CCIP CMS Commercial

CCIP-010
CI/Sfb A cement and concrete industry publication
UDC
624.94.04.033
Cost Model Study – Commercial Buildings

Cost Model Study –
Commercial Buildings
Cost Model Study – Commercial Buildings A comparative cost assessment of the construction of
multi-storey office buildings
A report commissioned by The Concrete Centre

This comprehensive and independent cost study was Francis Ryder, Head of Cost at The Concrete Centre, has project
undertaken to evaluate a number of structural frame options managed this cost model study for commercial buildings.
for a three-storey office building in an out-of-town location
and a six-storey office building in a city centre location. For more information visit
A total of 14 floor design options were evaluated, budget www.concretecentre.com/publications
costings were assigned to all elements of construction

and adjustments were made to reflect time-related costs
attributable to differences in the construction programme.
The publication outlines the analysis, the detailed costings and

programmes for each structural alternative, and provides a useful
resource for architects, engineers and contractors involved with
evaluating the cost competitiveness of structural options for
multi-storey office construction.
CCIP-010
Published October 2007
ISBN 1-904482-36-8
Price Group P
© The Concrete Centre
Riverside House, 4 Meadows Business Park,

Station Approach, Blackwater, Camberley, Surrey, GU17 9AB
Tel: +44 (0)1276 606 800
www.concretecentre.com
CMS-commercial cover.indd 1 01/10/2007 11:26:58

A cement and concrete industry publication
Acknowledgements
The Concrete Centre, as the organisation who commissioned this independent study, would like to
acknowledge the contributions of the following companies on this project:
Allies and Morrison – Architectural Design

Established in 1984, Allies and Morrison’s expertise includes master planning, architecture, landscape, design,
interior design and conservation. Allies and Morrison routinely work on a number of master plans and played a key
role in preparing master plan proposals for the London 2012 Olympics and the regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley.
Past award winning commissions include One Piccadilly Gardens, Manchester; the BBC Media Village at White
City; Girton College Library and Archive and the British Council in Lagos, Nigeria.
www.alliesandmorrison.co.uk
Arup - Structural Design.

Arup is an international firm of consulting engineers, with over 55 years of international experience in providing
consultancy in engineering, design, planning and project management services in every field related to building,
civil, and industrial projects. Arup aims to provide a consistently excellent multi-disciplinary service by adding
value through technical excellence, efficient organisation, personal service and a strong commitment to
sustainable design.
www.arup.com
Davis Langdon LLP - Quantity Surveying

Davis Langdon LLP provides a range of integrated project and cost management services designed to maximise
value for clients investing in infrastructure, construction and property, with extensive experience in projects
and programmes across a broad range of sectors and building types. Davis Langdon has a culture of achieving
excellence and delivers success through limiting risk, forecasting and controlling cost, managing time and
resources, and maximising value for money according to the specific needs of the client and brief.
www.davislangdon.com
Mace - Programming
Mace is one of the world’s most diverse management and construction companies and is a renowned global
business providing management and construction services to the public and private sectors, with a reputation for
finding the best solutions to complex projects. Mace has been responsible for the successful delivery of a number
of award-winning projects, including the More London development incorporating City Hall, Heathrow T5 and
the City of London’s fourth tallest tower, 51 Lime Street.
www.mace.co.uk
The following proprietary products are referenced in this publication.

Slimdek® is a registered trademarks of Corus UK Ltd. Ribdeck® is a registered trademark of Richard Lees Steel
Decking Ltd.
Published by The Concrete Centre

Riverside House, 4 Meadows Business Park, Station Approach, Blackwater, Camberley, Surrey GU17 9AB
Tel: +44 (0)1276 606800 Fax: +44 (0)1276 606801
CCIP-010
ISBN 1-904482-36-8
Price Group P
Cement and Concrete Industry Publications (CCIP) are produced through an industry initiative to
publish technical guidance in support of concrete design and construction.
CCIP publications are available from the Concrete Bookshop at

www.concretebookshop.com Tel: +44 (0)7004 607777
All advice or information from The Concrete Centre is intended for use in the UK only by those who will evaluate the significance
and limitations of its contents and take responsibility for its use and application. No liability (including that for negligence) for
any loss resulting from such advice or information is accepted by The Concrete Centre or its subcontractors, suppliers or advisors.
Readers should note that the publications from The Concrete Centre are subject to revision from time to time and should
therefore ensure that they are in possession of the latest version.
Cover photo: Cardinal Place © Anthony Weller/VIEW.

Printed by Alden press, Witney, UK.

Cost Model Study – Commercial
Buildings
Contents
1. Summary 3
2. Introduction 5
3. Method of study 6
4. Building A – 3-Storey business park location 11
5. Building B – 6-Storey central city location 22
6. Programmes 35
7. Summary of costs 45
8. Study findings 49
9. Commentary from The Concrete Centre 62
A1. Appendix A – Detailed programmes 68
Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode1 1 02/10/2007 11:18:49

Summary
1. Summary
This cost model study compares the costs of constructing three- and six-storey commercial
buildings using a variety of short-span and long-span options in two different locations,
taking into account construction and Category A fit-out, and the effect of programme
times on cost.
Designs were commissioned for a three-storey office building in an out-of-town business

park location in the south east and a six-storey office building located in central London.
The buildings were based upon appropriate structural grids commonly in current use, with
designs and specifications suited to current market conditions. Architectural design was
undertaken by Allies and Morrison, all structural designs were carried out by Arup, and
costings were undertaken by Davis Langdon.
The designs were taken to normal outline design stage, the only differences being directly
attributable to the structural frame material. Budget costings were assigned to all elements
of construction, from substructure, superstructure and external envelope through to pre-
liminaries, with the exception of external works, which were considered to be too highly
site-specific to permit accurate costing. Adjustments were made to the costings to reflect
time-related costs attributable to differences in construction programmes.
Whilst identifying the variation in the costs of frames, the study also considers the effects
that the choice of framing material and method of construction have on other elements
of the building, as well as the other benefits that the choice of frame can generate.
The study demonstrates the need to consider all elements of the building cost, rather than
simply the cost of the structure, and highlights the extent to which elements other than
the structure are affected by the choice of frame solution.
In terms of overall construction cost for the three-storey building, the most economic
solution was found to be the RC Flat Slab option, closely followed by the steel Composite
option (+0.5%), with the Post-Tensioned Flat Slab and In-situ + Hollowcore options in
equal third place (+1.2%). The Steel + Hollowcore option was in fifth place (+2.4%), with
the Slimdek option being the least economic (+5.1%).
In terms of overall construction cost for the six-storey building, the most economic
solution was also found to be the RC Flat Slab option, closely followed by the Post-
Tensioned Flat Slab option (+0.1%), with the steel Composite option in third place
(+0.9%) and the In-situ + Hollowcore option in fourth place (+1.0%). The Steel +
Hollowcore option was in fifth place (+3.5%), with the Slimdek option again being the
least economic (+5.0%). Of the two long-span options on this building, the Post-
Tensioned Band Beam option and the Long-Span Composite option are respectively 2.2%
and 2.3% more costly than the Flat Slab option.

Summary
Thus in consideration of the construction cost, an average of 1.0% separates the four
most economic short-span options, rising to 5.1% when all six options are considered.
For the two long-span solutions considered, the difference in total construction cost is
negligible at 0.1%.
The main conclusions are that, for modern commercial buildings, the variation in total
construction cost is relatively small across the range of structural options considered and
that they are all relatively competitive. Clearly, therefore, it is the effect on other
construction related factors in the project which need to be considered in the selection of
the most appropriate structural choice. Factors such as cash flow, overall project time,
fire protection, use of flat soffits and lower floor to floor height are discussed in detail in
the study.

Introduction
2. Introduction
This Cost Model Study – Commercial Buildings was undertaken to provide both a com-
parison and an understanding of the construction costs associated with commercial
buildings using a variety of different structural solutions.
Cost is usually the major criterion in assessing design and construction alternatives and
construction professionals require current studies in order to provide weight to their
decisions. The Reinforced Concrete Council (RCC) published a cost model study on
commercial buildings in 1993 (GOODCHILD, C.H. Cost Model Study, British Cement
Association 97.333, 1993). The Concrete Centre identified that this study needed to be
updated because building types in the contemporary market are significantly different
from those that formed the basis of the 1993 study.
The value of the RCC study was found to be not so much in the cost results but in the
detailed and rigorous assessment of how structural frame choice can affect the cost of other
items, such as cladding, internal planning, fire protection, services, fit-out, etc. It is the
independent assessment of current building types reported in this document that will be
of most enduring value to quantity surveyors, architects, engineers and other
construction professionals.
Thus, The Concrete Centre commissioned a study, undertaken in 2005 and 2006 by the
following consultants:
Allies and Morrison Architectural Design
Arup Structural Design
Davis Langdon LLP Quantity Surveying
Mace Programming
The objective of the study was to provide a cost comparison between various structural
options for buildings of three-and six-storeys, on clear sites, in out-of-town and city centre
locations respectively. Identical specifications were required, with the only permissible
variations being directly attributable to the materials used in the structural frame.
It is emphasised that the study was undertaken on an independent basis. The structural
design for all options was carried out by Arup and costs were prepared by Davis Langdon,
based on pricing data obtained from their national cost database of recent projects and
therefore reflecting the current marketplace.
Procurement and construction planning/programming studies also formed part of the

commissions, in order that the effects of programme on costs could be included. These
were carried out by Mace.
The cost models were developed using current best practice and are reported upon in this
publication. The process of designing and costing alternative methods of constructing
otherwise identical buildings raises many interesting issues for those com-missioning,
designing and constructing buildings. As will be shown, there are many useful conclusions to
be drawn, over and above those relating simply to cost.

Method of study
3. Method of study
Brief The brief given to the design team asked for the outline designs of multi-storey buildings
on open clear sites, one case being an out-of-town business park in the south east and
the other case being in central London. The designs were to reflect contemporary
commercial practice and the design team’s best judgement. They would be used for
preparing budget costs and for making comparisons of the effects of the choice of
different structural frames.
The choice, size and location of the buildings to be investigated were based on the design
team’s judgement of current commercial practice and demand, and to avoid unduly
favouring one structural solution over another.
Designs were commissioned for a three-storey office building in an out-of-town business

park location in the south east (Building A) and a six-storey office building located in
central London (Building B). The buildings were based upon appropriate structural grids
commonly in current use, using pad or piled foundations. Specifications were suited to
current market conditions, which suggested that Building A be an air-conditioned, L-shaped
building with curtain walling and some natural ventilation and that Building B be a rec-
tangular, air-conditioned building with curtain walling.
Building A was chosen to reflect a framed building of average size (4,650m2) in a com-
mercial/business park setting. It is representative of a typical low-rise building in the
centres of current development activity.
Building B, containing retail space at ground floor level, was chosen to reflect a high-quality
framed building of average size (14,200m2 of offices and 2,300m2 of retail space) in
Central London. It is acknowledged that a building of this type in London would normally
have a basement. However, it was considered that inclusion of this element could unduly
favour some of the structural options over others above ground. Accordingly, the basement
construction has been excluded from the study.
Concepts and initial studies The shape and form of the buildings were determined to suit typical market requirements
in terms of performance and cost.
Indicative sketches for the two buildings, showing the building form, follow on page 7.

Method of study
Building A: Three-storey. Building B: Six-storey.
Typical floor plans and cross-sections for both

building projects used in this study
The form of Building A is an L-shape with a full-height atrium, a central service core and
secondary stairs and service access located towards the ends of the building, with a
limited amount of undercroft parking. Air conditioning is provided by a fan-coil system
providing full climate control when active.
The internal environment is designed to maximise daylighting and allow some mid-season
free cooling from natural ventilation, which saves energy and lowers CO2 emissions. This
is achieved with floor plates 23.5m wide, configured around a grid of three bays of 7.5m,
allowing a degree of cross-ventilation from the perimeter windows.
The building envelope comprises grid stick curtain wall cladding, incorporating floor to
ceiling double glazing units and aluminium clad insulated spandrels, permitting good
daylighting to most of the working areas.

Method of study
The form of Building B is rectangular, arranged around a central atrium and incorporating
a fan-coil unit air-conditioning system, with service cores located towards the ends of the
building. The form of the building is designed with a low envelope to volume ratio, which,
in addition to maximising investment return, helps minimise heat loss during the winter.
The building is fully sealed, requiring full climate control year round. The building envelope
comprises unitised curtain walling, incorporating floor to ceiling double-glazing units and
stone clad insulated spandrels.
The floor plate depths are 9.5m to the core walls on the E-W axis and 15.5m to either the
core walls or the atrium on the N-S axis. The building can be operated with single or split
tenancies, with splitting by vertical division and requiring a glazed wall to the atrium.
Layouts involving circular columns and cantilevers were not pursued (other than the
inclusion of two feature columns to the edge of the atrium on Building A) as they may
have unduly favoured some structural solutions over others. Also, utilisation of exposed
concrete inside the building to reduce capital and running costs of the air conditioning by
using the thermal mass of the structure has not been considered in the base case compari-
son, as this may also have unduly favoured some structural solutions over others. This is a
potential benefit which is discussed further in Chapter 9 - Commentary from The Concrete
Centre.
Investigations to determine the optimum structural grid for the proposed buildings were
carried out. Grids of 7.5 × 7.5m, 9.0 × 6.0m and 9.0 × 9.0m were considered.
For Building A, a 7.5 × 7.5m grid was established as optimum and was adopted for all
frame options in the study, long spans not being considered appropriate. For Building B, a
7.5 × 9.0m grid is more representative of the current market for a city centre site. It also
permitted exploration of a long-span option in the study, by creating a 15.0 × 9.0m grid.
The resulting gross floor areas were to be approximately 1,500m2 per floor based on a
7.5 × 7.5m structural grid for Building A and approximately 2,750m2 per floor based on a
9.0 × 7.5m structural grid for Building B.
For Building A, six options were developed. For Building B, six options were developed for
the short-span situations (7.5m) and two options for a long-span situation (15.0m), giving
eight options in total.
The structural options were chosen as being representative of current best practice and
most likely to be proposed by the design team for a commercially viable project. Indicative
diagrams and descriptions for each of the options are shown in the figures which follow.

Method of study
Short-span options - Building A and B Long-span options - Building B only

Option 1 - Flat Slab Option 2 - Composite Option 3 - PT Flat Slab Option 7 - PT Band Beams
Reinforced In-situ concrete flat slab Steel beams and metal decking, both Post-tensioned In-situ concrete flat slab Post-tensioned In-situ concrete flat slab
and columns acting compositely with In-situ and reinforced In-situ concrete columns and band beams with reinforced In-situ
concrete floor slabs. Steel columns concrete columns
Short-span options - Building A and B
Option 4 - Steel + Hollowcore Option 5 - In-situ + Hollowcore Option 6 - Slimdek Option 8 - Long-Span Composite
Steel beams acting compositely with Reinforced In-situ concrete beams and Slimdek system comprising asymmetric Long-span cellular steel beams and
precast concrete hollowcore floor columns with precast concrete beams and metal decking, both acting metal decking, both acting compositely
slabs. Steel columns hollowcore floor slabs compositely with In-situ concrete floor with In-situ concrete floor slab. Steel
slabs. Steel columns columns
Scheme designs The two buildings were taken up to normal outline design stage. The buildings were all to
commercial developers’ standards with associated outline specifications. The only diffe-
rences were directly attributable to the choice of structural solution.
The architectural schemes, layouts and specifications were based on contemporary

commercial practice and current regulations. The new Part L of the Building Regulations
had not come into effect at the time the designs were undertaken and is not therefore
taken into account in the study.
Office floors were designed to be for an open-plan configuration on a 1.5m planning

module, to allow for possible subdivision of the floors into two tenancies. Cellular office
layouts were allowed for. Potential partitions may be aligned with external wall mullions
or piers at 1.5m centres. Initial floor plans and core layouts were adjusted and modified
following liaison and discussion between the design team members. In particular, core
areas were modified as necessary to accommodate structural and engineering services’
requirements and to suit the peculiarities that result from the choice of structural
solution.
No design was undertaken for external works and landscaping, these aspects being so highly
site-specific as to preclude meaningful consideration. The extent, layout and complexity of
external works are to a large extent dictated by the size, configuration and orientation of the
site for each particular project, together with constraints imposed by location and external
factors such as planning. The extent to which external works are likely to be influenced to
any significant degree by the choice of structural solution is considered to be minimal, and
consequently, consideration of external works is beyond the scope of this study.

