Construction And Cost Reduction Techniques - BY

LAURIE BAKER

SUBMITTED BY-
- PROSANTA DAS 09620
- SANDEEP DEB 09627
- SIDHANT 09638
GENERALISED
TECHNIQUES
 • Modern houses are expensive and does
not take into account the locally-available
inexpensive materials or the local climatic
conditions or actual needs of the
occupants.
• Modern houses is ‘cubist’ in design and
uses a lot of cement plaster. The roof does
not protect the walls from rain and sun
with that it is not very comfortable or
convenient to live in.
• Traditional houses are less expensive
and does not use up unnecessarily,
material that are in short supply
needed for other uses.
• Traditional houses has sloping roof
which quickly shed rain , protects walls
from getting damp and from absorbing
heat from the sun.
 • HOUSE BUILD IN THE MIDDLE OF
THE TERRACE SITE IS LESS
EXPENSIVE.

• THE BUILDING NEAR TO THE EDGE

OF THE TERRACE IS MORE EXPENSIVE
AS IT USES THE EXTRA AND MORE
COSTLY FOUNDATION AND BASEMENT
WALL.
 • WHEN EXCAVATING THE TRENCH FOR THE
HOUSE’ FOUNDATION , LABOURERS DIG OUT
AND THROW OUT THE SOIL IN ALL DIRECTIONS,
ESPECIALLY OUTWARDS. AFTER BASEMENT
WALLS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED THEY THEN
SHOVEL ALL THE SOIL BACK AGAIN AS
INFILLING.

•IF THEY SHOVEL THE SOIL INWARDS IT WILL

ALREADY BE WHERE IT IS WANTED FOR
INFILLING AND SOME OF THE EXPENSES OF
THE EXCAVATION AND INFILLING WILL HAVE
BEEN SAVED.
• IF THE SITE IS SLOPING ONE , LESS EXCAVATION AND FILLING UP IS
NEEDED IF THE BUILDING IS PLACED PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS.
 • THIS IS LESS COSTLY BECAUSE THE EIGHTEEN-
INCH STONE WALL SURROUNDING A ROOM OF
A PARTICULAR AREA IS LARGER IN THE UPPER
SKETCH.

