*5.31@7850Kg/m3 154.22
@0.37%
ii) In plinth beam @1% 1/100*6.134*7850Kg/m3 481.519
iii) In slab cavities @0.8% 1/100*3.52@7850Kg/m3 221.06
iv) In staircase cavities @1% 1/100*0.45@7850Kg/m3 35.4
v) Lintels @0.6% 0.6/100*0.51@7850Kg/m3 24.021
916.22
8 2.5cm thick DPC in C.C 82.45 0.124 10.22
(1:3:6) with waterproofing
compound
Deduction for Door 2 1 0.124 0.248
9.972m2
9 7.5cm thick floor bed 13.97 7.524 105.11
concrete over brick flat m2
soiling
32
Sr. Description No. Length Breadth Depth Quantity

No. (m) (m) (m)
10 2.5cm thick C.M concrete
flooring
a) Bedrooms 2 4.5 3.7 33.3
b) Dining room 1 4.6 3 13.8
c) Kitchen 1 3.3 2.5 8.25
d) Drawing room 1 4.5 3.6 16.2
e) Passage 1 2.5 1.2 3
f) Store 1 2.8 2.5 7
g) Toiled 1 2.8 1.25 3.5
h) Entrance under stair 1 5.15 2.8 14.42
99.47m2
ADDITIONAL FOR
a) D 6 1 0.124 0.744
b) D1 2 0.9 0.124 0.2232
c) D2 2 0.8 0.124 0.1992
100.63
m2
11 Teakwood work in Door and
Window frame
i) D 6 5.26 0.12 0.1 0.38
ii) D1 2 5.16 0.12 0.6 0.123
iii) D2 2 5.06 0.12 0.1 0.121
iv) W1 9 4.1 0.12 0.1 0.443
v) W2 3 4.2 0.12 0.1 0.159
vi) W3 2 2.6 0.12 0.1 0.062
1.288m3
12 3.5cm thick teakwood shutter in
doors and windows
i) D 6 0.83 2.02 10.05
ii) D1 2 0.73 2.02 2.92
iii) D2 2 0.63 2.02 2.54
W1 9 1.03 1.03 9.59
W2 3 0.73 1.03 2.26
W3 2 0.43 0.53 0.46
27.82m2
33
13 2 coats of decorative cement paint 44.4 3.9 173.16

on external walls
i) W1 9 1.2 1.2 12.96
ii) W2 3 0.9 1.2 3.24
iii) W3 2 0.6 1.2 0.84
156.12m2
ADDITIONAL FOR Chajjas
i) W1 upper 9 1.5 0.45 6.07
ii) W1 bottom 9 1.5 0.45 6.07
iii) W1 side 18 0.45 0.03 0.462
Window2
i) upper 3 1.2 0.45 1.62
ii) bottom 3 1.2 0.45 1.62
iii) side 6 0.45 0.05 0.135
window3
i) upper 2 0.9 0.45 1.35
ii) bottom 2 0.9 0.45 1.35
iii) side 4 0.45 0.05 0.09
D-upper 1 1.5 0.45 0.67
D-bottom 1 1.5 0.45 0.67
D-side 2 0.45 0.05 0.045
20.152m2
176.13
m2
14 2 coats of oil painting inside walls 119.53 3.3 394.515
Deduction for Doors and Window -23.24
ceiling (same as floor) 100.5
471.57m2
34
Table 10: Abstract sheet of GFRG structure