Method of study
The final structural zones represent those considered, by the design team’s experience
and judgement, to be optimum depths for the structures.
Specifications and drawings Design criteria and outline specifications were finalised and scheme drawings were
prepared for each building for all structural options. The design information is presented
in this document as follows:
Design criteria Architectural, structural and services
Outline specifications Architectural, structural and services
Architectural drawings Typical floor plans
Structural drawings Partial floor plans and floor zone for each of the following options:
Flat Slab
In-situ + Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Composite
Steel + Hollowcore
Slimdek
PT Band Beams
Long-Span Composite
Basis of costing and Costings were based on drawings and specifications prepared for all options, for both
quantities buildings.
Structural schemes were prepared for each frame option to allow for an order of cost to be
assessed and thus a comparison made (and not for an absolute cost to be determined).
The level of information provided on each scheme was equivalent to that which would be
prepared in a normal scheme design. Quantities and estimates of cost and areas were pre-
pared from the scheme design information. Budget costings were assigned to all elements of
construction, from substructure, superstructure and external walls through to preliminaries,
using rates appropriate to the specifications and locations and a base date of June 2006.
The costings were presented in the form of summaries and are contained within Chapter 7
Summary of costs, where information on key rates is also presented.
Planning and programming Detailed construction programmes were prepared on the basis of the drawings, specifica-
tions and quantities outlined in this report; these are presented in the form of bar charts
and are contained within Chapter 6 Programmes. Procurement programmes and contractor
lead times were also considered.
A more detailed explanation of the planning and programming, including notes on the
assumptions made and the logic used, is given within Chapter 6 Programmes, and
examples of the detailed programmes are contained within Appendix A.
10

Building A - Design criteria
4. Building A
Design criteria The following design criteria, representative of current good practice and commercial
standards, form the basis of the study.
Architectural Plan dimensions

Planning grid 1500 × 1500mm
Partition grid 1500 × 1500mm
Structural grid 7500 × 7500mm
Vertical dimensions 3950–4160mm (see drawings)
Floor to ceiling height 2700mm
Raised floor 250mm
Occupancy
Density One person per 10m2 of nett internal floor area.
Design target populations Three-storey 407 total, 319 on upper floors.
Ancillary accommodation
Core areas Include male and female toilets and cleaners’ cubicle on each
floor, disabled toilets and PABX equipment on the ground floor.
Structural Codes of practice and standards

Concrete BS 8110 Part 1: 1997 (amendments 1 & 2) - Structural use of concrete
Structural steelwork BS 5950 Part 1: 2000 - Structural use of steelwork in buildings
Loads
Imposed load Offices: 4.0 + 1.0kN/m2 for partitions
Roof: 0.75kN/m2
Dead load Self-weight plus superimposed dead load of 0.9kN/m2
Line loads External cladding 8kN/m
Atrium glazing 8kN/m
Internal blockwork walls 10kN/m
Deflections
General Deflections will be limited in accordance with the guidance in the
appropriate Code of Practice.
Fire rating 1hr
Vibration Natural frequency limited to 4Hz.
Ground conditions
Bearing pressure It has been assumed that the site provides a bearing capacity
suitable for pad foundations and a ground-bearing ground floor slab
with an N value of approximately 30 in a Standard Penetration Test.
It has been assumed that the water table is below founding level.
Lateral stability Frame action
Propping Propping is required for the Slimdek system during construction.
No propping is required for the other steel frames.
Services
General All normal services to be provided to typical contemporary
commercial standards, including: heating, lighting, ventilation,
lifts, hot and cold water supply, drainage, fire services, small
power, provision for communications, lightning protection, etc.
Ventilation
General Air-conditioned using fan-coil system, with partial natural
ventilation.
11

Building A - Outline specifications
Outline specifications
Architectural External envelope

External wall Proprietary grid stick curtain walling system, 170mm thick overall.
Internal atrium walls Grid stick curtain wall incorporating floor to ceiling single glazing units and
(if required for tenancy split) aluminium clad spandrels.
Rain screen to stair cores Aluminium panel rain screen with ventilated insulated cavity supported on
slab-bearing blockwork walls or grid frame.
Plant rooms Proprietary curtain walling panel system.
Plant screen Coated aluminium louvres connected to steel panels bolted to slab upstands.
Flat roofs Inverted roof build-up with monolithic hot applied bitumen polymer
membrane, insulation and ballast.
Office areas
Floors Proprietary medium duty raised floor system, 250mm overall, and carpet.
Ceilings 500 × 500mm pre-finished fully demountable perforated tile with concealed
suspension system.
External walls Grid stick curtain wall incorporating floor to ceiling double glazing units and
aluminium clad insulated spandrels. Solar control by soft coat glass and
fritting to south/west elevations and soft coat glass to north and east
façades. Mullions to be top hung from roof level.
Façades incorporate high-level openable vents allowing cross ventilation for
daytime cooling during temperate weather and/or night time purging.
Operation of the façade vents by remote control to prevent users opening at
the wrong times.
Columns Emulsion-painted plastered concrete or painted dry-lined encased steel
columns.
Skirtings Recessed flush painted softwood.
Entrance halls/ground floor lift lobbies
Floor Carpet.
Walls Emulsion painted dry-lining or plaster.
Ceilings Pre-finished 500 × 500mm metal tile with concealed grid.
Furniture Reception desk.
Doors Stainless steel revolving doors.
Lift lobbies (upper floors)
Floors Carpet.
Toilets
Floor Unglazed ceramic tiles.
Walls Glazed ceramic tiles. Full-height cubicle partitions and doors.
Skirtings Ceramic tile.
Lighting Downlighters.
WCs Suspended WC pans with concealed cisterns.
Wash basins Fully or semi-recessed vanity mounted hand basins with concealed UPVC
pipework, polished granite top.
Urinals White vitreous china.
Mirrors Full height and width.
Vanity shelf Polished granite.
Fittings Polished stainless steel fittings and shaving point.
Hand drying Recessed paper towel dispensers.
12

Architectural continued.. Staircases

Floors Precast terrazzo (primary stair) or granolithic (secondary stair) treads and
risers with non-slip nosings, with mild steel painted stringer.
Walls Emulsion painted suspended plasterboard dry-lining.
Ceilings Emulsion painted suspended plasterboard dry-lining.
Handrail Polished stainless steel top and secondary rails.
Balustrade Polished stainless steel posts.
Internal doors
Doors Hardwood veneered plywood solid core doors with overpanels and painted
hardwood frames.
Ironmongery Polished stainless steel.
Plant spaces
Enclosed Floors: screed laid to falls.
Walls/ceilings: unfinished structure/blockwork.
Open/external Precast paving slabs and gravel ballast.
Intake room Unfinished structure.
Structural Substructures
Foundations Mass/reinforced concrete pads, cast on 75mm blinding on compacted
formation.
Slab Ground-bearing slab with edge thickening and mesh reinforcement to top
face. Joints provided with debonded bars on all gridlines to control cracking.
Allowance made for lift pits and manholes.
Superstructures
Structural frames Specification as given on partial floor plans.
Plant room enclosures: steel frame (25kg/m2) supporting lightweight
cladding.
Fire One hour fire protection to all structural members apart from roof structure
(no fire protection required). The building is not sprinkler-protected.
Services Air conditioning

Design data 22°C dry bulb +/– 1°C.
50% RH +10%/–15% RH.
0.25 air changes per hour for office areas.
Internal thermal loads:

Occupants 8W/m2
Office lighting 10W/m2
Office small power 18W/m2
Occupancy One person per 10m2.
Fresh air allowance 12 litres per second per person.
Supply All offices air-conditioned by means of four-pipe fan-coil system.
Air handling Roof-mounted air handling units serving all areas of the building. Chilled
water generated by a central refrigeration plant.
Heating
General: Low temperature hot water system. Gas fired boiler plant in roof plant room.
13

Services Ventilation
Supply Vents incorporated within suspended ceiling. All toilet areas provided with
mechanical supply and extract system.
Plumbing services
Cold water Rising main to cold water storage tank feeding central core and LTHW
system. Separate drinking water system.
Hot water Hot water from central roof mounted storage feeding core areas.
Roof drainage Rainwater outlets connected to vertical stacks.
Foul drainage All foul waste to discharge into Local Authority foul water drainage system.
Fire services Hose reels.
Control systems
Control All mechanical services plant and equipment controlled by central BMS.
Electrical services
Load densities Offices:
Lighting 12W/m2
Small power 15W/m2
Air conditioning 60W/m2
Miscellaneous 10W/m2
Lighting Generally to L2 office standard; control by switches with key switches for the
emergency fittings. Emergency fittings to be self-contained.
Small power Distribution within raised flooring via floor boxes. Cleaners’ sockets to walls
and circulation spaces.
Communications Provision within floor boxes for tenants’ installations.
Lightning Protection system complying with BS 6651:1999.
Lift installation
Design criteria Designed to serve an overall, building population of one person per 14 m2.
15% of the design target population to be handled in a five minute period.
14

Building A - Architectural drawings
Architectural drawings
A B C D
7500 7500 7500
1
7500
Full height
atrium
2 E F G H I
7500
7500 7500 7500 7500 7500
3
7500
4
7500
5
7500
Typical floor plan
In the structural drawings which follow, one page is

dedicated to each structural option. On each page is
part of a typical floor which represents the area
highlighted in blue. In addition a cross-section
through the floor zone accompanies each plan.
15

Building A - Structural drawings
Structural drawings
Flat Slab
300 mm RC slab 300 1. 300mm concrete flat slab to upper floors and roof.
2. Concrete class C 32/40.
3. High-yield reinforcement.
4. Assumed design imposed loads:
1050
Roof: 0.75kN/m2
Services zone 600 Plant room: 7.5kN/m2
Offices: 5.0kN/m2
5. Vertical dimensions:
Slab: 300mm
Ceiling and lighting zone
Section through floor zone

150
Services zone:
Ceiling/lighting:
600mm
150mm
] Floor zone = 1050mm
Floor to ceiling: 2700mm

Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 4000mm
Stairs
200mm R C Shear walls

Void
800 Ø
R C Column
Full Height
7500
Atrium
800 Ø
R C Column
7500
Lifts Void
Toilet
Zone
7500
All Columns
7500
450 x 450 unless

otherwise noted
7500 7500 7500 7500
16

130 Composite
1. 130mm lightweight concrete slab on 1.2mm Ribdeck AL on
A193 mesh steel frame to upper floors and roof.
457 x 152 UB52
2. Lightweight concrete class C 32/40.
1.2mm ribdeck AL 800
(min) 1087 3. High-yield reinforcement.
Services zone
350 (min) Roof: 0.75kN/m2
Plant room: 7.5kN/m2
Ceiling and lighting zone 150 Offices: 5.0kN/m2
Slab: 130mm
Services zone(1):
Ceiling/lighting:
807mm
150mm
Floor zone = 1087mm
≈ 1090mm
]
Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 4040mm
(1) including downstand beams
C3 203 x 203 UC46 C3
457 x 191 UB82
457 x 191 UB82
Stairs
6000
203 x 203 UC46
Void
203 x 203
UC46
508Ø
C3 406 x 140 UB46 C3 CHS153
356 x 127 UB33
356 x 127 UB33
356 x 127 UB33
Full Height
7500
Atrium
508Ø
CHS153
457 x 152 UB52 C1 = 254 x 254 UC73
C1 C1 C2 = 254 x 254 UC89
C3 = 305 x 305 UC97
356 x 127 UB33
356 x 127 UB33
356 x 127 UB33

7500
457 x 152 UB52

C2 C2 457 x 191 C1 406 x 140 UB46 C1
C3 457 x 152 UB52 Void
406 x 140 UB39
UB82 Lift
356 x 127 UB33
406 x 140 UB39
356 x 127 UB33

356 x 127 UB33
356 x 127 UB33
356 x 127 UB33

254 x 102 UB25
356 x 127 UB33
406 x 140 UB39
356 x 127 UB33

7500
Toilet
Zone
406 x 140
UB39
457 x 152 UB52 457 x 191 UB67 457 x 152 UB52

C2 C2 C3 457 x 152 C3 C1
UB52
356 x 127 UB33
356 x 127 UB33
356 x 127 UB33
356 x 127 UB33
356 x 127 UB33
356 x 127 UB33
356 x 127 UB33
356 x 127 UB33

356 x 127 UB33
7500
C2 406 x 140 UB46 C2 406 x 140 UB46 C2 406 x 140 UB46 C2 406 x 140 UB46 C1
7500 7500 7500 7500
17

A142 mesh in 50mm 150mm Typical edge In-situ + Hollowcore

(min) structural topping hollowcore beam 50 1. 150mm precast concrete hollowcore units with 50mm (min)
mesh reinforced structural topping to upper floors and roof.
250 200
425 2. Concrete class C 32/40.
600 3. High-yield reinforcement.
450 450 4. Assumed design imposed loads:
600 800 1150
(min)
Roof: 0.75kN/m2
600 600 Plant room: 7.5kN/m2
Services zone 350(min)
Offices: 5.0kN/m2
Ceiling and lighting zone 150 5. Vertical dimensions:
Slab and topping: 200mm
Services zone(1):
Ceiling/lighting:
800mm
150mm
]
Floor zone = 1150mm

Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 4100mm
Stairs
200mm R C
Shear walls
Void
800 Ø
R C Column
7500
Full Height
Atrium
800 Ø
R C Column
600 x 250 R C Beam (edge)

7500
Void
Lifts
Toilet
Zone
7500
600 x 250 R C Beam (trimmer)

7500
All Columns 600 x 600 R C Beam (typical)

400 x 400 unless
otherwise noted
7500 7500 7500 7500
18

250mm Post-tensioned slab

PT Flat Slab
250 1. 250mm post-tensioned concrete flat slab to upper floors and roof.
Reinforcement PT duct
4. Post-tensioning: Each post-tensioning tendon has five No. 12.7 mm
1000
diameter strands.
Services zone 600
Roof: 0.75kN/m2
Section through floor zone Slab: 250mm
Services zone:
Ceiling/lighting:
600mm
150mm
] Floor zone = 1000mm

Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 3950mm
Stairs
200mm
R C Shear walls
Void
800 Ø
R C Column
Full Height
7500
Atrium
800 Ø
R C Column
7500
Lifts Void
Toilet
Zone
7500
All Columns
7500
400 x 400 unless

otherwise noted
7500 7500 7500 7500
19

A142 mesh in 50mm structural topping

Steel + Hollowcore
1. 200mm precast concrete hollowcore units with 50mm (min)
250 mesh reinforced structural topping on steel frame to upper floors
200 mm Hollowcore
and roof.
457 x 191 UB67 3. Steel grade S355.
1207
800
Roof: 0.75kN/m2
(min)
Services zone
350 (min) Offices: 5.0kN/m2
Ceiling and lighting zone 150 Slab: 250mm
Services zone :(1)
Ceiling/lighting:
807mm
150mm
Floor zone = 1207mm
≈ 1210mm
]
Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 4160mm
C2 203 x 203 UC60 C2
305 x 305 UC97
Stairs
305 x 305 UC97
6000
203 x 203 UC60

