Office Cost Study

COMPARING THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS ON COST

Office Cost Study

Contents
Overview of the study Building designs and structural options Costs and programme data Cost comparison and conclusions 4 6 9 12

Office Cost Study PAGE 3

The Concrete Centre aims to assist all those who design and construct in concrete to realise the full potential of the material. To this end, The Concrete Centre undertakes independent research to identify, when necessary, the true facts of building in concrete. A complete cost model study was commissioned in order to compare the costs of constructing office buildings with different structural solutions, the results of which are presented briefly in this summary document. For comprehensive analysis of the study, the complete report is available, details of which can be found below.

Utilisation of Thermal mass in Non Residential Buildings - This guide provides detailed guidance on the use of thermal mass as a sustainable method of cooling which avoids or reduces the need for air conditioning. This publication should assist designers wishing to exploit thermal mass and includes chapters on concrete floor options, integration of services, acoustic considerations and surface finish options. The guide also includes a number of case studies. Cost Model Study School Buildings - This publication is parallel to this study of office buildings and reports a comprehensive and independent cost study which was undertaken to provide a comparison between six structural frame options for a typical secondary school. Budget costings were assigned to all elements of construction and adjustments were made to reflect time-related costs attributable to differences in the construction programme. For more information on these, and other publications from The Concrete Centre, visit www.concretecentre.com/publications

The design team

The success of any project depends on the skills and knowledge of the whole design team. To harness the experience representative of a real project, top practitioners in each field were represented in the study in order to form a rounded view of the design. The cost model study was undertaken by staff from Allies and Morrison (architectural design); Arup (structural design); Davis Langdon (quantity surveying) and Mace (programming). The report was designed to be a fair comparison of costs for two common-place office building types. The designs were selected to give no bias towards concrete solutions, for example, the proven benefits of thermal mass were not considered.

The full technical report is available from The Concrete Centre. To purchase your copy visit www.concretebookshop.com or call 0700 4 607777 Ref: CCIP-010 Price: 45

Further publications
To assist all members of a design team, The Concrete Centre produces a range of technical design guidance to enable effective concrete construction. Complementary documents that may be of interest as further reading are listed below: Concrete Frame Elements - Intended as a pre-scheme design handbook, this publication helps designers to choose the most viable concrete options. Based on BS 8110, it includes cost-optimised span-to-depth charts for various types of in-situ, precast and post-tensioned floor and beam construction over a range of spans and loads. Other information, such as preliminary column sizing and reinforcement estimates is included.

Office Cost Study PAGE 4

Overview of the study

The full Commercial Buildings Cost Model Study was undertaken to provide a comparison of the construction costs associated with building options.

Purpose
Cost is a major criterion in assessing design and construction alternatives, and construction professionals require current studies in order to inform their decisions. However, the value of a cost study is often found to be not so much in the cost results, but in the detailed and rigorous assessment of how structural frame choice can affect the cost of other items, such as cladding, internal planning, services, fit-out, etc. The Concrete Centre commissioned a commercial buildings cost model study, which was designed to provide a detailed cost comparison. The fact that the study also acts as an independent assessment of current building types means that it will be of enduring value to quantity surveyors, architects, engineers and other construction professionals. This publication provides a brief overview of the findings. For more information on the results found in this publication, please refer to the full Cost Model Study - Commercial Buildings [1].

The buildings were notionally located in two different locations an outof-town business park and central London - and were based on appropriate structural grids commonly in current use, with specifications suited to contemporary market conditions. The designs were taken to normal outline design stage, the only differences being directly attributable to the structural frame material. Budget costings were assigned to all elements of construction, from substructure, superstructure and external envelope through to preliminaries, with the exception of external works, which were considered to be too highly site-specific to permit accurate costing. Adjustments were made to the costings to reflect time-related costs attributable to differences in construction programmes. Whilst identifying the variation in the costs of frames, the study also considered the effects that the choice of framing material and method of construction had on other elements of the building, as well as the other benefits that the choice of frame can generate (see page 13).

Methodology
The commercial buildings cost model study was undertaken in 2006 and compared the costs of constructing three- and six-storey commercial buildings, using a variety of short-span and long-span reinforced concrete and steel-frame options, taking into account construction, full fit-out, and the effect of programme times on cost.