Item
Quantity Particulars of items unit Rate Per Amount
no.
Earthwork in excavation in
m3 207.5 m3 13013.40
1 62.7152 loose soil
Matt concrete M10 grade in
m3 4153.13 m3 26044.28
2 6.271 foundation
R.C.C M20 grade concrete
including centering shuttering
m3 7291.3 m3 128735.19
placing and fixing
3 17.656 reinforcement in position
4 9.1622 Steel and its bending quintal 5586 quintal 51180.05
Ist class brick work in C.M m3 5483.55 m3 194556.35
5 35.48 (1:6) in foundation and plinth
6 12.54 Earth filling in foundation m3 112.4 m3 1409.50
7 35.9 sand filling in plinth m3 910.25 m3 32677.98
GFRG Panel in super
m2 1000 m2 . 349760.00
8 349.76 structure
2.5 cm thick DPC in cement
concrete (1:3:6) with m2 m2 2857.78
9 9.972 waterproofing compound 286.58
7.5cm thick floor bed
m2 m2 61899.28
10 105.11 concrete brick flat soiling 588.9
2.5 cm thick cement concrete
m2 m2 25835.65
11 100.52 flooring 257.02
Teakwood work in door and
m3 m3 113420.46
12 1.355 window frame 83705.14
35mm thick teakwood in door
m2 m2 107779.21
13 27.8 and windows 3876.95
2 coat decorative cement
m2 m2 6870.67
14 176.171 paint on external walls 39
15 471.57 2 coat of oil paint inside walls m2 58.4 m2 27539.69
Total 1143579.49
contingencies@3% 34307.38
W.C. establishment@1.5% 17153.69
1195040.56
Cost of construction using RCC frame technique was 1262490.38 INR, while using GFRG
technique the total cost was brought down by 67449.82 INR.
35
Chapter 3.3.
Filler slab
36
Chapter 3.3.1
Introduction:
Filler slab technology is a simple and a very innovative technology for a slab construction.
The reason why, concrete and steel are used together to construct RCC slab, is in their
individual properties as separate building materials and their individual limitation. Concrete is
good in taking compression and steel is good in tension. Thus RCC slab is a product which
resists both compression as well as tensile.
Figure 7: Simply supported slab cross section
Knowing this much if we want to move further to understand the “Filler slab” technology, we
will have to further study the cross section of a typical simply supported RCC Slab. Under its
own load and applied load, the slab will try to bend as shown in the Figure 1.
Figure 8: showing unwanted tension concrete
37
If we refer Figure 8, which indicates the neutral axis and also tension concrete in the bottom
fibers of the slab which is in tension but the top fibers will be in compression. Knowing this
much is the key to understand the filler slab technology. Tension in a slab is on the bottom
fiber and compression on the top fiber. That means if we want to optimize the structure we
can remove concrete from the tension zone where it is not much needed. That’s the key
behind filler slab construction.
This is a very cost effective roofing technology. Knowing the way slab is
constructed on site (w.r.t. Gujarat, India), it is not easy to remove, the concrete from the
tension zone, hence we try and replace (partially); that part of concrete using light weight and
low cost filler material. This method of construction is called filler slab. Filler slab technology
is being used across India, but substantial amount of work on the successful promotion and
transfer of this technology was done by Ar. Laurie Baker in South India. It is one place where
filler slab has crossed the boundary of research and controlled implementation to being one of
the regular options of construction by both government and private sector and also architects
and designers have been promoting this technology. These filler materials are so placed as not
to compromise the structural strength, stability and durability, resulting in replacing unwanted
and non-functional tension concrete, from below and thus resulting in economy of high
energy material consumption and respective cost savings and decreased dead load of the slab.
An internal cavity can be provided between the filler material which adds an extra advantage;
other than cost savings and energy savings; improved thermal comfort for the interiors. Also
an added advantage of lower dead weight transferred to the supporting elements and finally
onto the foundation to further adds up cost saving in design of these elements. These filler
materials are so placed as not to compromise the structural strength, stability and durability,
resulting in replacing unwanted and non-functional tension concrete, from below and thus
resulting in economy of high energy material’s, consumption and considerable cost saving
and decreased dead load of the slab.
38
Advantages of filler slab technology:
Figure 9: Advantages of filler slab
 By adopting RCC filler slab construction compared to a RCC solid (conventional) slab
in case where Manglore tiles are used as a filler material, you can save on
approximately 19% of the total concrete and including the cost of filler material, you
can save around 5-10% of your concrete cost.
 Another advantage is, if the filler material is just a waste i.e. for ex temporary
manglore tiles that are removed from the roof to construct a pukka roof, you can save
upon nearly 15% on your roof concrete construction cost.
 Building a 25 sq. m slab can save you approx. Rs. 5000 from your concrete cost.
 Filler slab technology can also be applied to mass housing projects and township
projects to gain high cost saving and also saving in high energy consuming materials.
 Another advantage can be of a better thermal comfort if a cavity is kept between the
filler material or the filler material itself has a cavity. For example tow manglore
tiles/Clay tiles can be kept one over the other to form an air cavity thus keeping the
interiors of your house remain cooler in summer and warmer in winters.
 Filler slabs can be kept exposed (with proper workmanship) to create aesthetically
pleasing ceiling with a view of filler material from below and thus the cost of
plastering and/or painting also can be avoided.
 RCC being made of cement, steel, sand and aggregates, is a very high energy intensive
material. So reduction in concrete quantity compared to conventional slab
construction, adds this technology to the list of sustainable and environment friendly
technologies and cooperating green building features.
39
Chapter 3.3.2
Material selection as per design:
Light weight, inert and inexpensive materials such as low grade Mangalore tiles, Burnt Clay
Bricks, Hollow Concrete blocks, Stabilized Mud blocks/ Hollow Mud blocks, Clay pots,
Coconut shells etc. can be used as filler materials. These materials are laid in the grids of steel
reinforcement rods and concreting/concrete topping is done over them.
Figure 10: Filler material arrangement
The following points to be kept in mind for filler material selection:
 Filler material should be inert in nature. It should not react with concrete or steel in
RCC slab constructed.
 Filler materials water absorption should be checked for as it will soak the hydration
water from concrete.
 Filler material should be light in weight, so that overall weight of the slab reduces and
also the dead load onto the foundations is reduced.
 Filler material should be low cost so that it cost is much lesser then the cost of the
concrete it replaces. This is very important to achieve economy.
 Filler material should be of a size and cross-section, which can be accommodated
within the spacing of the reinforcement and also thickness wise could be
accommodated within the cross section of the slab.
 Moreover the Filler slab also provides insulation (compared to a conventional RCC
slab) from the hot climate outside the building, providing thermal comfort to the user.
 Filler material texture should match with the desired ceiling finish requirements so as
not to provide an ugly ceiling pattern.
40
Chapter 3.3.3.
Comparison between filler slab and conventional slab:
Cost comparison
Assuming a 100 mm thick slab 2.54×3.86 m, and calculating the material and cost savings as
per market material rates of Ahmedabad, Gujarat, August, 2011 and comparing the savings
For 1 m3 : RCC Filler slab vs. Conventional Solid RCC Slab.
 1.61 bags (19% saving) = Rs 418/ m3 saving in cement cost.

