You are on page 1of 208

\

RATIONALISATION
~ ~~

OF FLAT SLAB
REINFORCEMENT

A report on research to investigate the


balance between the costs of materials,
labour and time in reinforced concrete flat
slab construction and potential benefits.

C H Goodchild BSc, CEng, MCIOB, MlStructE

REINFORCED
CONCRETE 1 jETR
-d r
ENVIRONMEN
TRANSPORT
REGIONS
Foreword
This publication is one of the main outcomes from a DETR PI1 Research Project Rationalisation offlat
slab reinforcement (ref 39/3/284 cc 0807). The project was jointly funded by the Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions under the Partners in Innovation scheme, the Reinforced
Concrete Council (RCC) and by industry. The project was managed and this publication was produced
by the RCC, which was set up to promote better knowledge and understanding of reinforced concrete
design and building technology.

The Council's members are ASW, the major supplier of reinforcing steel in the UK, and the British
Cement Association, representing the major manufacturers of Portland cement in the UK.

Charles Goodchld, author of this publication, is Associate Director for the Reinforced Concrete Council.

Acknowledgements
The RCC thanks the DETR and acknowledges the funding given to the project by the Department and
the support given by many individuals and companies, especially researchers and participants at the
project's Advisory Group meetings. These are listed below.
Pal Chana BRE Ltd (formerly of the Concrete Research and Innovation Centre)
John Clapson Consultant
Richard Day Concrete Society
Charles Fowler Formerly University of Reading
Michael Flynn Formerly Reinforced Concrete Council
Colin Gray University of Reading
Alan McDonack ROM
Dick Pankhurst Consultant
George Poncia Byrne Brothers
John Theophilus Lorien (formerly Allied Bar Coaters)
Bjorn Watson Anthony Hunt Associates

Thanks are also due to:


Ian Beveridge ROMLJKSA Gerard Kennedy Powell Tolner Assocs
Andy Butler S m h (foxmerly
~ of John Doyle C o m o n ) Steve Lillie and all at Byrne Bros
Michael Carter Balfoiir Beatty Charles McBeath Whitby & Bird
David Crick David Crick Associates Martin McGovern Whitby & Bird
Andrea Croft Concrete Society Tomas Moesch AncoTech bv
Les Dobinson Ove Arup & Partners David Moore BRE Ltd
Mike Fuller BRC David Pope Peter Brett Associates
Leon Furness Buro Happold Martin Saunders DEHA
Tony Franks ASW Geny Shaw Curtins
David Hart Gardiner & Theobald David Smith BRC
Frank Hodgson Frank Hodgson Associates David Wagstaff Norwich Union
David Johnson Nottingham Trent University Robert Vollum Imperial College
Thanks are also due to The Concrete Society and University of Reading RPEG for permission to use
previously unpublished material. Thanks too to Words & Pages.

97.376 Published by the British Cement Association on behalf of the


industry sponsors of the Reinforced Concrete Council.
First published 2000 British Cement Association
ISBN 0 7210 1576 X Century House, Telford Avenue
Price group L Crowthome, Berkshire RGI 1 6YS
Telephone (01344) 762676 Fax (01344) 761214
8 British Cement Association 2000 w.bca.0rg.uk
All advice or information from the British Cement Association is intended for 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. Readers should note that all BCA publications are subject to revision
from time to time and should therefore ensure that they are in possession of the latest version.
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement
Contents
Executive summary 1
Introduction 5
Methodology 7
Background studies ,
. 11
4.1 Introduction 11
4.2 Literature review 12
4.3 Further cost model studies 17
4.4 The cost of time 22
4.5 Concrete Society: Rationalisation of reinforcement 30
4.6 Background studies: Conclusions 33
European Concrete Building Project at Cardington 35
5.1 Introduction 35
5.2 Design 37
5.3 Design and detailing 38
5.4 Pre-construction 39
5.5 Commentary on reinforcement systems used 41
5.6 Design and detailing records 46
5.7 Process issues 47
5.8 Construction 52
5.9 Other research on reinforcement 55
Cardington: Structural performance 57
6.1 Ultimate strength in flexure 57
6.2 Serviceability 58
Cardington: Analysis of construction process data 67
7.1 Introduction 67
7.2 Site measurement 68
7.3 Results and analysis 69
7.4 Variability and uncertainty si
7.5 Conclusions and recommendations 84
Discussion 85
8.1 Introduction 85
8.2 Background studies 86
8.3 Cardington 92
8.4 Integration of results 99
8.5 Best value 117
8.6 Concluding remarks 119
Conclusions 121
10 Recommendations 127
11 References 131
Appendices 135
Appendix I Details of reinforcement 135
Appendix I1 Summary of interviews for Concrete Society research 138
Appendix I11 Supplementsto Chapter 7 :Analysisof constructionprocess data 140
Appendix IV Data used for costing: materials and labour 148
Appendix V Data used for costing: cost of time 150
Appendix VI Reinforcement detail drawings 156
Appendix VI1 Bending strength evaluation of the ECBP floor slabs 171
Appendix VI11 Charts showing potential savings for flexural reinforcement 199
and punching shear systems
,

1 Executive summary
Background
Within the concrete construction industry there are many different views about what
constitutes the best way of reinforcing concrete for the most economic construction. This is
especially true of reinforced concrete flat slabs where strict adherence to the current British
Standard can result in up to 60 different reinforcement arrangements within a single slab with
consequent inefficiencies in detailing, manufacturing, handling and fixing of reinforcement.

In line with the objectives of the Egan Repod'), the primary objective of this project was to
reduce the overall costs of reinforced concrete flat slab construction by disseminating
practical guidance on the rationalisation (i.e. the elimination of redundant variation) of rein-
forcement to contractors and designers. Improved rationalisation should improve the
competitiveness of flat slabs and indeed other forms of concrete construction.

The research
The project aimed to evaluate the timekost benefits of various generic methods of reinforcing
flat slabs. Following on from literature searches and background studies, comparative studies
were undertaken on six suspended slabs in the in-situ building of the European Concrete
Building Project (ECBP) at BRE Cardington.

Several different generic arrangements of loose bar and fabric were used for the flexural
reinforcement. Many different types of punching shear reinforcement were used. The chosen
configurations followed on from much discussion and the designs for the flexural rein-
forcement were based on three different types of analysis (elastic, finite element and yield
line). The structural performance of the various arrangements of reinforcement was checked
and found to be satisfactory.

Construction process data was recorded, analysed and is reported upon in this report.

Research defining the cost of time was undertaken. The results were used to integrate critical
time costs into the overall economics of the various configurations and speculate on the
implications.

Findings
The research indicated that:
Reinforcement
Different reinforcement arrangements can have significant impact on overall (material
plus labour) costs. In the systems investigated up to 30% of overall costs can be saved on
flexural reinforcement and 50% on punching shear reinforcement, excluding any benefit
from reduced critical path time.
For flexural reinforcement, it was found that rationalised arrangements of traditional
reinforcement produced best value in economic terms in all projects apart from large
buildings (say substantially larger than 3 storeys andor 4500 m2) where two-way
prefabricated mats offered most benefit.

1 ,
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

0 For flexural reinforcement there appear to be great opportunities for the use of yield line
design to determine reinforcement of flat slabs: yield line design leads to low
reinforcement weight and highly rationalised layouts.
0 For punching shear reinforcement, the use of a proprietary system appears to be almost
always worthwhile. The additional material cost is more than outweighed by savings in
labour and time.
Time
0 Proprietary punching shear reinforcement systems are between three and ten times faster
to fix per column than traditional links.
e Switching from traditional methods of detailing and fixing loose reinforcement to two-
way prefabricated mats and proprietary punching shear reinforcement systems can save
50% of fixing time (measured in man hours).
0 Savings in critical path time on site cannot be obtained simply through rationalising at the
detailing stage: rationalisation must embrace the whole design and construction process in
order to obtain worthwhile benefits.
0 Undoubtedly there are time savings to be gained by using very highly rationalised
configurations of reinforcement but their effects on overall productivity and critical time
are hard to judge.
costs
0 Time-related costs of time-based preliminaries and, notably, finance costs are exceedingly
important. This is especially true for clients, where, particularly in large buildings, these
costs outweigh additional material costs from using innovative methods.
0 A cost structure based on reinforcement weight alone almost always penalises and,
therefore, inhibits prefabrication and innovation. Appropriate time-related costs should
also always be taken into account.
0 Information on costs, pricing policies and productivity rates needs to become more
available. Access to straightforward costing and productivity data would encourage more
economic design.
It should be recognised that to some parties to a contract it is material cost that is
important and that to others, especially clients, it is time costs that are important. Thus,
the relative importance of these costs varies between parties. Their motivation may
therefore differ and may change during the procurement process.

Cardington data
0 Many of the findings in this report are based on data from Cardington that were gathered
under imperfect conditions, chiefly lack of repetition. However, these data gave strong
indications that were substantiated by comparisons with commercial information. They
were better than any previous research data and were held to be a sound basis for the
comparisons made.

Recommendations
Best practice
Current evidence suggests that traditionally designed rationalised flexural (or main)
reinforcement should be used on all but the largest buildings (say buildings larger than 7-
storeys and 10,000m2).
For shear reinforcement, the use of proprietary shear systems, specifically stud rails and
shear ladders, appears to be almost always worthwhile, regardless of building size.

2
,1 Executive summarv

0 The value of potential time savings on site must be'acknowledged by both the design and
construction teams in order to make correct decisions on rationalision.
Recommendations for future best practice
0 Yield line design appears to provide a great opportunity for more competitive concrete
building structures. If the opportunity is to be grasped then the concrete frame industry
must present designers and the wider construction industry with comprehensive design
guidance and design aids to instil confidence in its use.

0 The concrete frame industry should strive towards greater vertical integration. This would
produce many benefits. For instance, integrating computer design with computer detailing
would reduce the risk of wrongly estimating the weight of reinforcement for a project.
Likewise, the optimisation of flat slab construction would become more relevant if
methods of costing and productivity data were more available and easily understood by
designers.
Further studies
Studies aimed at identifying and analysing in detail value chains -the transmission of
value right through the supply chain - should be encouraged.
More data are required in order to determine optimum design for different structural
arrangements. Notably, data are required for loose bar arrangements derived from yield
line and finite element designs and to prove the benefits of yield line design and
prefabrication. Given the demonstrated variability of design input and site practice, a
practical way to obtain this data would be to organise industry-wide data gathering and
benchmarking exercises.
The method of providing shear reinforcement known as the ACI stirrup system provides
many benefits to the construction process. Research is required to develop and adapt
design methods in order to demonstrate compliance with BS 81 10 and EC2. This applies
particularly to the design of stirrups in close proximity to holes in the slab.

3
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Figure 1.1 The in-situ concrete frame building at Cardington.

4
2 Introduction
Current trends in building point towards more prefabrication, more efficiency, reduced site
activity, and safer and faster construction. Clients are demanding lower costs and higher
quality: The concrete industry, and many of its customers, believe that rationalisation,
including rationalisation of reinforcement, can answer some'of these demands.

In common with The Concrete Society's Rationalisation of reinforcement, Technical Report


53(2),'rationalisation' is taken to mean the elimination of unnecessary variation. Unnecessary
variation can occur in many parts of the construction process, but this project considers just
the provision of reinforcement in flat slabs.

Flat slabs are amongst the most popular forms of in-situ concrete frame construction,
accounting for between 30% and 50% of the market share for concrete-framed multi-storey
buildings. There are numerous views about what constitutes the most economic form of flat
slab construction and the most economic way of reinforcing them. This manifests itself in
many different arrangements of reinforcement to resist flexural bending, restrict deflection
and resist punching shear at columns. In order to consider this apparent area of inefficiency,
comparative studies were proposed to evaluate the benefits of rationalising reinforcement, by
comparing traditional arrangements with different layouts of loose reinforcement and bespoke
prefabricated mats (tailored fabrics) and by comparing different types of punching shear
reinforcement.

The primary objective of the project was to reduce the costs of flat slab construction by
disseminating practical guidance on the rationalisation of reinforcement for flat slabs. It was
held that greater productivity would lead to lower construction costs and increased
competitiveness. Any guidance produced was to be aimed at designers (engineers and
architects), clients, their advisors and contractors (main contractors and specialists).

At the outset the intention was to:


0 Demonstrate on a reasonably large scale the benefits of optimum reinforcement
arrangements.
0 Obtain objective quantitative data from which meaningful recommendations could be
developed and disseminated.
0 Look at the balance between cost of materials and saving in time.

This report was prepared following completion of construction and receipt of individual
reports by the University of Reading(3),Nottingham Trent University"), Lorien plc(38)and
ongoing research by Imperial College(8).The recommendations from this and the other work
at Cardington are being published in the form of short easy-to-follow Best Practice Guides.
The current (2000) list of Best Practice Guides is as follows:
Improving concrete frame constru~tion(~)
Concreting for improved speed and efficiency(")
Early age strength assessment of concrete on site(")
Improving rebar information and supply('2)
Early striking for efficient flat slab con~truction('~)
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement(44)(a summary of this report)

The project was funded jointly by DETR under their Partners in Innovation programme
(originally the Partners in Technology programme), by the RCC and by the concrete and

5
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

reinforcement industries. Contribution of time, money and material proved invaluable and are
gratefully acknowledged. The project was managed by the Reinforced Concrete Council.

6
3 Methodology
Outline
During the protracted pre-construction phase, a Steering Group was set up and met many
times to decide upon the arrangements of reinforcement to be used on the suspended floors of
the in-situ building at the European Concrete Building Project (ECBP) at BRE's Cardington
site in Bedfordshire. The final configurations of reinforcement used in the building, together
with responsibilities for design and supply are shown in Appendix I and summarised in Table
1. The meetings were often held in conjunction with those of a parallel DETR PIT project,
Rationalisation of reinforcement, undertaken by The Concrete Society(*).

During this time background research and literature searches were undertaken. The University
of Reading prepared their Cost of time report(3)for the project. This report looks at the value
of saving time from the viewpoint of the main parties to a (building) construction contract. As
construction at Cardington approached and the structural design by the ECBP's consultant
engineer, Buro Happold, became available, so alternative designs, arrangements and types of
reinforcement were arranged, prepared, checked and drawn up. The opportunity was taken for
Nottingham Trent University to compare the theoretical structural capacities of the final
designs.

This project, Rationalisation ofjlat slab reinforcement, formed a crucial part of the European
Concrete Building Project, as it complemented the ECBP's overall objective of increasing the
competitiveness of concrete building structures through business process re-engineering.

The many projects carried out on the ECBP were interdependent and called for many
compromises from many quarters at many times, sometimes to the detriment of individual
projects. The structure provided a large amount of process data, which is reported upon
elsewhere(4* '). On the performance side, the-opportunity was taken to incorporate many
facilities for research. Future testing of the structure will help clarify our understanding of the
behaviour of real building structures(6).The main effects of the interaction of the other
projects at Cardington on this project were the delayed start, interference with 'normal'
reinforcement operations and the unavoidably artificial time pressures on site.

The in-situ building was constructed in early 1998 in the hanger at Cardington. During
construction, data on the reinforcement process were gathered through observations,
timesheets, time-lapse photography and video. Inevitably there were the problems, delays,
and management compromises associated with construction on any site. In the case of this
project these problems led to less-than-ideal data being collected, but nonetheless, Cardington
provided a lot of information, which is presented in this report.

More details of the project are given in the following sections.

Background studies
A literature search ,was undertaken to review previous work in the area to gain wider
understanding of the subject and to be forewarned of potential difficulties with research on
site. PrCcis of the references found are presented in Chapter 4,Background studies.

Following publication of their Cost model study, the Reinforced Concrete Council undertook
a series of studies on the cost optimisation of flat slabs by looking at thinner slabs and
different methods of providing reinforcement. Material quantity and cost differences were
assessed and reported upon. However, it quickly became apparent that time-cost differences

7
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

could potentially overwhelm material cost differences. The value of time needed to be defined
so the following item of work was commissioned.

The Cost of time study(3)by the University of Reading’s Production Engineering Group was
commissioned to help give an accurate prediction of the time related costs of construction in
order to provide a measure of process improvement. The aim was to produce equations that
would show the benefit of completion of a project ahead of programme. The particular
intention was to show the contribution that improvements in concrete frame construction
could make. The equations were aimed at making direct calculations possible. The report is
presented in a summarised form, in section 4.4, together with additional material from the
RCC.

The Concrete Society’sproject, Rationalisation of reinforcement, was camed out concurrently


with the early stages of this project. There was much cross-fertilisation of ideas and
interchange of information.

Steering Group
The project was overseen by a the Steering Group that included representatives of Construct,
UK Steel Association (RMPG), Concrete Society, British Cement Association, ECBP,
consulting engineers and other interested members of industry. This group met many times
over the duration of the project. The Steering Group’s work was co-ordinated with that of The
Concrete Society’s Rationalisation of reinforcement workmg group(*).

Liaison with the ECBP


One of the major tasks undertaken by the Steering Group was the agreement of configurations
of reinforcement to be investigated. Many issues were discussed, not least the impact on other
areas of research at Cardington. In the long lead up to construction the final arrangement of
reinforcement was decided and is shown in Table 5.1 on page 39. A more detailed breakdown
including definitions and breakdown of responsibilities is given in Appendix I.

Once the many different configurations were finalised, arrangements were made for them to
be designed, detailed, checked and procured, delivered and fixed on site. The above
undertakings involved the RCC in a great deal of co-ordination including attendance at
weekly site meetings during construction.

Structural analysis of proposals


It was recognised that structural concrete productivity issues cannot be viewed in isolation.
Changes to reinforcement configurations affect overall factors of safety. A report was
commissioned from Nottingham Trent University to assess factors of safety against failure in
bending of each configuration. An automated yield line analysis (a finite element analysis
technique) was used. A summary of their report is presented in Section 6 .

Changes in reinforcement also (theoretically) affect serviceability. Although not funded by


this project, A review of slab deflections in the in-situ concreteframe building by Dr R L Vollum
is included in Section 6 with Dr Vollum’s permission. It should ‘be noted that Dr Vollum’s
and other research work at Cardington continues (as at June 2000).

The results of research into serviceability (deflection, cracking, shrinkage, durability, etc), and
ultimate performance (punching shear, fire, and explosion) may demand that the findings of
this report must be reviewed at some future date. However, some reassurance may be taken

8
3 Methodology

from the fact that Dr Vollum’s review includes measurements of deflection at up to 700 days
and that further deflection is probably predictable.

Observation and analysis of construction data


Operating under a sub-contract, Lorien plc observed and recorded the construction processes
associated with the different arrangements and types of reinforcement used on site. The
primary method of recording time of each reinforcement operation on site was through
detailed timesheets kept by the steel fixers themselves. The content and detail of the
timesheets was worked out and agreed with the fixers on site and initially the timesheets were
checked through parallel recording by the researchers. Later the records were verified by
observation, reference to video, time-lapse photographs, diaries and interviews. Towards the
end of construction, the steel-fixing crew was debriefed. Records of time were broken down
into delivery, storage, sorting, transport, fixing, etc. Lorien’s report analysis is presented later
in Section 7. The nature of the data obtained meant that the analysis, recommendations and
conclusions all have to be preceded by a caveat of the word ‘probably’. Nonetheless useful
data were obtained and worthwhile conclusions made.

Discussion
The various strands of the research were brought together and discussed. The aim was to
identify the effects of the different configurations of reinforcement on costs to the various
parties to a project. Detailed cost data were to be sought from industry and made available in
order that overall time-cost differences could be assessed.

Report and disseminate findings


This report forms part of the dissemination of the findings on this project. In common with
other research projects at Cardington this report is to be summarised in a Best Practice Guide.
This Guide‘44’will give recommendations for the rationalisation of the whole reinforcement
process to improve the efficiency and economy of remforced concrete flat slabs.

9
4 Background studies
4.1 Introduction
Although the cost of a concrete frame is generally a small proportion of the total project cost,
the frame construction time may account for a large proportion of the programme. In a typical
office building, for example, construction of the frame may represent only 10% of the cost but
may take 50% of the time. For most of this time the structure is on the critical path for the
completion of the building. For in-situ reinforced concrete structures, fixing of the
reinforcement is on the critical path for at least part of the time. So far as reinforcement is
concerned there are several ways to reduce critical time:
0 Simpler arrangements of reinforcement
0 Innovative methods of design
0 Proprietary systems
Prefabrication

All this adds up to rationalisation of reinforcement.

Savings in time in the frame construction process should therefore be reflected in savings in
the total project cost. Potentially, added-value reinforcement systems that save time should be
very attractive to the concrete frame industry’s clients. The problem has always been to define
potential savings within an ever-changing market, and it has always been difficult to give
practical guidance rather than anecdotal evidence.

Previous page
is blank
11
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

4.2 Literature review


Optimum cost
For the contractor, faster construction invariably reduces fixed costs. For the client, faster
construction reduces the cost of finance (see Figure 4.1), and may increase profit from early
trading. For both, optimum speed contributes to an improved return on capital, but as
Khosrowshahi(’6)pointed out, as far as project costs and time are concerned, the priorities of
the contractor and the client inevitably differ.

Finance Costfa, - /+ rinance Cos,t

x
0
0
S

i
i
!

i
Time

Figure 4.1 Finance costs - fast versus slow construction

The constituent components that make up the overall cost-time curve are different for the
different parties. Hence the optimum time for project duration will be different for the client
and the contractor.

For contractors, indirect costs (e.g. overheads) tend to increase with time, while direct costs
initially, at least, decrease with time (e.g. costs of labour). The contractor’s optimum time is
different from the that of the client whose total cost is the sum of the contractor’s total cost,
the contractor’s profit, the land cost and its related interest charges, interest payments on the
capital-in-use (interim valuations), and the client’s other time-related costs such as
professional fees, cost of land etc.

Finance costs
Claps~n(’~) stated that in the UK, ‘first cost’ continues to exert a strong influence on choice of
structural frame. However, he maintained, it is overall costs, including finance costs, that are,
perhaps, the major concern of clients.

Finance charges are directly related to the period from site purchase to start of rental income
or start of trading or disposal (occupation or sale). Hence, speed of construction should be,
and is, a major factor in the choice of materials and methods - an argument that has been
often, but unjustly, used to the detriment of using concrete frame construction. For simplicity
finance charges are often expressed as
~~

b p r o x i m a t e finance cost = Construction c o d 2 x duration (months) x interest r a t e / l 2 I

12
4 Background studies

Speed trials
In order to investigate speed a series of trials was undertaken on various arrangements of
reinforcement(17).These trials showed that assembly times for beam and column cages could
be halved, and times for fixing slab reinforcement could be significantly reduced. Using
crane-handled two-directional mats could reduce the time for fixing reinforcement in slabs to
10% of that required for traditional loose bar reinforcement.

Table 4.1 Speed trials at Wexham Springs(17)


Activity % of time for
Time
loose bars
Flat slab
Loose bars (not including breaks) 5 hr 45 rnin 100
Single-directional mats 1 hr 30 rnin 26
Two-directional mats 36 min 10
Beam cages
Loose bars 20 min 100
Fabric links 10 min 50
Column cages
Single links - loose bars 10 min 100
Single links - fabric links 4 min 40
Double links - loose bars 20 min 100
Double links - fabric links 10 min 50

When using traditional loose bar reinforcement for the slab the work was very labour-
intensive. A great deal of time was spent in marking out bar centres, opening up bundles and
identifying bars and lifting them into position. Using hand-laid prefabricated welded fabric
mats saved considerable time. The fabric mats were easily identified and their use improved
the organisation and planning. Larger, crane-handled mats saved even more time, because
there were significantly fewer items to position. It was clear that many of the traditional steel-
fixing skills were not required. The results reinforced those from similar work carried out in
Germany(I8)in recent years.

Evaluating the benefits


Prefabrication generally speeds construction but may result in the use of additional
reinforcement since this method of working usually depends upon adopting a degree of
. standardisation, which in turn implies using reinforcement maxima and a lower level of
optimisation compared with using loose bars. This inevitably leads to questions such as “How
much extra reinforcement will be required and will it be possible to recover the additional
cost?” It is very difficult to generalise and it is precisely this trade-off that this project seeks to
investigate.

By way of an example, Clapson(”) asked a leading firm of quantity surveyors to consider the
effect of substituting prefabricated shear reinforcement for loose links in a typical six-storey
concrete flat slab structure. All reinforcement was assumed to be loose bar except for the
prefabricated shear reinforcement. Assuming shear reinforcement was on the critical path, it
was calculated that the programme saving would amount to at least two weeks i.e. two days
per floor with potential cost benefits of €260,700, as shown in Table 4.2.

13
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Table 4.2 Potential savings from using prefabricated shear reinforcment‘”)

e
Extra costs
Prefabrication on-cost 13,700
Potential savings
1. Saving in site labour costs 5,800
2. Saving in fixed site costs (2 weeks) 20,600
3. Saving in finance cost (2 weeks at 12%) 48,000
4.Potential increase in rental income (2 weeks) 200,o 00
274,400
Net potential saving 260,700

Theoretically, rationalised reinforcement layouts should save time both in fixing and in the
many operations leading up to fixing - design, detailing, cutting, bending, delivering, storing,
locating and laying out. Provided the engineer and detailing staff have sufficient
understanding of the materials and methods, benefits will immediately start to accrue.
In the drawing office both the drawings and schedules will be greatly simplified.
0 The detailed drawings are far easier to read.
0 There are fewer components to deal with, checking is improved, and reinforcement
losses much reduced.

The major benefit on site is the potential for reducing the time taken to fix the reinforcement.
Compare, for example, the problems of checking shear reinforcement for a flat slab provided
by some 20,000 or so loose links with only, say, 600 or so components required for
prefabricated systems.

Production rates
Not only is the number of components important but so also is the rate at which they can be
fixed. Productivity is a complex science. Production rates are used in planning the resources
required for an activity. They are tremendously important in determining estimates for tenders
etc. and their accuracy can tip the balance between using one method and another or even one
material against another.

Production rates used in planning are affected by many factors including the subjective andor
objective bias of individual planning engineers. On site, a contractor’s organisational policy,
choice of construction methods, and the individual’s experience and aptitude will influence
the final productivity rates. It is not surprising that two planners are unlikely to derive
identical productivity rates given the same operation. Traditionally, individual planners use
their own individual rates, which are based on their or their company’s experience. The rates
allow for, or are moderated for, unknown factors, site difficulties etc and their derivation,
could be described as unscientific. Attempting to measure productivity of reinforced concrete
operations is notoriously difficult.

As reported by Proverbs et aI(I9),planning engineers frequently maintain a library of basic


productivity rates. These are adjusted for each project; taking into consideration specific site
factors and conditions that they consider could impact on the productivity of construction
operations.

14
4 Background studies

Christian and Hachey' analysed 15 responses to a questionnaire. The wide range of


'

production rates given illustrated how difficult it is to estimate a particular production rate for
any activity. Determining the value of these rates is complex because productivity is difficult
to analyse. It is also difficult and time-consuming to interpret and evaluate. In practice,
production ratzs were modified to reflect delay times and other time-consuming aspects of an
activity. In most construction companies, production rates are usually established by a
combination of experts' opinion and the use of handbooks that contain productivity data.

Significantly, Chstian and Hachey found that there existed "substantial agreement" between
the average productivity rates measured in the field and of those used by planning engineers.
Where differences between productivity rates and actual output (using a number of sites for
similar operations) were found, it was established that such differences were caused mainly
by waiting and idle times (an impact of inadequate site supervision or management).
However, Christian and Hachey reported that planners would very often modify their
productivity rates for each estimate in order to reflect anticipated delay times.

Time measurements of production rates revealed that waiting time delays were an extremely
significant part of reduced productivity. For a typical concrete worker 37% of time was non-
productive (4% idle, 4% waiting for supervision and 29% waiting for materials). Management
attention should be focused on these causes of inefficiency.

Table 4.3 presents descriptive statistics for the productivity rates provided by planning
engineers from each of three countries. The researchers experienced difficulties in data
interpretation and in the disparate number of responses. It can be observed that the coefficient
of variation (C of V) values are exceptionally high (24% to 90%) despite the relatively small
sample sizes. Assuming normal distribution, some 60 samples would have been required to
ascribe 95% confidence limits

Planning engineers were requested to provide their productivity rates for the fixing of
reinforcement to beams (in three different sizes), columns and floor slabs, as defined by
model drawings. The model building utilised in-situ concrete flat-slab floors, and was seven
storeys in height and contained 24 columns per floor.

Table 4.3 Productivity rates for fixing reinforcement to beams, columns and floor slabs
(Proverbs et al(I9'
Element Country Number of Productivity rates
respondents
Mean c of v# SD*
(MPR)* %
Beams UK 32 25.4 43 10.9
France 13 31.9 41 13.1
Germany 10 18.0 28 5 .O
Columns UK 31 24.3 42 10.2
France 13 30.6 38 11.6
Germany 10 . 18.5 32 5.9
Floor slabs UK 31 11.4 90 10.3
France 13 20.3 30 6.1
Germany 10 15.0 24 3.6
*Operative-hours per tonne #?Coefficientof variation

15
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Floor slabs contained over 80% of the reinforcement in the model and the productivity rates
ascribed to this operation would have a proportionally greater overall impact on the total
operative hours required. While figures for slabs would suggest that for reinforcement
operations overall, UK contractors are the most productive, previous research found UK
productivity to be the lowest.

However, it is the RCC’s opinion that the Germans tend to use thicker slabs with lighter bars.
In other words the lower production rate in Germany might reflect this difference in custom.
Germany also uses more fabric(I5),and welded fabric reinforcement accounts for some 45% of
the total reinforcement market, compared with just 15% in the UK. Thus uncomplicated and
fast reinforcement might be accomplished by using mats in Germany and loose reinforcement
in UK, thus skewing the figures. This illustrates the difficulty of making comparisons. It also
reinforces the notion that planners sticking with what they know from personal experience
works.

The Steel Reinforcement Promotion Group: Avoiding problems


The Steel Reinforcement Promotion Group (SRPG) (*I) refers to steel fixing as being an art
where ill-considered details can artificially create fixing problems. They suggest that four
aspects should be considered to simplify fixing on site.
0 Relieving reinforcement congestion
0 Simplification without affecting design intent
0 Reducing the number of items to be fixed
0 Allowing for variations in site measurement to ensure cover
4 Background studies

4.3 Further cost model studies


Introduction
The RCC’s Cost model study(27)concluded that optimisation of design and different forms of
construction were worthy of further investigation. As part of the build-up to the research at
Cardington this optimisation was studied in more detail(28).

The study used the same three- and seven-storey concrete framed buildings as in the Cost
model study. The slabs were to support imposed loads of 4.0 kN/m2 plus 1.0 kN/m2 for
partitions, self weight and ‘services,and a finishes load of 1.5 kN/m2. The original choice of
300 mm thick reinforced concrete flat slabs for the 7.5 m square spans was made by the
designers, YRM Anthony Hunt Associates, to avoid the need for shear links at columns.
Further designs were commissioned, quantified and costed by Gardiner & Theobald. To
maintain compatibility with the original Cost model study, reinforcement estimates and
September 1993 rates were used for the budget costings. For simplicity, the effects of thinner
slabs were considered first and then added to the effects of using different configurations of
reinforcement.

The different methods of providing bending and shear reinforcement affect both programme
and the amount of effort required by the engineer. The RCC had to estimate total programme
differences from discussions with specialist contractors and by assuming time costs equated to
the cost of the main contractor’s time-based preliminaries. Differences in engineers’ fees were
determined by the designers, based on ACE Agreement 3 and complexity factors for each
variation to reflect the design effort required.

Findings
Thinner slabs
Thinner slabs save money. Figure 4.2 shows savings up to €6.50/m2 gross floor area (10% of
the original superstructure costs) could be saved by adopting 240 mm thick rather than 300
mm thick slabs. The savings come from less perimeter cladding, reduced volume of concrete
in the superstructure, smaller foundations, and, in theory, less perimeter formwork and lower
fees.

3 6.00
w
5 5.00
U
0 0Engineers fees
IIn, 4.00 0 Ext. Cladding
0
3.00 rn Formwork
b5 rn Concrete
0
v) 2.00 61 Foundations
0
C
1.00
rn
0.00
1 300 280 260 240
i
I
-
Slab thickness mm

Figure 4.2 Average savings over the original Cost model study buildings due to using thinner slabs

17
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Thinner slabs require more reinforcement and more design effort to make them work. This
implies additional cost and time but there is a balance between these additional costs and the
savings associated with thinner slabs.

However, the costs of reinforcing these thinner slabs needs to be considered!

Savings using traditional shear links


Compared with the original Cost model study, where additional flexural reinforcement was
used to enhance shear capacity so no links were required, the source of savings (or costs) is
shown in Figure 4.3. Less flexural reinforcement is required at 300 mm thickness because
shear links are used - a distinct saving. Links take time to fix and the penalty is in paying for
contractors' time. At 300 mm there is a net saving. As the slab becomes thinner more
reinforcement is required until the initial advantage is lost. There are other penalties -
progressively more difficult design and more time on site for fixing links. Nonetheless adding
these figures to those for thinner slabs (effectively adding together Figures 4.3 and 4.4)
indicates (as shown in Figure 4.5) that the optimum solution would be 255 mm slabs, some
€5.00/m2 cheaper or on average 8% less than that in the original Cost model study costs.

2.50
2.00
1.50
N
g
w
1.00
U) 0.50
UJ
=
'5
0.00
-0.50

g
U
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Slab thickness - mm
0Reinforcement =Preliminaries 6
Engineers fees

- TOTAL reinforcement. preliminaries and fees

Figure 4.3 Source of savings by using thinner slabs and traditional links at column positions
(compared with original study where additional flexural reinforcement was used to enhance
shear capacity) (averaged over the four original Cost model study buildings)

Design using no shear reinforcement


This option requires considerably more tension reinforcement than other options in order to
provide the required punching shear capacity, but demands less time on site. This solution
was not feasible in all cases; for example, for a slab 240 mm thick on small columns in the
M4C3 building, the punching shear stresses were too high.

The study showed that there was little advantage in going for this option at three storeys but at
seven storeys (with 700mm square columns) savings approaching E6/m2 are possible.

18
4 Background studies

3In
ul
E
‘E
U)
1.oo
c
In
0
0.00 7

0 300 280 260


-1 .oo
-2.00
Slab thlckness - mm
TOTAL reinforcement, prelims and engineers fees
0TOTAL INCLUDING THICKNESS SAVINGS

Figure 4.4 Total savings from using thinner slabs and traditional links at column positions,
including savings from using thinner slabs compared with the four original Cost model study
buildings

Using shear hoops


Traditional shear llnks are awkward to detail, fK and check on site, so have often been avoided by
increasing the slab thickness or providing column heads. Such practices increase material costs and
slow down construction. Shear hoops - prefabricated nests of links - offer a simple and practical
way of providing shear reinforcement in flat slabs, with possible savings of around €4.30/m2.

Using shear heads


Shear heads are prefabricated from structural steel sections into crosses (or ‘T’s or ‘L’s at
perimeters) placed within the slab as a column head. They allow for large holes near columns
but their use in this country has perhaps been restricted by the lack of a recognised and simple
design method. Nonetheless they are common abroad and provide simplicity and speed. The
results fiom the study are similar to those for shear hoops.

Using prefabricated reinforcement mats


Prefabrication can lead to simplified reinforcement drawings that are cheaper to produce, simpler to
check and less likely to be misinterpreted on site. It also results in a more uniform workload for the
fvting crews and less congestion at the work face, allowing better access and shorter fixing times.

Comparisons
Designs, details, quantities, costs and fees were worked up for the various configurations for
the M4 buildings in the original Cost model study at 3 and 7 storeys and for the M62 buildings
‘at 3 and 7 storeys‘. The savings and costs were added together to give an indication of overall
savings. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show savings of up to €8/m2 (12%) of the original superstructure
costs. While these figures were based on preliminary data, they show the potential of
prefabricated mats, particularly two-way mats, a benefit that is widely recognised abroad. It
would be interesting to combine the numbers for mats and shear hoops or shear heads.

’The M4C3 building was assumed to be located in Reading, a three-storey concrete frame, square in plan with air
conditioning and curtain walling. The M4C7 building is similar but seven storeys. The MG2C3 building was
assumed to be located in Rochdale, a three-storey concrete frame with two rectangular wings, natural ventilation
and traditional brick cladding. All buildings incorporated concrete flat slabs on a 7.5 m x 7.5 m grid. Floor plates
had an area of 1500m2 and based on a 199 1 survey the three-storey buildings were considered to be ‘average sized’
multi-storey offices.