• THIS IS LESS COSTLY BECAUSE THE EIGHTEEN-

INCH STONE WALL SURROUNDING A ROOM OF
A PARTICULAR AREA IS LARGER IN THE UPPER
SKETCH.
• BUILT-IN SEATS , BEDS , WORKING TABLES, ETC. CAN EASILY AND INEXPENSIVELY BE
HAD , MERELY BY BUILDING THE BASEMENT WALL TO A SUITABLE HEIGHT AS SHOWN
THE LOWER SKETCH.
• FROM STRUCTURAL POINT OF VIEW , A
FOUR-AND-A-HALF INCH THICK BRICK WALL
IS OFTEN ADEQUATE FOR SMALL SINGLE-
STOREY HOUSES, AND CERTAINLY INTERIOR
PARTITION WALLS.
• AN ISOLATED FOUR-AND-A-HALF INCH
BRICK WALL IS WEAK AND EITHER FALL OVER,
OR BE KNOCKED OVER , OR CAN BE CRUSHED
BY THE WEIGHT OF THE ROOF IT CARRIES.
• BUT IT CAN BE PERFECTLY STRONG AND
CAPABLE OF CARRYING THE LOAD OF ROOFS
AND FLOORS IF IT HAS EITHER THIN
BUTTRESSES EVERY FIVE OR SIX FEET OR IF
RECESSES ARE CREATED.
• If nine-inch wall thick wall is rquired,
then twenty-five percent of the total
number of bricks, and of the cost of
the wall, can be saved by using a
‘rat-trap’ bond.
• It is simple to build, looks well, has
better insulation properties and is as
strong as the ordinary solid nine-inch
thick brick wall.
• VERY OFTEN A LINTEL IS NOT NECESSARY
OVER DOOR AND WINDOW OPENINGS UP TO
FOUR FEET IN WIDTH.
• ORDINARY BRICK-ON-EDGE IS ALL THAT IS
REQUIRED.
• IF SOMETHING STRONGER IS NECESSARY, A
HOLLOW ARRANGEMENT OF BRICKS –ON-
EDGE FILLED WITH ONE OR TWO STEEL RODS
IN CONCRETE WILL CARRY VERY LARGE
WEIGHT OF WALL AND ROOF ABOVE.
• THIS TYPE OF LINTEL IS LESS THAN HALF THE
COST OF ORTHODOX REINFORCED CONCRETE
LINTEL.
• ARCHES ARE LESS EXPANSIVE THAN REINFORCED LINTEL.
• PLANKS CAN BE SCREWED TOGETHER BY
STRAP IRON HINGES TO FORM A DOOR, AND
THIS CARRIED BY ‘HOLD-FASTS’ BUILT INTO
THE WALL, THUS ELIMINATING THE DOOR
FRAME TOGETHER.
• A JALI OR ‘HONEY-COMBED’ WALL IS JUST
AS EFFECTIVE AS WINDOWS.
• FAR FROM BEING A LOT MORE COSTLY THAN
THE BASIC WALL, IF MADE OF BRICK IT CAN BE
LESS COSTLY THAN THE HOUSE WALL.
FILLER SLAB
• AS THERE IS QUITE A LOT OF
UNNECESSARY CONCRETE IN AN
ORTHODOX RCC SLAB WE CAN REPLACE
SOME OF THIS REDUNDANT CONCRETE
WITH ANY LIGHT- WEIGHT, CHEAP
MATERIAL IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE
OVERALL COST OF THE SLAB.
• THE ALTERNATIVE RCC ROOF IS FILLER
SLAB.
• FOR FILLER SLAB WE CAN USE LIGHT-
WEIGHT BRICKS, MANGALORE OR
COUNTRY TILES ETC.
THE FILLER SLAB IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT FOR ROOFS WHICH ARE SIMPLY
SUPPORTED, THE UPPER PART OF THE SLAB IS SUBJECTED TO COMPRESSIVE FORCES
AND THE LOWER PART OF THE SLAB EXPERIENCE TENSILE FORCES. CONCRETE IS VERY
GOOD IN WITHSTANDING COMPRESSIVE FORCES AND STEEL BEARS THE LOAD DUE TO
TENSILE FORCES. THUS THE LOWER TENSILE REGION OF THE SLAB DOES NOT NEED ANY
CONCRETE EXCEPT FOR HOLDING THE STEEL REINFORCEMENTS TOGETHER.
THEREFORE IN A CONVENTIONAL RCC SLAB LOT OF CONCRETE IS WASTED AND IT
NEEDS EXTRA REINFORCEMENT DUE TO ADDED LOAD OF THE CONCRETE WHICH CAN
OTHERWISE BE REPLACED BY LOW-COST AND LIGHT WEIGHT FILLER MATERIALS,
WHICH WILL REDUCE THE DEAD WEIGHT AS WELL AS THE COST OF THE SLAB TO 25%
(AS 40% LESS STEEL IS USED AND 30% LESS CONCRETE)
 SAVING ON COST THE SAVINGS ON COST CAN BE FROM 15 PER CENT TO 25 PER
CENT. BUT DESIGNING A FILLER SLAB REQUIRES A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO
DETERMINE THE SPACING BETWEEN THE REINFORCEMENT BARS. THERMAL
INSULATION THE AIR POCKET FORMED BY THE CONTOURS OF THE TILES MAKES AN
EXCELLENT THERMAL INSULATION LAYER. THE DESIGN INTEGRITY OF A FILLER SLAB
INVOLVES CAREFUL PLANNING TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE NEGATIVE ZONES AND
REINFORCEMENT AREAS.
FUNICULAR ROOFS –
AN ALTERNATE TO RCC ROOFS

THE FUNICULAR SHELL ROOF IS ONE SUCH COMPRESSION

STRUCTURE, WHICH ENSURES CONSERVATION OF NATURAL
RESOURCES BY UTILISING NATURAL MATERIALS EFFECTIVELY
AND OPTIMISING THE USE OF EXPENSIVE STEEL AND
CEMENT.

