ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN DELHI |DISSERTATION/ RESEARCH PAPER|

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

Sector - 16 C, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078

DISSERTATION

2023-2024

ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN DELHI

B. ARCH FOURTH YEAR

CHANDAN KUMAR

04117301619

GUIDE

Prof. PARVESH KUMAR

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

Sector 16C, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110078

APPROVAL CERTIFICATE

Research Paper Title: ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN DELHI

The following study is hereby approved as a creditable work on the approved subject, carried out and presented in a manner sufficiently satisfactory to warrant its acceptance as a prerequisite for the Bachelor of Architecture program.

It is to be understood that by this approval, the undersigned does not necessarily endorse or approve any statement made, opinion expressed or conclusion drawn therein, but approves the study for the purpose for which it is submitted.

Date:

Submitted by:

Chandan Kumar (4A) – 04117301619

Signature of the Author

Guide:

Prof. Parvesh Kumar

Signature of the Guide

Prof. Avtar Singh | Prof. Parvesh Kumar

Dissertation Co-ordinators

Signature of the Juror

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We have taken efforts in this research paper. However, it would not have been possible without the kind support and help of many individuals and organizations. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

I am highly indebted to Prof. Parvesh Kumar for their guidance and constant supervision as well as for providing necessary information regarding the paper & also for their support in completing the paper. I would like to express my gratitude towards Prof. Chitrekha Kabre Faculty of SPA Delhi, & Prof. Chirag Varshney Faculty of USAP and also I would like to express my gratitude towards other faculties of USAP for their kind cooperation and encouragement throughout.

My thanks and appreciation also go to my colleague friends in developing the project and people who have willingly helped me out with their abilities.

I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to my parents for their concern and appreciation.

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 ABSTRACT

Affordable housing is a major issue in Delhi, as the city is one of the most expensive places to live in India. However, there are some initiatives taken by the government and private organizations to make affordable housing available for the people.

The Delhi Development Authority is the primary agency responsible for the development of affordable housing in Delhi. They have launched various schemes like the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana and there are a few initiatives taken by the State government and private organizations to promote affordable housing using alternative construction technology in Delhi. The Delhi government has launched a program called Mukhyamantri Awas Yojana, which aims to provide affordable housing to the urban poor. Under this scheme, the government is promoting the use of green building technology and prefabricated housing to reduce the construction cost and improve energy efficiency.

Moreover, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a non-governmental organization, has been working towards promoting CSEBs in Delhi. The CSE has demonstrated the use of CSEBs in various construction projects, and they have also conducted training programs for masons and engineers to promote the use of CSEBs.

While there are some initiatives taken by the government and private organizations to promote affordable housing using alternative construction technology in Delhi, more efforts need to be taken to make it accessible to everyone. It is essential to create awareness among the people and encourage the adoption of these technologies to address the affordable housing problem in Delhi. This study to understand various housing technologies and evaluate the Energy efficiency criteria that are used to choose an appropriate technology.

1.2 KEYWORDS

Affordable housing, PMAY (Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana), Alternative construction technology, Energy Efficiency, BMTPC.

1.3 BACKGROUND

Housing is a fundamental human need and a key determinant of living standards. Affordable Housing (AH) is a critical social and political objective in democratic countries, aiming to ensure

that every family has a suitable shelter. In India, the pressing issue of inadequate housing has prompted the exploration of alternative options for Affordable Housing. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in 2013, approximately 1.77 million people in India lack proper housing, with around 10 million houses in a dilapidated state and approximately 7 million people living in uninhabitable conditions (MHA, 2011).

To address this challenge, it is crucial to prioritize energy-efficient housing construction techniques without compromising on quality. Additionally, closely monitoring the construction costs of housing projects is essential. This dissertation aims to thoroughly examine various alternative technologies in the housing sector, with a specific focus on Affordable Housing projects in Delhi. The research will evaluate the relative significance of energy efficiency in achieving sustainable housing solutions.

1.4 ISSUES IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTOR

● Land expenses are the primary cost factor in housing projects. It is crucial to ensure that land costs are reasonable to facilitate the transfer of benefits to end-users in affordable housing construction. In urban city centers, land costs tend to be significantly high, often exceeding 50% of the total project expenses for developers. This situation poses a major challenge for affordable housing projects as it renders them financially unfeasible.

● Stringent regulations on construction volume in centrally located areas of large urban centers have resulted in a shift of development towards peripheral regions that lack adequate infrastructure facilities. This situation arises due to excessive control and restrictions imposed on the extent of construction activities in highly accessible and prime areas. As a consequence, developers are compelled to seek alternative locations on the outskirts of urban centers, where infrastructure provisions may be insufficient or underdeveloped.

● Construction costs can pose a significant challenge for affordable housing projects, as they can disproportionately impact the viability of such initiatives. In comparison to the construction costs, the profit margins for developers tend to increase exponentially when evaluating projects across different segments, ranging from affordable to mid-segment and premium to luxury. Therefore, it becomes crucial to exercise control over these costs to ensure that housing projects remain affordable. By managing and minimizing construction expenses, the overall affordability of housing projects can be maintained, making them accessible to a broader range of individuals.