 0.09 m3 less sand (19% saving) = Rs 21/ m3 saving in sand cost.
 0.18 m3 less aggregates (19% saving) = Rs 127/ m3 saving in aggregates cost.
 10 kg less steel/m3 of slab casted = Rs 500/m3 saving in reinforcement cost.
The table below shows the consumptions of materials and cost savings for 1 m3 quantity of the
slab:
Table 11:Material and cost comparison of filler and conventional slab
Conventional
Material Filler slab savings/cu.m Savings Rs
slab
Cement (kg) 422.67 342.35 80.31 418
sand (cu.m) 0.48 0.39 0.09 21
Aggregates
0.96 0.78 0.18 127
(cu.m)
Steel (kg) 28.2 17.48 10.72 536
Total 1102
41
Strength comparison:
Chart 1: Strength comparison

20.5
20
19.5
19
18.5
18
UTM TEST
Conventional slab Filler slab
The cost of filler slab over conventional slab is around 30% less by cost and aesthetic view
has is much more pleasing then conventional slab one. Therefore, we can consider filler slab
instead of conventional slab with point of view of cost and architectural point of view.
42
Chapter 3.4
Rat trap bond
43
Chapter 3.4.1.
Introduction:
While laying bricks, the manner in which they overlap is called the bond. There are several
types of bonds developed in different countries from time to time. They are called as stretcher
bond, English bond, Flemish bond and rat-trap bond. A “Rat-Trap Bond” is a type of wall
brick masonry bond in which bricks are laid on edge (i.e. the height of each course in case of
a brick size 230x110x75 mm, will be 110 mm plus mortar thickness) such that the shiner and
rowlock are visible on the face of masonry as shown below.
Figure 11: Rat trap bond
This gives the wall with an internal cavity bridged by the rowlock. This is the major reason
where virgin materials like brick clay and cement can be considerably saved. This adds this
technology to the list of Green building technologies and sustainability for an appropriate
option as against conventional solid brick wall masonry. This cavity adds an added advantage
as it adds a Green building feature of help maintain improved thermal comfort and keep the
interiors colder than outside and vice versa. The Rat trap bond construction is a modular type
of masonry construction. Due care must be taken while designing the wall lengths and heights
for a structure. The openings and wall dimensions to be in multiples of the module. Also the
course below sill and lintel to be a solid course by placing bricks on edge. The masonry on the
sides of the openings also to be solid as will help in fixing of the opening frame.
44
Material selection as per need and design:
1. Bricks
 As far as possible, use of fired clay bricks should be checked with alternative bricks
i.e. fly ash bricks, bricks from construction waste etc. as firing of bricks is in general
highly energy consuming and air polluting.
 These alternate bricks provide better strength and durability than fired clay bricks and
finishing cost of your wall can be saved with a better quality and aesthetically
soothing environment in the interiors.
2. Mortar:
 Lime should be explored as a material for mortar as it is locally available in many

