Article

Flexible and Sustainable Incremental Houses: Advancing

Semi-Volumetric Systems of Prefabricated Construction for
Rapid Urbanization in Indonesia
Viata Viriezky, Dalhar Susanto and Miktha Farid Alkadri *

Research Cluster of Architectural Sciences and Building Technology (ASBT), Department of Architecture,
Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, Indonesia; [email protected] (V.V.);
[email protected] (D.S.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The Indonesian population is projected to increase by 66.65 in 2035 due to the
continuous rise in urbanization globally. The growth contributed to the growing hous-
ing backlog and limited availability of residential spaces. This led to the evolution of
incremental housing construction as an appropriate solution to residents’ needs. However,
several factors hinder the implementation of incremental housing, including prolonged con-
struction durations that delay the completion of an entire house, compromised quality of
workmanship and materials, as well as poor flexibility. Conventional on-site construction,
with concrete serving as the main material, led to prolonged construction time, difficult
renovation, and untreatable waste. Preliminary studies have been conducted on incremen-
tal housing from urban development and financial perspectives, with none on alternative
construction systems. Therefore, this study aimed to develop flexible and sustainable
incremental housing with an assembly–disassembly system capable of reducing construc-
tion time and waste. This study experimented on the connection systems through digital
simulations and prototypes leading to a construction system that combines frames and
Academic Editors: Bruno Barzellay
panels in a semi-volumetric system. It also combined a plug-and-play connection type to
Ferreira da Costa, Ana Evangelista, achieve the highest assembly–disassembly efficiency value (0.07), the lowest waste (below
Assed Naked Haddad, Diego A. 25%), and a 30% shorter construction time. The result showed no displacement when tested
Vasco and Ana Briga-Sá with a load of up to 3 tons. This study contributed to the growing body of knowledge on
Received: 26 October 2024 alternative incremental house construction techniques, paving the way for more adaptable
Revised: 19 December 2024 and environmentally responsible housing solutions in urban settings, particularly in rapidly
Accepted: 20 December 2024 urbanizing regions like Indonesia.
Published: 30 December 2024

Citation: Viriezky, V.; Susanto, D.; Keywords: incremental house; prefabrication construction; semi-volumetric; assembly–
Alkadri, M.F. Flexible and Sustainable disassembly; sustainable construction
Incremental Houses: Advancing Semi-
Volumetric Systems of Prefabricated
Construction for Rapid Urbanization
in Indonesia. Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
1. Introduction
infrastructures10010005 The stand-alone house, or single-family home, is growing rapidly, with a 4.2% annual
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. increase [1], leading to the generation of significant construction and demolition waste,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. contributing approximately 25% of solid waste globally [2]. In countries characterized
This article is an open access article by high urbanization (2.26% annually) and a growing population, such as Indonesia, the
distributed under the terms and housing backlog reached 12.75 million in 2020, intensifying housing access challenges [3].
conditions of the Creative Commons
With the millennial generation struggling to afford homes, feasible solutions were urgently
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
needed to support the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 11 and 12, which
licenses/by/4.0/).

Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures10010005

Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 2 of 23

focused on viable housing and responsible consumption. Therefore, to address these issues,
incremental housing offered a promising strategy [4].
Incremental housing refers to a gradual construction, expansion, and improvement
process based on the financial capacity and evolving needs of the family. Preliminary stud-
ies validated the potential as a flexible solution for low- and middle-income households in
developing countries. Alvarado et al. conducted a case study on settlement growth pat-
terns, focusing on the phenomenon of implementing incremental housing [5]. Furthermore,
Greene and Rojas defined this housing system as a gradual process, including the construc-
tion, expansion, and improvement by families [6]. The approach is particularly relevant
in Indonesia, where urban density and housing demands require innovative solutions.
Armenda, S. et al. [7] and Shabrina, T. et al. [8] explored the development of incremental
housing in dense settlements and reported that the building method was applied because
it met the needs of residents based on family members’ growth. While prior studies had
explored incremental housing in urban settings, there is a need for deeper investigation
of the implementation and impact, particularly in addressing housing deficiencies and
financial constraints [9]; this led to the structuring of the current study into five chapters.
Based on this, Mselle, J. and Alananga, S. identified certain problems in the construc-
tion of incremental housing, including the prolonged duration, increased costs, quality of
work, and materials not properly maintained due to lack of standardization [10]. However,
conventional construction had limitations associated with duration and the amount of
labor required, including demolition and expansion processes [11]. Several studies have
compared the efficiency of conventional (cast-on-site) and off-site manufacturing meth-
ods. In addition, the off-site manufacturing method had certain advantages in terms of
construction duration and the reduced production of waste [12]. It has the potential for
cost efficiency, with a construction duration of five to 15%, which is considered better than
the conventional method [13]. The off-site method uses materials effectively, reducing
construction waste by 83% at a recycling rate of 60% [14]. Meanwhile, a prefabrication
method, regarded as the semi- or hybrid-volumetric system, served as an alternative for
flexible and sustainable incremental house construction due to the efficiency of related
work activities and transformation ability [15]. This implied that the prefabrication method
was regarded as an alternative system for incremental house construction.
Previous studies on incremental housing were dominated by investigations carried
out on a macro basis, namely stakeholder policies and performance [16], management
of land provision and infrastructure [17], as well as housing financial management, com-
munities, and related organizational structures [9]. The investigations conducted on a
micro basis included the exploration of architectural design and concept, from the space
program to materials [18]. However, only a few studies have been conducted on the fab-
rication of a detailed and flexible construction system that adapts to incremental house
concepts. These were aimed at increasing flexibility in the expansion phase, especially by
using prefabrication and assembly–disassembly systems. As a result, the current study
focused on developing a flexible and sustainable incremental housing construction sys-
tem using a prefabricated, semi-volumetric method. The Section 1 discussed the general
background of the study. This was followed by a literature review that further clarified the
state-of-the-art related topics, such as the typology, construction system alternatives, and
flexibility of incremental houses. The Section 3 explored related scenarios and the selected
construction alternative system. Lastly, the concluding remarks were presented from the
overarching analysis.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 3 of 23

2. Literature Study
Prior studies on incremental house construction and related processes were reviewed.
In addition, several investigations were conducted to arrange or organize the typologies.
The present study aimed to design an incremental house construction system, result-
ing in the need to learn about the developed and flexible construction types through
previous analyses.

