British Association of Reinforcement
At no extra cost. Compared with other construction materials reinforced concrete provides long term performance at no extra cost.

FRAME COSTS

Reinforced concrete offers cheaper construction cost, faster lead-in and construction times and reduced ongoing costs.

Commercial buildings

A cost model study has found that reinforced concrete can be up to 5% cheaper than steel frames for typical commercial buildings. Furthermore, when only frame costs are considered concrete flat slab was found to be an average of 36% cheaper than its flat-slab equivalent steel Slimdek construction. These significant cost advantages were compounded by a lead time of only 4-6 weeks for reinforced concrete compared with up to 18 weeks for steel.

The study, Commercial Buildings: Cost Model Study, was carried out for The Concrete Centre by architects Allies and Morrison, structural engineers Arup and cost consultants Davis Langdon with programming carried out by Mace. The study compared the cost of constructing three- and six-storey office buildings using a variety of reinforced concrete and steel framed short and long span options.

For the first building (Building A), a three-storey 4,650m2 office located in an out-of- town business park in the South East, three concrete and three steel 7.5m short span options were taken to normal outline design stage. For the second building (Building B), a six-storey office building in Central London, three 7.5m span concrete and three 7.5m span steel options were developed. In addition, one concrete and one steel option for a long span solution of 15m were developed.

In terms of overall construction costs, after allowing for the effects of programme, flat slab was found to be the most economic concrete-framed option for Building A. This option was up to 4.8% less expensive than the steel-framed options. For Building B, the short span concrete flat slab solution was found to up to 5.2% cheaper than the steel-framed options. For the long span option there was no discernible cost difference between concrete and steel framed solutions.

The most significant differential for both buildings occurred using a Slimdek steelframed option. For this, the overall construction cost was found to be up to 5.5% more expensive than a concrete flat slab solution. When only the costs of the frame are considered, the concrete flat slab option was found to be an average of 36% less expensive than the Slimdek option.

This research puts to bed the misinformation that reinforced concrete is more expensive than steel. At 5% the competitive gap between concrete and steel may not be that great but when you take into account the extensive 18 weeks lead time for steel, then clients and specifiers would be well advised to 'mind the gap'.

When procurement, lead times and construction duration are taken into account - based on a 10 week procurement programme and contractor lead times of 4-6 weeks for concrete and 12-18 weeks for steel - the overall programme for the concrete framed options were shorter than for steel.

For building A, concrete with its faster start on site came in at 64-66 weeks compared to 70 weeks for steel. For Building B, concrete came in at 82-86 weeks compared to 91-93 weeks for steel. For the long span option for Building B, the overall programme time was 83 weeks for concrete and 95 weeks for steel.

The total programme time, including lead time, is often overlooked in cost studies. This is disingenuous. For total programme time is what really matters to the bottom line.

School buildings

Independent research confirms that concrete offers the best overall economic solution for school construction, beating steel in terms of cost and lead times. Concrete-framed construction was found to be up to 6.4% less expensive and up to 6 weeks faster. In addition, concrete construction offers schools a range of extra value benefits at no additional cost.

The study, undertaken for The Concrete Centre by consultants Architecture plb, Arup, Davis Langdon and Costain, compared the costs of a typical secondary school using a variety of short-span and long-span reinforced concrete- and steel-framed options, taking into account construction times and the effect of programme times on cost.

In terms of overall construction cost, the most economic concrete-framed solution, the post-tensioned flat slab, was found to be up to 6.4% less expensive than the steel-framed solutions. This was the case even after adjusting time-related preliminaries for construction programme difference.

The most significant differential between both construction types occurred when using a Slimdek steel-framed solution. This was found to be 6.8% more expensive than a concrete post-tensioned flat slab solution, after adjusting time-related preliminaries. When only the costs of the frame were considered, the Slimdek option was found to be 63% more expensive than the concrete post-tensioned flat slab solution.

With regards to speed of construction, when procurement and lead times were taken into account together with construction duration, the concrete-framed options had faster overall construction programmes: 81-83 weeks compared with 86-87 weeks for the steel-framed options.