parts of the country and helps reduce the consumption of cement.
 Lime as a binding material along with fly ash can result in to make lime pozzolona
mortar which saves on your cost of cement. It also adds another Green building
feature, use of industrial waste (i.e. flash) as a raw material for your construction.
ADVANTAGES:
 By adopting this method of masonry, you can save on approx. 20-35% less bricks and
30-50% less mortar; also this reduces the cost of a 9 inch wall by 20-30 % and
productivity of work enhances.
 For 1 m3 of Rat trap bond, 470 bricks are required compared to conventional brick wall
where a total of 550 bricks are required.
 Rat trap bond wall is a cavity wall construction with added advantage of thermal
comfort. The interiors remain cooler in summer and warmer in winters.
 Rat-trap bond when kept exposed, create aesthetically pleasing wall surface and cost of
plastering and painting also may be avoided.
 Rat trap bond can be used for load bearing as well as thick partition walls.
 All works such as pillars, sill bands, window and tie beams can be concealed.
 The walls have approx. 20% less dead weight and hence the foundations and other
supporting structural members can suitably be designed, this gives an added advantage
of cost saving for foundation.
 Service’s installations should be planned during the masonry construction if not
exposed.
45
 Virgin materials such as bricks, cement and steel can be considerably saved upon by
adopting this technology. It will also help reduce the Embodied Energy of virgin
materials and save the production of Green House Gases into the atmosphere.
 In case for more structural safety, reinforcement bars can be inserted through the cavity
Disadvantages:
 It has to be done by masons trained in rat trap bond, because there could be wastage of
mortar falling into the gap.
 The other disadvantage is in using concealed wiring and plumbing. If you break one
brick, then more than one brick will fall down.
3.4.2.
Comparison of rat trap bond and conventional brickwork:
Figure 12: Modular dimension of rat trap
Material saving per m3: Rat trap bond vs. Conventional Brickwork.
 1.11 bags (57% saving) = Rs 288/ m3 saving in cement cost.

 80 nos. of bricks (20% saving) = Rs 576 saving in brick cost.
 0.18 m3 less sand (61% saving) = Rs 13/ m3 saving.
Summarizing the material cost, an approximate saving of Rs. 478 (20% saving) is achieved
per m3 of Rat trap bond brickwork compared to conventional solid BW.
46
 Assume building a house with 100 sq. m on each floor, and the periphery walls are
made of Rat trap bond instead of conventional bond, the savings in materials cost and
total brickwork cost that can be achieved are listed below:
Table 12: Material saving in Rat trap bond
Sr.no Description In Units In Rs. In Percentage
1 Cement 78 Bags 20193 57%

2 Bricks 5599 nos. 10086 19%
3 Sand 13cu.m 3153 61%
Strength of rat trap bond:
The load bearing tests done at the Anna University has proven that a wall in rattrap
bond performs as good as the usual English bond. Rattrap bond saves consumption of
bricks by 18% and cement by 24% as compared to conventional English bond in addition
to being lighter by 25% in weight.
47
Chapter 3.5
Concrete masonry unit
48
Chapter 3.5.1.
Introduction:
A concrete masonry unit (CMU) is a standard size rectangular block used in building
construction. CMUs are some of the most versatile building products available because of the
wide variety of appearances that can be achieved using concrete masonry units. Concrete
blocks are made from cast concrete (e.g. Portland cement and aggregate, usually sand and
fine gravel, for high-density blocks). Lower density blocks may use industrial wastes, such
as fly ash or bottom ash, as an aggregate. Recycled materials, such as post-consumer glass,
slag cement, or recycled aggregate, are often used in the composition of the blocks. Use of
recycled materials within blocks can create different appearances in the block, such as
a terrazzo finish, and may help the finished structure earn LEED certification. Lightweight
blocks can also be produced using autoclaved aerated concrete.
Dimension: The nominal dimensions of concrete block shall be as follows-
a. Length: 400, 500 or 600 mm

b. Height: 200 or 100 mm
c. Width: 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 250 or 300 mm
Types of concrete blocks:
1. Solid Concrete Block

