Análise comparativa de custos de alternativas tecnológicas para construção de habitações populares

Abstract

The current Brazilian housings deficit is about 7,2 million of housings which is equivalent to 12,8% of the total of domiciles of the country, in accordance with the last National Research of Sampling of Domiciles (PNAD) carried through by the IBGE in 2008. Although Brazilian housing deficit should be considered an important problem to deal with, data from last PNAD indicates advances, mainly in the direction of the absolute reduction of the deficit. If one considers a comparison in relative bases, a good indicator of the reduction of this deficit can be obtained analyzing data from 2001 and 2007 years, where it was verified a fall trend from 15,7% for 12,8% of the total of domiciles in the country. To keep this fall trajectory means a difficult challenge that must be overcome and building industry plays an important role in this process. Its action provides short term impacts, with the generation of several jobs, and long term impacts, contributing to improve quality of life of the people. In this context, the discussion about building processes that can be used to obtain gradual reduction of the housings deficit associated with economical and environmental sustainable strategies has become an important and attractive subject to scientific studies in the country. The present work performed a comparative study of three technological alternatives for building social interest houses (low cost house), namely: Building system using structural masonry walls with concrete or ceramic units, Building system with gypsum walls and Building System with expanded polystyrene panel walls. An usual geometry, of the building with 42,3 m2 in area was chose because it represents the typology often used in government programs to reduce housings deficit in Brazil. Using this archetype buildings cost were identified and analyzed for each one of the building systems studied. The features of each system were examined, standing out its potentialities, advantages and disadvantages and a detailed budget (quantities and prices) was elaborated. Obtained results showed that from the point of view of building costs alone the Building system made with structural ceramic units presented lowest costs.