Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Contents
A complete cost model study was commissioned
by The Concrete Centre in order to compare the
Introduction 02 costs of constructing office buildings with different
structural solutions. The cost data for this study has
Building design and structural options 04 now been updated and the results of the study are
summarised in this guide. For the comprehensive
Cost and programme data 06 analysis of the original study please refer to the Cost
Model Study - Commercial Buildings[1] available
Cost comparison and conclusions 08 from www.concretecentre.com/publications
Inherent cost benefits of concrete 10 Cost is a major criterion in assessing design and construction
alternatives and construction professionals require current studies in
References 11 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.
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 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.
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).
The costs were updated by Davis Langdon in July 2013 to reflect the
Cover: The Angel Building, London, is a BREEAM Excellent building market prices at that time. This publication gives the revised costs, while
which used 36% cement replacement in its concrete mix. Architect:
the full cost study publication gives the 2008 costs. The design and
AHMM; Engineer: Adams Kara Taylor.
programme information has remained the same.
2
Office Cost Study
Both the 2008 and 2013 studies showed that for medium-span office
buildings, flat slab was the most economic solution.
Table 1: How much does the choice of structural solution affect the cost of other packages?*
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.
3
Office Cost Study
The precise location, size and design of the buildings were based Figure 1: Building A - Three-storey
on the design teams judgement of current commercial practice and
market requirements in terms of performance and cost, whilst also PLAN 7.5m SECTION A-A
avoiding unduly favouring either concrete or steel. For example,
7.5m
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.
A A
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
(4,650m2) inPLAN
a commercial/business
7.5m park setting. It is representative of a SECTION A-A
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.
4
Office Cost Study
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.
Post-tensioned in-situ concrete Steel beams acting compositely
flat slab and reinforced in-situ with precast concrete hollow-
The 9.0 x 7.5m structural grid for Building B is more representative of
concrete columns. core floor slabs. Steel columns.
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 Option 5 - In-situ + Hollowcore Option 6 - Slimdek
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).
B
9m
PLAN SECTION B-B
Reinforced in-situ concrete Slimdek system comprising
7.5m beams and columns with asymmetric beams and metal
precast concrete hollowcore decking, acting compositely
floor slabs. with in-situ concrete floor slabs.
Steel columns.
5
Office Cost Study
Short-span options
In situ + Steel +
Element Flat Slab Composite PT Flat Slab Slimdek
Hollowcore Hollowcore
Element Total 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
Wall Finishes 51,454 50,040 50,140 49,258 52,240 50,240
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
Mechanical 1,285,834 1,311,551 1,285,834 1,285,834 1,311,551 1,285,834
Electrical 637,811 649,880 637,811 637,811 649,880 637,811
Lifts 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000
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
Total 6,525,802 6,601,819 6,621,906 6,616,065 6,745,298 7,060,782
6
Office Cost Study
In situ + Steel +
Flat Slab Composite PT Flat Slab Slimdek
Element Hollowcore Hollowcore
/m2 /m2 /m2 /m2 /m2 /m2
Substructure 41 2.9% 39 2.7% 41 2.9% 41 2.9% 40 2.8% 39 2.6%
Frame & Upper Floors 113 8.0% 121 8.5% 122 8.5% 132 9.2% 140 9.7% 217 14.3%
Roof 48 3.4% 48 3.4% 48 3.4% 48 3.4% 48 3.3% 48 3.2%
Stairs 14 1.0% 14 1.0% 14 1.0% 14 1.0% 14 0.9% 14 0.9%
External Cladding 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%
Sanitary 41 2.9% 41 2.9% 41 2.9% 41 2.9% 41 2.8% 41 2.7%
Mechanical 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%
Overheads & Profit 54 3.8% 55 3.8% 55 3.8% 55 3.8% 56 3.8% 59 3.8%
Total 1406 1422 1427 1425 1453 1521
7
Office Cost Study
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
8
Office Cost Study
The charts below summarise those elements where costs are directly Substructure - foundations
affected by the choice of frame and show the percentage variation in Concrete construction is generally heavier than steel-frame construction,
cost for each structural frame option, when compared with the flat slab and this is reflected in the higher cost of foundations to the concrete-
option as the base case. framed options. However, although foundations for the concrete options
can cost more, they account for a relatively small proportion of the overall
The largest cost and the main source of savings (as can be seen from cost. To some extent this cost premium can be offset by adopting post-
the cost summaries, Tables 2 to 5) lies in the superstructure, when tensioned slabs, which are typically some 15% lighter.
the frame, cladding and internal planning are all taken into account;
here concrete has a definite advantage. With regard to finishes and Frame and upper floors
preliminaries, other than time-related aspects, there are minimal To compare flat soffit solutions with similar floor-to-floor heights, and
differences between options. 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.
Insitu + Steel +
Building A Flat Slab Composite PT Flat Slab Slimdek
Hollowcore Hollowcore
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%
Base case for
Wall Finishes -2.7% -2.6% -4.3% 1.5% -2.4%
comparison
M&E, lifts and BWIC 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%
9
Office Cost Study
Reduced cladding areas can also have the potential benefit that Nett lettable area
energy use can be reduced, reducing in turn the operational costs of There are two main areas in which differences in nett lettable area are found:
the building.
Insitu + Steel +
Building A Flat Slab Composite PT Flat Slab Slimdek
Hollowcore Hollowcore
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 @
0 3 1 1 3 3
5% p.a. (/m2)
1,406 1,425 1,428 1,426 1,456 1,524
10
Office Cost Study
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 Footfall-
Induced Vibration of Structures available from The Concrete Centre[3].
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
www.mineralproducts.org
www.concretecentre.com
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.