Void 203 x 203
UC60
508Ø CHS
C3 406 x 178 UB54 C3 153
406 x 178 UB54
457 x 191 UB67
C1 = 254 x 254 UC89

Full Height
Atrium C2 = 305 x 305 UC97
7500
C3 = 305 x 305 UC118

C4 = 305 x 305 UC137
C2 C1 508Ø CHS
153
139.7Ф x 5.0 CHS
406 x 178 UB54
457 x 191 UB67
7500
406 x 140 UB39 406 x 140 UB39
C2 139.7Ф x 5.0 CHS C3 533 x 210 UB82 C3 533 x 210 UB82 C3 406 x 140 UB39 C1
Lifts Void
406 x 178 UB54
457 x 191 UB67
457 x 191 UB67
457 x 191 UB67

406 x 178 UB54
406 x 178 UB54
406 x 178 UB54

7500
152 x
Toilet
89 UB16
Zone
C2 139.7Ф x 5.0 CHS C4 457 x 191 UB74 C4 457 x 191 UB67 C4 139.7Ф x 5.0 CHS C2
457 x 191 UB67
457 x 191 UB67
457 x 191 UB67
457 x 191 UB67
457 x 191 UB67

7500
C2 139.7Ф x 5.0 CHS C2 139.7Ф x 5.0 CHS C2 139.7Ф x 5.0 CHS C2 139.7Ф x 5.0 CHS C2
7500 7500 7500 7500
20

In situ concrete slab Slimdek

A193 mesh 342 1. 342mm (overall) concrete slab on SD225 deep decking on
SD225 Deep decking asymmetric steel beams to upper floors and roof.
300 ASB 155
3. Steel grade S355.
1092 4. Assumed design imposed loads:
Services zone 600 Roof: 0.75kN/m2
Offices: 5.0kN/m2
Ceiling and lighting zone 150
Slab: 342mm
Section through floor zone Services zone:
Ceiling/lighting:
600mm
150mm
Floor zone = 1092mm
≈ 1095mm
]
Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 4045mm
203 x 203 UC60

C3 C3
305 x 305 UC97
305 x 305 UC97
Stairs
6000
203 x 203 UC60

Void
203 x 203
UC60
508Ø CHS
C3 200 ASB124 C3 153
C1 = 254 x 254 UC89

300 ASB155
300 ASB155
C2 = 254 x 254 UC107

7500
Full Height
Atrium
C3 = 305 x 305 UC97
C4 = 305 x 305 UC118

508Ø CHS
203 x 102 UB23 C5 = 305 x 305 UC137
153
C1 C3
300 ASB155
300 ASB155
7500
203 x 102 UB23

C2 C4 300 ASB196 C5 300 ASB196 C1 280 ASB74 C1
Lifts Void
Toilet
300 ASB155
300 ASB155
300 ASB155
300 ASB155
300 ASB155
300 ASB155
300 ASB155
Zone
7500
280
ASB74
203 x 102 UB23 300 ASB196 203 x 102 UB23

C2 C5 C5 300 ASB196 C5 C1
300 ASB155
300 ASB155
300 ASB155
300 ASB155
300 ASB155
7500
7500 7500 7500 7500
21

Building B - Design criteria
5. Building B
The following design criteria, representative of current good practice and commercial
Design criteria
standards, form the basis of the study.
Plan dimensions
Architectural Planning grid 1500 × 1500mm
Partition grid 1500 × 1500mm
Structural grid 7500 × 9000mm
Vertical dimensions 3950–4235mm (see drawings)
Floor to ceiling height 3200mm GF–1st Floor; 2700mm 1st–5th Floor
Raised floor 250mm
Occupancy
Density One person per 10m2 of nett internal floor area.
Design target populations 1,215 total.
Ancillary accommodation
Core areas Include male and female toilets and cleaners’ cubicle on each
floor, disabled toilets and PABX equipment on the ground floor.
Codes of practice and standards

Structural
Concrete BS 8110 Part 1: 1997 (amendments 1 & 2) - Structural use of concrete
Structural steelwork BS 5950 Part 1: 2000 - Structural use of steelwork in buildings
Loads
Imposed load Offices: 4.0 + 1.0kN/m2 for partitions
Roof: 0.75kN/m2
Dead load Self-weight plus superimposed dead load of 0.9kN/m2
Line loads External cladding 8kN/m
Atrium glazing 8kN/m
Internal blockwork walls 10kN/m
Deflections
General Deflections will be limited in accordance with the guidance in the
appropriate Code of Practice.
Fire rating 1½hrs
Vibration Natural frequency limited to 4Hz.
Ground conditions
Bearing pressure The ground is assumed as typical made ground to GFL –5m and
clay from GFL –5m to depth. Piles are 750mm diameter open
bored piles using C30/37 concrete.
A pile capacity working load capacity of 1MN @ 14m penetration

into the clay, varying linearly to 2MN @ 23m penetration.
Maximum pile length 28m.
It is assumed that the ground does not have sufficient capacity to

carry a ground-bearing slab and that all options would have a rein-
forced In-situ concrete suspended slab. In long-span options, inter-
mediate piles are provided to reduce the span of this ground slab.
Lateral stability Braced frame using shear walls.
Propping Propping is required for the Slimdek system during construction.
No propping is required for the other steel frames.
22

Building B - Outline specifications
Services General All normal services to be provided to typical contemporary

commercial standards, including: heating, lighting, ventilation,
lifts, hot and cold water supply, drainage, fire services, small
power, provision for communications, lightning protection, etc.
Ventilation
General Air-conditioned using four-pipe fan coil system.
Outline specifications
Architectural External envelope

External wall Proprietary curtain walling system, 170mm thick overall.
Shop fronts at Floor-to-ceiling ground-supported single glazing in aluminium grid frame,
ground floor with aluminium louvre spandrel system over for ventilation of shops.
Internal atrium walls Unitised curtain wall incorporating floor-to-ceiling single glazing units and
(if required for tenancy split) aluminium clad spandrels.
Individual units to be 1500 or 3000mm wide × storey height, top hung from
slab edge.
Plant rooms Proprietary curtain walling panel system.
Plant screen Coated aluminium louvres connected to steel panels bolted to slab upstands.
Flat roofs Inverted roof build-up with monolithic hot-applied bitumen
polymer membrane, insulation and ballast.
Atrium roof Fritted double glazed units in an aluminium grid frame.
Office areas
Floors Proprietary medium duty raised floor system, 250mm overall, and carpet.
Ceilings 500 × 500mm pre-finished fully demountable perforated tile with concealed
suspension system.
External walls Unitised curtain wall incorporating floor to ceiling double glazing units and
stone clad insulated spandrels. Individual units to be 1500 or 3000mm wide ×
storey height top hung from slab edge. Solar shading to south and west
façades in the form of external horizontal/vertical brises-soleils cantilevered
off the face of the building to allow façade cleaning access.
Columns Emulsion painted plastered concrete or painted dry-lined encased steel
columns.
Retail space
Generally left as shell finish for fit-out by tenants
External walls Floor to ceiling ground supported single glazing in aluminium grid frame, with
aluminium louvre spandrel system over for ventilation.
Stone panel rain screen with ventilated insulated cavity supported on ground-
bearing blockwork walls or grid frame.
Entrance halls/ground floor lift lobbies
Floor Carpet.
Furniture Reception desk.
Doors Stainless steel revolving doors.
Lift lobbies (upper floors)
Floors Carpet.
23

Architectural continued.. Toilets

Floor Unglazed ceramic tiles.
Walls Glazed ceramic tiles. Full height cubicle partitions and doors.
Skirtings Ceramic tile.
Lighting Downlighters.
WCs Suspended WC pans with concealed cisterns.
Wash basins Fully or semi-recessed vanity mounted hand basins with concealed UPVC
pipework, polished granite top.
Urinals White vitreous china.
Mirrors Full height and width.
Vanity shelf Polished granite.
Fittings Polished stainless steel fittings, and shaving point.
Hand drying Recessed paper towel dispensers.
Staircases
Floors Precast terrazzo (primary stair) or granolithic (secondary stair) treads and
risers with non-slip nosings, with mild steel painted stringer.
Walls Emulsion painted suspended plasterboard dry-lining.
Ceilings Emulsion painted suspended plasterboard dry-lining.
Handrail Polished stainless steel top and secondary rails.
Balustrade Polished stainless steel posts.
Internal doors
Doors Hardwood veneered plywood solid core doors with overpanels and painted
hardwood frames.
Ironmongery Polished stainless steel.
Plant spaces
Enclosed Floors: screed laid to falls.
Walls/ceilings: unfinished structure/blockwork.
Open/external Precast paving slabs and gravel ballast.
Intake room Unfinished structure.
Structural Substructures
Foundations Piled foundations (750mm diameter open-bored piles, maximum length 28m);
intermediate piles provided for long-span options.
Slab In-situ reinforced concrete suspended slab. Allowance made for lift pits and
manholes.
Superstructures
Concrete Specification as given on partial floor plans.
Plant room enclosures: steel frame (25kg/m2) supporting lightweight
cladding.
Steel Steel frames as shown on partial floor plans.
Fire One-and-a-half-hour fire protection to all structural members apart from roof
structure (no fire protection required). The building is not sprinkler-protected.
24

Services Air conditioning

Design data 22°C dry bulb +/– 1°C.
50% RH +10%/–15% RH.
0.25 air changes per hour for office areas.
Internal thermal loads:

Occupants 8W/m2
Office lighting 10W/m2
Office small power 18W/m2
Occupancy One person per 10m2.
Fresh air allowance 12 litres per second per person.
Supply All offices air-conditioned by means of four-pipe fan coil system
Air handling Roof-mounted air handling units serving all areas of the building. Chilled
water generated by a central refrigeration plant.
Heating
General Low temperature hot water radiant panels. Gas fired boiler plant in the roof
plant room.
Ventilation
Supply Vents incorporated within suspended ceiling. All toilet areas provided with
mechanical supply and extract system.
Plumbing services
Cold water Rising main to cold water storage tank feeding central core and LTHW
system. Separate drinking water system.
Hot water Hot water from central roof mounted storage feeding core areas.
Roof drainage Rainwater outlets connected to vertical stacks.
Foul drainage All foul waste to discharge into Local Authority foul water drainage system.
Fire services Hose reels.
Control systems
Control All mechanical services plant and equipment controlled by central BMS.
Electrical services
Load densities Offices:
Lighting 12W/m2
Small power 15W/m2
Air conditioning 60W/m2
Miscellaneous 10W/m2
Lighting Generally to L2 office standard; control by switches with key switches for the
emergency fittings. Emergency fittings to be self-contained.
Small power Distribution within raised flooring via floor boxes. Cleaners’ sockets to walls
and circulation spaces.
Communications Provision within floor boxes for tenants’ installations.
Lightning Protection system complying with BS 6651:1999.
Lift installation
Design criteria Designed to serve an overall, building population of one person per 14 m2.
15% of the design target population to be handled in a five minute period.
25

Building B - Architectural drawings
Architectural drawings
A B C D E F G H I
9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000
1
7500
2
7500
Full height
9000
atrium
4
7500
5
7500
Typical floor plan
In the structural drawings which follow,

one page is dedicated to each structural
option. On each page is part of a typical
floor which represents the area highlighted
in blue. In addition a cross-section through
the floor zone accompanies each plan.
26

Building B - Structural drawings
Structural drawings
Flat Slab
325 mm RC slab 1. 325mm concrete flat slab to upper floors and roof.
325
1075 Roof: 0.75kN/m2
Services zone 600 Plant room: 7.5kN/m2
Offices: 5.0kN/m2
Slab: 325mm
Ceiling and lighting zone

150 Services zone:
Ceiling/lighting:
600mm(1)
150mm
]
Floor zone = 1075mm
Floor to ceiling: 2700mm(2)

Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 4025mm
(1) increase to 750mm for GF - 1st
550 x 550 (G-2)

450 x 450 (2-R) Lobby
Void 200mm R C
Toilet Shear walls
Zone
Lifts
9000
Stairs Atrium
550 x 550 (G-2)

450 x 450 (2-R)
7500
550 x 550 (G-2) 550 x 550 (G-2) 550 x 550 (G-2) 550 x 550 (G-2)
450 x 450 (2-R) 450 x 450 (2-R) 450 x 450 (2-R) 450 x 450 (2-R)
7500
All Columns
450 x 450 unless
otherwise noted
9000 9000 9000 9000
27

250mm Post-tensioned slab

PT Flat Slab
250 1. 250mm post-tensioned concrete flat slab to upper floors and roof.
Reinforcement PT duct
4. Post-tensioning: Each post-tensioning tendon has five No. 12.7 mm
1000
diameter strands.
Services zone 600
Roof: 0.75 kN/m2
Section through floor zone Slab: 250mm
Services zone:
Ceiling/lighting:
600mm(1)
150mm
]
Floor zone = 1000mm
Floor to ceiling: 2700mm (2)

Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 3950mm
Void Lobby
Toilet 200mm R C
Zone Shear walls
Lifts
9000
Stairs Atrium
7500
All Columns
7500
500 x 500 (G-1)

450 x 450 (1-R)
9000 9000 9000 9000
28

130 Composite
1. 130mm lightweight concrete slab on 1.2mm Ribdeck AL on
A193 mesh steel frame to upper floors and roof.
457 x 191 UB67
1.2mm ribdeck AL 800
1087 3. Steel grade S355.
(min)
Services zone
350 (min) Roof: 0.75kN/m2
Offices: 5.0kN/m2
Slab: 130mm
Section through floor zone Services zone :(1)
Ceiling/lighting:
807mm(2)
150mm
Floor zone = 1087mm
≈ 1090mm
]
Floor to ceiling: 2700mm(3)
Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 4040mm
406 x 140 UB46 406 x 140 UB46 406 x 140 UB39 C2 406 x 140 UB46 C2
C2 C3 Lobby
Void Toilet 200mm R C
Zone Shear walls
C1 = 254 x 254 UC73
457 x 191 UB67
457 x 191 UB67
406 x 140 UB39
406 x 140 UB39 254 x 146 UB31

406 x 140 UB46
254 x 146 UB31

Lifts C2 = 305 x 305 UC97
Stairs Atrium
9000
254 x 146 UB31
406 x 140 UB39 254 x 146 UB31 C3 = 356 x 368 UC129
254 x
146
UB31
406 x 140 UB46 406 x 140 UB46
C2 C3 406 x 140 UB39 C2 406 x 140 UB46 C2
457 x 191 UB67
457 x 191 UB67

457 x 191 UB67
406 x 140 UB46
457 x 191 UB67
406 x 140 UB46 406 x 140 UB46 406 x 140 UB46 406 x 140 UB46
7500
457 x 191 UB67
457 x 191 UB67
457 x 191 UB67

457 x 191 UB67
406 x 140 UB46
7500
406 x 140 UB46 406 x 140 UB46 406 x 140 UB46 406 x 140 UB46
9000 9000 9000 9000
29