● The process of land use conversion, building approvals, and construction permits in India often spans a lengthy period of 18-30 months. This extended duration can significantly contribute to increased project costs for developers, primarily due to additional cost escalation resulting from the prolonged holding period.

● The absence of available and marketable land parcels in crucial areas presents a challenge for affordable housing developments. Large tracts of land owned by public entities, such

as railways, remain unutilized or underutilized. These land holdings often go unmonitored and are susceptible to the formation of slums and squatter settlements. This situation not only hinders the timely development of these land holdings but also introduces potential delays or obstacles in utilizing them for affordable housing projects.

● Individuals belonging to the Low Income Group (LIG) and Economically Weaker Section (EWS) face limited access to organized financial services. A significant proportion of these individuals work in the unorganized sector, which often leads to a lack of proper documentation such as proof of address or salary slips. Consequently, they are considered a high-risk category by financial institutions, making it difficult for them to secure financing for purchasing homes. This limited access to formal finance further exacerbates the challenges faced by the LIG and EWS segments in obtaining affordable housing.

1.5 AIM

Aim of this Research to understand the various alternative construction technologies suitable for affordable housing under PMAY(U).

1.6 OBJECTIVE

● To understand the different alternative construction techniques in Foreign and Indian scenarios for affordable housing.

● To estimate and analyze the energy efficiency of alternative construction techniques under PMAY(U) using energy efficient Tools and to evaluate the criteria that are used to choose an appropriate technology.

1.7 SCOPE AND LIMITATION

● The study was carried out within Delhi. The region was selected for the study because it has the highest need of affordable housing which is a resultant of rural-urban migration.

● Estimation and analysis of the energy efficiency aspects of affordable housing to be built under PMAY-U only.

● Simulation done only with some technologies which U-value was given.

● The study is limited to the available data and information on affordable housing.

1.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

Alternative construction technology (ACT) is a term that refers to the use of innovative and sustainable methods and materials for building affordable houses. ACT aims to reduce the cost, time and environmental impact of construction, while improving the quality, durability and

performance of the houses. ACT is especially significant for affordable housing in Delhi, where there is a huge demand for housing due to rapid urbanization and population growth. Moreover, Delhi faces various challenges such as land scarcity, high land prices, pollution, climate change and natural disasters. Therefore, ACT can offer various benefits for affordable housing in Delhi, such as:

● Enhancing the energy efficiency and thermal comfort of the houses by using passive design strategies such as optimal orientation, shading devices, natural ventilation, daylighting, etc. These strategies can reduce the heat gain, improve the indoor air quality and lighting levels, and lower the energy consumption for cooling and lighting . The factors affecting these strategies include building orientation, window placement and size, shading devices, built form and shape, settlement pattern, and locally available materials.

● Increasing the resilience and disaster resistance of the houses by using durable and robust materials and techniques, such as reinforced concrete, steel frames, prefabricated modules, etc. These technologies can withstand earthquakes, floods, fire and other hazards .

● Promoting social inclusion and empowerment of the local communities by involving them in the design and construction process, providing them with skills training and employment opportunities, and ensuring their participation and ownership of the houses.

Thus, Alternative construction technology can play a vital role in addressing the social, economic and environmental aspects of affordable housing in Delhi, and contribute to the sustainable development of the city and the country.

CHAPTER-2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Affordable housing is a pressing issue in India, especially in urban areas like Delhi, where the demand for housing exceeds the supply and the cost of construction is high. To address this challenge, various alternative construction technologies have been proposed and implemented to reduce the cost, time and environmental impact of building affordable houses. These technologies include Glass Fiber Reinforced Gypsum Technology (GFRG), Precast Modular Technology, Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Construction System, and others. However, these technologies also need to consider the energy efficiency aspects of the buildings, both during construction and operation, to ensure sustainability and affordability in the long term. Energy efficiency in buildings involves among these aspects, passive building design plays a crucial role in reducing the heat gain, enhancing the daylighting and promoting the natural ventilation of the buildings, especially in warm-humid climates like Delhi. Heat gain refers to the amount of heat that enters the building through various sources such as solar radiation, conduction, convection and internal heat generation. Daylighting refers to the use of natural light to illuminate the interior spaces of the building, reducing the need for artificial lighting. Natural ventilation refers to the movement of fresh air through the building without mechanical means, improving the indoor air quality and thermal comfort. These passive design strategies are influenced by various factors such as building orientation, window placement and size, shading devices, built form and shape, settlement pattern, and locally available materials.

This literature review aims to provide an overview of these alternative construction technologies and their energy efficiency aspects such as factors affecting heat gain, daylighting and natural ventilation for affordable housing in Delhi. A government initiative to source and adopt innovative and sustainable technologies for mass housing projects.