2.1. Typologies of Incremental House

The typologies of incremental housing evolution were identified and analyzed through
a review of projects that had been developed and implemented. Various built projects,
including Quinta Monroy in Chile [19], Villa Verde, Lo Espejo condominium [20], Monter-
rey [21], and prefabricated RISHA (Rumah Instan Sehat Aman) housing in Indonesia, were
reviewed as precedents [22].
Based on the identification of extension patterns in previous studies, there are four
types of incremental house evolution, namely horizontal (sideways), vertical (upward),
inward, and mixed, as shown in Figure 1. The horizontal evolution type was adopted in
areas that are not congested because the expanded land plot tends to be wider than the floor
of the main house, thereby enabling flexibility in all directions [16]. The vertical evolution
type was applied to incremental housing projects in dense residential areas because the
land plot does not prompt horizontal expansion. The evolutionary stages of this mixture
were preceded by horizontal and then vertical additions. Meanwhile, horizontal expansion
was carried out initially because construction costs were cheaper than vertical additions,
which required roof construction modifications [7].

Figure 1. Incremental house evolution types.

This led to the inference that the incremental house projects varied in evolution
typology. The process followed the trend of changes in activity or needs of occupants,
including the availability of land and infrastructure. However, in this study, the availability
of land and infrastructure was not examined further, referring to existing regulations,
namely the Decree of the Minister of Housing and Settlements. The pattern of changing
activities or needs of occupants depended on the results of previous studies.

2.2. Construction System Alternatives for Incremental Housing

The typologies of incremental housing evolution were identified and analyzed by
reviewing related projects that had been developed and implemented in previous studies.
Furthermore, the construction systems classification was based on the following fabrication
method or production of building elements, namely on- and off-site constructions.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 4 of 23

2.2.1. On-Site Construction Method

Conventional construction terminology was often used in studies on the application
of building systems, especially investigations focusing on sustainable development and
industrial technology [12]. In the present study, it is defined as a construction method
commonly applied by the majority of the community. Moreover, in Indonesia, conven-
tional construction refers to cast-on-site construction with concrete serving as the main
material [23].
On-site construction is defined as a method in which building elements are produced
and installed on-site using the distributed raw materials [14]. The adoption in several
incremental housing projects, such as Quinta Monroy, Los Espejos, and Baft, depended on
the fact that it was a commonly used method among local construction workers [20]. The
construction process, including the required period for residents to live in houses that are
not fully completed, is prolonged with decreasing quality of materials [10]. In addition,
an increase in the use of raw materials resulted in the greater need for the transportation
of tools needed to be distributed to the site [6]. Another on-site construction alternative is
3D-printing construction, which entails the use of automated machines to design building
components in layers [24]. This method is characterized by the following advantages:
rapid construction time, reduced labor costs, and minimal material waste [23]. However, it
also has certain limitations, such as high initial setup costs, unavailable tools, and limited
material options, especially in Indonesia [25].

2.2.2. Off-Site Construction Method

Alternative construction methods, besides the conventional types, are generally re-
ferred to as modern methods of construction (MMC), off-site manufacture (OSM), or
prefabricated construction [23]. In recent years, prefabricated construction has evolved as
a more sustainable alternative system in terms of time efficiency and labor requirements,
including the use and maintenance of material quality, especially in densely populated
areas [26]. The off-site construction types were categorized based on the assembly level,
namely sub-assembly, non-volumetric, and volumetric pre-assembly, as well as whole
building (modular) components [15]. Furthermore, the sub-assembly components are
prefabricated and not intended to be assembled on-site. The non-volumetric pre-assemblies
are prefabricated components that do not automatically form a building or enclosed space
when assembled. A whole building (modular) is a volumetric unit fully assembled into a
completed structure [15]. The modular system offered the highest construction efficiency
but lacked flexibility for adapting to incremental housing dynamics. Prior studies re-
ported that the non-volumetric system was the least efficient with high flexibility [27]. The
semi- or hybrid-volumetric prefabrication was the most promising option for incremental
housing applications as it offered both efficiency and flexibility for modification [28]. The
comparison between on- and off-site construction methods in terms of incremental house
implementation considerations [29], such as technology and materials availability, as well
as the flexibility potential and adaptability to changes, is shown in Table 1.
In Indonesia, residential standards outlined in Ministerial Decree No. 403/KTPS/M/2002
guide the design and dimensions of prefabricated components to ensure affordability,
functionality, and scalability for low-income earners interested in incremental housing [30].
The regulation specified land areas of 21 to 36 m2 for core houses and expansion areas, with
a minimum of 7.2 m2 per person. Modular coordination ensured effective land sizes of 72
to 90 m2 . Additionally, building specifications followed SNI 03-1977-1990 standardized
modular dimensions in horizontal and vertical directions based on multiples of base
modules [31]. In terms of climate conditions, tropical climate led to the need for durable
materials and designs that can withstand humidity and hot weather [21]. As Indonesia
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 5 of 23

is prone to earthquakes, prefabrication choices must prioritize structural stability and

lightweight materials. Disassembly systems were often designed with the flexibility to
accommodate seismic movements, reducing the risk of structural failure [32].
Based on this, hybrid or semi-volumetric prefabrication systems have several defi-
nitions. A hybrid system refers to a combination of various dimensions of prefabricated
elements to assemble a building [33]. Lopes et al. stated that it is the ability of a system
to change dimensions when distributed and installed [28]. Luis S. sa Silva et al. stated
that hybrid systems consisted of material combinations and structural configurations [34],
while R. E. Smith defined the system as the flexibility of space management [35]. In the
current study, the relevant hybrid system is a combination of various dimensions of pre-
fabricated elements used to assemble a structure. This is related to the flexibility aspect of
the incremental house requiring a system with soft technology to facilitate construction
changes without compromising the ability of the main structure [36]. The process can be
realized with a combination of linear and plane elements (panels) to assemble frames and
for easy installation, including disassembly [10].

Table 1. Potentials of construction method alternatives.

Construction Method Adaptability Availability

Conventional on-site Extensive demolition Commonly used [22]
Unavailable tools and
3D printing Extensive demolition [12]
materials
Assembly, inefficient Available, such as steel and
Non-volumetric [25]
disassembly timber
Available, such as steel,
Semi-volumetric Assembly–disassembly [35]
timber, composite panels
Assembly, lacks the Available, such as
Volumetric [13]
flexibility to custom composite panels

Preliminary studies on incremental housing construction systems and materials are

still limited. M. N. M. Iqbal and B. T. Ujianto conducted an investigation adopting RISHA
(Rumah Instan Sehat Aman) prefab housing technology but failed to provide a detailed
analysis of the construction process at the expansion or modification stage [22]. Wibowo and
Larasati carried out a similar analysis using bamboo with bolt connectors [16]. However,
certain challenges associated with material uniformity, durability, and difficulty in the
expansion or modification stage played a crucial role in incremental house construction,
including ensuring flexibility, were not addressed [6]. Mselle and Alananga also outlined
issues such as lengthy construction durations, rising costs, and inconsistent material quality,
while conventional construction faced inefficiencies in renovation and expansion [15].
Wilcox et al. examined the RDP housing program in South Africa, reporting challenges
with technical standards and the need for resident-responsive design. Moreover, there
is a need for further investigation of the construction systems to provide better support
for resident independence in modifying and expanding respective homes [37]. This gap
focused on the significance of housing policies and construction methods that accommodate
user-driven development while maintaining structural integrity and spatial quality over
time. As a result, an investigation of potential prefabrication systems based on respective
elements, such as non-volumetric and volumetric, also needs to be conducted.
In accordance with this, the house construction components consisted of system,
structure, skin, and space [35]. Therefore, hybrid prefabricated systems with various
definitions and configurations were arranged at the system level, comprising components,
namely structures, skin, and space, as shown in Figure 2 [15]. This was followed by the
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 6 of 23

dimension level, which included frames, walls, and partitions. The next level focused
on material based on elements, such as frames consisting of columns, beams, and walls,
while partitions comprised verticals and horizontals. The last level, connection or joint,
is considered the main factor in the hybrid flexibility level because the connection type
determines the ease of changing the system components [33].