A142 mesh in 50mm 150mm Typical edge In-situ + Hollowcore

(min) structural topping hollowcore beam 50 1. 150mm precast concrete hollowcore units with 50mm (min)
mesh reinforced structural topping to upper floors and roof.
250 200
425 In-situ reinforced concrete beams and columns.
450 450 3. High-yield reinforcement.
600 800 1150 4. Assumed design imposed loads:
(min)
600 600 Roof: 0.75kN/m2
Services zone 350(min)
5. Vertical dimensions :
Section through floor zone Slab and topping: 200mm
Services zone(1):
Ceiling/lighting:
800mm(2)
150mm
]
Floor zone = 1150mm

Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 4100mm
A A A A Beam Schedule
Void 200mm R C Lobby A 600 x 600 R C Beam
Shear walls
B B B B B B 600 x 250 R C Beam
C
C 600 x 425 R C Beam
9000
Lifts A
Stairs Atrium
A A Toilet
Zone
B B B B B
A A A A
7500
A A A A
7500
All Columns
B 450 x 450
A A A A
9000 9000 9000 9000
30

PT Band Beams
225
1. 225mm post-tensioned concrete flat slab with band beams to
upper floors and roof.
325
2500 (typical) (min) 1175 3. High-yield reinforcement.
PT Duct 350 4. Post-tensioning: Each post-tensioning tendon has five No. 12.7
Services zone (min)
mm diameter strands.
Roof: 0.75kN/m2
Section through floor zone Plant room: 7.5kN/m2
Offices: 5.0kN/m2
Slab: 225mm
Services zone :(1)
Ceiling/lighting:
800mm(2)
150mm
]
Floor zone = 1175mm

Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 4125mm
Void 200mm R C Lobby

Toilet
Zone Shear walls
Lifts
9000
Stairs Atrium
7500
550 x 1750 P T 550 x 2750 P T 550 x 2500 P T

edge beam beam Beam (typical)
7500
All Columns
800 x 800
9000 9000 9000 9000
31

130 Long-Span Composite

1. 130mm lightweight concrete slab on 1.2mm Ribdeck AL on steel
1.2 mm ribdeck AL frame to upper floors and roof. Steel columns and cellular beams.
A142 mesh
Cellular beam
710
457 x 191 UB67 + (Typical) 800 1080 3. Steel grade S355.
533 x 210 UB92 (min) 4. Assumed design imposed loads:
Services zone
Roof: 0.75kN/m2
Slab and decking: 130mm
Services zone :(1)
Ceiling/lighting:
800mm(2)
150mm
Floor zone = 1080mm
]
Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 4030mm
610 x 229 UB101 610 x 229 UB101 610 x 229 UB101 533 x 210 UB82
C3 C4
Void 200mm R C C3 C3
Shear walls Lobby
406 x 140 UB39
406 x 140 UB39
406 x 140 UB39

406 x 140 UB39
406 x 140 UB39
406 x 140 UB39
406 x 140 UB39
406 x 140 UB39
Stairs
9000
Toilet Lifts Atrium

Zone
406 x 140 UB39
C1 = 254 x 254 UC73
C2 = 305 x 305 UC97

610 x 229 UB101 610 x 229 UB101 533 x 210 UB82
610 x 229 UB101 C3 = 356 x 368 UC129
C3 C4 C3 C3
C4 = 356 x 368 UC177
356 x 127 UB33
7500
457 x 191 UB67 + 533 x 210 UB92
457 x 191 UB67 + 533 x 210 UB92
457 x 191 UB67 + 533 x 210 UB92
457 x 191 UB67 + 533 x 210 UB92
457 x 191 UB67 + 533 x 210 UB92
457 x 191 UB67 + 533 x 210 UB92
457 x 191 UB67 + 533 x 210 UB92
457 x 191 UB67 + 533 x 210 UB92
457 x 191 UB67 + 533 x 210 UB92
457 x 191 UB67 + 533 x 210 UB92
457 x 191 UB67 + 533 x 210 UB92
457 x 191 UB67 + 533 x 210 UB92
C1
356 x 127 UB33
7500
9000 9000 9000 9000
32

A142 mesh in 50 mm (min) structural topping Steel + Hollowcore

1. 200mm precast concrete hollowcore units with 50mm (min)
mesh reinforced structural topping on steel frame to upper floors
250
200 mm Hollowcore and roof.
533 x 210 UB82 4. Assumed design imposed loads:
1283
Roof: 0.75kN/m2
800
(min)
Offices: 5.0kN/m2
Services zone
350 (min)
Slab: 250mm
Services zone(1):
Ceiling/lighting:
883mm(2)
150mm
Floor zone = 1283mm
≈ 1285mm
]
Section through floor zone Floor to ceiling: 2700mm (3)
Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 4235mm
C1 = 305 x 305 UC97

457 x 191 UB82 457 x 191 UB67 406 x 178 UB54 C3 457 x 191 UB67 C3
C2 = 305 x 305 UC158
C3 C4 Void 200mm R C Lobby
457 x 191 UB67
Shear walls C3 = 356 x 368 UC129

533 x 210 UB101
533 x 210 UB101
406 x 178 UB60
533 x 210 UB82
406 x 178 UB60
C4 = 356 x 368 UC153

406 x 178
457 x 191 UB67 UB54 406 x
9000
Stairs Atrium
178
UB54
Toilet 254 x
305 x 165
Zone 146
UB40
Lifts UB31
C3 457 x 191 UB82 C4 457 x 191 UB67 406 x 178 UB54 C3 457 x 191 UB67 C3
203 x 133 UB25
203 x 133 UB25

406 x 140 UB39
406 x 140 UB46
203 x 133 UB25
203 x 133 UB25

7500
C3 C2 C2 C2 C2
533 x 210 UB82 533 x 210 UB82 533 x 210 UB82 533 x 210 UB82
406 x 140 UB39
406 x 140 UB46
203 x 133 UB25
203 x 133 UB25
203 x 133 UB25
203 x 133 UB25

7500
9000 9000 9000 9000
33

In situ concrete slab Slimdek

342 1. 342mm (overall) concrete slab on SD225 deep decking on
A193 mesh
SD225 Deep decking asymmetric steel beams to upper floors and roof.
300 ASB 249
1092 4. Assumed design imposed loads:
Services zone 600 Roof: 0.75kN/m2
Offices: 5.0kN/m2
Slab: 342mm

Services zone:
Ceiling/lighting:
600mm(1)
150mm
Floor zone = 1092mm
≈ 1095mm
]
Raised floor: 250mm
Total: 4045mm
C2 300 ASB196 C2 300 ASB153 280 ASB124 C1 300 ASB249 C1
Void
300 ASB155
200mm R C
Shear walls
Lobby
280 ASB74
300 ASB249
300 ASB155
300 ASB249
280 ASB74
300 ASB155 280 ASB74

9000
Stairs Atrium
C1 = 305 x 305 UC97
Toilet
C2 = 356 x 368 UC129
Zone 280
ASB74
Lift
C2 300 ASB196 300 ASB153
C2 280 ASB124 C1 300 ASB249 C1
203 x 102 UB23
203 x 102 UB23
203 x 102 UB23

203 x 102 UB23
280 ASB74
7500
C2 300 ASB249 C2 300 ASB249 C2 300 ASB249 C2 300 ASB249 C2

203 x 102 UB23
203 x 102 UB23
203 x 102 UB23
203 x 102 UB23

280 ASB74
7500
C1 300 ASB249 C2 300 ASB249 C2 300 ASB249 C2 300 ASB249 C2
9000 9000 9000 9000
34

Programmes
6. Programmes
A comparison of the overall programme durations, showing each of the periods from
procurement to completion, is given in tabular and graphical form in this Chapter. Detailed
programmes for the Flat Slab and Composite options for both Building A and Building B
are also presented in Appendix A – Detailed programmes.
Structural Procurement Lead time Overall Frame Overall

option time (weeks) (weeks) construction construction project
time (weeks) time (weeks) time
(weeks)
Building A
Flat Slab 10 4 50 10 64
PT Flat Slab 10 4 51 11 65
In-situ + 10 4 52 13 66
Hollowcore
Composite 10 12 48 8 70
Steel + 10 12 48 7 70
Hollowcore
Slimdek 10 12 48 7 70
Building B
PT Flat Slab 10 6 66 17 82
Flat Slab 10 6 67 18 83
PT Band Beams 10 7 66 17 83
In-situ + 10 6 70 22 86
Hollowcore
Steel + 10 16 65 21 91
Note
Hollowcore
Frame construction time for Slimdek 10 16 65 21 91
Composite, Steel +
Hollowcore, Slimdek and Composite 10 16 67 23 93
Long-Span Composite
options includes construction
Long-Span 10 18 67 23 95
of concrete jump-form core. Composite
Procurement programme The procurement element is identical for each option at ten weeks, comprising two weeks
for collation of information, four weeks for bidding, three weeks for bid evaluation and
one week for award of contract, assuming a traditional approach to works package sub-
contracting.
Lead times Building A

The lead time for the Flat Slab, In-situ + Hollowcore and PT Flat Slab options is four
weeks, comprising one week for working drawings, one week for drawing approval, one
week for material procurement and one week for mobilisation.
35

Programmes
The lead time for the structural frame for the Composite, Steel + Hollowcore and Slimdek
options is 12 weeks, comprising four weeks for working drawings, one week for drawing
approval, one week for material procurement, five weeks for manufacture and one week
for mobilisation.
Building B
The lead time for the structural frame for the Flat Slab, In-situ + Hollowcore and PT Flat
Slab options for the short-span options is six weeks, comprising one week for working
drawings, one week for drawing approval, two weeks for material procurement and two
weeks for mobilisation. For the long-span PT Band Beam option, an extra week is required
for procurement, increasing the lead time to seven weeks.
The lead time for the structural frame for the Composite, Steel + Hollowcore and Slimdek
options for the short-span options is 16 weeks, comprising four weeks for working drawings,
one week for drawing approval, two weeks for material procurement, eight weeks for
manufacture and one week for mobilisation. For the Long-Span Composite option, an
extra two weeks are required for manufacture, increasing the lead time to 18 weeks.
Other elements
With regard to lead times, the most critical element is cladding, which is required rela-
tively early in the construction and for which the lead time can be as much as 45 weeks for
complex, high-quality curtain walling systems. Clearly, it would be unlikely that incurring
such a long lead time after contract award would be a viable option on most projects.
Accordingly, the procurement process for cladding would generally need to be set in
motion before contract award and several solutions are available to overcome this problem.
It is possible for a client to enter into a framework agreement with one or more cladding
manufacturers, under which production space can be reserved to suit an anticipated
project schedule. This route is most likely to be adopted by an experienced client with an
ongoing stream of developments. Alternatively, a client may pre-order the cladding prior
to awarding a contract, in order to guarantee delivery to suit an eventual construction
programme. In either case, the client bears the financial risk of such a commitment to the
cladding manufacturer.
The early appointment of a contractor under a two-stage tender approach can prove effec-
tive in overcoming the problem and may also prove beneficial by involving the contractor’s
expertise in buildability and programming in the cladding procurement. Alternatively, a
long-term partnering or alliancing approach can alleviate the difficulty; however, the risk
apportionment on such a basis needs to be appropriate to the project and must be fully
understood and carefully considered by all parties.
Lifts and some M&E plant also tend to have long lead times, especially non-standard
equipment, but as these are generally required later in the project, greater scope exists
for managing the risks associated with pre-ordering.
36

Programmes
Construction programmes Assumptions and logic

A five-day week was assumed. Holidays have not been shown on the programme and no
allowance has been made for inclement weather. A simplified view has been taken of such
factors as logistics, site access, boundary constraints, cranage, etc., where it has been
assumed that there would be no access or supply problems. These aspects are highly site-
specific and could result in shorter or longer construction periods. On activities not related
to the structure, similar resources and sequences have been assumed for all the options.
It was assumed that the ground floor slab would be fully or substantially complete before
a steel frame is erected. Whilst it is possible for steelwork to be erected from the pile caps
before the ground floor slab is constructed, thus saving time on the critical path, many
steelwork contractors prefer the ground floor slab to be installed, as it is safer for the
steelwork erectors to work from mobile elevated working platforms positioned on a flat
surface, as well as providing a clear lay-down area for the steelwork.
It is also possible for a concrete frame to be built before the ground floor slab is con-
structed, the columns being cast from pile caps and the ground floor slab being installed
subsequently. The time savings are similar for both materials.
It was assumed that the frame for Building A would be erected using a mobile crane and
that one tower crane is used for the erection of Building B. It was also assumed that long-
lead items such as cladding, lifts and some plant would be pre-ordered.
With the Flat Slab, PT Flat Slab and Slimdek options, although the availability of a clear
unimpeded soffit would permit greater use of prefabrication in the M&E services distribu-
tion, with consequent programme savings, no allowance has been made for any reduction
in the construction programme as a result of this potential benefit.
Building A
The construction programmes range from 50 to 52 weeks for the buildings constructed
using the Flat Slab, In-situ + Hollowcore and PT Flat Slab options, compared with a 48-
week period for each of the buildings constructed using the Composite, Steel +
Hollowcore and Slimdek options.
Building B
Of the short-span buildings, construction programmes range from 65 weeks for the Steel
+ Hollowcore and Slimdek options, the PT Flat Slab option at 66 weeks, closely followed
by the Flat Slab and Composite options at 67 weeks, with the In-situ + Hollowcore option
at 70 weeks.
The construction programmes for the long-span options are almost identical, with the PT
Band Beam option being marginally shorter at 66 weeks, compared to 67 weeks for the
Long-Span Composite option.
37

Building A - Programmes
Construction programmes Building A
Composite — 48 weeks
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Activity Number of weeks
Establish site 2
Substructures 8
Superstructure 8
Roof finishes 8
Roof installations 11
External envelope 13
Cores and risers 13
Toilet fit-out 16
M & E first fix 8
M & E second fix 5
Lifts 12
Fit-out first floor 9
Fit-out second floor 8
Fit-out ground floor 5
Final fix 9
Testing & commissioning 17
External works 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Week number
Steel + Hollowcore — 48 weeks

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Establish site 2
Substructures 8
Superstructure 7
Roof finishes 8
Cores and risers 13
Toilet fit-out 16
M & E first fix 8
M & E second fix 5
Lifts 12
Final fix 9
External works 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Week number
38

Slimdek — 48 weeks
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Establish site 2
Substructures 8
Superstructure 7
Roof finishes 8
Cores and risers 13
Toilet fit-out 16
M & E first fix 8
M & E second fix 5
Lifts 12
Final fix 9
External works 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Week number
Flat Slab — 50 weeks

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Establish site 2
Substructures 8
Superstructure 10
Roof finishes 8
Cores and risers 13
Toilet fit-out 16
M & E first fix 8
M & E second fix 5
Lifts 12
Final fix 9
External works 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Week number
39

PT Flat Slab — 51 weeks

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Establish site 2
Substructures 8
Superstructure 11
Roof finishes 8
Cores and risers 13
Toilet fit-out 16
M & E first fix 8
M & E second fix 5
Lifts 12
Final fix 9
External works 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Week number
In-Situ + Hollowcore — 52 weeks

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Establish site 2
Substructures 8
Superstructure 13
Roof finishes 5
Cores and risers 13
Toilet fit-out 16
M & E first fix 8
M & E second fix 5
Lifts 12
Final fix 9
External works 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Week number
40

Building B - Programmes
Construction programmes Building B
Steel + Hollowcore — 65 weeks