Table 1 Research Paper synthesize (Source : Author)

Table 2 Research Paper synthesize (Source : Author)

2.2 HOUSING INITIATIVE GLOBAL AND INDIAN SCENARIO

Affordability is defined based on a given context. To ascertain the affordable living, many countries came up with various programs and schemes. One such scheme is “Program Minha casa Minha Vida” of Brazil which was instituted in 2009 (Paulsen and Sposto, 2013). This scheme focused on developing over 7 million households (out of which 3.4 million are new) by providing financial assistance. Similarly, “Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP) houses” of South Africa is also an example of large-scale housing projects in the world.

The Government of India took its initial steps towards addressing the housing scarcity issue in the late 1980s, during the seventh five-year plan. The demand for housing in the country had been increasing significantly since independence. In response, the government established the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation in 2004 to address the housing needs and improve the quality of urban living.

Since its establishment, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation has implemented various schemes and programs related to housing, employment, transportation, health, and cleanliness. One of the programs launched by the ministry is the Rajiv Awas Yojana, which aims to provide housing for the urban poor. Additionally, the ministry launched the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY): Housing for All program, which focuses on ensuring affordable housing for all citizens.

The ministry consists of several entities, including the (CPHEEO), Public Sector Undertakings, subordinate offices, attached offices, and various statutory and autonomous organizations. The CPHEEO played a significant role in drafting the PMAY: Housing for All policy, while the (HUDCO) provided funding. Other supporting organizations include the (CPWD), Town & Country Planning Organization, (BMTPC), (DDA), and (CGWHO).

Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (PMAY) is a significant social housing scheme initiated by the GoI and implemented by the (MoHUA). The primary objective of this scheme is to provide affordable housing with basic amenities to the masses across India.

The PMAY mission aims to address the housing shortage faced by economically weaker sections (EWS) of society, including slum dwellers. It aims to ensure that every eligible household has access to a permanent house. The mission focuses on constructing houses with a carpet area of approximately 30-60 square meters, along with basic civic infrastructure, for the EWS population.

By implementing PMAY, the government aims to improve the living conditions of the economically disadvantaged sections of society and provide them with dignified and sustainable housing solutions. The scheme has a nationwide reach and seeks to bridge the gap in housing availability and affordability for the targeted population.

(Source:Author)

2.3 PAST REVIEW OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING TECHNOLOGIES

Various low-cost construction technologies have been developed and implemented worldwide, and some of them are relevant in the Indian context. Ongoing technological advancements are also introducing new materials for testing and exploration. For instance, the use of filler slabs instead of traditional slabs has the potential to reduce construction costs by 25% (Srivastava and Kumar, 2018). Furthermore, the establishment of cooperatives to provide alternative raw materials is expected to contribute to cost reduction by 20-30%.

In terms of sustainability, a life cycle study suggests that bricks made from cotton mill waste, recovered paper mill waste, and rice husk ash are more environmentally friendly compared to bricks made from burnt clay or fly ash. However, it should be noted that bricks made of clay can also be an eco-friendly choice in certain cases.

Another technology gaining attention is the use of bamboo-reinforced prefabricated wall panels. These panels are 56% lighter, 40% cheaper, and exhibit good strength when compared to partition brick walls, making them suitable for low-cost construction (Puri et al., 2017).

Housing schemes initiated by the Government of India

These examples highlight the potential for reducing costs and enhancing sustainability through the adoption of innovative low-cost construction technologies. By exploring alternative materials and construction methods, the construction industry can make significant strides towards achieving affordable and environmentally conscious housing solutions.

One of the significant challenges in implementing sustainable low-cost housing schemes is finding suitable land near the workplace of the residents. Long-distance commuting increases carbon footprint and undermines the sustainability goals (Goebel, 2007).

To address the issue of embodied energy in construction materials, (Larasati et al. 2017) proposed a method in Indonesia. They found a negative correlation between the building area and the embodied energy, suggesting that reducing the size of the building can help decrease embodied energy. This study emphasizes the importance of socializing embodied energy values to stakeholders, as it can have a significant impact on reducing the overall embodied energy in construction.

By focusing on locating housing projects near the workplace and promoting the awareness of embodied energy among stakeholders, sustainable low-cost housing schemes can make strides in reducing carbon footprint and improving energy efficiency. These approaches contribute to the overall sustainability goals and create environmentally conscious housing solutions.

2.4 ALTERNATE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM

With the global buzz about sustainability, reduction of carbon emissions, climate change mitigation strategies, the use of greener good practices in the construction sector has gained importance and has become relevant today. BMTPC under MoHua, Govt. of India has been promoting sustainable technologies for field level applications since 1990, however, during the last few years, BMTPC is in the process of mainstreaming alternate housing technologies other than conventional ones which are suitable for affordable mass housing especially in urban areas. These alternate construction systems offer a basket of appropriate structural systems which are not only superior to the existing RCC/load bearing construction practices but also deliver quality, safe & sustainable houses at a much faster rate with much improved functional performance. These are the some technologies along with other potential technologies under broad classification are as follows:

These systems are being used world over successfully and now most of the states in India along with govt. agencies & departments, construction agencies, development authorities & housing boards have shown interest & are willing to adopt them. About 1.4 million houses are being

Table 4 Construction Technology Recommended by BMTPC for affordable housing

(Source : Author)

constructed with alternate construction systems in India under PMAY-U and other state-run schemes. These systems are sustainable systems and have potential to replace conventional methods of construction.

