Office Cost Study
Comparing the effects of structural solutions on cost
Office Cost Study
Introduction
Contents
Introduction 02
Building design and structural options 04
Cost and programme data
06
Cost comparison and conclusions
08
Inherent cost benefits of concrete
10
References 11
A complete cost model study was commissioned
by The Concrete Centre in order to compare the
costs of constructing office buildings with different
structural solutions. The cost data for this study has
now been updated and the results of the study are
summarised in this guide. For the comprehensive
analysis of the original study please refer to the Cost
Model Study - Commercial Buildings[1] available
from [Link]/publications
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
also found 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.
Concrete core at BBC headquarters, London. Grant Smith Photography
The study
The Concrete Centre commissioned a commercial buildings cost model
study, 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.
The commercial buildings cost model study was undertaken in 2008 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.
The buildings were notionally located in two different locations an
out-of- 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.
The designs were selected to give no bias towards concrete solutions,
for example, the proven benefits of thermal mass were not considered.
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 11).
Cover: The Angel Building, London, is a BREEAM Excellent building
which used 36% cement replacement in its concrete mix. Architect:
AHMM; Engineer: Adams Kara Taylor.
The costs were updated by Davis Langdon in July 2013 to reflect the
market prices at that time. This publication gives the revised costs, while
the full cost study publication gives the 2008 costs. The design and
programme information has remained the same.
Office Cost Study
Conclusions
The study was undertaken on a completely independent basis by
leading practitioners in their field:
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.
Allies and Morrison - Architectural design
Arup - Structural design
Davis Langdon LLP - Quantity surveying
Overall, the results of the commercial buildings cost model study
showed that when developing modern commercial buildings, concreteframed solutions are highly competitive with steel-framed solutions and
the study proves conclusively that construction costs for concrete are up
to 7% lower than for steel.
Mace Programming
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.
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.
Construction costs for concrete
are up to 7% lower than for steel.
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.
Both the 2008 and 2013 studies showed that for medium-span office
buildings, flat slab was the most economic solution.
Building B
Building A
Table 1: How much does the choice of structural solution affect the cost of other packages?*
Substructure
External Cladding
Internal Planning
Finishes
M&E
Prelims
Proportion of overall cost
3%
18%
2%
10%
32%
10%
Variation dictated by structural solution (% of
package cost)
5.0%
3.8%
12.5%
0.0%
1.9%
4.8%
Variation dictated by structural solution (/m2)
10
Proportion of overall cost
4%
23%
1%
11%
30%
10%
Variation dictated by structural solution (% of
package cost)
13.5%
5.9%
26.1%
1.1%
1.4%
5.4%
Variation dictated by structural solution (/m2)
22
* Packages not affected by structural solution are not listed.
2013 prices:
Building A - three-storey 4,650m2 office in an out-of-town business park location. For flat slab solution: total construction cost 1,406 /m2, superstructure costs 113 /m2.
Building B - six-storey 16,500m2 office in central London. For flat slab solution: total construction cost 1,593 /m2, superstructure costs 103 /m2.
Office Cost Study
Building designs and structural options
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 [Link]/publications for details.
Figure 1: Building A - Three-storey
PLAN
SECTION A-A
7.5m
7.5m
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.
Typical column spacing
7.5m each way.
The building was chosen to reflect a framed building of average size
7.5m park setting. It is representative of a
(4,650m2) inPLAN
a commercial/business
typical low-rise building 7.5m
in the centre of current development activity.
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
A when active.
climate control
SECTION A-A
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
Typical
column spacing
23.5m wide, configured around a grid of three bays of 7.5m,
allowing
a
degree of cross-ventilation from the perimeter windows.7.5m each way.
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.
Office Cost Study
Building B
Structural options
A six-storey office building containing retail space at ground floor level
located in central London, that is air-conditioned with curtain walling.
Indicative diagrams and descriptions for each of the concrete and steel
options investigated are shown below.
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.
Short-span options - Building A and B
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.
Option 1 - Flat Slab
Option 2 - Composite
Reinforced in-situ concrete flat
slab and columns.
Steel beams and metal decking,
acting compositely with in-situ
concrete floor slabs. Steel columns.
