Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
steel insight
multi-storey offices
The third of the Steel insight series looks at structural solutions for office buildings, and how steel can provide advantages in terms of cost, programme time and sustainability
01 | introduction and overview of the study
in november 2011 the BCsA and tata steel commissioned gardiner & theobald (g&t), Peter Brett Associates (PBA) and Mace group to undertake an impartial study of current construction practice for multi-storey offices to provide cost and programme guidance for quantity surveyors and design teams. the study builds on previous comparisons to reflect developments in construction techniques and changes in prevalence of different structural frame solutions. As decisions on frame material and configuration will be based on a number of factors, not simply cost, the study also considered the programme and buildability implications for each option and embodied carbon impacts for Building 2. PBA identified and designed representative framing solutions for two typical office buildings a business park office (Building 1) and a city centre office (Building 2). g&t provided cost information for each frame option and Mace considered buildability, logistics and programme. PBA also carried out the cradle to grave embodied carbon assessment on Building 2. the objective of the study is to provide a comprehensive comparison of two typical office buildings across a number of aspects for different structural solutions. the configuration and design of the office buildings is based on the design teams experience of current practice to provide an impartial comparison that could be used by others when considering the options available during the design and selection of a structural frame.
FiGure 1: coSTS For BuildinG 1 BASed on GroSS inTernAl Floor AreA (GiFA) steel Composite substructure 52/m2 gifA frame and upper floors 140/m2 gifA Total Building 1,535/m2 GIFA steel and Precast Concrete slabs 55/m2 gifA 151/m2 gifA 1,561/m2 GIFA Reinforced Concrete Flat slab 67/m2 gifA 155/m2 gifA 1,631/m2 GIFA Post tensioned Concrete Flat slab 62/m2 gifA 150/m2 gifA 1,610/m2 GIFA
06 | Building 1 summary
The cost and programme analysis of all four frame options for Building 1 has shown that the steel composite beam and floor option has both the lowest cost and the shortest programme, followed by the steel and precast concrete floor slab option. The frame and floor cost for the steel framed options are up to 10% lower than for concrete and the overall building cost is up to 6% lower than for concrete. even taking an average of the two steel options and an average of the two concrete options, the steel option costs are over 4% lower for both frame cost and total building cost. Furthermore, both steel framed options can also be constructed in a shorter time frame than for the concrete buildings, on average over 5% quicker.
FiGure 2: coSTS For BuildinG 2 BASed on GroSS inTernAl Floor AreA (GiFA) steel Cellular Composite substructure frame and upper floors Total Building 56/m2 gifA 194/m2 gifA 1,861/m2 GiFA Post tensioned Concrete Band Beam and slab 60/m2 gifA 210/m2 gifA 1,922/m2 GiFA
FiGure 3: BuildinG 2 cellulAr STeel coMpoSiTe FrAMe proGrAMMe Groundworks and Slab Steel Frame and decks Slab pours roof Works external Facade internal Works cellular Steel composite 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 20.4 16.4 12 5 16 39.2 72.4 80
FiGure 4: BuildinG 2 poST TenSioned BAnd BeAM FrAMe proGrAMMe Groundworks and Slab concrete Frame and Slabs roof Works external Facade internal Works pT concrete Band Beam 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20.4 28.3 5 16 39.3 80.3 90
steel option having over 23% less embodied carbon than the concrete option. However, reflecting the common practice of using cement replacement to reduce sustainability impacts, the embodied carbon was also assessed using 30% cement replacement with fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag. This level of cement replacement is considered to be a reasonable replacement without having a significantly adverse impact on construction programme due to increased curing time. in this case, the embodied carbon reduced to 184kgco2 /m2 for the steel option and to 204kgco2 /m2 for the post tensioned concrete option. Though the difference between the steel and concrete options was reduced, it was still significant with the steel frame having around 11% less embodied carbon than the post tensioned concrete frame. Finally, the impact of using steel bearing piles on the embodied carbon for both frame options was also assessed based on alternative substructure solutions developed by pBA and Tata Steel which utilised 356 x 368 x 152 uKBp in lieu of cFA piles. The use of steel bearing piles results in an increased number and length of piles for
both frame options, from 147nr (2,490m) to 190nr (3,984m) for the steel frame and from 150nr (3,225m) to 241nr (5,400m) for the concrete option; however, there are offsets in terms of a significant reduction in the size of pile caps and associated reductions to excavation and disposal for both options. The steel bearing piles can also be extracted at end of life and recycled or re-used elsewhere. While the use of steel bearing piles does have a cost implication, with the substructure costs for the steel option increasing from 56/m2 to 71/m2 and from 60/m2 to 90/m2 GiFA for the concrete option, some of this will be offset through programme benefits and they can also deliver embodied carbon benefits. on a substructure only basis, the embodied carbon reduces by 15% for the steel framed option and by 5% for the concrete option and across the whole building, the embodied carbon reduces to 195kgco2 /m2 for the steel option and to 250kg/co2 /m2 for the post tensioned concrete option in the base case scenario. This demonstrates that where sustainability is a key driver, significant benefits could be realised by the consideration of a steel bearing pile substructure solution.
250
253
250
200 kgco2 /m 2
205 184
204
195
150
100
50
13 | cost update
The results of the comparison study are reflected in the latest structural steelwork cost table ranges in Figure 6. The cost range for the low rise, short span building (Building 1) has remained constant across Q1 2012, which reflects the continuing difficult market conditions throughout the construction industry generally. Following the production of typical designs for the two building types, the description and rate range for the high rise, long span frame noted in the table has been updated to align with Building 2. However, it should be noted that for high rise or long span structures with more complex elements or an
irregular grid the rate range would need to be adjusted accordingly, and could be 15-20% higher than those noted for Building 2. To address this, a further frame type has been included within Figure 6. Similarly, the ranges for floor costs and fire protection have been adjusted to align with the results of the cost study and market testing, with the floor costs for both the metal deck and precast options reducing by around 15%. The continual forecasts of difficult economic conditions across 2012 continues to suggest that structural steelwork tender returns will remain stable well into 2012,
FiGure 6: indicATive coST rAnGeS BASed on GroSS inTernAl Floor AreA tyPe Frame - low rise, short spans, repetitive grid / sections, easy access (Building 1) Frame - high rise, long spans, easy access, repetitive grid (Building 2) Frame - high rise, long spans, complex access, irregular grid, complex elements Floor - metal decking and lightweight concrete topping Floor precast concrete composite floor and topping Fire protection (60 min resistance) Portal frames low eaves (6-8m) Portal frames high eaves (10-13m) giFA Rate () BCis index 100 75 - 100/m2 giFA Rate () City of london 90 - 120/m2
and the rates in Figure 6 can be considered suitable for the cost planning of projects where the structural works will commence in Q2 and Q3 2012. To use the table a) identify which frame type most closely relates to the project under consideration b) select and add the floor type under consideration c) add fire protection if required. As highlighted in previous Steel insights, before using such standard ranges it is important to confirm the anticipated frame weight and variables such as the floor-to-floor heights with the design team to determine whether they are above or below the average and to adjust the rate used accordingly. Similarly, all of the other key cost drivers of complexity, site conditions, location, function, logistics, programme and procurement strategy should be considered in turn.
125 - 150/m2
140 - 170/m2
145 - 170/m2
165 - 190/m2
FiGure 7: BciS locATion FAcTorS, AS AT 23 MArcH 2012 location city of london nottingham Birmingham manchester liverpool BCis index 114 97 99 94 90 location leeds newcastle glasgow Belfast cardiff BCis index 100 94 102 61 94
WWW.steelCOnstRUCtiOn.ORg