The study confirms concrete's economic and programme advantages over steel. Furthermore, concrete construction offers schools a whole range of extra value benefits at no additional cost. These include a better construction solution for durability, sound insulation and fire resistance as well as the potential for reduced energy consumption and maintenance costs through concrete's inherent thermal mass.

A cost model study has found that reinforced concrete can be up to 5% cheaper than steel frames for typical commercial buildings. Furthermore, when only frame costs are considered concrete flat slab was found to be an average of 36% cheaper than its flat-slab equivalent steel Slimdek construction. These significant cost advantages were compounded by a lead time of only 4-6 weeks for reinforced concrete compared with up to 18 weeks for steel.

The study, Commercial Buildings: Cost Model Study, was carried out for The Concrete Centre by architects Allies and Morrison, structural engineers Arup and cost consultants Davis Langdon with programming carried out by Mace. The study compared the cost of constructing three- and six-storey office buildings using a variety of reinforced concrete and steel framed short and long span options.

For the first building (Building A), a three-storey 4,650m2 office located in an out-of- town business park in the South East, three concrete and three steel 7.5m short span options were taken to normal outline design stage. For the second building (Building B), a six-storey office building in Central London, three 7.5m span concrete and three 7.5m span steel options were developed. In addition, one concrete and one steel option for a long span solution of 15m were developed.

In terms of overall construction costs, after allowing for the effects of programme, flat slab was found to be the most economic concrete-framed option for Building A. This option was up to 4.8% less expensive than the steel-framed options. For Building B, the short span concrete flat slab solution was found to up to 5.2% cheaper than the steel-framed options. For the long span option there was no discernible cost difference between concrete and steel framed solutions.

The most significant differential for both buildings occurred using a Slimdek steelframed option. For this, the overall construction cost was found to be up to 5.5% more expensive than a concrete flat slab solution. When only the costs of the frame are considered, the concrete flat slab option was found to be an average of 36% less expensive than the Slimdek option.

This research puts to bed the misinformation that reinforced concrete is more expensive than steel. At 5% the competitive gap between concrete and steel may not be that great but when you take into account the extensive 18 weeks lead time for steel, then clients and specifiers would be well advised to 'mind the gap'.

When procurement, lead times and construction duration are taken into account - based on a 10 week procurement programme and contractor lead times of 4-6 weeks for concrete and 12-18 weeks for steel - the overall programme for the concrete framed options were shorter than for steel.

For building A, concrete with its faster start on site came in at 64-66 weeks compared to 70 weeks for steel. For Building B, concrete came in at 82-86 weeks compared to 91-93 weeks for steel. For the long span option for Building B, the overall programme time was 83 weeks for concrete and 95 weeks for steel.

The total programme time, including lead time, is often overlooked in cost studies. This is disingenuous. For total programme time is what really matters to the bottom line.

School buildings

Independent research confirms that concrete offers the best overall economic solution for school construction, beating steel in terms of cost and lead times. Concrete-framed construction was found to be up to 6.4% less expensive and up to 6 weeks faster. In addition, concrete construction offers schools a range of extra value benefits at no additional cost.

The study, undertaken for The Concrete Centre by consultants Architecture plb, Arup, Davis Langdon and Costain, compared the costs of a typical secondary school using a variety of short-span and long-span reinforced concrete- and steel-framed options, taking into account construction times and the effect of programme times on cost.

In terms of overall construction cost, the most economic concrete-framed solution, the post-tensioned flat slab, was found to be up to 6.4% less expensive than the steel-framed solutions. This was the case even after adjusting time-related preliminaries for construction programme difference.

The most significant differential between both construction types occurred when using a Slimdek steel-framed solution. This was found to be 6.8% more expensive than a concrete post-tensioned flat slab solution, after adjusting time-related preliminaries. When only the costs of the frame were considered, the Slimdek option was found to be 63% more expensive than the concrete post-tensioned flat slab solution.

With regards to speed of construction, when procurement and lead times were taken into account together with construction duration, the concrete-framed options had faster overall construction programmes: 81-83 weeks compared with 86-87 weeks for the steel-framed options.

The study confirms concrete's economic and programme advantages over steel. Furthermore, concrete construction offers schools a whole range of extra value benefits at no additional cost. These include a better construction solution for durability, sound insulation and fire resistance as well as the potential for reduced energy consumption and maintenance costs through concrete's inherent thermal mass.