Figure 2. Hybrid prefabrication system level (red lines, the entire house construction; blue lines,
connection type [35].

Building connection types are divided into three classifications based on the surface
contact of the components, the shape of surfaces, and the possibility of disassembling
the connection, as shown in Figure 3 [38]. A direct or integral connection consists of two
components in order to form a complete connection. Meanwhile, an indirect or accessory
connection uses additional parts other than the connected components. A filled connection
type exists between two components filled on-site with chemical materials [38]. It is
commonly known as a wet connection due to the liquid chemical material used as an
adhesive between components [39].

Figure 3. Classification of building connection types, among others, based on component surface
contact, shape, and the possibility of connection disassembly (red lines, potential system choice).

The connection between panels and structures is divided into panel-to-structure, panel-
to-panel, panel-to-subframe, and cladding panels [27]. The panel-to-structure relationship
is connected to the main structural framework and depends directly on the size. Meanwhile,
the panel-to-panel connection is connected to other panels, forming a module. The panel-
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 7 of 23

to-subframe relationship relies on additional structural elements connected to the slab.

Furthermore, the cladding panel connections are attached to the exterior of the load-bearing
wall components [27].

2.3. Flexibility of Incremental House Construction with Prefabricated Construction System

Flexibility in the context of incremental house construction refers to the ease with
which space can be changed or developed to suit occupant activities [10]. The disassembly
possibility is also an advantage of off-site or prefabricated construction, where ease of
installation is an important factor for determining efficiency [12].
The main concern in the design for assembly and disassembly construction is the ease
of assembling and disassembling components [14]. The ease of installing prefabricated
construction components was determined by the design assembly efficiency index [40].
Some methods used to measure assembly efficiency in design studies include DEI, analysis
of boundary topology of assembly, and DFA methods. Furthermore, the DEI (disassembly
effort index) was formulated by Krikke et al. as a model to score the market value of disas-
sembly product design [41]. Rehal and Sen examined the assembly design by analyzing
the boundary topology to determine the accessibility [42]. The DFA (Design for Assembly)
index is used to analyze the efficiency of a disassembly construction by scoring the easiness
of assembly and disassembly. The analysis of boundary typology of assembly and DEI
was both used to determine disassembly efficiency, while DFA was specifically adopted for
assembly–disassembly in terms of building construction, as well as applied in prefabricated
construction methods [33].
Based on the analysis, the measurement of construction waste was generally con-
ducted using Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) [43]. The present investigation focused on the
installation and dismantling processes. This led to the adoption of a specific construction
waste estimation method designed to suit modular construction systems, namely the Trans-
formation Capacity (TC) Assessment [38]. The TCA method was used to assess the capacity
of constructs with respect to change or transformation [38]. This led to the ability of an
incremental house construction system that adapts to changes in both the structure and
building skin [10]. Regarding flexibility to change, TC values served as a method related
to flexible and sustainable construction [44]. The two main aspects of the TC assessment
are independence and exchangeability. However, the independence aspect focused on an
assessment of components, from the manufacturing to the production processes. The TC
value can also be interpreted as an estimation of the waste produced by the construction
system used [38]. As a result, this study focused on the exchangeability criteria and the
incremental house construction process on-site. The process of manufacturing off-site
elements installed both off and on-site was excluded [38].
This led to the use of the DFA index and TC to determine the most efficient connection
system for incremental house construction in terms of adaptability. The DFA index was
adopted to calculate the easiness of the assembly process, while the TC value can be used
to determine the disassembly easiness as well as construction production waste estimation.

3. Materials and Methods

The exploration of incremental housing construction is broadly divided into the
overall housing and connection or joint systems. This distinction arose from the findings of
a particular literature review that outlined the adaptability of construction systems and
their respective connections. Therefore, adaptability was prioritized in the present study,
as incremental housing required flexibility to modify, expand, or disassemble structures in
response to evolving household needs. This flexibility ensured that the construction system
could accommodate future changes efficiently, supporting the core purpose of incremental
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 8 of 23

housing. Adaptability also played a central role in the long-term usability and sustainability
of the housing system, directly influencing the feasibility and functionality of the assembly
process, with cost and thermal performance perceived as relevant factors.
Aside from focusing on the process of incremental house construction systems, this
study also investigated aspects of structural strength and adaptability, as shown in Figure 4.
Structural strength aspects comprised analysis of displacement, maximum moment, and
compressive loading test [45]. Additionally, the adaptability aspect consists of assembly
and disassembly easiness. Ease of assembly was measured by the DFA index, while the
disassembly process and estimated construction waste were determined using the TC value.
The connection system was determined by the ease of disassembling and assembling, while
the combination of elements resulting in the formation of the whole components was
transformed into a single, flexible, incremental house construction system.

Figure 4. Study Framework.

3.1. Case Study

A case study method was adopted comprising incremental housing scenarios and alter-
native construction systems. The determination of the scenarios was based on a literature re-
view, including the mechanisms and direction of expansion, as well as housing typologies.

3.1.1. Incremental House Scenario

Certain elements that need to be determined in terms of arranging the incremental
house scenario include
a. Expansion mechanism
Based on the housing standard in Indonesia [31], the residential area was determined
through the fresh air needs of each individual. Presumably, 9 m2 ; therefore, the
module space used in this study is 3 × 3 m. The expansion mechanism adopted
module ¼—1 module for flexibility and material efficiency [46].
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 9 of 23

b. Floor and land area

The land area of 80 m2 obtained was based on the Minister of Settlement and Regional
Infrastructure in Indonesia No. 403-2002 and is also regarded as the maximum area
to be flexibly explored.
c. Housing type
The housing type scenario used is the landed house. This is because the incremental
house tends to expand horizontally before expanding vertically [8].
d. Expansion direction
The expansion direction was decided based on previous studies related to the incre-
mental housing development pattern [7]. The following expansion scenarios were
used, as shown in Figure 5.
Stage 0 Horizontal—Core house
Stage 1 Horizontal—Domestic needs (bedroom)
Stage 2a Horizontal/Vertical—Domestic needs (bedroom)
Stage 2b Horizontal/Vertical—Domestic needs (expansion of guest/family room)
Stage 3a Vertical—Economic needs (working room/self-employment)

Figure 5. Incremental house expansion scenario for the study.

