1. Introduction
The basic infrastructure for settlements is built to meet the needs of the community equally, as well as to provide services to support programs to help the poor. Based on PUPR data, the housing backlog reached 7.64 million units as of early 2020. It consists of 6.48 million housing units for low-income people, 1.72 million housing units for non-fixed-income people, and 0.56 million housing units for fixed-income earners [1]. Based on these data, it is clear that low-income people make up the most vulnerable community in fulfilling affordable housing needs. For this reason, the concept of a micro-house has been proposed with a maximum of 36 m2 of building area. A micro-house has only one bedroom, a kitchen, and a bathroom. A micro-house means more affordable construction and operational costs. The smaller the building area, the less material required, which also requires less energy.
In Indonesia, the micro-house is mentioned in PUPR regulation No. 25 of 2011 concerning guidelines for the provision of low-cost housing, which has a maximum floor area of 36 m2 [2]. The criteria and requirements for affordable housing for low-income people are also mentioned in PUPR No. 10/PRT/M/2019 [3].
As a basic human need, housing requires careful planning, including socio-cultural design aspects. The physical potential is associated with consideration of geological conditions, materials of the building, and local climates. Urbanization causes population accumulation, which becomes a cluster of slum areas. It is noted that the capital city of Jakarta has the highest population density in Indonesia at 18,000 people/km2, followed by Bandung with a density of 14,510 people/km2. Apart from these two cities, it has been recorded that Banjarmasin, Makassar, Tasikmalaya, as well as Pontianak each have a population density of over 10,000 people/km2. In some cities, this rapid urban expansion reflects a lack of planning, making service provisions such as housing more expensive and ineffective [4]. Rapid expansion certainly has an impact on the acceleration and quality of development. In addition, another aspect is utilizing different materials to preserve the designed efficiency compared to the reduction of the cost [5]. The house models are later converted into multiple single crowded rooms similar to the “capsule” settlements in the big cities. This is common in the Asian continent, where city populations are larger than two million people [6].
Generally, the project owner wants the project at the lowest cost, the highest quality, and completion at the fastest possible time. Completion of the project on time within the specified budget is an important aspect of any construction project, making construction time and speed a priority [7]. Nowadays, the crucial requirements for flexibility and simplicity of the construction process involve the main parts of the building, such as load-bearing systems, facades, interior walls, and supply systems. As the construction system developed from closed concrete to on-site cast structures, it progressed from fixed joints to “open” prefabrication. Through independent technology, the structural system configuration of a massive house could then be divided into load-bearing systems (primary construction) and facade systems (secondary construction). This system has grown with companies making prefabricated (prefab) and semi-prefabricated systems and components for on-site assembled housing [8].
In Indonesia, bricks are the most common building material [9]. There is still no standard for building walls other than brick material (clay and concrete), especially for affordable housing modules [10]. On the other hand, the development of metal prefab known as LSF has become more popular now in Indonesia because of its durability, even though the construction cost for LSF is relatively high compared to wood or concrete frame. The other benefits of LSF are (1) favorable stress and strain transfer, (2) resistance to high temperatures, (3) a lack of moisture absorption, (4) non-flammability, (5) good compressive and shear strength, and (6) better wear resistance and thermal expansion. The development of materials and construction is certainly growing rapidly [11].
With the advantages of this metal material, this study then emphasizes the use of LSF in affordable housing design. This material must be able to meet the needs of an affordable house for a backlog reaching 7.64 million in 2020. For this reason, this research conducted experiments on wall cladding as a facade system and how much it could affect the speed of construction, which can reduce construction costs. One of the significant factors that affects the increase in construction speed is the technology used in the building, aside from managerial strategies [12]. The other consideration of LSF and cladding systems for the affordable housing per unit is the limitation of IDR 150,500,000 million (USD 10,726.45) according to the regulation of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia No. 81/PMK.010/2019 [13].