19
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

11 0 Loose main reinforcement and


NO shear reinforcement
10.00 OLoose main reinforcement and
shearhoops

8.00 0 Loose main reinforcement and


structural steel shear heads

6.00 BLoose main reinforcement and


traditional shear links

4.00 Bone-way mats with traditional


shear links

2.00 BDOne-way mats with NO shear


reinforcement

0.00 -
mTwo-wav mats with NO shear
’ $ p p 3 $ $ $ $ 3 reinforcement
-
Thlskness mm
68Two-way mats with traditional
shear links

Figure 4.5 Overall savings for the M4C3 and M4C7 buildings respectively.

Figures 4.5 and 4.6 also show that it is not always feasible to use certain configurations. The
option of using no shear links in the M4C3 building is not really possible unless unnecessarily
large columns are used. At seven storeys the columns are of sufficient size to make this option
viable.
~

OLoose main relnforcemenland


NO shear reinforcement

OLoose main reinforcement and


10.00
shearhoops

2 8.00 OLoose main relnforcementand


structural steel shear heads
w
m @Loose main reinforcement and
6.00
traditional shear links
0
yl

5 4.00 Bone-way mats wlth traditional


shear links

2.00 m0ne-waymats with NO shear


reinforcement

0.00 3Two-way mats wlth NO shear


reinforcement

mlwo-way malS with traditional


shear links

Figure 4.6 Overall savings for the M62C3 and M62C7 buildings respectively

Flat slabs, perhaps more so than any other form of concrete construction, require more
understanding and design sophisfication to get the ‘best’ solution. Design tends to be
governed by deflection and shear provisions rather than by thoughts of total construction cost.

In summary, shear systems and prefabricated reinforcement can greatly simplify work on site
and so speed up construction and save clients money. The saving is directly related to the time
cost. However, there is an initial price to pay in increased material and design costs.

Interim conclusions
This preliminary study was able to look at theoretical savings. Significant cost savings can be
made by optimising slab thicknesses and methods of reinforcement. The concrete construction
industry should recognise that different methods and additional effort (and fees?) can give

20
. .

4 Background studies

clients added value. In practice, however, this potential optimisation is often set against
increasing risk - thinner slabs have less capacity to absorb late changes and have the potential
for higher deflections.

The optimum thickness for the 7.5 m span flat slabs appeared to be 255 mm. The option of
not using punching shear reinforcement is not viable with small columns. It was shown that
optimising slab thickness saves money.

The proposed test facility at the European Concrete Building Project at Cardington was to a
full-scale test bed to look more closely at the trade-off between material costs and
productivity in practice.

21
. ..

Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

4.4 The cost of time


Summary
The cost of time depends upon the perspective of the user.

For developers and owner/occupiers, early occupation brings early and extra revenue or rental
income. However, this may be secondary to their core business of predicting and managing
commercial risks and opportunities.

For contractors and specialist subcontractors early completion should mean less time-related
overheads. However, overheads are normally costed as a single percentage addition, typically
10%. This is insensitive to the particular resource usage and thus does not reflect the often
quite small changes in design that achieve production efficiencies.

Data for the calculations, particularly that for the contractors and specialist subcontractors are
not readily available. Additional work would be required to build a cost database. Nonetheless
financial equations and tables showing how time affects parties to a construction contract are
presented to provide valuable measurement tools.

Introduction
This section presents a prkcis of The cost of time repod3)by The University of Reading which
was commissioned by the RCC for this project. Additions have been made by the RCC
following discussions with members of the concrete frame industry.

One of the first issues to be addressed by the Rationalisation of Flat Slab Reinforcement
Steering Group was the value of time. Initial investigations found that it was necessary to
define costs and to differentiate between different members of the construction team. The
Cost oftiine study was commissioned by the RCC to help give an accurate prediction of the
time-related costs of construction in order to reflect construction process improvement. The
aim was to produce equations that would show the benefit of completion of a project ahead of
programme, particularly the contribution that improvements in concrete frame construction
could make to the overall process. The equations are aimed at making direct calculations
possible and to differentiate between the main parties to a contract.

Basis
This study looked at the effect on costs of the operations taking slightly less or slightly more
time than would be the case if traditional operations had been carried out in traditional ways
in typical amounts of time. Traditional methods and typical times are of course impossible to
define as methods and markets are constantly changing and particular projects have their own
peculiarities. However this notion of typicality gives a basis for investigating the effects of
time on costs. Using better methods should result in better times and costs. These in turn
produce a yardstick of optimised contract times and values - against which future innovations
can be judged.

It is assumed that the relatively small changes in time in constructing the frame do not affect
other items such as supervision requirements; size of cranes, duration of other operations, etc.

22
4 Background studies

The cost of time for a developer


Property development: background
The property development process can be divided into three phases:
0 T, Acquisition -the time from acquisition of the land (waiting for planning permission
and design plans) until construction starts.
0 T2 Constrixtion.
0 T3 Disposal - the time from the end of construction until the building is let or sold.

These phases are associated with three main cost centres:


0 CLCost of land, (including acquisition costs, compensation, fees)
0 CDCost of demolition,
0 Cc Costs of construction. (including contract value, access roads, planning offsets,
professional fees, etc. These ancillary costs can add 5 to 15% to the contract value).

I
L
3
0
.-
S
a
t$
a -n Dispoeal

Conetruction
8
2 Demolition

I I

Time

Figure 4.7 Project costs and phases vs time

The property developer is looking for profit. With respect to a particular project this may be
defined as being:
Profit = Property value - Total costs
where
Property value = Net yearly rental income / Investor’s yield
Total costs = Cost of land + Cost of demolition + Costs of construction + Cost of
finance

The main variables in this assessment of profit are: markets, finance (short-term borrowing
costs) and construction costs.

All markets change with time. The construction, money (costs of borrowing, yields) and
letting markets (rental income, opportunity) each have an indirect influence on profit.
Construction time, on the other hand, has a direct influence on finance and construction costs
of a project and is influenced by frame construction time. The calculations therefore
concentrate on finance and cons@ction costs only.

23
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Construction time
Construction time affects:
0 Finance costs - as the money will have to be borrowed for a longer period.
0 Construction costs - due to the preliminary costs, most of which are time dependent.

Finance costs
Finance costs are a function of time i.e.

I Finance costs = f'n(costs, time) = costs x[(l+ interest rate)'ime-l] 1


where
interest rate is per unit of time.

In terms of a project, the finance costs are

i.e.

where
F = finance costs
j = interest rate per unit of time
TI, T2, CL,COetc as before

With respect to construction costs, Cc, it is normal practice for the contractor to be paid at
monthly intervals for work completed. Finance is raised accordingly and interest will,
therefore, occur in stages, although it may be 'rolled up' and repaid as a lump sum on
completion. Early payments incur a compound rate over most of the contract period whereas
payments made near the end of the building period will incur hardly any interest. This can be
tracked using cash flow methods which are useful in complex schemes where, for example
parts of the scheme are ledsold before others are completed, and in developments where
greater information about the scheme is required. The cash flow approach can more easily
accommodate additional refinements such as allowing for the usual S curve in construction
expenditure, inflation and taxation.

However, it is usual practice in simple schemes to assume that the total amount of money for
construction costs is borrowed for a proportion, usually half, of the building period. The
interest on the construction cost will be paid for a period of T2/2 and then for another period
of T3 until the disposal.

Construction costs
Differences in construction costs theoretically should arise from:
Different costs of time-related preliminaries
Different labour, plant and materials costs for doing the work to a different
timescale.

Depending on the form of contract and admissibility of claims, these may not necessarily be
passed on to the clienddeveloper. Where the construction period is increased or decreased
through the endeavours of contractors they would probably not be passed on. On the other
hand, if specification of method/ proprietary system is in the domain of the client's designers

24
4 Background studies

within a traditional contract, then any saving (or cost) should reasonably be reflected in the
contract sum i.e. the client would benefit (or pay).

The cost of time for an owner/occupier


An owner/occupier’s prime objective is to procure a building where he can best carry out his
business. Profit is taken indirectly in benefits derived from the occupation. Presuming fitting-
out forms part of the works, the disposal (i.e. period to occupation) period is absent, (T3 = 0),
but variations can still occur in acquisition and construction periods. The consequences of late
delivery to an owner/occupier include:
0 Finance costs - as the money will have to be borrowed for a longer period.
0 Construction costs - different costs of time-related preliminaries and different labour,
plant and materials costs associated with doing the work to a different timescale.
0 Lost additional profit - (clear additional profit from new facilities) x time
0 Additional overheads - (e.g. extra rental for existing premises, storage, equipment ) x time
0 Missed opportunities - estimated cost of loss or orders from future clients, damage to
name and credibility in the market.

The last three are all very hard to estimate. For the purposes of this exercise, lost additional
profit plus additional overheads might be equated to loss in rental income as would be the
case of developers with a pre-let building.

The cost of time for main contractors


The consequences of late delivery to the contractor are differences in construction costs that
include:
Different costs of time-related preliminaries
Different labour, plant and materials - costs for doing the work to a different timescale.

Preliminaries vary depending on the type of project and the type of contract. They may
account for between 5% and 15% of contract value. For the purposes of this research the
time-based preliminaries that are concurrent with frame construction and relevant to costs can
be divided into six main types.
Staff Scaffold access Temporary power
Plant Accommodation Cleaning

In line with Table 4.4, these time-based preliminaries may be assumed to be approximately
5.5% of the contract value(*’) and for the purposes of comparison these costs may be
considered pro-rata to contract duration.
Depending on the form of contract, differences in preliminaries and construction costs may or
may not be passed on to the client. If savings are passed onto the client then there is little or
even no incentive for the contractor to save costs or to save time. Conversely if savings are
retained or at least shared with the client then there is incentive for the contractor to save time
and costs. From this comes the current drives towards partnering and vertical integration.

25
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Table 4.4 Costs of preliminaries from the RCC’s Cost’rnodelstudy(*’)

M4C3 M4C7 M62C3 M62C7 Ave.


~

Fixed preliminaries, € 50,000 75,000 60,000 90,000


Time-based preliminaries, 2 182,000 310,000 185,500 315,000
Contract value, € 3,357,638 7,397,120 2,799,430 6,148,393
Preliminaries, of whch 6.9% 5.2% 8.8% 6.8% 6.9%
Time-basedpreliminaries 5.4% 4.2% 6.6% 5.1% 5.5%

The cost of time for the specialist subcontractor


The consequence of late delivery for the specialist subcontractor consists of differences in
construction costs. These include:
0 Different costs of time-related preliminaries
0 Different
- labour,
- plant and
- materials costs for doing the work to a different timescale.

Again, whether the specialist subcontractor has to bear additional costs or can reap savings is
dependent on the form of subcontract. Nonetheless, specialist subcontractors do have time-
related preliminaries (say 10% of subcontract value: according to the RCC’s Cost model study
a concrete frame subcontract value is on average 10% of contract value). The subcontract may
be ‘supply and fix’ or ‘fix only’. If ‘fix only’, the case for using costly materials to gain speed
and overall advantage would have to be made upstream. Along with labour costs the
subcontractors usually have the costs of specialist plant to bear. This is unlikely to change due
to the nature of the different types of operations envisaged but may be required over a ,

different timescale.

How time affects parties to a construction contract


The following tables show the parties to construction contracts, the timescale of their
involvement and which cost centres affect their costs. There are two tables as the beneficiaries
appear to change when the innovation is post contract rather than pre-contract and part of the
original design. It may be regarded as showing who gains from less contract time and under
what heading. Equally, it may be thought of as showing who pays for extra time and how.

Time acceleration usually involves an innovation requiring either additional labour or


material. Who pays for additional material is also shown.

26
4 Background studies

Table 4.5 Who gains from time savings (innovatingpre traditional contract)
Basis: Traditional Contractors Clients
contract,
pre-contract Specialist trade Main Speculative Owner/ occupier
innovation (labour only) developer (developer with pre-let)
m
Timescale of
involvement
Part of Tz 12 TI + T2 + T3

Who gains from less concrete frame contract time?


Construction costs:

Preliminaries 3 3 .I" d4
Labour 3 X2 .I" * .I"
~
Plant
~~
3 X2 d4
Rentayincome X

Finance costs .I
Opportunity costs .I? .I?
Who gains from less (and pays for additional) material?
Materials X' 33 d4 .I"
Key
.I Yes
x No (no savings directly from on in-house costs but savings may be accrued from other parties.)
a If the innovation over 'traditional methods' is part of a tender then any savings (or costs) would be expected to
be passed on, at least in part, in tenders from specialist subcontractor to main contractor to client.
1 Assuming 'labour only' subcontract otherwise passed on as above.
2 Some use of main contractor's labour and plant is inevitable, but items such as tower crane and banksmen
may be considered as included in preliminaries. Savings from subcontractors should be passed on.
3 'Labour only' and 'supply and fix' subcontracts likewise passed on as above.
4 Accrued from contractors

27
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Table 4.6 Who gains from time savings (innovating pbst traditional contract)

Basis: Traditional Contractors Clients


contract,
post-contract Specialist trade Main Speculative Owner/ occupier
(labour only) developer (developer with pre-let
innovation
Timescale of
Part of T2 T2 Tl + T2+ T3
involvement
Who gains from less concrete frame contract time?
Construction costs:

Preliminaries 93 d3 x4 x4

Labour 43 X 2 3
x4, 5 x4, 5

Plant 43 X 2 3
x4. 5 x4. 5

RentaVincome X .I
Finance costs d d
Opportunity costs .I? d?
Who gains from less (and pays for additional) material?
Materials X’ .I3- x4. 5 x4, 5

Key
d Yes
x No, (no savings on in-house costs but some savings may accrue from savings from other parties)
a If the innovation is introduced post contract, then at least part of any savings (or costs) would be expected to
be passed on from specialist subcontractor to main contractor to client.
Assuming ‘labour only’ subcontract otherwise 4
The main contractor gains from savings taken from the subcontractor but not wholly passed on to the client.
Some use of main contractor’s labour and plant is inevitable, but items such as tower crane and banksmen
may be considered as included in preliminaries.
Assuming ‘labour only’. If ‘supply and fix’ subcontract or innovation at clients behest then x.
The client is not necessarily entitled to benefit from innovations introduced by specialist subcontractors but
might gain from savings passed on by the main contractor, particularly if a contract variation is required to
cover a variation to the specification.
If innovation is at client’s request he may need to pay for it. For example, if acceleration is required he may be
required to pay acceleration charges but may gain from early rental.

28
4 Background studies

The following table aims to quantify the basis of cost of time for each cost centre relationship
above.

Table 4.7 Who gains fiom less contract time and by how much: the cost of time
~ ~~

Contractors Clients
Specialist Main Speculative Owner/ occupier
subcontractor developer (developer with
pre-let)
Timescale of T1+ T2 + T3
Part of T2 T2
involvement
Construction costs
=ax x cc = b x &-x c c
Preliminaries m m

Labour 4 T 2x numbers x rates'

Plant 4 T 2x numbers x rates'


~~

Materials (Prime cost) Prime cost Prime cost

Lost rentalhncome X =GT2 x rate


Finance costs 6F = fn(GT2,T, C) 6F = fn(6T2,TYC)
~~ ~
- see note 2 - see note 2
Opportunity costs

Approximately 1%. Preliminaries for a concrete frame subcontract are, depending on the project,
about 10% and the subcontract value is often approximately 10% of main contract value.
Say 5% to 15%. Main contract preliminaries vary depending on the project. For the relatively very
simple Cost model study(27'buildings it was 5.5%.
Plant costs may be assumed to be included in preliminaries

These tables form the basis for further studies in 8.4 Integration ofresults

Further reading
Byme, P and Cadman, D (1 984), Risks uncertainty and decision making in property
development, E. & F.N. SPON, London.

Darlow, C (1988), Valuation and development appraisal, (Second Edition), Bath Press, Avon

Gray, C (1984), The preliminary costs ofconstruction, MPhil dissertation, University of


Reading.

29
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

4.5 Concrete Society: Rationalisation of


reinforcement
Work on The Concrete Society’s project, Rationalisation of reinforcement(2),was carried out
concurrently with the early stages of this project. There was much cross-fertilisation of ideas
and interchange of information. Members of The Concrete Society’s Working Group gave
their time to the RCC’s Steering Group and vice versa. The following provides a summary of
The Concrete Society’s project with particular relevance to this project.

Objectives of Concrete Society research


The motivation for the work came from a broad study undertaken by Allied Steel and Wire
into the installed cost of reinforcement. As reported(22),ASW’s report concluded that the time
costs associated with reinforcement was about the same as the cost of buying and fixing the
reinforcement itself. A breakdown of the relative costs of all the processes and factors is
illustrated in Figure 4.8.

Time costs
41 %

Figure 4.8 Cost per tonne of reinforcement in a structure (22)

The study also found that it was hard to quantify the cost of installation and other processes.
Traditionally, all efforts to reduce costs have focused on the easily quantified cost per weight
of reinforcement, especially as prices for fabrication and fixing are invariably quoted on a ’per
tonne’ basis.

The advent of computer-aided design (CAD) has enabled designers to minimise more easily
the weight of reinforcement used. Unfortunately, this generally results in increased
complexity and greater time-related costs.

Rationalisation of reinforcement
As reported by Clarke(23),within the context of The Concrete Society’s Technical Report 53(2),
‘rationalisation’ means the elimination of unnecessary variation. It does not simply mean
‘standardisation’, although this may be one aspect of the process. Ideally, rationalisation
should be applied to the whole process of design and construction. Significant savings can be
made at various stages of the process and decisions in one will affect those that follow. Good
communication is essential. For maximum efficiency this communication must be both up

30
- I .

4 Background studies

and down the supply chain as decisions on site or contractors preferences can also affect how
work proceeds.

The traditional approach to designing concrete framed structures is to consider each element
in turn and design the reinforcement accordingly. This tends to produce a solution that is
highly efficient structurally but may be highly inefficient in the context of the business
process. It is usually left to the reinforcement detailer to try to introduce some rationalisation,
although at that late stage the possibilities may be very limited. The goal should be to reduce
.costs by making all operations simpler thus making the total less costly. To achieve this The
Concrete Society's report, Towards rationalising reinforcement for concrete structures
(CSTR53)(2)recommends adopting all, or some, of the following procedures:
Reduce design time -by using standard or repetitive designs
Reduce manufacturing time and costs - by using fewer sizes, more common shapes and
more straight bars
Reduce direct fixing time -by simplifying designs, reducing the number of loose bars and
making greater use of prefabrication
Reduce delays during fixing - by using simpler reinforcement schedules leading to fewer
mistakes
Reduce project delays - by reducing complexity, administration delays in information
flow and the potential for mistakes
Reduce project duration - by shortening fixing times and removing delays caused by
complexity
Reduce 'the learning curve' for fixers on a new site - by introducing standardisation of
details for wider use throughout the concrete construction industry.

The report suggests that the design process needs to be modified so that the number of
element types and variations in each type are kept to a minimum. Reinforcement should be
'typical' (or standard). Additional amounts of reinforcement should be necessary only for
more heavily loaded members and this should be in the form of loose bars added to the typical
reinforcement arrangement. This approach needs the input of an experienced engineer andor
detailer at the outset.

At the detailing stage there is some scope to rationalise the reinforcement. Suggestions
include:
0 Using straight bars in preference to bent bars
0 Using standardised reinforcement units, detailing additional loose bars to meet any
particular design requirement
Aiming for reinforcement arrangements that use the fewest individual bar marks
On long structures, arranging lap positions to suit the order of construction
Using tailored fabric wherever possible (refer to the manufacturer for advice)
Using standard reinforcement assemblies e.g. proprietary shear reinforcement systems
for punching shear, and discussing their procurement and availability with the supplier
early in the design process.

The full process of rationalising reinforcement is complex and involves many participants and
viewpoints. Ideally, the design, detailing, purchase, supply and installation of the
reinforcement should be in one vertically integrated process, so that all parties in the supply
chain can contribute to and benefit from rationalisation and the potential savings. The goal of
an integrated design and construction process should stimulate the concrete industry to change
the current procurement process to enable the benefits of rationalisation of reinforcement to
be fully realised.

31
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

The value chain


Ideally, savings made at each stage in the construction process should be accumulated by
passing the savings across a number of customer/supplier interfaces in the so-called 'value
chain'. With reinforced concrete there is a large number of customerhpplier interfaces and
several are between different types of business.

Within a value chain, ,value can 'leak out' of the system unless each customerhpplier
interface is well managed. This is particularly true with passing on time savings, which
requires planning and a substantial amount of dialogue between parties. For instance, unless a
following operation can start immediately on completion of the operation in hand, much of
the time benefit disappears. There is no advantage in finishing reinforcement early unless
concreting can start earlier, a saving of one hour in fixing reinforcement may not allow earlier
concreting because of the constraints of placing and finishing in the working day. For the
contractor, it may be more economic to take the benefits of letting operatives be more
efficient rather than taking less time overall.

On the broader scale, completing the frame early will bring no overall benefit to the time for
completing a project unless the frame is on the critical path. In principle it is easier for
integrated companies, rather than groups of subcontractors, to realise the benefits of time
savings as they can organise follow-on trades to take advantage of rapid frame construction.

Concrete Society rationalisation of reinforcement: interviews


Initial work on The Concrete Society's Rationalisation of reinforcement project included a
report by the University of Reading(24)that made reference to a series of 12 interviews with
members of the concrete industry (four engineers, five subcontractors, two fabricators and a
steel mill)'25'. Whilst the interviews were unpublished, the notes provide interesting insights
into some of the attitudes towards rationalisation and prefabrication. The points made in the
12 interviews are reproduced in Appendix 11. They include various representations on the
effects of rationalisation and are discussed in Chapter 8.

University of Reading: A study of the procurement of reinforcement


The main findings by the University of Reading (26) are given below.
Rationalisation of reinforcement must begin with designers understanding the issues and
offering the benefits to their client. Initial considerations based simply upon the tonnage
of steel give a misleading indication of the alternatives.
Prefabrication of reinforcement without proper justification can be more expensive in
materials, manufacture and transportation than the use of loose bars, but there are large
advantages in the installation process. Thus, a cost structure based on weight will almost
always inhibit prefabrication.
In-situ concrete is primarily used for customised solutions to take advantage of its
relatively low cost when compared with other structural materials.
Standardisation of reinforcing components, e.g. bar diameters and lengths, and cage
construction, is very limited.
No one organisation has control of the complete value chain. The industry must decide where its
best interests lie. If site work is to be significantlyimproved and reinforcement is to be
rationalised, a vertically integrated solution must be found. This is most likely to be achieved by
improved rnanagement of design and construction operations and by the use of information
technology to transfer the elements of the value chain intact fiom one stage to the next.

The study found that relationships between processes in the industry are generally complex
and there is a lack of hard data at a level of detail that would permit significant analysis. Even
so, there appear to be opportunities to make significant cost savings.

32
4 Background studies

4.6 Background studies: conclusions


It may be concluded that the rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement is a complex subject. If
rationalisation is to help to produce the optimum forms of flat slab construction then many
factors have to be taken into account. The concept of time equals money is well known but is
quite difficult to apply - and the value, or cost, of time is different to the various parties in the
supply chain. Undoubtedly there are savings to be gained in fixing times by using more
rationalised configurations of reinforcement but, as illustrated by fig.4.9, this usually means
more weight of reinforcement. The effects of rationalisation on overall costs, productivity
and critical time is hard to judge and hard evidence found appears to be anecdotal.

Nevertheless this background work provided the theoretical background to carry out studies
on the full-scale building at Cardington.

High

*.,*
Weight of .*
reinforcement .+***
.e*
.*'
*.a*
.*

Low ...................... ..........


Prefabricate
b

____,
Manufactured meshes

b
Level of rationalisation
Highly Usual Rationalised Highly
detailed rationalised

Figure 4.9 Rationalisation vs complexity and weight

33
5 European Concrete Building Project
at Cardington
5.1 Introduction
The in-situ concrete building at Cardington was the first in a planned series of concrete
buildings to be constructed at BRE 's Bedfordshire site under the auspices of the European
Concrete Building Project (ECBP). This initiative created by BCA, BRE, CONSTRUCT and
RCC was aimed at improving the performance of the concrete industry, and is the largest single
research programme of its type in the world(29.30.31)

The construction of the in-situ building provided a unique opportunity to research a range of
different ways of providing and detailing reinforcement. The building itself is a seven-storey
in-situ concrete frame with flat slab floors. The floor plates consisted of four bays by three
bays on a 7.5 m grid of columns. The structure was designed as though it were a
contemporary office building in Bedford (Figure 5.1).

For the Cardington project as a whole, the over-riding aim was to examine the processes
involved in constructing an in-situ framed building; obviously reinforcement was part of that
research. One of the main areas of work was this project, Rationalisation of flat slab
reinforcement. The construction of the in-situ building was part of a Partners in Technology
project part-funded by the DETR that aimed at re-engineering the whole in-situ concrete
frame construction process with the aim of reducing costs, increasing speed and improving
quality.

The following process research studies were carried out on the in-situ frame whilst it was being built:
Process re-engineering (Cranfield University)
Research on formwork systems (Birmingham University) ,

Early striking and loading of concrete slabs (Leeds University)


Process efficient concreting (Imperial College)
Early acceptance procedures (Liverpool and Queens University, Belfast)
Improved rebar information and supply (Loughborough University)
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement (Reinforced Concrete Council)
Health and safety (Birmingham University)

To aid the process research undertaken, extensive amounts of qualitative, quantitative and
technical data were collected. Recommendationsaimed at improving the overall business process
of concrete frame construction are given in a series of Best Practice Guides(9.10, 11. 12. 13)

Previous page 35
is blank
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Site North

t
7ma
i

-
+I25
125
250

-7-
""L
2 0 0 4 I.c
%-
It
I 400 x 400
FtC cdumn
400 -Ilk
1
l
i
250 RC &b
SSL 122.50

1100-

Tr
IXI
PH dud

L
--
250
I t
... -.
Site South
(Hangar doors)

Figure 5.1 Typical floor plan of the in-situ concrete building at Cardington

36
5 European Concrete Building Project at Cardington

5.2 Design
Structural requirements for the seven storey in situ building aimed to provide an efficient
reinforced concrete frame complying with Eurocode 2 (Em1992)‘14’.

This building is modelled on an office block meeting the requirements of a contemporary


developer on a 1200 m2 plot in central Bedford. The frame is three bays by four bays in plan
and each bay is 7.5 m square. Floor-to-ceiling height is 3.5 m with the top floor employing a
permanent concrete formwork system. To demonstrate that designing for imposed floor loads
of 4 to 5 kNlm2 for today’s typical office building is mostly unnecessary, a standard load of
2.5 kN/m2 was specified.

Service core voids are located at each end of the building. The design assumed that external
walls would be precast concrete. Stairs in the south core were precast, two flights per storey
which were ‘glued’ together to speed construction. The ‘weld’ was formed by a high
strength mix containing Densit and steel fibres bonding the concrete elements. The
asymmetric plan enabled torsional modes to be investigated as part of performance research:
the asymmetry is accentuated by omitting the second flight of stairs at the north end of the
building.

The reinforced concrete solid flat slab floors were designed to facilitate fast construction.
Soffits are unobstructed, with no downstands. The only upstands are at the ends of the
building where upstand beams frame the stair and lift openings. Steel cross-bracing at each
end of the fiame provides wind resistance and stability in the absence of shear walls. The
whole structure is enclosed within the famous airship hangar at Cardington, and thus shielded
from most wind pressures and other elemental forces.

Dimensions of all internal and all perimeter columns are identical, using high strength
concrete (C85) between the ground and third floors, and C37 above that. The thin floor slabs
are cast in C37 concrete.

Q I Fmflevel 9I 91 II

Figure 5.2 Typical cross section

I ’ ! ! I

37
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

5.3 Design and detailing


As far as possible, all designs were to Eurocode 2 (ENV1992)(’4’using sub-frame analyses. ’

With an overall depth of 250 mm, the slabs at Cardington were deliberately designed to be
thin in order to test design methods, induce deflections and be at the limits of what would
normally be used. The thickness was in line with that determined from preliminary
optimisation studies.

To achieve a span/ overall depth ratio of 30, EC2 (and BS 8110(32))requires the amount of
main flexural reinforcement to be increased above that needed for the ultimate limit state.
This can have a considerable bearing on the economics of concrete floor slab construction.
So on Floor 3, the designer was told that “deflection was unlikely to impair performance”; in
other words the flexural reinforcement in spans was not to be increased to cater for deflection
requirements. Half of Floor 4 was designed using yield line theory: Floor 6 was designed
using finite element analysis.

The traditional approach to providing punching shear reinforcement is to use links, but these
are very time-consuming to fix into position. The building provided the opportunity for a
range of innovative solutions to be tried out. The option of not using shear reinforcement was
not feasible and had already been proved to be uneconomic with relatively small columns
(see 4.3). I

Once a finalised structural design of the in-situ building at Cardington was available, member
companies of Construct and UKSA (RMPG) detailed alternative arrangements of
reinforcement for Floors 3 to 6 . Anthony Hunt Associates, Powell Tolner and Whitby & Bird
provided alternative designs for the flexural steel on floors 3 , 4 and 6 respectively. Individual
manufacturing and supply companies provided designs for their proprietary punching shear
systems. Drawings, weighted bending schedules and specifications produced as part of this
research project formed part of the contract documentation required for the construction. The
designs, drawings, schedules, correspondence, specifications and briefs generated were
brought together in four volumes that were distributed to interested parties (copies are
deposited with the BCA library, BRE, and CRIC at Imperial College).

It should be noted that, in many areas, the work was co-ordinated with other research projects
on the ECBP. The structure at Cardington offered a unique opportunity to demonstrate
techniques and to obtain valuable comparative and quantitative data on many different
projects. This opportunity was taken on several projects but the consequence was to increase
the need for co-ordination and in some instances to cause delay to this project. Progress on
this project was also hampered by the rate of progression the on the in-situ building at ECBP,
Cardinton. Arrangements for financing the construction, the final design, research by others
and construction problems on site are examples of some of the factors outside the control of
this project’s partners that delayed andor had other effects on the project.

It should also be noted that specialist items were specified, designed and provided for the
purposes of the research - sometimes despite the protestations of the supplier who believed
their product to be unsuitable for the specific application at Cardington (see Flexural
reir2forcentent in 5.5)

The amounts of correspondence involved in procuring these alternative systems were noted
and studied.

38
5 European Concrete Building Project at Cardington

5.4 Pre-construction
In the long lead up to construction at Cardington, the Steering Group for this project helped
resolve many issues. These included
0 Agreeing which configurations of reinforcement should be considered.
0 How they ought to be detailed and by whom
0 Which types of generic and proprietary shear reinforcement should be investigated
How to compromise between the demands of this project and those of others
0 Specifications for designers and detailers.

The final arrangement of reinforcement used in the structure is given in Table 5.1. The
configurations of top and bottom reinforcement were chosen to reflect the Steering Groupk
thoughts on best practice tempered by the findings of Further cost model studies(28).The
relatively late loss of Floor 7 to this project resulted in two configurationsof reinforcement
being used on Floor 4. The various methods of providing flexural and punching shear
reinforcement are illustrated in Figures 5.3 to 5.8.

Table 5.1 Configurations of reinforcement in the in-situ building at Cardington.


Location Main reinforcement Shear reinforcement
Grids A & B Grids C & D
Floor 1 Traditional loose bar Traditional hook-and-bob links
(shape code 85)*
II
Floor 2 Traditional loose bar
It
Floor 3 Rationalised loose bar
Floor 4 Blanket cover loose bar - ROM shear ACI shear
yield line design and elastic ladders stirrups
design (as other floors)
Floor 5 One-way mats BRC shear hoops BRC
Deha stud rails
Floor 6 Blanket cover two-way mats - Traditional shape AncoPlus shear
Finite element design code 85 + stud rails
Floor 7
' Traditional loose bar in combin- Square hollow section shear heads.
ation with permanent formwork
Notes
* Shape code 85 to BS 4466 (BS 4466 was superseded by BS 8666 in April 2000)
+ Except structural steel shear heads (made from rectangular hollow sections) at positions A2 & B2
# Not within the scope of this project

Members of the Steering Group also helped in obtaining free supplies of reinforcement for
the project through the RCC and UK Steel Association (RMPG).

The intention was that the detailing and fixing were to be carried out as if there were seven
floors of the same reinforcement configuration. One of the main problems for the process
researchers lay in the number of different configurations, which meant that in two cases only
half of one floor was actually done - and then half of that had different shear provision.

39
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

The reinforcement drawings and schedules were also prepared in different ways. The first
two floors were conventionally designed and detailed by the consultant. The Floor 3 was in
effect contractor designed and detailed. Floor 4 was contractor detailed and the Floors 5 and
6 were supplier-detailed. See Appendix I.

Table 5.2 Weight of flexural reinforcement in slabs


Floor Weight Notes
1 16.9 tonnes
2 17.1 tonnes Different ductility bars used
3 '
15.3 tonnes Different ductility bars used
4 14.5 tonnes Assuming whole floor subjected to yield line
design
4 23.2 tonnes Assuming whole floor subjected to blanket
cover loose bar, elastic design
5 19.9 tonnes
6 25.5 tonnes
7 da Not available for research on rationalisation
~

# Designed as if "deflection would not unduly affect performance'' otherwise an


extra 1.6 tonnes would have been required to meet normal deflection criteria

40
5 European Concrete Building Project at Cardington

5.5 Commentary on reinforcement systems used


General
Buro Happold checked all drawings and calculations for suitability for incorporation and
integrity of the whole structure

Floors 1 and 2
Floors 1 and 2 were designed, drawn and detailed by Buro Happold acting as the client’sconsulting
engineer. This may be thought of as being part of a traditional method of procurement.

Floor 3
Design and detailing for both flexural and shear was undertaken by Anthony Hunt Associates
acting as designeddetailer to the contractor, Byme Bros. The contractor’s preferred detailers,
Peter Brett Associates, also prepared alternative details to Buro Happold’s design. These
were not used for construction but were retained for possible future use.

Floor 4
Here Peter Brett Associates acting as the contractor’s preferred detailer prepared
reinforcement details for the main flexural reinforcement. They brought together blanket
coverage elastic design, prepared by Buro Happold, for the southern half of the slab with a
yield line design, prepared by Powel Tolner Associates, for the northern half of the slab.

The design of the ACI stirrups on the eastern half of the slab was carried out by CRIC and
drawn up by Peter Brett Associates. ROM shear ladders were used on the western half of the
slab with details being prepared by ROM. The ladders were designed as direct replacements
for traditional shape code 85 links. In each case the worst case shear requirement for internal,
edge and corner columns according to either the elastic design or the yield line design was
used for all internal edge and corner columns.

Originally this floor was t o accommodate structural steel shear heads made from rolled steel
channels. Unfortunately, supply difficulties delayed and then restricted their use to two
columns in Floor 6 . Shear heads made from square hollow sections were used on Floor 7 -
but these were outside the scope of this project.

Floor 5
Details of mats and supplementary main reinforcement were prepared by ROM on behalf of
UKSA on a (contractor’s) supplier detailed basis to Buro Happold’s design and a brief given
for mats by the RCC. Details of shear hoops, used in the western half of the slab and DEHA
stud rails used in the eastern half of the slab were prepared by BRC on behalf of UKSA, who
ensured compatibility between mats and shear systems

Floor 6
Details of mats and supplementary main reinforcement were prepared by ROM on behalf of
UKSA on a (contractor’s) supplier detailed basis to Whitby & Bird’s design and the RCC’s
brief given for blanket cover two-way mats. AncoPlus shear studs were used in the eastern
half of the slab. Designs and details of these studs were prepared in Switzerland by Ancotech.
Structural steel shear heads were used at positions A2 and B2 to designs by CRIC and as
detailed by Frank Hodgson Associates. In other parts of the western half of the slab
traditional shape code 85 reinforcement was used.

41
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Flexural reinforcement
Detailing of loose bar followed traditional practice. The definition and level of rationalisation
and prefabrication was left to the best judgement of the detailer (having been given a clear
brief). For instance the brief for the detailer of Floor 3 was to give the specialist contractor
least cost of labour and material (as might be required in a detail-and-construct contract). The
brief for the detailer of Floor 4 was to give least labour cost to the specialist contractor (as
might be required in a labour-only contract). Full details of design and specifications are
recorded in four volumes as outlined in 5.5 Design and detailing records. A4 copies of the
reinforcement drawings for Floors 1 to 6 are included in Appendix VI.

