Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Contents
Introduction 02
Building design and structural options 04
Cost and programme data
06
08
10
References 11
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
3%
18%
2%
10%
32%
10%
5.0%
3.8%
12.5%
0.0%
1.9%
4.8%
10
4%
23%
1%
11%
30%
10%
13.5%
5.9%
26.1%
1.1%
1.4%
5.4%
22
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.
SECTION A-A
Building B
Structural options
Indicative diagrams and descriptions for each of the concrete and steel
options investigated are shown below.
Option 2 - Composite
Option 6 - Slimdek
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).
9m
B
SECTION B-B
PLAN
7.5m
SECTION B-B
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
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
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
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%
1406
1422
1427
1425
1453
1521
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
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
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
Flat Slab
/m2
PT Flat Slab
/m2
Composite
/m2
In-situ +
Hollowcore
/m2
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
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.
Building A
Flat Slab
Insitu +
Hollowcore
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Slimdek
Substructure
-4.8%
1.5%
0.5%
-2.0%
-3.7%
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
-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%
1.2%
1.5%
1.4%
3.4%
8.2%
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%
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
-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%
0.3%
1.5%
1.3%
2.7%
3.3%
4.3%
7.2%
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.
Reduced cladding areas can also have the potential benefit that
energy use can be reduced, reducing in turn the operational costs of
the building.
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.
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.
Building A
Composite
Insitu +
Hollowcore
Steel +
Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Slimdek
1,406
1,422
1,427
1,425
1,453
1,521
Programme in weeks
64
70
66
65
70
70
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
References
1.
2.
3.
11
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.