OPTIMISING PROJECT TIMELINES AND BUDGETS IN HIGH-
RISE CONSTRUCTION: A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF PRECAST
TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION IN BENGALURU
METROPOLITAN REGION
Presented by:
JAMI SHAREETH CHANDRA
Contents:
Introduction
Objectives of the study
Challenges in conventional construction practices
Emergence of precast technology in the construction sector
Construction sequence of a precast high-rise building
Literature Review
Methodology
Details of the Case-study Site
INTRODUCTION
• The construction sector is a major driver of India’s economic growth.
• Rapid urbanization and population increase have led to higher demand for housing
and commercial spaces.
• Metropolitan cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, Hyderabad, and Bengaluru face
limited land availability — promoting vertical development.
• Bengaluru has become a major IT and business hub, increasing demand for high-rise
residential and office buildings.
• High-rise projects involve large investments, long durations, and complex
coordination among stakeholders.
• Efficient time and cost management is vital to prevent financial losses and delays.
Objectives of the study:
To analyze and implement precast construction technology in high-rise buildings in the
metropolitan region
To understand the performance of time and cost between precast and conventional
construction methods
To understand the challenges involved with precast construction in high-rise buildings.
For improving time and cost optimization in high-rise projects through technological
improvement
Challenges in conventional construction practices:
Dependency on on-site labour
Weather dependency
Quality inconsistencies
Material Wastages
Extended timelines
Importance of time and cost optimization in
construction:
Ensures Successful and Timely Project Delivery
Minimizes Financial Risks and Budget Overruns
Improves Resource Utilization and Reduces Waste
Enhances Project Quality and Performance
Reduces Chances of Disputes and Claims
Supports Adoption of Modern Construction Technologies
Enables Sustainable Construction Practices
Need of precast Technology in high-rise buildings:
Faster Construction
Improved Quality Through Factory-Controlled Production
Labour Shortages and Rising Workforce Costs
Cost Optimization Through Reduced Waste and Rework
Suitability for Repetitive Floor Plans in High-Rises
Enhanced Safety in High-Rise Construction
Construction Sequence of Precast Buildings:
Foundation & Finishing Stage
Detailed Design and Elements Production Erection Stage
Engineering Stage Stage
Design of members Factory Setup Excavation of Closing joints
Reinforcement foundation Preparatory works
stage Erecting of panels Snagging works
Pre-pouring stage Topping of slab Handedover
Post-pouring
stage
Transportation
and storage
stage
Literature review:
Chethana Illankoon at al.,(2023):
• Prefabricated columns improved productivity by 42.5% and achieved 1.32% lower cost than in-
situ columns.
• Life-cycle studies show prefabricated buildings reduce energy use by 7.54%, carbon emissions by
7.17%, and environmental impacts by up to 15%.
Ms. Snehal Mali and Prof. Gaurav Vispute (2022):
• For small residential projects, PEB can be 13% more expensive due to logistics and low labour
costs in India, making cast-in-situ more economical.
• Direct cost comparison shows a 23.10% reduction when using PEB frames instead of steel
composite deck systems.
• Labour productivity is more stable and higher in PEB projects due to reduced manpower and less
variability in installation cycles.
A Ravi et Al.,(2022):
• direct labour cost drops sharply from ₹8,71,000 for conventional work to ₹1,56,900 for
precast, a reduction of 82%, achieved through factory-based production
• Equipment and machinery costs show the opposite trend: precast construction requires
₹1,89,400, which is 46.5% higher than the conventional equipment cost of ₹88,000, due to
the need for heavy cranes and lifting systems.
Tan Let Hui, Ng Chee Khoon (2019):
• precast components reduce the total construction duration from 240 days to 82 days, making
it about 66% faster than the conventional method.
• Cost findings also show a big numerical difference in the conventional method, resulting in a
total cost of 19% reduction.
• precast beams and columns show significantly higher material costs, with precast columns
costing 6.7 times the cost of conventional columns.
Arviga Bigwanto, Irawan Tani (2019):
• The conventional method achieves only a 10% chance of meeting planned durations across
floors, while precast achieves 80–90%.
• . The results support the broader literature, which asserts that precast reduces dependency on
sequential tasks, mitigates weather delays, and stabilizes production variability, thereby offering
substantially more reliable scheduling performance than conventional in-situ construction.
Hadi Morchi at al.,(2019):
• Total duration for construction is reduced by 78% in precast compared with Conventional
construction.
• study supports broader research evidence showing that precast construction significantly
accelerates project delivery, making it especially effective for large repetitive structures
J.M.S.N. Jayasooriya and T.D. Denagama (2017):
• Cost data from NERDC show that precast columns save 10.56%, beams save 32.82%, shear
walls save 43%, and precast slabs achieve 37.2% cost reduction compared to equivalent
conventional components.
• A single-storey house built with precast columns and walls saves 30% in overall cost.
[Link], [Link] (2015):
• The cost analysis shows the opposite trend, precast construction totals being 13% more
expensive.
• This cost difference arises because precast superstructure elements such as wall panels and
roofing slabs must be manufactured off-site, transported, and installed using specialized
equipment
Methodology:
Literature Review
Site Visit
Collection of data
Data Analysis
Result and Conclusion
Details of the Site:
Location: Balagere village, Bengaluru
Technology Adopted: Precast Construction
Total Wings: 59
Number of floors: G+14+2B
Super built-up Area of each Wing: 121000 [Link]
Total Area: 81 Acres
Area of Precast plant: 7.57 Acres
REFERENCES
• Zhou, J., Tam, V. W., Qin, Y., & Illankoon, C. (2024). A critical review and comparative
analysis of cost management on prefabricated construction research (2000–
2022). International Journal of Construction Management, 24(9), 997-1006.
• Hui, T. L., & Khoon, N. C. (2020). Comparative study on precast building construction
and conventional building construction for housing project in Sarawak. Jurnal Teknologi
(Sciences & Engineering), 82(1).
• Jayasooriya, J. M. S. N., & Denagama, T. (2022). Comparative analysis of precast
construction and conventional construction of small-scale concrete building in terms of
cost. J. Civ. Eng. Sci. Technol, 10, 44229.
• Dineshkumar, N., & Kathirvel, P. (2015). Comparative study on prefabrication
construction with cast in-situ construction of residential buildings. International Journal of
Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology (IJISET), 2(4).
• Shamshiri, A., Hefzi, S., & Morchi, H. (2019). Time Comparison between Precast and
Conventional Construction: A Case Study of Iran Mall Parking.
• Hui, T. L., & Khoon, N. C. (2020). Comparative study on precast building
construction and conventional building construction for housing project in
Sarawak. Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering), 82(1).
• Illankoon, C., & Vithanage, S. C. (2023). Closing the loop in the construction
industry: A systematic literature review on the development of circular
economy. Journal of Building Engineering, 76(107362).
• Mali, M. S., & Vispute, G. COST COMPARISON BETWEEN CONVENSTIONAL
BUILDING AND PRE-ENGINEERING BUILDING.
Add a Slide Title - 5