Option 3 - PT Flat Slab
Option 4 - Steel + Hollowcore
Post-tensioned in-situ concrete
flat slab and reinforced in-situ
concrete columns.
Steel beams acting compositely
with precast concrete hollowcore floor slabs. Steel columns.
Option 5 - In-situ + Hollowcore
Option 6 - Slimdek
Reinforced in-situ concrete
beams and columns with
precast concrete hollowcore
floor slabs.
Slimdek system comprising
asymmetric beams and metal
decking, acting compositely
with in-situ concrete floor slabs.
Steel columns.
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 concrete and
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).
Figure 2: Building B - Six-storey
9m
B
SECTION B-B
PLAN
7.5m
Long-span options - Building B only
Note: Internal columns omitted in 15m long-span option B
SECTION B-B
mn spacing 7.5m and 9m.
Note: Internal columns omitted in 15m long-span option
Typical column spacing 7.5m and 9m.
Option 7 - PT Band Beams
Option 8 - Long-Span Composite
Note: Internal columns omitted in 15m long-span option
Post-tensioned in-situ concrete
flat slab and band beams with
reinforced in-situ concrete
columns.
Long-span cellular steel beams
and metal decking, both acting
compositely with in-situ concrete
floor slab. Steel columns.
Office Cost Study
Cost 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 July 2013.
Table 2: Building A - Summary of costs as total of element
Short-span options
Element
Flat Slab
Element Total
Composite
In situ +
Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Steel +
Hollowcore
Slimdek
Element Total
Element Total
Element Total
Element Total
Element Total
Substructure
189,629
180,450
192,520
190,508
185,786
182,649
Frame & Upper Floors
523,660
561,165
564,413
611,206
651,979
1,006,217
Roof
222,648
222,648
222,648
222,648
222,648
222,648
Stairs
63,000
63,000
63,000
63,000
63,000
63,000
External Cladding
1,226,840
1,235,290
1,249,460
1,214,290
1,262,590
1,236,330
Internal Planning
141,703
153,665
145,598
140,202
156,351
153,482
51,454
50,040
50,140
49,258
52,240
50,240
Wall Finishes
Floor Finishes
274,432
274,432
274,432
274,432
274,432
274,432
Ceiling Finishes
125,308
125,308
125,308
125,308
125,308
125,308
Fittings
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
Sanitary
192,179
192,179
192,179
192,179
192,179
192,179
1,285,834
1,311,551
1,285,834
1,285,834
1,311,551
1,285,834
637,811
649,880
637,811
637,811
649,880
637,811
70,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
Mechanical
Electrical
Lifts
BWIC
139,976
139,976
139,976
139,976
139,976
139,976
Preliminaries
680,000
661,600
698,400
689,200
661,600
661,600
Contingency
390,336
396,719
395,499
395,749
406,344
427,508
Overheads & Profit
250,992
253,916
254,689
254,464
259,435
271,569
6,525,802
6,601,819
6,621,906
6,616,065
6,745,298
7,060,782
Total
Reception space at the mixed-use Cardinal Place development in London.