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Establish site 2
Substructures 15
Superstructure 21
Roof finishes 9
Atrium glazing 19
Cores and risers 18
Toilet fit-out 20
M & E first fix 14
M & E second fix 10
Lifts 22
Fit-out third floor 10
Fit-out fourth floor 10
Fit-out fifth floor 10
Final fix 12
External works 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Week number
Slimdek — 65 weeks
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Establish site 2
Substructures 15
Superstructure 21
Roof finishes 9
Atrium glazing 19
Cores and risers 18
Toilet fit-out 20
M & E first fix 14
M & E second fix 10
Lifts 22
Final fix 12
External works 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Week number
41

PT Flat Slab — 66 weeks

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Establish site 2
Substructures 16
Superstructure 17
Roof finishes 9
Atrium glazing 19
Cores and risers 20
Toilet fit-out 20
M & E first fix 14
M & E second fix 10
Lifts 22
Final fix 12
External works 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Week number
PT Band Beams — 66 weeks

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Establish site 2
Substructures 16
Superstructure 17
Roof finishes 9
Atrium glazing 19
Cores and risers 20
Toilet fit-out 20
M & E first fix 14
M & E second fix 10
Lifts 22
Final fix 12
External works 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Week number
42

Flat Slab — 67 weeks

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Establish site 2
Substructures 16
Superstructure 18
Roof finishes 9
Atrium glazing 19
Cores and risers 25
Toilet fit-out 20
M & E first fix 14
M & E second fix 10
Lifts 22
Final fix 12
External works 16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Week number
Composite — 67 weeks
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Establish site 2
Substructures 15
Superstructure 23
Roof finishes 9
Atrium glazing 19
Cores and risers 19
Toilet fit-out 20
M & E first fix 14
M & E second fix 10
Lifts 22
Final fix 12
External works 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Week number
43

Long-Span Composite — 67 weeks

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Establish site 2
Substructures 15
Superstructure 23
Roof finishes 9
Atrium glazing 19
Cores and risers 19
Toilet fit-out 20
M & E first fix 14
M & E second fix 10
Lifts 22
Final fix 12
External works 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Week number
In-Situ + Hollowcore — 70 weeks

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Establish site 2
Substructures 16
Superstructure 22
Roof finishes 9
Atrium glazing 19
Cores and risers 22
Toilet fit-out 20
M & E first fix 14
M & E second fix 10
Lifts 22
Final fix 13
External works 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Week number
44

Summary of costs
7. Summary of costs
Costs Basis of pricing
Prices used in this study have been prepared by Davis Langdon, based on pricing data
obtained in June 2006 from their national cost database of recently tendered projects.
Rates for Building A are based on construction in south east England and rates for
Building B are based on construction in central London.
Preliminaries
The cost of the main contractor’s preliminaries for each option was based on two separate
elements. A lump sum was included to allow both for non-work-related aspects such as
contractual requirements for insurances, employer’s facilities, etc. and for fixed one-off
costs such as site establishment, access roads, crane bases, services connection charges, etc.
Separate allowances were made for time-related costs, such as management and staff, site
accommodation, services and facilities, cranage, etc. Such costs vary according to pro-
gramme duration and the sequencing of operations within the programme. Adjustment
of these costs has been made to reflect the different construction durations identified in
the programmes produced by Mace.
For Building A, preliminaries on average equate to an on-cost of 13.6% of the basic

construction cost and for Building B, preliminaries on average equate to an on-cost of
15.5% of the basic construction cost.
Finance and rental costs

The study did not include assessment of the costs of financing the project, nor
consideration of return on rentals.
Summary tables
The itemised costs for Building A and Building B are presented in the following tables,
followed by the key rates used in the study.
45

Summary of costs - Building A
Building A
4642 m2 GIFA
Element Short-span options
Flat Slab Composite In-situ + Hollowcore PT Flat Slab Steel + Hollowcore Slimdek
Element total (£) Element total (£) Element total (£) Element total (£) Element total (£) Element total (£)
Substructure 199,480 189,765 202,641 200,512 195,452 192,107
Frame/upper floors 564,827 568,078 591,645 642,599 643,704 872,208
Roof finishes 241,208 241,208 241,208 241,208 241,208 241,208
Stairs 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000
External cladding 1,166,600 1,174,480 1,187,720 1,154,800 1,199,980 1,175,460
Internal planning 141,230 154,110 145,255 139,740 156,630 153,900
Wall finishes 51,010 50,040 49,684 48,820 52,240 50,240
Floor finishes 274,432 274,432 274,432 274,432 274,432 274,432
Ceiling finishes 125,308 125,308 125,308 125,308 125,308 125,308
Fittings 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Sanitary 208,890 208,890 208,890 208,890 208,890 208,890
Mechanical 1,285,834 1,311,551 1,285,834 1,285,834 1,311,551 1,285,834
Electrical 637,811 650,567 637,811 637,811 650,567 637,811
Lifts 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000
BWIC 172,470 172,470 172,470 172,470 172,470 172,470
Contingency 394,658 398,542 398,692 399,407 406,907 418,715
Preliminaries 735,000 715,000 755,000 745,000 715,000 715,000
Overheads and profit 383,505 385,646 388,175 388,190 392,840 402,995
TOTAL £6,775,263 £6,813,088 £6,857,765 £6,858,021 £6,940,180 £7,119,578
Element Short-span options

Flat Slab Composite In-situ + Hollowcore PT Flat Slab Steel + Hollowcore Slimdek
£/m2 % £/m2 % £/m2 % £/m2 % £/m2 % £/m2 %
Substructure 43 2.9 41 2.8 44 3.0 43 2.9 42 2.8 41 2.7
Frame/upper floors 122 8.3 122 8.3 127 8.6 138 9.4 139 9.3 188 12.3
Roof finishes 52 3.6 52 3.5 52 3.5 52 3.5 52 3.5 52 3.4
Stairs 14 0.9 14 0.9 14 0.9 14 0.9 14 0.9 14 0.9
External cladding 252 17.2 253 17.2 256 17.3 249 16.8 258 17.3 253 16.5
Internal planning 30 2.1 33 2.3 31 2.1 30 2.0 34 2.3 33 2.2

Wall finishes 11 0.8 11 0.7 11 0.7 11 0.7 11 0.8 11 0.7
Floor finishes 59 4.1 59 4.0 59 4.0 59 4.0 59 4.0 59 3.9
Ceiling finishes 27 1.8 27 1.8 27 1.8 27 1.8 27 1.8 27 1.8
Fittings 13 0.9 13 0.9 13 0.9 13 0.9 13 0.9 13 0.8
Sanitary 45 3.1 45 3.1 45 3.0 45 3.0 45 3.0 45 2.9
Mechanical 277 19.0 283 19.3 277 18.8 277 18.7 283 18.9 277 18.1
Electrical 137 9.4 140 9.5 137 9.3 137 9.3 140 9.4 137 9.0
Lifts 15 1.0 15 1.0 15 1.0 15 1.0 15 1.0 15 1.0
BWIC 37 2.5 37 2.5 37 2.5 37 2.5 37 2.5 37 2.4
Contingency 85 5.8 86 5.8 86 5.8 86 5.8 88 5.9 90 5.9
Preliminaries 158 10.8 154 10.5 162 11.0 160 10.9 154 10.3 154 10.0
Overheads and profit 83 5.7 83 5.7 84 5.7 84 5.7 84 5.7 88 5.7
TOTAL £1,460 £1,468 £1,477 £1,477 £1,495 £1,534
46

Summary of costs - Building B
Building B
16,480 m2 GIFA
Element Short-span options Long-span options Short-span options
Flat Slab PT Flat Slab Composite In-situ + PT Band Beams Long-Span Steel + Slimdek
Hollowcore Composite Hollowcore
Element total Element total Element total Element total Element total Element total Element total Element total
(£) (£) (£) (£) (£) (£) (£) (£)
Substructure 891,672 865,937 815,468 885,169 907,622 848,868 860,967 852,231
Superstructure 1,811,939 2,016,344 1,878,457 1,846,453 2,227,681 2,201,664 2,275,704 3,011,992
Roof finishes 545,080 545,080 545,080 545,080 545,080 545,080 545,080 545,080
Stairs 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000
External cladding 5,951,060 5,849,590 5,957,935 6,053,840 6,086,885 5,957,935 6,208,265 5,974,270
Internal planning 297,080 293,790 355,728 300,225 301,360 355,638 366,552 356,352
Wall finishes 234,455 229,931 256,770 233,226 227,825 241,566 264,162 263,112
Floor finishes 1,167,221 1,167,221 1,167,221 1,167,221 1,167,221 1,167,221 1,167,221 1,167,221
Ceiling finishes 702,366 702,366 702,366 702,366 702,366 702,366 702,366 702,366
Fittings 132,500 132,500 132,500 132,500 132,500 132,500 132,500 132,500
Sanitary 824,000 824,000 824,000 824,000 824,000 824,000 824,000 824,000
Mechanical 4,544,360 4,544,360 4,635,247 4,544,360 4,544,360 4,635,247 4,635,247 4,544,360
Electrical 2,690,688 2,690,688 2,739,502 2,690,688 2,690,688 2,739,502 2,739,502 2,690,688
Lifts 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000
BWIC 601,800 601,800 601,800 601,800 601,800 601,800 601,800 601,800
Contingency 1,584,467 1,589,670 1,600,806 1,594,420 1,626,854 1,626,404 1,654,152 1,679,848
Preliminaries 3,350,000 3,310,000 3,350,000 3,470,000 3,310,000 3,350,000 3,270,000 3,270,000
Overheads and profit 1,563,641 1,565,717 1,577,693 1,579,401 1,597,694 1,599,707 1,618,771 1,640,869
TOTAL £27,624,328 £27,660,993 £27,872,572 £27,902,748 £28,225,936 £28,261,499 £28,598,289 £28,998,690
Element Short-span options Long-span options Short-span options

Flat Slab PT Flat Slab Composite In-situ + PT Band Beams Long-Span Steel + Slimdek
Hollowcore Composite Hollowcore
£/m2 % £/m2 % £/m2 % £/m2 % £/m2 % £/m2 % £/m2 % £/m2 %
Substructure 54 3.2 53 3.1 49 2.9 54 3.2 55 3.2 52 3.0 52 3.0 52 2.9
Superstructure 110 6.6 122 7.2 114 6.7 112 6.6 135 7.9 134 7.7 138 7.9 183 10.3
Roof finishes 33 2.0 33 2.0 33 1.9 33 1.9 33 1.9 33 1.9 33 1.9 33 1.9
Stairs 8 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.5
External cladding 361 21.5 355 21.0 362 21.3 367 21.6 369 21.5 362 21.0 377 21.6 363 20.5
Internal planning 18 1.1 18 1.1 22 1.3 18 1.1 18 1.1 22 1.3 22 1.3 22 1.2
Wall finishes 14 0.8 14 0.8 16 0.9 14 0.8 14 0.8 15 0.9 16 0.9 16 0.9
Floor finishes 71 4.2 71 4.2 71 4.2 71 4.2 71 4.1 71 4.1 71 4.1 71 4.0
Ceiling finishes 43 2.5 43 2.5 43 2.5 43 2.5 43 2.5 43 2.5 43 2.4 43 2.4
Fittings 8 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.5
Sanitary 50 3.0 50 3.0 50 2.9 50 2.9 50 2.9 50 2.9 50 2.9 50 2.8
Mechanical 276 16.5 276 16.3 281 16.5 276 16.2 276 16.0 281 16.3 281 16.1 276 15.6
Electrical 163 9.7 163 9.7 166 9.8 163 9.6 163 9.5 166 9.6 166 9.5 163 9.2
Lifts 36 2.2 36 2.2 36 2.1 36 2.1 36 2.1 36 2.1 36 2.1 36 2.1
BWIC 37 2.2 37 2.2 37 2.1 37 2.1 37 2.1 37 2.1 37 2.1 37 2.1
Contingency 96 5.7 96 5.7 97 5.7 97 5.7 99 5.7 97 5.7 100 5.8 101 5.8
Preliminaries 203 12.1 201 11.9 203 12.0 211 12.4 201 11.7 203 11.8 199 11.4 198 11.2
Overheads and profit 95 5.7 94 5.7 95 5.7 95 5.7 97 5.7 97 5.7 98 5.7 99 5.7
TOTAL £1,676 £1,678 £1,691 £1,693 £1,713 £1,715 £1,735 £1,759
47

Summary of costs
Key rates
Key rates used in the structural elements of the study are tabulated below:
Building element Unit Building A Building B

Concrete in walls m3 £125 £125
Concrete in suspended slabs m3 £115 £120
Lightweight concrete in suspended slabs m3 £145 £145
Concrete in beams m3 £115 £120
Concrete in columns m3 £115 £120
A142 mesh reinforcement m2 £3 £3
A193 mesh reinforcement m2 £4 £4
Reinforcement in suspended slabs tonne £820 £840
Reinforcement in beams tonne £820 £840
Reinforcement in walls tonne £820 £840
Reinforcement in columns tonne £820 £840
Post-tensioning to floor slabs m2 £27 £27
Intumescent coating - 60 minute (site applied) m2 £13 –
Intumescent coating - 90 minute (site applied) m2 – £20
Formwork to walls m2 £32 £31
Formwork to soffits of suspended slabs m2 £31 £32
Formwork to beams m2 £42 £42
Formwork to columns m2 £42 £42
Formwork to columns - curved m2 £63 –
150mm hollowcore planks m2 £46 £47
200mm hollowcore planks m2 £48 £54
Solid grade S355 steel beams tonne £1,390 £1,405
Solid grade S355 steel columns tonne £1,390 £1,405
Solid grade S355 steel columns hollow sections tonne £1,730 –
ASB grade S355 steel beams tonne £1,590 £1,600
Cellular grade S355 steel beams tonne – £1,545
Core walls SHS steel bracing tonne £1,770 –
Ribdeck AL 1.2mm steel decking m2 £21 £21
SD225 steel decking (propped) m2 £36 £39
Shear studs -19mm × 100mm No £1 £1
Shear studs -19mm × 120mm No £1 £1
Key rates used in other elements of the study are tabulated below:
Other element Unit Building A Building B

External cladding
Curtain walling m2 £360 £830
Rain-screen m2 £260 £935
Brise-soleil m2 £310 £310
Atrium walling m2 £360 £480
Shop fronts m2 – £470
Internal planning
Non-structural dry-lined metal stud partitions m2 £55 £65
Blockwork walls to retail units m2 – £80
48

Study findings
8. Study findings
Costs Building A – 3 storey
In terms of overall construction cost for Building A, the most economic option, the Flat
Slab, was found to be between 0.6% and 4.8% less expensive than the alternative
structural solutions.
Building B – 6 storey
In terms of overall construction cost for Building B, for the short-span situation, the most
economic option, the Flat Slab, was found to be between 0.1% and 4.7% less expensive
than the alternative structural solutions.
Overall
The most significant differential for both buildings occurred using the Slimdek option, for
which the overall construction costs were found to be between 5.0% and 5.1% more
expensive than the most economic option, after adjusting time-related preliminaries for
construction programme difference. When only the costs of the structural frame and
upper floors are considered, the Slimdek option was found to be between 54.1% and
66.4% more expensive than the most economic option.
Programme Building A
With regard to speed of construction, for Building A the construction programmes for the
Composite, Steel + Hollowcore and Slimdek options are all identical at 48 weeks, with 50
weeks required for the Flat Slab option, 51 weeks for the PT Flat Slab option and 52 weeks
for the In-situ + Hollowcore option.
Building B
With regard to speed of construction, for the short-span options in Building B, the con-
struction programmes for both the Steel + Hollowcore and Slimdek options are identical
at 65 weeks, with 66 weeks required for the PT Flat Slab option; the Flat Slab option and
Composite options identical at 67 weeks and 70 weeks for the In-situ + Hollowcore
option.
For the long-span options in Building B, the PT Band Beam option was found to have a
programme of 66 weeks, compared to a programme of 67 weeks for the Long-Span
Composite option.
When considering a ten week procurement time and a lead time of 4-7 weeks for the Flat
Slab, In-situ + Hollowcore, PT Flat Slab and PT Band Beam options; and, 12–18 weeks for
the Composite, Steel + Hollowcore, Slimdek and Long-Span Composite options; the
overall programmes are as summarised below:
49