Mats
The supplier detailed the mats. Initially, it had been proposed to include narrow (1 m wide)
mats on half of Floor 5 but this proved impractical.

It must be recorded that the supplier felt that the slabs at Cardington were not an ideal
demonstration for the use of mats as the nature of flat slabs (distribution of reinforcement
within them), the long spans and amounts of reinforcement would lead to heavy and
inefficient mats. Usual weight premiums of 5% to 7% are expected for one-way slabs. Here,
it worked out to be as high as 16% for one-way mats. This is partly explained by the need to
rationalise mats so that the number of different mats was kept down to a reasonable level
while satisfying the elastic design with its intrinsic different arrangements for reinforcement.
Some concern was expressed about the weights of mats and the interface of top mats with
columns (in that top mats might need lifting over column starters). The weights of mats were
restricted to a four-man lift. It was envisaged that some top mats would need to be lifted over
column starters.

Shear reinforcement
ROM Shear ladders
The area and spacing of reinforcement in the vertical legs of the ladders was determined from
the area and spacing of shape code 85s they were designed to replace

Figure 5.3 ROM shear ladders in place, Floor 4W

42
5 European Concrete Building Project at Cardington

ACI stirrups
This arrangement of stirrup and longitudinal bars was designed in accordance with EC2'I4' to
methods described in AC1 3 18(33'.In effect the stirryps are small beam cages within the depth
of the slab (see Figure 5.4). They are formed into Ls, Ts and Xs when viewed on plan.

Figure 5 4 ACI shear stirrups used in Floor 4E

Layering was thought to be a potential problem. However, the top-most longitudinal reinforcement
(together with the top horizontal part of the link) is in the same layer as the top-most main flexural
reinforcement. Similarly the bottom-most longitudinal reinforcement (together with the bottom
horizontal part of the link) is in the same layer as the bottom-most flexural reinforcement.

The shallower 'beam cage' was prefabricated. The taller 'beam cage' was made up by threading
the longitudinal bars through loose links. Assemblies were prefabricated on the ground and
lifted onto the correct floor where they were lifted into position by hand ...A five minute
('I

job"). Cover was measured to whichever reinforcement was closest to the surface.

From the construction process point of view the ACI stirrups required no special measures as
they can be detailed on normal reinforced concrete drawings and scheduled on normal RC
bending schedules.

Shear hoops
Shear hoops were designed to BS 81 10'32'.

In the run-up to construction, some concern was expressed over the compatibility of the shear
hoop and stud rail systems with prefabricated mats (the bars in the mats cannot be adjusted in
relation to each other to allow the proprietary shear system to fit). The manufacturers
suggested that compatibility was not a problem as proprietary systems were bespoke to suit
the job. In the event, there proved not to be a problem although there were reportedly
difficulties caused by the shear hoops tangling whilst being moved

43
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement
rn I . .IL I I

Figure 5 5 BRC Square Grip shear


hoops used in Floor 5W

Stud rails
The stud rails were designed to and, in the case of the Deha stud rails, checked
against BS 8 110'~~).

Figure 5.6 DEHA stud rails fixed to


formwork in Floor 5E

Figure 5.7 AncoPlus


stud rails being placed
in Floor 6E

44
5 European Concrete Building Project at Cardington

Shear heads
Originally it was intended to cast 10 structural steel shear heads in Floor 4. Due to problems with
drawings, supply, fabrication in time for construction, and costs, this did not happen Only two shear
heads were cast, and that was in Floor 6: one X at position B2 and one T at A2. The designs of
conventional shear heads were completed by CRIC but the designers struggled to design an edge
shear head with holes.

Figure 5.8 Geitlinger structural


steel shear head similar to the one
used at grid location B4 on Floor 6

The shear heads were made from 250 x 150 x 8 RHS’s (48 kg/m) cut vertically into channels
and prefabricated into units up to 2 m long and wide. The shear heads were craned into
position after the installation of the bottom mat of reinforcement. Bars in the B2 layer were
cut on site as required to avoid cover problems at the top. Perimeter U-bars were fixed after
installation of the perimeter shear heads and the bottom legs of the U-bars were cut off on
site.

The shear head at column B2 is an enclosed type and weighs approximately 450 kg. This shear
head allowed for two 600 x 600 mm holes to be made close to the column. The shear head at
column A2 is also an enclosed type and weighs approximately 275 kg. and again allowed for two
600 x 600 mm holes to be made close to the column. For the purposes of research, the top
reinforcement was fixed as if there were no holes and then trimmed.

45
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

5.6 Design and detailing records


The pre-contract, design and detailing and construction phases of the project generated a
great deal of paperwork that was collected into four volumes and circulated to interested
parties. One copy is deposited with the library at BCA.Other copies were deposited with
CRIC and with B E . The contents are given in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 Summary of design and detailing records

Vol 1 Designs general Vol2 Drawings and schedules


General & RC drawings Floors 1 to 6 Issue sheets
Floors I , 2, 4 (south) and 5 Floor 1 by Buro Happold
Design by Buro Happold. Floor 2 by Buro Happold
Justification for revision to Buro Happold
Floor 3 by Anthony Hunt Associates
calculations for 8T20s at supports to become 8T16
Floor 4
Floor 3
Slab by Peter Brett Associates.
Design by Anthony Hunt Associates
Upstand beam (Floors 4,5 & 6) by
Floor 4 Webster Negga.
Floor 4N design by Powell Tolner & Associates ROM shear ladders by ROM
(Yield line)
Floor 5
ACI shear stirrup design by CRIC
Mats and reinforcement by ROM (on
Conversion of traditional links to ROM shear
behalf of UKSA).
ladders
Shear hoops by BRC / David Crick Assoc.
Floor 5 DEHA stud rails by DEHA for BRC
Shear hoop design by BRC 1 David Crick
Associates Floor 6
Mats and reinforcement by ROM (on
Deha stud rail design
behalf of UKSA).
Floor 6 Shear heads by Frank Hodgson &
Finite elemects design by Whitby and Bird Associates.
Justification for switching T1 and T2 AncoPLUS studrail by Ancotech
AncoPlus studrail design by Ancotech (Switzerkand).
(Switzerland) Traditional links by RCC
Structural steel shear head design by CRIC and
Frank Hodgson and Associates Floor 3
Alternatives. .Revisions to Floor 3 if it
was to be subject to normal deflection
criteria as other floors.
Vol3 Correspondence regarding Rationalised layout by Peter Brett
reinforcement 11/97 to 7/98 Associates (not used for construction)
General Floor 4
Floors 1 & 2 Alternatives. Full details and schedules
Floor 3 for yield line design by Powell Tolner &
Floor 4 Associates.
Floor 5
Floor 6 Vol4 Contractors detailers briefs
Floor 7 suppliers detailer brief & records
General brief
Floor 3 brief
Floor 4 - Shear briefs
Floor 5 - Shear briefs
Floor 6 - Shear briefs
Site records:
Bending schedule register.
Drawing register and issue sheets.
Approvals to pour etc

46
5 European Concrete Building Project at Cardington

5.7 Process issues


Off-site processes: correspondence
In order to consider off-site activities, the numbers and types of correspondence were
investigated. The RCC's records pertaining to its role as the contractor's design co-ordinator
were used as data. These records were not complete or comprehensive nor did they
necessarily account for the many communications between the parties involved in the
reinforcement at Cardington. Nonetheless the RCC played a central role in co-ordinating the
reinforcement for the floor slabs and it was hoped that this exercise might shed some light on
the off-site processes. Again, due to the nature of the construction at Cardington, it provided
an imperfect but valuable basis for comparison.

The issue sheets for calculations, drawings, schedules, specifications and records of notes of
design co-ordination meetings, letters etc. were used to determine numbers of
communications, originators and recipients. In order to compare like with like a
communication that involved more than one floor was counted once for each floor involved.
(The thinking was that if the whole of the building had been of that reinforcement
arrangement then that communication would have been necessary.) They also provided the
basis for drawing process maps.

Figure 5.9 shows that the traditionally reinforced slabs (Floors 1 and 2) elicited least
correspondence, while contractor detailing (on Floors 3 and 4) produced more
correspondence and the contractor's supplier design and detailing (of Floors 5 and 6) resulted
in the most. Most of the excess correspondence on Floors 5 and 6 was due to correspondence
with suppliers.

Blanket two way mats (finite


element anal) Floor 6

Designed one way mats


Floor 5

Blanket loose bar; (N- yield


line: S- elastic) Floor 4

*8Rational"loose bar
(Contractor design) Floor 3

Traditional loose bar


(Buro Happ.) Floor 2

Traditional loose bar


(Buro Happ.) Floor 1

0 10 20 30 40 50

' Consulting Engineer 0Contractors co-ordinator


0 Contractors designer/ detailer ~ S u b c o n t 'to
r Cont's designer/ detailer
Supplier/Supplier designer 5Others

Figure 5.9 . Correspondence: incidences and origins for flexural reinforcement

47
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Struct steel heads (A2,82)


Floor 6wb
SC 85 (The rest)
Floor 6w
AncoTech Shear studs
Floor 6e
Square Grip Shear hoops
Floor 5w
Deha stud r a i l p ,
Floor 5
1
Rom Shear ladders 1
Floor 4w
ACI stirrups
(prefab on site) Floor 46

SC 85
Floors 1 , 2 & 3
0 4 0 12

a Contractors co-ordinator g SupplierlSupplierdesigner others

Figure 5.10 Correspondence: incidences and origins for shear reinforcement

A similar story emerges with traditional shear links: they elicited virtually no separate
correspondence while proprietary systems resulted in at least some.

This exercise indicates that non-traditional methods involve more correspondence, therefore
more relationships (and more time to develop relationships with the parties involved). On the
other hand, it may just indicate that many of the processes (providing design information,
design, drawing, checking, scheduling, approving) that traditionally are carried out in-house
by the engineer are, in contractor detailing and contractor design-and-detailing, carried out by
those contracted to do so. This requires a greater amount of communication and design co-
ordination between parties. This type of work is not necessarily core to the specialist
contractor's business and may provide a barrier to better integration.

Process maps
From correspondence and the above section 5.6, the following process diagrams have been
drawn. While these process maps should be regarded as being indicative only, they give the
impression that contractor detailing and contractor design lead to a greater number of
relationships, which perhaps complicates the process. This reinforces the conclusions drawn
just from looking at amounts of correspondence.

48
5 European Concrete Building Project at Cardington

For traditional methods of procument

insulting iecialbt k b a r Supplier iecinlht Supplier


ent ,chiteft, QS,
ewices Eng etc ieineer ibcontractor

I for couplers
quirement
m mcept
Near systems
mcept
heme

I etailed Design .
I
:tnile$Dcsign
Tender
Contract
mder

mtract (7)
render

:ontract (7)
ender?

nal Design
I1cs.D s Spe
% :Dwgs

-
:Schedules
r/
d approvals iccks
I
~

wisedRCDwgs

rue -
/
rised RC Schcdul

E Dwgs
Schedules
t

RC Schedules

vised rcquiremen
Y evised design

wired design
:Dwgs
itei
- '-----I ricdmetho

-
:Schedules
heckr k, :vised RC Dwgs
:vised RC Schedul
Y
sue -
'
eviwd RC Dwgs

t
Revisi RC Schedu

all off
Revised

Call-off
Schedt

--_ I
Supply I--
'Stock'
cut
Bend
S p m .chain
'Load
Deliva

sort
SIMC
LowtC
,sort
Bundle
'ranage
A
' ~msportto work area
Lily out
vFix
Cheek '

:heck) 4
'
__c-
:heck) .A:
b Pour Concrete

Figure 5.11 Process map for traditional construction

49
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

For contractor dnauing

Subcontractor

:eg for coup~crs


=:concept
:shear systems
\!Concept

:Tender $ender7
;Contmt

:Final Design : +-
:Calcs. GA Dwgs. Spy
b:Spccification :
:RC Dwgs 4
:RC Schedules L

approvals

:RCDwgs 4 :
:RC Schedules :

:Schedules

vised requirement:
-Revised design
Specialist:
it&.,
in
, -
I

:RC Schedules 1
:Checks Checks

/ !Revised RC Schiduly

:Revised RC Dwgs ! jRC Dwgs ;Revised


!Revised RC Schcdulp :RC Schedules #Revised :Schcdulp
: I I I

.. .
Stock' i;
Spacers.chairs,e
. Load
.; Deliver
I

- - -_ -t Pour Concrete :

Notes 0 Conlractually Main contractor may k the intermedhry g e l w e n Consultan1 Enginem and Spechlist Conkato

Figure 5.12 Process map where contractor detailing is used

50
5 European Concrete Building Project at Cardington

For contractor Design

nt Architect, QS, Consulting Detailer Main Specialist Xebar Supplier ecialist


Seervices Eng Engineer Contractor Subcontractor pplier

uirement for couplers


:ar systems

TIME Tender render nder?


Contract (?)

Detail d Design Zontmct (?)


&
Final
Calcs
Pign
Final Calcs

Checks +

Revised RC Schedu

RCDwgs
RC Schedules

RC Schedules
I I
:vised re% nt
evised design
L evised specific . '*

hecks
ons \
.icehethod
rder
Revised RC Dw
Revised RC Sch

evised RC DH d RC Si
evised RC Scl lules C Schedules Revise RC Sc
jlel
I
-._ 1
UPPIY
,Ck'
t
id
icers, ct
id
I
F
c--- diver

I sort
store
I
Locate

:ranage

sheck)
---
--

Notes 0 (in red) Contractually Main contractor may be the intermediary between Consultant Engineer and
specialist contractor

Figure 5.13 Process map where contractor design is used

51
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

5.8 Construction
Construction of the seven-storey in-situ concrete flat slab frame structure took place over a
14-week period commencing in January 1998. The building was considered to be sited in
Bedford High Street with access from one side only. A tower crane was used but no external
scaffolding. Four different types of formwork systems were employed0'):
Floors 1 & 2 - aluminium free-standing props and laminated timber beams. The main
props were stabilised using a tripod during erection.
Floors 3 & 4 - table-based system comprising self-supporting aluminium frames. The
system can be used either on an erect-and-dismantle-basis or the tables can be flown as a
complete assembly with the formwork from one floor to the next.
Floors 5 & 6 - a tubular steel frame system delivered to the site in crates. This system
was used in combination with the aluminium primary and secondary beams of the
Ischebeck TITAN system..
0 Floor 7- the roof of the building was constructed using combinations of precast panels
and in-situ concrete.

For the floor slabs one concrete (C37) strength was used but the workabilities and placing
methods were varied. In the columns two strengths of concrete were used. Some of the
concrete was placed by skip and some by pumping. Based on the results of the research
undertaken, it was found possible to strike the slabs at very early ages without the need for
re-propping. Some of the slabs were struck at ages as early as 25 hours from the time of start
of hydrati01-1'~~).

Construction of the building was to some extent artificial due to the use of the different
combinations and permutations of reinforcement. The construction time was not increased
markedly by the variations in construction methods, as compared with a conventionally
constructed building of this type. However it was estimated that the implementation of the
best of the methods to emerge from the project would have enabled the frame construction
time to have been cut by more than 50%"').

There were other problems on site that affected this project: these are reported in Chapter 7
Cardington: Analysis of construction process data and Appendix III supplement 2. With so
many different sources of information and different arrangements and types of reinforcement
it is testimony to the contractor and researchers that reinforcement operations on site went
(relatively) smoothly.

The various stages of construction are illustrated in Figures 5.14 to 5.21

52
5 European Concrete Building Project at Cardington

Figure 5.15 First floor

Figure 5.14 Ground to first floor

Figure 5.16 Concreting Floor 2


Figure 5.17 Floor 3

Figure 5.18 Floor 4 Figure 5.19 Concreting Floor 5

53
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Figure 5.20 Floor 6

Figure 5.21 Completed in-situ building April 1998

54
5 European Concrete Building Project at Cardington

5.9 Other research on reinforcement


The design and detailing of the reinforcement at Cardington had to be co-ordinated with other
research on the reinforcement and frame. These research projects are described below.
Inevitably they had effects on the data obtained for this project.

Improving rebar information and supply


In its project, Improving rebar information and supply, the Loughborough University
researchers used information from organisations involved with the Cardington project as a
base case study. Having mapped out supply chains, they went on to look at information flows
in order to recommend methods and standards for electronic data interchange (EDI).

Their final report(34)advocates the use of a comma delimited data file in ASCII format to
allow free exchange of reinforcement information. Their final process diagram is presented in
Figure 5.22.

Instrumentation
To assist with the performance research which is being carried out on the completed structure, a
large number of short additional strain-gauged bars were included within four bays of Floors 2 and
3. Measurements from a selected number of these bars were taken during the striking of Floor 3.

A small number of special instrumented bars known as Durham bars were installed on Floor 6 as
replacements to normal bars. Each of these bars was sawn in half longitudinally to enable the
installation of a large number of strain gauges along the centre-line of the bar, enabling very
detailed information to be gained on strain and stress distribution. An initial series of tests was to
be carried out, applying serviceability loads to look at the behaviour of slab/column connections in
the area in which the instrumentation has been installed.

Deflection
Initial measurements and data show that neither the omission of additional ‘deflection’ reinforcement
on Floor 3 nor striking floors at the very early age of 25 hours had any significant effect on the long-
term deflection or performance of those floors. A brief report is given in Chapter 6.

Couplers
Reinforcement is normally lapped to provide continuity. However this can cause problems
due to congestion of reinforcement: a possible solution is to use threaded reinforcement
couplers. Under a commercial research project some column connections were carried out
using couplers. The research showed its sponsors just how viable couplers are on a ‘typical’
site.

Ductility of reinforcement
Ductility of reinforcement is a subject that has caused some debate in Europe and some
concern in the UK. Floors 2 and 3 incorporate normal ductility reinforcement (i.e. equivalent
to the 460A grade in BS4449) as opposed to normally-used higher ductility reinforcement
(i.e. equivalent to the 460B grade in BS4449). There is the opportunity to examine the effects
of ductility on slab design through full scale destructive testing at some future date.

The differences between the two types of steel used on Cardington were as follows:

55
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Table 5.4 Bar ductilites


Ductility Annotation used Comment
Normal X Cold-workedywith three ribs around the
circumference which tend to be less pronounced than
traditional rebar
High T Hot rolled, with either two or four ribs around the
circumference

Figure 5.22 Rebar process flow diagram from IRIS"4'

56
6 Cardington: Structural performance
Changes to reinforcement configurations may affect performance. This chapter looks at the
effects of the reinforcement configurations on ultimate performance and deflection.

6.1 Ultimate strength in flexure


Nottingham Trent University was commissioned to investigate alternative reinforcement
configurations to assess factors of safety against failure in flexure of each configuration. A
summary of their report is presented below. The full report is presented in Appendix VII.

Automated yield-line analysis(35)was applied to the first six floors of the in-situ building of the
concrete frame at Cardington (including the two differing halves of Floor 4). The objective was
to evaluate any variation.in flexural capacity resulting from the differing design and detailing
approaches used for the floors. The results obtained are summarised in Table 6.1 below.

Table 6. 1 Flexural reinforcement, weight and load factor against failure at ultimate load
~

Floor Flexural reinforcement Weight Load factor


(tonnes) against failure at ultimate
loads using fine mesh
1 Traditional loose bar 16.4 1.13
2 Traditional loose bar - high ductility 16.6 99
3 Rationalised loose bar 14.7 1.19
4 North: Yield-line design 14.2 1.16
South: Blanket loose bar 22.9 1.34
5 One-way mats 19.3 1.15
~

6 Two-way mats 25.0 1.51

$ Weight per floor of flexural reinforcement in slabs (i.e. excluding shear reinforcement and reinforcement in
upstand beams). On Floor 3, compliance with normal deflection criteria was specifically excluded from the
design; an extra 1 .G tonnes would have been required to meet normal EC2 deflection rules. In the case of
Floors-4N and 4s weights have been scaled from schedules from half a floor.
68 Not analysed as very similar to Floor 1.

The principal conclusions arising from the investigation are:

0 The flexural strength of the floors is satisfactory in respect in that all designs provide a
load factor divided by ultimate design strength of at least one.

0 The designs for Floors 1 to 5 (with the exception of Floor 4s) provide very similar load
factors against failure at ultimate loads. They are all above one, but are so close to unity
as to make further reinforcement economies unwarranted.

Floor 4s and Floor 6 have higher load factors and some reduction in the reinforcement
steel could be made to make the load factor closer to one. This is particularly the case for
Floor 6 , where the reinforcement of the uniform two-way mesh can be readily reduced to
effect a proportionate reduction in load factor.

57
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

6.2 Deflection
The following is a reproduction of A review of slab deflections in the in-situ concrete frame
building@)(at Cardington) prepared by Dr R L Vollum of Imperial College. The figures have
been subsequently updated to include later data.

Introduction
The design depth of floor systems is often governed by the need to control long-term
deflections. Therefore, there is a need for reliable methods to calculate long-term slab
deflections. It is difficult to predict slab deflections in the field since they are influenced by
the following factors, which are not known at the design stage:
0 Concrete tensile strength
0 Creep and shrinkage coefficients
0 Construction loads / concrete strength at striking
0 Long-term service loads
0 Exact position of the steel reinforcement
0 Exact slab thickness

Currently there is a lack. of accurate field data on long-term deflections. The in-situ building at
Cardington is particularly suitable for long-term measurements of slab deflection since the
concrete properties, reinforcement details and construction loading/process are well
documented.

Design of Cardington slabs


The test building is seven storeys high and of flat slab construction. The grid is 7.5 m square.
The structure was designed in accordance with EC2'I4'. The designer's brief included slab
thickness = 250 mm, design - characteristic = imposed load 2.5 kN/m* + 2 kN/m2for ceiling,
services, access floor and partitions.

Site
North

< ,
,
v .,
0.
.0
0. >
7500 7500 7500 7500

Figure 6 . 1 Floor plan

58
6 Cardington: Structural performance

Table 6.2 Summary of floor design methods


Floor Design method Designer
~

1 Elastic sub-frame analysis 1 Buro Happold *


2 Elastic sub-frame analysis 1 Buro Happold *
3 Elastic sub-frame analysis 2 Anthony Hunt Associates
4 Elastic sub-frame analysis 1/ Buro Happold */ Powell Tolner *
Yield line
5 Elastic sub-frame analysis 1 Buro Happold *
6 Finite element analysis Whitby & Bird
* Buro Happold and Powell Tolner were instructed to ensure that their designs complied
with the span to depth rules given in EC2. This was achieved by increasing the area of
reinforcement over that required for strength.

Table 6.3 Summary of reinforcement details(3')


Floor Weight of flexural Rebar
rebar (tonnes) arrangement
1 16.9 Traditional loose bar
2 17.1 Traditional loose bar
3 15.3 Rationalised loose bar
4 14.5* Blanket cover loose bar
4 23.2** Blanket cover loose bar
5 19.9 One-way mats
6 25.5 Blanket cover one-way mats
* Weight if all yield line design
** Weight if all equivalent frame design

Prediction of deflections
Code methods require:
0 Actual loading to be represented by a single long-term load
0 Single values of concrete material properties to represent:
i) concrete tensile strength
ii) elastic modulus of the concrete
iii) creep, ageing and shrinkage coefficients

A realistic assessment of deflection is dependent on the choice of appropriate material


properties and loading. In practice, the loading on a slab is dependent on construction
sequence and building use. A realistic assessment of deflection needs to take account of
loading history. This presents a problem since the majority of data on long-term deflections is
from tests with constant loading as shown in Figure 6.2 but actual loading of suspended slabs
is more akin to Figure 6.3.

59
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

I d

I
Figure 6.2 Typical load history in laboratory test

::: i Yz 50

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400


days from hydration

Figure 6.3 Idealised load-time history for the third floor in the Cardington in-situ concrete
building

Incremental finite element approach


A finite element program has been developed at Imperial College for calculating slab
deflections. The program incorporates a global plate stiffhess approach based on the CEBEIP
Model Code An incremental approach was used to calculate deflections due to a time-
varying load.

Test programme at Cardington


Objectives
The main objectives were to:
0 Measure long-term slab deflections under specified loading
0 Assesshmprove a non-linear finite element program developed at Imperial College for
calculating long-term slab deflections under time varying loads
0 Compare actual deflections with deflections calculated using existing methods with
measured material properties

Deflection measurement
Slab deflections were measured by precise levelling at the following times:
0 After striking
At end of construction of building
0 Approximately eight months after construction started
Further measurements were not taken until February 99 due to a lack of funding
Intermittent periods thereafter

60
6 Cardington: Structural performance

Test programme
Floors 1 to 6 were loaded with sandbags to give a uniform load of 3.27 kN/m2between grids
2 and 4. This is an imposed load at the upper end of that which might occur in a typical office.
The service load includes allowances of 1.0 kN/mz for ceiling, raised floor and services and
1.O W/m2 for partitions.

The same loading arrangement has been adopted at each floor to enable deflection
measurements to be compared between floors.

Site
South
(&
hanger
doors)

A
I I
1 2 3 4 5

Figure 6.4 Loaded area of slabs

Schedule of deflection measurements


0 Two readings immediately before and after application of service load, then
Two readings at two-weekly intervals, then
Five readings at monthly intervals, then
0 Four readings at three monthly intervals until month 18 then
Two readings at six-monthly intervals until at least month 30

Results
Measured and predicted deflections are shown below for the external bays of Floors 3, 4 and 6.
Deflection limits are span/250 = 30 mm and span/500 = 15 mm.

Predicted and measured values of deflection are shown in the following figures.

61
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

30 I
0 Test point 21

25 x Test point 25

A
0 Test point 34
E 20
E
Y A Test point 38
c
2
0
15 +Predicted
0)
U=
0) +No construction load
n 10
+No construction load strucl
at 7 days
5

0 200 400 600 800 1000


Time

Figure 6.5 Comparison of predicted (external) and measured deflections at Floor 3


(external panels)

0 Test point 21
30
25
I
x Test point 25

A Test point 38
A
I
+Predicted with constructiion
load
+Predicted no construction
load
+Predicted struck 7 days no
construction load

! ! 5
00 200 400 600 800 lOOC

Time days

Figure 6.6 Comparison of predicted (external) and measured deflections at Floor 4


(external panels)

62
6 Cardington: Structural performance

0 Test point 21
35
X Test point 25
30
n Test point 34
E 25
E
Y
A Test point 38
E 20
0
P
$ 15 +Predicted with
Q = '
construction load
;10 -0- Predicted no construction

+Predicted no construction

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800


Time sixth

Figure 6.7 Comparison of predicted (external) and measured deflections at Floor 6 (external panels)

Discussion
Following EC2, the degree of cracking in the slab can be defined by a parameter K as follows:

where
w = load
fct= tensile splitting strength,
p = an EC2 factor that accounts for loss of bond with time.
The minimum value of K corresponds to the greatest cracking and hence greatest deflection.
For cracked slabs, it can be shown that the long-term slab deflection reduces linearly with
increasing K, for constant load w, if all other parameters are constant. Values of K are given
for slabs 1 to 6 at striking, peak construction load and long-term load of 9.27 kN/m2 in Table
6.4. Deflections were plotted against K to determine 1) whether deflections are proportional
to K and 2) the value of p that should be used with the peak construction load. A linear
relationship was found if p was taken as 0.5 for the construction load even though it is a
short-term load (see Figure 6.9). Table 6.4 indicates that the long-term slab deflection was
governed by cracking induced at either striking or casting the slab above.

Table 6.4: Relative slab deflections and K values

Deflections Kshke Kpeak Kong Kmin K h MaX


increase in p=OS P=OS p=O.5 p=O.5 w.5 deflection
sequence fcll28 = 37MPa ( 4 0 0 days)
Floor 1 0.26 0.38 0.33 0.26 0.22 18.0
Floor 4 0.26 0.29 0.34 0.26 0.22 19.7
Floor 2 0.25 0.23 0.30 0.23 0.22 22.5
Floor 5 0.26 0.22 0.29 0.22 0.22 22.8
Floor 3 0.28 0.24 0.3 1 0.24 0.22 24.9
Floor 6 0.21 0.23 0.3 1 0.21 0.22 26.6

63
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

To investigate the influence of the peak construction load on deflection, slab deflections were
calculated without the peak load from casting the slab above. The resulting deflections are
compared in Figures 6.5 to 6.7 and in Table 6.5 for external panels. Table 6.5 shows that the
predicted deflection without peak construction load is up to 23% less than the maximum
deflection with the peak construction load. The difference was larger for slab 3 than the other
slabs since the difference between &bike and Kpeakis greater. To explore this further,
deflections were calculated without construction load assuming slabs were struck at 7 days.
Table 6.5 shows that the resulting deflections were up to 31% less than the maximum
measured deflection.

Table 6.5: Influence of peak construction load on deflection of external panels


% less than maximum measured deflection
No peak construction load Slab 1 Slab2 Slab3 Slab4 Slab5 Slab6
Cardington striking times -6.8 6.8 23.2 6.9 6.0 12.7
Strike at 7 days 14.9 15.0 30.8 21.3 11.9 23.4

Table 6.4 also gives Klong-temwith w equal to 9.27 kN/m2 and f,, equal to the specified value
of 37 MPa. The resulting K value of 0.22 is close to or the minimum value for all slabs
indicating that measured slab deflections are close to those that would have occurred with
striking at 7 .days and no peak construction load if the characteristic concrete strength had
been 37 MPa as specified. In other words, the increase in deflection due to peak construction
load was largely offset by the fact that the concrete strength was greater than specified (C50
to C60).

Time, days
0 200 400 600 800 1000
30

25

E 20
t +floor 1
E
C
O
't. 15
+floor 2
0
a, -j(t floor 3
E
0" 10 I I I I +Floor 4 I
-0- floor 5
5 I I I I
I +Floor 6
0

Awrage deflection external panels

Figure 6.8 Comparison of mean deflections in external bays at floors 1 to 6

.In :the absence of peak construction load, it can be shown that ,the greater part of the increase
in deflection due to early age striking is due to increased cracking. It follows that if Kpeak is
less than or equal to Ksbike,early age striking will not significantly increase deflection.
However, it should be noted that Kshke or KpeakWill usually be more critical than Klong-tem.
This implies that deflections may be underestimated if early age strikindpeak construction
loading is neglected. Construction loading can be accounted for in deflection predictions in

64
6 Cardington: Structural performance

accordance with EC2 if the interpolation coefficient 6 is taken as the largest value
corresponding to 1) striking, 2) peak construction load and 3) design service load, all with
Pz0.5. This approach is based on analysis of data fi-om Cardington and should provide a
reasonable upper bound to slab deflections. To avoid overestimating slab deflection, the peak
construction load should not be overestimated and realistic concrete strengths should be used.
Theoretically, the deflection should be increased to take into account the residual deflection
that remains on unloading using the method of Rotilio or otherwise. In practice, this is
probably unnecessary since the proposed calculation method appears conservative (see
Figures 6.5 to 6.7). More test data is required to refine the proposed model since it is based on
data fi-om Cardington, which is limited in scope.

It is interesting to note that the deflection of the floor slabs was relatively insensitive to
variations in reinforcement between slabs. This is shown in Table 6.6. Figure 6.9 shows that
the beneficial effect. of providing additional reinforcement was swamped by variations in
concrete tensile strength. The correlation between K and deflection improves slightly if the
deflections are normalised to account for the difference in reinforcement between the slabs.

Table 6.6: Influence of reinforcement weight on deflection in external panels


Deflections increase in Weight steel Max deflection,
sequence (tonnes) ( 4 0 0 days, mm)
Floor 1 16.9 18.0
Floor 4 18.9 (ave) 19.8
Floor 2 17.1 22.5
Floor 5 19.9 22.8
Floor 3 15.3 24.9
Floor 6 25.5 26.6

De 30
fle 25
cti 20 y = -128.6~+ 52.877
on 15 R2 = 0.7044
(m 10
m) 5
0
0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26
Kmin

Figure 6.9 K, average deflection in external panels

65
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Conclusions
1. Cardington presented a unique opportunity to measure deflections in a real building
under h o w n and controlled conditions. This is enabling the accuracy of methods for
predicting deflections to be assessed and will enable .improved methods to be
developed.

2. Slab deflections will usually be increased by construction loads owing to peak


construction loads being greater than service loads.

References
1. Hossain T.R. Numerical Modelling of deflections of reinforced concrete flat slabs under
service loads, PhD thesis, University of London, July 1999

2. Vollum R.L and Hossain T.R. Assessment of slab deflections in the in-situ concrete frame
building, Cardington Conference, November 1998

3. HossainT. R., Vollum R.L, Modelling the deflection of reinforced concrete slabs under
time varying loads, Concrete Communication Conference 2000, University of
Birmingham, June 2000, pp 437-448

4. ROTILIO J-D. Moment-curvature relationship, XI11 FIP Congress and Exhibition, May
1998, The Netherlands.

66
. ...

7 Cardington: Analysis of construction


process data
The following sections 7.1 to 7.5 and Appendix III reproduce in full Lorien plc’s final report,
commissioned for this research project
Analysis of construction process data(38)

7.1 Introduction
Reinforced concrete is a multi-component construction material, which is brought together in
numerous overlapping processes on site. The interaction between these processes, differences
between sites and other uncertainties, together with the almost infinite variations in design
objectives in reinforced concrete all make determination of the best value generic
reinforcement arrangements very difficult. The Cardington building offered the potential for
most of the identified variables to be held constant and thus establish the effect of
reinforcement arrangement differences only.

This report was commissioned by the RCC as part of the DETRPiT project Rationalisation of
$at slab reinforcement as per Lorien’s proposal ref. MS/CJR/Doo4628, Oct 1997. It describes
measurements made on the reinforcement installation process at Cardington and results
obtained from the exercise together with their analysis and Lorien’s conclusions and
recommendations.

’ The key deliverables from Lorien’s proposal were:


Analysis of the time taken to install the reinforcement for each arrangement into the
building.
0 Analysis of the proportion of this time that extends the critical path, i.e. overall
construction period.
Analysis of other construction processes, associated with the reinforcement, which would
affect the overall construction cost.
Overall synthesis of the foregoing to produce a model which enables designers to
identify best value and to design floors (and if possible other elements by extrapolation
as appropriate).

In the event a certain amount of ‘leakage’ of uncontrolled variability occurred in the


construction process, reducing the certainty of the outcome, and making it possible to give
only indicative trends rather than precise answers for some of the deliverables. However, we
are able to report data that strongly indicates differences between systems with the potential to
yield significant value optimisation and recommend ways forward to realise these. The
information is presented in the following manner:
Site measurement
Results and analysis
0 Variability and uncertainty
Conclusions and recommendations

67
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement . I.

7.2 Site measurement


This section describes how the data from the construction phase of the project was collected.

The whole construction process at Cardington was recorded on video and by two automatic
still cameras. In addition, site diaries were kept by BRE, the contractor and others. To ensure
that the information worked on was as reliable as possible a strategy was adopted whereby the
base data recorded by the fixers themselves were correlated with the video and still cameras.
In detail, the methodology was as follows:
Lorien established a database into which the recorded information would be compiled.
The design of this database was developed with a view to the planned analysis, and used
inputs from the contractor, designers, etc. in advance of the project commencement to
ensure that the identified data was capable of being collected in practice.
From this Lorien established a measurement plan, defining the information required and
setting out procedures and principles aimed at eliminating uncontrolled systematic
variation in the data. The resulting method statement is included as supplement 1 of
Appendix 111.
An experienced industrial engineer from Lorien gave the fixing team training in the
measurement procedures.
The measurement procedures were validated by comparing the data recorded on Floor 1
by Lorien’s industrial engineer with that recorded on the almost identical Floor 2 by the
fixers themselves.
Data were checked on an ongoing basis as it was captured by loading it into the database,
and monitoring for completeness and obvious problems.
A detailed review of all factors which could have affected the results and their
interpretation was carried out towards the end of the project.
In order to clarify any anomalies discovered in the analysis phase the data were
moderated and corrected, where appropriate, by reference to the photographic and video
record.