3.1.2. Construction System Alternative

Material standardization and construction duration affected the incremental house con-
struction process [10]. These factors were influenced by how the construction components
were produced and assembled. As a result, the flow of determining system alternatives
was subjected to three phases, namely manufacturing, installation type, and connection
methods [47].
• Construction method
Off-site manufacturing methods offer certain benefits in terms of construction du-
ration and reduced production of waste [12]. It has the potential for cost efficiency and
processing time of 5 to 15% compared to the conventional process [6]. The method of
using pre-assembly elements tends to support the ease of building incremental housing.
Therefore, the off-site manufacturing method was applied in the present analysis. Litera-
ture studies reported that semi-volumetric, hybrid off-site, or prefabricated construction
systems had better efficiency compared to non-volumetric systems and higher flexibility
than volumetric [28]. As a result, the applied system is a semi-volumetric prefabrication
or hybrid.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 10 of 23

• Assembly System
The assembly system was determined based on the classification of connection types,
including reversibility, component contact, and typology [15].
• Reversibility.
Non-fixed connection types were selected due to the ability to be disassembled and
reused, supporting the flexibility required for incremental housing [33]. This ensured ease
of installation and modification, enabling residents to make changes independently.
• Contact between components
This study selected an alternative for each component contact type, namely direct and
indirect. For direct contact, the interlock type was selected due to the superior rigidity and
reduced leakage risk compared to the overlap type [14]. For indirect contact, accessory-type
connections were selected as a result of easy fabrication compared to reversible material
bonds, which have more complex maintenance and material replacement requirements [48].
• Connection Typology
The interlock tongue-and-groove typology was selected due to the higher rigidity
compared to the staggered type [14]. For accessories, the **external accessory type** was
selected, as external positioning simplified installation, disassembly, and maintenance
compared to internal types [48].
Sandwich panel walls with tongue-and-groove connections were used for the building
skin. The panels were selected due to the high strength-to-weight ratio and superior thermal
and acoustic insulation compared to monolithic or layered-composite wall panels [28].
Therefore, the alternative construction scenarios for incremental housing consisted of a
hybrid/semi-volumetric prefabrication system with four connection types, namely direct-
interlock-tongue-and-groove, indirect-accessory-fin plate, accessory-bracket, and accessory-
plug-and-play [28], as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. The connection/joint types (red frames refer to preferred types).

3.2. Data Input and Output for Specifying Construction System

3.2.1. Structural Strength Simulation Displacement and Maximum Moment
Data setting and analysis refer to the structural requirements for a simple residential
house that can carry a live load of 1.92 kN/m2 with models for each connection type
alternative, as shown in Figure 7. The structural strength of the whole construction system
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 11 of 23

was reviewed based on the maximum moment for the frame to bend. The simulation tool
used is ETABS 20, with the material properties referring to standard data [49].

Figure 7. Models for each connection-type alternative.

3.2.2. Adaptability DFA Index and TC Value

The DFA index input data were influenced by a number of mounting components,
weight, and handling methods. Meanwhile, the component handling method for each
alternative was adjusted to suit the literature study on the DFA Index [40]. This included
the components needed to assemble the complete connection, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Component data for installation of each alternative [40].

Connection Type Component Name Number of Components

Column (groove) 1
Beam (tongue) 5
Direct-interlock-tongue and
Rivet 10
groove (tongue and groove)
Column weight (kg) 119.05
Beam weight (kg) 119.05
Plate 3 mm 8
Plate 6 mm 2
Screw 8 mm 53
Indirect-accessory-external-fin Screw-fastening 1
plate (fin plate) Column 1
Beam 1
Column weight (kg) 69.46
Beam weight (kg) 57.20
Bracket 8
Screw 12 mm 32
Screw fastening 1
Indirect-accessory-external-
Column 1
bracket (bracket)
Beam 1
Column weight (kg) 36.59
Beam weight (kg) 57.20
T-plug 1
Socket 1
Screw 12 mm 15
Screw 10 mm 36
Indirect-accessory-external-plug
Screw fastening 1
and play (plug and play)
Column 1
Beam 5
Column weight (kg) 36.60
Beam weight (kg) 4.54
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 12 of 23

The TC assessment input data were determined in line with the installation method,
geometry, and connection type according to the classification in the literature study [38]. The
results of the assessment on the exchangeability aspect were influenced by the configuration
of the component installation. The alternative construction system had an installation
configuration that tended to be vertical, as shown in Figure 8. However, the indirect
accessory bracket and accessory plug-and-play types were subjected to parallel stages. This
included the installation of components, namely brackets and T-plug sockets, connected in
parallel with the extension beams [34].

Figure 8. The installation configuration for each alternative [38].

3.3. Fabrication of Prototypes

The prototype for the assembly–disassembly demonstration was designed at a scale
of 1:2 using 3D printing and laser cutting machines. This is in line with previous studies
that conducted an experimental model construction with a 1:2 scale, as shown in Figure 9.
The exact scale was used to ensure the geometric accuracy of components during the
assembly demonstration.

Figure 9. The process of making a 3D printing model.

In order to determine the compressive strength using the Frame Loading Test appa-
ratus, the specimens were fabricated at a scale of 1:1 with the actual material and size
designed to fit the equipment, as shown in Figure 10. The alternative, which was assessed
with the loading test, showed the best performance after the assembly demonstration using
the 3D-printed model. The assessment was conducted in the laboratory using the Frame
Loading Test apparatus. Additionally, the materials used refer to the national standards
and findings from literature studies on disassembly construction.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 13 of 23

Figure 10. The specimen for compressive test.

3.4. Data Input and Output for Strength and Assembly–Disassembly Testing
3.4.1. Compressive Strength Test Settings
Figure 11 shows the loading test conducted to measure the compressive strength. The
specimens tested were designed using a scale of 1:1 with the actual material and according
to the size of the equipment. In addition, the specimens had a column size and truss
length of 150 cm high and 36 cm, respectively, because they adjusted to the dimensions
of the testing equipment. Iron plates were welded at the top and bottom of the column
as a connection between the specimen and the equipment. The test was carried out by
providing the area load of the building based on the incremental house scenario.

Figure 11. The loading test.

3.4.2. Construction Time Estimation Input

The estimated construction duration was carried out using the schedule method.
This required comparing the duration between conventional construction systems and
semi-volumetric prefabrication [50]. Development stages 1 and 2 of the incremental house
scenarios represented the expansion process shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Estimated duration per work item.