Office Cost Study
Table 3: Building A - Summary of costs as /m2 and % of build cost
Element
Substructure
Frame & Upper Floors
Roof
Stairs
External Cladding
Flat Slab
Composite
In situ +
Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Steel +
Hollowcore
Slimdek
/m2
/m2
/m2
/m2
/m2
/m2
41
2.9%
39
2.7%
41
2.9%
41
2.9%
40
2.8%
39
2.6%
113
8.0%
121
8.5%
122
8.5%
132
9.2%
140
9.7%
217
14.3%
48
3.4%
48
3.4%
48
3.4%
48
3.4%
48
3.3%
48
3.2%
14
1.0%
14
1.0%
14
1.0%
14
1.0%
14
0.9%
14
0.9%
264
18.8%
266
18.7%
269
18.9%
262
18.4%
272
18.7%
266
17.5%
Internal Planning
31
2.2%
33
2.3%
31
2.2%
30
2.1%
34
2.3%
33
2.2%
Wall Finishes
11
0.8%
11
0.8%
11
0.8%
11
0.7%
11
0.8%
11
0.7%
Floor Finishes
59
4.2%
59
4.2%
59
4.1%
59
4.1%
59
4.1%
59
3.9%
Ceiling Finishes
27
1.9%
27
1.9%
27
1.9%
27
1.9%
27
1.9%
27
1.8%
Fittings
13
0.9%
13
0.9%
13
0.9%
13
0.9%
13
0.9%
13
0.8%
41
2.9%
41
2.9%
41
2.9%
41
2.9%
41
2.8%
41
2.7%
Mechanical
Sanitary
277
19.7%
283
19.9%
277
19.4%
277
19.4%
283
19.4%
277
18.2%
Electrical
137
9.8%
140
9.8%
137
9.6%
137
9.6%
140
9.6%
137
9.0%
Lifts
15
1.1%
15
1.1%
15
1.1%
15
1.1%
15
1.0%
15
1.0%
BWIC
30
2.1%
30
2.1%
30
2.1%
30
2.1%
30
2.1%
30
2.0%
Preliminaries
146
10.4%
143
10.0%
150
10.5%
148
10.4%
143
9.8%
143
9.4%
Contingency
84
6.0%
85
6.0%
85
6.0%
85
6.0%
88
6.0%
92
6.1%
54
3.8%
55
3.8%
55
3.8%
55
3.8%
56
3.8%
59
3.8%
Overheads & Profit
Total
1406
1422
1427
1425
1453
1521
Table 4: Building B - Summary of costs as total of element
Short Span Options
Element
Long Span Options
Short Span Options
Flat Slab
PT Flat Slab
Composite
In-situ +
Hollowcore
PT Band
Beams
Long-Span
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
Slimdek
Element
Total ()
Element
Total ()
Element
Total ()
Element
Total ()
Element
Total ()
Element
Total ()
Element
Total ()
Element
Total ()
Substructures
1,148,893
1,099,218
1,016,120
1,136,782
1,165,218
1,048,644
1,097,360
1,073,024
Frame & Upper Floors
1,697,511
1,944,848
1,947,363
1,815,172
2,213,772
2,348,306
2,304,808
3,404,470
520,312
520,312
520,312
520,312
520,312
520,312
520,312
520,312
Roof
Stairs
132,000
132,000
132,000
132,000
132,000
132,000
132,000
132,000
External Cladding
6,045,240
5,942,030
6,052,235
6,149,780
6,183,405
6,052,235
6,307,205
6,068,850
Internal Planning
280,204
277,222
352,472
283,055
284,084
352,382
363,208
353,088
Wall Finishes
225,267
220,743
247,583
224,039
218,637
232,379
254,975
253,925
Floor Finishes
1,167,221
1,167,221
1,167,221
1,167,221
1,167,221
1,167,221
1,167,221
1,167,221
Ceiling Finishes
702,366
702,366
702,366
702,366
702,366
702,366
702,366
702,366
Fittings
132,500
132,500
132,500
132,500
132,500
132,500
132,500
132,500
Sanitary
725,120
725,120
725,120
725,120
725,120
725,120
725,120
725,120
Mechanical
4,544,360
4,544,360
4,635,000
4,544,360
4,544,360
4,635,000
4,635,000
4,544,360
Electrical
2,464,912
2,464,912
2,509,408
2,464,912
2,464,912
2,509,408
2,509,408
2,464,912
Lifts
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
BWIC
502,920
502,920
502,920
502,920
502,920
502,920
502,920
502,920
Preliminaries
2,760,000
2,730,000
2,760,000
2,850,000
2,730,000
2,760,000