A cost model study has found that reinforced concrete can be up to 5% cheaper than steel frames for typical commercial buildings. Furthermore, when only frame costs are considered concrete flat slab was found to be an average of 36% cheaper than its flat-slab equivalent steel Slimdek construction. These significant cost advantages were compounded by a lead time of only 4-6 weeks for reinforced concrete compared with up to 18 weeks for steel.

The study, Commercial Buildings: Cost Model Study, was carried out for The Concrete Centre by architects Allies and Morrison, structural engineers Arup and cost consultants Davis Langdon with programming carried out by Mace. The study compared the cost of constructing three- and six-storey office buildings using a variety of reinforced concrete and steel framed short and long span options.

For the first building (Building A), a three-storey 4,650m2 office located in an out-of- town business park in the South East, three concrete and three steel 7.5m short span options were taken to normal outline design stage. For the second building (Building B), a six-storey office building in Central London, three 7.5m span concrete and three 7.5m span steel options were developed. In addition, one concrete and one steel option for a long span solution of 15m were developed.

In terms of overall construction costs, after allowing for the effects of programme, flat slab was found to be the most economic concrete-framed option for Building A. This option was up to 4.8% less expensive than the steel-framed options. For Building B, the short span concrete flat slab solution was found to up to 5.2% cheaper than the steel-framed options. For the long span option there was no discernible cost difference between concrete and steel framed solutions.

The most significant differential for both buildings occurred using a Slimdek steelframed option. For this, the overall construction cost was found to be up to 5.5% more expensive than a concrete flat slab solution. When only the costs of the frame are considered, the concrete flat slab option was found to be an average of 36% less expensive than the Slimdek option.

This research puts to bed the misinformation that reinforced concrete is more expensive than steel. At 5% the competitive gap between concrete and steel may not be that great but when you take into account the extensive 18 weeks lead time for steel, then clients and specifiers would be well advised to 'mind the gap'.

When procurement, lead times and construction duration are taken into account - based on a 10 week procurement programme and contractor lead times of 4-6 weeks for concrete and 12-18 weeks for steel - the overall programme for the concrete framed options were shorter than for steel.

For building A, concrete with its faster start on site came in at 64-66 weeks compared to 70 weeks for steel. For Building B, concrete came in at 82-86 weeks compared to 91-93 weeks for steel. For the long span option for Building B, the overall programme time was 83 weeks for concrete and 95 weeks for steel.

The total programme time, including lead time, is often overlooked in cost studies. This is disingenuous. For total programme time is what really matters to the bottom line.

School buildings

Independent research confirms that concrete offers the best overall economic solution for school construction, beating steel in terms of cost and lead times. Concrete-framed construction was found to be up to 6.4% less expensive and up to 6 weeks faster. In addition, concrete construction offers schools a range of extra value benefits at no additional cost.

The study, undertaken for The Concrete Centre by consultants Architecture plb, Arup, Davis Langdon and Costain, compared the costs of a typical secondary school using a variety of short-span and long-span reinforced concrete- and steel-framed options, taking into account construction times and the effect of programme times on cost.

In terms of overall construction cost, the most economic concrete-framed solution, the post-tensioned flat slab, was found to be up to 6.4% less expensive than the steel-framed solutions. This was the case even after adjusting time-related preliminaries for construction programme difference.

The most significant differential between both construction types occurred when using a Slimdek steel-framed solution. This was found to be 6.8% more expensive than a concrete post-tensioned flat slab solution, after adjusting time-related preliminaries. When only the costs of the frame were considered, the Slimdek option was found to be 63% more expensive than the concrete post-tensioned flat slab solution.

With regards to speed of construction, when procurement and lead times were taken into account together with construction duration, the concrete-framed options had faster overall construction programmes: 81-83 weeks compared with 86-87 weeks for the steel-framed options.

The study confirms concrete's economic and programme advantages over steel. Furthermore, concrete construction offers schools a whole range of extra value benefits at no additional cost. These include a better construction solution for durability, sound insulation and fire resistance as well as the potential for reduced energy consumption and maintenance costs through concrete's inherent thermal mass.