FURTHER , THE ARCH DISTRIBUTES THE POINT LOAD IN ALL

DIRECTION EQUALLY THUS , IS ABLE TO WITHSTAND IMPACT
LOADING AT ANY POINT.
• DIAGONAL GRID OF FUNICULAR SHELL GIVES THE
ILLUSION OF A LARGER SPACE.
• ELIMINATE USE OF HIGH ENERGY STEEL REINFOCEMENT
USED IN THE CONVENTIONAL RCC ROOFS.
• ALLOWS EFFICIENT USE OF WASTE MATERIAL AND
PROVIDES PERSONALITY, COLOR AND TEXTURES,
• MINIMISES REQUIRMENT OF INTERNAL PLASTERS.
• PROVIDES ROOFING AT LOWER COSTS.
• A DOUBLY CURVED STRUCTURE ON EDGE BEAM ENSURES OPTIMAL
UTILISATION OF STEEL AND CEMENT.
• CAN BE DEMOULDED EVERY 48 HOURS.
• A SIMPLE YET SPLENDID ROOFING SYSTEM USING NATURAL
MATERIALS AS TECHNOLOGY AS OPPOSED TO THE MONOTONOUS
AND COMPLEX CONVENTIONAL SYSTEM.
• FUNICULAR SHELLS CAN TAKE ANY SHAPE – SQUARE,
RECTANGULAR,TRAPEZIUM, TIAANGULAR OR ANY OTHER SHAPE. THE
NACK LIES IN THE CASTING OF THE MOULD.
• THE UPPER HALF OF THE EDGE BEAM IS REQUIRED TO HOLD THE
STIRRUPS. IT IS CAST ALONG WITH THE FUNICULAR SHELL;
THEREFORE,IT CAN ALSO BE A TRIANGULAR SECTION.
• THE FUNICULAR SHELL CAN CARRY VARIOUS CONDUITS , TOILET PIPES
IN THE AREA ABOVE THE BRICK-BAT LAYER. THESE CAN RUN ALONG
THE PERIPHERY WHERE THE MAXIMUM DEPTH IS AVAILABLE.
• FUNICULAR SHELL ROOF FACILITATES THE INSTALLMENT OF FIXTURES
CEILING FANS, LIGHT FIXTURES ETC. A SKYLIGHT CAN BE INTRODUCED
IN THE ROOF . THIS CAN BE ACHIEVED BY LEAVING A HOLLOW WHILE
CASTING , USING THE INHERENT STRENGTH OF A RING IN
COMPRESSION.
• THE FUNICULAR SHELL ALLOWS AMPLE FLEXIBILITY IN DESIGN.
 FRAMES
• FRAMES ARE WELDED FROM
INCEPTION. THESE MEMBERS ARE
MORE RESILIENT THAN REINFORCED
CEMENT CONCRETE AND HAVE A
LARGER STRENGTH EVEN WITHOUT
THE CONCRETE COMPONENT.
• THIS FORM OF REINFORCEMENT CONSUMES 30% LESS STEEL.
• THEY PROVIDE FOR A SIMPLE ASSEMBLY OF BEAMS WITH
CONTINUITY BARS AT JUNCTIONS IN VARIOUS DIRECTIONS AND
REQUIRE MINIMUM FORMWORK FOR FILLING.
• THEY ARE STABLE WITHOUT CONCRETE AS CONCRETE IS
REDUCED TO A FILLER MATERIAL.
• THE MEMBERS CAN BE FILLED WITH CONCRETE AT ANY POINT
OF TIME SUBSEQUENTLY.
SPECIFIC DETAILS AND
TECHNIQUES
1. FOUNDATION
• NORMALLY THE FOUNDATION COST COMES TO ABOUT 10-15% OF THE TOTAL BUILDING
AND USUALLY FOUNDATION DEPTH OF 3 TO 4 FT. IS ADOPTED FOR SINGLE OR DOUBLE
STORY BUILDING AND ALSO THE CONCRETE BED OF 6” IS USED FOR THE FOUNDATION
WHICH COULD BE AVOIDED.
• IT IS RECOMMENDED TO ADOPT A FOUNDATION DEPTH OF 2 FT. FOR NORMAL SOIL LIKE
GRAVELY SOIL, RED SOIL ETC.
• USE THE UNCOURSED RUBBLE MASONNERY WITH THE BOND STONES AND GOOD
PACKING.
• SIMILARLY THE FOUNDATION WIDTH IS RATIONALISED TO 2 FT.(0.6 M).
• TO AVOD CRACKS FORMATION IN FOUNDATION THE MASONEARY SHALL BE
THOROUGHLY PACKED WITH CEMECT MORTAR OF 1:8 BOULDER AND BOND STONES AT
REGULAR SINTERVALS.
• IT IS FURTHER SUGGESTED TO ADOPT ARCH FOUNDATION IN ORDINARY SOIL FOR
EFFECTING REDUCTION IN CONSTRUCTION COST UPTO 400%.
• THIS KIND OF FOUNDATION WILL HELP IN BRIDGING THE LOOSE POCKECTS OF SOIL
WHICH OCCURES ALONG THE FOUNDATION.
• IN THE CASE OF BLACK COTTON AND OTHER SOFT SOILS IT IS RECOMMEND TO USE
UNDER REAM PILE FOUNDATION WHICH SAVES ABOUT 20-25% IN COST OVER THE
CONVENTIONAL METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION.
REAMED PILE FOUNDATION
ARCH FOUNDATION
2.WALLING
• WALL THIKNESS OF 6-9” IS RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION IN THE CONTRUCTION OF
WALLS ALL ROUND THE BUILDING AND 41/2” FOR INSIDE WALLS.
• IT IS SUGGESTED TO USE BURNT BRICKS WHICH ARE IMMERSED IN WATER FOR 20 HOURS
AND THEN SHALL BE USED FOR THE WALL