Several studies on the selection of low-cost material of wall cladding as a facade system have been carried out recently. According to comparative cost analysis by Mac-Barango (2017), buildings constructed of timber are more expensive that those constructed of sand concrete block [14]. On the other hand, Tushar et al. (2022) have investigated several different materials such as concrete, clay tiles, corrugated steel sheets, or timber coverings [15]. This research tries to ensure the lowest reasonable cost material selection. However, the method used is still from an investment perspective, which is technically inaccurate. In an investigation of brick walls in South Sulawesi, the use of traditional wall materials has a higher energy cost than using innovative wall materials. The study of innovative and different materials is therefore crucial [16]. Another study on low-cost housing found that prefabricated bamboo reinforced wall panels are cost-effective and lighter in weight as compared to traditional brick walls [17]. Previous studies indicate that some materials are cost-efficient for wall cladding. However, there are still limited studies that have examined the selection of wall cladding materials based on their application to low-cost housing, relating costs to the speed of construction.
This study aimed to seek alternative wall cladding material highly available in the market, whether in the urban or rural areas, at an affordable price for the LSF. Four different cladding wall materials (metal sheet, uPVC sheet, GRC, and brick, which is still widely used as wall material) were chosen. Brick at a U-value of 2.33 W/m2 for a hot and humid climate results in inefficient energy use [18]. The comparison between those four materials later focused on the cost and construction speed in the 36 m2 house model area with 95 m2 of total wall cladding area. Construction costs and duration were necessary factors for decision making in the early stages of the project, including the construction of cladding walls for LSFs [19].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Framework of the Research
The wall cladding experiments on the model house were carried out simultaneously with four different materials, ZINCALUME®, Hebel®, KalsiClad®, and Alderon RS®. Each material was built in a different building orientation to determine the level of construction speed and cost of each cladding material. After measuring the experimental results of the four materials, the study continued by multiplying the total area of the facade to see the cladding installation duration and cost for the entire surface of the LSF. Furthermore, a simulation was carried out to compare the real measurement results with the WUPA coefficient system approach based on government regulations and the Indonesian National Standard (SNI).
The data were taken from workflow and construction cost per m2 that is equivalent to the total wall area of 95 m2. The materials were placed on the model house with an area of 27 m2. The house model is seen in Figure 1.
Figure 2 below explains the assembly details for the whole side, the connection between the wall and the door, the wall and the window, as well as the wall bracket as a supporting structure.
2.2. S-Curve
The S-curve is a tool that can be used to work on projects and work progress by offering a picture of the relationship or the sum of the progress of the cumulative work implementation. The curve can change depending on whether the work is going according to plan or progressing faster than expected [20].
2.3. Wall Cladding Materials
2.3.1. Metal Cladding
Metal cladding wall here refers to an aluminum–zinc alloy. ZINCALUME® is a trademark of Bluescope Steel Ltd., the largest armored steel producer in the world. In Indonesia, the company name is PT NS BlueScope Lysaght Indonesia (NSBI). The coated steel is an alloy-coated steel sheet with a composition of 55% aluminum and 45% zinc offering excellent protection, so that the steel is suitable for various building and manufacturing applications. At the same cost, ZINCALUME® coated steel provides two to six times longer service life compared to galvanized coated steel in the same application. ZINCALUME® coated steel has a clear resin finish that makes the surface easy to paint, preventing scratches and hand spots. At the same time, the layer of passivation ensures that its silvery surface is maintained. Its glossy appearance provides high light and heat reflectivity [21]. In this experiment, we used Lysaght Spandek® that made from ZINCALUME® high tensile strength steel and clean Colorbond®. The profile of Spandek® ZINCALUME® from PT NSBI is shown in Table 1 [22].
2.3.2. Lightweight Concrete Brick
Lightweight concrete brick has a lighter specific gravity than concrete in general, which is made from aggregate sand, cement, gypsum, water, and aluminum paste or foam agent as a developer and for the hardness of the concrete. The lightweight concrete brick used in the experiment is Hebel®, with the following specification [23]:
Dry specific gravity of 520 kg/m3.
Normal density of 650 kg/m3.
Pressure strength of more than 4.0 N/mm2.
Thermal conductivity of 0.14 W/mK.
Species thickness of 3 mm.
Resistance to fire of 4 h.
The amount of light brick required per 1 m2 is 8–9 pieces without construction waste.