68
7 Cardington: analysis of construction process data

7.3 Results and analysis


This sub-section sets out the results obtained and draws conclusions fiom them. In subsequent
parts uncertainty associated with these results is discussed. The data recorded are summarised
in Tables 7.1 to 7.7 as follows:

Table Data
7.1 Descriptions of reinforcement systems used
7.2 Reinforcement details and quantities
7.3 Labour and timing summary
7.4 Resources per floor: flexural reinforcement
7.5 Costs per floor: flexural reinforcement
7.6 Resources per floor: shear reinforcement
7.7 Costs per floor: shear reinforcement

For convenience of comparison a convention has been adopted of applying the data pro-rata
onto a per floor basis, i.e. the amount of steel, labour etc. which would have been required for
a particular reinforcement system for the whole of a floor. The slight errors (- 2%) associated
with asymmetry of the building have been ignored in this process.

Camera

I
South for Shear I North for Shear
I I I
I
I I

I
I I

I
I I

I
I
--_-
r--- 4 _---_-_-

-
c
II I

Area Q I Area R I

I I
I I

I
I
I
- -- -I- - - -,
4 - -- -- -- -
I
I
I
Area T i Area U
I

I I

I
I I
I
I I I
I
A B C D

Figure 7.1 Reference work areas with respect to grid lines

69
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement . ....

Reinforcement design and detail


Firstly, it is useful firstly to revisit the principles underlying the selection of the various
reinforcement systems evaluated in this project as outlined in tables 7.1 and 7.2.

Floors 1 and 2
Floors 1 and 2 are essentially identical. They were intended to reflect contemporary
traditional construction and to provide an extended area of constant construction detail for
physical tests on the structure. However, they also provide some repeat measurements to help
with statistical analysis.

Floor 3
Floor 3 was intended to represent a good compromise between minimum steel mass and
minimum complexity. The concrete frame contractor was invited to submit his own design to
this end. He was required to use shear reinforcement based on shape code 85 links as used on
Floors 1 and2.

Floor 4
Floor 4 was intended to give the least complex, most practical details, largely irrespective of
weight, i.e. blanket cover of loose bars at a density dictated by the highest calculated design
moment. In practice the designer selected a level somewhat below the maximum calculated,
giving reinforcement levels for the blanket supplemented with extra steel in areas of higher
stress, using his judgement to optimise the result, The stress levels in the floor from grids 3 to
5 were designed using elastic analysis as for Floors 1 and 2. For grids 1 to 3, yield line
analysis was used.

Floors 5 and 6
Floors 5 and 6 were constructed using reinforcement mats. Floor 5 was detailed.by ROM in
one-way mats' according to their estimate of best compromise between minimum steel and
minimum complexity. Floor 6 reverted to blanket cover with conventional (two-way) mats
but finite element analysis was used to determine the maximum stress condition, which was
then used as on Floor 4.

Shear reinforcement for Floors 4 to 6 was provided by a variety of proprietary and semi-
proprietary systems, each used for half a floor.

Where two reinforcement systems were used in the same floor, the flexural system was varied
along one axis and the shear along the other - resulting in up to four flexurehhear
combinations per floor. This was done to try and reduce the impact on the measurement of
interactions between the systems.

Inevitably this collection of reinforcement solutions was developed by a number of designers,


each bringing their own ideas to the problem.

The following observations refer to the data presented in Tables 7.1 and 7.2.

The design for Floor 3 uses significantly less steel than that for Floors 1 and 2 (in principle,
the minimum weight reinforcement design). This has been largely achieved through a
decision to relax the deflection criteria (see note 2 to Table 7.1).

The shear reinforcement detail for Floor 3 was very much more complex than that for Floors
1 and 2, though both were based on the same design principles.

#
One way reinforcing mats are an array of parallel bars supported by a minimum number of light crossties. Mats
are placed in a layer at right angles. The system is intended to greatly simplify the fixing process compared to
loose bars on conventional, two-way, mats.

70
7 Cardington: analysis of construction process data

The weight of reinforcement used to provide blanket cover was substantially the same
whether derived by elastic analysis (Floor 3) or finite element analysis (Floor 6). Yield line
analysis resulted in dramatically lower weights of steel for blanket cover.

The differences between the reinforcement details for the different floors arise from both the
underlying philosophies described above and variations introduced by different designers.
The latter variations were very significant.

Table 7.1 Descriptions of reinforcement ystems used


Floor 11 12 3 14 15 6

I
Flexural Blanket
reinforcement 1 Traditional Traditiona Rational@) Blanket two
- grids 1 -3(’) loose bar lloose bar loose bar way mats (finite
Pur0 (Buro (Contractor element
Happold) Happold) design) analysis)
2 -grids3-5
I loosebar I
Shear I BRC SC 85 apart
reinforcement fiom sttuct steel
SC85 SC 85 SC 85 heads (A2,B2)
Happold) (Buro (Contractor
Ancotech
,Happold) design)
Shear studs
Notes to Tables 7.1 to 7.3
Elastic design used except where alternative noted
Designed as if “deflection would not unduly affect performance”. (1.58 tonnes extra required for equivalence
with other floors).
All floors include 0.60 tonnes (129 pieces) of reinforcement for two beams at ends of slab
Different ductility steels used on either side of slab
Slight (2%)error on split due to symmetry differences
Assume 0.5 tonnes per head - total for floor excludes shear heads
20 ACI stirrups prefabricated from 758 pieces
Hours adjusted & rationalised slightly to bring to consistent base (see text)
Based on 5.5 days worked per week
“Skilled = trained steel fixer: “unskilled” = carpenter/labourer/etc assisting (see text)
No equivalcnt “start” date for Floor 7

Fixing time and elapsed time


Table 7.3 is a summary of the data recorded for the times taken to fix the reinforcement
described above. The data presented have been extracted from the original raw information
following two stages of moderation.

Anomalies in the data were sought by examining variation between the time taken to fix
different floor areas. (Notes on construction and measurement difficulties are presented in
Appendix 111, supplement 2.) Some 10 specific days were identified for which the data were
considered questionable. These days were re-appraised by comparison with the video’ and
photographic record and the database corrected. The corrections were mainly in the nature of
re-assigning time spent to different fixing areas, that is correcting simple recording errors.

Smoothing of data between floors was then carried out to, for example, account for the fact
that all steel for Floors 5 and 6 was delivered together. The objective of this was to apply a
minimum of adjustment to the core information to enable fair comparison between systems.
All the original data have been retained and provided in database form with the original
report. All recorded time associated with working with the reinforcing steel has been broken
down into the processes of:
Unloading

71
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Movement and stacking on site.


0 Fixing bottom mat (of reinforcement)
0 Fixing shear steel
0 Fixing top mat (of reinforcement)
0 Checking
0 Breaks, standing time and other waste.

The last of these has been characterised as ‘Non-value adding’ and the remainder ‘Value
adding’ (VA). The proportion of non-value adding man-hours is reasonably consistent at
around 12% for all floors. All subsequent analysis considered VA time only.

It should be noted that the definition of ‘value adding’ used here is not the same as that used
in conventional process analysis. Conventionally the only value adding activity is the specific
action of fixing the steel in place (i.e. only part of the processes ‘Fixing bottom mat’, etc.) We
have adopted a rather wider definition, which may perhaps be characterised as ‘useful work’,
as a more appropriate at this stage in the analysis of the fixing process. Reversion to the purer
interpretation of value adding may be appropriate when the issues revealed in the current
analysis have been addressed.

Examination of the data for flexural steel fixing revealed that variation between top and
bottom mat fixing times for the same reinforcement systems were substantially smaller than
the time variations between the reinforcement systems. Top and bottom mat-fixing data were
therefore combined to simplify subsequent analysis.

Table 7.2 Reinforcement details and quantities


Floor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Totals
Flexural reinforcement 1:
16.91 l7’I4
(4) 15‘30
(2.4) 1454
(5) 19.98 25.52 113.59
tonnestfloor (3)
Flexural reinforcement 2: 23.15
(5)
tonnes/floor (3)
Flexural reinforcement 1:
pieceslfloor (bars) 2927 3032 2455 2572 960 947 13621
(mats) 220 191
Flexural reinforcement 2:
3206
pieceslfloor
Shear reinforcement 1: 0.76 0.76 1.40 0.50 1.00 10.00‘6’ 5.29
tonnestfloor 10.76
Shear reinforcement 2: 0.91 0.90 0.80
tonneslfloor
Shear reinforcement 1: 1420 1427 6215 20‘” 62 201 9889
pieceslfloor 1425
Shear reinforcement 2:
170 116 146
pieceslfloor
See Notes below Table 7.1

Table 7.3 shows the value adding (VA) man-hours per floor broken down by the activities of
fixing flexural steel, fixing shear steel and other site activities. The latter vary to some degree
around the average of 13% but not, in our opinion, in any clear pattern, probably reflecting
random variation in site conditions.

72
7 Cardington: analysis of construction process data

The bottom half of Table 7.3 illustrates the distribution of elapsed man days and time between
the floors. A 5 % day week was worked on site and all the data reflects this base (i.e. elapsed
times ignore weekends they happen to span).

Table 7.3 Labour and timing summary


Floor Totals
1 2 3 4 5 6
~

Total man hrs 187 203 212 187 157 115 1060
Value adding (VA) man hrs (*) 164 177 186 170 139 102 938
VA man hrs - flexural steel 100 133 108 133 107 69 652
61% 75% 78% 78% 77% 76% 70%
VA man hrs - shear steel 38 30 62 11 12 19 171
23% 17% 33% 6% 8% 18% 18%
VA man hrs -other moving, 27 15 16 27 20 14 119
checking etc
16% 8% 9% 16% 14% 14% 13%
Total fixing days (9) 5 5 5 5 4 4 28
Total fixing man days 19 20 22 20 17 11 108
Skilled man days (Io) 15 15 15 14 12 9 79
Unskilled man days (Io) 4 6 7 6 5 3 30
27% 38% 48% 43% 38% 29%
Start to start elapsed days (9) 12 10
9.5 10 9

See Notes below Table 7.1

Total fixing days are elapsed times while steel was being fixed into the work and, crudely, can
be considered ‘critical path time’. They are consistently five days for loose bar and four days
for mats. In fact, many construction processes were operating in parallel and a precise
calculation of true critical path time would be extremely complex and not, in our opinion,
appropriate in this case.

The number of man days fixing per floor runs broadly with the number of man hours,
averaging 8% man hours per man day for Floors 1 to 5 , but showing an intensification of
work rate for Floor 6 with the average rising to some 9% man hours per man day.

The work was done by a combination of skilled steel fixers and other trades drawn in as
workload demanded. This is normal site practice. The proportion of skilled to unskilled labour
varied considerably through the work.

Finally the elapsed working days from floor to floor are estimated. Only the point of starting
reinforcement fixing is recorded in our data set and so start-to-start elapsed days are noted.
This is relatively consistent at 9 to 10 days per floor except for Floor 4,which was 12 days.
This coincides with known site difficulties, discussed in Appendix In, supplement 2

Figure 7.2 and Tables 7.4 to 7.7 show the breakdown of fixing VA man-hours for all the
reinforcement arrangements described. They also present the tonnes of steel and number of
pieces, or components, employed and ratios of these factors; in all cases these have been
compared against the ‘standard’, represented by traditional arrangements in Floors 1 and 2.

73
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

-
Time man hours

Floor6 4- I 0 Delivery
0 Site movement
t I I I
Floor 5
I 0 Bottom mat
Shear
Floor 4
U Top mat

Floor 3 Checking

Floor 2
tI
II II I
Floor 1 D%l llllllllllllU I
I I I I

0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 7.2 Value adding man-hours in fixing reinforcement

Table 7.4 Resources per floor: flexural reinforcement


Man hrs Tonnes rebar/ Pieces rebar/ Man hrs/ Man minsl
Floors flexural reinforcement /floor floor floor tonne piece
1&2 Traditionalloosebar(Buro 116 100% 17.0 100% 2980 100% 6.8 100% 2.3 100%
Happold)
3 Rationalised loose bar 108 93% 15.3 90% 2455 82% 7.1 103% 2.6 113%
(contractor design)
4 Blanket loose bar 127 109% 23.2 136% 3206 108% 5.5 80% 2.4 101%
4 Blanketloosebar(yie1d line 138 119% 14.5 85% 2572 86% 9.5 139% 3.2 137%
analysis)
5 Desienedone-wavmats“’ 107 92% 19.9 40% 1180 40% 5.4 79% 5.4 232%
6 Blanket two-way mats (finite
69 59% 25.5 150% 1138 38% 2.7 39% 3.6 154%
element analysis) (I)

Note 1. Pieces per floor = loose bars + mats

Table 7.5 Costs per floor: flexural reinforcement


V A man hrs Rebar @ Steel €/tonne to
Floors flexural reinforcement TOTAL
- €21.65/ h r
@, €350/ tonne match trad. cost
1&2 Traditional loose bar (Buro f2,519 €5,959 €8.478 100% f35O 100%
Happold)
3 Rationalised loose bar €2,337 €5,355 €7,691 91% E401 115%
(Contractor design)
4 Blanket loose bar €2.749 f8.104 €10,853 128% E247 71%
4 Blanket loose bar (yield line €2,987 €5,089 f8,076 95% E378 108%
analysis) ( I )
5 Desiened one-wav mats ‘ I ) €2.3 I6 €6.958 f9.274 109% €310 89%
6 Blanket two-way mats (finite € 1,485 €8,932 €10,417 123% €274 78%
element analysis) ( I )

Note 1. Pieces per floor = loose bars + mats

74
’ 7 Cardington: analysis of construction process data

Table 7.6 Resources per floor: shear reinforcement, comparison with Floors 1 and 2 (pro-rata
for whole floors)
Man hrs/ Tonnes rebar/ Pieces rebar Man hrs/ Man
Floor Shear reinforcement floor tonne minslpiece
floor floor
1&2 SC 85 (Buro Happold) 34 100% 0.8 100% 1424 100% 44.2 100% 1.4 100%
3 SC85(contractordesign) 62 184% 1.4 184% 6215 437% 44.2 100% 0.6 42%
4 ACI stirrups ( I ) 14 42% 0.5 66% 758 53% 27.8 63% 1.1 78%
4 ROM shear ladders 8 24% 0.9 120% 170 12% 8.8 20% 2.8 199%
5 Sauare Griu shear hoous 18 54% 1.0 131% 62 4% 18.0 41% 17.4 1229%
5 Deha stud rails 5 15% 0.9 118% 116 8% 5.6 13% 2.6 185%
6 Structural steel shear heads 2o 59% 10.0 N/A 20 1% 2.0 N/A 60.0 4232%
VJ, B2)
6 SC 85 (floor 6 design) 27 80% 0.8 100% 1425 100% 35.5 80% 1.1 80%
6 Ancotech shear studs 12 36% 0.8 105% 146 10% 15.0 34% 4.9 48%

Note
I. Time recorded for fixing relates & to off-job, non-critical path prefabrication. Notes say assembled stirrups
installed “in 5 minutes” and no time logged. Per piece timings reflect the prefabrication process.

Table 7.7 Costs per floor: shear reinforcement comparison with Floors 1 and 2 (estimates for
whole floors)
Floor Shear reinforcement VA man hrs Rebar @ Steel f/tonne to
TOTAL
@ f21.651 hr f350/ tonne match “trad” cost
1 &2 SC 85 (Buro Happold) €728 €266 €994 100% €350 100%
3 SC 85 (contractor design) €1,342 €49 1 €1,833 184% -€248 -71%
4 ACI stirruus ‘I) €303 €177 €480 48% €1,370 391%
4 ROM shear ladders €173 €320 €493 50% €899 257%
5 Square Grip shear hoops €390 €350 €740 74% €605 173%
~

5 Deha stud rails €1 10 €315 E425 43% €983 281%


6 Structural steel shear heads €433 €3,500 €3,933 396% €56 16%
(A2, B2)
6 SC 85 (Floor 6 design) €584 €266 €850 86% €539 154%
6 Ancotech shear studs €260 €280 €540 54% €918 262%

Note
1 Time recorded for fixing relates only to off-job, non-critical path prefabrication. Notes say assembled stirrups
installed “in 5 minutes” and no time logged. Per piece timings reflect the prefabrication process.

Comparison between systems


The following observations may be made:
Fixing times for the flexural reinforcement systems per floor are relatively similar, with
the exception of blanket two-way, mats which were some 40% quicker to install than the
other systems.
In the case of shear reinforcement, very marked variation in fixing times per floor are
evident, with proprietary systems being up to 20 times quicker to install than some
traditional forms of shear reinforcement.

75
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Only two structural steel shear heads could be tested in this exercise. The 40%
improvement over traditional fixing rate can be regarded as only the crudest of estimates,
given learning curves for the fixers and site issues.

The fixing time per tonne and per piece for flexural reinforcement suggests that:
0 The rationalised design is not inherently significantly easier to fix than the traditional, and
time savings have essentially all arisen from reduced mass of steel.
0 The blanket loose bar solutions present an anomaly in that the expected quicker fixing
rate has been found with the elastic design but not the yield line design. It is possible the
problems on Floor 4 have created this result and this is discussed below.

.-f? 6 Two-way mats


.-E
a
FE
a
0,
c
a, 5 One way mats
E
)I
c
00 4s Blanket
s
0 elastic
rn

g 4N Blanket yield
w
2 line
cn
c
.-
*;i 3 Rational loose
a, bar (Cont)
m
-.
2
0 1&2 Tradnl.
>
a loose bar (BH)
+tt

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%

Figure 7.3 Relative fixing rates

The fixing rate per tonne and per piece for blanket two-way mats on Floor 6 (see Table 7.4)
reflect the faster fixing rates anticipated for such a system. It is important to note that these
data include both the fabric arid all the associated loose bars requiredfor the system.

The data on the one-way mat solution on Floor 5 (Table 7.4) does not show the same
advantage over traditional reinforcement (Floors 1 and 2). Notes from site show that some of
the individual pieces of fabric in this design were awkward to man-handle and had to be
craned into place. This, and other site issues, noted in Appendix ID, supplement 2, probably
accounts for this observation.

As may be seen from Figures 7.4 and 7.5, fixing time per tonne and per piece are, particularly
for the proprietary systems, less relevant as many of the elements are highly prefabricated.
Nonetheless the following points are noteworthy:
As may be seen in Figure 7.4 the shear solution employed on Floor 3 used over four times
as many components as the traditional solution on Floors 1 and 2. The shear
reinforcement in Floor 3 took almost twice as long per floor to fix, although the fixing
rate per tonne was identical.
The data do not clearly highlight the benefits of the ACI stirrup systems. All the time
recorded in Table 7.3 is associated with prefabricating the stirrups before installation and
in practice was outside the critical path for the floor. The installation of the prefabricated
elements took so little time that it was not recorded.

76
7 Cardington: analysis of construction process data

It is worth noting that the shape code 85 (SCS5) shear arrangement used to supplement
structural steel shear heads on Floor 6 , is virtually identical to that used on Floors 1 and 2, and
yet was fixed 20% faster than Floors 1 and 2.
.. .,..... ...,..... ,.. . ............ ................ ................................... . .. ... ..... ... . ....... ...............
............ .............................................

-
Numbers of Bars

Floor 6 b=II I
OAllowancb for deflgction
t
Floor5
Floor4
1
Floor 3
+ I I
Floor2 1
Floor 1

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Figure 7.4 Number of bars per floor

Shear systems: m.h rslcolumn

6E Shear studs
6Wb Struct steel heads

-
-I I
6W SC 85 (Flr 6)

5E Deha stud rails


5W Shearhoops
-I
4E ACI stirrups
4W ROM Shear ladders
3 SC 85 (Cont)
182 SC85(BH) , I
I

0.00 1.oo 2.00 3.00 4.00

Figure 7.5 Shear systems - man-hours per column

Overall cost per floor


The final columns of Tables 7.5 and 7.7 combine the costs of time and steel in an attempt to
give an overall cost comparison for the systems. The approach adopted has been to take
typical, large contract, steel fixing rates at E150 per tonne and equivalent price for reinforcing
steel (cut, bent and delivered) at €350. These figures, in our opinion, reflect market rates over
the last few years and the analysis is demonstrated to be relatively insensitive to these chosen
figures.

From the overal! data on the building the tonnage of reinforcement used and total hours of
actual fixing time have been determined. The cost per hour for the fixing process itself of

77
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

€21.65 has been calculated from €150 per tonne as the fixing rate. On this basis a cost for
labour and reinforcement per system per floor has been derived and compared with the
"standard". As an alternative way of looking at the same data, a cost per tonne for the
reinforcement has been derived which would give an identical cost per floor'to the standard
solution. This gives an indication of the premium derived from design input or from
proprietary pre-fabrications (particularly in respect of shear systems).

The results of the per floor cost analysis are presented graphically in Figures 7.6 to 7.8. Figure 7.6
is the data as presented. Figures 7.7 and 7.8 show the effect of altering the assumptions on
fixing price per tonne and reinforcement cost per tonne up and down 10% from the starting
point.
I

Cost per floor

0 Labour Steel

"Traditional" loose bar


"Rational" loose bar
"Blanket cover loose bar - elastic
Blanket cover loose bar - yield line
Designed one-way mats
Blanket two-way mats

SC 85 (Buro Happ.) uI

SC 85 (contractor design)
ACI stirrups
ROM shear ladders
Square.Grip Shear hoops
DEHA stud rails
Shear heads
SC 85 (Floor 6.) e
AncoTech Shear studs ~
---
E ; g 8 0
0
0 0
0
$ 2 - 2
8 w2 5

Figure 7.6 Costs per floor

78
7 Cardington: analysis of construction process data

Cost per floor


Rg3- lowsteel.h@labov

Traditional loose bar


"Rational" loose bar
Blnkt loose -elastic
-
Blnkt loose yeld line
Designed 1 wayiriats
Blanket 1 waymats

SC 85 (Buro Happ.)
SC 85 (Contractor)
ACI stirrups
Rom Shear ladders
Squ Gr Shear hoops
Deha Stud rails
Shear heads
SC 85 (Floor@
hcotch Shear studs

0 Labour Steel I
Figure 7.7 Cost per floor - low cost of steel
high cost of labour

Cost per floor


Fig 2 low labour: high steel

TradibOMl bose bar


'Rallonar bose bar
.
Bhkt bose elasbc
~ln~bote-ye~bne
Designd 1 waymats
Btanket 1 waymah

, sc 85 ( ~ u mHapp )
sc 8s (comcmr)
AClsbm~s
Rom Shear Ladders
Squm Shear hoops
Deha Shd rails
Shear heads
SC85(FborG)
Ancotch Shear shds

1
I
0 Labour Steel II

Figure 7.8 Cost per floor - high cost of steel,


. .
low cost of labour

79
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

The following observations may be made:


Of the flexural reinforcement systems the extra steel required to realise the elastic blanket
reinforcement designs has resulted in un-competitive solutions. Yield line blanket designs,
despite the very high (and probably anomalous) fixing man-hours per tonne, are
competitive and the rationalised design is the most competitive - albeit this derives
entirely from steel savings, themselves derived from a decision to relax deflection criteria.
(But see Chapter 8.4, under Labour and material costs, where this deflection
reinforcement is considered.)
The shear reinforcement systems show considerably more variation in man-hour
requirements. Proprietary systems show savings of about 50% over the traditional systems
and potential margins justify a 100% or more premium over traditional reinforcement.
Interestingly, the ACI stirrups, which are essentially standard reinforcement but to a
sophisticated design, are in the same cost saving bracket and amongst the most competitive
solutions. This is before tahng account of the factthat the great majority of the time
associated with stirrups was not on the critical path.
The more complex shear solution selected for the rationalised design on Floor 3 resulted in
cost penalties which effectively eliminated the gains made in fixing the flexural steel.
The data on shear heads in the tables and charts are not illuminating but are presented for
completeness.

Figures 7.7 and 7.8 illustrate that, over a reasonably wide range of steeVlabour price ratios, the
ranlung in respect of economy for the different solutions remains unchanged. In fact it requires a
factor of 30% distortion of costs on the base assumption to have any effect on their rank order.
They also illustrate clearly the relative proportions of the costs of shear and flexural
reinforcement in this data set. It is conceivable that a more sophisticated analysis, weighted
for critical path time extension, would amplify the relative importance of shear reinforcement
but this is beyond the practical limitations of this exercise'.

Summary
In summary we may conclude that, on the basis of the data recorded, there are arrangements
of reinforcement that offer cost advantages over the traditional systems used. These
advantages are robust over a range of 1abour:reinforcement cost relationships. This is
particularly true for shear reinforcement where proprietary systems and the ACI shear stirrup
design were typically half the cost of the traditional system.

No account has been taken of the potential additional benefit of shortening the construction
critical path time but a relatively sophisticated analysis of this sort is inappropriate using the
existing data set which have been strongly affected by a number of factors. These factors also
reduce the confidence that can be placed on the previous paragraph, and are discussed in more
detail in the following sub-section.

#
This theme is taken up in Chapter 8.4 under Integration of results

80
7 Cardington: analysis of construction process data

7.4 Variability and uncertainty


This section discusses the nature of uncertainty, examines the circumstances of the
Cardington project and its associated uncertainties and concludes by offering opinion on the
confidence that may be applied to the conclusions drawn in the previous section.

Nature of uncertainty
Any measurement of a parameter may be considered to be a sample value for that parameter.
Taking one or a number of measures of the same parameter can be described as an experiment
to determine its value. In principle the measurement obtained may be considered to be
affected by both systematic and random variations. A systematic variation is one that affects
all the values obtained in an experiment. A random variation introduces a random error on all
measures made within an experiment. Thus if the experiment were the measurement of the
length of an object, a systematic variation would be, for example, an error in the calibration of
the ruler. The random variation would be operator error in reading the value (though not error
associated with a wrong measuring procedure, which would produce a systematic variation
one way or another).

In general, random errors are amenable to analysis and estimate, the larger the sample size the
more precisely the parameter may be estimated. Systematic errors cannot be analysed or
estimated from a data set. They can be ‘corrected’ for by measurement or estimate but
generally experimental design should aim to minimise or eliminate them. Alternatively the
scope of the experiment can be extended to encompass a large sample of the factors creating
systematic variation, essentially consigning them to random variables. Thus if a population of
rulers was known to have randomly distributed calibration errors, using one in a measurement
experiment would introduce systematic variation of unknown value. If a large number of
rulers were used the error introduced would be randomised and amenable to analysis.

Sources of uncertainty
The key purpose of the Cardington project was to measure parameters associated with
concrete construction in an experiment in which as many as possible of the sources of
uncertainty associated with the construction process were controlled.

The problem with this has always been that the Cardington experiment is very costly and
there has been a need to gain as much information as possible simultaneously on a number of
aspects of concrete construction. There is additional complication in the need to enable the
commercial organisations who have contributed to the funding of the project to test or
demonstrate aspects of their products and, from an industry-wide viewpoint, to demonstrate
the capabilities of reinforced concrete construction.

It was extremely difficult for the project’s organisers to balance all these needs in ‘order to
obtain the best value for all parties concerned.

In respect of the measurement of reinforcing fixing times the following aspects were not
considered ideal.
The spans and floor thicknesses selected are on the boundaries of what is currently usual
to demonstrate concrete construction capabilities. This resulted in relatively high design
stresses, resulting in high steel usage for blanket cover designs and problems designing
convenient fabric reinforcement (a number of different sheet types were required, some
rather large for convenient handling).
There were commercial and practical pressures to incorporate a large number of
reinforcement arrangements, particularly in respect of shear. This resulted in the use of

81
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

more than one reinforcement system per floor. Apart from the obvious measurement
problems, the effect of this, was that the fixers were constantly learning new
arrangements so their fixing times will have been strongly affected by factors such as
clarity of drawings, previous familiarity etc. etc. Other work has demonstrated at least a
doubling of fixing times or rates while arrangements are learned. Ideally, the systems
would have been compared at their optimum, rather than starting, rates of fixing.
Other important experiments overlapped with the fixing experiment. For example, strain
gauges were fitted to the reinforcement on Floors 2 and 3; different ductility reinforcement
was used on each’ side of these floors; a stop end was due to be fixed down the middle only
of Floor 3.

Systematic variation
The above factors will all have introduced systematic variation to some degree.

In an attempt to prevent further systematic variables being introduced into the experiment,
time was spent before construction started on discussions with site personnel and RCC,
culminating in a published measurement process method statement (Appendix III,supplement 1).

In practice, construction ran like any typical site with breakdowns of key equipment, late
deliveries and non-availability of components leading to ad hoc re-ordering of processes
(shear heads were planned to be used on Floor 4,ultimately only two were used and these
were incorporated into Floor 6 )

In addition to the errors introduced by these difficulties, priority was given to completing the
project inside the planned time frame, and as a result none of the precautions detailed in the
method statement were taken to avoid introducing systematic errors. Specific examples are
listed below.
Different mixes of skilled and unskilled operators were used on different systems.
Completion priorities resulted in variable work rate (e.g. shear steel was fixed 20% faster
on Floor 6 than on Floors 1 and 2).
None of the unfamiliar systems were trial assembled off works. This was a particular
issue with BRC shear hoops used in combination with one-way mats, neither of which
were familiar to the fixing team. Significant difficulties were encountered which may or
may not have been resolved with practice.

A summary of the problems encountered per floor is included in supplement 2 of Appendix III.

The foregoing is not intended as a criticism of the individuals involved in the construction
process who were, in our opinion, singularly conscientious in trying to deliver the outputs
sought. It is rather a criticism of the construction industry as a whole in that all the problems
and solutions encountered were typical of general site practice.

It could be argued that the results obtained under these circumstances are more realistic.
Unfortunately, the uncontrolled systematic errors will have affected the results from relatively
small samples of each reinforcement system to different, essentially unknowable, degrees. We
have considered attempting to estimate ‘corrections’ for the various effects but the magnitude
of these adjustments rapidly exceeds the differences actually measured, and would result
ultimately in a data set more reflecting opinion than measurement.

82
7 Cardington: analysis of construction process data

Random variation
In addition to the systematic variation discussed above there will be elements of random
variation in the data set. The very small sample sizes make a precise measure of this very
difficult. To get an estimate of the random variation we have established a measurement
regime for the flexural steel in which each floor was divided into six areas and the time taken
to fix each area was measured separately. An estimate of the random variation for the fixing
and data recording process has been made by determining the standard deviation of the time .
recorded for all areas of top and bottom mat on Floors 1 and 2 (the largest sample of a single
system available). The data have been inspected for trends which correlated with physical
differences such as the asymmetry of the floor layout, differences between top and bottom
mats, etc. but none was evident. Even when the data had been ratioed to align the small
difference between the means per floor (i.e. assuming differences between means arise
entirely from systematic variables) and one high and one low outlying point have been
discarded, a variance (Standard Deviatiodmean) of 38% resulted. On this basis, a sample size
of 40 would be required to detect a 10% difference (typical of those found) between systems
at a 90% confidence level

This estimate of random variability includes errors of misattribution of time from area to area.
Given the small sizes involved and the relatively imprecise boundaries this may well be a
significant contributory factor. Nevertheless, this analysis gives a feel for the sample size
required to enable differences of the order measured to be reported with a degree of
statistically based confidence.

Implication of variables on results


It is clear from the foregoing that almost all the analysis given must be prefaced with the word
‘probably’. It is certainly quite inappropriate to draw any more detailed conclusions from the
Cardington data set alone.

Broadly speaking the trends seen in the data align with what may have been expected from an
educated guess at the outcome, with one key exception - this is the results for the yield line,
blanket cover on Floor 4. The fixing rate seems high by a factor of at least two. Examination
of the data reveals no obvious source of this anomaly, other than the fact that Floor 4 was
particularly beset with construction process problems.

If the yield line blanket reinforcement could have been produced in fabric and been fixed at
the same rate as Floor 6 it would have produced a saving of some 30% over the traditional
reinforcement. This is easily the best opportunity identifiable by applying reasonable ‘what i f
analysis to the data. The observation is, of course, speculation but we consider that it merits
further investigation.

It has been stated previously that all the sources of uncontrolled variation are typical of
normal site operations. This work illustrates the impact of such variations on the timing and
installed costs of reinforcement systems. Add this to the difficulty of actually measuring the
differences and it is clear that feedback of site experience into the design process will tend to
be, at best, anecdotal and hard to quantify. This may go some long way to explaining the wide
variation in opinion on optimum design approaches, illustrated in no small measure by the
interpretations manifested in the designs for this project.

83
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

7.5 Conclusions and recommendations


From its inception the inevitable compromises inherent in this project were always going to
lead to less than ideal data. Unfortunately, problems during the construction phase have
reduced further the reliability of the available information.

The overall layout chosen for the structure was not appropriate for some of the systems
investigated and it is unlikely that any of the designs was truly ‘optimised’ to minimise the
combined material and labour cost. Virtually all systems were measured with the fixing team
at the beginning of their learning curve, which is less informative than when measured later at
‘steadystate’.

Nevertheless, the data obtained is better than any previously available to the industry and is
adequate to guide further activity.

This work demonstrated that different reinforcement arrangements can have significant
impact on overall costs - in the systems investigated up to 30% on flexural reinforcement and
50% on shear reinforcement This excludes any benefit from reduced critical path time whic
in principle, should be of the same magnitude.

There is a considerable opportunity for cost reduction. This would require a combination of
informed design, system-specific expertise and, particularly, process control and supply chain
integration to eliminate delay and wasted time. All these could be achieved through adopting
good practice, a technique widely followed in manufacturing industry.

The information included in this report provides pointers towards design approaches aimed at
reducing costs and a methodology for measuring their costs. More data are required in order
to determine the optimum design for different structural arrangements. Given the
demonstrated variability of design input and site practice, a practical way to obtain these data
would be to organise an industry-wide data gatheringhenchmarking exercise through which
the systematic variables that have affected this experiment could be randomised. A broad
outline of how this might be achieved is included in supplement 3 to Appendix 111.

84
8 Discussion
8.1 Introduction
The key question in this project is "Where is the balance between rationalisation and
additional cost , i.e. between extra weight of reinforcement and savings in time?" The
theoretical relationship between cost and rationalisation is shown in Figure 8.1. The real
answer is shrouded in many uncertainties but the information gleaned from the background
studies, literature searches and the research and data from the project itself can at least
provide the basis for an answer.

High

plus Cost d
.......
.*-

.......................
time, finance,
etc. etc

Low
............................................. Cost d
reinforcernert

Level of rationalisation
Highly Usual Rationalised Highly
detailed rationalised

Figure 8.1 The relationship between rationalisation of reinforcement and minimum cost

The intention in this chapter is to bring together the findings of the research and look at.costs
and consider who are the winners and losers from using the different configurations of
reinforcement and what should be considered best practice.

85
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

8.2 Background studies


Optimisation I

It was shown that optimising slab thickness saves money. Reducing a 300 mm slab to
255 mm on the Cost model buildings saved 8% of frame costs. In practice this potential
optimisation is often set against reducing risk in design - thicker slabs can absorb late
changes and they deflect less than thinner slabs. Thus the opportunity is often lost.

Time costs
For developers aild owner/occupiers, early occupation brings early and extra revenue or rental
income. However, this may be secondary to the core business of predicting and managing
risks and opportunities. For contractors and specialist subcontractors early completion should
mean less time related overheads. However, overheads are normally costed as a single
percentage addition, typically 10%. This is insensitive to the particular resource usage and
thus does not reflect the often quite small changes in design that achieve production
efficiencies.

Perhaps the easiest way of determining the balance between extra weight of reinforcement
and savings in time is in terms of cost. But, as the University of Reading found, costs mean
different things to different members of the construction team. In an early piece of research
the University of Reading investigated this issue and produced a report called l7ze cost of time (3).
For the contractor, time savings result in cost savings in preliminaries and labour. For the
client the time savings may well result in finance savings, which are an order of magnitude
greater than those for the contractor. Time savings reduce the length of time between capital'
outlay and the return on investment. This may be a vast oversimplification for individual
projects (e.g. it ignores opportunity costs), but for the market as a whole, these differences
should be appreciated.

The priorities of the contractor and the client inevitably differ. The following table aims to
quantify the basis of the cost of time for each party to a contract.

