Accelerat ing t he world's research.

STUDY ON COMPARISON
BETWEEN PREFABRICATED AND
CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURES
IAEME Publication

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Prefabricat ion As A Solut ion To Improve Product ivit y Of Const ruct ion Indust ry, Tamilnadu, In…
Murali Karuppusamy

EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL EVALUAT ION OF CROSS CORRUGAT ED COLD FORM SHEET BASED PR…
IAEME Publicat ion

Sust ainable Performance Crit eria for Prefabricat ion Const ruct ion Syst em
sambat h k, Murali Karuppusamy
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 9, Issue 5, May 2018, pp. 1–8, Article ID: IJCIET_09_05_001
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=5
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

STUDY ON COMPARISON BETWEEN

PREFABRICATED AND CONVENTIONAL
STRUCTURES
V. Karthikeyan, E Vinodhini
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science,
Padur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

P. Aparna, T. Monika, R. Sathish Kumar

Civil Engineering Department, Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science,
Padur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT
Construction industry is considered as one of the most important industries in
India. It is well known that most construction projects are done through conventional
technique but prefabrication technique is a new one for the construction industry. The
aim of the project is to study the present situation of the precast construction industry
in India. Suggestions for improvement of the industry and study on cost effectiveness
of precast concrete construction for single and multi-storey residential buildings are
to be given. A literature survey was carried out in order to obtain the comparison
between the conventional buildings with precast concrete buildings in India and some
field visits are conducted to collect data to investigate the current situation regarding
precast industry in India. In order to compare the cost of precast and in-situ
construction, G+7 storey housing board colony building is considered.
Key words: conventional, comparison, in-situ, precast, Prefabrication.
Cite this Article: V. Karthikeyan, E Vinodhini, P. Aparna, T. Monika, R. Sathish
Kumar, Study on Comparison between Prefabricated and Conventional Structures,
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(5), 2018, pp. 1–8.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=5

1. INTRODUCTION
The construction field in India is at a quick rate of development. It gives wide opportunities in
India to prefab division. Currently precast solid structures are the propelled development
systems accessible around the world. With wide acceptability, the precast solid structure
frameworks are turning into a famous decision for development. Precast concrete are
accessible in many shape, sizes, including basic components and unreinforced pieces. The
prefab business is the spine for the improvement of new thoughts in development business of
any nation; Factory structures, private structures and the mechanical township are required for

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1 editor@iaeme.com
 Study on Comparison between Prefabricated and Conventional Structures

all intents and purposes by every one of the divisions, either to help the assembling or
administrations of any industry.
The material has inherent properties of thermal idleness (permitting a more consistent
temperature both in icy and hot locales) and acoustic protection. Everyone realizes that
concrete does not burn. It is adequately solid to oppose effects, impacts and natural calamities
like earthquakes, tornadoes and floods. The precast solid industry can source an extensive
variety of aggregates locally and offer a colossal assortment of hues and visual impacts.
Construction is the creation of housing or housing units utilizing manufacturing plant
motorization. The industrial facility setting improves reasonableness through a mix of mass
buy of materials, large scale manufacturing get together procedures and the utilization of less
talented work. Construction can take one of three structures: pre-assembled parts, secluded
housing. The construction of lodging segments, for example, windows, entryways, and
cupboards, has for quite some time been a backbone of the development business, minimizing
expenses by lessening nearby, high-cost work. Proceeding with advancement in this feature of
construction gives a developing scope of development items that may additionally decrease
development costs. Particular lodging includes the construction of areas of lodging that are
then amassed nearby in this way decreasing nearby work costs. Measured lodging depends on
pre-assembled, manufacturing plant delivered, simple to-transport particular units, which limit
the cost of generation. Last structures are planned from the back to front utilizing a
progression of standard "modules of utilization" and homes made out of these modules can
possibly be configured in an assortment of routes, as per the specific prerequisite of the site or
customer