Estimated Run Time (Hours per Volume)

Work Item Volume Unit ConventionalSemi-Volumetric Prefabrication
[13] [12]
Early work m2 1.3 0.9
Structure and foundation m3 20.0 14.0
Wall installation and painting m2 8.0 5.6
Jamb work m2 1.3 0.9
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 14 of 23

Table 3. Cont.

Estimated Run Time (Hours per Volume)

Work Item Volume Unit Semi-Volumetric
Conventional
Prefabrication
[13] [12]
Floor m2 2.7 1.9
Ceiling m2 2.7 1.9
Roof truss and roof
m3 4.7 3.3
covering
Plumbing m3 2.0 1.4
Finishing m2 4.7 3.3

4. Results
The results obtained included testing the implementation of the specified construction
system in incremental house scenarios to determine the most suitable. The best alternative
was then assessed through models during scale and sample testing.

4.1. Specified Alternative Construction System for Incremental House Scenario

The step led to the displacement of the maximum moment from the digital simulation
and DFA index to the calculated TC value.

4.1.1. Digital Simulation Displacement and Maximum Moment

Displacement is a crucial parameter for structural sturdiness in incremental housing,
as it ensures flexibility for expansion without compromising stability. The results from the
digital simulations of each alternative connection type showed that the indirect accessory
bracket had the least displacement value of 0.48 cm at 50 kN, as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Comparison of maximum displacement.

The indirect accessory fin plate had the largest displacement value of 3.77 cm at 50 kN.
Referring to the standard [49] loading for the design of buildings, the maximum change
in the shape of structural elements with steel material (fin plate, bracket, plug, and play)
for a span of 300 m is 1 cm (obtained from l/300), and 1.25 cm (obtained from l/240)
for structures with concrete material (interlock tongue and groove). Any displacement
value that does not meet the standard exposes the occupants to risk, especially in the
modification stage. Additionally, certain types of indirect accessory fin plates do not meet
the recommended standard.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 15 of 23

In terms of the area affected by displacement, the direct interlock tongue and groove
type had the highest percentage of 28%. The maximum moments or loads that can be
carried by the construction system until deflection occurs are shown in Table 4. The highest
maximum moment of 814,001.4 kN/mm was achieved by the indirect accessory plug-
and-play type. At the same time, the lowest maximum moment of 154,697.7 kN/mm
was realized before deflection by a type of indirect-accessory-fin plate. The structure
with the highest maximum moment that can prevent excessive deformation, leading to
failure, as well as help in maintaining structural integrity during modifications, adapts to
load redistribution. As a result, the plug-and-play and bracket systems were considered
the sturdiest.

Table 4. Maximum moments.

Connection Type Maximum Moment (kN/mm)

Int. Tongue and Groove 421,035.6
Fin Plate 154,697.7
Bracket 290,427.7
Plug and Play 814,001.4
Standard 214,872.4

4.1.2. DFA Index and TC Value

The results of the DFA index for each alternative showed that the direct interlock
tongue and groove type had the highest value. This was because the components required
for the installation process were the least compared to the other types, as shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13. DFA index results.

The results of the TC assessment conducted on the exchangeability aspect for each
type are shown in Table 5. The highest scores were achieved by the indirect accessory
bracket and accessory plug-and-play types with a value of 1. This was because the two
types had sub- or connecting components that minimized the occurrence of damage to the
main structure if disassembled. However, the smallest TC value of 0.6 was realized by the
direct interlock tongue and groove type.
The results in Table 5 showed the alternatives were interpreted as an estimation of
construction waste production based on the TC value obtained. The direct-interlock-tongue
and groove type had the highest construction waste production estimate of 80%. The
bracket and plug-and-play system had the least value of less than 25%, categorized as TC-1.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 16 of 23

Table 5. TC value results.

Connection Type Total Grading Average (TC Value)

Int. Tongue and Groove 4.5 0.5625
Fin Plate 6.5 0.8125
Bracket 8 1
Plug and Play 8 1

4.2. Assembly–Disassembly and Strength Testing Results

Considering the results of the first trial, prototypes of alternative systems, such as the
indirect accessory plug-and-play and accessory bracket connections, were modeled because
both offered more benefits than the high TC and low displacement value. Although the
interlock tongue and groove achieved the highest DFA value, it scored low in TC values
and had a higher risk of displacement. This led to subsequent testing conducted on the
bracket and plug-and-play systems. The 1:2 scale prototypes were assembled to represent
the assembly process of each connection type, as shown in Figure 14.
- Plug-and-play connection system installation process
(1) T-plug to truss assembly Fixing the top and lower T-plug to the truss with screws,
(2) T-plug to socket assembly, Positioning the T-plug and truss components to be
installed in the socket, including inserting a series of both components, (3) Plug-and-
play connection complete Installing the T-plug and socket with bolts.
- The process of installing the bracket connection system
(1) Preparing two brackets Preparing the two bracket components joined with columns
and beams, (2) Positioning brackets and bolts, Positioning the brackets side by side
and the bolts for installation, (3) Tightening the bolts, tightening the bolts at the joints
between the brackets and accessing it through the hole drilled in the plate.

Figure 14. The assembling process of connection types.

The plug-and-play connection had an unobstructed visual accessibility, making it

easier for the installer to access and recognize the screw. Accessibility in the assembly–
disassembly process of incremental house construction played an important role by en-
abling ease of modification, expansion, or repair as the structure evolved.
The subsequent stage witnessed the implementation of the plug-and-play connection,
namely the installation of the entire system to the maximum expansion. The overall incre-
mental house construction model was designed based on a semi-volumetric prefabricated
system with a combination of linear (frame system) and planar (panel system) elements
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 17 of 23

alongside respective connections, as shown in Figure 15. These components were applied
in each stage of the incremental house scenario. Furthermore, expansion was realized
by adding new beam frame modules to the columns using plug-and-socket components
of a plug-and-play system, followed by planar elements, such as wall and floor panels.
Assembling the model with the connection system represented the principle of installa-
tion, depicting that the expansion system can be installed without damaging the main
frame elements.

Figure 15. The incremental house construction with a semi-volumetric prefabricated system and
plug-and-play connection.

The sturdy and flexible bracket connection system had low visibility, making it harder
for households to perform modifications easily. This tends to reduce the adaptability of
incremental housing. Although the tongue and groove system is easiest to assemble, it
generates greater waste, exhibiting lower strength and limiting the sustainability of long-
term housing modifications. The fin plate system had a poor score in flexibility, waste, and
sturdiness, making it unsuitable for incremental house needs.
The plug-and-play system excelled in flexibility, visual accessibility, and sturdiness.
Despite comprising more components, characterized by increased complexity, it facilitated
quick and easy assembly and disassembly. This is particularly relevant for incremental
housing construction, which must adapt to the changing needs of the occupants over
time. The plug-and-play system enabled efficient adjustments and expansions without
compromising the stability or strength of the structure, making it the most preferred choice
in terms of meeting the evolving demands of the home. Additionally, the flexibility and
ability to produce gradual changes or improvements resulted in the suitability compared
to the other systems that may be simpler but provide less support for long-term alterations.