Table 8.1 The cost of time to contractors and clients


Contractors Clients
Trade Main Speculative Owner1 occupier
developer (devefoper*prelet)
Timescale of T2
Part of T2
involvement
Construction costs:
=QXIO x loxcc =~T,XY~XC~ n/a' n/a'
Preliminaries
T2 100x100 T2- 100

Labour 06T2.nos.rate n/a' n/a' n/a'

Plant x6T2.nos.rate n/a' n/a' n/a'


Rla terials Prime cost n/a' n/a' n/a'
Lost rentallincome No =6T2xrate
Finance costs Yes(2) Yes(2'
Opportunity costs , Perhaps Perhaps

86
8 Discussion

Key .
1. Not applicable. Assuming traditional form of contract and cause of delay down to contractor - otherwise may
be charged at over-headed rate over cost.
2. Finance costs are often approximated to = Construction c o d 2 x duration (months) x interest rate/] 2 but have
been defined more accurately by the University of Reading as being:

where
1 = Interest rate is per unit of time
TI = Acquisition time - the time from acquisition of the land (waiting for planning permission and design
plans) until construction starts.
Tz = Construction time
T3 = Disposal time - the time from the end of construction until the building is let or sold.
CL = Cost of land, (including acquisition costs, compensation, fees)
CO = Cost of demolition,
cc = Costs of construction. (including contract value, ancillary costs etc)

Barriers to rationalisation and prefabrication


The following section discusses the points made in a series of 12 interviews with members of
the concrete industry by the University of Reading in the course of their work for The
Concrete Society's Rationalisation of reinforcement project(2*24* 25). The interviewees were
from four engineers, five subcontractors, two fabricators and a steel mill.

Least cost
It is very apparent that least cost drives decisions. Contractors buy at lowest price and clients relate
minimum cost to minimum material content. Cost is regarded as being more important than time.

The problem for the concrete frame and reinforcement industries is how to quantify the
benefits of rationalisation. It may seem that overall costs can be reduced but the costs of
physically measurable materials are often greater. With fabric, labour savings of 60% to 70%
can be achieved, output is doubled but weight increases. The most economic structures make
allowances for time benefits, reduced preliminaries, additional commissioning time etc. But
how are these benefits costed and allocated?

Apparent benefits must be tempered with practical realities. Innovation appears to be driven
by developers and the needs of industry rather than by concrete contractors. Under traditional
contracts, there is little incentive for engineers to increase overall efficiency by innovating or
allowing innovations to be used. Innovations can be seen as risk. Unless one party is prepared
to be a champion and shoulder risk then innovations are not used. There is little
encouragement from contractors for prefabrication of reinforcement, presumably because
traditional methods are a known quantity and can be managed more easily. Often, lower
prices are tendered where the contractor is not to be too rushed on site.

The pricing of reinforcement


The pricing of reinforcement appears to vary between contractors. The prices quoted by
contractors in the series of interviews for the Concrete Society (see Appendix II) are
summarised in Table 8.2. Sometimes price is based on weight alone and sometimes it is both
weight and size. Little account of ease of fixing seems to be taken. Most fixers appear to be
paid day rates based on bar diameters (although some contractors pay per tonne without
regard to diameter). Labour rates tend to vary inversely to bar diameter. For the sake of
optimisation and rationalisation some consistency over pricing should be established.

Reinforcement is a world commodity, seen as low-tech with little added value, often sold as a
loss leader for other, more highly valued products. The market for loose bar is very com-
petitive. Neither standard fabric nor special fabrics are seen as being competitive on price.

87
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Table 8.2 Reinforcement prices 1998


Item Average
Bar (6 to 40 mm dia)
Supply 52401tonne'
Labour costs tonne^, 3,
Tie wire, spacers and chairs etc E451tonne5
Total E525ltonne
Mats
BS fabric E325ltonne
Bespoke fabric 5387ltonne
Labour 50.65/m2*
Notes
1 Dependant on market conditions
2 €275/tonne to f70/tonne. Some contractors lump all together, some go by diameter
3 Flat slabs 10% less. Troughs 5% more. Waffles 15% more
4 Fixing rates 20 - 32 mm bar 2.0 tonnes/day; 8 - 12 mm bar 0.5 tonnes/day
5 Tie wire, spacers and chairs €8/tonne, wastage 2%, O/H& P 5%.
G For A142, A252 and A 393 mesh: equivalent to f293/tonne, €165/tonne and €106/tonne

Weight of reinforcement
When estimating a price, contractors may or may not want a breakdown of sizes and links at
tender stage. They certainly want to know total weight.

Usually the weights are only finalised at the end of detailed design some .time later.
Traditionally final production information i.e. bending schedules, were available at tender
stage: this is no longer the case. Nowadays, because the final design is not fixed, engineers
will generally 'guestimate' bar weights and diameters based on experience. Quantities are
based on these estimates and most usually the quantities are subject to a re-measure.
Inevitably re-measurement can become antagonistic and either some equitable method of
paying for reinforcement has to be found or someone has to take an unwanted risk.

Construct's Guide to contractor detailing(39)may point the way but this uncertainty does not
help the initial scheme and budget phases of the project. The consequent risk may be
sufficient for the decision to be taken for a project to be constructed in other materials.

This problem has been the bane of much of the concrete frame market. Without the final
design, accurate estimates are time-consuming and difficult. The risk might be passed on to
the contractor but the contractor might baulk at having to work up his own quantities for each
tender. If he is taking risk, should he not have some control over the design? How can this
situation be overcome? Indicative RC drawings or the advent of reinforciment contours from
contemporary finite element design packages help. Very simple designs e.g. yield line design
help reduce risk. Very quick design and detailing processes e.g. Hy-ten's Bamtec system
(where a finite element design package outputs information suitable for the manufacture of
reinforcement carpets) indicate how integration of software can help.

Figure 8.2 shows the relationship between complexity and weight. The bottom part of the
figure is an alternative x axis that seeks to illustrate that a typical design will firstly look at a
highly rationalised model and gradually refine it by doing more analysis and design. There
comes a point where further work will either make the reinforcement highly detailed or
increasingly rationalised. Increasingly rationalised usually means increasingly heavy.

88
8 Discussion

High

Low
Prefabricate b

Manufactured mekhes
~~ ~

Level of rationalisation
-
Highly Usual Rationalised Highly
detailed rationalised

Figure 8.2 Rationalisation (and design duration) against weight and complexity

Weight and prefabrication


Prefabrication increases weight. For one-way slabs this increase is usually 5% to 7%. The
weight of reinforcement in the flat slabs at Cardington that were subject to elastic design,
increased from 17.0 tonnes to 23.2 tonnes (i.e. 36%) for one-way mats and from 17.0 tonnes
to 19.9 tonnes (i.e. 17%) for two-way mats.

The experience of one engineer interviewed in reference 24 was that changing from flat slab
reinforcement to mats resulted in a weight increase from 58 kg/m2 to 65 kg/m2 i.e. 12%. For
elastic design the increase appears to be case specific. Indeed the providers of the mats at
Cardington were against their use as they knew the additional weight would be excessive:
they were persuaded to provide the fabrics for the sake of the research. This lack of certainty
about increases in weight compares unfavourably with the certainty of weights of loose bar
'
schemes. There is a lack of confidence in price of fabrics and therefore a reluctance for
contractors to price accurately.

Mats
Rationalisation using mats would appear to have restricted application for the following
reasons:
Prefabricated mats are seen as needing repetition and a regular grid and therefore they
appear to have limited applicability to flat slabs, trough slabs and one-way slabs.
0 For rationalised methods there need to be standard types of fabric. The many awkward
sites with lack of repetition appear unsuited to fabric.
Current standard meshes are unsuited to the generally high levels of reinforcement in
many suspended slabs. Large (25 mm diameter) bars are heavy and generally regarded as
being unsuited for use in fabric, certainly on most building structures.
There is a need for bespoke fabric but its availability is subject to minimum quantities,
lead-in times and market shortages.
Loose bar is considered easy to adapt. On site, fabric is seen as not being adaptable.
There can be problems integrating loose bar with fabrics.

89
. Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Germany is often quoted as being a large user of mats, but from a UK perspective Germany
tends to have regular grids, repetition, and uses thicker slabs with smaller bars. Different
cultures and customs, rules and regulations etc. mean transferring methods can be difficult.

Table 8.3 Preferred sizes of tailored mats in UK


Item Minimum Maximum
Width 1200 mm 3400 mm
(some machines 3000 mm
~

Length 2000 mm 12000 mm


Bar sizes (plain or deformed wire 4 mm 16 mm (if double)
and hot rolled bar
Spacing *

< 12mm
- 50 mm
> 12mm 75 mm
preferred min. spacing 10 mm
preferred min. increments So mm
Weight of sheet 300 kg (150 kg if nested)

At the detailing stage consideration needs to be given to the type of lap for a prefabricated
sheet (i.e. layered, edge, reversed, nested or flying end)

Form of contract
As illustrated by Figure 8.3, specialist trade contractors, sub-contractors and engineers have
different experience of the different forms of contract and methods of building procurement.
This may affect their attitude towards rationalisation and prefabrication. Traditional (or JCT)
contracts are price driven but it appears easier to introduce innovation into Construction
Management (CM) contracts where arguments about overall gains can be won and the
construction manager becomes a champion, (Similarly, the arguments can be won in
Management Contracting (MC) and Design and Build (D&B) contracts.) However, JCT
contracts are considered cheaper than CM contracts. Construction Management contracts may
be quicker but are regarded as being 5% to 7% more expensive.

I I

I 1 HJCT ID&B OCM&MC I


I I I I I I 1
I Trade
contractors ave.

Subcontractors
ave.

1 Engineers ave.
I
i 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 8.3 Contracts experience of Concrete Society interviewees (See Appendix 11)

90
8 Discussion

Adni n is t rtt i on arran gemn ts


17% right
28%

22% Analysis and


engineering
33%

Figure 8.4 Engineers' design costs

However, detailing for prefabrication on slabs does take time and there is little or no
advantage for the detailer or designer to undertake it. Few engineers and detailers have
experience of mats. Under traditional contracts, engineers are unlikely to detail for mats as the
contractor has t o be in charge of construction methods used and is unlikely to be on board
when detailing is started. Engineers are even less likely to be willing to re-detail: re-detailing
has to be part of the prefabrication costs or prefabrication has to be part of the initial detailing
process. If this is the case then the contractor has to have some influence over design -
unlikely under traditional forms of contract.

Reluctance to change
Commonly rationalisation is a separate process that is undertaken after design and before
detailing, or even after the start of detailing. It is thus regarded as additional (and
unpaidunrewarded) work. It is possible to adopt highly rationalised methods from the start of
the project but this generally requires the judgement of a highly experienced engineer - one
who can justify the additional reinforcement against simplicity and time savings. There may
be a reluctance from the design team to adopt highly rationalised methods because of the
assumed extra cost of reinforcement. From an engineering point of view, this assumption is
based on the use of elastic theory of analysis whereas other methods such as finite element
and yield line give rationalised layouts, and in the case of yield line lead to less reinforcement
being used.

There is a natural conservatism and reluctance to change methods:


Designers become familiar with certain methods of design
Labour is familiar with traditional loose bar
There may be opposition from draughtsmen and drawing office staff protecting their trade
There are contractors who believe that prefabrication of reinforcement for slabs on large
projects is neither practical nor economic.

91
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

8.3 Cardington
The presumption behind the various arrangements of reinforcement at Cardington was that
rationalisation and prefabrication would lead to greater speed and simplicity on site. And so it
proved. This is perhaps at the expense of more reinforcement being used than in the
traditionally detailed floors but the purpose of the exercise was to investigate the balance
between material costs and time.

Figure 8.5 illustrates the man-hours spent on the different operations in fixing reinforcement
the different floors. A comparison of the efficiency of fixing different types of bending
reinforcement is made in Figure 8.6 with traditional loose bar taken as the benchmark (100%).
Bands showing 90% confidence limits are included to give a feel for the accuracy and
consistency of the data.
-
Time man hours Delivery
Site movement
0 Bottom mat
Floor6 H Shear
0 TOP mat
Floor 5

Floor 4

Floor 3
t
I1 Floor 1
I"
4 'I 1
I

0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 8.5 Cardington - value adding man hours spent on reinforcing each floor

3 6 Two-way mats
E-
- FE
8
c
5 One way mats
-91
E 4s Blanket
h elastic

i 4N Blanket yield
I
3 line
m
.-
E 3 Rational loose
F
bar (Cont)
eh
L 182 Tradnl.
9
Q: loose bar (BH)
-tt-+-t

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%

Figure 8.6 Relative 'fixing efficiency'

Despite all the preparation and care it has to be said that the data were based on a limited
sample and were subject to interference from extraneous events (in other words, the data were
specific to Cardington and imperfect). Many construction processes were studied at
Cardington so inevitably there were compromises in the work on rationalisation of
reinforcement. Nevertheless the results show significant differences in the weight of steel and

92
8 Discussion

the man-hours in fixing steel for the various configurations of reinforcement in the six floors
studied.

The fixing rate measurements shown in Figure 8.6 indicates that by switching from traditional
methods to two-way prefabricated mats and proprietary punching shear reinforcement
systems, a 50% saving in man-hours can be achieved. Proprietary punching shear
reinforcement systems are between three and ten times quicker to fix per column than
traditional links.

However, the savings in man-hours need to be offset against additional materials costs and
differences in process (e.g. obtaining proprietary shear systems which generally need to be
designed by the specialist supplier against traditionally designed and procured shape code
85s). Also, savings in man-hours may not translate into useful project time savings.
Discussions with two leading specialist contractors suggest that savings in cycle time due to
improvements in reinforcement placing would be a maximum of two days per floor.

Using traditional loose bar arrangements and links, the floor plate at Cardington required 150
man-hours per floor. Using two-way mats and proprietary shear systems required only 77
man-hours (averaging the quickest three systems). The results are generally in accordance
with trials undertaken in Germany in the early 1 9 8 0 ~which
~ showed how the reduction in
fixing time for fabric or other prefabricated units improves as the weight of reinforcement
increases('5' 18).

The saving in man hours on site have to be balanced against cost of different design methods,
e.g. finite element analysis or yield line design, andor more reinforcement (up to 50% more)
and whether any savings were significant in terms of overall critical path. Major
improvements in fixing reinforcement and critical path time on site can not be obtained
simply through rationalising at the detailing stage: rationalisation must embrace the whole
process in order to get worthwhile benefits on site.

Performance
Changes in reinforcement also (theoretically) affect ultimate performance and serviceability.
.All arrangements used on the project complied with the relevant design code (EC2 ENV
1992(14'- which refers back to BS 8110'32' in no small measure). but there were some
differences.

U1timate performance
According to the study by Nottingham Trent University(') the slabs all slabs had a factor of
safety against failure at ultimate loads of at least 1.15. As might be expected the blanket cover
and two-way mat arrangements had even greater factors of safety.

These conclusions are based on the use of yield line theory which deals with two dimensional
structures where plastic yielding takes place along a fracture line (called a yield line). When
all the yield lines necessary to initiate a mechanism have formed, that portion of the slab fails
in the ultimate condition. Whilst not in common usage, yield line theory is well accepted and
its use to assess and compare factors of safety appears to be perfectly valid.

The amounts of reinforcement in the blanket cover arrangements on Floors 4, 5 and 6 were
determined by the designer considering a level of reinforcement that would, with the addition
of local supplementary bars, be sufficient for all areas of the slab according to elastic orfinite
element analysis. Both types of analyses suggest concentrations of stresses, particularly over
columns, which appears to be an accurate reflection of the serviceability load case.

93
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Elastic analysis always has to be used for the analysis at serviceability limit state. It is only at
the ultimate limit state that other methods of analysis or moment distribution can be used'37).
The fundamental reason why one cannot get full advantage from using non-linear or plastic
analysis is that, in reality, the serviceability criteria are critical. This is evidenced by the need
in the yield line design used in Floor 4 for additional reinforcement to satisfy span to
depth:ratios (deflection) and concentration of support steel to within the column strip
(cracking).

Yield line design gave the simplest flexural reinforcement arrangements. The finite element
arrangement was simple but, to accommodate sensible maximum moments, the general level
of reinforcement was high. The amounts of reinforcement used were actually dictated by
considerations of serviceability, and it is perhaps with regard to this aspect that rationalisation
of design needs to be investigated.

Serviceability
Deflections
Dr Vollum notes that ". ... the beneficial effect of providing additional reinforcement was
swamped by variations in concrete tensile strength due to variations in concrete compressive
strength" and "there appears to be little benefit in increasing reinforcement area to control
slab deflections". Although based on incomplete research and also being at odds with the
philosophy of BS 81 lO"*', it would appear that the different arrangements of reinforcement
had little effect on deflections. It would also appear that the rules on deflection in BS 8110
may need to be looked at in light of current knowledge'.

Cracking
From the time of construction of the building through to 2000, hormal' cracking was observed
on the top surface of almost every slab at its intersection with an internal column. This is
consistent with expectations, taking into account the level of loading applied to the slab. It is
within acceptable limits, and is independent of the method of reinforcing the slab.

More extensive cracking may be observed on Floor 4, grid 3, where the design philosophy
changed from elastic to yield line. Here, single cracks extend into the yield line area towards
grid 2 (to the half away from the hanger doors). The extent of this cracking is explained by
the fact that the designed top reinforcement in the column strip on the yield line side of grid 3
was, for various reasons, omitted. The extent of these cracks is therefore not surprising and is
not connected with yield line design. Whilst these cracks are unsightly and are over 1 mm in
width in places, there is no evidence to suggest that they have impaired the performance of
the slab. It is worth adding that the whole of Floor 4, including the half designed to yield line
theory, appears to be performing satisfactorily - and deflecting less than some of the other
slabs.

It is worth noting that the amount of top reinforcement used in middle strip supports subject to
yield line design was low. At his discretion, the designer called for:
A142T mesh over all internal supports with supplementary T16@150bwT (both ways
top) in column strips over supports
i.e. 142 mm2/m in middle strips: (142+1340) mm2/m in column strips over supports,
i.e. 9% : 91%

ti BCA's DETR Pi1 project, The influence of serviceability on the economic design of concrete
stiwctiires, is indeed examining this subject. A final report is due by 2002

94
8 Discussion

BS 8110‘32’C1 3.7.3.1 stipulates that the division of negative (support) moments between
middle strips and column strips should be 25% : 75%. This more conventional distribution of
reinforcement would have suggested a more even distribution of reinforcement, i.e.
0 T12@250bwT (452 mm2/m) over all internal supports with supplementary
T16@25ObwT (804 mm2/m) in column strips over supports
0 i.e. 452: (452 + 804) or 26% : 74%

The relatively low amount of reinforcement in middle strip supports does not appear to have
affected the amount of cracking compared with that in other slabs.

Summary
From a performance point of view, reassurance may be taken from Dr Johnson’s work
determining that all slabs are satisfactory in terms of factor of safety against failure in
bending. Dr Vollum’s measurements of deflection show that at up to 700 days after
construction, deflection is within acceptable limits. Further deflection is probably predictable
and deflection appears unrelated to amount of reinforcement used (but more probably related
to concrete tensile strength at first loading). Cracking can be seen at several locations in the
building, particularly around columns. These cracks are not abnormally large. Larger cracks
on Floor 4 adjacent to grid 3 are the results of omitted reinforcement.

It should be noted that Dr Vollum’s and other research work at Cardington continues (as at
August 2000) and there is more planned research that has yet to obtain funding. The results of
future research into ultimate performance (e.g. punching shear, fire, explosion) and
serviceability (e.g. deflection, cracking, shrinkage, durability, etc), may demand that the
findings of this report must be reviewed at some future date. However, for the present it can
be stated that all arrangements of reinforcement performed satisfactorily.

Comparison of systems
Equivalent costs per tonne
One way at looking at the various reinforcement configurations is to look at costs per tonne
that would give an identical cost per floor to the standard or ‘traditional’solution. As noted by
Lorien plc, the figures in Tables 8.4 and 8.5 give guidance on possible premiums for the
various systems on a tonne-for-tonne basis just taking material and site labour costs into
account. In effect they may be considered as being a measure of how the construction cost of
each system compares to the standard solution. Thus, on a measure of material and fixing
costs, blanket loose flexural reinforcement based on yield line design with ACI shear stirrups
would appear to be most economic or best practice.

The relative economy of the systems is indicated by the final column of Tables 8.4 and 8.5.
The economic ranking of the systems is robust over a relatively wide range of labour and
material costs. Even using the figures indicated by the Concrete Society interviewees (see
Table 8.2), where reinforcement is priced as low as €240/tonne, ‘rationalised’ loose bar and
blanket cover yield line still come out on top for flexural reinforcement, as do ACI stirrups,
ladders and studrail for shear reinforcement.

However time costs are more than just fixers’ costs, and the costs of preliminaries and
financing should be included.

95
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Table 8.4 Bending reinforcement cost equivalence


Floor Configuration Steel &/tonneso system matches the .
cost of "traditional" loose bar
reinforcement
1&2 Traditional loose bar €350 100%
3 "Rationalised" loose bar (contractor design) €361 * 103%*
4 Blanket loose bar €247 71%
4 Blanket loose bar (yield line analysis) €378 108%
5 Designed one way mats €310 89%
6 Blanket two way mats (finite element €2 74
78%
analysis)
* Compared with Table 7.5 figures for Floor 3 have been adjusted down (from €401 and 115%) to account for the
extra 1.G tonnes of reinforcement that would have been required had Floor 3 been subject to the same deflection
criteria as the other floor slabs (cost of rebar @€350/tonnes becomes €5,959). No adjustment has been made to the
value-adding man-hour costs of placing this steel (despite the observation "time savings [on Floor 31 have
essentially all arisen from reduced mass of steel").

Table 8.5 Shear systems cost equivalence


~

Floor Shear system Steel &/tonneso system matches the


cost of 'traditional' shear
reinforcement
1&2 Shape code 85 €350 100%
3 Shape code 85 (contractor design) - E248 -71%
4 ACI stirrups €1,370 391%
4 Shear ladders €899 257%
5 Shear hoops i605 173%
5 Stud rails €983 281%

Time
Major improvements in fixing reinforcement and critical path time on site cannot be obtained
simply through rationalising at the detailing stage: rationalisation must embrace the whole
process in order to get worthwhile benefits on site.

On site, rationalisation appears to help only marginally, but, nonetheless, perceptibly and
usefully. Changing standard arrangements on an ad-hoc basis might confuse as much as it
helps. On the other hand a radical change in methods of providing shear reinforcement can
reap real rewards.

The use of proprietary systems and meshes is far more prevalent on large projects where one
suspects that the value of time is valued highly. Perhaps these methods should be adopted far
more widely.

Critical path time and production rates


There was some consistency in the amount of time the reinforcement took to fix. This
amounted to five days per floor for loose bar and four days for mats. During this period, many

96
8 Discussion

construction processes were operating in parallel and a'precise calculation of true 'critical path
time' would be extremely complex and not, in Lorien's opinion, appropriate in this case. In
multi-storey construction reductions in the critical path time is, of course, vital. Production
rates are notoriously difficult and time-consuming to obtain, interpret and evaluate and
coefficients of variation are exceptionally high. To detect a 10% difference in production rates
between systems with 90% confidence limits (typical in manufacturing) a sample size of 40
would have been required for each system. Clearly obtaining this level of certainty is not
feasible. It is not surprising that planners apply a significant degree of judgement to
production rates in order to obtain critical path times, knowing that resources can be revised
to suit production. This situation does not help instil confidence in the concrete frame
market's customers.

The blanket loose bar solutions present an anomaly in that the expected quicker fixing rates
were not found - probably due to the fact that only half a floor of each configuration was
used.

Off-site processes: Correspondence


The process maps in Chapter 5 show the differences between the different methods of
procurement tried out on the frame at Cardington - traditional, contractor detailing, and
contractor and supplier design. The amounts of correspondence (for correspondence read
amounts of time, money, work) as illustrated in Figures 5.9 and 5.10, were significantly
greater for the 'contractor's design co-ordinator' for non-traditional methods of procurement
than for the traditional methods. This may have been due to unfamiliarity of the parties to the
various arrangements or a manifestation of the flows of information, checks and reviews that
are traditionally undertaken by the engineer.

The amount of correspondence (Table 8.6) might also have been related to timescale and
criticality of information. The traditional design was completed months before construction
and there was little pressure to issue information; the design could be reviewed and detailed in
a leisurely way. This was not the case for the contractor detailed or contractor designed and
detailed slabs, which were designed and detailed during the early stages of construction at
Cardington. Issue of information became critical as construction became imminent and the
designers and detailers did not have the luxury of having as much time as perhaps they would
have liked to check, review, and co-ordinate. Revisions were therefore more likely to be, and
indeed were, required. The philosophy of Just-in-Time delivery of information is just as
important as Just-in-Time delivery of materials, but perhaps information cannot be managed
as easily.

This exercise might have been imperfect but has indicated bamers to the adoption of non-
traditional methods of procuring reinforcement for slabs. Whilst these methods may provide
efficiencies on site there is a price to be paid by the designer andor contractor and supplier in
terms of extra effort and correspondence in areas where they do not necessarily have
experience. Not only is there apparently extra cost, but there is also additional risk. What are
the rewards for innovation? In traditional contracts perhaps not a lot; in non-traditional
contracts there is maybe some reward.

Every construction project demands an immense amount of innovation to make all the
conflicting requirements come together in a satisfactory way. Innovation seemingly creates
correspondence, work and the need for time and money to be spent managing it. In large
projects there is surely an amount of innovation fatigue: more innovation for scant reward is
not what construction teams need. Innovation has to be worthwhile and has to be proved as
such.

97
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

The amounts of correspondence may be seen as a measure of the time, money and hassle
needed to manage a system. Undoubtedly the novelty of certain systems caused
correspondence to be initiated and the survey suggests that this may present a barrier to
innovation.