2.3.3. Glass fiber Reinforced Cement (GRC) Boards
GRC was introduced as a new composite material, based on a cement or cement matrix and a fine filler reinforced together by adding relatively small strands of alkaline resistant glass [24]. In this experiment, the GRC refers to KalsiClad®, a board designed for external wall cladding. The benefit of this material is its light weight and versatility that complements design flexibility for modern and contemporary solutions. KalsiClad® 12 with a thickness of 12 mm is preferably mounted on a suitable steel frame (recommended design, dimensions, thickness, and spacing). Parameters such as wind load, dead load, building height, and earthquake risk level need to be calculated carefully. When installing the outer wallboard, the joint can be left open (visible) or closed (flush joint) by using a special sealant to withstand weather changes and moisture movement. It is recommended to use a polyurethane sealant with UV protection and a paintable sealant [16,25].
2.3.4. uPVC Fiber
This experiment used Alderon RS®, a single-ply uPVC roof, as a wall cladding. Alderon RS® is known for high performance at a lower life cycle cost. In addition, it is lightweight and practically opaque. There are three kinds of Alderon RS® single ply, as seen in Figure 3 [26], with 8–9 pieces of light brick required per 1 m2 without construction waste.
2.4. Budget Plan
There was a comparative measurement of the price and speed of installing wall coverings, followed by a development plan that included other requirements such as mechanical and electrical, plumbing, frames, and doors. The total budget plan for ongoing development can be seen in Table 2.
2.5. WUPA
In this research, the calculation of the material approach was based on the Indonesian WUPA. WUPA offers guidelines for analyzing unit prices for public works in PUPR regulations [27,28]. A WUPA estimates working hours for completion of work. In addition to material prices, this analysis can also identify the impact of labor costs that are influenced by the coefficient of construction time.
The number of hours worked is represented by the coefficient of labor or the quantity of hours worked per unit of measurement [29]. This coefficient is a factor that shows the duration of the implementation of the labor required to complete one unit of work volume. Factors that affect the labor coefficient include the number of laborers and the level of workforce expertise. Therefore, labor skills have been included in this analysis. Determination of the amount and expertise of the labor follows the productivity of the main equipment. The amount of labor is relatively dependent on the main workload of the product being analyzed. The total amount of time was used as the basis for calculating the number of laborers employed [30].
3. Results and Discussion
The construction process lasted for 15 days with the installation of four different types of materials on each facade in the LSF by three laborers. The implementation was carried out at the development stage with a daily development monitoring process for accuracy to the schedule and purchase of materials. The construction started on 6 July 2020, and finished on 21 July 2020. Figure 4 below shows the S-curve for construction progress. As seen in Figure 5, the west facade was covered with Hebel® lightweight brick, while the east facade was covered with Spandek® ZINCALUME® wall metal. The other facade was covered with GRC KalsiClad® in the north orientation, and uPVC Alderon RS® covered the south orientation.
The data collection of house construction was carried out every day, and recorded based on its development progress. The material installation for each building orientation was recorded. Hebel® took the longest period of cladding construction of four working days, followed by GRC KalsiClad® with three working days of installation. The uPVC Alderon RS® and Spandek® finished in the same duration of two days of installation. These data were later refined into detail as the S-curve based on the duration of work construction. Table 3 explains the construction speed of installing the cladding wall material.
The construction speed to install Hebel® in the LSF took 18 h with a facade area of 20 m2, averaging around 1.11 m2/h. Then, the north facade that used GRC KalsiClad® required an installation duration of 14 h covering an area of 22.361 m2, with an average of about 1.59 m2/h. The east facade, where the cladding wall used Spandek® material with an area of 30.44 m2, showed the shortest installation duration of about 7 h 25 min, with an average of 4.19 m2/h. Finally, the southern facade that used uPVC Alderon RS® took 11 h and resulted in installation work of 22.494 m2 at an average of about 2.04 m2/h. The duration of house construction indicates that Hebel® was the material that needed the most time for installation at 1.11 m2/h. Lightweight concrete has the desired strength to be an alternative construction material for industrial building systems [31], but the construction speed was relatively longer compared to the other three construction materials. Spandek® was the fastest cladding material to install in the LSF with a speed of 4.19 m2/h. This shows that metal wall cladding is fast track construction, especially when compared to other construction processes [32].
After obtaining the value of construction duration per m2 for each cladding material, the cladding installation duration for each material could be simulated to determine the installation speed for the entire wall in the whole house with a wall surface area of 95 m2. The result of cladding installation duration is shown in Table 4.