1.1. Need of the Study

Purpose of this study is to determine the constraints in introducing prefabrication method of
construction in our industry. To evaluate the different methodologies in both the construction.
Determine the pros and cons. Suggest improvements to include prefabrication methods.
Isabelina Nahmens et al [1] investigated on UK housing market and their usage of
prefabrication. Investigation of past experiences and existing knowledge of prefabrication has
allowed several low cost techniques to be summarized. These minimize the initial investment
and increase the market value of UK house constructions.
Yingchen et al [2] suggested to choose prefabrication is highly based on experience and
familiarity and personal preference rather than rigorous data. Methodical assessment of an
appropriate construction method for a concrete project has been found deficient. This paper
showcases a tool called construction method selection model. It helps to detect and evaluate
the feasibility of a project in prefabrication at early stages.
Krish.RVillaitramani and Dhruv.PHirani [3] reported on deals with the slum clearance in
Mumbai city. Benefits, Limitations and case study of mass housing by prefabrication method
is successfully done. A review has been carried out in this paper to plan, analyze and design
residential building using prefabricated techniques in Mumbai, bearing in mind, the cost of
total construction and planning of the building are done in such a way that the maximum area
utilization is achieved for minimum space and cost.
N. Dineshkumar and P. Kathirvel [4] investigated on the present situation of precast in
India. Suggestion for improvement and study of cost effectiveness for single and multi storey
building. Literature survey was done between prefabricated and conventional structure. A
detailed investigation on both types of construction was done.
OmidReza and Baghchesaraei [5] interprets that prefabrication systems might have some
potential of increased use in future because of their characteristics. This paper clearly deals

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 2 editor@iaeme.com
 V. Karthikeyan, E Vinodhini, P. Aparna, T. Monika, R. Sathish Kumar

with the standardization and customization involved in prefabrication. Standardization and

Customization play such an important role in prefabrication construction process.
Alistair et al [6] suggested that throws light on how there new methods are evolving in
selection of material and construction .This new method can improve productivity and quality
of work. A New system is introduced termed as industrial building system (IBS). This
comparison is done at a site in Thanjavoor .It helps provide an organised body for
determining cost of construction.
PrajjwalPaudel et al [7] reported on the concept of modular structure, experiments,
classifications, necessity of prefabrication and characteristics are explained. It is concluded
with discussing in the benefits of prefabrication and rapid growth of this system in last 15
years.

2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Plan Preparation
Plan preparation is done for the G+7 building to estimate the quantities of conventional and
precast constructions. The plan of the building is shown in Fig.3.1 and 3.2.

Figure 2.1 Details of G+7 building plan in Semmencherry

Figure 2.2 Details of G+7 building plan in vyasarpadi

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 3 editor@iaeme.com
 Study on Comparison between Prefabricated and Conventional Structures

2.2. Estimation of Quantities

Estimation is used to find out the requirement of the materials for both the constructions. The
details of the materials which are used in the construction from the companies were collected.
By getting these details we can estimate the quantities of the materials.

2.2. Project Duration

Project duration of the each construction was collected from the site offices and compares the
time of completion period by using Critical Path method gives the project duration of precast
and conventional construction of the building.

2.3. Cost Analysis

This is the main factor which is considered in the project is to find out the comparison of cost
analysis of building for the prefab construction and conventional construction. In this analysis
we want to consider the resources of labor, material and machineries.

2.4. Data Collection

In the data collection we can also know the procedures of the construction work and also find
out the difficulties of the work. This collection is helpful to find out cost of the project for the
both constructions. We also find the project duration of the construction by using these
enquiries

2.5. Estimated Cost of the Conventional and Prefabricated Structures

The cost of the traditional development was computed through the information gathered from
ordinary development site, which help to discover the cost of the aggregate task .The sub
structure cost is relatively equivalent in the two strategies, the superstructure cost is more in
regular than in pre-assembled structure. Completions is likewise somewhat higher in
customary. Add up to cost of the working for ordinary development is 5cr and for prefab is
4.7cr.