Slimdek is a registered trademark of Corus UK Ltd.

Office Cost Study PAGE 5

Impartiality
The study was undertaken on a completely independent basis by leading practitioners in their field: Allies and Morrison Architectural design Arup Structural design Davis Langdon LLP Quantity surveying Mace Programming Overall, the results of the commercial buildings cost model study showed that when developing modern commercial buildings, concrete-framed solutions are highly competitive with steel-framed solutions and the study proves conclusively that construction costs for concrete are up to 6% lower than for steel. However, the study also demonstrates the need to consider all elements of the building cost, rather than simply the cost of the structure, and highlights the extent to which elements other than the structure are affected by the choice of frame solution (see Table 1). In particular, when the overall procurement and construction programme is considered, modern concrete-framed buildings CAN be procured and constructed in a shorter time frame (up to nearly 12% faster) than steel-framed buildings. Concrete-framed buildings can also offer a range of other added-value benefits at no extra cost, such as fire resistance, durability, robustness, safety and ease of service integration, making concrete the ideal construction material for commercial buildings. By adding to this its energy efficiency, concrete truly deserves a position as the construction material of choice for new commercial buildings in the UK.

The structural design for all options was carried out by Arup and costs were prepared by Davis Langdon, based on pricing data obtained from the practices national cost database of recent projects and, therefore, reflecting the current marketplace. The cost models were developed using current best practice for both concrete and steel as determined by the professional team.

Conclusions
The main interest in any cost model study is the process of designing and costing alternative methods of constructing otherwise identical buildings, as this raises many interesting issues for those commissioning, designing and constructing buildings.

Table 1: How much does the choice of structural solution affect the cost of other packages?*
Substructure External Cladding
Proportion of overall construction cost (%)
Building A

Internal Planning
2 13.3 4 1 22.2 4

Finishes

M&E

Prelims

3 7.3 3 3 2.2 6

17 4.2 9 21 6.2 22

11 10 1.6 2

34 1.6 8 33 1.4 8

11 5.2 8 12 6 12

Variation dictated by structural solution, (% of package cost) Variation dictated by structural solution (/m2 ) Proportion of overall construction cost (%)

Building B

Variation dictated by structural solution, (% of package cost) Variation dictated by structural solution (/m2 )

* Packages not affected by structural solution are not listed. Building A - three-storey 4,650m2 office in an out-of-town business park location. For flat slab solution: total construction cost 1,460 /m2, superstructure costs 122 /m2. Building B - six-storey 16,500m2 office in central London. For flat slab solution: total construction cost 1,676 /m2, superstructure costs 110 /m2.

Office Cost Study PAGE 6

Building designs and structural options

Designs and options were selected as typical of current practice and demand.
The design brief for the Commercial Buildings Cost Model Study asked for outline designs of two multi-storey buildings on open, clear sites - one in an out-of-town south-east England business park location and the other in central London. The precise location, size and design of the buildings were based on the design teams judgement of current commercial practice and market requirements in terms of performance and cost, whilst also avoiding unduly favouring either concrete or steel. For example, concretes thermal mass can significantly reduce the use of mechanical ventilation, and therefore costs but this was not considered. The Concrete Centre has produced literature on thermal mass, please refer to www.concretecentre.com/publications for details. The form of Building A is an L-shape with a full-height atrium and a central service core, with secondary stairs and service access located towards the ends of the building and a limited amount of undercroft parking. Air conditioning is provided by a fan-coil system providing full climate control when active. The internal environment is designed to maximise daylighting and allow some mid-season free cooling from natural ventilation, which saves energy and lowers CO2 emissions. This is achieved with floor plates 23.5m wide, configured around a grid of three bays of 7.5m, allowing a degree of cross-ventilation from the perimeter windows. The building envelope comprises grid stick curtain wall cladding, incorporating floor to ceiling double glazing units and aluminium clad insulated spandrels, permitting good daylighting to most of the working areas. An indicative plan and section for Building A, showing the building form, are shown in Figure 1. A 7.5 x 7.5m grid was established by the design team as optimum and was adopted for all frame options for Building A in the study. There were six options developed in total, three concrete- and three steel-framed.