Table 4 explains that Hebel® was the most time-consuming work, taking 85.76 h, or about 10.7 days, with working hours as much as eight hours per day. The use of GRC KalsiClad® needed 59.66 h or about 7.45 working days to install on each facade. The uPVC Alderon RS® required 46.62 h, equivalent to 5.8 working days. The fastest cladding installation was with Spandek® with a working time of 22.70 h, or the equivalent of 2.8 days, to cover each building facade.
The obtained data from construction speed can be used to find the unit construction cost shown in Table 5.
Table 5 shows the cost of cladding wall materials compared to the total budget. Spandek® was found as the cheapest material to install in the LSF for the area of 95 m2 that cost as much as IDR 11,015,462.36, followed by uPVC Alderon RS® with IDR 12,669,703.85, and GRC KalsiClad® with IDR 13,956,259.46. This experiment indicates that the most expensive cladding material in this research test was Hebel® at IDR 14,903,270.68. Consideration of cost-efficiency is one of the potential factors that can influence the choice of alternative materials for wall cladding [14].
In the next stage, the WUPA simulation was carried out to see the comparison of the four materials using the labor coefficients that were determined following the guidelines for the analysis of unit prices for public works in PUPR regulation No. 28/PRT/M/2016 [27]. This simulation calculated the complete building construction of each material (each material directly calculated for the area of the entire building facade). The simulation was carried out to compare the experimental results with the multiplier coefficients that have been set by the government based on Indonesian national standards [30]. WUPA has been applied to most construction activities in Indonesia [29]. This simulation aimed to provide an overview of the relevance of its later application to low-cost housing in Indonesia.
WUPA divides the labor into four levels, namely general labor (laden in Indonesian), specialist labor, chief labor, and foremen. The price of wages for each type of labor adjusts to the level of expertise and type of specialty (masonry, carpenter, iron and steel labor, etc.).
The results of this WUPA are in line with the experimental results, thus strengthening this study’s conclusions. Hebel® was the material with the longest construction duration, reaching 11.08 days. Spandek® had the fastest construction speed, taking only 2.53 days to complete. uPVC Alderon RS® was the second fastest with 4.43 days, followed by GRC KalsiClad® which required 6.33 days (Figure 6). The results of this analysis indicate that the experimental results are relevant if applied to buildings with standard construction methods in Indonesia.
There are many factors that can affect the time and cost of a project [7]. In this wall cladding study, materials and workers were factors that could be identified. Through WUPA, costs can be divided into labor costs and material costs. According to the WUPA approach, the highest and lowest material costs correspond to the experimental results where Hebel® was the most expensive (100.545 IDR/m2), while Spandek® was the cheapest material (69.200 IDR/m2). In addition, uPVC Alderon RS® was the second cheapest (93.600 IDR/m2), and GRC KalsiClad® was the third (73.155 IDR/m2). In Figure 7, the difference in material costs did not really affect the difference in the total cost of wall cladding construction. Based on all wall cladding materials, material cost was the most expensive cost item when compared to labor cost.
The significant difference in the total price of the wall cladding work occurred due to the low labor costs of several materials. In Figure 7, the low cost of Spandek® work was due to the low percentage of wages at only 20% (17.424 IDR/m2) of the total price of the work when compared to material costs of 69.200 IDR/m2 (80%). Likewise, the labor wage for Alderon RS®’s work was only 26% (32.930 IDR/m2) of the total price of the work when compared to material costs of 93.600 IDR/m2 (74%). Hebel® (40%) and KalsiClad® wages (48%) were a fairly large percentage of the wage price, making the total price more expensive.
The wage coefficient for labor in WUPA is the duration of work per day multiplied by the general wage of each specialization. Therefore, it can be identified that efficient workmanship (construction speed) of the workforce greatly affects construction costs. In addition to using cheaper materials, choosing materials that are quickly built can also be an option for the government to solve housing backlog problems and provide low-cost housing [1,2]. Specific technological and managerial strategies to reduce the construction period can be another alternative solution to reduce the construction costs of residential projects, as mentioned in previous research [12]. This research opens further experiments for affordable housing building materials related to massive low-cost housing procurement strategies, the context of different locations and sources of materials, as well as health and safety aspects.