Table 2.1 Conventional Building

SL.NO DESCRIPTION COST
Sub Structure - (Site cleaning, Earthwork, Foundation, Basement, Soil
1. 1.75cr
filling& Consolidation)
2. Super Structure – (Wall panels framing and Roofing slabs.) 2.25cr
Finishing Works – (Electrical, Plumbing Painting, Tiling, and Windows,
3. 1r
Extra items)
Total cost 5cr

Table 2.2 Prefabricated Building

SL.NO DESCRIPTION COST
Sub Structure - (Site cleaning, Earthwork, Foundation, Basement, Soil
1. 1.64cr
filling& Consolidation)
2. Super Structure – (Wall panels framing and Roofing slabs.) 2.11cr
Finishing Works – (Electrical, Plumbing Painting, Tiling, and Windows,
3. 0.94cr
Extra items)
Total cost 4.7cr

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 4 editor@iaeme.com
 V. Karthikeyan, E Vinodhini, P. Aparna, T. Monika, R. Sathish Kumar

2.6. Estimated Time of the Conventional and Prefab Buildings

Table 2.3 Conventional Building
SL.NO DESCRIPTION TIME
Sub Structure - (Site cleaning, Earthwork, Foundation, Basement, Soil
1. 88days
filling& Consolidation)
2. Super Structure – (Wall panels framing and Roofing slabs.) 477days
Finishing Works – (Electrical, Plumbing Painting, Tiling, and Windows,
3. 240days
Extra items)
Total cost 605 days

Table 2.4 Prefabricated Building

SL.NO DESCRIPTION COST
Sub Structure - (Site cleaning, Earthwork, Foundation, Basement, Soil
1. 88days
filling& Consolidation)
2. Super Structure – (Wall panels framing and Roofing slabs.) 208days
Finishing Works – (Electrical, Plumbing Painting, Tiling, and Windows,
3. 154days
Extra items)
Total cost 450days

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this Study, we compare the cost and time taken for convention as well as prefabricated
construction show them through graphical representation and network diagram

3.1. Comparison Graphs of Cost and Time for Conventional and Prefabricated
Structures
Cost for substructure is lesser in prefabricated structures. The cost for superstructure is almost
equal in both cases. Finishes shows a difference of about 6 lakhs lesser in prefabricated. The
time for the sub structure is almost equal in both prefab and conventional construction. The
superstructure in the conventional methods takes 241 days more than prefabricated structure,
which helps to reduce the total duration in prefabrication by large extent. Finishes in
conventional takes 114 more days than prefabricated structure.

Cost For One Block (in crores)

Sub-Structure SuperStructure Finishes

2.25 2.115
1.75 1.645
1 0.94

Conventional Prefabricated

Figure 3.1 Comparison graph for cost

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 5 editor@iaeme.com
 Study on Comparison between Prefabricated and Conventional Structures

Time Taken to Complete One Block (in days)

Sub-Structure SuperStructure Finishes

477
184 236
58 58 70

Coventional Prefabricated
Figure 3.2 Comparison graph for time

3.2. Comparison Graphs of Total Cost and Time for Conventional and
Prefabricated Structures
The total project cost were calculated for both the constructions and shown in the graph. It
represents the cost of the prefabrication construction is lower than the conventional
construction by a small fraction. The difference in cost of the project difference is around 6%
between the prefabrication and conventional construction. This means that the prefabricated
structure proved to be economical.

Total Cost

5cr
4.7cr

Conventional PreFab

Figure 3.3 Total cost comparison graph

Total Time

719
364

Conventional PreFab

Figure 3.4 Total time comparision graph

The total project duration were calculated for both construction and shown in the graph. It
represents the duration of the prefabrication construction is lower than the conventional
construction. The time duration of the project difference is 355 days between the

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 6 editor@iaeme.com
 V. Karthikeyan, E Vinodhini, P. Aparna, T. Monika, R. Sathish Kumar

prefabrication and conventional construction. This contains very low time duration compared
to the conventional method for the structure

3.3. Pert Analysis

The program evaluation and review technique, commonly abbreviated PERT, is a statistical
tool, used in project management, which was designed to analyze and represent the tasks
involved in completing a given project.