2. Hollow Concrete Block
3. Lightweight Aerated Concrete Block
4. Cellular Lightweight Concrete Block
5. Fly Ash Brick
6. Lintel blocks
49
Chapter 3.5.2.
Comparison of CLC block and conventional red brick:
Cost comparison:
Assuming a 10m3 Masonry, and calculating the material and cost savings as per market
material rates of DSR rates and comparing the savings for 10m3: CLC blocks vs Conventional
red bricks.
Red brick masonry
For 10m3 CS [1:4]
Material calculations:-
 Size of brick – 0.19x0.09x0.09 m

Including mortar thickness – 0.2x0.1x0.1 m
No of bricks = 10/0.2x0.1x0.1 = 5000 bricks
 Wet volume of mortar = 10m3-[0.19x0.9x0.9]x5000 = 2.305 m3

Assume 33% as voids
Dry volume = 1.33x2.305 = 3.065 m3
Assume 15% as wastage
Volume of mortar = 1.15x3.065 = 3.524 m3
 Quantity of cement = [3.534/1+4] x 1 = 0.705 m3

No of bags = 0.705/0.035 = 20.14 =21 bags
 Quantity of sand = [3.524/1+4] x 4 =2.82 m3
50
COST OF MATERIALS AND LABOURS
Table 13: Cost of conventional red brick masonry

Sr. no Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount
1. MATERIALS
Cement 21 bags 350 7350

Sand 2.82 M3 3200 9024
Bricks 5000 Nos. 7 35000
51374 Rs
2. LABOURS
Head mason 2-Jan Nos. 650 325
Mason 2 Nos. 500 1000

Mazdoor 10 Nos. 350 3500
4825
1. Scaffolding @ 0.5% of material cost = 256.87

2. Contingencies @ 5% of 1,2,3 = 2822.79
3. Work Charge Establishment @ 2.5% of 1,2,3 = 1411.39
4. Contractors profit @ 10% of 1,2,3,4,5 = 6069.08
Total cost =66759.05 Rs
External plastering for brickwork

Area 10 m3 CM [1:4]
MATERIAL CALCULATION
Thickness of plaster = 0.024 m
 Wet Volume = 10x0.024 = 0.24 m3
Dry Volume = 1.33x0.24 = 0.319 m3
Waste @ 15% of dry volume = 1.15x0.319 = 0.366 m3
Nos. of bags = 0.0732/0.035 = 2.09 = 3 bags
51
 Quantity of sand = [0.366/1+4] x 4 = 0.292 m3
Cost of materials and labours
Table 14: Rate of plastering of red brick masonry
Sr.no Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount
1. MATERIALS 1. S
caffol
Sand 0.292 M3 3200 935
1985 ding
2. LABOURS @
Head mason 2-Jan Nos. 650 350 0.5%
Mason 2 Nos. 500 1000
of
2050 materi
al cost
= 10
Total cost =4782.50 Rs
Cost of Brickwork = 66759.05+4782.50 = 71540
Clc blocks masonry

For 10m3 CS [1:4]
Materials calculation:-
 Size of block – 0.5x0.2x0.1 m

Including mortar thickness – 0.51x0.21x0.11
No of blocks = 10/0.51x0.21x0.11 = 850bricks
 Wet volume of mortar = 10m3-[0.5x0.2x0.1]x850 = 1.5 m3

Assume 33% as voids
Dry volume = 1.33x1.5 = 1.995 m3
Assume 15% as wastage
52
Volume of mortar = 1.15x1.995 = 2.3 m3

No of bags = 0.46/0.035 = 13.14 =14 bags
 Quantity of sand = [2.3/1+4] x 4 =1.84 m3
Table 15: Cost of CLC block masonry

