Impacts of application of IBS score regulations of CIDB on the concrete

volumes required for building projects in Malaysia

Sami Mustafa M. E. Ahmed1,a, Noor Amila Wan Abdullah Zawawi1,b and
Zulkipli B. Ghazali2,c
1
Civil Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia.
2
Management & Humanities department Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia.
a
sami.utp@hotmail.com, bamilawa@petronas.com.my, czulkipli_g@petronas.com.my

Keywords: Structural analysis and design, IBS components, and IBS score.
Abstract. Improvement of construction industry will contribute to the economy of Malaysia
because it is one of the five sectors used to calculate the national GDP. This fact is encouraging the
Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) of Malaysia to prepare many development plans
like Roadmap 2003-2010, CIMP 2006-2015, and Roadmap 2011-2015. Adoption of the
Industrialized Building System (IBS) is the step stone for all these plans. CIDB has created an
indicator to assess the degree on industrialization for applied building system; IBS score.
Furthermore, CIDB has specified the minimum values of this score for the building projects of
government and private sector. This paper discusses the effects of adjusting these values on the
structural design of an office building. The CIDB method of calculating the IBS score, the moment
distribution method of structural analysis and BS8110 code of design will be used to analyze the
selected case study.

Introduction
IBS score is the score for computing the total IBS component used in a building project [184]. It
reflects the degree of industrialization of composite system. IBS score are calculated for the super
structure only and any structural part below the ground level will not be considered. The higher IBS
score is an indicator for higher reduction of site labor, lower wastages, less site materials, cleaner
environment, better quality, neater and safer construction site, faster project completion as well as
lower total construction costs [1]. This paper discusses the effect of changing the value of IBS score
on the required volume of concrete for constructing building project in Malaysia

Methodology
This methodology includes using CIDB calculation method of IBS score, the structural design
based on the BS-8110 code of design, and selection of the equivalent IBS components.
CIDB calculation method of IBS scores. IBS score includes three components, these components
represent the structural system (S1), wall system (S2) and other simplified construction solutions
(S3) [184].
IBS score = S1+S2+S3; where S1= 50×Ʃ (Qs/Qst) ×Fs, S2= 20×Ʃ (Ws/Wst) ×Fw , and the values of
Fs are in table 1, Fw are in table 2, and S3 (<30) are as in table 3
Qs/Qst: the percentage of the construction area of which a particular system is used; out of the
total construction area of the building include roof. Fs: IBS factor for particular structural system as
in table.2.2
Qw/Qwt: the ratio of a particular wall system (external or internal) used out of the total wall
length of the building. Fw: IBS factor for particular wall system as in table.2.3
There are four types of roof considered; Prefab timber roof truss (PTR, Fs=1.0), Prefab metal
roof truss (PMR, Fs=1.0), Pre-cut metal roof truss (PCM, Fs=0.5) and Timber roof trusses (TMT,
Fs=0.0).
 Table 3: values of S3 Table 1: values of Fs
Beam Column Floor system
IBS score
system system precast RFS* TFS* No-
Percentage of usage
Description Unit floor
50% to 75% to
Precast Precast 1.0 0.7 0.6 1.0
<75% <=100%
Precast RFS* 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.8
Utilization of standard components based on MS 1064 Precast TFS* 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.7
1 Beams Nos 2 4 RFS* RFS* 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.6
2 Columns Nos 2 4 TFS* TFS* 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0
3 Walls m 2 4 RFS* Precast 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.8
4 Slabs M2 2 4 TFS* Precast 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.7
5 Doors Nos 2 4
6 Windows Nos 2 4 Table 2: values of Fw
Repetition of structural Layout No Wall System Fw
a) For building > 2 storeys 1 Precast concrete panel (PCP) 1.0
1 Floor to floor height Nos 1 2 2 In-situ concrete with RFS* 0.5
2 Vertical repetition Nos 1 2 3 In-situ concrete with TFS* 0.0
3 Horizontal repetition Nos 1 2 4 Block-work system (BWS) 0.5
b) For building 1 or 2 storeys 5 Pre-assemble brick wall/ block wall 1.0
1 Horizontal repetition Nos 3 6 (PBB)
6 Common brick wall (CBW) 0.0

* TFS refers to Timber Formwork System and RFS to Reusable Formwork System.