4. Conclusions
This research shows that the construction cost and workflow schedule depend on the decision of cladding wall material. Construction speed plays a key role in efficiently building an LSF home. This study found that the most efficient construction speed based on workmanship was Spandek® with 4.19 m2/h, followed by uPVC Alderon RS® with 2.04 m2/h, then GRC KalsiClad® with 1.59 m2/h, and finally Hebel® with 1.11 m2/h. The construction speed of Spandek® was found to be five times faster than Hebel®, which is generally still widely used for detached houses in Indonesia. The cost of construction of Spandek® per m2 is also 26% lower than Hebel®. An LSF with Spandek® cladding can be an alternative for affordable housing provision and a means of resolving the housing backlog for low-income people. This study also found that the speed of construction time of labor due to the selection of the type of cladding material can lower building costs.
Conceptualization, B.P. and T.R.; methodology, B.P. and T.R.; software, B.P. and T.R.; validation, B.P. and T.R.; formal analysis, T.R. and B.P.; investigation, B.P. and T.R.; resources, B.P.; data curation, B.P. and T.R.; writing—original draft preparation, B.P. and T.R.; writing—review and editing, T.R., B.P., and R.S.S.; visualization, T.R. and B.P.; supervision, R.S.S.; project administration, B.P. and T.R.; funding acquisition, B.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The data presented in this study are available on request to the corresponding author.
This research experiment was conducted with UPI students, namely Lukman Noor Hakim, Ihsan Maulana Kamaludin, and Maulana Calvin Fawzy, Khadijah Ahlam Nabila, Danu Ega Sudibyo, Alif Adani, Faiz Fairuza, Achmad Faizal Sidik, Sarah Luziani, and Aprilia Nurul Hanissa.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. From the upper left clockwise, cladding material for each orientation: (1) west facade: Hebel®; (2) east facade: Spandek®; (3) south facade: uPVC Alderon RS®; and (4) north facade: GRC KalsiClad®.
Enlarge this image.Figure 7. Cost comparison between material and labor cost of construction with four materials.
Spandek® specification.
| Profile | Lysaght Spandek® |
|---|---|
| Grade of steel | G550 (550 N/mm2 yield strength) |
| Effective coverage width | 70 cm |
| Total coated thickness | 0.47 mm |
| Base metal thickness | 0.42 mm |
| Custom cut length | Each measurement, together with the maximum length and tolerance |
| Packing | In the bundle, I tone has the maximum mass of the note |
| Tolerances | Width + 1–2 mm, length + 1–15 mm |
Budget plan for prefab building.
| No. | Materials | Vol. | Unit | Cost/Unit (IDR) | Total (IDR) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Elephant GRC Board 6 mm | 15 | sheet | 192,000 | 2,880,000 |
| 2 | Elephant GRC Plank 20 t = 8 mm | 16 | sheet | 69,300 | 1,800,000 |
| 3 | Alderon RS® | 30 | m2 | 60,000 | 1,800,000 |
| 4 | Lightweight Concrete Brick | 3 | m3 | 750,000 | 2,250,000 |
| 5 | Spandek® 0.3 | 7 | sheet | 276,000 | 1,932,000 |
| 6 | Aluminum Glass Door | 1 | unit | 1,828,400 | 1,828,400 |
| 7 | Casement Windows | 3 | unit | 2,048,000 | 6,144,000 |
| 8 | Big Jalousie | 1 | unit | 5,000,000 | 5,000,000 |
| 9 | Small Jalousie | 1 | unit | 2,500,000 | 2,500,000 |
| 10 | Machine Stand | 1 | ls | 850,000 | 850,000 |
| 11 | Dual Socket Outlet | 4 | pcs | 29,000 | 116,000 |
| 12 | Dual Socket | 2 | pcs | 33,000 | 66,000 |
| 13 | Single Socket | 1 | pcs | 14,000 | 14,000 |
| 14 | Electrical Installation | 10 | pcs | 340,000 | 3,400,000 |
| 15 | Assistive Tools: | ||||
| a. Scaffolding | 2 | set | 75,000 | 150,000 | |
| b. Artisan tools | 1 | ls | 2,500,000 | 2,500,000 | |
| c. Laburan tools | 1 | ls | 3,500,000 | 3,500,000 | |
| d. Cement | 4 | sack | 70,000 | 280,000 | |
| e. Mortar | 12 | sack | 150,000 | 1,800,000 | |
| f. Gravel | 1 | m3 | 250,000 | 250,000 | |
| g. Sand | 1 | m3 | 275,000 | 275,000 | |
| h. Frame Bracket | 48 | pcs | 18,000 | 864,000 | |
| i. Formwork Planks | 1 | m2 | 725,000 | 725,000 | |
| j. Nuts and Bolts | 1 | ls | 1,650,000 | 1,650,000 | |
| 16 | Wage Labor | 1 | ls | 6,000,000 | 6,000,000 |
| Total | 47,883,200.00 | ||||
| USD 1 = IDR 14,500 | USD 3394.37 | ||||
The construction speed of cladding wall materials.