Sr. no Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount
1. MATERIALS
Cement 14 bags 350 4900 1. Scaf
Sand 1.84 M3 3200 5888 folding @
Blocks 850 Nos. 40 34000
0.5% of
44788 Rs material
2. LABOURS cost =
Head mason 2-Jan Nos. 650 325 223.94
Mason 2 Nos. 500 1000 2. Con
tingencies
2725
@ 5% of
1,2,3 = 2386.84
Total cost = 56450 Rs
External plastering for clc blocks

Area 10 m3 CM [1:4]
MATERIALS CALCULATION :-
Thickness of plaster = 0.012 m
 Wet Volume = 10x0.012 = 0.12 m3
Dry Volume = 1.33x0.012 = 0.159 m3
Waste @ 15% of dry volume = 1.15x0.159 = 0.182 m3
Nos. of bags = 0.0364/0.035 = 1.04 = 2 bags
 Quantity of sand = [0.182/1+4] x 4 = 0.1456 m3
53
Table 16: Cost of plastering in CLC masonry

Sr.no Description Quantity Unit Rate Amount
1. MATERIALS
Sand 0.1456 M3 3200 465
1165
2. LABOURS
Head mason 2-Jan nos. 650 350
Mason 2 nos. 500 1000
Mazdoor 2 nos. 350 700
2050
1. Scaffolding @ 0.5% of material cost = 5.5

Total cost =3740 Rs
Cost of CLC blocks = 56450+3740 = 60190
Cost Difference = Brick – CLC blocks
=71540 – 60190 = 11350
% Difference = 71540 – 60190/71540 x 100
= 15.86%
54
Strength comparison:
Table 17: Strength comparison of red brick and concrete blocks
Red brick CLC block Solid concrete block
Compressive
35 25 40
strength(kg/cm2)
Water Absorb 17 -20% by Absorb 12-15% of Absorb 12-15% of water
absorption total volume water by total volume by total volume
55
Chapter 3.6
Conclusion
Techniques and materials discussed in this project report can bring down the cost of
construction up to a significant amount. These techniques of construction can be easily
adopted for the construction of all types of buildings. Also these techniques reduces the
amount of greenhouse gases emission hence reduces pollution.
Using mechanical splice in place of lap splice can reduce up to 67% of cost also it reduces the
time and labour required to splice the bar. However it is not convenient to use couplers for
bars below 16mm as it does not prove to be cost effective.
Constructing a house using GFRG housing technique instead of traditional RCC frame
housing technique proves to reduce the cost up to 5-6%. Though the cost difference is not
worth a change but the time saved by using GFRG housing technique is quite appealing. G+1
storey house can be constructed within 20 days with ready to move finishing. Hence this
technique will be useful when large amount of houses of same design and shape are needed
within quick amount of time, such as during flood or disaster housing relief. GFRG panel
manufacturing plant should be established throughout the country to reduce the transportation
cost of GFRG panel and to effectively utilize gypsum which is a waste product of a fertilizer
industry.
Constructing filler slab in place of traditional solid slab can bring the cost down by 30% of
cost. It also reduces the dead load acting on the structure.
Rat trap bond or Chinese bond uses almost 20% less bricks than conventional English or
Flemish bond. Houses up to 2 storeys can be constructed using this bond. These technique can
be implemented in rural areas where there is an urgent need of housing for all. But not
everyone could afford.
Constructing Concrete block masonry instead of red brick masonry proves to be advantageous
as it reduces the time and labour. Also using CLC blocks brings the cost down by 15% and
also reduces the dead load on structure.
Adoption of any alternative technology on large scale needs a guaranteed market to function
and this cannot be established unless the product is effective and economical. The government
agencies such as Hudco, Cidco, and Mhada must support these techniques to promote the low
56
cost construction techniques by making awareness amongst users and contractors executing
the works.
References:
 Singh r, Himanshu Sk, Khanna n, Feb 2013, International research journal of