Building A
A three-storey office building in an out-of-town business park location in the south east of England that is air-conditioned, with curtain walling and some natural ventilation. The building was chosen to reflect a framed building of average size (4,650m2) in a commercial/business park setting. It is representative of a typical low-rise building in the centre of current development activity.

Figure 1: Building A - Three-storey

PLAN 7.5m 7.5m SECTION A-A

Typical column spacing 7.5m each way.

Office Cost Study PAGE 7

Building B
A six-storey office building containing retail space at ground floor level located in central London, that is air-conditioned with curtain walling. The building was chosen to reflect a high-quality building of average size (14,200m2 of offices and 2,300m2 of retail space) in central London. It is acknowledged that a building of this type in London would normally have a basement. However, with the likelihood that such a basement would be formed in concrete, it was considered that inclusion of this element would unduly favour the concrete-framed options above ground. The basement construction has therefore been excluded from the study. The form of Building B is rectangular, arranged around a central atrium and incorporating a fan-coil unit air-conditioning system, with service cores located towards the ends of the atrium. The form of the building is designed with a low envelope to volume ratio, which helps minimise heat loss during the winter and heat gains in the summer. The building is fully sealed, requiring full climate control year round. The building envelope comprises unitised curtain walling, incorporating floor to ceiling double glazing units and stone clad insulated spandrels. Figure 2: Building B - Six-storey
PLAN 9m B SECTION B-B

The floor plate depths are 9.5m to the core walls on the E-W axis and 15.5m to either the core walls or the atrium on the N-S axis. The building can be operated with single or split tenancies, with splitting by vertical division and requiring a glazed wall to the atrium.

An indicative plan and section for Building B, showing the building form and column layout are shown in Figure 2. The 9.0 x 7.5m structural grid for Building B is more representative of the current market for a city centre site. It also permitted exploration of a long-span option for both materials in the study, by creating a 15.0 x 9.0m grid. Eight options were developed in total; three concreteand three steel-framed options for the short-span solutions (7.5m) and one concrete and one steel option for the long-span solution (15.0m).

7.5m

B Note: Internal columns omitted in 15m long-span option Typical column spacing 7.5m and 9m. Note: Internal columns omitted in 15m long-span option

The concrete frame can be left exposed for both aesthetics and to utilise the thermal mass of concrete, thereby reducing energy use.

Office Cost Study PAGE 8

Structural options
Indicative diagrams and descriptions for each of the concrete and steel options investigated are shown below.

Option 1 - Flat Slab

Short-span options - Building A and B Option 2 - Composite

Option 3 - PT Flat Slab

Long-span options - Building B only Option 7 - PT Band Beams

Reinforced in-situ concrete at slab and columns Option 4 - Steel + Hollowcore

Steel beams and metal decking, acting compositely with in-situ concrete oor slabs. Steel columns Option 5 - In-situ + Hollowcore

Post-tensioned in-situ concrete at slab and reinforced in-situ concrete columns Option 6 - Slimdek

Post-tensioned in-situ concrete at slab and band beams with reinforced in-situ concrete columns Option 8 - Long-Span Composite

Steel beams acting compositely with precast concrete hollowcore oor slabs. Steel columns

Reinforced in-situ concrete beams and columns with precast concrete hollowcore oor slabs

Slimdek system comprising asymmetric beams and metal decking, acting compositely with in-situ concrete oor slabs. Steel columns

Long-span cellular steel beams and metal decking, both acting compositely with in-situ concrete oor slab. Steel columns

Office Cost Study PAGE 9

Costs and programme data

The tables in this section highlight the itemised costs and timescales for construction of Building A and Building B.
Prices were prepared by Davis Langdon, based on pricing data obtained from the practices national cost database of recently tendered projects. Rates for Building A are based on construction in the south-east and rates for Building B are based on construction in central London. The pricing base date is June 2006. (Costs can be adjusted to allow for regional differences see Table 7 on page 9.)