Study findings
Building A – short-span Building B – short-span Building B – long-span

Flat Slab 64 weeks PT Flat Slab 82 weeks PT Band Beams 83 weeks
PT Flat Slab 65 weeks Flat Slab 83 weeks Long-Span Composite 95 weeks
In-situ + Hollowcore 66 weeks In-situ + Hollowcore 86 weeks
Composite 70 weeks Steel + Hollowcore 91 weeks
Steel + Hollowcore 70 weeks Slimdek 91 weeks
Slimdek 70 weeks Composite 93 weeks
The study findings are presented in the following manner:
The costings are divided into the following eight primary components which together
make up the overall cost of each scheme design:
Substructures
Frames and upper floors
Cladding
Internal planning
Roof finishes and internal finishes
Mechanical and electrical services
Preliminaries
Contingency and overheads and profit.
For each component, the costs per m2 of gross internal floor area for each of the eight
options are compared graphically and in tabular form, with the most economical option
for that component being used as the base for comparison.
The costs of each primary component are also broken down where appropriate; for example
‘frames and upper floor costs’ are sub-divided into concrete frame, formwork and reinforce-
ment, steel frame, decking & slabs and fire protection.
(Minor differences between the figures used in the Study findings and the Summary of costs are
due to rounding.)
Average Elemental Breakdown Average Elemental Breakdown
Internal M&E, Lifts & BWIC Internal M&E, Lifts & BWIC
Planning 34% External Cladding Planning 34% External Cladding
17% 1% 21%
2%
Substructure Substructure
3% 3%
Roof Finishes & Roof Finishes &
Internal Finishes Internal Finishes
11% 10%
Frame and Upper Frame and Upper Contingency &
Contingency & Preliminaries
Floors Preliminaries Floors O/h&P
O/h&P 12%
10% 11% 8% 11%
12%
Building A Building B
50

Study findings - Building A
Study findings – Building A Overall costs

Based on the building footprints and outline specifications compiled by Allies and
Morrison, together with the structural design information and calculation provided by
Arup, all six structural options are within 5.1% of each other, after adjusting time-related
preliminaries for construction programme differences.
Of particular note is the significance of M&E services costs in the overall comparison,
representing an average of 34% of total costs, and of the external cladding, representing
an average of 17% of total costs.
As illustrated in the figure and table, the Slimdek option was found to be 5.1% more
expensive than the Flat Slab option, with both options providing clear, unimpeded soffits.
These figures are based on cost per m2 of gross internal area. The differences in cost
would be even greater if net internal areas had been considered, due to the larger area
taken up by a steel core. However, as this level of detail would not normally be apparent
at outline design stage, it has not been examined further in this study.
£/m²
1550
1525
Overall construction costs
1500
1475
1450
1425
1400
PT Flat Slab
In-situ +
Hollowcore
Flat Slab
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
Slimdek
Overall costs
£/m2 % difference
Flat Slab £1,460 -
Composite £1,468 +0.5%
In-situ + Hollowcore £1,477 +1.2%
PT Flat Slab £1,477 +1.2%
Steel + Hollowcore £1,495 +2.4%
Slimdek £1,534 +5.1%
In Table 1 and Table 2 which follow, showing the construction costs for each element of
the building, the % comparison is related to the cost for the most economic option for
the element in question.
51

Table 1 Element Substructures Frame and upper floors

Elemental cost
comparison. Percentage of total cost 3% 10%
Findings Foundations for the three-storey building are simple pads. When the costs of the frame and upper floors only are
Costs for the ground-floor slab and associated earthworks compared on a like-for-like basis, the most economic option
are identical for all solutions. is the Flat Slab, with costs for the alternative structural
options ranging from +4.1% to +54.1%. A significant feature
On an overall basis, costs for the complete substructure is the premium required to achieve a clear, flat soffit with
were found to be lowest for the Composite and Slimdek the Slimdek system as opposed to with alternative flat
options, with costs for the alternative options ranging from soffit solutions, the Flat Slab and PT Flat Slab options. This
+2.4% to +7.3%. is shown graphically and in tabular form below.
Costs for the earthworks and foundations only (excluding It should be appreciated that, in cost plans, the infill to the
the GF slab) were found to be lowest for the Composite steel core bracing in a steel-framed building is often
option, with costs for the alternative options ranging from allocated to the Internal Planning element. In this study,
+4.5% to +13.6%, which is the consequence of smaller this would have produced an imbalance of approximately
pads being utilised for the lighter buildings. 7.5% in the comparisons, which has been adjusted in the
table below.
This highlights the need for designers to be aware that the

structure of a cost plan may not readily reveal the full
effects of the choice of a particular structural frame.
Examination of the cost plan at a more detailed level than
elemental totals may therefore prove beneficial in
informing the structural choice.
Relative costs £/m² £/m²
180 *
160
45
140
40
120
35
30 100
25 80
20 60
15
40
10
5 20
0 0
In-situ +
Hollowcore
Flat Slab
Composite
PT Flat Slab
Steel +
Hollowcore
Slimdek
Composite
In-situ +
Hollowcore
Steel +
Hollowcore
Flat Slab
PT Flat Slab
Slimdek
GF slab Fire protection Formwork

Foundations Decking & slabs Reinforcement
Earthworks Steel frame Concrete frame
Percentage comparison
with Flat Slab option Substructure costs Frame and upper floors costs
£/m2 % difference £/m2 % difference
Composite £41 - Flat Slab £122 -
Slimdek £41 - Composite £122 -
Steel + Hollowcore £42 +2.4% In-situ + Hollowcore £127 +4.1%
Note for frame and
upper floors Flat Slab £43 +4.9% PT Flat Slab £138 +13.1%
*Stairs have been
PT Flat Slab £43 +4.9% Steel + Hollowcore £139 +13.9%
excluded from the
comparison, being of In-situ + Hollowcore £44 +7.3% Slimdek £188 +54.1%
equal cost for all
solutions.
52

External cladding Internal planning

17% 2%
For the costs of external cladding (curtain walling to main For the Internal planning (internal partitions, internal
elevations and atrium, together with rain screens, brise- glazing to atrium, WC cubicles and internal doors) the
soleil, external doors and cladding to roof plant areas), the most economic solutions are the Flat Slab and PT Flat Slab
most economic option is the PT Flat Slab, with cost for the options in equal place. Costs for the alternative solutions
alternative solutions ranging from +0.9% for the Flat Slab range from +3.3% for the In-situ + Hollowcore option to
option to +4.2% for the Steel + Hollowcore option. +13.3% for the Steel + Hollowcore option.
However, whilst the percentage variation between options
may appear small, it should be borne in mind that, the This cost range reflects the adjustment of the imbalance
actual cost variation can be significant for this element. relating to the infill to steel braced cores, referred to in the
Frame and upper floors element.
The variation in cost is related to the area of cladding
resulting from the necessary storey heights, which vary Account has been taken in the costing of the added
from 3950mm on the PT Flat Slab option to 4160mm on complexity of fire and acoustic sealing of partition heads
the Steel + Hollowcore option, to accommodate the against the irregular soffits of steel decking and around
different structural zones. irregularly shaped intersecting steel frame members.
With the wall-to-floor ratio on this building form, a 5.3%

increase in floor-to-floor height produces a 6.0% increase
in cladding cost over three storeys.
£/m² £/m²
** 35
225
30
220
25
215 20
15
210
10
205
5
200 0
In-situ +
Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Flat Slab
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
In-situ +
Hollowcore
Slimdek
PT Flat Slab
Flat Slab
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
Slimdek
Doors
Atrium glazing
Internal planning
External cladding costs Internal planning costs

PT Flat Slab £215 - PT Flat Slab £30 -
Flat Slab £217 +0.9% Flat Slab £30 -
Slimdek £219 +1.9% In-situ + Hollowcore £31 +3.3%
Note for external
Composite £219 +1.9% Slimdek £33 +10.0% cladding
In-situ + Hollowcore £222 +3.3% Composite £33 +10.0% ** Undercroft treatment
has been excluded from
Steel + Hollowcore £224 +4.2% Steel + Hollowcore £34 +13.3% the comparison, being of
equal cost for all
solutions.
53

Table 1 cont’d Element Roof finishes and internal finishes, fixtures Mechanical and electrical services
Elemental cost and fittings
comparison.
Percentage of total cost 11% 34%
Findings The costs of the roof finishes were the same across all the In respect of the direct costs of lifts, mechanical services,
structural options, as is also the case for the fixtures and electrical services, sanitary installations and builder’s work
fittings. in connection, there was no noticeable difference between
all of the structural solutions.
Slight differences in internal finishes costs are entirely
contained within the wall finishes and reflect the dissimilar However, with regard to the relative ease of installation of
storey heights, which differ by 5.3% between the lowest the mechanical and electrical services, a premium is incurred
(the Flat Slab option) and the highest (the Steel + Hollowcore for the additional complexity where the services distribution
option). At this outline stage of design, these differentials has to be installed around downstand beams of varying
are so small as to be lost in the rounding of the figures. depth, cross-section and number, as are found with the
Composite and Steel + Hollowcore options.
Relative costs £/m²
550
500
450
£/m² 400
350
100 * 300
80 250
200
60
150
40
100
20 50
0 0
In-situ +
Hollowcore
In-situ +
Hollowcore
Flat Slab
PT Flat Slab
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Composite
Flat Slab
Steel +
Hollowcore
Slimdek
Slimdek
Ceiling finishes Floor finishes BWC Mechanical

Wall finishes Lifts Sanitary
Electical
with Flat Slab option Finishes costs Mechanical and electrical costs
PT Flat Slab £97 - Flat Slab £512 -
In-situ + Hollowcore £97 - In-situ + Hollowcore £512 -
Composite £97 - PT Flat Slab £512 -
Note for finishes
*Roof finishes and Slimdek £97 - Slimdek £512 -
fixtures and fittings
have been excluded
Flat Slab £97 - Composite £520 +1.6%
from the comparison,
Steel + Hollowcore £97 - Steel + Hollowcore £520 +1.6%
being of equal cost for
all solutions.
54

Preliminaries Contingency, overheads and profit
11% 12%
The budget for preliminaries for each option was based on A design contingency of 7.5% has been included within the
two separate elements. A lump sum to allow for both non- budget costs, to reflect the outline nature of the design
work-related aspects, such as contractual requirements for information developed at this stage of a project. The
insurances, employer’s facilities, etc., together with fixed budget costs also contain an allowance of 6% in respect of
one-off costs such as site establishment, access roads, overheads and profit. It should be borne in mind that, at
crane bases, services connection charges, etc. this stage of the design, the allowance for contingency is
the equivalent of 70% of the cost of the frame and upper
The second element relates to time-related costs, such as floors on the most economic solutions.
management and staff, site accommodation, services and
facilities, cranage, etc. Such costs therefore vary according
to programme duration and the sequencing of operations
within the programme. Adjustment of these costs has
been made to reflect the different construction durations
between 48 and 52 weeks identified in the programmes.
(see Chapter 6 Programmes).
Detailed consideration of items within the Preliminaries,

e.g. size of particular cranes, was beyond the scope of this
study.
£/m² £/m²
180 180
160 160
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
In-situ +
Hollowcore
Flat Slab
Composite
PT Flat Slab
Steel +
Hollowcore
In-situ +
Hollowcore
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
Flat Slab
PT Flat Slab
Slimdek
Slimdek
Time-related preliminaries Overheads & profit

Fixed preliminaries Contingency
Preliminaries costs Contingency, overheads and profit costs

Steel + Hollowcore £154 - Composite £169 +0.6%
Slimdek £154 - In-situ + Hollowcore £170 +1.2%
Flat Slab £158 +2.6% PT Flat Slab £170 +1.2%
PT Flat Slab £160 +3.9% Steel + Hollowcore £173 +3.0%
In-situ + Hollowcore £162 +5.2% Slimdek £177 +5.4%
55

Study findings - Building B
Study findings – Building B Overall costs
Based on the building footprints and outline specifications compiled by Allies and Morrison,
together with the structural design information and calculation provided by Arup, all eight
structural options are within 5.5% of each other, after adjusting time-related preliminaries
for construction programme differences.
Of particular note is the significance of M&E services costs in the overall comparison,
representing an average of 33% of total costs, and of the external cladding, representing
an average of 21% of total costs.
As illustrated in the figure and table, the Slimdek option was found to be 5.5% more
expensive than the most economic option, the Flat Slab, with both options providing
clear, unimpeded soffits.
These figures are based on cost per m2 of gross internal area, with all options having
concrete cores.
In terms of overall construction costs, for short-span options, the most economic solution
was found to be the Flat Slab option, with alternative solutions being between 0.7% and
5.5% more expensive.
For long-span options, the PT Band Beam solution was found to be more economic than
the Long-Span Composite solution. The Long span options are shown on the right of the
charts as shown below.
£/m²
£/m² Short span Long span
1750
Overall construction costs
1725
1700
1675
1650
1625
1600
In-situ +
Hollowcore
Flat Slab
PT Flat Slab
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
PT Band Beams
Long span
Composite
Slimdek
Overall costs
£/m2 % difference
Flat Slab £1,676 -
PT Flat Slab £1,678 +0.1%
Composite £1,691 +0.9%
In-situ + Hollowcore £1,693 +1.0%
Steel + Hollowcore £1,735 +3.5%
Slimdek £1,759 +5.0%
PT Band Beams £1,713 +2.2%
Long-Span Composite £1,715 +2.3%
56

Table 2 Element Substructures Frame and upper floors

Elemental cost
Findings Foundations for Building B are piled, with varying pile depths, When the costs of the frame and upper floors only are com-
pile cap sizes and configurations for each option. Costs for pared, the most economic option is the Flat Slab, with
the ground floor slab and associated earthworks are identi- costs for the alternative structural options ranging from
cal for all solutions. +1.8% to +66.4%. A significant feature is the premium
required to achieve a clear, flat soffit with the Slimdek system
On an overall basis, costs for the complete substructure were as opposed to with alternative flat soffit solutions, the Flat
found to be lowest for the Composite option, with costs for Slab and PT Flat Slab options. This is shown graphically and
the alternative options ranging from +6.1% to +12.2%. in tabular form below.
Costs for the earthworks and foundations only (excluding For the long-span options, the frame and upper floors costs
the GF slab) were found to be lowest for the Composite were almost identical, the PT Band Beams option being
option, with costs for the alternative options ranging from 0.8% more expensive than the Long-Span Composite
+6.6% to +18.2%, which is the consequence of fewer piles, option. Both long-span solutions were an average of 22.3%
shorter pile lengths and smaller pile caps needed for the higher than the most economic short-span solution, the
lighter buildings. Flat Slab.