Table 8.6 Contractor's design co-ordinator's correspondence


~~~ ~

Correspondence regarding Location Numbers of correspondents


Traditional loose bar Floor 1 2 originators ave. 3.25 recipients
~~

Traditional loose bar Floor 2 2 originators ave. 3.25 recipients


Rationalised loose bar (contractor design) Floor 3 2 originators ave. 5.5 recipients
~~ ~~ ~

Blanket loose bar; (N- yield line: S- elastic) Floor 4 2 originators ave. 5 recipients
Designed one way mats Floor 5 5 originators ave 4.8 recipients
Blanket two way mats (finite element anal) Floor 6 4 originators ave 5.25 recipients
Shape code 85 (SC 85) Floors 1 , 2 & 3 No special correspondence
ACI stirrups (prefab on site) Floor 4E 2 originators ave. 2.5 recipients
Shear ladders Floor 4W 2 originators ave. 4.5 recipients
Stud rails Floor 5E 1 originator 3 recipients
~

Shear hoops Floor 5W 2 originators ave. 4 recipients


Shear studs Floor 6E 2 originators ave. 2 recipients
~~

SC 85 [the rest of Floor 6) Floor 6W 1 originator 1 recipient


Structural steel heads (A2, B2) Floor 6Wb 2 originators ave. 1.5 recipients

General comments
The reinforcement was detailed and was to be fixed as if it were for seven floors of the same
reinforcement configuration. One of the main problems for the researchers lay in the fact that
the number of configurations being looked at meant that in many cases only half of one floor
was actually reinforced in the same way - and then half of that had different shear provision.
In order to attain 10% confidence limits in productivity results, 40 repetitions would have
been needed. In reality, 40 similar floors never happens. (Proverbs"') suggests 60 repetitions
for 5% confidence limits). It is not surprising that productivity information in the industry in
general varies and is anecdotal.

In hindsight it was unfortunate that, due to the pressure on space and the compromises
required, it was not possible to devote whole floors to blanket cover elastic design and blanket
cover yield line design. The results for finite element analysis were perhaps hampered by
being implemented with two-way mats (or vice versa).

98
8 Discussion

8.4 Integration of results


General
The intention in this section is to compare the various forms of reinforcement used at
Cardington on an overall cost basis. Lorien’s research looked at material and labour costs but
stopped short of looking at the benefits from the reduction of critical path time. However, the
effect on critical path time is fundamental to the overall economics that should be applied to
each system.

The primary objective of this project is to disseminate meaningful guidance on the


rationalisation of reinforcement aimed at designers, clients, their advisors and contractors.
The simplest way to put any message across is to express the research findings in terms the
target audience will understand - money. The usual method is to look at costs per square
metre; and these are what are investigated here. Estimates of critical path time savings are
used to determine time-cost savings. These savings are added to the savings in, or more likely,
additional costs of, labour, plant and materials used in the various systems in order to
compare the systems on an overall cost basis.

It is recognised that the Cardington data set was affected by a number of factors. These factors, in
Lorien’s opinion, rendered more sophisticated analysis inappropriate. However, for the purposes of
thls study, the important issue is to understand the order of costs involved and likely winners and not
be too concerned with the finer detail. The Cardington data is the best comparative data available. It
was also possible to check this data against commercial data fi-omthe concrete frame industry.

Labour and material rates are notoriously variable. All market rates have a certain volatility,
the effects of which might invalidate this exercise of integrating results. Nonetheless the
exercise provides a valuable means of comparing overall costs.

In essence, the following studies are based on considering the time and materials used at
Cardington in relation to current commercial rates and likely finance charges. The research by
Lorien and the University of Reading provided the tools with which these aspects were
comprehended and compared. The Cardington time data was checked against other data.

To provide the overview, and to integrate the findings, a spreadsheet was constructed based
on using:
0 RCC’s Cost model as a basis for comparison.
0 Productivity information from Cardington and el~ewhere‘~’)
Weight information from Cardington
0 Cost information from Clapson(’’), Loried3’), University of Reading (26) and others(2”40)
0 The cost of time to the relevant parties to the contract as in The University of Reading’s
report cost oftinze(’)
Commercial cost and time data from correspondence

Method
Labour and material costs
Labour and material costs were derived from Cardington and other data(”*”* 26* 38* 40) . The
timings from Cardington were checked by using commercial labour rates per tonne and per hour.

Whether the rates used are valid for individual projects is debatable. On an individual project,
there are so many variables that contracting companies have to rely on the experience of their

99
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

estimators and make suitable allowance. Nonetheless, in relation to the rates used here,
members of the concrete frame industry have been consulted and the answers are based on
their collective understanding, and were considered valid. It is hoped that they are valid for
the general case.

Plant costs
It is assumed that placing and fixing is by hand and that the type and size of crane, or other
type of plant, required will be unaffected by the type of reinforcement configuration
employed. Any savings due to plant time savings is assumed to be included in with time-
based preliminaries costs.

Critical time
In Lorien's research, time was measured as being either value-adding or non-value-adding.
Non-value-adding time might be in the form of waiting, obtaining information, eating etc.
Time could also be on the critical path or not.

In order to assess critical path time, the value-adding time data from Cardington was used. A
number of assumptions were made (e.g. constant productivity and gang sizes) and checked
against specialist subcontractors' assessments.

The assessment of critical path time is almost always subjective. Whilst there are some
ground rules, assessing critical times appears to be more of an art than a science. Planners
may apply basic rules but they apply many modification factors based on the many variables
of the specific project and individual company methods. Planners tend to guard,their methods
jealously. On site, managers have many ways of changing outputs on site (increase labour,
overtime, etc.). Taking into account the problem of acquiring accurate productivity data('9)
and the vagaries of construction sites, it would seem unwarranted, for this exercise at least, to
apply more scientific methods. Lorien also warned against using the existing dataset for
relatively sophisticated analysis! !

Time costs
The basic costs of time have been determined in their research by the University of Reading.
In order to assimilate these costs with those for material and labour, it is necessary to relate
them all to actual buildings or at least financial breakdowns on actual buildings. Finance
charges (or the cost of time) increase with size of building. But each project differs in size,
complexity, location, time frame and market conditions. Here, in order to provide overall
guidance, it is necessary to assess the finances on a range of buildings and it is advantageous
to base studies on simple physical models. The opportunity has been taken to use the
relatively simple models in the RCC's Cost model study(*') to provide guidance data. The
study provides a suitable basis as it gives a breakdown on costs on a range of buildings, and
the concrete model buildings used flat slab construction with spans the same as those used at
Cardington.

Apportioning costs and savings


Costs cannot simply be added together. As recognised by the University of Reading the costs
(and savings) vary for different parties to a contract. So the incentives and therefore priorities
may also be different.

Different forms of contract affect how costs or savings are apportioned between parties.
Therefore, the effects on specialist subcontractors, main contractors and clients were studied
with respect to traditional forms of contract and two of the main alternatives, Construction
Management, and Design and Build. As illustrated, there are considerations as to whether the
innovative methods are adopted pre- or post- contract i.e. in the original design or as an

100
8,Discussion

alternative to an existing design. Having investigated all these options, the costs and savings
were apportioned and, by use of a spreadsheet aggregated and presented in a series of graphs
which are presented in Appendix VIII.

Caveats
It is far from easy to arrive at costings with any great certainty or precision. Many factors
influence decisions taken on individual projects - not just financial factors. Prices change with
market demand. Other processes in the construction process may be critical; labour can be
switched from one task to another. Yet, investigating ballpark figures will, it is believed, give
an insight into the significance and value of rationalisation of reinforcement. Making
educated guesses (or speculating) using measured and historical rates should, it was hoped,
give useful guidelines.

There are many dangers and difficulties in arriving at these costings. Amongst these is putting
too much credence on the data from Cardington. Wherever possible they have been calibrated
against commercial knowledge or specialist opinion. Another presumption is that rationalisation
as innovation has benefits quantifiable in terms of Urn2.It presumes that performance and quality
are not compromised, indeed, may be improved.

Labour and material costs


Labour content check
Figure 8.7 attempts check the Cardington time data by comparing the material and labour
costs found at Cardington for the various configurations of flexural reinforcement with
average historical commercial rates for the various configurations of flexural reinforcement.
There appears to be reasonably good correlation.

.- 1

J
5-
U

-
0
0
L
m
c
U)

E
n 6
al 3
M

L
-
0 2"
c

c
1
0 m
% 5
p:
Type of reinforcement

i --.CMakrial+Labour (msd time)Am


--cMaterial+Labour(msd time) High
-__ -Mterial+Labour( timeltonne)Am
... ... Material+Labour ( timellonne) High
I

--c Material+Labour(msd time) Low -- I. Material+Labour( timellonne) Low

Figure 8.7 Comparison between costs of reinforcement (labour plus material): derived from
Cardingtod3@(msd time) and commercial rates(*')(timekonne)

101
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement ._

The main anomalies are that the figures derived from Cardington data appear to show blanket
cover loose bar (yield line design) and mats in a relatively unfavourable light compared to
more traditional methods of reinforcing flat slabs.

Of more significance is the range between high and low costs (approximately 30% of the
average) which is indicative not only of fluctuations in market prices but also lack of hard
productivity data and perhaps different pricing policies.

Costs/m2
Applying the range of supply and fming costs(15, 25. 38. 40) to the quantities and timings fi-om the
Cardington project gwes a range of 'material and labour costs' for the different configurations of
reinforcement at Cardington. These are presented as Figures 8.8 and 8.9.

Bla-k&loosebar(yieJd
lined)

0 5 10 15 a3 25
costurrp

Figure 8.8 Costs of material plus labour for flexural reinforcement


Labour and Material Costs
Shear reinforcement

Ancotech Shear stuc s

SC 85 (Floor 6 design)

S.S.shear heads
1
Deha Stud rai s

Square Grip She; r


hoops

ROM Shearladde-s

ACI stirrups
lr
I 1
b
' SC 85 (Contract r
design)

I SC 85 (Buro Hap .)

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00


Cost Elm2

Figure 8.9 Costs (material plus labour) per square metre for punching shear reinforcement

102
8 Discussion

The range is indicative only and subject to commercial pricing that may differ from time to time.
Products also change (e.g. ROM shear ladders have been developed M e r since their use at
Cardington). Part of the spreadsheet from which Figures 8.8 and 8.9 are derived is presented in
Appendix IV. The spreadsheetused costs from a series of interviews conducted by the University of
Reading(2s)..Table 8.7 is included to put these figures in context.

Table 8.7 Base reinforcement supply and fixing costs - materials and labour only
Supply only Fix Total
&/ton &/ton &/ton
~~ ~~

Cost comparisons -1991"


Cut & bent bars 225 130 355
Standard fabric 245 65 3 10
Purpose made fabric 275 65 340
Other prefabricated units 485 65 550
~

Cost comparisons 1997


Cut & bent bars 242 240' 5252
Standard fabric 3253 1054 4702
Purpose made fabric 387 1054 535*
Lorien 1998
Cut & bent bars 350 150' 500
Notes
a Estimate of average market prices, Autumn 1991 - Clap~on('~)
b Estimate of average market prices, Autumn 1998 - University of Reading (")
c Figures represent an estimate Autumn 1998 - Loried3')
I Labour costs €275 to €70/tonne depending on diameter. However some contractors lump all diameters together,
some go by diameter. Flat slabs 10%less, troughs 5% more, waffles 15% more
2 Tie wire, spacers and chairs €8/tonne, Wastage 2%, Overheads and Profits 5%
3 €320 to f335ltonne
4 Based on A393 at €0.65/m2
5 €15O/tonne for fixing is equated to €21.65/hr material and labour costs

Punching shear reinforcement


Figure 8.9 is based on 43m2 of floor per column (in line with the Cost model study buildings).
At Cardington each column actually supports an average of 34m2of floor. Even with this 25%
increase in relative costs , the costs of shear systems are relativeley small compared with the
cost of flexural reinforcement.

It must be emphasised that this figure graph is based on very little data, particularly with
respect to productivity. Indicative prices from manufacturers were only that - indicative for
the purpose of research. As an indication, the labour and material costs of the various systems
are in the order of:
€25/column for ACI stirrups
€50 - €SO/column for traditional links
€75/column for proprietary stud rails, ladders, etc
€2OO/column for stuctural steel shear heads.

103
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Comparing costs
Lorien chose to make comparisons on the basis of how highly a type of reinforcement could
be priced to be directly comparable with traditional methods. This is a valid technique,
particularly in the manufacturing field. Lorien also showed that the relative economics of the
various systems were not too sensitive to the relation between labour and material costs..
However they did not account for the possible finance cost savings on the whole building
through reduction of critical path time which was held to be tremendously important.

Critical time
In order to assess differences in critical path time a number of assumptions were made and
then applied to the labour times measured at Cardington. The assumptions were based on best
estimates then compared with specialist trade contractors' thoughts on critical path time
savings. Whilst the original assumptions gave a basic agreement, the actual numbers used
were adjusted to give a best fit match. Thus a permanent fixing gang of three working an 8
hour day was assumed. Further, it was assumed that 66% of the flexural bar fixing operation
was on the critical path and 100% of shear reinforcement fixing was on the critical path.

Although inconclusive, the graph in Figure 8.10 shows some consistency between measured
and perceived time saving. The main anomalies occur in regard to blanket loose bar for both
elastic and yield line design and for structural steel shear heads. The difference for blanket
loose bar was probably due to the fact that only '/z a floor of each was used. It is
acknowledged that using two systems on Floor 4 severely affected time and productivity
measurement. The procurement and placement of structural steel shear heads at Cardington
was very difficult and this is perhaps reflected in the difference between measured time and
perception of their potential for saving time.

-
Time savings per floor measured and perceived
2.00 4
~.
-1 I

p 1.00
5
rn
v)
v)
2,

d 0.00

-1 .oo

Figure 8.10 Time savings per floor cycle - comparing as 'measured' at Cardington and as
perceived by specialist subcontractors

The assumptions about gang sizes, working day and criticality mode made above are not
unreasonable for a building the size of that at Cardington. But as illustrated by events at
Cardington gang sizes (gang numbers), working hours and criticality of operations can vary
enormously. In practice site staff can juggle resources to achieve the desired end e.g. gang
size or gang make-up can be changed.

104
8 Discussion

Time costs
The financial effects of reduction of critical path time have been defined by the University of
Reading(3).Essentially there are two parts: savings in finance charges and increased rental,
which is in the domain of the client, and savings in preliminaries which is in the domain of
contractors. Depending on the form of contract and within that contract when any savings are
made, savings in preliminaries may be in the domain of the client.

Finance charges
The potential financial cost savings per day can be calculated using the Reading formula (see
note 2 to Table 8.1 and Section 4.4).

By integrating data from the RCC Cost model study (as amended and expanded by the
original cost consultants) it is possible to estimate the value of one day. In order to aggregate
these effects with those for the costs of materials and labour, it is necessary to assign some
figures to the variables (e.g. cost of borrowing, yields required etc). These numbers vary with
market conditions, but again, historical data can be applied in order to derive indications of
costs or cost savings. Again, the models from the RCC's cost model study were used. A
summary of these model buildings is given in Table 8.8 and the assumptions used and part of
the workings are shown in Appendix V. The variables used are shown in Table 8.9

Building I M4C3 M4C5 M4C7 M4C9 M62C3 M62C5 M62C7 M62C9


Nominal location Reading Rochdale
Specification Square in plan -1500 m2/floor Rectangular in plan -1500 m*/floor
Curtain wall glazing Traditional brickwork cladding
Air conditioned Naturally ventilated
Concrete structure - flat slabs Concrete structure - flat slabs
Construction cost 1992/3 E3.4m E5.4m E7.4m E9.4m E2.8m E4.5m E6.lm E7.8m
Construction cost 2000 E4.7m f7.5m E10.4m E13.2m E3.9m E6.3m f8.6m El.Om
Construction period 52 wks 57 wks 62wks 67 wks 53 wks 58 wks 63 wks 68 wks

RCC Cost model study buildings


The M4C3 building is assumed to be located in Reading, a three-storey concrete frame,
square in plan with air conditioning and curtain walling. The M4C7 building is similar but
with seven storeys. The figures for the M4C5 and M4C9 buildings were interpolated from the
M4C3 and M4C7 buildings.

The M62C3 building is assumed to be located in Rochdale, a three-storey concrete frame with
two rectangular wings, natural ventilation and traditional brick cladding. The M62C7 building
is similar but with seven storeys. Again figures for the M62C5 and M62C9 buildings were
interpolated from data for the M62C3 and M62C7 buildings.

All buildings incorporated concrete flat slabs on a 7.5 m x 7.5 m grid. Floor plates had an area
of 1500 m2 and based on a 1991 survey the three-storey buildings were considered to be
'average sized' multi-storey offices.

Land acquisition and demolition costs were taken from conversations with the Cost model
cost consultants who also advised on cost indices from the original study done in
sttrdy's
199213 to the present (2000).

105
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Table 8.9 Assumptions made in determining the cost of time for the model buildings - finance
Variable Value Comment
Time saving dT 0.167 Weeks. i.e one day in a six day week assumed.
Nominal rate for borrowing pa 9% Say base plus 3%
Developers profit required 25% Typical - dependent on project and markets
Fees as percentage of construction cost 12% Design fees for new budd includmg Architect, Structural
Engineer, Services Engineer, Quantity Surveyor and
Letting Agent. Dependent on type ofproject
Yield required 9% Indicative for high quality office accommodation.
Dependent on project, location and markets
Costs of ownership/renting as %pa 1% Say
Gross yield required 10% Typically dependent on project and markets
Savings (cost) of preliminaries 0
1
Savings (cost) of materials /m2 0 } Allowed for elsewhere and ignored
Savings (cost) of labour /m2 0 } for the purposes of assessing differences
}in financecharges
Savings (cost) of materials /column 0 1 '
Savings (cost) of labour /column 0 1

Rental
Typical 2000 rentals for Reading and Rochdale were determined from discussion with a
developer. These values were used to moderate costs and values to maintain the relationship
Property value = Net irzcome/yield within reasonable bounds.

Preliminaries
As mentioned above, savings in main and specialist subcontract preliminaries may, depending
on the type of contract and its stage, be shared amongst the parties to the contract. Before
considering the distribution, it is worth understanding the size of those savings. The
assumptions made to derive savings in preliminaries are shown in Table 8.10 below.

Table 8.10 Assumptions made in determining the cost of time for the cost model buildings
for preliminaries
Assumption Value used Reference

Preliminaries: main contractor 5.50% From Cost model study("). 5.5% may be considered
time-based preliminaries as a as being low. Depending on the type of project - main
percentage of cost of contractor preliminaries can often be between 8% and
construction 12% or even 5% to 15%
Preliminaries: specialist 10% From discussions with main and specialist
subcontractor time-based subcontractors
preliminaries as percentage of
cost of subcontract
% of savings passed on by 50% From discussions with main and specialist
specialist subcontractor to main subcontractors. Contractors are not obliged in all
contractor contractual cases to pass any savings on and 50%
may be regarded as a maximum. In other cases it may
% of savings passed on by main 50% be a matter of negotiation. Similar figures are used
contractor to client when passing on labour andor material cost savings.

106
8 Discussion

Theoretical savings per day


The theoretical savings in preliminaries, finance charges and, in the case of owner/occupiers
(or speculative developers with rental agreements in place), gain in rent, may be added
together. Figure 8.11 represents savings available to each of the parties involved in a contract
per day saved, (assuming no net labour or material costs).

The data used in the graph are based on the assumptions given in the previous two tables and
on the Cost model buildings. The graph should be regarded as being indicative only.
The three storey buildings may be regarded as ‘average’ size (4500 m’), so the graph may be
regarded as being applicable to the median to large end of the market. The savings per square
metre per day saved are also be expressed in tabular form in Table 8.1 1:

Depending on contractual arrangements, parties may or may not have to pass any savings on.
The parties are defined here as being
Specialist subcontractor;
0 Main contractor (or construction manager)
0 Clients subject to finance charges e.g. speculative clients without pre-let;
Owner/ occupier client subject to finance charges and rental income (e.g. speculative client
with pre-let agreement or owner/ occupier).

Figure 8.12 shows that in monetary terms the potential savings are far greater for clients than
they are for contractors. Savings increase with size of building - very significantly so for
clients. It becomes worthwhile to pay for one-off costs of innovation. Ignoring opportunity
costs, time savings are far more valuable for owner/occupiers, andor developers with tenants
than for speculative developers without tenants.

Possible savings per day saved

T-

P
U
0
n
m
.-2
U)

w
6000

4000

2000

0 4
K*
L- -e---

M4C3 M4C5 M4C7 M4C9


Model building a
M62C3
-- -- -
M62C5 M62C7 M62C9

- -
-Specialist trade contractor prelims -Main conlrador - prelims

-+- Owner/ Occupier et& finance 8 rent +Speculative developer. finance

Figure 8.11 Possible savings per day saved (assuming no net labour or material costs)

107
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

If one day is saved every storey then the savings go up pro-rata with number of storeys. So
saving one day per floor on a nine storey building might save an owner/occupier client about
€0.81 x 9 x 12086 m2 = €88,000 on a E13.2 million project in Reading. (This figures is
approximately in line with the level of liquidated and ascertained damages (LADS)that might
be applied to late delivery of these projects.) For the specialist trade subcontractor the savings
would be approximately €8,700.

If nine days can be saved on a nine-storey building then the theoretical €7.29/m2 (9 x €0.81)
time-related savings make a large impact on the premium for using say blanket cover two-
way mats and finite element design. On smaller buildings the effect is much smaller (e.g. on
M4C3, 3 x €0.78 = €2.34/m2) and therefore perhaps changing from least material cost
solutions for flexural reinforcement may not be warranted.

For shear systems costing say €75/column (say €1 .50/m2) if the system saves even two days
overall it is a worthwhile proposition for owner/occupier clients.

Assuming one day is equivalent to 0.2 of a week instead of 0.167 of a week would increase
monetary savings by 17%. Assuming the main contractor‘s preliminaries were 10% as
opposed to 5.5% would almost double the value of the savings from their preliminaries costs.

From Table 8.11 it can be seen that there are greater savings for the main contractors and
clients on the M4 buildings than on the M62 buildings. This appears to be because the latter
projects are more expensive, pro-rata and, for owner /occupiers, rentals are greater for the M4
buildings. The fact that the two halves of the M62 slabs could be effectively phased may also
lessen the effect of one day’s saving on the critical path of the slab construction process.
Savings for the specialist subcontractors are more per day on the M62 buildings due to the
fact that the structural content on the M62 buildings is proportionally more than on the M4
buildings and specialists are less affected by critical time.

Table 8.11 Value of time: Savings €/m2per day saved’


M4C3 M4C5 M4C7 M4C9 M62C3 M62C5 M62C7 M62C9
Specialist subcontractor - 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.09
prelims
Main contractor - 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.12
prelims
Speculative developer - 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20
finance
Owner/ occupier - . 0.78 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.64 0.57 0.54 0.53
finance & rent
NB # Indicative only.

The savings appear to be are broadly in line with the extent of a party’s involvement on a
project. It is revealing to compare savings with contract involvement. Figure 8.12 shows the
percentage saving for contractors, notably specialist subcontractors, falls with increased size
of project whereas it is constant for clients.

108
8 Discussion

0.14%

3
0
+ 0.04%.
0
s 0.02%

0.00%
M4C3 M4C5 M4C7 M4C9 M62C3 M62C5 M62C7 M62C9
Model bullding
- -Specialist sub mntrador prelims -Main mntraaor Drdims

+owner/ Ocnrpier etc. finance L rent +Speculativedeveloper ~ finance

Figure 8.12 Possible savings per day saved expressed as a percentage of contract value
(assuming no labour or material costs).

Apportioning costs and savings


In addition to considering the total and proportional savings, it should be recognised that
different forms of contract and indeed the stage of contract both affect how costs or savings
are apportioned and allocated between parties. There are considerations as to whether the non-
traditional methods are adopted pre- or post- contract i.e. in the original design or as an
alternative to an existing design. Table 8.12 attempts to identify who gains and who loses
from saving time and or materials. It also looks at when the innovation takes place.

Innovating pre-contract
Whatever form of contract, any savings in time or costs in adopting innovative methods pre-
contract should be reflected in the tender figures, and the beneficiary in monetary terms is the
client. Contractors benefit in that those who adopt more efficient methods are likely to win
more work. If they are confident that a particular innovation will not be used by competitors,
then they may be inclined to increase their margin.

As indicated in Table 8.12, when innovating pre-contract, the benefits of good innovation will
ultimately pass through to clients (not necessarily the same individual client) as they are
adopted in following tenders and proposals. They become norms against which other
innovations are judged.

Innovating post-contract
Many innovations are introduced post-contract. The pace of change and the duration of large
contracts mean that new innovations are constantly being introduced. Their applicability to a
particular project may only become apparent once contractors have been appointed and
serious work has started on the project. The work may have been let on outline information.

The beneficiaries of innovation post-contract vary depending on the type of contract and
individual circumstances. It is difficult to generalise but the essence of who should benefit is
set out in the three lower parts of Table 8.12. Again, many assumptions have been made but

109
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

the important issue is to recognise that there are differences in contractual arrangements that
lead to different motivations.

For instance, once a traditional contract is let, no design changes should, strictly, be made. In
practice contractors often make suggestions for alternatives. The incentive for the contractor
is cost savings. The incentive for the client is a share of the savings from preliminaries, labour
and materials and quicker delivery. It is a commercial decision just how much of the savings
are passed on. Should the client initiate quicker delivery then he will usually have to bear all
acceleration charges (consisting of additional labour and material costs etc).

With Construction Management contracts, the benefits of innovation would be expected to be


shared between client and contractor; the construction manager should also share in any savings
(for the purposes of this section the construction manager is equated to a main contractor). With
Design and Build contracts, the benefits would be expected to reside with the contractor.

Assuming the saving passed on by specialist subcontractors to main contractors is 50% and
the savings passed by main contractor to clients is 50%, the savings accruing to each party
may be quantified as in Table 8.13. Again, many assumptions have been made over
contractual arrangements and who pays for what. Nonetheless, the figures in this table were
used to apportion and aggregate savings.

110
8 Discussion

Table 8.12 Who gains from saving time on a concrete frame contract and who gains from
using less (and pays for additional) material?
Contractors Clients
Specialist Main Specialist Owner/
subcontractor developer occupier
(labour only) (developer with
pre-let)
Innovating pre contract (traditional, design and build, construction management)
Preliminaries* 3 3 + +
Labour 3 3 + +
~ _
Materials
_ _ _ _ _
Xb JC + +
Innovating post traditional contract
Preliminaries* .I= 43 + +
Labour .I= X d 3 +, e +,e
Materials X" $3 +. e +,e
Innovating post construction management contract
Preliminaries* .If- df3 .I .I
Labour .If> X d 3 .I .I
Materials X X .Ig Jg

Innovating post Design and Build contract


preliminaries* 4% .If X

Labour .If= .If X

Materials .If- .If X

Note Rental income, finance charges and opportunity costs are allowed for elsewhere.

Key
* As charges for plant are time-based, 'Plant' is assumed to be included in with preliminaries.
3 Savings passed on. If the innovation over 'traditional methods' is part of a tender then any savings (or costs)
would be expected to be passed on, at least in part from specialist subcontractor to main contractor to client. If
the innovation is introduced post-tender then different situations arise.
4 Savings accrued by relevant party
X No saving accrued by relevant party
a Accrued from contractors
b Assuming 'labour only' subcontract otherwise savings passed on
C Savings accrue from both 'labour only' and 'supply and fix' subcontracts
d Some savings in main contractor's labour and plant is inevitable, but items such as tower crane and banksmen
may be considered as included in preliminaries. Savings from subcontractors should be passed on.
e If the innovation is at clients request then he may have to bear all additional costs (or acceleration charges).
Savings should be shared.
f Assuming 'supply and fix' subcontract. Savings (or costs) maykhould be shared between specialist
subcontractor, CM or D&B contractor and in the case of CM, the client.
h Assuming 'labour only' subcontract otherwise savings shared
g The client usually pays for materials under CM contracts.

111
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Table 8.13 Savings accruing to parties to a contract.


Contractors Clients
Specialist sub- Main
contractor
Innovating pre contract (traditional, Design and Build, Construction Management)
Spec. subcontr: Preliminaries 0% 0% 100%
Main contr: Preliminaries 0% 0% . 100%
~~

Labour 0% 0% 100%
Materials 0% 0% 100%
Innovating post traditional contract
Spec. subcontr: Preliminaries 50% 25% 25%
Main conrt: Preliminaries 0% 50% 50%
Labour 50% 25% 25%
Materials 0% 50% 50%
Innovating post Construction Management contract
Spec. subcontr: Preliminaries 50% 25% 25%
Main contr: Preliminaries 0% 50% 50%
~~ ~ ~

Labour 5 0% 25% 25%


Materials 0% 0% 100%
Innovating post Design and Build contract
Spec. subcontr: Preliminaries 50% 50% 0%
Main contr: Preliminaries 0% 100% 0%
Labour 50% 5 0% 0%
Materials 50% 50% 0%

Theoretical overall savings per m2for flexural reinforcement


General
The following setions compare the savings from different ways of reinforcing flat slabs. They
are based on graphs that are reproduced in Appendix VI11 which themselves were derived
from a spreadsheet based on the assumptions made in the preceding sections.

The effects of adopting different methods of reinforcement vary depending on which party to
a contract is considered. They also vary according to which stage of a contract ‘traditional’
forms of reinforcement are replaced. These points are discussed under the next few headings.

112
8 Discussion

The graphs
Each graph has four sets of lines representing the savings (or losses) expected for four main
parties to a contract -
0 Specialist trade subcontractor
0 Main contractor (or equivalent)
0 Speculative clients (clients experiencing finance charges)
0 Clients subject to finance charges and to obtaining rent

Each set of lines is based on four points. The left hand point represents an average sized
multi-storey building of 4500m’ gross floor area on three storeys, M4C3 (M4 relates to the
M4 corridor, nominally Reading, C to concrete and 3 to three storeys). The right hand point of
each four represents a large building of approximately 13,000 m’ gross floor area on nine
storeys (M4C9). The intermediate points relate to buildings of approximately 7000m2on five
storeys (M4C5) and 10,000 mzon seven storeys (M4C7).

Innovating pre-contract (all forms of contract)


Please refer to Figures A-VIII. 1 to A-VIII.4

If innovations (or rationalisation) takes place before a contract is let then apart fiom helping
to win the contract which has its own value, no savings accrue to contractors.

Based on the data from Cardington, the best approach for clients appears to be to use
rationalised loose bar. The speed advantage of two-way mats with finite element design
appears to be advantageous for owner/ occupier clients when the project is two or three times
the average sized multi-storey building - say above 10,000 m2 and/or seven storeys.

Savings calculated using specialist subcontractors’ perceptions of time are broadly in


agreement with those based on the Cardington data. The striking exception is the contractors’
perceptions of time for blanket cover yield line design. This indicates the possibility for very
large savings to be made across all building sizes. The perceived time savings from using
two-way mats suggest that for owner/occupier clients, the two-way mats should be used in
buildings larger than, say, 6,000 m’.

In all cases results for one-way mats confirmed the view of the supplier that their use was
perhaps inappropriate for this type of construction.

Graphs for the M62 corridor, have similar sets of lines and points. It will be noted that the
savings over traditional methods are generally less than for the M4 buildings. As noted in
relation to Table 8.1 1, this is probably due to the fact that the M4 buildings are more
expensive pro-rata and, for owner /occupiers, rentals are greater for the M4 buildings and
therefore time is more critical.

Innovating post traditional contract


Please refer to Figures A-VIII.5 to A-VIII.8

When the innovation occurs post traditional contract, contractors derive some benefit. From
the Cardington data it is most advantageous for the specialist subcontractor to use two-way
mats as he is not paying for the material under the labour only subcontract assumed!
Otherwise the rationalised approach appears to give best value for all parties. For
owner/occupiers or clients with a pre-let on larger than average buildings, there would be
savings in using two way mats on large buildings. Again the perceptions of specialist
subcontractors are in line with what was measured on Cardington and, again, there would
appear to be worthwhile savings from using yield line design.

113
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Innovating post Construction Management contract


Please refer to Figures A-VIII.9 and A-VIII.10

As main contractors share in the time savings they, as well as specialist subcontractors,
benefit by using two-way mats on all types of building. For owner/occupier clients, two-way
mats have advantages over rationalised loose bar only in large scale buildings (say greater
than 7500 m2 and/or five storeys). As the balance of who pays for extra material shifts fi-om
contractor to client so the attractiveness of using more material shifts from client to
contractor.

Innovating post Design and Build contract


Please refer to Figures A-VIII. 11 and A-VIII. 12

Here it would be in the client's interests to go for two-way mats as in this case he does not
pay for the additional material!,The opportunity for reinforcement arrangements based on
yield line design is again clear. Otherwise rationalised arrangements appear to be most
economic.

Theoretical overall savings per m2for shear reinforcement


General
The graphs showing savings by using innovative shear reinforcement were constructed and
are presented in the same manner as those for flexural reinforcement in Appendix VIII. All
graphs are based on Cardington data and timings.

Please refer to Figures A-VIII. 13 and A-VIII.2 1

Commentary on shear systems


The graphs for shear systems are consistent in showing that there are benefits in using ACI
shear stirrups or proprietary shear systems in all the flat slab buildings considered in all the
contractual situations considered. Clients always benefit. Contractors benefit if the systems
are introduced post-contract and no one loses. The benefits are greater for larger buildings and
for the M4 buildings.

The ACI stirrups came out particularly favorably. They are liked because:
0 They are cheap and easy to fix
0 They may be prefabricated off the critical path
0 They can be designed, detailed and procured in the same way as the usual flexural
reinforcement
There is no specialist design or separate design/ procurement process required.

However, one of the assumptions made was that the alternative systems used at Cardington
would give equal or better structural performance and quality. It would appear that the ACI
stirrups are performing perfectly adequately: there is no suggestion that they are not. These
shear stirrups are used in the USA and are covered by the Building Code Requirements, in
ACI 3 1S(33).In Cardington they were designed on the basis of this code. Unfortunately there is
no direct equivalent design method accepted in UK and even in America there appears to be
some doubt about their use particularly when holes are present near columns. As the USA
market moves towards post-tensioned floors, it appears(4')to be moving away from stirrups
towards stud rails. These points were covered in correspondence parts of which are
reproduced below.

114
8 Discussion

“The ACIprocedure is what is used for design of these elements, but it is dejinitely
vague when it comes to designing around openings near the column. A number of
creative details such as using two stirrup cages to flank the opening, are used but no
consensus exists. ”

“Your ‘ACI stirrups’ seem to be what was typically used here (and is still used in
some parts of the country). They have somewhat gone out offashion because they are
less effective and create more congestion in the thinner post-tensioned slab sections
now being used, particularly at the slab/columnjoint. (The Americans are using 7 to
8 inch thick (180 to 205 mm) flat slabs for many of their hotel and condominium
projects with spans in the 26 to 30 foot range (7.9 m to 9.1 m)). Shear reinforcement
systems are less congestive around the columns.”

“I agree with all of your reasons for wanting to use them, especially the abilig for
the rebar supplier to supply, but the stud rails definitely allow easierplacement of the
slab rebar andp/t around the column. ”

It must be stated that American subcontractors supply shop drawings for review prior to
construction so have a better chance of using the system they prefer. *

In conclusion, there are some questions against the design of ACI stirrups, especially with
regard to holes. Their general use cannot therefore be advocated before these questions are
resolved. At the time of writing (September 2000), The Concrete Society’s Shear
Reinforcement Working Party is considering the design of ACI stirrups to BS 81 10 and EC2.

‘Traditional’ links were used in Floors I and 2 using Buro Happold’s design, in Floor 3 to the
contractor’s design and in Floor 6 to Buro Happold’s design again. The three lines on the
graphs for shape code 85 links illustrate the vagaries of nominally the same design and the
importance of the time element in the overall costs. The base line (zero savings) is an average
of the traditional links used in Floors 1 and 2. In Floor 3, the contractors design resulted in
many more links to be fixed. In Floor 6 the link spacings reverted to those used on Floors 1
and 2 yet the fixing was 20% quicker than on Floors 1 and 2. The savings on Floor 6 might be
regarded as representing the difference in measuring virtually the same operation at two
different levels. The savings, of between €1.00/m2and €2.50/m2 for clients with pre-lets,
might be indicative of the variations or errors in measurement or of quality of labour, or may
be an indication of the effect of the regularity of the mesh to which the shape code 85 links
were fixed.

On Floor 3 the links were placed at closer centres than was necessary, consequently there
were many more links to be fixed (6215/floor c.f. 1425/floor on Floors 1, 2 and 6). The
additional cost of theses links, of between approximately €3.00/m2 and €8.00/m2 for clients
with pre-lets, is indicative of the importance of time costs.

There remains the ‘no link’ option where flexural reinforcement is increased to the extent that
traditional punching shear reinforcement is not required. This option is only really viable with
relatively large columns and/or thick slabs. The commercial pressure to minimize size of
columns and thickness of slabs would appear to make the no-link option even less viable on
medium-rise buildings. On a cost of material and labour basis, the no-link option might be
economic where the cost of the additional reinforcement is less that the cost of proprietary
systems i.e. less than approximately €2/m2 overall. This equates to say, €8/m2 locally over
columns - equivalent to approximately 1500 mm2/m both ways locally over columns.
However the advantage is lost if the thickness of the slab needs to increase or complicated
reinforcement details arise.

115
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

If traditional shape code 85 links are used then their numbers should be minimized by
designing for and specifying the maximum possible spacings.

Of course the designer must be considered. He/she has a choice of several systems and does
not want to be, nor should be, drawn to the expense of redesigning. He/she may be assured
that each proprietary system appears to give the same order of benefit to clients and contractor
and the choice might be based on designer or contractor preference in terms of design or
procurement process.

The savings are a function of number of storeys and to lesser extent type of contract. Time
savings are of the utmost importance. In money terms contractors do not benefit nearly as
much as clients do from saving time.

Margins of error
Margins of error are very difficult to estimate. On Floor 3, for instance, in order to make the
floors directly comparable on a structural basis, it was assumed for the purposes of costing
that the rationalised arrangement of reinforcement contained 17.0 tonnes of flexural
reinforcement rather than the 15.3 tonnes actually placed. On the materials side this
assumption may have added approximately E0.50/m2 to the costs of measured material and
labour. It is generally held that rationalisation leads to increased weight so this adjustment
might be regarded as an underestimate. A 5% increase in weight over the traditionally
designed and detailed Floors 1 and 2 would indicate an additional E0.30/m2 increase due to
material costs: a 10% increase in weight would indicate an additional i0.60/m2.

It was also assumed that the value adding time to place this rationalised reinforcement would
have remained at 108 hours. Lorien reported that the rationalised design is not inherently
significantly easier to fix than the traditional and that time savings essentially all arose from
reduced mass of steel. From the bending schedules it would appear that 2488 bars were fixed
in Floor 3. If deflection had actually been a requirement it is estimated that another 154 bars
would have been required (see Appendix I). While these additional bars represent some 6% of
bar numbers they comprised no additional bar marks. Actual fixing may have increased by
6% but unloading, storing, finding, lifting and sorting would have been largely unaffected. A
6% increase in labour would have represented approximately an additional €0.25/m2using the
Cardington data or €0.36/m2 using data derived from commercial rates. In total, the margm of
error on material and labour costs on Floor 3 might be in the order of €0.50 to €1.00/m2.

There were also anomalies in the data from Cardington. For instance the expected quicker rate
for fixing blanket loose bar to the yield line design was not found. It is possible the problems
on Floor 4 (explained in Appendix I11 Supplement 2) created this result. But there were
construction problems on all floors. The shape code 85 (SCSS) shear arrangements on Floor 6
were fixed some 20% faster (or up to E2/m2 cheaper) on Floor 6 than on Floors 1 and 2
although they were identical.

There is also the problem of assessing market rates for materials and labour. Upper and lower
bounds have been considered but these may be inappropriate for use on a specific project to
be undertaken by a specific contractor.

It is the author’s opinion that errors in the assessment .of savings possible in flexural
reinforcement may be in the order of €Urn2. As discussed above, the savings emanating from
the shape codes 85s on Floor 6 of between €1.00/m2 and E2.50/m2 might be indicative of
errors in measurement. At these levels the gist of the conclusions and recommendations are
unaffected. However, the need for better productivity data is highlighted.

116
8 Discussion

8.5 Best value


If best value is indicated by the form of construction that is most economic for each party to
the contract, then the recommendations are given in Table 8.14.

Table 8.14 Flexural reinforcement: best practice from Cardington weight and time data
Party
Specialist Main contractor Client Owner/ occupier
subcontractor client2
Innovating pre- No real preference other than to win Rationalised loose bar Rationalised loose bar.
contract (all work i.e. rationalised loose bar as for Large buildings - two-
forms of clients way mats and and finite
contract) element design
Innovating post Two-way mats Rationalised loose Rationalised loose bar. Rationalised loose bar.
traditional and finite bar. Very large buildings - Large buildings - two-
contract element design two-way mats and and way mats and finite
finite element design element design
Innovating post Two-way mats Two-way mats Rationalised loose bar. Rationalised loose bar.
Construction and finite and finite element Large buildings - two-
Management element design design way mats and finite
contract element design
Innovating post Rationalised Rationalised loose Two-way mats and Two-way mats and
Design and loose bar. bar. finite element design finite element design
Build contract

Notes
Large buildings are defined here as those substantially larger than 4500m2total on three floors
I Clients subject to finance charges e.g. speculative clients without pre-let
2 Owner/ occupier client subject to finance charges and rental income e.g. speculative client with pre-let
agreement or owned occupier.

It may be seen that, depending on the circumstance (e.g. who pays for materials) different
arrangements of reinforcement provide best value to different parties to the contract. From the
work at Cardington it would appear that, generally, rationalised loose bar is the most
economic form. In large buildings, those substantially larger than 4500m2 total on three
floors, two-way mats come to the fore.

However, using the perceptions of time saved according to the specialist subcontractors the
best value method in most cases would appear to be the use of yield line design, as shown in
Table 8.15

With regard to shear reinforcement, ACI stirrups came out very favourably but, as explained
previously, there are some questions about their design, especially with regard to their use
near to holes. Their general use cannot therefore be advocated until these questions are
resolved. In the meantime, proprietary systems such as stud rails and shear ladders are to be
recommended. They provide benefits across a wide range of buildings, contracts and parties
to a contract. Best practice for use of shear reinforcement based on the Cardington data is
summed up in Table 8.16.

117
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement s.

Table 8.15 Flexural reinforcement: best practice according to the perceptions of specialist
trade contractors
Partv
Specialist sub Main contractor Client ' Owner/ occupier
contractor client2
~

Innovating pre- No real preference other than to win Yield line Yield line
contract (all work i.e. use those preferred by client
forms of
contract)
Innovating post Two-way mats Yield line Yield line Yield line
traditional and finite Very large buildings -
contract element design two-way mats and finite
element design
Innovating post Two-way mats Two-way mats and Yield line Yield line
Construction and finite finite element
Management element design design
contract
Innovating post Yield line Yield line Two-way mats and Two-way mats and
Design and Build finite element finite element design
contract design

Notes
Large buildings are defined here as those substantially larger than 4500m2 total on three floors
1 Clients subject to finance charges e.g. speculative clients without pre-let
2 Owner/ occupier client subject to finance charges and rental income e.g. speculative client with pre-let
agreement or owner/ occupier.

Table 8.16 Shear reinforcement: best value from Cardington weight and time data

Specialist Main contractor Client ' Owner/


subcontractor occupier client'

Innovating pre-contract (all No real preference other than to win ACI shear stirrups'
forms of contract) work i.e. use those preferred by clients then shear studs and shear ladders
Innovating post traditional
contract
ACI shear stirrups3
Innovating post Construction
then shear studs and shear ladders
Management
- contract
Innovating post Design and
Build contract

Notes
1 Clients subject to finance charges e.g. speculative clients without pre-let
2 Owner/ occupier client subject to finance charges and rental income e.g. speculative client with pre-let
agreement or owner/ occupier
3. The general use of ACI stirrups cannot at present be advocated.

118
8 Discussion

8.6 Concluding remarks


The above integration of results is a subjective assessment. There are many caveats:
Are these man-hour savings realisable as overall time savings on a contract?
If the reinforcement becomes a quicker operation does another process become critical?
Are we more interested in certainty of delivery (e.g. hit the pour date) than in overall
timescales?
Are there effects that are determined by size of building i.e. is practicality dependent on
size (e.g. numbers of types of mats, timescales, rentals etc.)?
How does the data from the one-off Cardington project relate to the real world?
All productivity data are generally of uncertain quality
Markets conditions vary

However, the results from Cardington appear to tie in with commercial realities. There are,
therefore, opportunities to save time - not just man-hours on site but also contract duration
which, on an individual project basis, saves preliminaries and finance costs. For instance,
Lorien’s work found that an additional 7 tonnes of reinforcement in the form of mesh cut out
70 man-hours of traditional fixing on Cardington. Other methods of design can reduce the
amounts of reinforcement required while maintaining the timebenefits. On a national basis the
potential savings have to be significant.

The exercise of integrating the results has at least put a measure on the savings achievable and
allowed current best practice based to be identified on a basis of overall economy.

The role of designers


In using innovation, the designer must not be forgotten. Successful innovation should mean
win-win situations all down the supply chain. Whilst the benefits of innovation have been
described for contractors and clients, the additional effort and risk taken by engineers in using
or allowing innovative methods is often not recognised or rewarded and this may be the
reason for their inclination towards conservatism.

Innovation and rationalisation depend on designers and engineers to put it into effect. In this
study, they have not been considered in any great detail as there was very little data. At the
outset, it was hoped to keep records of design and detailing time for the options used at
Cardington. However, this proved impossible as the design, detailing and procurement was so
fragmented. Thus it would appear to be a very difficult exercise to benchmark or compare the
work involved for one type of design against another.

When designing a structure, there are very many variables that affect the choice of design
method. Those in charge of design make a choice based on their own and their clients’
preferences. This research has identified a number of areas for improvement, which, if they
are to be implemented, will mean change in the current traditional methods’. Change costs
money and it may also be perceived as involving some risk.

The process of getting proprietary items to site, (design, specification, nomination, discussion
with constructors, checks, approvals, procurement) all cause additional effort and often the

#
It would appear that most flat slabs are currently (2000) designed using elastic methods of design, an
increasing number are being designed using finite element analysis and very few are designed using
yield line methods.

I19
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

benefit goes to the contractors or client only. Should designers be expected to make extra
effort or take additional risk to make construction easier on site? Are they rewarded if they
do?

Traditionally, the engineer does, and should, embrace and promote innovations. Faced with
fixed competitive fees, extreme time constraints and Professional Indemnity Insurance there