4.2.1. Construction Time Estimation

The estimated duration of incremental house construction with conventional and semi-
volumetric prefabricated systems showed a potential savings in duration of approximately
30%. The construction time from the initial to the second growing stage with the conven-
tional system is 15 weeks. Meanwhile, the period for the semi-volumetric prefabricated
system tends to be relatively 10 weeks, as shown in Table 6.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 18 of 23

Table 6. Estimated construction time for incremental housing scenario.

Incremental House Construction Method Work Item Duration Estimation (Week)

No.
Schedule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Convention incremental house construction
1 Preliminary work/preparation
2 Foundation and main Structure
3 Wall and finishing
4 Doors and window frames
5 Flooring
6 Ceiling
7 Roof structure and finishing
8 Plumbing
9 Finishing
10 Exterior and cleaning
Proposed (semi-volumetric prefabrication) incremental house construction
1 Preliminary work/preparation
2 Foundation and main Strutucre
3 Wall and finishing
4 Doors and window frames
5 Flooring
6 Ceiling
7 Roof Structure and finishing
8 Plumbing
9 Finishing
10 Exterior and Cleaning

4.2.2. Compressive Strength Test

The load used in the compressive strength test was adjusted to calculate the maximum
load combination of 26,571.69 kg or 365.49 kg/m2 . The load placed on the specimen was
adjusted to suit the areas of 9 m2 and 18 m2 (1 module and 2 modules) based on the
incremental house scenario, resulting in a given load of 2 tons to 3 tons. The results of the
test showed there was no damage and displacement after a load of approximately 3 tons
was placed on the specimen, as in Figure 16.

Figure 16. The compressive strength test on the specimen.

Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 19 of 23

5. Discussion
The previous studies stated that the conventional concrete on-site construction system
lacked the adaptability to change. However, the off-site system, such as the prefabricated
construction, had a more adaptable potential [10]. This led to further investigation of
the application in the context of incremental housing. With respect to the construction
process, adaptability and assembly easiness were perceived as essential factors [36]. The
results on disassembly construction showed that flexibility occurred more in a system with
fewer components. The present study also reported that a system with fewer components
produced greater waste despite having the highest flexibility. This was represented through
a score scale based on the strength and adaptability parameters in Figure 17.

Figure 17. Total score of each alternative.

The highest score was achieved by the indirect accessory plug-and-play type due to the
strength and potential for reuse after being disassembled. Meanwhile, the direct-interlock-
tongue and groove types had the lowest score due to their strength and low potential
for reuse. This showed that the small number of sub-components included or excluded
for the connection purpose led to high installation efficiency. However, the potential for
these components to be reused tends to be lower. This occurred because the installation
system depended on the main components, thereby increasing the damage possibility
when disassembled. For systems with sub-components, the damage possibility of the main
components when disassembled is lower [38].
Conventional on-site construction systems were characterized by a molding process
that required additional labor and materials [15]. Furthermore, the preparation and cleaning
processes of the fabricated conventional construction elements also require time beyond the
installation procedure, resulting in a prolonged period [12]. The residents of incremental
houses should be able to stay at home without moving to another place during renovations
or expansions [6]. When the process is being carried out, the semi-volumetric prefabricated
construction system can be changed without dismantling the main elements that support
the structure [29]. It can be achieved by removing the planar elements or the panel from the
frame, ensuring the change process does not affect the structural capabilities of the house.
This hybrid or semi-volumetric system exhibited a higher level of work efficiency than
the non-volumetric type due to the presence of planar or panel components that facilitate
installation compared to only using linear or frame components during the entire process.
The combination of panel and frame systems in incremental house construction pro-
vides residents with the flexibility to modify and customize their respective homes while
maintaining structural integrity. In addition, the frame served as the primary load-bearing
structure, ensuring stability. The panels, which fill the spaces between the frames, are
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 20 of 23

non-structural and can be replaced or upgraded without compromising the overall strength
of the house. This versatility enabled residents to customize personal homes based on
budget, climate adaptation, and personal preferences, with the structural frame providing
a stable and long-lasting foundation, potentially benefitting dense and tropical climates
such as Indonesia [32]. Furthermore, the system also supported the use of sustainable and
environmentally friendly panel materials that are rapidly being developed, such as timber
wall panels [51].
Incremental housing traditionally relied on time-consuming conventional methods,
leading to inconsistent material quality and significant construction waste. Globally, pre-
fabrication methods have restructured construction processes, with volumetric systems
perceived as a popular choice [12]. Fully volumetric systems lacked the adaptability crucial
for incremental housing, where user-driven modifications were perceived as essential [33].
Furthermore, non-volumetric prefabrication, such as planar systems used in projects across
Southeast Asia and Chile, was effortlessly integrated into user-modifiable structures [52].
Semi-volumetric systems offered a novel solution by combining frame and panel elements
with plug-and-play connections, balancing efficiency and flexibility. This method reduced
construction time and enabled residents to modify homes independently, thereby elimi-
nating on-site casting processes, including minimizing waste. Distinct from conventional
methods, it conforms with the global push for sustainable construction, addressing material
wastage issues common in developing countries such as Indonesia [16]. Semi-volumetric
prefabrication represented a paradigm shift in incremental housing, integrating the effi-
ciency and sustainability of prefabrication with the adaptability required for user-driven
customization. By bridging global trends and local needs for incremental and customizable
housing, this scalable solution has the potential to advance both housing technology and
environmental objectives.
The use of prefabricated materials in house construction is considered appropriate
in Indonesia. However, scaling this system for broader applications tends to face certain
challenges, such as upfront costs, supply chain limitations in remote areas, and the risk of
cultural resistance to unfamiliar construction methods [32]. The risk of insulation leakage
was also detected from the whole house construction prototyping. Additionally, long-term
impacts, such as maintenance costs and energy efficiency, were unexplored, warranting
further evaluation to fully assess system sustainability and viability. The semi-volumetric
prefabricated construction system with plug-and-play connections had the potential to
enhance the ease of incremental modifications and expansions by residents. This played a
crucial role due to the dynamic nature of households, where changes in family structure
were often accompanied by evolving needs and activities [16].