3.4. Network Diagrams

Network diagram helps to represent the activities in a sequential form and shows a
distribution in time. Theoretical path method (CPM), or critical path analysis (CPA), is an
algorithm for scheduling a set of project activities. It is commonly used in conjunction with
the program evaluation and review technique

Figure 3.5 Network Diagram for Prefabricated Building

CRITICAL PATH –ABCDEFGIKMOPQ (553)

Figure 3.6 Network Diagram for Prefabricated Building

CRITICAL PATH –ABCEFGILNOPQ (397)

From these figures we can determine the various sequence and order in which the
construction activities occurred and also the duration of each activities. The various sequence
and paths are taken and the duration of each path possible is found to determine the critical
path for both the network diagrams

4. CONCLUSIONS
The fundamental objectives of the work have been accomplished. The aggregate cost and
length have been resolved for both prefab and ordinary development .And additionally we had
thought about the focal points and detriments of both construction and traditional
development by the overview directed. The examination shows there isn't a colossal cost
contrast between the techniques (6%), prefab being more temperate in tall structures when
contrasted with regular. In the meantime the prefab development diminishes the undertaking
length, lessened by 335 days when contrasted with the ordinary. Because of overview we had

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 7 editor@iaeme.com
 Study on Comparison between Prefabricated and Conventional Structures

realized that the prefab development have more points of interest and obtainment in
industrialized, substantial frameworks. Materials that have turned out to be profoundly
particular, with specialist vacillations in cost and accessibility, can be accumulated at
construction shops or processing plants. Moreover, the institutionalization of building
segments makes it workable for development to occur where the crude material is minimum
costly. To decide if construction is a decent choice you have to consider.
 Proper cost analysis and planning can help to achieve at an economical estimate for prefab
construction. Educating student’s trainers and even labourers more about prefabrication in
depth will help provide more trained and educated work force for prefabrication.
 It can also change the conventional mindset of people and accept to try modern construction
methods. Use of standardized elements from companies that have variety of options to choose
from can help make structure unique.
 One time investment in good quality lifting machines and proper maintenance can help in
further savings.

REFERENCES
[1] Isabelina Nahmens and Michael A.Mullen (2011) “Lean Homebuilding: Lessons Learned
from a Precast Concrete” Panelize Journal of architectural engineering, Vol. 17, No. 4,
pp.110-153
[2] Yingchen, GulEokudan, David Rriley (2010) “Decision support for construction method
selection in concrete buildings: Prefabrication adoption and optimization” Automation in
Construction 19 (2010), pp. 665–675.
[3] Krish.RVillaitramani and Dhruv.PHirani (2014) “Prefabricated Construction for Mass
Housing in Mumbai” International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced
Engineering (IJIRAE) vol 1 ISSN: 2349-2163, pp. 134-138
[4] N.Dineshkumar and P.Kathirvel (2015) “Comparative study on construction with cast in
situ construction of residential building” ISSN 2348 – 7968, pp.527-532
[5] Omid Reza Baghchesaraei, AlirezaBaghchesaraei, MeltemVatanKaptan (2015) “Using
Prefabrication Systems in Building Construction” International Journal of Applied
Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Vol 10, pp 44258-44262
[6] Alistair G. F. Gibb; and Andrew R. J. Dainty (2012) “Strategies for Integrating the Use of
Off-Site Production Technologies in House Building” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management ,Vol. 138, No. 11,pp.170-192
[7] Prajjwal Paudel, SagarDulal, Madan Bhandari, Amit Kumar Tomar (2016) “ Study on
Pre-fabricated Modular and Steel Structures” SSRG International Journal of Civil
Engineering (SSRG-IJCE) – Vol 3 Issue 5,pp.150-157
[8] Christian Thuesen and Lars Hvam (2012) “Rethinking the business model in construction
by the use of off-site- "system deliverance" - the shaft project” Journal of Architectural
Engineering Vol. 6, No.20594, pp.314-325
[9] Neville Boyd; Malik M. A. Khalfan, Ph.D.; Tayyab Maqsood, Ph.D. (2013) ”Off-Site
Construction of Apartment Buildings” Journal of Architectural engineering, Vol. 19, No 1

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 8 editor@iaeme.com