2.5 SELECTION OF SOME TECHNOLOGY BASIS OF THEIR U-VALUE

● Modular Tunnel form

● Insulating Concrete forms

● Plaswall Panel System

● Rapid Panel

● Quick Build 3D Panels

● Waffle-Crete Building System

● Walltec Hollow core Concrete Panel

2.5.1 MODULAR TUNNEL FORM

Tunnel formwork is a type of engineering formwork that replaces the traditional steel/plywood shuttering system. It consists of two half shells that form a room or cell when joined together, and several cells make up an apartment. This formwork allows the walls and slabs to be cast in one pour of concrete. Each phase is a part of the structure that will be cast in one day. The phasing depends on the schedule and the amount of floor area that can be covered in one day.

Some benefits of tunnel formwork are:

● It saves construction time.

● It reduces waste.

● It improves earthquake resistance with monolithic construction.

● It minimizes the number of joints with a single pour compared to other technologies.

● It produces a smooth surface that can be painted or wallpapered directly

Some challenges of tunnel formwork are:

● External walls made with RCC using this technology will have a high heat transfer.

● Modifications to these walls are very hard as they are structural.

● The formwork has little room for variations and works only if the units are repeated.

Figure 1 Modular Tunnel Form (Source: BMTPC)

2.5.2 INSULATING CONCRETE FORMS

Insulating Concrete Forms (ICF) and Monolithic Insulated Concrete Systems (MICS) consist of expandable polystyrene (EPS) panels with two walls, separated by hard plastic ties at a fixed distance of 150mm. These panels are assembled on-site to create a shuttering system. By pouring concrete into the hollow space, a solid wall is formed, which provides structural support for floors and roofs. Additionally, the EPS panels serve as insulation, offering thermal protection.

Some benefits of ICF and MICS are:

● They save construction time.

● They reduce labor demand.

● They have one of the best insulation values & Thermal Performance among the technologies studied.

● They have better sound proofing qualities.

● They have better earthquake resistance.

Some challenges of ICF and MICS are:

● Wall thicknesses are fixed.

● Position of doors and windows are very hard to change after construction.

2.5.3 PLASWALL PANEL SYSTEM

This particular formwork system is designed to remain in position and involves the use of two 6mm-thick fiber cement boards (FCB). During construction, High Impact Molded Inserts (HIMI) are attached between the FCB sheets on-site, creating a wall that is ready for finishing. To achieve a monolithic structure, the entire form is filled with concrete of M20 grade. By incorporating additional reinforcing bars or using a higher grade of concrete, the load capacity of the structure can be enhanced.

Some benefits of this formwork system are:

● It is 30-50% faster.

● It reduces labor cost.

● It does not need on-site curing.

Figure 2 Insulating Concrete Form (Source: BMTPC)

● It avoids plastering.

● It provides better earthquake resistance.

● It does not need a crane and hence can be used in small scale projects.

One challenge of this formwork system is:

● The Fiber Cement board that is made in India is brittle and of poor quality hence it must be imported from Malaysia or Philippines.

2.5.4 RAPID PANEL

The Rapid Panel is a preconstructed system consisting of high-strength steel wire assembled into a three-dimensional framework, with a core made of expanded polystyrene (EPS). During construction, these panels are used as walls and/or slabs. The panels are coated with specified mortar or concrete mixtures to finalize the structure. The primary component of the panel is the zig-zag truss, where steel wire is shaped into a continuous chain of web members in a zig-zag pattern. This bent wire is then welded to continuous chord wires at each connection point, creating the complete truss structure. The manufacturing of Rapid Panels takes place in a fully automated facility.

Some benefits of Rapid Panel are:

● Formwork panels do not need a crane hence smaller projects are also possible.

● 30-40% less time needed in construction.

● Up-to 30% labor savings in labor.

● 35-40% reduction in the dead load.

● Beams can be avoided till a certain span when used as a roof slab.

Some challenges of Rapid Panel are:

● Load Bearing structures are only possible till G+3.

● Panels are not made in India. They are made in Mexico and 50% of the panel cost is due to transportation.

● Steel wires puncturing the EPS panel will act as thermal bridges.

Figure 3 Plaswall Panel System (Source: BMTPC)

2.5.5 QUICK BUILD 3D PANELS

The quick build 3D Panel system utilizes panels composed of a fire-resistant insulated polystyrene core, along with two engineered layers of Galvanized Steel Mesh and galvanized steel trusses. The steel trusses are inserted through the polystyrene core and welded to the outer layer sheets of Galvanized steel mesh. When the wall panel is positioned, a structural plaster is applied to both sides. The strength and rigidity of the wall panel are derived from the diagonal cross wires that are welded to the welded-wire fabric on each side. This combination creates a truss-like behavior, offering both rigidity and shear capabilities for a fully composite effect.

Some benefits of 3 D Panel system are:

● EPS used is of zero-toxicity (food grade).