Table 2: Building A - Summary of costs as total of element

Element
Flat Slab Element total () Substructure Frame/upper oors Roof nishes Stairs External cladding Internal planning Wall nishes Floor nishes Ceiling nishes Fittings Sanitary Mechanical Electrical Lifts BWIC Contingency Preliminaries Overheads and prot TOTAL
199,480 564,827 241,208 63,000 1,166,600 141,230 51,010 274,432 125,308 60,000 208,890 1,285,834 637,811 70,000 172,470 394,658 735,000 383,505 6,775,263

Short-span options
Composite Element total ()
189,765 568,078 241,208 63,000 1,174,480 154,110 50,040 274,432 125,308 60,000 208,890 1,311,551 650,567 70,000 172,470 398,542 715,000 385,646 6,813,088

In-situ + Hollowcore Element total ()

202,641 591,645 241,208 63,000 1,187,720 145,255 49,684 274,432 125,308 60,000 208,890 1,285,834 637,811 70,000 172,470 398,692 755,000 388,175 6,857,765

PT Flat Slab Element total ()

200,512 642,599 241,208 63,000 1,154,800 139,740 48,820 274,432 125,308 60,000 208,890 1,285,834 637,811 70,000 172,470 399,407 745,000 388,190 6,858,021

Steel + Hollowcore Element total ()

195,452 643,704 241,208 63,000 1,199,980 156,630 52,240 274,432 125,308 60,000 208,890 1,311,551 650,567 70,000 172,470 406,907 715,000 392,840 6,940,180

Slimdek Element total ()

192,107 872,208 241,208 63,000 1,175,460 153,900 50,240 274,432 125,308 60,000 208,890 1,285,834 637,811 70,000 172,470 418,715 715,000 402,995 7,119,578

Table 3: Building A - Summary of costs as /m2 and % of build cost

Element
Flat Slab Composite

Short-span options
In-situ + Hollowcore PT Flat Slab Steel + Hollowcore Slimdek

/m2
Substructure Frame/upper oors Roof nishes Stairs External cladding Internal planning Wall nishes Floor nishes Ceiling nishes Fittings Sanitary Mechanical Electrical Lifts BWIC Contingency Preliminaries Overheads and prot TOTAL
43 122 52 14 252 30 11 59 27 13 45 277 137 15 37 85 158 83 1,460

%
2.9 8.3 3.6 0.9 17.2 2.1 0.8 4.1 1.8 0.9 3.1 19.0 9.4 1.0 2.5 5.8 10.8 5.7

/m2
41 122 52 14 253 33 11 59 27 13 45 283 140 15 37 86 154 83 1,468

%
2.8 8.3 3.5 0.9 17.2 2.3 0.7 4.0 1.8 0.9 3.1 19.3 9.5 1.0 2.5 5.8 10.5 5.7

/m2
44 127 52 14 256 31 11 59 27 13 45 277 137 15 37 86 162 84 1,477

%
3.0 8.6 3.5 0.9 17.3 2.1 0.7 4.0 1.8 0.9 3.0 18.8 9.3 1.0 2.5 5.8 11.0 5.7

/m2
43 138 52 14 249 30 11 59 27 13 45 277 137 15 37 86 160 84 1,477

%
2.9 9.4 3.5 0.9 16.8 2.0 0.7 4.0 1.8 0.9 3.0 18.7 9.3 1.0 2.5 5.8 10.9 5.7

/m2
42 139 52 14 258 34 11 59 27 13 45 283 140 15 37 88 154 84 1,495

%
2.8 9.3 3.5 0.9 17.3 2.3 0.8 4.0 1.8 0.9 3.0 18.9 9.4 1.0 2.5 5.9 10.3 5.7

/m2
41 188 52 14 253 33 11 59 27 13 45 277 137 15 37 90 154 88 1,534

%
2.7 12.3 3.4 0.9 16.5 2.2 0.7 3.9 1.8 0.8 2.9 18.1 9.0 1.0 2.4 5.9 10.0 5.7

Office Cost Study PAGE 10

Table 4: Building B - Summary of costs as total of element

Element
Flat Slab

Short-span options
PT Flat Slab Composite Element total ()
815,468 1,878,457 545,080 132,000 5,957,935 355,728 256,770 1,167,221 702,366 132,500 824,000 4,635,247 2,739,502 600,000 601,800 1,600,806 3,350,000 1,577,693 27,872,572