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

In conclusion, the concept of incremental house construction refers to a method of
building houses that meets the needs of sustainable housing gradually and regularly, ad-
justing to the developmental activities of residents. This led to the planning and testing of
the intended construction system to be applied in the incremental housing scenario. Digital
planning was carried out to determine the accuracy and efficiency of the development
process and construction systems. The ease of installation and structural strength were con-
sidered during the construction concept development. Additionally, the ease of installation
and potential for non-destructive disassembly increased expansion flexibility (ease of in-
stallation, material efficiency, and execution time). The strength of the construction ensured
the safety of the occupants from the main house to the expansion stage. Elements of house
construction consisting of space, structure, and building skin needed to be investigated.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 21 of 23

Furthermore, experiments on prototypes or samples were carried out to provide a clear

picture of how the technical implementation of the system functioned.
The prefabricated construction method offered certain benefits in terms of construc-
tion time efficiency and material quality uniformity compared to the conventional types.
Therefore, it had the potential to be developed in incremental house construction. Hy-
brid or semi-volumetric type prefabricated construction systems combine linear (frame
system) and planar (panel system) elements. This resulted in better installation efficiency
than non-volumetric systems, which possessed a high degree of flexibility compared to
the volumetric type. The combined impact of panel and frame elements with a plug-
and-play connection system enabled the incremental housing development process to be
more efficient by reducing construction time, potentially making it easier for residents
to modify their respective homes independently. Distinct from the conventional types,
semi-volumetric prefabrication systems do not require on-site casting processes, which
could prolong the construction time. This study added to the inventory of knowledge,
specifically aimed at increasing the flexibility of the construction process by using devel-
oped technology, namely semi-volumetric prefabrication. The application of this system
also had the potential to minimize the production of construction waste.
The following limitations and an in-depth investigation of the utility and insulation
capabilities of the material needed to be addressed. Additionally, the overall construction
work had not been explored in this study. In terms of structural strength, the addition
of maximum load and shear resistance to the structural strength test was recommended.
Further investigation related to incremental house construction systems was recommended
to discuss these limitations in depth. This led to the application of semi-volumetric pre-
fabricated construction systems in order to achieve sustainable construction. However,
prefabrication reduced construction time and labor demands, potentially enabling faster
delivery of affordable housing to meet growing demand in developing areas, such as
Indonesia. The government uses these systems to standardize and restructure related pro-
grams, fostering innovation in affordable and adaptable housing. Moreover, prefabricated
methods tend to create job opportunities in manufacturing and assembly, improving local
economies while addressing housing shortages.
Several recommendations have been made for stakeholders concerned with incremen-
tal housing construction, particularly those in the planning sector. The stakeholders were
advised to design housing construction that included the initial core house to the final
growth stages based on analyses of the growth patterns of residents’ activities and needs.
Additionally, the use of digital technology, DFA, and TC assessment indices should be
included in the planning process to design structural strength performance and growth
flexibility models and simulations. The findings of this study served as an inventory of
knowledge for planners seeking alternative construction systems for incremental housing
using prefabricated materials. This approach required combining frame and panel elements
with a plug-and-play connection system. However, before fully applying the system, there
would be a need for further investigation of other parameters on long-term impacts, such
as maintenance and overall construction costs, including energy efficiency. These findings
also need to be enhanced by investigating the quality and utility installations in housing.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.V. and M.F.A.; methodology, M.F.A.; software, V.V.;
validation, V.V. and D.S.; writing—original draft preparation, V.V.; writing—review and editing,
M.F.A. and D.S.; visualization, V.V.; supervision, D.S.; funding acquisition, M.F.A. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement: Data will be available on request.

Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 22 of 23

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. The World Bank. 2019. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/in/news/press-release/2019/10/03/indonesia-bold-
reforms-needed-to-realize-urban-potential (accessed on 22 February 2024).
2. United States Green Building Council. Construction Waste; Materials and Resources; United States Green Building Council:
Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
3. Global Alliance for Building and Construction. Roadmap for an Energy Efficient, Low-Carbon Buildings and Construction Sector in
Indonesia; Direktorat Jenderal Energi Baru, Terbarukan, dan Konservasi Energi: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022.
4. United Nations Environment Programme. The Closing Window, Climate Crisis Calls for Rapid Transformation of Societies; United
Nations: Nairobi, Kenya, 2022.
5. Alvarado, R.G.; Donath, D.; Böhme, L.F.G. Growth Patterns in Incremental Self-Build Housing in Chile. Open House Int. 2009, 34,
18–25. [CrossRef]
6. Greene, M.; Rojas, E. Incremental Housing Construction: A Strategy to Facilitate Access to Housing. Environ. Urban. 2008, 20,
89–108. [CrossRef]
7. Armenda, S.; Adianto, J.; Gabe, R.T. Growth Patterns and Pivotal Factors of Incremental Housing in Kampung Cikini, Jakarta. Int.
J. Des. Manag. Prof. Pract. 2022, 16, 1. [CrossRef]
8. Shabrina, T.; Adianto, J.; Gabe, R.T. Regressive Incremental Housing Development in Kampung Muka, North Jakarta. Int. J.
Architecton. Spat. Environ. Des. 2021, 15, 81. [CrossRef]
9. Wainer, L.S.; Ndengeyingoma, B.; Murray, S. Incremental Housing, and Other Design Principles for Low-Cost Housing; International
Growth Centre: London, UK, 2016.
10. Mselle, J.; Sanga, S.A. Constraint Facing Incremental Housing Construction in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries.
2018, 23, 1–20. [CrossRef]
11. Yates, J.K.; Castro-Lacouture, D. Sustainability in Engineering Design and Construction; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
12. Riley, M.; Cotgrave, A. Construction Technology 1: House Construction, 3rd ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2013.
13. Adinda, N.R.; Dwipriyoko, E.; Kusuma, D.A.; Henong, S.B.; Nuryono, B.; Haris, S.; Mahardhika, A. Analysis of Modular
House Fabrication Technology Application in Subsidized Housing Construction Based on Project Planning. In Journal of Physics:
Conference Series; Virtual Conference on Engineering, Science and Technology (ViCEST); IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020;
p. 1/012099.
14. Zhong, B.; Guo, J.; Zhang, L.; Wu, H.; Li, H.; Wang, Y. A blockchain-based framework for on-site construction environmental
monitoring: Proof of concept. Build. Environ. 2022, 217, 109064. [CrossRef]
15. Gibb, A.; Isack, F. Re-engineering through pre-assembly: Client expectations and drivers. Build. Res. Indormation 2013, 31, 146–160.
[CrossRef]
16. Wibowo, A.H.; Larasati, D. Incremental Housing Development; An Approach In Meeting. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 152, 012006.
17. Alananga, S.; Lucian, C.; Kusiluka, M.M. Significant cost-push factors in owner-built incremental housing construction in
Tanzania. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2015, 33, 671–688. [CrossRef]
18. Marinovic, G.I. The Guideline for Customizing Incremental Housing based on Two Chilean Case Studies. J. Archit. Urban. 2020, 4,
166–175. [CrossRef]
19. Aravena, A. Elemental-Interview. Perspecta 2018, 42, 85–89.
20. O’Brien, D.; Carrasco, S.; Dovey, K. Incremental housing: Harnessing informality at Villa Verde. J. Archit. Res. 2020, 14, 345–358.
[CrossRef]
21. Adhikari, S. Incremental Housing, Design Approach for Kathmandu; Metropolia University of Applied Science: Helsinki, Finland,
2019.
22. Iqbal, M.N.; Ujianto, B.T. Prinsip desain arsitektur rumah tumbuh dan mikro: Studi karya arsitek yu sing. J. Perdaban Sains
Rekayasa Teknol. 2021, 9, 234–249. [CrossRef]
23. Setaki, F.; van Timmeren, A. Disruptive technologies for a circular building. Build. Environ. 2022, 223, 10394. [CrossRef]
24. Wu, P. A critical review of the use of 3-D printing in the construction industry. Autom. Constr. 2016, 68, 21–31. [CrossRef]
25. Gunarto, G.T.; Kusuma, N.R.; Arvanda, E.; Isnaeni, H. An Analysis of Architectural Approach Towards the Efficiency of RISHA
as Post-Disaster Housing Response in Indonesia. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 452, 012029. [CrossRef]
26. Ziaesaeidi, P.; Farsangi, E.N. Fostering Social Sustainability: Inclusive Communities through Prefabricated Housing. Buildings
2024, 14, 1750. [CrossRef]
27. Lopes, G.C.; Vicente, R.; Azenha, M.; Ferreira, T.M. A systematic review of Prefabricated Enclosure Wall Panel Systems: Focus on
technology driven for performance requirements. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 40, 688–703. [CrossRef]
28. Rajanayagam, H.; Poologanathan, K.; Gatheeshgar, P.; Varelis, G.E.; Sherlock, P.; Nagaratnam, B.; Hackney, P. A-State-of-The-Art-
Review on Modular Building Connections. Structures 2021, 34, 1903–1922. [CrossRef]
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 5 23 of 23