● Monolithic structures have earthquake resistant properties.

● Steel used is galvanized which prevents rusting and increases its life.

● It offers 1.5 times more longevity than conventional structure.

● Up to 10-20% components are recycled.

● Fly ash is used in the concrete.

● Beams can be avoided till a certain span when used as a roof slab.

Some challenges of 3 D Panel system are:

● Steel used in the construction is imported from China because of quality issues in India.

● Thermal bridges formed within the panels that would increase the heat transfer of assembly.

Figure 4 Rapid Panel (Source: BMTPC)

Figure 5 Quick Build 3D Panels (Source: BMTPC)

2.5.6 WAFFLE-CRETE BUILDING SYSTEM

The Waffle-Crete Building System utilizes sizable ribbed panels made of reinforced precast concrete. These panels are securely fastened together through bolting, and the connections between the panels are sealed with caulk. This assembly method allows for the creation of walls, floors, and pitched or flat roofs in buildings.

Some benefits of Waffle-Crete Building System are:

● There is a reduction in labor cost.

● 35% reduced construction time.

● Steel requirement is reduced if roof and wall both use this technology.

● Columns and beams are avoided.

● Shuttering cost is avoided.

● Plastering can be avoided.

● On site material wastage is reduced.

● Technology can be used anywhere.

Some challenges of Waffle-Crete Building System are:

● The services are unconcealed.

● Heat transfer is very high however insulation can be added for extra cost.

● A structure higher than G+3 is yet to be built.

● Only standard sizes available, custom sizes need to be specially made.

2.5.7 WALLTEC HOLLOW CORE CONCRETE PANEL

Walltec wall panels are non-load bearing concrete hollow core panels manufactured using automated machines. These panels are produced in a factory setting and consist of lightweight concrete composed of river sand, crushed stone aggregate, lightweight aggregate, and Ordinary Portland cement.

Some benefits of Walltec wall panels are:

● Faster Construction with a strict time frame.

Figure 6 Waffle Crete Building System (Source: BMTPC)

● Wastage is minimized due to prefabrication.

● Shuttering cost is avoided.

● Plastering can be avoided.

● Damaged panels can be recycled into aggregates for further panels.

● No curing onsite needed hence less water consumption.

Some challenges of Walltec wall panels are:

● Cranes are needed for installing panels.

● Difficult to be used for external walls as scaffolding would be required on the outside

● Coordination issues occur when used in conjunction with other technologies.

Figure 7 Waffle Hollow core concrete Panel (Source: BMTPC)

2.6 DISCUSSION ON ENERGY EFFICIENT ASPECTS

Table 5 Table 5 Research Paper synthesize (Source : Author)

Table 6 Research Paper synthesize (Source : Author)

2.7 CONCLUSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW

Embodied energy and embodied carbon are widely used as sustainability indicators. Since the current focus is on low-cost housing, operational energy is assumed to be lesser in comparison with other types of houses. The selection of a sustainable construction technology is case specific based on location, climate, construction practices, occupant preferences and culture. The embodied energy and embodied carbon vary depending upon the context.

Life cycle analysis (LCA) is conducted to evaluate affordable housing schemes. LCA of a single storey social house with 48 m2 internal area under the scheme ‘my house my life’ in Brazil indicates 0.52 GJ/m2/year for 50 years service life (Paulsen and Sposto, 2013). Earlier studies show that the largest reduction in embodied energy can be achieved by replacing materials used for walls. The life cycle energy of affordable housing in India is found to be 0.46 GJ/m2/year (Devi and Palaniappan, 2018). A study in Indonesia (Utama and Gheewala, 2008) shows life cycle energy as 0.25-0.26 GJ/m2/year for 40 years of service life. LCA of a single family detached house in Spain shows 385 kg CO2/m2 of surface area (Torres et al, 2014).

In the case of monolithic construction, it is economically beneficial if the formwork is repeated for 100 times. Large number of clients and contractors are willing to adopt monolithic construction in the Indian market recently due to substantial reduction in floor cycle time. GFRG construction is considered economical, because it uses less quantity of primary construction materials. In a case study of a demo housing project completed at Chennai, India, GFRG method is found to be 25% cheaper than cast-in situ construction method (Cherian et al. 2017). In the case of Light Gauge Steel structure, there is potential to save cost since the structure is lightweight. Primary construction materials contribute to more than 90% of the overall embodied energy (Devi and Palaniappan, 2018). In a similar study using precast wall panels, it is noted that about 26.27% of total embodied energy reduction can be achieved compared to cast in-situ (Omar et al. 2014). In the case of the GFRG panel wall system, the primary material being gypsum, helps to reduce embodied energy as it is a by-product of the fertilizer industry. The embodied energy will vary drastically depending upon the transport distance between the prefabrication/precast plant and the construction site.

CHAPTER-3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

In this Chapter We we have done methodology details of the research design so how is done Literature done according to their Aim & Objectives to Explanation the Research Approach and Further details about data collection methods like Qualitative & quantitative data collected through observation and selected sample size etc, and analysis procedures of data collection through software use and consideration.