Long-span options
In-situ + PT Band Beams Long-Span Hollowcore Composite Element total Element total Element total () () ()
885,169 1,846,453 545,080 132,000 6,053,840 300,225 233,226 1,167,221 702,366 132,500 824,000 4,544,360 2,690,688 600,000 601,800 1,594,420 3,470,000 1,579,401 27,902,748 907,622 2,227,681 545,080 132,000 6,086,885 301,360 227,825 1,167,221 702,366 132,500 824,000 4,544,360 2,690,688 600,000 601,800 1,626,854 3,310,000 1,597,694 28,225,936 848,868 2,201,664 545,080 132,000 5,957,935 355,638 241,566 1,167,221 702,366 132,500 824,000 4,635,247 2,739,502 600,000 601,800 1,626,404 3,350,000 1,599,707 28,261,499

Short-span options
Steel + Hollowcore Element total ()
860,967 2,275,704 545,080 132,000 6,208,265 366,552 264,162 1,167,221 702,366 132,500 824,000 4,635,247 2,739,502 600,000 601,800 1,654,152 3,270,000 1,618,771 28,598,289

Slimdek Element total ()

852,231 3,011,992 545,080 132,000 5,974,270 356,352 263,112 1,167,221 702,366 132,500 824,000 4,544,360 2,690,688 600,000 601,800 1,679,848 3,270,000 1,640,869 28,998,690

Element total Element total () () Substructure Superstructure Roof nishes Stairs External cladding Internal planning Wall nishes Floor nishes Ceiling nishes Fittings Sanitary Mechanical
891,672 1,811,939 545,080 132,000 5,951,060 297,080 234,455 1,167,221 702,366 132,500 824,000 4,544,360 865,937 2,016,344 545,080 132,000 5,849,590 293,790 229,931 1,167,221 702,366 132,500 824,000 4,544,360 2,690,688 600,000 601,800 1,589,670 3,310,000 1,565,717 27,660,993

2,690,688 Electrical 600,000 Lifts 601,800 BWIC 1,584,467 Contingency 3,350,000 Preliminaries 1,563,641 Overheads and prot 27,624,328 TOTAL

Table 5: Building B Summary of costs - as /m2 and % of build cost

Element
Flat Slab

Short-span options
PT Flat Slab Composite In-situ + Hollowcore

Long-span options
PT Band Beams Long-Span Composite

Short-span options
Steel + Hollowcore Slimdek

/m2
Substructure
54 110 Superstructure 33 Roof nishes 8 Stairs 361 External cladding 18 Internal planning 14 Wall nishes 71 Floor nishes 43 Ceiling nishes 8 Fittings 50 Sanitary 276 Mechanical 163 Electrical 36 Lifts 37 BWIC 96 Contingency 203 Preliminaries 95 Overheads and prot 1,676 TOTAL