engineering and technology, Vol. 2 pp1-7
 http://alumni.iitm.ac.in/newsletters/glass-fibre-reinforced-gypsom-demonstration-
building/
 ‘Use of GFRG Panels in building’ structural design manual prepared by structural
engineering division, department of civil engineering, IIT Madras, published by
bmtpc.
 K.Kalaipriya, R.Jayanthi, 6 June -2015, International Journal of Science and
Engineering Research (IJ0SER), Vol 3 Issue 6,
 Schedule of rates, public works region, Pune.
 Estimating costing specification and valuation, Book by M. Chakraborti.
 K.Jaiganesh, S.Dinesh and R.Preetha, Dec -2016, International Research Journal of
Engineering and Technology, Volume: 03 Issue: 12.
 Nilinjan sengupta, Jan 2008, Current science, vol. 94, pp 38-44
 Vivid Gupta, Shiavam sagar, Sushant singh, M.Haroon, 17, International research
journal of research and technology, vol. 4, pp1575-1578
 . M. P. Jaisingh, L. Jaisingh and B. Singh, A RC filler slab with non-autoclaved
cellular concrete blocks for sustainable Construction
57
58

Low Cost Housing

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Low Cost Housing

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Cost effective techniques in construction

Keywords: Cost effective, Low cost housing, cheap materials…

3. Demo GFRG building in IIT Madras campus…………............ 14

4. Dimension of GFRG panel……………………………………. 15

5. Typical cross section of GFRG panel with micro T beams….. 18

7. Simply supported slab cross section……………………........... 34

8. Showing unwanted tension concrete…………………............... 34

9. Advantages of filler slab……………………………………….. 36

10. Filler material arrangement…………………………………….. 37

11. Rat trap bond……………………………………………............ 41

12. Modular dimension of rat trap………………………………….. 43

2 Calculation of cost of lap splice…...…………..………………………… 10

3 Calculation of cost of couplers………………….……………………….. 11

4 Mechanical properties of GFRG board...……………………..………… 16

5 Properties of compressive strength of GFRG building pan…………….. 17

6 Comparison of reinforcement requirement for various types of houses 18

7 Measurement sheet of RCC structure……………………………………. 20

8 Abstract sheet of Rcc structure……………………………...…………… 27

9 Measurement sheet of GFRG structure…………………….……………. 28

10 Abstract sheet of GFRG structure…………………………..…………… 32

11 Material and cost comparison of filler and conventional slab…....……… 38

12 Material saving in Rat trap bond…………………………..…………….. 44

13 Cost of conventional red brick masonry…………………...….…………. 48

14 Rate of plastering of red brick masonry…………………………………. 49

15 Cost of CLC block masonry…………………………...………………… 49

16 Cost of plastering in CLC masonry…………………..………………….. 50

17 Strength comparison of red brick and concrete blocks…………….……. 52

To achieve a sustainable housing project is required a balance of environmental,

Chapter 2: Literature survey

1. • K.Kalaipriya, R.Jayanthi, 6 June -2015, International Journal of Science and

2. Kay jayganesh, S Dinesh, R Preetha, Dec 16, International journal of engineering

equally as important as measures concerning community development. The final comprise

Study on sustainable Housing and Building Materials for Low-income Households; it is

4 Rinku taur, Vidya Devi, Oct 2009, ACSGE pp25-27

Similar types of components are produced repeatedly in precast construction, resulting in

5. M. P. Jaisingh, L. Jaisingh and B. Singh, A RC filler slab with non-autoclaved cellular

7. Singh r, Himanshu SK, Khanna n, Feb 2013, International research journal of

 Taper threaded splices

Figure 1 TYPES OF MECHANICAL SPLICING

Manufacturing and specification of couplers

Steps to install a coupler

Figure 2 Installation of coupler

Comparison of lap splice and mechanical splice

Table 1: reinforcement details

Number of Number of Number of

Table 2: Calculation of cost of lap splice

1 32 49.28 6.32 311.45 50 15572.5

Table 3: Calculation of cost of couplers

Number Unit rate

Glass fiber reinforced gypsum housing

Figure 3 Demo GFRG building in IIT Madras campus

GFRG panels may generally be used in following ways:

Product dimension and properties:

Figure 4 Dimension of GFRG panel

Table 4: Mechanical properties of GFRG board

Modulus of elasticity 7500 N/mm2

Out‐of‐plane flexural rigidity,

Table 5: Properties of compressive strength of GFRG building panel

Uni‐axial compressive strength,

Ultimate shear strength, V 61 kN/m2 Longitudinal cracks (parallel to the ribs)

Fire resistance: Structural 241/241/241

Every 4th cavity to be Other cavities may be

Every 4th cavity to be