29. Tavares, V.; Calheiros, C.S.C.; Martins, I.B.; Maia, J.; Tsikaloudaki, K.; Fonseca, M.; Marchesi, M.; Laban, M.; Soares, N.; Santos, P.;
et al. Modularity and Prefabrication. [book auth.] Luis Braganca et.al. In Circular Economy Design and Management in the Built
Environment; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024.
30. Kepmen PUPR. Pedoman Teknis Pembangunan Rumah Sederhana Sehat (Rs SEHAT). No. 403/KTPS/M/2002. Jakarta, Indonesia,
2002. Available online: https://jdih.pu.go.id/internal/assets/assets/produk/KepmenPUPR/2002/12/Kepmen403-2002.pdf
(accessed on 12 May 2024).
31. Indonesian National Standard (SNI). 03-1977-1990 on the Specifications of Modular Coordination for Residential and Building Construc-
tion; Indonesian National Standard (SNI): Jakarta, Indonesia, 1990.
32. Sunjata, V.; Simanjuntak, M.R.A.; Sulistio, H.; Ardani, J.A. The Implementation of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly
(DfMA) in Indonesian Construction Industry: Major Barriers and Driving Factors. Plan. Malays. J. 2024, 22, 156–170. [CrossRef]
33. Boafo, F.E.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, J.T. Performance of Modular Prefabricated Architecture: Case Study-Based Review and Future
Pathway. Sustainability 2016, 8, 558. [CrossRef]
34. da Silva, L.S.; Silva, L.C.; Tankova, T.; Craveiro, H.D.; Simões, R.; Costa, R.; D’Aniello, M.; Landolfo, R. Performance of modular
hybrid cold-formed/tubular structural system. Structures 2021, 30, 1006–1019. [CrossRef]
35. Smith, R.E. Prefab Architecture: A Guide to Modular Design and Construction; JohnWiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
36. Till, J.; Tatjana, S. Flexible Housing: The Means to the End; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005.
37. Wilcox, A.; Mota, N.; Haffner, M.; Elsinga, M. Compact Housing for Incremental Growth: The K206 RDP Project in Alexandra,
Johannesburg. Urban Plan. 2024, 9, 7736. [CrossRef]
38. Durmisevic, E. Transformable Building Structures: Design for Disassembly as a Way to Introduce Sustainable Engineering to Building
Design & Construction; Bouwkundig Ingenieur: Delft, The Netherland, 2006.
39. Lin, Z.; Song, Y.; Han, D. Improvement of Airtightness for Lightweight Prefabricated Building Envelope through Optimized
Design of Panel Joints. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 556, 012063. [CrossRef]
40. Boothroyd, G.; Dewhurst, P.; Knight, W.A. Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA,
2011.
41. Krikke, H.R.; Van Harten, A.; Schuur, P.C. On a medium term product recovery and disposal strategies for durable assembly
products. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1998, 36, 111–140. [CrossRef]
42. Rehal, A.; Sen, D. An Efficient Disassembly Sequencing Scheme Using the Shell Structure. Comput.-Aided Des. 2023, 154, 103423.
[CrossRef]
43. King, B. The New Carbon Architecture, Building to Cool The Climate; New Society Publishers: Gabriola, BC, Canada, 2017.
44. Boza-kiss, B.; Moles-Grueso, S.; Urge-Vors, D. Evaluating policy instruments to foster energy efficiency for the sustainable
transformation of buildings. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 163–176. [CrossRef]
45. Segui, W.T. Steel Design, 4th ed.; Thomson: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2007.
46. Arisya, K.F.; Suryantini, R. Modularity in Design for Disassembly (DfD): Exploring the Strategy for a Better Sustainable
Architecture. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 738, 012024. [CrossRef]
47. Srisangeerthanan, S.; Hashemi, M.J.; Rajeev, P.; Gad, E.F.; Fernando, S. A Review on Diaphragm Behaviour and Connections
for Multi-Story Modular Buildings. In Proceedings of the Australasian Structural Engineering Conference, Adelaide, Australia,
25–28 September 2018; pp. 1–8.
48. Escaleira, C.; Amoeda, R.; Cruz, P.J. Connections and joints in buildings: Revisiting the main concepts on building materials’ life
cycle’s circularity. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 225, 012062. [CrossRef]
49. Indonesian National Standard (SNI). 1729–2020 on The Steel Structural Building Specification; Indonesian National Standard (SNI):
Jakarta, Indonesia, 2020.
50. Sears, S.K.; Sears, G.A.; Clough, R.H. Construction Project Management, A practical Guide to Field Construction Management, 5th ed.;
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.
51. Vladimirova, E.; Gong, M. Advancements and Applications of Wood-Based Sandwich Panels in Modern Construction. Buildings
2024, 14, 2359. [CrossRef]
52. O’Brien, D.; Carrasco, S. Contested incrementalism: Elemental’s Quinta Monroy settlement fifteen years on. Front. Archit. Res.
2021, 10, 263–273. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.