%
3.2 6.6 2.0 0.5 21.5 1.1 0.8 4.2 2.5 0.5 3.0 16.5 9.7 2.2 2.2 5.7 12.1 5.7

/m2
53 122 33 8 355 18 14 71 43 8 50 276 163 36 37 96 201 94 1,678

%
3.1 7.2 2.0 0.5 21.0 1.1 0.8 4.2 2.5 0.5 3.0 16.3 9.7 2.2 2.2 5.7 11.9 5.7

/m2
49 114 33 8 362 22 16 71 43 8 50 281 166 36 37 97 203 95 1,691

%
2.9 6.7 1.9 0.5 21.3 1.3 0.9 4.2 2.5 0.5 2.9 16.5 9.8 2.1 2.1 5.7 12.0 5.7

/m2
54 112 33 8 367 18 14 71 43 8 50 276 163 36 37 97 211 95 1,693

%
3.2 6.6 1.9 0.5 21.6 1.1 0.8 4.2 2.5 0.5 2.9 16.2 9.6 2.1 2.1 5.7 12.4 5.7

/m2
55 135 33 8 369 18 14 71 43 8 50 276 163 36 37 99 201 97 1,713

%
3.2 7.9 1.9 0.5 21.5 1.1 0.8 4.1 2.5 0.5 2.9 16.0 9.5 2.1 2.1 5.7 11.7 5.7

/m2
52 134 33 8 362 22 15 71 43 8 50 281 166 36 37 97 203 97 1,715

%
3.0 7.7 1.9 0.5 21.0 1.3 0.9 4.1 2.5 0.5 2.9 16.3 9.6 2.1 2.1 5.7 11.8 5.7

/m2
52 138 33 8 377 22 16 71 43 8 50 281 166 36 37 100 199 98 1,735

%
3.0 7.9 1.9 0.5 21.6 1.3 0.9 4.1 2.4 0.5 2.9 16.1 9.5 2.1 2.1 5.8 11.4 5.7

/m2
52 183 33 8 363 22 16 71 43 8 50 276 163 36 37 101 198 99 1,759

%
2.9 10.3 1.9 0.5 20.5 1.2 0.9 4.0 2.4 0.5 2.8 15.6 9.2 2.1 2.1 5.8 11.2 5.7

Office Cost Study PAGE 11

Table 6: Programme timescales A comparison of the overall programme times, showing each of the periods from procurement to completion, is given in tabular form below:
Structural Option Frame procurement time (weeks) Frame lead time (weeks) Frame construction Overall construction time (weeks) time (weeks) Overall project time (weeks)

Building A
Flat Slab PT Flat Slab In-situ & Hollowcore Composite Steel & Hollowcore Slimdek 10 10 10 10 10 10 4 4 4 12 12 12 10 11 13 8 7 7 50 51 52 48 48 48 64 65 66 70 70 70

Building B
PT Flat Slab Flat Slab PT Band Beams In-situ & Hollowcore Steel & Hollowcore Slimdek Composite Long span Composite 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 6 7 6 16 16 16 16 17 18 17 22 21 21 23 23 66 67 66 70 65 65 67 67 82 83 83 86 91 91 93 95

* Note: The procurement element is identical for each option at ten weeks, comprising two weeks for collation of information, four weeks for bidding, three weeks for bid evaluation and one week for award of contract, assuming a traditional approach to works package sub-contracting.

Table 7: Regional cost adjustments

Region % Adjustment Building A Outer London Central London East Anglia East Midlands Northern Northern Ireland North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Yorkshire & Humberside +7 +13 -3 -5 0 -23 -5 0 0 -4 -7 -4 -1 Building B -6 0 -14 -16 -11 -32 -16 -11 -11 -15 -18 -15 -12

Source: Davis Langdon. Adjustments based on 2008 figures.

Office Cost Study PAGE 12

Cost comparison and conclusions

The study showed that a concrete frame can produce the most economic solution.
The overall conclusion of the Commercial Buildings Cost Model Study is that, for a range of structural options commonly used in the construction of office buildings, using a concrete frame can give the most economic solution. Choosing concrete can produce savings of up to 6% in overall construction costs. The charts below summarise those elements where costs are directly affected by the choice of frame and show the percentage variation in cost for each structural frame option, when compared with the flat slab option as the base case. Table 8: Summary comparison chart Building A Building A
Substructure Frame and upper oors Base case for comparison External cladding Internal planning Wall nishes M and E, lifts and BWIC Contingency Time-related preliminaries Overheads and prot

The largest cost and the main source of savings, as can be seen from the Tables 2 to 5, lies in the superstructure, when the frame, cladding and internal planning are all taken into account and here concrete has a definite advantage. With regard to finishes and preliminaries, other than time-related aspects, there are minimal differences between options.

Flat Slab

Composite
4.9% +0.6% +0.8% +10.0% 1.9% +1.6% +1.0% 3.9% +0.6%

In-situ + PT Flat Slab Steel + Hollowcore Hollowcore

+1.6% +4.1% +2.1% +3.3% 2.6% 0% +1.0% +3.9% +1.2% +0.5% +13.1% 1.1% 0% 4.3% 0% +1.2% +2.0% +1.2% 2.0% +13.9% +3.3% +13.3% +2.4% +1.6% +3.1% 3.9% +3.0%

Slimdek
3.7% +54.1% +0.9% +10.0% 1.5% 0% +6.1% 3.9% +5.4%

Table 9: Summary comparison chart Building B Building B

Substructure Frame and upper oors Base case for comparison External cladding Internal planning Wall nishes M and E, lifts and BWIC Contingency Time-related preliminaries Overheads and prot