seems little incentive to change or to take risk - other than to be known for innovative and
competitive design. In the long term, of course, innovative firms will be more efficient
because of it and will have more work. However, the pace of change is so fast, and the
applicability of innovation often becomes apparent only after a design is complete or at least
well undenvay, that a designer's reluctance to change mid contract will not help in reducing
the overall costs. Assuming delays are not caused to the construction process, a major barrier
to reducing overall costs might be the lack of reward to the designer.

Do contractors have the skill or inclination to take responsibility for design and design co-
ordination? In some cases, notably in the larger firms, the answer is undoubtedly yes, but in
the majority of the industry the answer is less certain. Many larger specialist subcontractors
put the design out to contract and reap the benefits of discussing their preferences with their
designer.

120
9 Conclusions
General
The research investigated the costs of labour, materials and time, particularly with respect to
the in-situ building at Cardington. It has highlighted the nature of the costs involved, the
difficulties of obtaining reliable cost and time data and the different perspectives of the
different stakeholders. This information has been drawn together in order to make
comparisons and provide best practice guidance on the reinforcement of flat slabs.

Broadly speaking the conclusions align with what may have been expected by an experienced
designer. However, rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement is a complex subject. It is much
more than the mechanics of what a reinforced concrete detailer does on a drawing board or
computer. Importantly, this research gives the basis upon which sensible decisions can be
made on rationalising the whole process of reinforcing flat slabs.

Cardington
Cardington provided a unique opportunity to compare methods of reinforcing flat slabs. The
data obtained were for very many reasons imperfect. The overall programme of research was
ambitious and may well have been over ambitious to the detriment of the research data for
this project.

The data was clouded by the events on site, events that occur on any construction site. Manu-
facturing levels of statistical correctness would have required between 40 and 60 samples or
repetitions of the same operations. This is clearly not feasible on real construction sites. At
Cardington, the reinforcement could have been assembled and disassembled a number of
times. This procedure was considered but not adopted as besides additional expense, it this
would have introduced unusual working conditions and probably flawed the data.

Due to the pressure on space and the compromises required, it was not possible to devote
whole floors to blanket cover elastic design and blanket cover yield line design nor investigate
a floor of blanket cover loose bar using finite element design. The advantages for finite
element analysis were perhaps reduced on Cardington by being implemented with two-way
mats (or vice versa): two-way mats are known to add weight.

Many of the findings in this report are based on data from Cardington. The data gave strong
indications that were substantiated by comparisons with commercial information. They were
better than any previous research data and were held to be a sound basis for subsequent
comparisons.

Value chains and process


To make concrete frames more competitive, the processes of optimisation and rationalisation
of reinforcement need to be undertaken more widely. There needs to be some consistency and
openness in methods of pricing reinforced concrete frames and some guidance on what
constitutes economic practice.

One large area of risk is the weight of reinforcement in a project. Neither clients nor
contractors like risk. One way of increasing certainty by making the amounts of reinforcement

121
/

Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

known at the earliest opportunity is to integrate computer programs for design with those for
detailing, and indeed those for fabrication of bars’.

Within a supply chain, value can ‘leak out’ of the system unless each customer/supplier
interface is well managed. No one organisation has control of the complete value chain. A
vertically integrated solution must be found. This is most likely to result from either improved
management of design and construction operations, by the use of information technology, by
the greater use of non-traditional contracts or by education of all members of the supply
chain.

Pricing policies and productivity rates are currently not transparent. The customer receives
conflicting information about the most economical or best practice. Any optimisation
currently undertaken may be carried out on a basis that does not hold true for the industry as a
whole. There are very many options, not only in terms of the reinforcement and proprietary
systems but also in terms of contract. So it is perhaps not surprising that it is only specialists
who can work out what is best for the project in hand. Relationships are complex and there is
a lack of hard data at a level of detail that would permit significant analysis. Even so, there
appear to be opportunities to make significant cost savings. These would require a
combination of informed design, system specific expertise and, particularly, process control
and supply chain integration to eliminate delay and wasted time. All these could be achieved
through management practices widely adopted in manufacturing industry.

Rationalisation of reinforcement has been defined as being the elimination of redundant


variation. This can be achieved by applying best practice consistently.

Winners and losers


Costs are different for different parties in the supply chain. Different contractual arrangements
can make it difficult to identify the winners and losers from using rationalised or innovative
reinforcement.

Depending on forms of contract, differences in preliminaries and construction costs may or


may not be passed on to the client. If all savings are passed onto the client then there is little
or even no incentive for the contractor to save costs or time - other than to win work.
Conversely, if savings are retained or at least shared with the client then there is incentive for
the contractor to save both time and costs. From this comes the current drive towards
partnering and vertical integration.

Certainly the client, who ultimately pays for projects, should win, but the ideal is for win-win
situations to occur right throughout the supply chain without risk. This situation is not always
certain. For instance the difficulties and expense born by designers are not always recognised
or rewarded. The incentives to innovate are unclear.

Correspondence
Innovation appears to create correspondence on a project. Traditionally reinforced slabs
(Floors 1 and 2) elicited least correspondence, contractor detailing (on Floors 3 and 4) more
correspondence and contractor supplier design and detailing (of Floors 5 and 6 ) most
correspondence. Most of the excess correspondence on Floors 5 and 6 was with suppliers. The
more innovative systems resulted in more correspondence.

The amounts of correspondence may be seen as a measure of the effort (i.e. time and expense)
required in managing the systems at Cardington. In practice, this management (design, design

’Indeed this is beginning to happen with the introduction of Hy-ten’s BAMTEC system, which
integrates finite element design with prefabricated roll-out ‘carpets’of reinforcement.

122
9 Conclusions

checks, procurement, delivery fixing etc) would cost someone his or her time. Traditionally
this would be a designer who would probably go un-rewarded for the extra effort and risk
involved in innovating. Undoubtedly the novelty of certain systems at Cardington caused
correspondence to be initiated but this survey suggests that this may represent a significant
barrier to innovation. For it to succeed, innovation has to be worthwhile and be seen to 'be
worthwhile by everyone in the supply chain.

This exercise indicates that non-traditional methods involve more correspondence. In turn,
this signifies that there are more relationships that probably need unproductive time to
develop. On the other hand, it may just indicate that many of the processes (providing design
information, design, drawing, checking, scheduling, approving) that are traditionally carried
out in-house by the engineer are, in contractor detailing and contractor design-and-detailing,
carried out by other parties contracted. This requires communication and design co-
ordination. Design co-ordination is not necessarily core to the specialist subcontractor's
business and might prove to become a barrier to better integration.

The philosophy of Just-in-Time delivery of information is just as important as Just-in-Time


delivery of materials, but the management of design and management of information flow is
not traditionally carried out by specialist subcontractors. If information arrives too early it can
be changed by events. If it is,too late it causes delay.

Costs and time


costs
It was shown that optimising slab thickness saves money. Changing from a 300 rnrn slab to
255 mm slab on the Cost model study buildings saved 8% of frame costs. This potential
optimisation is often set against increasing risk as thinner concrete slabs have less capacity to
absorb late changes and the potential for higher deflections.

From productivity studies it has been demonstrated that different reinforcement arrangements
can have significant impact on the costs of materials and labour. In the systems investigated at
Cardington there was the potential to save up to 30% on flexural reinforcement and 50% on
shear reinforcement over traditional methods of reinforcing flat slabs. This excluded any
benefit fi-omreduced critical path time.

On the basis of the data recorded at Cardington, there are arrangements of reinforcement that
offer significant cost advantages over the traditional systems. These advantages are
maintained over a range of labour: reinforcement cost relationships.

Cost comparisons based simply upon the tonnage of reinforcing steel give a misleading
indication of the benefits of alternatives. A cost structure based on weight alone will almost
always inhibit prefabrication. Time costs are exceedingly important and should, wherever
possible, be recognised and reconciled with the initial cost of materials and labour.

Time costs
The cost of time depends upon the perspective of the user. For developers and
owner/occupiers, early occupation brings early and extra revenue or rental income to counter
costs of financing the project. For contractors and specialist subcontractors early completion
should mean less time-related overheads.

The monetary value of potential savings for a owner/occupier client or speculative client with
tenant can be in the order of 10 times greater than those for a subcontractor (see Table 8.1 1).
In practice, finance costs dominate. The gross numbers and the opportunities to achieve
savings are greater on larger buildings - and so are the pressures to achieve. Nonetheless, time
costs should be considered on all buildings. On concrete-framed buildings, they should be

123
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

used to help determine the amount of rationalisation, the right configuration of reinforcement
and, indeed, the appropriate type of analysis for the project in hand.

Finance costs have been defined as follows:

where
F Finance costs
j Interest rate per unit of time
T, Land acquisition - the time from acquisition of the land (waiting for planning permission and
design plans) until construction starts.
T2 Construction time.
T3 Disposal time- the time from the end of construction until the building is let or sold.
CL Cost of land, (including acquisition costs, compensation, fees)
CD Cost of demolition,
C, Costs of construction. (including contract value, ancillary costs such as access roads,
planning offsets and professional fees)

This formula gives the basis for designers to compare possible time cost savings against the
costs of additional reinforcement.

It is interesting to note that the cost savings per square metre from saving time appears similar
across a range of buildings (see Table 8.1 1). The same is true on a Urn2basis for each of the
parties involved. Large buildings would appear make the gross potential savings increasingly
worthwhile.

Critical time
Undoubtedly there are time savings to be gained by using rationalised configurations of
reinforcement but their effects on critical time appear to be anecdotal or, at best, hard to
judge. Critical path time on site cannot be obtained simply through rationalising
reinforcement at the detailing stage: rationalisation must embrace the whole process of
concrete frame construction in order to get worthwhile benefits on site. There is little
advantage in completing reinforcement more quickly unless following work e.g. concreting,
can start earlier.

The assessment of critical path time is almost always subjective. Whilst there are some
ground rules, assessing critical times appears to be more an art than a science. Planners may
apply basic rules but they apply many modification factors based on the many variables of the
specific project and individual company methods. On site, managers have many ways of
changing outputs on site (increase labour, overtime, etc.). There are acknowledged problems
of acquiring accurate productivity data(”) but these data are required and need to be made
available to designers if they are to become party to optimisation and rationalisation in the
name of overall efficiency.

Design and performance


Performance
From a performance point of view, all the design methods used on the in-situ building at
Cardington, elastic plane frame (equivalent frame), finite element and yield line, have to date
produced satisfactory designs. Presuming all slabs continue to perform satisfactorily then the
savings in reinforcement and, therefore, savings in time depend on the design method used.

It has been stated that all the sources of uncontrolled variation on data recorded at Cardington
are typical of normal site operations. This work illustrates the impact of such events on the
timing and installed costs of reinforcement systems. Add to this the difficulty of actual
measurement and it is clear that feedback of site experience into the design process will tend

124
9 Conclusions

to be very subjective. This may go some long way to explaining the wide variation in opinion
on optimum design approaches, illustrated in no small measure by the interpretations
manifested in the designs for this project.

Yield line design


Yield line design appears to provide a great opportunity to reduce costs in flat slab
construction

If the reinforcement for yield line design blanket cover could have been prefabricated and
been fixed at the same rate as on Floor 6 it would have produced a first cost saving of some
30% over traditional methods. This is easily the best opportunity for improving concrete
construction identifiable by applying reasonable 'what if analysis to the data obtained from
Cardington.

Taking into account possible savings in critical path time, backed by the perceptions of
specialist subcontractors for time savings, the case for yield line design is even more
compelling.

Yield line design is a technique that has been around for many years but its commercial
exploitation appears to have been curtailed by a lack of understanding, the fear that it is an
upper bound solution (i.e. either a correct or a too high solution), and the lack of computer
support. Unusually, it requires designers to use. their judgement.

If the opportunity is to be grasped then the industry design and construction teams must be
given the opportunity to understand and use yield line design with confidence.

Shear reinforcement
The ACI shear stirrups were typically half the cost of the traditional shear reinforcement
system, although the data did not clearly highlight the benefits of the ACI system'.
Unfortunately, their general use cannot be advocated before questions regarding design are
resolved".

Commercially available shear stud and shear ladders provide an effective and efficient
substitute for traditional shear links. At first sight the costs of proprietary systems may be off-
putting compared with shape code 85 reinforcement. However, on a cost/m2basis, the costs of
these shear systems is relatively small compared with the cost of bending reinforcement and
the potential time benefits are so large that their use is advocated for all but the smallest
buildings.

It should be recognised that the procurement process for these systems differs from the
traditional method of specifying bars on a bending schedule.

Structural steel shearheads are comparatively very expensive and disruptive to the process of
constructing a flat slab. Nonetheless in highly serviced buildings, where large holes are
required close to columns, their expense might be warranted.

#
All the time recorded against the ACI stirrup system was associated with prefabricating the stirrups pre-
installation and was, in practice, outside the critical path for the floor. Also the procurement process was
indistinguishable from that for the bending reinforcement, bars being delivered with the loose bending
reinforcement.
There is a question about the design of ACI stirrups, especially with regard to holes. At the time of writing (Sept
2000). The Concrete Society's Shear Reinforcement Working Party wqs due to consider the design of ACI stirrups

125
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

I
Simplicity
The simplicity of the reinforcement arrangements again depends on the design methods. Yield
line design gave the simplest flexural reinforcement arrangements. The finite element
arrangement was simple, but to accommodate two-way mats and practical maximum bending
moments, the general level of reinforcement was high.

The amounts of reinforcement used on all floors bar one (Floor 3) were actually dictated by
considerations of serviceability, and it is perhaps with regard to serviceability that
rationalisation of reinforcement design needs to be investigated.

Prefabrication
It should be clear that prefabrication of the reinforcement could provide several benefits for
all members of the construction team. These benefits include:
e Simplified detailing resulting in lower design office costs.
e Easier identification of steel on site
0 A reduction in the site labour cost of receiving, sorting and fixing.
0 Accurate placing of reinforcement. .
Improved site planning and organisation
Faster steel fixing
e Faster completion of structure
Lower overall costs
Increased profits
Improved return on capital

Deflection
It would appear that the different design bases and arrangements and of reinforcement had
little effect on deflections and the rules on deflection in BS 81 10 may need to be looked at in
light of current knowledge@

Best practice
There is a balance between first costs and time costs and costs are different for different parties
to a contract, particularly when innovation or rationalisation is considered post contract. Based
on the data from Cardington, the best valuehest practice approach to reinforcing flat slabs
according to party to a contract and type of contract is shown in Table 10.1.

Current evidence suggests that there is little advantage in straying away from traditionally
designed rationalised bending (or main) reinforcement on all but the largest buildings. For
shear reinforcement the use of proprietary shear systems, specifically stud rails and shear
ladders, appears to be almost always worthwhile.

0
BCA’s Pi1 project “The.influence of serviceability on this economic design of concrete structures” is indeed
examining this subject area. A final report is due by 2002

126
10 Recommendations
Best practice guidance
In fulfilment of the primary objective of this project - to reduce the costs of flat slab
construction by disseminating meaningful guidance on the rationalisation of reinforcement for
flat slabs. The following table presents the preferred reinforcement configurations dependant
on the party concerned according to the type of contract and the contract stage. It is based on
the premise that best practice equates to most economic.

Table 10.1 Best practice from Cardington data -preferred reinforcement configurations for
flat slabs dependent on party and contract
Partv
Specialist Main Client ’ Owner/ occupier
subcontractor contractor client2

Main reinforcement (i.e. flexural reinforcement top and bottom)


~~ ~~

Innovating pre-contract No real preference i.e. select to Rationalised loose Rationalised loose bar.
(all forms of contract) suit clients bar’ Large buildings - two-
way mats and finite
element design
Innovating post Two-way . Rationalised Rationalised loose Rationalised loose ba?.
traditional contract mats and loose bar3. bar3. Very large Large buildings -two-
finite element buildings - two-way way mats and finite
design mats and finite element design
. I
element design’ .
lnnovating post Two-way Two-way Rationalised loose Rationalised loose bar3.
Construction mats and mats and bar.’ Large buildings - two-
Management contract finite element finite element way mats and finite
design design element design3
Innovating post Rationalised Rationalised Two-way mats and Two-way mats and
Design and Build loose bar3. loose bar’. finite element design finite element design
contract
Shear reinforcement
Innovating pre-contract No real preference i.e. select to Shear studs and shear ladders4
(all forms of contract) suit clients
Innovating post
Traditional Shear studs and shear ladders4
contract
Construction
Management
contract
Design and Build
contract
Notes
Large building arc defined here as those substantially larger than 4,500 m2 total on three floors
1 Clients subject to finance charges e.g. speculative clients without pre-let
2 Owncrl occupier client subject to finance charges and rental income e.g. speculative client with pre-let
agreement or owner/ occupier
3 Based upon specialist trade contractors perception of time, the most economic option for these circumstances
would be yield line design
4 ACI shear stirrups actually came out on top but there are some questions against their, use especially with
regard to holes. Their general use therefore cannot therefore be advocated before these questions are resolved.

I27
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Yield line design


Yield line design appears to provide a great opportunity. If the opportunity is to be grasped
then the reinforcement industry must present designers and the wider construction industry
with comprehensive design guidance and design aids providing them with the opportunity to
understand and use yield line design with confidence. A raft of information, based mainly on
simple design guidance should be put in place so designers can use their judgement to give
their clients economic designs incorporating best practice.

The possibility of providing a set of standard designs coupled with the use of standardised
meshes should be investigated.

costs
A costing structure based on weight will almost always inhibit prefabrication and innovation.
Time costs are exceedingly important and time costs saved through prefabrication or
innovation often outweigh considerations of materials and labour alone.

The value of potential time savings must be acknowledged by design and construction teams.
It should be possible for cost consultants to put a value on time, perhaps in terms of €/m2/day,
so that innovations might be judged against it. Cost comparison should, as far as possible,
embrace whole construction costs - including the effects of time.

Process integration
In order to fully embrace the benefits of innovative techniques the concrete frame industry
should aim for greater vertical integration by:
0 Improved management of design and construction operations,
The use of information technology,
0 Greater use of non-traditional contracts and
0 Education of all members of the supply chain

For instance, the certainty of using the correct weight of reinforcement in estimates could be
increased by integrating design programs with detailing programs and ultimately with bar
bending machines.

In order to achieve optimisation of flat slab design and rationalisation of reinforcement, some
consistency in presenting productivity rates and methods of pricing should be established and
made known to designers and specifiers.

Further research
Benchmarking-1
Studies to identify and analyse value chains in detail should be encouraged. The best practice
information included in this report provides pointers towards low cost design approaches.
More data are required in order to determine optimum design for different arrangements of
reinforcement. With the demonstrated variability of design input and site practice, a practical
way to obtain these data would be to organise an industry-wide data gatheringhenchmarking
exercise (see Lorien's proposals, Appendix I11 supplement 3). Of particular interest would be
productivity rates for reinforcement derived from loose bar finite element designs and loose
bar yield line designs.

Benchmarking-2
Optimisation of design on an industry-wide basis cannot be achieved without the provision of
clear rates for productivity, labour and material, and standardisation of the design,
construction and procurement process. Of course much of this information is commercially

128
10 Recommendations

sensitive and might be very difficult to obtain from commercial organisations. In addition it
would most probably be very difficult to compare one rate with another. But this is the very
essence of benchmarking - harmonising methods and methods of measurement so that best
*
practice can be determined and promulgated.

ACI stirrups
The system referred to as ACI stirrups possesses many process benefits. Their use requires no
special measures as they can be detailed on normal reinforced concrete drawings and
scheduled on normal r.c. bending schedules. To fix on site they were ' I . . .. a five minute job"
and off the critical path. Unfortunately the design method is empirical with apparently little
theoretical basis and makes no provision for holes in the slab close to where they are used.
ACI stirrups should be fully researched so they can be proved technically and so that design
rules can be developed and accepted by statutory bodies. In particular, research is required to
assimilate design methods with those of BS 81 10 and EC2 and to determine how they may be
used in close proximity to holes.

Influence of designers
The designer has great influence over how and when innovative techniques are used. An
interesting area of study would be look at this influence and the degree of take up of
innovation in regard to rewards and risk. A study of how the designer is affected by the
various contractual arrangements would also be an interesting area for further research@.

Just-in-Time delivery of information is just as important as Just-in-Time delivery of materials.


The concrete industry should do whatever it can to help designers design effectively and
efficiently so information is provided in a profitable and timely manner.

A study of how innovations zffect the designer under the various contractual arrangements
would be an interesting area for further research.

@This area is being looked at under the research project Assessing Concrete Technology Innovation
using Value Engineering (ACTIVE) which is currently (Sept 2000) being undertaken by the Post
Graduate Research School, School of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University.

129
11 References
1 EGAN, J (Chairman), Rethinking Construction, The Stationery Office, London, 1998.

2 THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. Towards rationalising reinforcementfor concrete


structures, Slough, 1999. Ref. CSTR 53

3 GRAY, C & GREEN, L,.The cost of time - equationsfor the improved calculation of
the benefit of process improvement of concrete construction. Reinforced Concrete
Council/ Reading Production Engineering Group, The University of Reading, 1995.
Unpublished.

4 DARZENTAS, A I; DEASLEY, P J, & ROGERSON, J. Re-engineering the concrete


frame process, Quality & Process Improvement Department, University of Cranfield,
1998.

5 PALLETT, P. Guideforflat slab fornzwork and falsework (Draft), Construct,


Crowthorne, 1999.

G CHANA, P. The European concrete building project, The Structural Engineer, Vol78
No 2, 18 Jan 2000.

7 JOHNSON, D. Bending strength evaluation of the ECBPfloor slabs, Department of


Civil and Structural Engineering, The Nottingham Trent University, October 1998.
(Included as Appendix VII)

8 VOLLUM, R L. A review of slab deflections in the in-situ concreteframe building,


Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, November 1999
(interim report on an ongoing TMR research programme).

9 BRITISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Improving concreteframe construction,


European Concrete Building Project Best Practice Guide, BCA, 97.50 1, Crowthorne,
2000.

10 BRITISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Concretingfor improved speed and eflciency,


European Concrete Building Project Best Practice Guide, Crowthorne, 2000. Ref.
97.502

11 BRITISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Early age strength assessment of concrete on


site, European Concrete Building Project Best Practice Guide. Crowthorne, BCA, 2000.
*
Ref. 97.503.

12 BRITISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Improving rebar information and supply (IRIS),


European Concrete Building Project Best Practice Guide. 97.504, Crowthorne, BCA,
2000. Ref. 97.504.

13 BRITISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Early striking and loading ,offlat slabs for
efjcieiztflat slab coiistruction (Draft), European Concrete Building Project Best
Practice Guide, Crowthorne, BCA, due 2000.

14 BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures;


Part I : General rules and rules for buildings together with UK National Application
Document, London, BSI. DD ENV 1992-1-1 :1992.

Previous page
is blank 131
Rationalisation of reinforcement

15 CLAPSON, J D. Rapid reinforcement technology - catching up with established


practice in Europe. Text for paper for Advances in Concrete Construction at
Westminster College 1994.

16 KHOSROWSHAHI. F. The optimum project duration and cost curve for Hong Kong
public housing projects, Engineering, Construction and Arclzitectural Management
1997,4

17 BENNETT, D & MacDONALD, L A M. Economic assembly of reiizforcement, British


Cement Association, Slough (now Crowthorne), 1992.

18 HERRKOMMER, F & m T T O N , P & BRODMEIER, J. Bauen mit


BetonStahhlmatten Ein aktueller Uberblick. (Construction with steel wire mesh fabrics)
Beton Herstellung Verwendung, Vol 33, No 11 November 1983.

19 PROVERBS, D G, HOLT, G D & OLOMOLAIYE, P 0. A comparative evaluation of


reinforcement fixing productivity rates amongst French, German and UK construction
contractors, Engineering, Construction and Arclzitectural Management 5,4. pp 359-
358, Blackwell, 1998.

20 CHRISTIAN J, & HACHEY D, Effects of delay times on production rates in


construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol 121 No 1
ASCE, March 1995.

21 THE STEEL REINFORCEMENT PROMOTION GROUP. Guidelinesfor economical


assembly of reillforcement, Technical Policy Note No 2, June 1988.

22 THEOPHILUS, J. Rationalised reinforcement design, Concrete, Vol29, No 4


MarcWApril 1995.

23 CLARKE, J L. Rationalisation of reinforcement, Concrete, June 1999.

24 GRAY, C. The rationalisation of reinforcement, University of Reading. Report for


Concrete Society Rationalisation of Reinforcement project. (Unpublished)

25 Committee papers, Concrete Society Rationalisation of Reinforcement project.


(Unpublished)

26 UNIVERSITY OF READING.A study of reiizforcement procurement. Concrete


Society Report 121. Crowthorne, The Concrete Society, 1999. Ref. CS 121

27 GOODCHILD, C. Cost model study, Crowthorne, British Cement Association, 1993.

28 WEBSTER, M. Further cost model studies: RCC’s findings, Concrete, MarcWApril


1995.

29 ALLEN, J. Reengineering the design and construction process. The Structural


Engineer, Vol76 No 9 , 5 May 1998.

30 MOSS, R & MAW, J. Re-engineering the processes for in-situ concrete construction.
Paper at IStructE, 13 May 1999.

31 GOODCHILD, C & MOSS, R. Reinforcing Cardington. Concrete, Vol 33 No 1,


January 1999.

132
References

32 BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 81 10 Part 1 1997, Structural use of


concrete, Part I . Code ofpractice for design and construction, London, BSI.

33 AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE. Building Code requirements for reinforced


concrete (ACI 3 1XM-89) (revised 1992) and Commentary (ACI 3 18RM-89) (revised
1992), Detroit 1992.

34 UNIVERSITY OF LOUGHBOROUGH. Improving rebar information and supply


(IRIS), Dept of Civil and Building Engineering, (Report in fulfilment of contract for
Building Research Establishment) February 2000.

35 JOHNSON, D. Mechanism determined by automated yield line analysis. Tlie Structural


Engineer, (1994) Vol72, No 19, pp 323-327.

36 CEB-FIP Model Code 1990,Thomas Telford London, 1993.

37 JACKSON, P A. The stress limits for reinforced concrete in BS 5400, The Structural
Engineer, Volume 65A, No 7, July 1987.

38 LORIEN plc, Rationalisation ofjlat slab reirforcement: Report on analysis of


construction process data reiilforcemeiit. (Report in fulfilment of contract) Cardiff,
1999. (Included as Chapter 7)

39 CONSTRUCT. A guide to contractor detailiiig of reiiforceineiit in concrete,


Crowthorne, British Cement Association, 1997

40 Telephone conversations with industry contacts

41 E-mail correspondence with North American engineers.

42 GOODCHILD, C H. Economic concrete frame elements. Crowthorne, British Cement


Association for Reinforced Concrete Council, 1997. Ref. 97.358.

43 BEEBY, A W. Early striking of forinwork and forces in backprops. Final report,


December 1998, School of Engineering, University of Leeds.

44 BRITISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Rationalisation ofjlat slab reinforcement


(Draft), European Concrete Building Project Best Practice Guide, Crowthorne, BCA,
due 2000.

133
Appendices
Appendix I Details of reinforcement
=

Supplement 1 Proposals for reinforcement of the in-situ concrete


building at Cardington - as built.

Supplement 2 Summary of bending schedules used at


Cardington.

Previous page
is blank
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

.
b, .
5 .
E:
2
2 ?
CI
a a
v) a
F E z,
i; i; i;
h
n h
3 3 5
t
v,

U
5
0 .rr!
o >
3rd
SO ' 2
.L E
mo

U
a
z
22%
mnct

+. ..
-
n

E-
C
s

i
a

136
e
Appendix I Reinforcement Details

h
00

W
h
N

0
m
h

a
v1
137
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Appendix I1 - Summary of interviews


for Concrete Society
research
Initial work on The Concrete Society's Rationalisation of reinforcement project(2)included a
report by the University of Reading(24)based in part on a series of 12 interviews with
members of the concrete industry(25).Whilst the interviews were unpublished, they provide
interesting insights into some of the attitudes towards rationalisation and prefabrication. An
outline of these interviews is given below:

Interview A (Engineer) Prefabrication on beams and columns saves


Lack of experience with mats detailing time
Fabric not competitive on price Innovation driven by developers and needs of
Fabric not adaptable industry {Not contractors!}
Cost more important than time Guestimates bar weights and diams
Lack of confidence in price Unlikely to re-detail
Reluctant to price accurately Standard mesh not heavy enough
Clients believe min cost = min material Lack of repetition
How to quantify benefits? Opposition from draughtsmen protecting trade
Design costs Germany - regular grids, repetition,
Fee 1.5 to 1.7% of contract standardised depths and sizes - different
of which: customs, rules etc
30% Getting arrangements right Rationalisation needs repetition
30% Analysis and engineering
25% Rebar and detailing Interview D (Engineer)
15% Contract Administration Experience: JCT 90%D&B, CM, MC 10%
Rationalisation - restricted application Design costs
Prefabrication increases weight 58 kg/m2to 65 25% Getting arrangements right
kg/m2 40% Analysis and engineering
Labour saving 60 - 70% 25% Rebar and detailing
10% Contract administration
Interview B (Engineer) Traditionally use loose bar
Experience: JCT 50% D&B, MC 50% Estimates done by experience
No experience of prefab Prefab needs regular grid
No encouragement for prefab from contractor Flat slab OK Trough slabs OK for prefab
Least cost drives decisions
Get better price if contractor not rushed Interview E (subcontractor)
No incentive for efficiency Experience: JCT 100% - supply & fix 50%;
Conservatism fix only 50%
Labour rate varies inversely to bar diam
Interview C (Engineer) Fixers paid day rate based on bar diams.
Experience: JCT 70% D&B, CM, MC 30% No experience of mats
Design costs Weight and size of rebar determine price
30% Getting arrangements right
30% Analysis and engineering
15%Rebar and detailing
25% Contract Administration
Prefab on slabs does not save detailing time
Awkward sites with heavy (25 mm diam) bars
unsuited to fabric.

138
Appendix I1 - Summary of interviews for Concrete Society research .. .

Interview F (subcontractor) Interview J (specialist subcontractor)


Experience: JCT 100% - supply & fix & fix Experience: CM 90%
only Don't believe prefab of slabs on large projects
Labour costs is practical or economic
Flat slabs €150/tonne Generally prefab beams, walls and columns on
Trough € 175ltonne site
Waffle €195/tonne Need space for on-site prefab
Tie wire, spacers and chairs €12/tonne Reinforcement rates
Wastage 1.25% Bar (6 to 40 mm diam) supply €240/t
Labour E200/t for 8mm to €lOO/t for
Interview G (specialist subcontractor) 40 mm diam.
Experience: CM & MC 70% D&B 30% Links €275/t
Reinforcement Special fabrics are not cheap
Bar (6 to 40 mm) supply €245/tonne Fixing rates:
Labour €250/t for 8 mm Two-man team 20 - 30 mm bar 2.0 tfday
to E70/t for 40 mm 8-12 mm bar 0.5 tfday
€275/t for links
Spacers etc €4/t Interview K (fabricator)
plusO/H&P@ 5% = €525/tonne Experience: 90% loose bar 10% fabric
(Flat slabs 10% less one price for all diams) Price driven
Mesh Prefab needs regular grid
Labour E0.50/m2 Most economic structure : include time
Loose bar easy to adapt. benefits, reduced prelims, more
Loose bar very competitive commissioning time
Labour familiar with loose bar Loose bar costs €235/t C&B delivered;
Can be problems integrating loose bar with sensible price €265/t; comes in at €2 15 from
fabrics mills
BS fabric €320/t
Interview H (specialist subcontractor) Output doubled with fabric
Experience: CM & MC 100% Project in Bridgend: loose bar costs €250/t
Reinforcement C&B delivered; fabric €390/t
Bar (6 to 40 mm) supply €250/T
Labour &220/tonne Interview L (fabricator)
Spacers etc E70Itonne Experience : 45% loose bar 55% fabric
omw 5% was 70% loose bar & 30% mesh
&525/tonne Loose bar - low tech and little added value
(Flat slabs 10% less one price Contractors buy lowest cost
for all diams) Fabric subject to market shortages
Mats Prefab should reduce engineer's time - does it?
A142 0.75 €/m2 Loose bar costs €235/t
A252 1.30 i/m2 BS fabric 6-12 mm €320/t
A 393 2.10 i/m2 Bespoke fabric €375/t
Labour 0.80 i/m2
Laps 3% O / H & P 5% Interview M (mill)
For rationalisation need standard types of Rebar is commodity
fabric. JCT contracts cheaper than CM
Need prefab scheme drawings with tender CM quicker but maybe 5-7% more expensive
CM onus on tenderer to work up quantities -
on JCT its to SMM7

139
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement , - ... _ .

Appendix I11 Supplements to Chapter 7,


Cardington: Analysis of
construction process data

Supplement 1: Data recording for Cardington project -


Method statement published prior to
construction

Supplement 2: Notes on construction and measurement


process difficulties

Supplement 3: Industry wide data collection and analysis:


Outline proposal from Lorien

140
Appendix I11 Supplements to Chapter 7, Cardington: Analysis of construction process data , ”.

Supplement 1: Data recording for Cardington project -


Method statement published prior to
construction
The key data required from the site is the time taken to undertake the following processes:
1. Unloading steel from delivery wagon and placing into stockpile
2. Collecting steel from stockpile and placing on formwork
3. Fixing chairs, bottom mat and edge steel
4. Fixing shear steel
5. Fixing top mat
6. Inspecting steel and giving approval for concrete pour (including rework)

For each process it is necessary to measure:


0 Total elapsed time
0 Total man hours, broken down into:
Value adding
Normal non-value adding
Cardington related non-value adding

Note - it will be assumed that the proportions of e,dpsed value adding and non-value a d n g
time are in the same proportions as value adding and non-value adding man-hours. (Notes
should be made if this is not the case).

These measurements are required for each of the reinforcement variants being investigated.
There are a number of features of the experiment which need to be addressed:

Floors 4, 5 & 6 have different flexural reinforcement on their north and south sides and
different shear reinforcement on their east and west sides.

The fixing schedule is constrained (as on real sites) by the concreting schedule, the more so
because of the early striking experiments.

Some of the combinations and layouts are novel and unfamiliar to the fixing team.

The following precautions will be taken to minimise the difficulties identified above:
0 On EVERY floor the time taken to fix the top and bottom mats will be noted for the north
and south halves of the floor separately. This is to enable us to estimate correction factors
to apply from the floors where the steel is identical in each half. Similarly the times for
shear reinforcement will be noted on east and west sides.
As far as it is possible all reinforcement should be fixed at a consistent work rate for
different systems in order that differences in difficulty of fixing are reflected in the times
recorded. Where faster fixing rates are required to meet concreting timetables, etc. this
should be recorded.
To minimise learning curve effects, each reinforcement layout should be considered by
the fixing gang pre-fixing and the job worked through mentally. The fixers should be
given training on proprietary shear systems where they are unfamiliar and any
combinations of shear and flexure reinforcement that may create clashing and other
problems should be tried out before fixing ‘for real’.

141
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

It is likely that fixing bottom mat, shear and top mat may will, in practice be carried out
concurrently. It must be accepted that the break down between these three processes will
therefore, to some extent, be an estimate. It is important that the total combined elapsed time
and man hours consumed for all three processes is as accurate as possible (i.e. not subject to
cumulative errors). Similarly, even if the three processes go on sequentially any gaps between
them (other than those relating to Cardington effects) should be recorded as non-value adding
activity in the following process.

It is possible that the steel representing two or more variants will be delivered together. As
above, the total times taken for the whole delivery should be recorded and, if practical, an
estimate of the proportions of time associated with each variant made.

Some fixing operations may require crane operations (e.g. placing mats). Time arranging
items on the floor for subsequent crane installation will be counted into process 2 and craning
into place will be included into, for example, process 4.

ACI stirrups are prefabricated prior to installation. The prefabrication time will be recorded as ,

a separate process (2a) but included into process 2 for analysis purposes.

Measurement of times will be determined by a time sheet compiled by the fixing foreman
cross referenced with video and still photography and the BRE site diary.

For the first floor, Lorien will provide an engineer experienced in process monitoring to trial
the foregoing with a view to refinement if required.

142
Appendix I11 Supplements to Chapter 7, Cardington: Analysis of construction process data _,

Supplement 2: Notes on construction and measurement


process difficulties
General
0 The fixing gang varied from 1 to 6 people throughout. Three of the people used were
experienced fixers, the others carpenters, etc.
0 None of the systems being used were tried out off the job to reduce learning curve issues.
The fixes had previous experience of ROM shear ladders and little experience of any of
the other systems used.
0 Various other features affected progress are broken down per floor as follows:

Floor 1
0 Problems with formwork.
0 Reinforcement still being fixed during casting, otherwise nothing abnormal.

Floor 2
0 200 extra bars fitted with strain gauges in areas U & T(see Figure 7.1). Some 7 hours
associated ‘waste’ were identified on time sheets but U & T were perhaps a further 7
hours slower than the norm.
0 Tower crane broke down on 11 February and reinforcement pulled up on rope. No formal
time loss recorded. Possible 6 man-hours wasted in comparison with other areas?
X & T steels (see Chapter 5.9, Other research, ductility) delivered together and had to be
sorted out on site. This activity does not seem to have been separately logged.

Floor 3
0 200 strain gauge bars fitted. 8 hours of waste logged but again affected areas were
perhaps 7 hours slower than the norm.
0 Floor was run tight onto concreting dead line. Formwork wasn’t ready thus floor was
released a bit at a time for fixing and the crane was not fully available.
0 Stop end fixed down middle of floor led to fixing problems. Timesheets don’t specifically
identify losses.

Floor 4
Programme shortened by 2 days leading to pressure on fixing.
Shear heads did not arrive to plan - substitute with ROM shear ladders. 2 days delay for
shear ladders caused programming problems.
Crane breakdown for 1!4 days.
ACI shear links prefabricated off job and required only 5 minutes to drop into place
(NE3 time recorded is therefore not on critical path).

Floor 5
0 Fixers not used to welded mesh.
0 Shear hoops new system to fixers. No practice. No experience of combining with fabric.
0 Deha stud rails new system - no experience.
0 20 fabric mats delivered late and therefore upset sequence.
0 25% of mats, approximately, too heavy for hand lifting and needed crane support.

143
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

0 Edge steel proved hard to fix and had to be 'fiddled in' after top steel. Some of this time is
included in top mat, some in bottom.
0 Spacers and chairs provided were not ideal for fabric - needed to be longer.

Floor 6
0 Floor had to be left open for late delivery of shear heads, shear heads in area, rest SC85
links.
0 Top steel had to be lifted, cut and refitted around shear heads.
0 Mats could be man handled (four-man lift) without crane.

144
Appendix I11 Supplements to Chapter 7, Cardington: Analysis of construction process data

Supplement 3: Industry wide data collection and analysis:


Outline proposal from Lorien
Introduction
We have recommended that a benchmarking/data gathering exercise be used to enable a move
from the indicative data contained in this report to firm recommendations that could lead to
significant cost reductions in the industry. This appendix sets out the broad principles we
would recommend. We would be happy to help you develop them further.

The subject is presented in the form of answers to the questions.


0 Why data gathering and benchmarking?
0 What data to collect?
0 How to collect and analyse it?

Data gathering and benchmarking


The key problems leading to uncertainly in the conclusions presented in this report have been:
0 High levels of systematic variation introduced by ‘site practice’.
Variations in interpretation of concept by different designers.

Without some performance feedback, it seems improbable that the concrete frame industry as
a whole will spontaneously start to tackle the issues of process re-engineering required to
address the first of these points. Unfortunately the current level of uncontrolled process
variables makes it difficult or impossible to get reliable measures of differences between the
various approaches.

This problem could be addressed by collecting a much larger population of data through
which the systematic variables per site would become randomised. This would, of course,
require significant effort from contractors. By running an ongoing benchmarking exercise as
the data are collected the participants would get feedback to help them improve their
productivity which, hopefully, would compensate them for their efforts and motivate them.

This approach would have the disadvantage of tending to skew the data as efficiency
improved throughout the sampling period. This minor inconvenience and slight reduction in
precision would, in our opinion, be more than off set by strengthening commitment from of
the data collectors and the immediate taking of ‘early wins’ by the industry.

The amount of data required will depend upon the ambitions of the participants and the
magnitude of differences between systems they are interested in detecting. Broadly speaking,
the sample size required to detect differences are small and/or the variability is high. It is
illustrated in the body of this report that if the variability in the industry as a whole is found to
be in the same order as that found at Cardington then tens of samples will be required per
system to detect differences between them of 10%.

Data to be collected
We believe that two key pieces of information should ultimately flow from this work:

1. The overall most economic reinforcement solution for a given structure in terms of:
Reinforcement used
Fixing time costs
Critical path extension

145
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

2. Data to enable the overall costs of these activities to be driven down through design
feedback, process re-engineering, etc.

We consider that these two objectives have subtly different key measures associated with them:
0 Absolute cost per m2 floor space.
0 Cost per m2 floor space, normalised to a ‘standard’ structure.

The latter measure will be required to separate the effects caused by the choice of span, floor
thickness, number of storeys, etc. from the effects of reinforcement arrangement, site
operations, etc.

Critical path extension time is relatively complex to measure but in many instances it is of
very significant value. We would recommend measuring the more straightforward steel and ,

fixing man hour data and then build in critical path measurement at a later date.

In summary we would propose starting out to collect data per site on:
0 Structure details
0 Areas of suspended floor
0 Reinforcement usage
0 Man hours reinforcement fixing

Collecting and analysing data


This report has demonstrated a methodology for collecting reinforcement fixing data. Key
features are:
0 Breaking down the activities into generic categories
0 Standardised methodologies for recording the data

The former would be the product of a well-designed scheme; the latter would derive from
written procedures and, possibly, a small amount of training.

The following would need to be broken down into a manageable number of defined
categories:
0 Structural element (column, beam, slab),
8 Structural design solution (flat slab, column and beam) (RCC’s Publication Economic
Concrete Fraiiie Elements (42) provides a suitable basis)
0 Reinforcement arrangement (traditional, blanket cover, mesh)
Work activity (fixing, site movement, standing time)

Finally, some structural parameters would need to be developed which could be used to
‘standardise’ the data. These could be, for example:
Floorarea
Number of floors
Diagonal distance between columns
Maximum stress in the floor plate

It would be necessary to determine the relationship between these parameters and


reinforcement usage and fixing time. We see this as the most technically challenging aspect of
this proposal. Our approach would be to create a synthetic data set, including estimates of
fixing times and steel usage, and then experiment with regressing the parameters chosen in

146
Appendix' I11 Supplementsto Chapter 7, Cardington: Analysis of constructionprocess data

order to select the best indicators. As real data became available this could be used to check
the relationships derived from synthetic data.

From the foregoing, it would be possible to take collected site data and reasonably quickly
build a database from which to identify the most cost effective reinforcement arrangements
for different structures and give feedback to participants of the importance ranking of their
input data compared with other contributors' data.

In practical terms, the scheme would have to be run through a trusted third party such as
Construct, RCC or The Concrete Society. .

147
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

0
2 b

9
0
z
N
9
-
I
0
0
$f
9
” 0
b

S
‘? 0
b
0

s
” m
b

P
d
0 2 ‘c!
3
z
N
‘?
P 0
N
0
N
W
3
I z
N
f

c d
4 d 0
W m 10
N
”:
0
ZTI

x
N
m
W
N
2m m
N
m

9
? m
2
4
b
2 2 00
N
N
m

S
‘?
s
00
‘Ll
‘?
4 -
9
N
z
N

P
:2
N
b 4

x
m
d
v,
N

P
?” 00
2 2 s
N
d
v,
N

i
W 0 \4 d
2 3
3 d
N
v,
N

ZTPI

JOOlA

3J

148
Appendix IV Data used for costing: Materials and labour

n n
3 z.
149
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

n n
c P
v

$
8
A

..
-t
v)

e
e

In
m 2
2
(rJ

2
.d
2
a
Y
cu 2
.+
0
Y
m &
8 !i
e, 9
s .-x
e,
e,
e m
2
e
cd
L0 9
e,
.d

Y
e
e,
0)
-5
z2
2
b)
5
.-E
a
s1 VI

v)

e
Y
m n n
>
e,
N
A s
5
a
Y
9
VI
0
0
e,
c
td
g
1 vl 0 0 0 0
e
m
2
0 0
Y e
L.
Q)
a
z
Y
0
0
e
e,

U
2 0
u B
e,
> .-C
.-e cd
e
m E
2e, x
P
3
cd

eL.

Y
v)

z
U
4 3 4 3 c u c u
0 0 0 0

G
d
m
.-U 8
.e
Y
L. 8
C
8
C C
U .A .4 .-
2 t $
8 m m m

150
Appendix V Data used for costing: Cost of time

o o m 006 m W o o 0 6
O O P 0 0.N m N W N
omoo o m o m
W O N
O m N
-mm- 0c 0I -I-m b,
- m m m
- I - * 2

o o m $$$ 000 m a m 0 0
o o m o o m d N W N
o o m 000 00- m
o m m 0 m I - m
eo0 m
O d d ZNW
00 4

0 02 $$$ O O W I- WCaOZ
0 0
o m m 000
OOI-
O d d z hlm
o W m
m m P 222 w m m
W m W
W
m
m + N I-
" 3 W

0 0 0 N $$$
-
m
w m o z
N m
oom
006
ooom
oovm
N I -
N
-
N
00
,.
hl

m
. 000
22s
m
I-
m
d

m o o m 0 D I - O N
00-
m $$$ 000 m N W N
O O W 000 m
ooco m O N W
m w w 00 222 m m m W
00
COW- 4
m m d
N m
m 2
$$$ 00 W NOZ
0 0 0
0 02
0 0
0
(U
m 000 zm N W

OOI-
m o m
N
0
b,b,b, 00
P N m I- m
* I -

o o m
O O P
oom
m N P
-mI-
:
m
00
$$$
000
b,b,b,
00-
o o m
ooom
- b o o
W o o N
W
0
m
m
I-
W
W P O S ;
N m

--m d m d m
- m - I -

0000 d $$$ O O W d W NOS


N m
oom P 000
o o m W
ul
O O W m O W W
N m o
O d I -
COWm
00
W
SZb, b o o 0
W
I-
d m N W I - m
m d

oooo
o o m
O O W
d
I-
m
$$$
000
zm
O d I -
w w m
to
W
22's: CO
W
d m N N
m

nnn nnn
h
4
m m -
w w v v r3r3r3
922922
w o o 0
w w w w w w w w o o o w
3 3 3 3
03s s G s s s
a ."U
E 0 Y
L. E .+ .d

r) e
.d
o
I+ s

151
~~

. Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

moo m W 00 d hl m m hl 00
3 m W m d W 4 m m 0
m m m hl 00 d m
2 d
4
4
0
00 W 0
I-
d
hl
m
0
m -
W
00
m
3
0
W
m
s
m
(U
2

-
W m W m VI m
3 3
2
m
m
- m W
W m
I-
l-
I-
m
v,
I-
d
zm d
0
m
I?
Q\
03
m
00
0 m c.l W I- hl
2 hl 0
m 2
3
l-

d d m W 0 m I- 3
m
d
m
hl
I-
VI
m
N m W d hl 00
m 2 m m hl I-
2 W N
W
rD
0
m d 2
3
00
s I-
m
0
m
00
W
d
4 W I-

mhl m W I- m m m m hl 0
N m W W W m W VI W W
m 00 m m m
I-
m 2 0
d m W
d
m
I-
4
m
m
VI
H
W
m
0 d 0 W hl
d d

d m C'I W hl d hl
m m W hl 00 W
m 14: W m hl
m Q'
2 0
2 ki w

OI- hl W l- m m
m W W I-
I-
2 !l W
z
4
d
00 m m 4
0 00 m
hl

W V I hl W d 4 m 00 I-
m m
m
m
W
W
W
hl 2 00
3 2
m
I-
m I- d
m 0
0 I- hl
4

m m hl W cv 0
d m W I- m
d 2 m W
m d hl
0

m m hl W 4
m
4 h

d m W hl
m
d
m 14: m 2 0
0 m
m

nh
4
w w
4
-
n
'""
5
. 5
.
v
o
$ 3
'E g s 2 w w w w w w w
$
+a

v)
+d
m n
v)

-%
D i? 4
h
s c
o .9 9 .9
5 .El 5 0
.e

152
Appendix V Data used for costing: Cost of time

hl n P 00 m m W
2
m
n
u
n
W
0
00
0
m
m
s
d
W
m
hl
m
0
d
0 x) m N (U
m n m 2 2
+
+ s
m + m
.
00 00 I- d
hl 00 I- 0 m
F
hl 5 m m m 00 +
m
m F 00 W 3
hl 0 F hl hl
l- F
hl 3
n 2
3 d

0
m
W
.2
d
n W
m
m
hl
3
d
0
m
m
m
m
hl
00
? m
N
W
W
m
W
2 hl
2 n
0
00
F
d d

m
d
m
m
F
d
n
n
d
n
3
m
m
W
2
W
0
W
m
W
m
hl
d
m
hl
W
m
hl
m
0
F
-
hl
m
m

d d

W m m 0 m 00
z 21 00 m
0
00
m
3 F
hl
-7 F 4
F m m m F
E! % m

-.
d d
d n hl
00 $1 $1
-7
4

m 00 m m 0
2 3 4 3
b, F m
hl
2 s
3
m
d
d
m
0
W
00
m
m
hl
W
m
m n 0 m m

hl
m
0
3
3
n
2
F
m
0
W
0
W
W
W
m -
0
s
-
hl
0
m 3 m
$1 2 d
0 n 00
W W
hl 00
5? m
e
hl
l-
m
W
3
n
3
00
2
0
F
F
v,
m
00
2
m
m
m
F 9 m F W hl
m 3 W 0
m
0
m
n F
d m
00"

-
d
P
c1
3
3
0
hl
00
W
m
00
hl
00
d
b,
W
m
0
F
m
W
d
3
n
0
2 E!
hl
z
hl
3

c1 d

cd
a 6
W

w a4 w w w w

153
~~
~~~~ ~ ~~~

Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

m d W
W b . b
m 2 2
N

b m N
W vl
52
3
m N
4

vl d 0
m
vl
2 22 m

QI 4 00
0 W P
I- m W

vl b m
3
4
ul
QI 22
m 3

m N 4
W O m
Pvl
m w
I-
W % m
d
Nvl N

0
d
W
00 2
hl
W
If: d

CO CO
rDhl cu
3ul
m m 3 00
cu

z
W
0
N
W
N
m
10
d

b
9 w w
w

-
ld
Y

t4:
154
Appendix V Data used for costing: Cost of time

W
b
2
e
hl
d
\o
v)
W
m
hl x
Q\

W
E

z m
W
m
hl
v)
hl
w
W
m
b
0
00 x
t-

E= e d e

E
0 00 VI
x
v)
Q m 0 v)
W m 2
E= v)
m W
E
m m
b
00
I-
W
4
W
0
hl
0
P x
W
E

U
5
-
0
00

4
m
m
m
E:

m m
z
Q\

CI
fiV

Y
hl I-
vl 0 m
4 00 hl

2
hl
e
4
W
W
10
0
d
-
v)
3

z
m O b O r n
lr109-?
0000

00 00
2 m
hl
00
0
m
m
m
2
0 hl m d
CI1 m W vl
m v)
m W
hl

2
x
b
2
0
II
t.. t..
9
w
9
w

2
.4

2
a
.-E 4
B
.-
3
b
-
.
.I

V
V
0

155
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

Appendix VI

Reinforcement drawings for Floors 1 to 6 (reduced to A4 size)

156
I

. ..

L --
0
L
0
IL

157 . .
... . . . . -. . .... .. . . . ..
.. .- . .- .. . .. .,

158
159
'...
c

. 160
T1

---

_s
I-

fl
F, PI

!
r
"9:.
-1
$1
Qi
C'
f! 161
: I

1I
!
j ..*
i
..

F
t
3

m
01

e-
- --.-
81
t
0 I
I

-
16
n.
i-
'3
162 r-
- /
.- .. .. ... .. . . .._

----- I-

rf
I- ---
--
. ...

"..F j
.. :

___-.,
;',

-I . ...
!. ...-,;

..! .'
IiJ .

.! j
p .-.
I
.__.
I
I
I
---
I F.
..........
... ,.:. ,

3- ...... -. ....
II-Sar0~-QSl-S01-

/
i€i-~zt-loL-zll-zzl

.. -I

--- ....

\ .................... ,I-:.;
, . . 4 -
10-oE:-c01-111-01 ,

;I
,

1
I

F-
-J

d-
L
0
0
I

L
165
3
z

E
0
Y

L
167
v)
L
I I I .I I

1 .I 1 169
!.-
A
CO<'
dh
- '-oos;--' ! __
A
.. . ....
CC'L
. .. . . -
-.
n
2
CC<'
(3 1
vi
f

. Br-s
OS7
Appendix VI1

Bending strength evaluation of the ECBP floor slabs.

171
Bending Strength Evaluation of the ECBP Floor Slabs

Dr David Johnson
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering
The Nottingham Trent University
Burton Street
Nottingham NGl 4BU

2 October, 1998

172
Bendinn Strength of ECBP Floors

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Automated yield-line analysis [*I has been applied to the first six floors of the in-situ
building of the European Concrete Building Project (ECBP) at Cardington (including
the two differing halves of floor four). The objective was to evaluate the bending
strength of the floors and thereby to establish any variation in bending capacity
resulting from the differing design and detailing approaches used for the floors. The
results obtained are summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Bending strength summary

Floor Bending Reinforcement Weight‘ LF”


(tonnes) (fine)

1st Traditional loose bar. 16.4 1.13


2nd Traditional loose bar - high ductility. 16.6 §§§

3rd Rationalised loose bar. 14.7 1.19


4th N:Yield-line design. 14.2 1.16
S:Blanket loose bar 22.9 1.34
5th One-way mats. 19.3 1.15
6th Two-way mats. 25.0 1.51

’ Weightlfloor of bending reinforcement in slabs (i.e. excluding shear reinforcement and reinforcement
in upstand beams). On floor 3, compliance with normal deflection criteria was specifically excluded
from the design; an extra 1.6t would have been required to meet normal EC2 deflection rules. In the case
of floors 4N and 4s weights have been scaled from schedules from half a floor. ” Load factor against
’”
failure at ultimate loads. Not analysed as closely similar to floor 1.

The principal conclusions arising from the investigation are that:

the floors are satisfactory in respect of bending strength in that all designs provide a
load factor over ultimate design strength of at least unity.
the design for Floors 1-5 (with the exception of Floor 4s) provide very similar load
factors and are sufficiently closely designed to make further reinforcement
economies unwarranted.
Floors 4 s and 6 have higher load factors and some reduction in the reinforcement
steel could be made to make the load factor closer to unity. This is particularly the
case for Floor 6 , where the reinforcement of the uniform two-way mesh can be
readily reduced to effect a proportionate load factor reduction.

173
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

INTRODUCTION

b l ] I
U stand beam

I
1 I

I I
400 x 250 I I

RC Column I I
I I

3
400 x 400 1
RC Column

upstand beam
I
1.5 _ _- 1.5 L 1
1.5 .
Figure 1: General arrangement of typical floor of ECBP

Floor Slab Arrangement

The floor slabs of the European Concrete Building all have a similar plan (figure l),
being a rectangular (three by four) arrangement of twelve 7.5 m square flat slabs
supported by 400 x 400 internal columns and 400x 250 perimeter columns. There are
seven floors in total and each was individually designed (table 2) to explore different
aspects of flat slab reinforcement arrangements

The floors were designed for a combined (dead + live) ultimate load of 14.7 kN/m2
(uniformly distributed) and line loads of 11.95 kN/m along the longer edges and 6.75
kN/m along the shorter edges. The various designs all complied with EC2, using dead
and live load factors, gk = 1.35 and qk = 1.50, respectively. The material properties
employed were C30/37 concrete (fk = 30 N/mm2;f,, = 37 N/mm2) and fy= 500 N/mm2
for the reinforcement.

174
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

Table 2: Bending reinforcement arrangements for the ECBP floor slabs

I Floor I Bending Reinforcement


North Grids 1-3 South Grids 3-5

I lst I Traditional loose bar to sensibly minimise steel content


Traditional loose bar to sensibly minimise steel content
Normal ductility High ductility

I 3rd I Rationalised loose bar to minimise costs


Normal ductility High ductility
4th Blanket cover loose bar to sensibly minimise number of bar marks
Yield-line design I Elastic design

I 5th I One-way mats with local supplementary loose bars

I 6th I Two-way mats with local supplementary loose bars

I 7th ~
I Hybrid of pc Omnia plates, Densit and in-situ

Automated Yield-Line Analysis ‘*I

To determine the mode of collapse, a quarter of each floor (on the assumption that the
general arrangement is approximately symmetric) was first analysed using a general
triangulated mesh of the form shown in figure 2a. From the detailed design drawings,
the reinforcement in each of the rectangular subdivisions of the mesh was determined.
These reinforcement details were converted into ultimate moments of resistance, as
detailed in Appendix 1, for positive and negative bending and a system of moment of
resistance “zones” was thereby established (figure 2b).

a.
‘ column
b.

Figure 2: Quarter slab model a. triangulation b. typical moment of resistance zones

175
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

Following the quarter slab analysis, a more refined mesh was devised which was
specific to the collapse mode identified by the preliminary analysis. The finer mesh
provided a more accurate representation of the geometry (for example the positions of
the voids and the finite sizes of the columns) and also of reinforcement curtailment
positions. Having obtained a yield-line pattern, it is possible, in theory[31,to vary the
positions of the yield-line intersection points and hence to determine the critical
positions for these points, which are such as to minimise the load factor. In the present
case, however, no geometric optimisation of the yield-line pattern was undertaken.
This was partly because the effects of geometric optimisation were expected to be
small, in view of the fineness of the meshes used, and partly because optimisation
would have been difficult due to the many different moment of resistance zones
employed.

TYPICAL RESULTS

8.888

-8. 143

-8.286

-8.429

....” 0 -0.571

-8.714

-8.857
....................... -1 .EBB

a. b.
Figure 3: Typical quarter slab (floor 1) a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

In the case of the first floor, the quarter slab analysis predicted the yield-line pattern
shown in figure 3a, with the associated contour collapse mode shown in figure 3b. The
collapse mode is local to the north bays (AI-Cl in figure 1) and involves a negative
yield-line along the penultimate row of columns and local “fan” collapses around the
perimeter columns. In order to position the void more accurately, the north bays were
meshed more finely. This also enabled the finite size of the columns to be incorporated
and for the inclusion of the local reinforcement at the slab edges to be modelled. A
second analysis was undertaken then undertaken, the results of which are shown in
figure 4.

The fine analysis of figure 4 shows that the collapse mode has been modified by the
new meshing so that the collapse is now of the “propped cantilever” variety, in which
the hogging yield-line is along the faces of the penultimate row of columns and is
accompanied by a sagging in-span yield-line, which is continuous rather than being
affected by the local column fan mechanisms of the coarse analysis (figure 3). The
finer analysis also increases the load factor significantly from 1.01 to 1.13. This is
partly attributable to the decrease in effective span, due to the representation of the
finite size of the columns, and is also no doubt partly caused by the incorporation of

176
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

A
(b U 3

..............................................

n n ..............................................

a.

b.
Figure 4: Typical finer analysis (floor 1) a. yield-lines b. collapse mode contour plot

COMPLETE RESULTS

The results for each floor, including the two separate designs used for the upper and
lower halves of floor 4 are presented in Appendix 2. For each floor, the yield-line
pattern and a contour plot of the collapse mode are provided for both the quarter slab
mesh and for the refined mesh analysis. In the case of floor 6, two fine analyses are
shown since the yield-line pattern and contour plot of the first fine analysis (figure A2-
13) indicated that collapse of the north bays might be the critical mode, rather than the
west bays mode predicted by the quarter slab analysis (figure A2-12). The second fine
analysis (figure A2-14) did, in fact, result in a lower load factor, showing that the
north bay collapse mode was the critical one. It is quite common for several collapse
modes to coexist at very similar load factors and mode predictions are therefore much
less reliable than load factor values, the latter, of course, normally being of primary
interest.

A summary of the collapse load factors and collapse modes resulting from the various
analyses is given in table 3 . From the table it may be observed that the finer analyses
all produce increased load factors over the quarter slab results, although the increase is
small in the case of floor 4, where the improved representation of the reinforcement
arrangement presumably led to a weaker moment of resistance pattern, the effect of

177
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

The “fine” load factors all exceed unity, and are therefore “safe” in the sense that the
yield-line analysis predicts that the design ultimate load will be achieved, with some
reserve of capacity, dependent on the degree to which the load factor exceeds unity. For
most floors the reserve is modest and there is no significant scope for reinforcement
economy. Floors 4 s and, more especially, Floor 6, do, however, have load factors
significantly in excess of unity and some economy could be made. This would be
particularly straightforward in the case of Floor 6, where the uniform reinforcement
provided by the two-way mats could be readily reduced so as to lower the capacity by
up to 50%. The T12 @, 150 mm both ways T&B, could, for example, be reduced to T10
@, 150 T&B to achieve this.

Table 3: Load factor and collapse mode summary


~

Floor Bending Reinforcement Weight‘ LF“ LF Collapse mode


(tonnes) (quarter) (fine)
~~

1st Traditional loose bar. 16.4 1.01 1.13 North bays.

2nd Traditional loose bar - 16.6 1.01 §§§ North bays


high ductility.
3rd Rationalised loose bar. 14.7 1.05 1.19 West bays.

4th N:Yield-line design. 14.2 1.01 1.16 Internal bays.


S:Blanket loose bar 22.9 1.32 1.34 South bays
5th One-way mats. 19.3 0.99 1.15 North bays.

6th Two-way mats. 25.0 1.33 1.51 North bays.

Weightlfloor of bending reinforcement in slabs (i.e. excluding shear reinforcement and reinforcement
in upstand beams. On floor 3, compliance with normal deflection criteria was specifically excluded from
the design; an extra 1.6t would have been required to meet normal EC2 deflection rules. In the case of
floors 4N and 4 s weights have been scaled from schedules from half a floor. ” Load factor against
failure at ultimate loads.”‘Not analysed as similar to floor 1.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation has been limited to an examination of the bending strength capacity
of the floors of the ECBP in-situ building and the conclusions drawn are therefore
subject to reservations in respect of serviceability and shear capacity requirements,
neither of which are considered by the automated yield-line approach. Serviceability

178
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

constraints, in particular, will almost certainly affect any attempts to reduce the load
factors of table 3 closer to unity.

Subject to the above reservations, the principal conclusions arising from the
investigation are that:

0 the floors are satisfactory in respect of bending strength in that all designs provide a
load factor over ultimate design strength of at least unity.
0 the load factors of the various floors increase with weight of bending reinforcement
in a general sense, although some layouts are clearly more effective than others. The
yield-line designed floor (4N), for example, provides the same load factor as the
one-way mat arrangement of floor 5, even though the weight of bending
reinforcement in the latter floor is some 35% more.
0 the design for Floors 1-5 (with the exception of Floor 4s) provide very similar load
factors and are sufficiently closely designed to make further reinforcement
economies unwarranted. The closeness of the load factors to unity for several of the
floors may appear strange, given that most were designed elastically and might
therefore be presumed not to allow for moment redistribution effects, which are
incorporated in the yield-line analyses. However, moment coefficients provided by
Codes of Practice commonly make some provision for redistribution (often based on
yield-line results) and the automated analyses therefore suggest that these provisions
are effective and relevant.
Floors 4 s and 6 have higher load factors and some reduction in the reinforcement
steel could be made to make the load factor closer to unity. This is particularly the
case for Floor 6 , where the reinforcement of the uniform two-way mesh can be
proportionately reduced to effect a proportionate load factor reduction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This investigation is part of the DETR “Rationalisation of Flat Slab Reinforcement”


Project, managed by the Reinforced Concrete Council, and partial funding from the
project, which operates under the “Partners in Technology” scheme, is gratefully
acknowledged. The software used was developed by Dr A. C. A. Ramsay, former
Research Fellow at Nottingham Trent University.

REFERENCES
1. ALLEN, J. D. (1998). Reengineering the design and construction process. The
Structural Engineer, Vol. 76, No. 9, pp 175-179.

2. JOHNSON, D.(1994). Mechanism determination by automated yield-line analysis.


The Structural Engineer, Vol. 72, No. 19, pp 323-327.

179
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

3. JOHNSON, D. (1 995). Yield-line analysis by sequential linear programming.


International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp 1395-1404.

180
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

APPENDIX 1

181
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

Taking as an example, the evaluation of the moment of resistance of T20@ 150B, then:

A, = 2090 mm2;fy = 0.87~500= 435 N/mm*;d = 210 mm (see Figure Al. 1)

1 I d 0

Figure Al.1: Slab section with T20-250B reinforcement

Thus:
435x2090x0.9x210
M" = = 172 kNm/m assuming I, = 0.9d
1o6

To check lever arm assumption:

172~10~
k= = 0.105 whence I, = 0.87d , acceptably close to assumed value.
1 o3x2 1o2x37

182
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

APPENDIX 2

183
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

LOAD FACTOR = 1.01243382987 CARlQUAR.flS

___ POSITIUE YIELD-LINE ___ NEGATIUE YIELD-LINE

a.

0.000

-0.143

-0.286

-0.429

-0.571

-0.714

-0.857

-1 -000

b.
Figure A2-1: Floor 1 - quarter slab a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

184
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

LOAD FACTOR = 1.12729755559 CAR1TOPF.HS

-POSITIVE YIELD-LINE ~ NEGAT IUE Y IELD-L [NE

a.

0.000

-0.143
-0.286

-0.429

-0.571

-0.714
-0.857

-1.000

b.

Figure A2-2: Floor 1 - fine analysis a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

185
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

LOAD FACTOR 1.00849439862 CAR2QUAR.M

-POSIT IUE Y IELD-L INE ~ NEGATIUE YIELD-LINE

a.

0.000

-0.143

-0 .286

-0.429

-0.571

-0 .?I4

-0.857

-1.000

b.

Figure A2-3: Floor 2 - quarter slab a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

186
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

LOAD FACTOR = 1.04543617346 CAR3QUAR.MS

~ POSITIVE YIELD-LINE ~ NEGAIIUE YIELD-LINE

a.

0.000

-0.143

-0.286

-0.429

-0.571

-0.714

-0.857

-1 .e00

b.

Figure A2-4:Floor 3 - quarter slab a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

187
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

LOAD FACTOR = 1.18952060020 CABS IDE .nSH

~ POSITIUE YIELD-LINE ___ NEGAT IUE Y IELD-L [NE

a.

0.037

-0.111

-0.259

-0.407

-0.556

-0.704

-0.852

-1.000

b.

Figure A2-5:Floor 3 - fine analysis a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

188
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

LOAD FACTOR = 1.01057380516 CAR6QUAR.HS

-POS I1IUE Y IELD-L INE -NEGATIUE Y IELD-L INE

a.

0 .a00

-0.143

. -0.286

-0 . a 9

-0.572

-0.714

-0.857

-1 .a00

b.

Figure A2-6:Floor 4N- quarter slab a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

189
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

LOFID Ft3CIOR = 1.16204881148 CFIR6INTF.M

~ POSITIUE YIELD-LINE ~ NEGFITIUE YIELD-LINE

a.

0.000

-0.143

-0.286

b.

Figure A2-7: Floor 4N- fine analysis a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

190
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

LOAD FACTOR = 1.32237805888 CAR4BQUA.HS

~ POSIT IUE Y IELD-L INE ___ NEGATIUE YIELD-LINE

a.

0.000

-0.143

-0.286

-0 .429

-0.571

-0.714

-0.857

-1.000

b.

Figure A2-8:Floor 4s- quarter slab a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

191
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors
I

LOAD FACTOR = 1.34249568598 CAR4BBOT.HS

~ POS IT IUE Y IELD-L INE ___ NEGATIUE YIELD-LINE

a.

0.000

-0.143

-0.286

b.

Figure A2-9: Floor 4s - fine analysis a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

192
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

LOAD FACTOR = 0.99317438822s

___. POS I1IUE Y IELD-L INE -NEGATIUE YIELD-LINE

a.

0.000

-0.143

-0.286

-0.429

-0.571

-0.714

-0.857

-1.000

b.

Figure A2-10:Floor 5 - quarter slab a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

I93
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

LOAD FACTOR = 1.15ZZ?518788 CARSTOPF.HS

-POS IT IVE Y IELD-L INE ~ NEGATIVE YIELD-LINE

a.

8 .808

-8.143

-8,286

-8.429

-8.571

-0.714

-0 .857

-1.808

b.

Figure A2-11:Floor 5 - fine analysis a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode


I '.. ' ,
194
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

LOAD FRCTOR = 1.32951961863 CAR6QUAR.tlS

~ POSITIVE YIELD-LINE ~ NEGAT IUE Y IELD-L INE

a.

0 .e00

-0.143

-0.286

-0.429

-e .571
-0.714

-0.857

-1 .e00

b.

Figure A2-12: Floor 6 - quarter slab a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

195
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

LORD FACTOR = 1.63532943705


+--
I

~ POSITIVE YIELD-LINE ___ NEGATIVE YIELD-LINE

a.

0.000

-0.143

-0.286

-0.429

-0.571

-0.714

-0.857

-1.000

b.

Figure A2-13: Floor 6 - fine analysis 1 a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

196
Bending Strength of ECBP Floors

LOAD FACTOR = 1.50527589999 CAR6TOPF.HS

-POSITIVE YIELD-LINE -NEGhTIUE YIELD-LINE

a.

b.

Figure A2-14: Floor 6 -fine analysis 2 a. yield-lines b. contour plot of collapse mode

197
Appendix VI11 Charts showing potential
savings for flexural
reinforcement and shear
systems
General
The following charts compare the savings from different ways of reinforcing concrete flat
slabs. They were derived from a spreadsheet combined the figures in Appendices IV and V in
accordance with Table 8.13. The assumptions made are discussed in Section 8.4.

Each graph has four sets of lines representing the savings (or losses) expected for four main
parties to a contract -
0 Specialist trade subcontractor
0 Main contractor (or equivalent)
0 Speculative clients (clients experiencing finance charges)
0 Clients subject to finance charges and to obtaining rent

Each set of lines is based on four points. The left hand point represents an average sized
multi-storey building of 4500m2 gross floor area on three storeys, M4C3 (M4 relates to the
M4 corridor, nominally Reading, C to concrete and 3 to three storeys). The right hand point of
each four represents a large building of approximately 13,000 m2 gross floor area on nine
storeys (M4C9). The intermediate points relate to buildings of approximately 7000m2on
five storeys (M4C5) and 10,000 m2 on seven storeys (M4C7).

The baseline of i0.00/m2 savings represents the traditional reinforcement used on Floors 1
and 2. Margins of error on each line are discussed later in this chapter.

..

Previous page 199


is blank
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

..............

''I3

113
t + t
119

2 s 0
d R 8 :

\
r-
Appendix VI11 Savings for flexural reinforcement

I
i

,............ ............ ...............


!
I 2
i

.c1
h
E
0
U,
c
h
U
2
CI
E
0
U
Ccl
0

L
G
I
I

v
d
+-,
U E
E
+-,
E
z4
hl

xa
L
\o
E
2
cy,
E
.m
CI
Q
51
E
E
H

20 1
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

c,
v
E
c1
a
I
8
d
e
.
0
I
c,
a
2
c,
c,

a
on
.
e
I
c,
d

e
U
a
Appendix VI11 Savings for flexural reinforcement

hl
W
E

I
L
ads I a2
h
1
.-
M
s s k

eiuaug : qua

n
U
f
8
W

-.
Q
f
0
.I
U
.I
v
2
U
U
I3
a
M
._
U
E
Q
I
c
E
U
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

F 2

I f

W
U
E
W
C
0
U
U

?i
s
C

:
c
.-0
W
U
J
L
U

2
6
U

B
a
M
.-
*
E
CrJ
b
0
E
j l
E
U
Appendix VI11 Savings for flexural reinforcement

I i
r----
5
I
i

205
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

: S)U

: s;u

r 6

SIU4

3 C
0
n
c,
U 3
E
.c1 3
El
8 3

IS

IS

S
S
-
x g

206
Appendix VI11 Savings for shear systems

g
L.
U-

0
2

Y
?
U
m
L
c,
C
i
n

-8
m
C
.-
0
.-
Y

U
m
L
CI

VI
Y
0
P
M
.-
*
E
m
>
0
C
C
U s
207
Rationalisation of flat slab reinforcement

I I

LU13

................... ..
z
\
\
h

sq
\

Y
U
U
E
c)
E
8
c)

5
E
5E
2E
0
.e
U
U

U
t
M
E
8
U
M
0
a
.-Mm
U
E

>
0
C
E
CI
Appendix VI11 Savings for shear systems

........~.

T
c,
0
E?
c,
E
8
s
zm
.I

E
Q
e
W
.I

i
c,
I;
a
W
e
.I
c,

*0
CO

E
e
Y

209
c-

RATIONALISATION OF FLAT SLAB REINFORCEMENT

C. H. Godchild

BRlTISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION PUBLICATION 97.376


F
lCVSfB

1666.982.24

You might also like