| Materials | Surface Areas (Per m2)—A | Construction Speed (Hours)—B | m2/h = (A/B) | Labor (Person) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hebel® | 20 | 18 | 1.11 | 3 |
| GRC KalsiClad® | 22.361 | 14 | 1.59 | 3 |
| Spandek® | 30.44 | 7.25 | 4.19 | 3 |
| uPVC Alderon RS® | 22.4845 | 11 | 2.04 | 3 |
Cladding installation duration for the entire LSF surface.
| Materials | m2/h—A | Simulation: Total Surface Facade Areas (m2)—B | Speed of Completion of All Facades (in Hours)—B/A | Day Assumption (if 8 h/Day) = (Speed of Completion/8 h) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hebel® | 1.11 | 95 | 85.76 | 10.72 |
| GRC KalsiClad® | 1.59 | 95 | 59.66 | 7.46 |
| Spandek® | 4.19 | 95 | 22.70 | 2.84 |
| uPVC Alderon RS® | 2.04 | 95 | 46.62 | 5.83 |
Materials cost construction.
| Material | Tools | Unit | Coef. | Cost of Material and Tools/m2 (IDR) | Total Cost of Material and Tool (IDR) = (Total Surface 95 m2 × Cost of Material and Tool/Unit) | Cost Labor/Day (IDR) | Total Cost of Labor (IDR) = (3 × Cost of Labor/Day × Day Assumption) | In Dollars |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hebel® | m2 | 75,000.00 | 7,125,000.00 | 166,985.64 | 5,370,258.18 | |||
| Cement | sack | 0.531 | 15,306.5 | 1,454,117.5 | ||||
| Sand | m3 | 0.081 | 10,041.79 | 953,895.00 | ||||
| Total | 9,533,012.5 | 5,370,258.18 | ||||||
| Total Budget Hebel® Material for 95 m2 Surface Simulation | 14,903,270.68 | USD 1050.62 | ||||||
| GRC KalsiClad® | m2 | 66,666.67 | 6,333,333.67 | 133,583.22 | 2,989,592.46 | |||
| Nuts and Bolts | pcs | 8 | 40,000.00 | 3,800,000.00 | ||||
| Artisan Tools | ls | 1 | 833,333.33 | 833,333.33 | ||||
| Total | 10,966,667.00 | 2,989,592.46 | ||||||
| Total Budget GRC KalsiClad® Material for 95 m2 Surface Simulation | 13,956,259.46 | USD 983.86 | ||||||
| Spandek® | m2 | 95 | 55.200.00 | 5,244,000.00 | 133,583.22 | 1,138,129.03 | ||
| Nuts and Bolts | pcs | 8 | 40,000.00 | 3,800,000.00 | ||||
| Artisan Tools | ls | 1 | 833,333.33 | 833,333.33 | ||||
| Total | 9,877,333.33 | 1,138,129.03 | ||||||
| Total Budget Spandek® Material for 95 m2 Surface Simulation | 11,015,462.36 | USD 776.55 | ||||||
| uPvc Alderon RS® | m2 | 95 | 60,000.00 | 5,700,00.00 | 133,583.22 | 2,336,370.52 | ||
| Nuts and Bolts | pcs | 8 | 40,000.00 | 3,800,000.00 | ||||
| Artisan Tools | ls | 1 | 833,333.33 | 833,333.33 | ||||
| Total | 10,333,333.33 | 2,336,370.52 | ||||||
| Total Budget uPVC Alderon RS® Material for 95 m2 Surface Simulation | 12,669,703.85 | USD 893.16 | ||||||
References
1. The Ministry of Public Works and Housing Republic of Indonesia. Housing Backlog. 2019; Available online: https://ppdpp.id/data-backlog/ (accessed on 30 September 2022).