A cost model study has found that reinforced concrete can be up to 5% cheaper than steel frames for typical commercial buildings. Furthermore, when only frame costs are considered concrete flat slab was found to be an average of 36% cheaper than its flat-slab equivalent steel Slimdek construction. These significant cost advantages were compounded by a lead time of only 4-6 weeks for reinforced concrete compared with up to 18 weeks for steel.

The study, Commercial Buildings: Cost Model Study, was carried out for The Concrete Centre by architects Allies and Morrison, structural engineers Arup and cost consultants Davis Langdon with programming carried out by Mace. The study compared the cost of constructing three- and six-storey office buildings using a variety of reinforced concrete and steel framed short and long span options.

For the first building (Building A), a three-storey 4,650m2 office located in an out-of- town business park in the South East, three concrete and three steel 7.5m short span options were taken to normal outline design stage. For the second building (Building B), a six-storey office building in Central London, three 7.5m span concrete and three 7.5m span steel options were developed. In addition, one concrete and one steel option for a long span solution of 15m were developed.

In terms of overall construction costs, after allowing for the effects of programme, flat slab was found to be the most economic concrete-framed option for Building A. This option was up to 4.8% less expensive than the steel-framed options. For Building B, the short span concrete flat slab solution was found to up to 5.2% cheaper than the steel-framed options. For the long span option there was no discernible cost difference between concrete and steel framed solutions.

The most significant differential for both buildings occurred using a Slimdek steelframed option. For this, the overall construction cost was found to be up to 5.5% more expensive than a concrete flat slab solution. When only the costs of the frame are considered, the concrete flat slab option was found to be an average of 36% less expensive than the Slimdek option.

This research puts to bed the misinformation that reinforced concrete is more expensive than steel. At 5% the competitive gap between concrete and steel may not be that great but when you take into account the extensive 18 weeks lead time for steel, then clients and specifiers would be well advised to 'mind the gap'.

When procurement, lead times and construction duration are taken into account - based on a 10 week procurement programme and contractor lead times of 4-6 weeks for concrete and 12-18 weeks for steel - the overall programme for the concrete framed options were shorter than for steel.

For building A, concrete with its faster start on site came in at 64-66 weeks compared to 70 weeks for steel. For Building B, concrete came in at 82-86 weeks compared to 91-93 weeks for steel. For the long span option for Building B, the overall programme time was 83 weeks for concrete and 95 weeks for steel.

The total programme time, including lead time, is often overlooked in cost studies. This is disingenuous. For total programme time is what really matters to the bottom line.

School buildings

Independent research confirms that concrete offers the best overall economic solution for school construction, beating steel in terms of cost and lead times. Concrete-framed construction was found to be up to 6.4% less expensive and up to 6 weeks faster. In addition, concrete construction offers schools a range of extra value benefits at no additional cost.

The study, undertaken for The Concrete Centre by consultants Architecture plb, Arup, Davis Langdon and Costain, compared the costs of a typical secondary school using a variety of short-span and long-span reinforced concrete- and steel-framed options, taking into account construction times and the effect of programme times on cost.

In terms of overall construction cost, the most economic concrete-framed solution, the post-tensioned flat slab, was found to be up to 6.4% less expensive than the steel-framed solutions. This was the case even after adjusting time-related preliminaries for construction programme difference.

The most significant differential between both construction types occurred when using a Slimdek steel-framed solution. This was found to be 6.8% more expensive than a concrete post-tensioned flat slab solution, after adjusting time-related preliminaries. When only the costs of the frame were considered, the Slimdek option was found to be 63% more expensive than the concrete post-tensioned flat slab solution.

With regards to speed of construction, when procurement and lead times were taken into account together with construction duration, the concrete-framed options had faster overall construction programmes: 81-83 weeks compared with 86-87 weeks for the steel-framed options.

The study confirms concrete's economic and programme advantages over steel. Furthermore, concrete construction offers schools a whole range of extra value benefits at no additional cost. These include a better construction solution for durability, sound insulation and fire resistance as well as the potential for reduced energy consumption and maintenance costs through concrete's inherent thermal mass.

Top ▲

Visit our BAR Members forum. Click here

THE BENEFITS
PROJECT CASE STUDIES