Conventional design of the case study. This case study is a three floor office building which will
be constructed by using the common building system; TFS. Fig. 1 shows the layout of the building.
400 425 425 425 425 250 250 400 400 400
Beam1 Beam6 Beam2 D
C3 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C3

450
C2 C1 C1Beam4 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C1
Beam5 C1 C1 C2 C
Beam3

300
C2 C1 C1 Beam4 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C1 Beam5 C1 C1 C2
B
450

C3 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C3

Beam1 A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
6: Construction joint
All dimensions in cm
Fig 1: Layout of typical floor, beams and columns
The conventional design:
1. Column : the section of C1 is 250×500 mm and of C2 and C3 is 250×450. The reinforcement
for all types is 6φ16mm and St.R8@150mm.
2. Beams : sections of all beams are the same; 250×500 cm. The average reinforcement for all
beams is 8φ16mm (with consideration of cutoff points) and St.R8@150mm.
3. Slabs : the thickness of slab is 130mm. The reinforcement of top and bottom is φ10@150 b/w.
4. Walls : All walls are of common 1/2bricks (125 mm) with mortar 1:6 (sand : cement).
Equivalent IBS design. The last version of CIDB catalogue of IBS components [2] will be used to
select the equivalent IBS sections. For span of 5m length, a half precast slab of depth 7.5cm and to
be topped up by concrete of 12.5cm depth; the total depth will be 20cm. The main reinforcement for
top and bottom layers is φ10-100c/c, and the secondary for both layers is φ10-250c/c. The width of
each panel is either 600 or 1200 or 2400 mm.
The topped up concrete will increase the dead load and hence, the structure should be re-analyzed.
All moment from slabs are assumed to be taken by the beams; the columns are subjected only to
axial loads. A section of 300×300mm with reinforcement of 4φ20mm and St.R10@225 mm is
found to be suitable for all columns after the structural analysis is revised.
There are different section will be used for beams due to differences in their lengths and the
subjected load on each of them. The sections will be as following; for A and D from 1 to 6, a
section of 300×500 with 7φ16 mm and St.R10@200 is proposed. For A and D from 6 to 11, a
section of 300×550 with 6φ16 and St.R10@200 is sufficient. For B and C from 1 to 6, a section of
350×500 with 8φ16 and St.R10@150 is considered. For B and C from 6 to 11, a section of
350×500 with 7φ16 and St.R10@ 150 is suggested. On the other direction, for external (1 & 11)
and construction joint (6) beams, a section of 350×450 with 7φ160 and St.R10@250 is proposed for
the length from A to B and from C to D. A section of 350×600 with 5φ12 & 2φ16 and St.R10@200
is considered for the length from B to C. For other beams in this direction from A to B and C to D, a
section of 300×450 with 7φ16 and St.R10@250 is proposed, and a section of 300×550 with 4φ12
& 2φ16 and St.R10@200 is found to be sufficient for the length from B to C.
A block could be considered as an alternative for the brick and it will increase the IBS score.