Flat Slab

PT Flat Slab
2.9% +10.9% 1.7% 1.1% 1.9% 0% +0.3% 1.5% +0.1%

Composite
8.5% +3.6% +0.1% +19.7% +9.5% +1.4% +1.0% 0% +0.9%

In-situ + Hollowcore
0.7% +1.8% +1.7% +1.1% 12.7% 0% +0.6% +4.6% +1.0%

PT Band Beams
+1.8% +22.7% +2.3% +1.4% 2.8% 0% +2.7% 1.5% +2.2%

Long-Span Composite
4.8% +21.8% +0.1% +19.7% +3.0% +1.4% +2.6% 0% +2.3%

Steel + Hollowcore
3.4% +25.5% +4.3% +23.4% +12.7% +1.4% +4.4% 3.1% +3.5%

Slimdek
4.4% +66.4% +0.4% +20.0% +12.2% 0% +6.0% 3.1% +4.9%

Office Cost Study PAGE 13

Substructure - foundations
Concrete construction is generally heavier than steel-frame construction, and this is reflected in the higher cost of foundations to the concreteframed options. However, although foundations for the concrete options can cost more, they account for a relatively small proportion of the overall cost. To some extent this cost premium can be offset by adopting post-tensioned slabs, which are typically some 15% lighter.

Frame and upper floors

To compare flat soffit solutions with similar floor-to-floor heights, and hence similar cladding areas, the concrete flat slab option and the steel Slimdek option can be considered. This shows that concrete is more favourable in price by 66%. Comparisons of other solutions can be made by reviewing Tables 2 to 5.

External cladding
The thinner the overall structural and services zone, the lower the cladding cost. Given that the cladding on the building in the study represents between 17% and 22% of the construction cost, minimising the cladding area represents considerable value to the client. The minimum floor-to-floor height is almost always achieved with a post-tensioned (PT) flat slab and separate services zone, offering the potential for additional storeys in high-rise buildings and thus improved rental or sales return. Smaller floor-to-floor heights have reduced cladding areas and hence lowered costs, and of increasing importance is the potential benefit that a reduced cladding area has on the buildings energy use.

Internal planning
A premium is incurred on steel-framed options in sealing and fire stopping at partition heads against the irregular soffits of the steel decking and around irregularly shaped intersecting frame members; this is taken into account in the cost study. Unless this is considered at an early stage it can result in expensive and time-consuming remedial work late in the construction programme.

Mechanical and electrical services

Mechanical and electrical services represent a large proportion of the overall construction costs of the buildings, averaging up to 34%. However, a flat soffit provides a clear zone, free of any downstand beams, enabling more services to be pre-fabricated off-site and making them much simpler to install. This not only improves the speed and quality of installation, but reduces the risk of errors, provides flexibility in the design and frees up design resources to be used elsewhere. It also provides cost-in-use benefits in the form of reduced maintenance downtime, as equipment can be changed-out much more quickly, giving greater flexibility and less disruption to an occupiers business operations. Flat soffits also offer greater flexibility to accommodate new service requirements, layout or cellular arrangements, as well as building refurbishments.

Office Cost Study PAGE 14

Programmes
Concrete-framed options offer a significant advantage in lead times a saving of up to 10 weeks and yet the overall construction programme times are almost identical. Inevitably, different planners would produce slightly different programmes based on a considerable number of variable factors. For example, construction management and design and build approaches lend themselves to concrete construction, where the ability to accommodate late information and variations is particularly beneficial. A previous cost model study on commercial buildings [2] found that, on an overall basis, the difference can be as much as 1.5% extra nett lettable floor area, and this finding is still valid.

Finance costs
The results of considering finance costs for the periods that have been identified in the programmes for procurement, lead time and construction are presented in table 10. This assumes a rate of 7.75% p.a. and is presented as an additional cost compared with the option with the shortest duration. This comparison takes no account of differences in cumulative finance costs arising from the different cash flow profiles experienced with the differing forms of construction. For example, the steel-framed options require greater expenditure earlier on than the concrete-framed options, where concretes pay as you place principle works in the clients favour.

