Comparative Cost Analysis of Conventional Building Materials and Smart Low-Cost Alternatives for G+1 Residential Building

Abstract

The construction industry in India is experiencing a rapid increase in material and labor costs, making conventional construction methods increasingly expensive and less sustainable. Traditional materials such as clay bricks, Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), steel, and river sand contribute not only to higher construction costs but also to significant environmental degradation due to high energy consumption and carbon emissions. In this context, the use of smart and low-cost construction materials has emerged as an effective alternative for achieving economical and sustainable building solutions. This study presents a comparative analysis of cost estimation between conventional building materials and smart/green construction materials for a G+1 residential building. The analysis is carried out using the central line method of estimation, ensuring consistent material quantities for both cases. Parameters such as cost, material consumption, dead load, construction time, labor requirement, and sustainability are evaluated. The results indicate that the use of smart materials such as AAC blocks, EPS panels, and gypsum plastering reduces the overall construction cost by approximately 18.44%. Additionally, these materials contribute to reduced structural load, faster construction, and improved energy efficiency. The study concludes that smart and low-cost materials provide a viable solution for affordable housing while promoting sustainable construction practices

Introduction

The construction sector is a key driver of economic growth in India but relies heavily on traditional materials like clay bricks, OPC cement, steel, and river sand, which are increasingly costly and environmentally damaging. Rising material and labor costs, coupled with the ecological impact of conventional construction, have spurred interest in smart and low-cost materials such as fly ash bricks, AAC blocks, EPS panels, and geopolymer concrete. These materials offer environmental benefits, reduced structural loads, faster construction, and potential cost savings without compromising safety or durability.

This study compares a G+1 residential building constructed with conventional versus smart materials, evaluating parameters such as material cost, structural weight, material quantities, labor requirements, construction time, finishing costs, and sustainability. Results show that smart materials reduce overall construction cost by 18.44%, cut concrete and steel usage by 9–10%, reduce dead load by ~30%, and shorten construction time by over 30%, while maintaining structural performance and promoting environmental efficiency.

The study demonstrates that adopting smart, lightweight construction materials is an effective strategy for affordable, sustainable, and efficient housing, aligning with India’s goals of cost-effective residential development and environmental responsibility.

Conclusion

The present study provides a detailed comparative analysis between conventional construction materials and smart/low-cost (green) construction materials for a G+1 residential building. The results clearly demonstrate that the adoption of smart materials leads to significant economic, structural, and environmental advantages. A total cost reduction of approximately 18.44% is achieved in the green building, primarily due to reduced expenses in brickwork, concrete, plinth filling, and finishing works. The use of lightweight materials such as AAC blocks and EPS panels reduces the dead load of the structure, resulting in lower quantities of concrete and reinforcement steel. This not only decreases construction cost but also enhances structural efficiency and seismic performance. Additionally, construction time is reduced by nearly 30%, leading to lower labor requirements and improved project efficiency. From a sustainability perspective, smart materials contribute to reduced CO? emissions, efficient utilization of industrial waste, and improved energy efficiency through better thermal insulation. Although certain components like gypsum plaster may have slightly higher initial costs, the elimination of additional finishing processes results in overall savings. Smart and low-cost construction materials offer a practical, economical, and sustainable solution for modern housing needs and should be widely adopted in future construction practices.

References

[1] P. Praveen and D. Jaysawal, “Comparative study of clay bricks and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks,” International Journal of Sustainable Development and Environment, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 45–52, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.civilengineeringjournals.com/ijsde/article/23/5-1-3-773.pdf [2] N. Ahmed, K. M. El-Dash, and T. M. Attia, “Analysis of alternative building envelope solutions to improve energy efficiency,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Sustainable Construction Materials, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376830672 [3] A. Paul, P. Dey, and M. Dhar, “Physico-mechanical properties of autoclaved aerated concrete block as an alternative to traditional bricks,” Research in Engineering Structures and Materials, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 215–227, 2025, doi: 10.17515/resm2025-392me0811rs. [4] V. W. Y. Tam, K. N. Le, and S. S. Zeng, “Life-cycle cost comparison of AAC blocks and conventional masonry units,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Construction and Building Materials, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374466761 [5] A. Kumar and R. Singh, “Using fly ash bricks as a sustainable building material,” Sustainable Materials and Technologies, vol. 36, pp. 1–9, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358492479 [6] S. Rao and P. Mehta, “Eco-efficient masonry units using fly ash and red mud: A comparative study of sandwich and hollow blocks,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 392, pp. 1–12, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398488429 [7] R. Patel, S. Shah, and A. Joshi, “Research on eco-bond fly ash brick for sustainable construction,” International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT), vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1980–1986, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT25A5319.pdf [8] N. Ahmed, T. Attia, and K. El-Dash, “Comparative analysis of embodied energy and carbon emissions of alternative wall systems,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 287, pp. 1–11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381442720 [9] A. Ashish, R. Kumar, and P. Verma, “Comparative performance and cost analysis of AAC blocks and fly ash bricks,” Research in Engineering Structures and Materials, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 228–240, 2025. [10] J. Sengupta, S. Ghosh, and R. Banerjee, “A cost-effective slag-based geopolymer cement activated with soda ash and hydrated lime,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12288, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12288 [11] B. Lyu, Y. Wang, and Z. Chen, “A granular framework for construction material price forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.09360, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09360 [12] K. P. Levi, S. Thomas, and A. Menon, “Embodied energy assessment of alternative wall construction materials,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 319, pp. 1–10, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Bhushan S. Madavi, Prof. Divyani Harpal. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.