2,700,000
2,700,000
Contingency
1,566,662
1,573,183
1,593,196
1,582,540
1,616,762
1,624,559
1,646,580
1,698,380
Overheads & profit
Total
1,008,620
1,011,158
1,023,833
1,021,323
1,036,144
1,041,814
1,052,039
1,081,738
26,224,107
26,290,113
26,619,649
26,554,402
26,939,733
27,087,166
27,353,022
28,125,186
Office Cost Study
Table 5: Building B Summary of costs - as /m and % of build cost
Short Span Options
Element
Flat Slab
/m2
PT Flat Slab
/m2
Composite
/m2
In-situ +
Hollowcore
/m2
Long Span Options
Short Span Options
PT Band
Beams
Steel +
Hollowcore
/m2
Long-Span
Composite
/m2
/m2
Substructures
70
4.4%
67
4.2%
62
3.8%
69
4.3%
71
4.3%
64
3.9%
67
4.0%
Frame &
Upper Floors
103
6.5%
118
7.4%
118
7.3%
110
6.8%
134
8.2%
142
8.7%
140
8.4%
Slimdek
/m2
65
3.8%
207 12.1%
Roof
32
2.0%
32
2.0%
32
2.0%
32
2.0%
32
1.9%
32
1.9%
32
1.9%
32
1.8%
Stairs
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
External
Cladding
367 23.1%
361 22.6%
367 22.7%
373 23.2%
375 23.0%
367 22.3%
383 23.1%
368 21.6%
Internal
Planning
17
1.1%
17
1.1%
21
1.3%
17
1.1%
17
1.1%
21
1.3%
22
1.3%
21
1.3%
Wall Finishes
14
0.9%
13
0.8%
15
0.9%
14
0.8%
13
0.8%
14
0.9%
15
0.9%
15
0.9%
Floor Finishes
71
4.5%
71
4.4%
71
4.4%
71
4.4%
71
4.3%
71
4.3%
71
4.3%
71
4.2%
Ceiling
Finishes
43
2.7%
43
2.7%
43
2.6%
43
2.6%
43
2.6%
43
2.6%
43
2.6%
43
2.5%
Fittings
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
44
2.8%
44
2.8%
44
2.7%
44
2.7%
44
2.7%
44
2.7%
44
2.7%
44
2.6%
Sanitary
Mechanical
276 17.3%
276 17.3%
281 17.4%
276 17.1%
276 16.9%
281 17.1%
281 16.9%
276 16.2%
Electrical
150
9.4%
150
9.4%
152
9.4%
150
9.3%
150
9.1%
152
9.3%
152
9.2%
150
8.8%
36
2.3%
36
2.3%
36
2.3%
36
2.3%
36
2.2%
36
2.2%
36
2.2%
36
2.1%
31
1.9%
31
1.9%
31
1.9%
31
1.9%
31
1.9%
31
1.9%
31
1.8%
31
1.8%
167 10.2%
164
9.9%
164
9.6%
Lifts
BWIC
Preliminaries
167 10.5%
166 10.4%
167 10.4%
173 10.7%
166 10.1%
Contingency
95
6.0%
95
6.0%
97
6.0%
96
6.0%
98
6.0%
99
6.0%
100
6.0%
103
6.0%
Overheads &
profit
61
3.8%
61
3.8%
62
3.8%
62
3.8%
63
3.8%
63
3.8%
64
3.8%
66
3.8%
Total
1,593
1,597
1,615
1,613
1,636
1,643
1,661
1,708
Two Pancras Square, London is a BREEAM Outstanding nine-storey office with a concrete frame to provide thermal mass. Architect: Allies and Morrison; Engineer: AKT II
Office Cost Study
Cost comparison and conclusions
The study showed that a concrete frame can produce the most economic solution. Choosing concrete can
produce savings of up to 7% 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.
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 posttensioned slabs, which are typically some 15% lighter.
The largest cost and the main source of savings (as can be seen from
the cost summaries, Tables 2 to 5) lies in the superstructure, when
the frame, cladding and internal planning are all taken into account;
here concrete has a definite advantage. With regard to finishes and
preliminaries, other than time-related aspects, there are minimal
differences between options.
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 90%. Comparisons of other solutions can be made
by reviewing Tables 2 to 5.