Nett lettable area

There are two main areas in which differences in nett lettable area are found: Core areas the area occupied by concrete cores tends to be slightly smaller than that needed for steel cores, due to the allowance for steel bracing zones and the fact that structural concrete walls also serve as partitions. Stairs are typically re-sized as a result of the reduced storey height module, producing slightly increased net lettable areas. Table 10: Comparison of build costs - Building A and Building B

Building A
Construction cost in /m2 Overall programme in weeks Savings in nance costs @ 7.75% p.a. (/m2)

Flat Slab
1,460 64 +0 1,460

Composite
1,468 70 +5 1,473

In-situ + Hollowcore
1,477 66 +2 1,479

PT Flat Slab
1,477 65 +1 1,478

Steel + Hollowcore
1,495 70 +5 1,500

Slimdek
1,534 70 +5 1,539

Building B
Construction cost in /m2 Overall programme in weeks Savings in nance costs @ 7.75% p.a. (/m2)

Flat Slab
1,676 83 +0 1,676

PT Flat Composite In-situ + PT Band Long-Span Steel + Slimdek Slab Hollowcore Beams Composite Hollowcore
1,678 82 -1 1,677 1,691 93 +7 1,698 1,693 86 +2 1,695 1,713 83 +0 1,713 1,715 95 +8 1,723 1,735 91 +6 1,741 1,759 91 +6 1,765

Note: The post-tensioned band beams option has been compared with the long span composite option.

Office Cost Study PAGE 15

Inherent cost benefits of concrete

Initial capital cost is not the sole driver for clients, whose main objective is almost certainly to achieve optimum value from an overall solution. The additional benefits which can be gained from choosing a concrete solution are:

Exposed soffits and thermal mass

A concrete structure has a high thermal mass. By exposing the soffits, thermal mass can be utilised through fabric energy storage (FES) to reduce initial plant costs, minimise or eliminate the need for air conditioning and substantially reduce the lifetime operational costs of the building. Utilisation of FES permits the designer to create naturally ventilated buildings, giving occupants the chance to control their environment to ensure optimum employee productivity. In addition, suspended ceilings can be reduced or eliminated, giving valuable initial cost and programme benefits and reduced lifetime maintenance costs. For more information on thermal mass, refer to Utilisation of Thermal Mass in Non-residential Buildings available from The Concrete Centre [4].

Fire protection
Fire protection is generally not needed for concrete structures as the material has inherent fire resistance of up to four hours. This not only removes the time and cost involved in providing added fire protection, but it also potentially enhances property safety, lowers insurance premiums, increases re-usability of the structure and significantly reduces down-time for an occupier after a fire.

REFERENCES Vibration
The inherent mass of concrete means that concrete floors generally meet vibration criteria at no extra cost, requiring no extra stiffening. For more information on vibration, refer to A Design Guide to the Footfall-Induced Vibration of Structures available from The Concrete Centre [3].
1. Commercial Buildings Cost Model Study, CCIP010, The Concrete Centre, 2007 2. Goodchild, CH, Cost Model Study - A Report on the Comparative Costs of Concrete & Steel Framed Office Buildings, Reinforced Concrete Council and British Cement Association, 1993 3. Wilford, MR and Young P, A Design Guide for Footfall Induced Vibration of Structures, CCIP-016, The Concrete Centre, 2006 4. Utilisation of Thermal Mass in Non-residential Buildings, CCIP-020, The Concrete Centre, 2006

Durability and adaptability

Concrete is an inherently durable material, with a potential service life running into hundreds of years, if needed. In addition, sustainable construction now demands adaptable structures in order that their economic viability is enhanced. Flat slabs automatically permit fully adaptable horizontal services distribution, and design of predetermined soft spots can add future-proofing of vertical servicing as well. Ribbed slabs, waffle slabs and precast flooring solutions are similarly adaptable.

The Concrete Centre Riverside House 4 Meadows Business Park Blackwater Camberley Surrey GU17 9AB

If you have a general enquiry relating to the design, use and performance of cement and concrete, please contact our national helpline. Advice is free and available Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm. Call 0845 812 0000 Email helpline@concretecentre.com

Ref: TCC/03/38 ISBN: 978-1-904818-61-8 First published 2008 The Concrete Centre 2008

www.concretecentre.com

All advice or information from The Concrete Centre is intended for use in the UK only by those who will evaluate the significance and limitations of its contents and take responsibility for its use and application. No liability (including that for negligence) for any loss resulting from such advice or information is accepted by The Concrete Centre or its subcontractors, suppliers or advisors. Readers should note that the publications from The Concrete Centre are subject to revision from time to time and should therefore ensure that they are in possession of the latest version.