60 200 *
55 180
50 160
45
140
40
35 120
30 100
25 80
20
60
15
40
10
5 20
0 0
In-situ +
Hollowcore
In-situ +
Hollowcore
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Flat Slab
Flat Slab
Composite
PT Flat Slab
Steel +
Hollowcore
Long Span
Composite
PT Band Beams
Long Span
Composite
PT Band Beams
Slimdek
Slimdek
GF slab Fire protection Formwork

Foundations Decking & slabs Reinforcement
Earthworks Steel frame Concrete frame
with Flat Slab option Substructure costs Frame and upper floor costs
Slimdek £52 +6.1% In-situ + Hollowcore £112 +1.8%
Steel + Hollowcore £52 +6.1% Composite £114 +3.6%
Note for frame and
PT Flat Slab £53 +8.2% PT Flat Slab £122 +10.9%
upper floors
*Stairs have been Flat Slab £54 +10.2% Steel + Hollowcore £138 +25.5%
excluded from the In-situ + Hollowcore £54 +10.2% Slimdek £183 +66.4%
comparison for clarity,
being of equal cost for Long-Span Composite £52 +6.1% Long-Span Composite £134 +21.8%
all solutions. PT Band Beams £55 +12.2% PT Band Beams £135 +22.7%
57

Table 2 cont’d Element External cladding Internal planning

Elemental cost
comparison.
Percentage of total cost 21% 1%
Findings For the costs of external cladding (curtain walling to main For the Internal planning (internal partitions, WC cubicles
elevations and atrium, together with rainscreens, brise- and internal doors) the most economic solutions are the
soleil, external doors and cladding to roof plant areas), the Flat Slab, PT Flat Slab and In-situ + Hollowcore options in
most economic option is the PT Flat Slab, with costs for the equal place. Costs for the alternative solutions are 22.2%
alternative solutions ranging from +1.7% for the Flat Slab higher, with minor differences between the Composite, In-
option to +6.2% for the Steel + Hollowcore option. However, situ + Hollowcore, Slimdek and Long-Span Composite
whilst the percentage variation between options may options.
appear small, it should be borne in mind that, the variation
in terms of actual cost can be significant for this element. As with Building A, the costing takes account of the added
complexity of fire and acoustic sealing of partition heads
The variation in cost is related to the area of cladding against the irregular soffits of steel decking and around
resulting from the necessary storey heights, which vary irregularly shaped intersecting steel frame members. The
from 3950mm on the PT Flat Slab option to 4235mm on effect of this factor on Building B is more significant due to
the Steel + Hollowcore option, to accommodate the the quantity of blockwork walls within the ground floor
different structural zones. retail space.
With the wall-to-floor ratio on this building form, a 7.2% Such a large cost range reflects the effects of both the
increase in floor-to-floor height produces a 6.1% increase in differences in storey height to accommodate the different
cladding cost over the six storeys. structural zones and the cost premium incurred as a result
of this added complexity.
375 25
365 20
355 15
345 10
335 5
325 0
In-Situ +
Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Flat Slab
Composite
ISteel +
Hollowcore
PT Band Beams
Long Span
Composite
In-Situ +
Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Flat Slab
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
Long Span
Composite
PT Band Beams
Slimdek
Slimdek
Doors
Internal planning
with Flat Slab option
External cladding costs Internal planning costs
PT Flat Slab £355 - PT Flat Slab £18 -
Flat Slab £361 +1.7% Flat Slab £18 -
Composite £362 +2.0% In-situ + Hollowcore £18 -
Slimdek £363 +2.3% Composite £22 +22.2%
Steel + Hollowcore £377 +6.2% Steel + Hollowcore £22 +22.2%
Long-Span Composite £362 +2.0% PT Band Beams £18 -
PT Band Beams £369 +3.9% Long-Span Composite £22 +22.2%
58

Roof finishes and internal finishes, fixtures Mechanical and electrical services
and fittings
10% 33%
The costs of the roof finishes were the same across all the In respect of the direct costs of lifts, mechanical services,
structural options and they are therefore not included in electrical services, sanitary installations and builder’s work
the comparison of the internal finishes shown graphically in connection, there was no noticeable difference between
and in tabular form below, which is also the case for the all of the structural solutions.
fixtures and fittings.
However, with regard to the relative ease of installation of
For the internal finishes (floor wall and ceiling finishes) the the mechanical and electrical services, a premium is
most economic solutions are the PT Flat Slab and PT Band incurred for the additional complexity where the services
Beam option in equal place, with costs for the alternative distribution has to be installed around downstand beams
solutions ranging from +0.8% for the Flat Slab, In-situ + of varying depth, cross-section and number, as are found
Hollowcore and Long-Span Composite options, to +1.6% with the Composite, Steel + Hollowcore and Long-Span
for the Composite, Steel + Hollowcore and Slimdek options. Composite options.
These differences in internal finishes costs are entirely

contained within the wall finishes and reflect the dissimilar
storey heights, which differ by 5.3% between the lowest (the
Flat Slab option) and the highest (the Steel + Hollowcore
option).
£/m²
600
550
£/m² 500
* 450
140
400
120 350
100 300
80 250
200
60
150
40
100
20 50
0 0
In-situ +
Hollowcore
In-situ +
Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Flat Slab
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
Flat Slab
PT Flat Slab
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
PT Band Beams
Long Span
Composite
PT Band Beams
Composite
Slimdek
Slimdek
Long Span
Ceiling finishes Floor finishes BWC Mechanical

Wall finishes Lifts Sanitary
Electical
Finishes costs Mechanical and electrical costs

PT Flat Slab £127 - Flat Slab £562 -
In-situ + Hollowcore £128 +0.8% In-situ + Hollowcore £562 -
Flat Slab £128 +0.8% PT Flat Slab £562 -
Composite £129 +1.6% Slimdek £562 - Note for finishes
Steel + Hollowcore £129 +1.6% Composite £570 +1.4% *Roof finishes and
fixtures and fittings
Slimdek £129 +1.6% Steel + Hollowcore £570 +1.4% have been excluded
PT Band Beams £127 - PT Band Beams £562 - from the comparison
for clarity, being of
Long-Span Composite £128 +0.8% Long-Span Composite £570 +1.4%
equal cost for all
solutions.
59

Table 2 cont’d Element Preliminaries Contingency, overheads and profit

Elemental cost
Findings The budget for preliminaries for each option was based on A design contingency of 7.5% has been included within the
two separate elements. A lump sum to allow for both non- budget costs, to reflect the outline nature of the design
work-related aspects, such as contractual requirements for information developed at this stage of a project. The
insurances, employer’s facilities, etc., together with fixed budget costs also contain an allowance of 6% in respect of
one-off costs such as site establishment, access roads, overheads and profit. It should be borne in mind that, at
crane bases, services connection charges, etc. this stage of the design, the allowance for contingency is
the equivalent of 87% of the superstructure cost on the
Separate allowances were made for time-related costs, such most economic solution.
as management and staff, site accommodation, services and
facilities, cranage, etc. Such costs therefore vary according
to programme duration and the sequencing of operations
within the programme. Adjustment of these costs has been
made to reflect the different construction durations between
65 and 70 weeks identified in the programmes (see Chapter 6
Programmes).
Detailed consideration of items within the Preliminaries,

e.g. size of particular cranes, was beyond the scope of this
study.

220 200
200 180
180 160
160 140
140
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20 20
0 0
Hollowcore
Flat Slab
PT Flat Slab
Composite
Steel +
Hollowcore
PT Band Beams
Long Span
Composite
Hollowcore
Steel +
Hollowcore
PT Flat Slab
Flat Slab
Composite
PT Band Beams
Composite
Slimdek
Slimdek
In-situ +
In-situ +
Long Span
Time-related preliminaries Overheads & profit

Fixed preliminaries Contingency
with Flat Slab option Preliminaries costs Contingency, overheads and profit costs
Slimdek £199 - Flat Slab £191 -
Steel + Hollowcore £199 - PT Flat Slab £191 -
PT Flat Slab £201 +1.0% In-situ + Hollowcore £193 +1.0%
Flat Slab £204 +2.5% Composite £193 +1.0%
Composite £204 +2.5% Steel + Hollowcore £198 +3.7%
PT Band Beams £201 +1.0% PT Band Beams £196 +2.6%
Long-Span Composite £204 +2.5% Long-Span Composite £196 +2.6%
60

Study findings
Summary comparison It is evident from the study findings presented that the effects of the choice of a parti-
charts cular structural solution do not arise solely within the Frame and upper floors element of
the cost plan.
The charts below summarise those elements where costs are directly affected by the
choice of frame and show the percentage variation in cost for each frame option, when
compared with the most economic option, the Flat Slab, as the base case. The
explanation of the reasons for the variations is given in the study findings above.
Building A Flat Slab Composite In-situ + PT Flat Slab Steel + Slimdek

Hollowcore Hollowcore
Substructure –4.9% +1.6% +0.5% –2.0% –3.7%
Frame and
+0.6% +4.1% +13.1% +13.9% +54.1%
upper floors
External
+0.8% +2.1% –1.1% +3.3% +0.9%
cladding
Base case for comparison
Internal
+10.0% +3.3% 0% +13.3% +10.0%
planning
Wall finishes –1.9% –2.6% –4.3% +2.4% –1.5%
M and E, lifts
+1.6% 0% 0% +1.6% 0%
and BWIC
Contingency +1.0% +1.0% +1.2% +3.1% +6.1%
Time-related
–3.9% +3.9% +2.0% –3.9% –3.9%
preliminaries
Overheads
+0.6% +1.2% +1.2% +3.0% +5.4%
and profit
Building B Flat Slab PT Flat Slab Composite In-situ + PT Band Long-Span Steel + Slimdek
Hollowcore Beams Composite Hollowcore
Substructure –2.9% –8.5% –0.7% +1.8% –4.8% –3.4% –4.4%
Frame and
+10.9% +3.6% +1.8% +22.7% +21.8% +25.5% +66.4%
upper floors
External
–1.7% +0.1% +1.7% +2.3% +0.1% +4.3% +0.4%
cladding
Base case for comparison
Internal
–1.1% +19.7% +1.1% +1.4% +19.7% +23.4% +20.0%
planning
Wall finishes –1.9% +9.5% 12.7% –2.8% +3.0% +12.7% +12.2%
M and E, lifts
0% +1.4% 0% 0% +1.4% +1.4% 0%
and BWIC
Contingency +0.3% +1.0% +0.6% +2.7% +2.6% +4.4% +6.0%
Time-related
–1.5% 0% +4.6% –1.5% 0% –3.1% –3.1%
preliminaries
Overheads
+0.1% +0.9% +1.0% +2.2% +2.3% +3.5% +4.9%
and profit
61

Commentary from The Concrete Centre
9. Commentary from The Concrete Centre

Main conclusion The main conclusion to be drawn from the study is that, of the range of structural options
commonly used in the construction of modern commercial offices, for both the three-
storey out-of-town building and for the six-storey city centre building, the most
economic structural solution was found to be the RC Flat Slab option. This produced
savings of between 1% and 6% in overall construction costs in comparison with
alternative solutions.
Differences in cost The main source of savings lies in the superstructure, when the frame, cladding and
internal planning are all taken into account. There are minimal differences in the finishes,
other than those caused by variations in storey heights depending on the structural
solution adopted.
Foundations for the heavier options cost more, but account for a relatively small propor-
tion of the overall cost, the difference between the foundations for lighter and heavier
buildings equating to less than 0.3% of the overall costs.
Preliminaries are very similar, other than time-related aspects, although individual projects
may have logistical difficulties, site constraints, access, adjacent buildings, etc. that are
particular to that project and will affect the preliminaries. Such aspects are intrinsically
project specific and are therefore beyond the scope of the study.
There are no differences in the design or specification of the mechanical and electrical
services as a result of the structural designs selected; however, those designs involving
downstand beams of varying depths, cross-section and number incur a cost premium as a
result of the added complexity of installing the services around such projections.
Foundations A cost premium is incurred in the case of the buildings with the heavier structural frame.
To some extent this cost premium can be offset by adopting post-tensioned slabs, which
are typically some 15% lighter. In the case of Building B, the foundations to the post-
tensioned options are between 3% and 4% less expensive than those for the Flat Slab
option.
Frame and upper floors With appropriate adjustment for the location of costs of core walls and bracing infill
within the elemental summaries in order to achieve a like-for-like comparison, the frames
and upper floors for the RC Flat Slab option have been shown to be less expensive than the
alternative structural solutions, which were between 1% and 54% more expensive for
Building A and between 2% and 66% more expensive for Building B.
62

It should be appreciated that in most cost plans, the infill to the bracing of a steel-braced
core, which is an integral component of the choice of structure, is generally not included
within the costs of the structure, but is allocated to the Internal planning element. Conse-
quently any comparison of the costs of the frame and upper floors only could be distorted
by a significant amount.
External cladding The thinner the overall structural and services zone, the lower the cladding cost. Given
that the cladding on the buildings in the study represents between 17% and 22% of the
construction cost, minimising the cladding area represents considerable value to the
client. The minimum floor-to-floor height is almost always achieved with a flat soffit and
separate services zone, offering the potential for additional storeys in high-rise buildings
and thus improved rental or sales return. Smaller floor-to-floor heights have reduced
cladding areas and hence lowered costs, and of increasing importance is the potential
benefit that a reduced cladding area has on the building’s energy use.
Internal planning It should be noted that a premium is incurred in sealing and fire stopping at partition
heads against profiled soffits of metal decking and around non-rectangular-shaped
intersecting frame members. Failure to consider this aspect can result in expensive and
time-consuming remedial work later in the construction programme.
Mechanical and electrical Mechanical and electrical services represent a large proportion of the overall construction
services costs of the buildings, averaging 34% for Building A and 33% for Building B. The design
team was briefed not to design the services in detail, nor to take into account any benefits
associated with the potential for fabric energy storage. Nonetheless, it should be noted
that the removal of suspended ceilings in order to benefit from the thermal mass of the
concrete within the buildings would reduce the overall capital project costs for all options
by approximately 2% for Building A and by approximately 3% for Building B.
Types of ventilation
Both buildings have been assumed as fully air-conditioned and, whilst natural ventilation
and thermal mass can be used to eliminate air conditioning, these were not considered in
this study.
Flexibility
A flat soffit provides a clear zone for services distribution, free of any downstand beams.
This reduces co-ordination effort for the design team and therefore the risk of errors, permits
flexibility in design and allows co-ordination effort to be focused elsewhere. Services
installation is simplest below a flat soffit, permitting maximum off-site fabrication of
services, higher quality of work and quicker installation.
63

These advantages can typically produce cost savings on initial services installation costs but,
more importantly, because they facilitate the use of pre-fabricated services equipment
packages, they can offer reduced installation programmes, together with cost-in-use
benefits in the form of reduced maintenance downtime due to ease of equipment change-
out, greater flexibility and less disruption to an occupier’s business operations.
Flat soffits also allow greater future adaptability for building refurbishment, new layouts
and cellular arrangements; in addition, different service requirements are straightforward
and more easily accommodated.
These benefits are some of the main reasons for the development of Slimdek; however,
this study shows the significant cost premium incurred with this option and shows how the
RC Flat Slab or PT Flat Slab options are the most economic ways of getting a clear, flat soffit.
Nett lettable area Differences in nett lettable area resulting from the different structural options adopted
have not been considered in the study. However, it should be noted that there are two
main areas in which such differences are found: stairs and core areas.
Typically, stairs are re-sized as a result of the reduced storey height module, producing
slightly increased net lettable areas.
The area occupied by a concrete core tends to be slightly smaller than that needed for
a steel core, due to the allowance for steel bracing zones and the structural concrete
walls serving a dual function as partitions.
The RCC study - referred to in the Introduction - found that, on an overall basis, the
difference can be as much as 1.5% extra nett lettable floor area, and this finding is still
valid.
Programmes General conclusions