A) RAT-TRAP BOND WALL

• IT IS CAVITY WALL CONSTRUCTION WITH
ADDED ADVANTAGE OF THERMAL COMFORT
AND REDUCTION IN THE QUANTITY OF BRICKS
REQUIRED FOR MASONERY WORK.
• BY ADOPTING THIS METHOD OF BONDING OF
BRICK MASONERY COMPARED TO
TRADITIONAL ENGLISH OF FLEMISH BOND
MASONERY , IT IS POSSIBLE TO REDUCE IN THE
MATERIAL COST OF BRICKS BY 25% AND
ABOUT 10-15% IN THE MASONERY COST
• BY ADOPTING RAT-TRAP BOND METHOD ONE
CAN CREATE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING WALL
SURFACE AND PLASTERING CAN BE AVOIDED.
COMPARISON
B)CONCRETE BLOCK WALLING

• IN VIEW OF HIGH ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY BURNT BRICK IT

IS SUGGESTED TO USE CONCRETE BLOCK (BLOCK HOLLOW AND
SOLID) WHICH CONSUMES ABOUT ONLY 1/3 OF THE ENERGY OF
THE BURNT BRICKS IN ITS PRODUCTION.
• BY USING CONCRETE BLOCK MASONERY THE WALL THICKNESS CAN BE REDUCED FROM 20 -15 CMS.
• CONCRETE BLOCK MASONERY SAVES MORTAR CONSUMPTION,SPEEDY CONSTRUCTION OF WALL
RESULTING IN HIGHER OUTPUT OF LABOUR, PLASTERING CAN BE AVOIDED THEREBY AN OVERALL
SAVING OF 10-25% CAN BE ACHIEVED.

C)SOIL CEMENT BLOCK TECHNOLOGY

• IT IS AN ENERGY EFFICIENT METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION WHERE SOIL MIXED WITH 5%
AND ABOVE CEMENT AND PRESSED IN HAND OPERATED MACHINE AND CURED WELL
AND THEN USED IN THE MASONERY.
• THIS MASONERY DOSEN’T REQUIRE PLASTERING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WALL.
• THE OVERALL ECONOMY THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED WITH THE SOIL CEMENT
TECHNOLOGY IS ABOUT 15-20%
3.DOORS AND WINDOWS
• IT IS SUGGESTED NOT TO USE WOOD FOR DOORS
AND WINDOWS AND IN ITS PLACE CONCRETE OR
STEEL SECTION FRAMES SHALL BE USED FOR
ACHIEVING SAVING IN COST UPTO 30-40%.
• SIMILLARLY FOR SHUTTERS COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABLE BOARDS, FIBRE OR WOODEN PRACTICLE
BOARDS ETC. , SHALL BE USED FOR REDUCING THE
COST BY ABOUT 25%.
• BY ADOPTING BRICK JELLY WORK AND PRECAST
COMPONENTS EFFECTIVE VENTILLATION COULD BE
PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING AND ALSO THE
CONSTRUCTION COST COULD BE SAVED UPTO 50%
OVER THE WINDOW COMPONENTS.
• ALUMINIUM, IRON,CONCRETE FRAMES CAN BE
USED.
4.LINTELS AND CHAJJAS
• THE TRADITIONAL R.C.C. LINTELS WHICH ARE COSTLY CAN BE REPLACED BY BRICK
ARCHES FOR SMALL SPANS AND SAVE CONSTRUCTION COST UPTO 30-40% OVER THE
TRADITIONAL METOD OF CONSTRUCTION .
• BY ADOPTING ARCHES OF DIFFERENT SHAPES A GOOD ARCHITECTURAL PLEASING
APPEARANCE CAN BE GIVEN TO THE EXTERNAL WALL SURFACES OF THE BRICK
MASONERY.
 Stained glass effect

Another cost effective

Baker window
 An improvised Baker grill
made of bits and pieces

These conical structures are

often used by Baker
for air circulation
Water tank for storing rain
harvested water

Brick jali
 Typical traditional tiling
used in South India

Arches
Construction And Cost Reduction Techniques –
BY LAURIE BAKER

SUBMITTED BY-
- PROSANTA DAS 09620
- SANDEEP DEB 09627
- SIDDHANT 09638