Results
The CIDB regulation specifies minimum IBS score of 70% for government building projects and
55% for private projects [3]. The contribution of the structural system (table 1) and wall system
(table 2) to the IBS score of the conventional design is zero out of a total of 70%. Changing all the
walls from brick to block will increase this score by 10%.
According to MS1064 part 10 [4], 100% of conventional beams and columns are combatable with
this code, but the thickness of walls and slabs are not combatable with it. 50% of the doors and
windows are assumed to match requirements of MS1064 part 5[5]. The horizontal, vertical and
floor heights are 100% typical.
The contribution of table 3 to the IBS score= (4(beams) +4(columns) +0(slabs & walls)
+2(windows) +2(doors) +6(repetitions) =18%.
The total of IBS score is 0(from table 1) +10(from table 2)+18(from table 3)= 28%.
This score should be increased to satisfy the CIDB regulations. There are 3 floors with 3 elements;
column, beam, and slab, which each of them has 3 options according to table 1. Hence, there are 81
possible scenarios.
Switching from conventional columns which require 5.62 m3 of concrete per meter length to
equivalent precast columns of concrete volume of 4.32m3 per meter length will reduce the volume
of concrete by 1.305 m3 per meter length per each floor.
The total reduction in concrete will be 1.305×3(column length)×3(No. of floors)=11.745 m3.
Similar calculation for conventional beam show that
The concrete volume for conventional beams= 0.25×0.5× (4× (23+17) +12×12) =43 m3 per floor.
The concrete used for IBS beams= 23×2×(0.3×0.5+0.35×0.5)+17×2×(0.3×0.55+
0.35×0.5)+9×4×0.3×0.45+3×4×0.35×0.6+ 9×8×0.3×0.45+3×8×0.3×0.55 =47.57 m3 per floor.
The total increase in concrete volume due to switching from conventional to IBS beams is 13.71 m3.
The difference in slab depth between the two systems is 12.5 cm; the concrete volume of the half
precast slab is greater by 75m3 per floor. Additional 225m3 of concrete will be required if all slabs
will be switched from conventional to IBS.
Results analysis
The drawings show that there is no floor slab in the ground floor; Fs equals 1 when pre-cast
columns and beams are used. The roof is to be casted by using TFS; Fs=0. If a combination of TFS
slab and pre-casted beam and columns for the roof and the first and second floors, the Fs of table 1
will equal to 0.6. Hence the contribution of the structural part will be 28.2 to the IBS score. This
contribution plus the 28% of the other two tables will yield 56.2%. This score satisfies the
regulation of CIDB for private projects (not less than 55%). The cost of this satisfaction on the
bases of concrete volume equals to (13.71-11.745) =2m3 which is approximately 8% of the total
volume of the concrete. The slab volumes remain at the lower value; 43m 3 per floor. The factor of
wastes for in-situ casted concrete is estimated by 3% [6]. However, the same factor for precast
concrete can be considered 0% due to possibility of recycling. Hence the actual difference can be
forecasted by only 5%.
Another scenario will be examined to satisfy the regulation regarding governmental buildings, the
slabs are casted by using RFS and columns and beam are pre-cast.
The contribution of table 1 equals 50× (1/4+0.7×2/4)=30%.
The total IBS score is 58% which is less than CIDB requirements. That means at least one floor slab
(including roof) must be precast concrete.
The contribution of the structural part for a case of (No floor, TFS, and precast roof slab) equal 40%
which less than 42% required to satisfy CIDB requirements.
Using RFS for floor slabs will improve this value to be 42.5% and the total IBS score of 70.2%
which is accepted by CIDB for government building projects. Any other scenario of improvement
will propose using precast slab and this will increase the required volume of concrete.

Conclusion and recommendations

The current regulations will encourage private sector to use precast column and beams because a
margin of 3% in concrete volume may be accepted as a cost for the higher quality and time saving.
Designer and contractor of government buildings have to expect that most of their future projects
will include precast slab as well as precast columns and beams.
Using of Block work instead of brickwork will contribute by 10% to the IBS score.
It is recommended that more studies related to the use of some optimization techniques like the
Artificial Intelligence Algorithms (AIA) will lead to better understanding for the impact of IBS
score on the construction industry of Malaysia.

References
[1] CIDB Malaysia, CIS: 18, Manual for IBS content scoring system (IBS score)".
www.ibscentre.com.my, 2010.
[2] CIDB Malaysia, User guide: IBS catalogue for precast building system, vol.1, 2011.
[3] CIDB Malaysia, Roadmap for Industrialized Building System (IBS) in Malaysia 2011-2015.
[4] Department of Standards Malaysia, Guide to modular coordination in buildings: (MS1064) part
10: coordinating sizes and preferred sizes for reinforced concrete components, 2009.
[5] Department of standards Malaysia, guide to modular coordination in buildings: (MS1064) part
4: coordinating sizes and preferred sizes for door sets, 2009.
[6] C. MAO, Q. SHEN, L. SHEN, L. TANG, Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions
between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two Case studies of
residential projects, Energy and Buildings (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.033.