The lead times for the Flat Slab, In-situ + Hollowcore, PT Flat Slab and PT Band Beam
options are significantly shorter than those for the Composite, Steel + Hollowcore, Slimdek
and Long-Span Composite options.
For Building A, during the eight-week saving in lead time, nearly 90% of the frame for the
Flat Slab option could be constructed, whilst the 50 weeks overall construction programme
for the Flat Slab option is only marginally longer than the 48 weeks for the Composite
solution.
For Building B, the ten-week saving in lead time equates to the period required to construct
the frame for the Flat Slab up to fourth-floor level and commence the walls and columns
from the fourth to fifth floor, i.e. approximately 60% of the complete frame. The overall
construction programmes for the Flat Slab and the Composite options are identical at 67
weeks.
64

Construction programmes
The programmes reflect a pragmatic contractor’s approach to the construction process.
Inevitably, different planners would produce slightly different programmes based on a
considerable number of variable factors. Overall project programmes are highly influenced
by the procurement route and type of contract adopted, and alternative procurement
approaches such as construction management or design and build would no doubt
produce different results. For example, construction management and design and build
approaches lend themselves to concrete construction, where the ability to accommodate
late information and variations are particularly beneficial, as the work can be let before
the design of following packages has been finalised.
The programmes prepared for this study reflect one procurement approach but, in practice,
contractors are more likely to programme to a pre-set completion date in the knowledge
of the type of contract, their projected costs, the risk profile of the project, their knowledge
of and relationship with the client and design team, their supply chain and their exposure
to both liquidated damages and to market forces in play at the time of the project.
A practical view had to be taken of such factors as logistics, site access, boundary constraints,
cranage, etc., which are essentially site-specific. It could be argued that the steelwork
could have started on-site sooner, with earlier sub-contract award or longer periods for
design, package tendering, mobilisation or foundations making the steelwork lead time
less critical or even non-critical. Conversely, the use of a purely domestic sub-contract,
without the ability to pre-order, would push the programme back.
Whereas fire protection used to be a critical activity, modern details such as site-applied
intumescent coating have removed fireproofing from the critical path altogether. However,
although not on the critical path, the fireproofing activity requires a greater level of
detailing and causes disruption that can adversely affect other trades, e.g. difficulties
caused by fixings penetrating through fire-proofing and damage needing rectification.
Off-site intumescent coatings have been introduced in an effort to reduce the construction
time, but these can suffer from significant damage in transit, requiring site remedial work
which can eliminate the original saving.
The durations of first fix, second fix and M&E installations are essentially the same, with
slight differences in quantities appearing to make little difference to the programmes.
However, it is becoming increasingly common to use prefabrication for the M&E services
distribution, which can offer programme advantages when used in conjunction with the
open flat soffits provided by the Flat Slab, PT Flat Slab and Slimdek options. Prefabrication
of sections of the M&E installations also offers advantages in subsequent maintenance
and refurbishment of the building. No account is taken within the programmes of any
construction time savings resulting from such prefabrication.
65

Finance costs Although the reported costings excluded the effects of finance costs, if finance costs were
to be considered, they should not be limited to the construction period alone as, in most
cases, finance costs also affect the procurement and lead times.
It is not possible to examine the entire project from inception to completion, as the dura-
tion prior to the commencement of procurement cannot be defined on a generic basis.
However, consideration of the periods that have been identified in the programmes for pro-
curement, lead time and construction would produce the following comparison, assuming
a rate of 7.75% p.a. (base rate + 2%) and comparing the programme extension or saving
against the most economic short-span solution, the Flat Slab option. The PT Band Beam
option has been compared with the Long-Span Composite option.
Building A Flat Slab Composite In-situ + PT Flat Slab Steel + Slimdek

Hollowcore Hollowcore
Construction cost in £/m2 £1,460 £1,468 £1,477 £1,477 £1,495 £1,534
Overall programme in weeks 64 70 66 65 70 70
Savings in finance costs @ 7.75% p.a. +£0 +£5 +£2 +£1 +£5 +£5
£1,460 £1,473 £1,479 £1,478 £1,500 £1,539
Building B Flat Slab PT Flat Composite In-situ + PT Band Long-Span Steel + Slimdek
Slab Hollowcore Beams Composite Hollowcore
Construction cost in £/m2 £1,676 £1,678 £1,691 £1,693 £1,713 £1,715 £1,735 £1,759
Overall programme in weeks 83 82 93 86 83 95 91 91
Savings in finance costs @ 7.75% p.a. +£0 -£1 +£7 +£2 +£0 +£8 +£6 +£6
£1,676 £1,677 £1,698 £1,695 £1,713 £1,723 £1,741 £1,765
This comparison takes no account of differences in cumulative finance costs arising from
the different cash flow profiles experienced with the differing forms of construction. For
example, the Composite, Steel + Hollowcore, Slimdek and Long-Span Composite options
require greater expenditure early on than the Flat Slab, In-situ + Hollowcore, PT Flat Slab
and PT Band Beam options, where the ‘pay as you pour’ principle works in the client’s
favour. A more comprehensive analysis of the construction cash flow profiles would be
required in order to present a detailed comparison of these effects on finance costs.
Other value considerations Initial capital cost is not, of course, the sole driver for clients, whose main objective is
optimum value from an overall solution. The wider value aspects of structural solutions in
relation to framed buildings are therefore briefly considered in more detail below.
Overall value vs frame cost

Frame cost alone should not dictate the choice of structural solution. Rather it should be
just one of a number of value issues that should be borne in mind when making the
choice of frame material. Only then can one be confident that the optimum structural
solution has been selected.
66

Fire protection
For Flat Slab, In-situ + Hollowcore, PT Flat Slab and PT Band Beam structures, fire protection
is generally not needed, as the material has inherent fire resistance of up to four hours. This
removes the time, cost and separate trades required for fire protection. Added value bene-
fits include such factors as enhanced property safety, the potential for lower insurance
premiums, re-usability of the structure and considerably reduced down-time for an
occupier after a fire.
Exposed soffit
Potential value to a client exists in those structures with a high thermal mass. By exposing
the soffits, this can be utilised through fabric energy storage (FES) to reduce initial plant
costs, by minimising or eliminating the need for air conditioning and substantially reducing
the lifetime operational costs of the asset. Utilisation of FES permits the designer to create
naturally ventilated buildings, giving occupants the chance to control their environment,
with consequent improvements in employee productivity. Furthermore, suspended ceilings
can be reduced or eliminated, giving valuable initial cost and programme benefits and
reduced lifetime maintenance costs.
67

Appendix A - Detailed programmes
10. Appendix A – Detailed programmes
Line Name
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
1 Site Set Up 1
2 Substructure 2
3 Remove Topsoil & RL Dig 3
4 Pad Foundations 4
5 Underslab Drainage 5
6 Ground Floor Slab 6
7 Superstructure 7
8 Walls / Columns Grd to 1st 8
9 1st Floor Slab 9
10 Walls / Columns 1st to 2nd 10
11 2nd Floor Slab 11
12 Walls / Cols 2nd to 3rd 12
13 3rd Floor Slab 13
14 Roof Upstands & Bases 14
15 Roof Installations 15
16 Roof Finishes 16
+ +
17 Deliver Main Roof Plant 17
18 Roof MEP Installations 18
19 Install Plant Screen Louvres 19
20 Curtain Wallling/External Cladding 20
21 Survey/Set Out Brackets 21
22 Secondry Steelwork/Framing 22
23 Glazing & Spandrel Panels 23
24 Capping/Flashing & Roof Upstand Level 24
25 Building Watertight 25
26 Cores & Risers 26
27 MEP Risers 27
+ +
28 Toilet Fit Out 28
+ +
29 Lift Installations 29
+ +
30 Office Fit Out to Cat A 30
31 Level 2 31
32 H/L MEP 1st Installations 32
33 Suspended Ceiling Grid & Service Tiles 33
34 H/L MEP 2nd Fix 34
35 Raised Flooring 35
36 Joinery 1st Fix 36
37 Level 1 37
+ +
38 Level G 38
+ +
39 Close Out 39
+ +
40 Testing & Commissioning 40

+ +
41 External Works 41
42 Completion 42
Line Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
Dated Drawn by Programme No

11/07/2006 rev
Client
The Concrete Centre Revision comment
Project
Title
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - COST MODEL STUDY Notes
Programme
Title
Building A : Scheme 1 - Flat Slab
68

Line Name
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
1 Site Set Up 1
2 Substructure 2
3 Remove Topsoil & RL Dig 3
4 Pad Foundations 4
7 Superstructure 7
8 Steelwork 8
9 Metal Decking 9
10 RC Topping 10
11 Roof Upstands & Bases 11
13 Roof Finishes 13
+ +
14 Deliver Main Roof Plant 14
15 Roof MEP Installations 15
16 Install Plant Screen Louvres 16
18 Survey/Set Out Brackets 18
19 Secondry Steelwork/Framing 19
20 Glazing & Spandrel Panels 20
21 Capping/Flashing & Roof Upstand Level 21
24 MEP Risers 24
+ +
+ +
+ +
28 Level 2 28
34 Level 1 34
+ +
35 Level G 35
+ +
36 Close Out 36
+ +

+ +
39 Completion 39
Line Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

11/07/2006 rev
Client
Project
Title
Programme
Title
Building A : Scheme 4 - Composite
Line Name
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
1 Site Set Up 1
2 Substructure 2
3 Pile Probing 3
4 Form Pile Matt 4
5 Piled Foundations 5
6 Excavate & Form Pile Caps 6
9 Superstructure 9
10 Walls / Columns Grd to 1st 10
11 1st Floor Slab 11
12 Walls / Columns 1st to 2nd 12
13 2nd Floor Slab 13
14 Walls / Cols 2nd to 3rd 14
15 3rd Floor Slab 15
16 Walls / Columns 3rd to 4th 16
17 4th Floor Slab 17 2d
18 Walls / Cols 4th to 5th 18
19 5th Floor Slab 19
20 Cols / Walls 5th to 6th 20
21 Roof Slab 21
22 Roof Upstands & Plant Bases 22
23 Envelope 23
24 Roof Finishes 24
+ +
+ +
26 Atrium Glazing 26
+ +
+ +
30 M&E Risers 30
+ +
+ +
+ +
34 Level 1 34
36 Perimeter Ceiling Plasterboard Margin 36
41 Level 2 41
+ +
42 Level 3 42
+ +
43 Level 4 43
+ +
44 Level 5 44
+ +
45 Close Out 45
+ +
+ +
48 Completion 48
Line Name 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

28/06/2006 rev
Client
Project
Title
Programme
Title
Building B : Scheme 1 - Flat Slab
69

Line Name
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
1 Site Set Up 1
2 Substructure 2
3 Pile Probing 3
4 Form Pile Matt 4
5 Piled Foundations (128 No) 5
6 Excavate & Form Pile Caps 6
9 Superstructure 9
10 Concrete Core (jump form) 10
11 Structural Steelwork 11
12 Metal Decking 12
13 RC Topping 13 45d
14 Upstands/Bases at Roof Level 14
15 Envelope 15
16 Roof Finishes 16
+ +
+ +
18 Atrium Glazing 18
+ +
+ +
22 M&E Risers 22
+ +
+ +
+ +
26 Level 1 26
28 Perimeter Ceiling Plasterboard Margin 28
33 Level 2 33
+ +
34 Level 3 34
+ +
35 Level 4 35
+ +
36 Level 5 36
+ +
37 Close Out 37
+ +

+ +
40 Completion 40
Line Name 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
28/06/2006 rev
Client
Project
Title
Programme
Title
Building B : Scheme 4 - Composite
70

CCIP-010
CI/Sfb A cement and concrete industry publication
UDC
624.94.04.033
Cost Model Study – Commercial Buildings

Cost Model Study –
Commercial Buildings
Cost Model Study – Commercial Buildings A comparative cost assessment of the construction of
multi-storey office buildings

This comprehensive and independent cost study was Francis Ryder, Head of Cost at The Concrete Centre, has project
undertaken to evaluate a number of structural frame options managed this cost model study for commercial buildings.
for a three-storey office building in an out-of-town location
and a six-storey office building in a city centre location. For more information visit
A total of 14 floor design options were evaluated, budget www.concretecentre.com/publications
costings were assigned to all elements of construction

and adjustments were made to reflect time-related costs
attributable to differences in the construction programme.
The publication outlines the analysis, the detailed costings and

programmes for each structural alternative, and provides a useful
resource for architects, engineers and contractors involved with
evaluating the cost competitiveness of structural options for
multi-storey office construction.
CCIP-010
ISBN 1-904482-36-8
Price Group P
Riverside House, 4 Meadows Business Park,

Station Approach, Blackwater, Camberley, Surrey, GU17 9AB
Tel: +44 (0)1276 606 800

CCIP CMS Commercial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCIP CMS Commercial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCIP-010

CI/Sfb A cement and concrete industry publication

Cost Model Study – Commercial Buildings

A report commissioned by The Concrete Centre

A report commissioned by The Concrete Centre

The publication outlines the analysis, the detailed costings and

Riverside House, 4 Meadows Business Park,

CMS-commercial cover.indd 1 01/10/2007 11:26:58

Allies and Morrison – Architectural Design

Arup - Structural Design.

Davis Langdon LLP - Quantity Surveying

The following proprietary products are referenced in this publication.

Published by The Concrete Centre

CCIP publications are available from the Concrete Bookshop at

Cover photo: Cardinal Place © Anthony Weller/VIEW.

CMS-commercial cover.indd 2 01/10/2007 11:28:59

4. Building A – 3-Storey business park location 11

5. Building B – 6-Storey central city location 22

9. Commentary from The Concrete Centre 62

A1. Appendix A – Detailed programmes 68

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode1 1 02/10/2007 11:18:49

Designs were commissioned for a three-storey ofﬁce building in an out-of-town business

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode3 3 02/10/2007 11:19:14

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode4 4 02/10/2007 11:19:14

Procurement and construction planning/programming studies also formed part of the

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode5 5 02/10/2007 11:19:15

Designs were commissioned for a three-storey ofﬁce building in an out-of-town business

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode6 6 02/10/2007 11:19:15

Building A: Three-storey. Building B: Six-storey.

Typical ﬂoor plans and cross-sections for both

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode7 7 02/10/2007 11:19:16

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode8 8 02/10/2007 11:19:18

Short-span options - Building A and B Long-span options - Building B only

The architectural schemes, layouts and speciﬁcations were based on contemporary

Office floors were designed to be for an open-plan configuration on a 1.5m planning

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode9 9 02/10/2007 11:19:18

Design criteria Architectural, structural and services

Outline speciﬁcations Architectural, structural and services

Architectural drawings Typical ﬂoor plans

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode10 10 02/10/2007 11:19:23

Architectural Plan dimensions

Structural Codes of practice and standards

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode11 11 02/10/2007 11:19:23

Architectural External envelope

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode12 12 02/10/2007 11:19:24

Architectural continued.. Staircases

Services Air conditioning

Internal thermal loads:

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode13 13 02/10/2007 11:19:24

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode14 14 02/10/2007 11:19:25

7500 7500 7500

7500 7500 7500 7500 7500

Typical ﬂoor plan

In the structural drawings which follow, one page is

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode15 15 02/10/2007 11:19:25

Section through floor zone

Floor to ceiling: 2700mm

200mm R C Shear walls

450 x 450 unless

7500 7500 7500 7500

Commercial Buildings - Cost Mode16 16 02/10/2007 11:19:26

457 x 191 UB82

203 x 203 UC46