Table 6: Summary comparison chart Building A
Building A
Flat Slab
Insitu +
Hollowcore
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Slimdek
Substructure
-4.8%
1.5%
0.5%
-2.0%
-3.7%
Frame & Upper Floors
7.2%
7.8%
16.7%
24.5%
92.2%
External Cladding
0.7%
1.8%
-1.0%
2.9%
0.8%
Internal Planning
8.4%
2.7%
-1.1%
10.3%
8.3%
Wall Finishes
M&E, lifts and BWIC
Base case for
comparison
-2.7%
-2.6%
-4.3%
1.5%
-2.4%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
Preliminaries
-2.7%
2.7%
1.4%
-2.7%
-2.7%
Contingency
1.6%
1.3%
1.4%
4.1%
9.5%
Overheads & Profit
1.2%
1.5%
1.4%
3.4%
8.2%
Table 7: Summary comparison chart Building B
Building B
Flat Slab
PT Flat Slab
Composite
In-situ +
Hollowcore
PT Band
Beams
Long-Span
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
Slimdek
Substructures
-4.3%
-11.6%
-1.1%
1.4%
-8.7%
-4.5%
-6.6%
Frame & Upper
Floors
14.6%
14.7%
6.9%
30.4%
38.3%
35.8%
100.6%
External Cladding
-1.7%
0.1%
1.7%
2.3%
0.1%
4.3%
0.4%
Internal Planning
-1.1%
25.8%
1.0%
1.4%
25.8%
29.6%
26.0%
Wall Finishes
Base case for
comparison
-2.0%
9.9%
-0.5%
-2.9%
3.2%
13.2%
12.7%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
1.7%
0.0%
Time-elated
Preliminaries
-1.1%
0.0%
3.3%
-1.1%
0.0%
-2.2%
-2.2%
Contingency
0.4%
1.7%
1.0%
3.2%
3.7%
5.1%
8.4%
Overheads & profit
0.3%
1.5%
1.3%
2.7%
3.3%
4.3%
7.2%
M&E, lifts and BWIC
Office Cost Study
External cladding
Programmes
The thinner the overall structural and services zone, the lower the cladding
cost. Given that the cladding in the study represents between 18% and
23% 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.
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.
Reduced cladding areas can also have the potential benefit that
energy use can be reduced, reducing in turn the operational costs of
the building.
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.
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.
Stairs are typically re-sized as a result of the reduced storey height
module, producing slightly increased net lettable areas.
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.
Mechanical and electrical services
Mechanical and electrical services represent a large proportion of
the overall construction costs of the buildings, averaging up to 33%.
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 improves the speed and quality of
installation, reduces the risk of errors, provides flexibility in the design
and frees up design resources to be used elsewhere.
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 5% p.a.
and is presented as an additional cost compared with the option with
the shortest duration.
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.
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.
Table 8: Comparison of build costs - Building A and Building B
Building A
Composite
Insitu +
Hollowcore
Steel +
Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Slimdek
Construction cost in /m2
1,406
1,422
1,427
1,425
1,453
1,521
Programme in weeks
64
70
66
65
70
70
Savings in finance costs @
5% p.a. (/m2)
1,406
1,425
1,428
1,426
1,456
1,524
Building B
10
Flat Slab
Flat Slab
PT Flat Slab
Composite
In-situ +
Hollowcore
PT Band
Beams
Long-Span
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
Slimdek
Construction cost
in /m2
1,593
1,597
1,615
1,613
1,636
1,643
1,661
1,708
Programme in weeks
83
82
93
86
83
95
91
91
Savings in finance
costs @ 5% p.a.
(/m2)
-0
Office Cost Study
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 below.
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.
V ibration
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 FootfallInduced Vibration of Structures available from The Concrete Centre[3].
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.
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].
References
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
11
The Concrete Centre
Gillingham House
38-44 Gillingham Street
London SW1V 1HU
Ref. TCC/03/57
ISBN 978-1-908257-12-3
First published 2008
MPA The Concrete Centre 2014
The Concrete Centre is part of the Mineral
Products Association, the trade association for the
aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, lime, mortar
and silica sand industries.
[Link]
[Link]
All advice or information from MPA -The Concrete Centre is intended only for use in the UK 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 Mineral Products Association
or its subcontractors, suppliers or advisors. Readers should note that the publications from MPA - The Concrete Centre are subject to revision from time to time and should therefore
ensure that they are in possession of the latest version.
Printed onto 9Lives silk comprising 55% recycled fibre with 45% ECF virgin fibre. Certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.