2. The Ministry of Public Works and Housing Republic of Indonesia. Regulation of the Minister of Public Works and Public Housing Number 13/PRT/M/2018 of 2018 concerning Revocation of Regulation of the State Minister of Public Housing Number 25 of 2011 Concerning Guidelines for the Implementation of Cheap Housing; Ministry of Public Works and Housing Republic of Indonesia: South Jakarta, Indonesia, 2018; Available online: https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/104648/permen-pupr-no-13prtm2018-tahun-2018 (accessed on 2 October 2022).
3. The Ministry of Public Works and Housing Republic of Indonesia. Regulation of the Minister of Public Works and Public Housing Number 10/PRT/M/2019 of 2019 Concerning Regulation of the Minister of Public Works and Public Housing concerning Criteria for Low-Income Communities and Requirements for Easy Housing Acquisitio; Ministry of Public Works and Housing Republic of Indonesia: South Jakarta, Indonesia, 2019; pp. 1-15. Available online: https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/128148/permen-pupr-no-10prtm2019-tahun-2019 (accessed on 2 October 2022).
4. UN Economic and Social Council. Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: Report of the Secretary-General; Economic and Social Council: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
5. Schmeckpeper, E.R.; Patterson, J.E. Using a Micro-House as a Starting Point to Create an Affordable House. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition; New Orleans, LA, USA, 26–29 June 2016.
6. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT). Affordable Land and Housing in Asia; UN-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011; Volume 82, Available online: https://unhabitat.org/affordable-land-and-housing-in-asia-2 (accessed on 24 October 2022).
7. Vijayalaxmi, J.; Khan, U. Chapter 29–Assessment of factors affecting time and cost overruns in construction projects. Risk, Reliability and Sustainable Remediation in the Field of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Roshni, T.; Samui, P.; Bui, D.T.; Kim, D.; Khatibi, R. Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 511-521.
8. Nikolic, J. Building ‘with the systems’ vs. building ‘in the system’ of IMS open technology of prefabricated construction: Challenges for new ‘infill’ industry for massive housing retrofitting. Energies; 2018; 11, pp. 1-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en11051128]
9. Dewi, S.M. Masonry Behavior of Local Brick from East-java Indonesia. J. Appl. Sci. Res.; 2011; 7, pp. 849-852.
10.
11. Fathi, M.R.; Safari, H.; Jafarzadeh, A.H. Evaluation the Branches of Iran Insurance Corporation based on Data Envelopment Analysis-Free Disposal Hull in the Presence of Weight Restrictions. Int. J. Math. Oper. Res.; 2019; 1, 1. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMOR.2020.105871]
12. Chan, D.W.M.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. Compressing construction durations: Lessons learned from Hong Kong building projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2002; 20, pp. 23-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00032-6]
13. The Minister of Finance of The Republic of Indonesia. Regulation of The Minister of Finance of The Republic of Indonesia Number 18/PMK.010/2019 concerning Limitations of Common Housing, Pondok Boro, Student and Student Dormitory, and Other Housing, Which Shall Be Excluded from The Imposition of Value Added T. 2019; Available online: https://www.pajak.go.id/en/regulation-minister-finance-republic-indonesia-number-48pmk032020 (accessed on 24 October 2022).
14. Mac-Barango, D.O. Comparative Cost Analysis of Wall Cladding Materials. Int. J. Econ. Financ. Manag.; 2017; 2, pp. 20-33.