Research Methodology

3.2 LITERATURE STUDY

This Chapter We have done literature study according to Keywords, Background, Aim, Objectives etc. we have read various research paper to understand the global & indian scenario of alternative construction technology, past review of their techniques, Serval affordable housing

Figure 8 Methodology (Source: Author)

Schemes in india, And study on Various Alternative construction technology recommended by BMTPC under PMAY(U), and also study the energy efficient aspect.

3.3 DATA COLLECTION, RESULTS

Now In this Chapter we have collected data of selecting parameters recommended by BMTPC, Eco Niwas Samhita, ECBE and B.E.E (bureau of energy efficiency) after collecting the data and selection of technology now further done simulation using Design Builder software.

3.3.1 Quality Data Collection

The quality Data collected from BMTPC recommended Technologies, Taking Energy Efficiency

Parameter from Eco Niwas Samhita, taking residential star rating building plan parameters from B.E.E, Making a floor plan of Single affordable housing Dwelling Unit made on Autocad software, 3D module made in Design Builder software & simulation as well.

3.4 DATA ANALYSIS

After the result comes and analyze these outcomes and discuss these data.

3.5 CONCLUSION

Conclude the whole research according to Aim & Objective and way forwarding.

CHAPTER-4 DATA COLLECTION & RESULTS

4.1 ENERGY EFFICIENCY ASPECTS FACTORS RECOMMENDED BY

ECO NIWAS SAMHITA & ECBC

● Reducing heat gains

● Improving natural ventilation

● Improving daylighting

4.2 STAR RATING PLAN RECOMMENDED BY B.E.E

According to the Bureau Of Energy Efficiency Residential Building Star Rating Plan of different Climatic Zones have been given. As this research we have considered the Star Rating Plan of Composite Climatic Zone only.

Figure 9 (Source: Metrics for various parameters mentioned in ENS-I)

Table 7 Residential Building Star Rating Plan (Source: Bureau of Energy Efficiency)

E1 and E2 includes following systems: Building envelope characteristic; Lighting system; and Comfort system (AC)

4.3 PARAMETERS FOR SELECTING ENERGY EFFICIENT IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING

● Daylighting

● Cooling

● Heating

Taking These Parameters We Will Simulate the energy efficiency of below Alternative construction Technology Recommended by BMTPC of Under PMAY(U).

● Modular Tunnel form

● Insulating Concrete forms

● Plaswall Panel System

● Rapid Panel

● Quick Build 3D Panels

● Waffle-Crete Building System

● Walltec Hollow core Concrete Panel

A Module plan of Affordable Housing 30.88 sqmArea Recommended by PMAY(U).

Figure 10 Unit plan (Source : Author)

4.4 BASE CASE OF CONVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES

(Source: Author)

(Source: Author)

Energy Efficiency of Conventional Technology

U Value of Conventional Material= 3.15 W/m2K

Energy Performance Index= Annual Energy consumption (Heating+Cooling+Lighting)

Total Building Area

Figure 11 Design Builder Modular Unit Model (source: Author)

Table 8 Design Builder Simulation

Table 9 Design Builder Simulation

4.5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY

4.5.1 MODULAR TUNNEL FORM

U Value of this Material= 3.36 W/m

Table 10 Design Builder Simulation

(Source: Author)

Energy Efficiency of this Technology

Energy Performance Index= Annual Energy consumption (Heating+Cooling+Lighting)

Total Building Area EPI=

4.5.2 INSULATING CONCRETE FORMS

U Value of this Material= 0.32 W/m

Table 11 Design Builder Simulation

Energy Efficiency of this Technology

(Source: Author)

Energy Performance Index= Annual Energy consumption (Heating+Cooling+Lighting)

Total Building Area EPI=

4.5.3 PLASWALL PANEL SYSTEM

U Value of this Material= 2.7

Energy Efficiency of this Technology

(Source: Author)

Energy Performance Index= Annual Energy consumption (Heating+Cooling+Lighting)

Total Building Area

EPI= 5.29+1253.75+284.21 =

30.88

4.5.4 RAPID PANEL

(Source: Author)

Energy Efficiency of this Technology

Energy Performance Index= Annual Energy consumption (Heating+Cooling+Lighting)

Total Building Area

EPI= 2.83+856.44+215.31 = 34.79

Table 12 Design Builder Simulation

Table 13 Design Builder Simulation

4.5.5 QUICK BUILD 3D PANELS

U Value of this Material= 0.61 W/m2K

14

(Source: Author)

Energy Efficiency of this Technology

Energy Performance Index= Annual Energy consumption (Heating+Cooling+Lighting)

Total Building Area

EPI= 2.97+914.23+221.38 = 36.87 Kwh/m2/annum

30.88

4.5.6 WAFFLE-CRETE BUILDING SYSTEM

U Value of this Material= 5 W/m2K

(Source: Author)

Energy Efficiency of this Technology

Energy Performance Index= Annual Energy consumption (Heating+Cooling+Lighting)

Total Building Area

EPI= 11.61+2083.18+869.56 = 95.99 Kwh/m2/annum

30.88

Table

Design Builder Simulation

Table 15 Design Builder Simulation

4.5.7 WALLTEC HOLLOW CORE CONCRETE PANEL

U Value of this Material= 2.5 W/m2K

Energy Efficiency of this Technology

(Source: Author)

Energy Performance Index= Annual Energy consumption (Heating+Cooling+Lighting) Total Building Area

EPI= 5.805+1041.60+434.78 = 47.95 Kwh/m2/annum 30.88

Table 16 Design Builder Simulation

5.1

CHAPTER-5 DATA ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION

This Chapter presents the results of the data analysis addressing objectives started in Chapter 1. It Is Also Includes the interpretation of the study from the data collected.

5.2 ANALYSIS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY WITH COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES

The EPI of Conventional Techniques is 66.46 Kwh/m2/annum.

Table 17 Data Analysis (Source: Author)

● As per the collected data We stimulated the data collection and found that there are many technologies in this have different EPIs came in it and the first one was the modular tunnel form, whose U value was 3.36 W/m2K. Energy save is increased by 12.5 percent over conventional Technology. This simulation has unexpected Outcomes.

● The second technology is the insulating concrete form, whose U value is 0.32 W/m2K, its EPI 28.34 Kwh/m2/annum, which means that the energy save of this technology is 57.36 percent, which according to the Bureau of Energy Efficiency comes in the 5 star rating.

● The third technology is the Plaswall Panel System, whose U value is 2.7 W/m2K, its EPI 49.97 Kwh/m2/annum, which means that the energy save of this technology is 24.81 percent, which according to the Bureau of Energy Efficiency comes in the 2 star rating.

● The fourth technology is the Rapid Panel, whose U value is 0.503 W/m2K, its EPI 34.79 Kwh/m2/annum, which means that the energy save of this technology is 47.65 percent, which according to the Bureau of Energy Efficiency comes in the 4 star rating.

● The fifth technology is the Quick Build 3D Panels, whose U value is 0.61 W/m2K, its EPI 36.87 Kwh/m2/annum, which means that the energy save of this technology is 44.52 percent, which according to the Bureau of Energy Efficiency comes in the 4 star rating.

● The sixth technology is the Waffle-Crete Building System, whose U value is 5 W/m2K, its EPI 95.99 Kwh/m2/annum, which means that the energy is not save & increase of this technology is 44.43 percent. This simulation has unexpected Outcomes.

● The seventh technology is the Walltec Hollow core Concrete Panel, whose U value is 2.5 W/m2K, its EPI 47.95 Kwh/m2/annum, which means that the energy save of this technology is 27.85 percent, which according to the Bureau of Energy Efficiency comes in the 2 star rating.

5.3 UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES

After simulating this we found many unexpected outcomes in this technology such as 12.59 percent energy increase in modular tunnel form and 44.43 percent energy increase in waffle crete building system which shows that these two technologies require more energy than conventional technology.

5.4 LIMITATION OR CONSTRAINTS

In This research We simulate only seven technologies which are given their U-Value to analyze their energy efficiency. So this research is limited only to seven techniques.

5.5 DISCUSSION IN PRACTICAL APPLICATION

A lot can be done in the affordable housing sector in Delhi by using other technologies except modular tunnel form and Waffle crete building system because in rest of the technology, the best technology is insulated concrete form which is having the best energy efficiency, and it comes under 5 year rating Plan of composite climate in Delhi , so use it, it will have a very good impact in the affordable housing sector. And another Rapid Panel and Quick Build 3D panel Should be also applicable in Alternative construction technology in delhi.

CHAPTER-6 CONCLUSION

Alternative construction technologies, such as insulating concrete forms, rapid panels, and quick build 3D panels, have the potential to be in high demand in the coming years, especially in Delhi and other parts of the country. These technologies offer several advantages, including good energy efficiency compared to conventional techniques.

The use of these alternative construction technologies can result in lower U-values, which means reduced heat gain, improved thermal comfort, and better lighting conditions in affordable housing. This can contribute to creating more comfortable living environments for residents while also reducing energy consumption and associated costs.

However, it is important to note that while these technologies show promise in terms of energy efficiency, further research is necessary to fully understand their implications and to consider other techniques as well. Conducting additional studies on energy efficiency parameters will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the available options and their effectiveness in affordable housing.

In conclusion, alternative construction technologies have the potential to significantly enhance energy efficiency in affordable housing. By incorporating these technologies and conducting further research, it is possible to make informed decisions and promote sustainable and energyefficient construction practices in Delhi and across the country.

6.1 WAY FORWARD

This research requires further investigation to evaluate all the technologies that BMTPC suggested. By simulating more than the seven techniques that we used in this research, we may find some technologies that have higher energy efficiency. We measured the energy efficiency of different techniques by using U values.

REFERENCES

1. H.R. Tewani (2017), Methodology Used In Low Cost Housing, https://www.researchtrend.net/ijet/pdf/34-%20149

2. Sophia Immanuel & K. Baskar (2022), A state‑of‑the‑art review on sustainable low‑cost housingand applicationof textile reinforced concrete, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-02201010-8

3. Ravijanya Chippagiri, Ana Bras, Deepak Sharma, and Rahul V. Ralegaonkar (2022), Technological and Sustainable Perception on the Advancements of Prefabrication in Construction Industry, https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207548

4. Dr. Manoj P K (2017), Construction costs in affordable housing in kerala: relative significance of the various elements of costs of affordable housing projects, https://iaeme.com/MasterAdmin/Journal_uploads/IJCIET/VOLUME_8_ISSUE_9/IJCIE T_08_09_133

5. Sk. Subhan Alisha, Sajja. Neeraja, Sk. Akber, G. Sai Manoj (2016), Architecture of Uttarakhand and Construction Techniques for Affordable Housing, https://nanoient.org/upload/pdf/ENT172247_1499952948

6. A. Ganga Warrier, Pavankumar Tadepalli and Sivakumar Palaniappan (2019), Low-Cost Housing in India: A Review, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/17551315/294/1/012092/

7. Deepak Bansal, V. K. Minocha, Arvinder Kaur, Vaidehi A. Dakwale, and R. V. Ralegaonkar (2021), Reduction of Embodied Energy and Construction Cost of Affordable Houses through Efficient Architectural Design: A Case Study in Indian Scenario, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5693101

8. Dharini Sridharan, Akhil Singhal, Tarun Garg, Shatakshi Suman (2022), Prescriptive Approach for Achieving Energy Efficiency in India’s Upcoming Affordable Housing, https://aeee.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Prescriptive-Approach-for-AchievingEnergy-Efficiency-in-Indias-Upcoming-Affordable-Housing

9. Saptarshi Sankar Chakrabarti, Sujoy Kumar Biswas, Chandmoni Basak, Roopali Roychowdhury and Abhijit Mitra (2019), Affordable housing for tomorrow – leading to a sustainable future, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343826000_Housing_for_the_future

10. Ar Neeti Garg, Dr. Ashwani Kumar , Dr. Satish Piprralia Dr. Parveen Kumar (2018), Sustainable building materials for energy Efficiency, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3239430

11. Ravijanya Chippagiri, Hindavi R. Gavali, Rahul V. Ralegaonkar , Mike Riley, Andy Shaw and Ana Bras (2021), Application of Sustainable Prefabricated Wall Technology for Energy Efficient Social Housing, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031195

12. Devi, L. P., Palaniappan, S (2018), Life cycle energy analysis of a low-cost house in India, International Journal of construction education and research, DOI: 10.1080/15578771.2018.1476935

13. Srivastava, M., Kumar, V., (2018), The methods of using low cost housing techniques in India, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol 15, Pages 102-108.

14. Puri. V., Chakrabortty. P., Anand. S., Majumdar. S (2017), prefabricated wall panels for low cost housing, Journal of Building Engineering, 52-59.

15. Goebel. A, (2007), Sustainable urban development? Low-cost housing challenges in South Africa, Habitat International, Vol 31, Pages 291-302.

16. Larasati Z. R. D, Wahyuni. YS, Suhendri,Triyadi. S, (2017), Embodied energycalculation in mitigating environmental impact of low-cost housing construction, MATEC Web of Conferences 138, EACEF 2017. DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/201713801001

17. Paulsen, J. S., & Sposto, R. M. (2013). A life cycle energy analysis of social housing in Brazil: Case study for the program “MY HOUSE MY LIFE”. Energy and Buildings, 95102.

18. Eco Niwas Samhita 2018 (Energy Conservation Building Code for Residential Buildings) Part I: Building Envelope, Bureau of Energy Efficiency. Available at https://www.beeindia.gov.in/ sites/default/files/ECBC_BOOK_Web.pdf, as accessed on 12 May 2020

19. Bureau of Energy Efficiency, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ENERGY LABELING PROGRAM, https://beeindia.gov.in/sites/default/files/Schedule%20%20Residential%20building%20labelling

20. Torres.R. P, Jadraque. E, Fontana. R. J, Ordonez. J, (2014), Analysis of CO2 emissions in the construction phase of single-family detached houses, Sustainable cities and society, Vol 12, Pages 62-68.

21. Utama, A., & Gheewala, S. H. (2008). Life cycle energy of single landed houses in Indonesia. Energy and Buildings, 40, 1911–1916.

22. Omar, W.M.S.W., Doh, J.H., Panuwatwanich, K., Miller, D., (2014), Assessment of embodied Carbon in precast concrete wall panels using a hybrid life cycle assessment approach in Malaysia, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol 10, Pages 101-111.

23. Cherian.P,Paul.S.,Krishna.SRG., Menon.D.,Prasad.AM,(2017), ‘MassHousingUsing GFRG Panels: A Sustainable, Rapid and Affordable Solution’, Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A, 98 (1-2): p95–100.

24. BMTPC. (2015). Selection of Emerging Housing Technologies, MoHUPA, Government of India.

25. MoHUA , 2015, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban), Government of India.