15. Tushar, Q.; Zhang, G.; Bhuiyan, M.A.; Giustozzi, F.; Navaratnam, S.; Hou, L. An optimized solution for retrofitting building façades: Energy efficiency and cost-benefit analysis from a life cycle perspective. J. Clean. Prod.; 2022; 376, 134257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134257]
16. Marwan, M. The effect of wall material on energy cost reduction in building. Case Stud. Therm. Eng.; 2019; 17, 100573. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2019.100573]
17. Puri, V.; Chakrabortty, P.; Anand, S.; Majumdar, S. Bamboo reinforced prefabricated wall panels for low cost housing. J. Build. Eng.; 2016; 9, pp. 52-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.11.010]
18. Aksamija, A.; Peters, T. Heat Transfer in Facade Systems and Energy Use: Comparative Study of Different Exterior Wall Types. J. Archit. Eng.; 2017; 23, C5016002. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000224]
19. Czarnigowska, A.; Sobotka, A. Time–cost relationship for predicting construction duration. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng.; 2013; 13, pp. 518-526. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2013.05.004]
20. Wang, K.-C.; Wang, W.-C.; Wang, H.-H.; Hsu, P.-Y.; Wu, W.-H.; Kung, C.-J. Applying building information modeling to integrate schedule and cost for establishing construction progress curves. Autom. Constr.; 2016; 72, pp. 397-410. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.10.005]
21. Lestari, P.T.T. The difference in ingredients of Colorbond, Zincalume, Galvalume, And Colorbond. 2016; Available online: http://deposimantap.com/511-2/ (accessed on 2 October 2022).
22. Lysaght Bluescope Steel Limited. SPANDEK®. 2005; Available online: https://www.lysaght.com/products/spandek (accessed on 2 October 2022).
23. Persada, H. Hebel Standard. 2005; Available online: https://www.hebelindonesia.co.id/p/bata-hebel.html (accessed on 10 June 2020).
24. Enfedaque, A.; Cendón, D.; Gálvez, F.; Sánchez-Gálvez, V. Analysis of glass fiber reinforced cement (GRC) fracture surfaces. Constr. Build. Mater.; 2010; 24, pp. 1302-1308. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.12.005]
25. PT. Etex Building Performance Indonesia. Outside Wall. 2020. Available online: https://www.kalsi-building-solutions.com/id-id/kategori-aplikasi/dinding-luar-dan-fasad/dinding-luar/kalsiclad-12/ (accessed on 2 October 2022).
26. PT. Unipack Plasindo. Alderon RS: Single Wall Corrugarted. 2020. Available online: https://www.alderon.co.id/products/rs-single-wall-corrugated/. (accessed on 2 October 2022).
27. Minister of Public Works and Public Housing of the Republic of Indonesia. Regulation of the Minister of Public Works and Public Housing of the Republic of Indonesia Number 28/PRT/M/2016 concerning Guidelines for Analysis of Unit Prices of Work in the Public Works Sector. JDIH Kementrian PUPR; 2016; 28, 883.
28. Hanifah, Y.; Reztrie, N.D.; Ramadhan, T.; Larasati, D. Evaluation of Material Selection on the Initial Embodied Energy Value of Low-Middle Apartment in Indonesia Evaluation of Material Selection on the Initial Embodied Energy Value of Low-Middle Apartment in Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.; 2019; 2915, pp. 1-10.
29. Minister of Public Works and Public Housing of the Republic of Indonesia. Attachment to the Regulation of the Minister of Public Works and Public Housing Number: 28/PRT/M/2016 concerning Analysis of Unit Prices for Public Works. JDIH Kementrian PUPR 2016.; Available online: https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/104517/permen-pupr-no-28-tahun-2016 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
30. National Standardization Agency (BSN). Work Unit Price Analysis (WUPA) in the Public Works Sector. Standar Nas. Indones.; 2012; 337, Available online: https://simantu.pu.go.id/content/?id=3958 (accessed on 30 September 2022).
31. Kamsiah, M.H.; Mohamad, S.; Norpadzlihatum, M.B. First Report Research Project on Lightweight Concrete; Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 1997.
32. The Metal Cladding & Roofing Manufacturers Association. Metal Wall Systems Design Guide Technical Paper No 5; MCRMA: Prenton, UK, 2004; Available online: https://mcrma.co.uk/publications-2/publications-technical-design-guides/ (accessed on 27 September 2022).
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Beta Paramita 1
; Ravi Shankar Srinivasan 2 1 Architecture Study Program, Faculty of Technology and Vocational Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Setiabudi 229, Bandung 40152, Indonesia
2 School of Construction Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA