Office Cost Study

Comparing the effects of structural solutions on cost

 Office Cost Study
Contents
Introduction 02
Building design and structural options 04
Cost and programme data 06
Cost comparison and conclusions 08
Inherent cost benefits of concrete 10
References 11
Concrete core at BBC headquarters, London. Grant Smith Photography
Cover: The Angel Building, London, is a BREEAM Excellent building
which used 36% cement replacement in its concrete mix. Architect:
AHMM; Engineer: Adams Kara Taylor.
2
Introduction
A complete cost model study was commissioned
by The Concrete Centre in order to compare the
costs of constructing office buildings with different
structural solutions. The cost data for this study has
now been updated and the results of the study are
summarised in this guide. For the comprehensive
analysis of the original study please refer to the Cost
Model Study - Commercial Buildings[1] available
from www.concretecentre.com/publications
Cost is a major criterion in assessing design and construction
alternatives and construction professionals require current studies in
order to inform their decisions. However, the value of a cost study is
also found in the detailed and rigorous assessment of how structural
frame choice can affect the cost of other items, such as cladding,
internal planning, services, fit-out, etc.
The study
The Concrete Centre commissioned a commercial buildings cost model
study, designed to provide a detailed cost comparison. The
fact that the study also acts as an independent assessment of current
building types means that it will be of enduring value to quantity
surveyors, architects, engineers and other construction professionals.
The commercial buildings cost model study was undertaken in 2008 and
compared the costs of constructing three- and six-storey commercial
buildings, using a variety of short-span and long-span reinforced
concrete and steel-frame options, taking into account construction, full
fit-out, and the effect of programme times on cost.
The buildings were notionally located in two different locations an
out-of- town business park and central London - and were based on
appropriate structural grids commonly in current use, with specifications
suited to contemporary market conditions.
The designs were taken to normal outline design stage, the only
differences being directly attributable to the structural frame material.
The designs were selected to give no bias towards concrete solutions,
for example, the proven benefits of thermal mass were not considered.
Budget costings were assigned to all elements of construction,from
substructure, superstructure and external envelope through
to preliminaries, with the exception of external works, which were
considered to be too highly site-specific to permit accurate costing.
Adjustments were made to the costings to reflect time-related costs
attributable to differences in construction programmes.
Whilst identifying the variation in the costs of frames, the study also
considered the effects that the choice of framing material and method
of construction had on other elements of the building, as well as the
other benefits that the choice of frame can generate (see page 11).
The costs were updated by Davis Langdon in July 2013 to reflect the
market prices at that time. This publication gives the revised costs, while
the full cost study publication gives the 2008 costs. The design and
programme information has remained the same.
 Office Cost Study

The study was undertaken on a completely independent basis by Conclusions

leading practitioners in their field:
The main interest in any cost model study is the process of designing
and costing alternative methods of constructing otherwise identical
Allies and Morrison - Architectural design
buildings, as this raises many interesting issues for those commissioning,
Arup - Structural design designing and constructing buildings.
Davis Langdon LLP - Quantity surveying
Mace Programming Overall, the results of the commercial buildings cost model study
showed that when developing modern commercial buildings, concrete-
The structural design for all options was carried out by Arup and costs framed solutions are highly competitive with steel-framed solutions and
were prepared by Davis Langdon, based on pricing data obtained from the study proves conclusively that construction costs for concrete are up
the practices national cost database of recent projects and, therefore, to 7% lower than for steel.
reflecting the current marketplace. The cost models were developed
using current best practice for both concrete and steel as determined by However, the study also demonstrates the need to consider all
the professional team. 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 (see Table 1). In
Construction costs for concrete particular, when the overall procurement and construction programme
is considered, modern concrete-framed buildings CAN be procured
are up to 7% lower than for steel. and constructed in a shorter time frame (up to nearly 12% faster) than
steel-framed buildings.

Concrete-framed buildings can also offer a range of other added-value

benefits at no extra cost, such as fire resistance, durability, robustness,
safety and ease of service integration, making concrete the ideal
construction material for commercial buildings. By adding to this its
energy efficiency, concrete truly deserves a position as the construction
material of choice for new commercial buildings in the UK.

Both the 2008 and 2013 studies showed that for medium-span office
buildings, flat slab was the most economic solution.

Table 1: How much does the choice of structural solution affect the cost of other packages?*

Substructure External Cladding Internal Planning Finishes M&E Prelims

Proportion of overall cost 3% 18% 2% 10% 32% 10%
Building A

Variation dictated by structural solution (% of

5.0% 3.8% 12.5% 0.0% 1.9% 4.8%
package cost)
Variation dictated by structural solution (/m2) 2 10 4 0 9 7

Proportion of overall cost 4% 23% 1% 11% 30% 10%

Building B

Variation dictated by structural solution (% of

13.5% 5.9% 26.1% 1.1% 1.4% 5.4%
package cost)
Variation dictated by structural solution (/m2) 9 22 5 2 7 9

* Packages not affected by structural solution are not listed.

2013 prices:
Building A - three-storey 4,650m2 office in an out-of-town business park location. For flat slab solution: total construction cost 1,406 /m2, superstructure costs 113 /m2.
Building B - six-storey 16,500m2 office in central London. For flat slab solution: total construction cost 1,593 /m2, superstructure costs 103 /m2.

3
 Office Cost Study

Building designs and structural options

The design brief for the Commercial Buildings Cost Model Study asked for outline designs of two multi-storey
buildings on open, clear sites - one in an out-of-town south-east England business park location and the other
in central London.

The precise location, size and design of the buildings were based Figure 1: Building A - Three-storey
on the design teams judgement of current commercial practice and
market requirements in terms of performance and cost, whilst also PLAN 7.5m SECTION A-A
avoiding unduly favouring either concrete or steel. For example,
7.5m
concretes thermal mass can significantly reduce the use of mechanical
ventilation, and therefore costs but this was not considered. The
Concrete Centre has produced literature on thermal mass, please
refer to www.concretecentre.com/publications for details.

A A

Building A
A three-storey office building in an out-of-town business park
location in the south east of England that is air-conditioned, with
curtain walling and some natural ventilation. Typical column spacing
7.5m each way.
The building was chosen to reflect a framed building of average size
(4,650m2) inPLAN
a commercial/business
7.5m park setting. It is representative of a SECTION A-A

typical low-rise building 7.5m

in the centre of current development activity.

The form of Building A is an L-shape with a full-height atrium and a

central service core, with secondary stairs and service access located
towards the ends of the building and a limited amount of undercroft
parking. Air conditioning is provided by a fan-coil system providing full
climate control
A when active. A

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
Typical
23.5m wide, configured around a grid of three bays of 7.5m, column spacing
allowing a
degree of cross-ventilation from the perimeter windows.7.5m each way.

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.
An indicative plan and section for Building A, showing the building form,
are shown in Figure 1.

A 7.5 x 7.5m grid was established by the design team as optimum and
was adopted for all frame options for Building A in the study. There were
six options developed in total, three concrete- and three steel-framed.

4
 Office Cost Study

Building B Structural options

A six-storey office building containing retail space at ground floor level Indicative diagrams and descriptions for each of the concrete and steel
located in central London, that is air-conditioned with curtain walling. options investigated are shown below.

The building was chosen to reflect a high-quality building of average size

(14,200m2 of offices and 2,300m2 of retail space) in central London. It is
Short-span options - Building A and B
acknowledged that a building of this type in London would normally have
a basement. However, with the likelihood that such a basement would be
Option 1 - Flat Slab Option 2 - Composite
formed in concrete, it was considered that inclusion of this element would
unduly favour the concrete-framed options above ground. The basement
construction has therefore been excluded from the 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 atrium. The form of the building
is designed with a low envelope to volume ratio, which helps minimise
Steel beams and metal decking,
heat loss during the winter and heat gains in the summer. The building Reinforced in-situ concrete flat
acting compositely with in-situ
is fully sealed, requiring full climate control year round. The building slab and columns.
concrete floor slabs. Steel columns.
envelope comprises unitised curtain walling, incorporating floor to
ceiling double glazing units and stone clad insulated spandrels.
Option 3 - PT Flat Slab Option 4 - Steel + Hollowcore

The floor plate depths are 9.5m to the core walls on the E-W axis and
15.5m to either the core walls or the atrium on the N-S axis. The building
can be operated with single or split tenancies, with splitting by vertical
division and requiring a glazed wall to the atrium.

An indicative plan and section for Building B, showing the building form
and column layout are shown in Figure 2.
Post-tensioned in-situ concrete Steel beams acting compositely
flat slab and reinforced in-situ with precast concrete hollow-
The 9.0 x 7.5m structural grid for Building B is more representative of
concrete columns. core floor slabs. Steel columns.
the current market for a city centre site. It also permitted exploration
of a long-span option for both materials in the study, by creating a 15.0
x 9.0m grid. Eight options were developed in total; three concrete and Option 5 - In-situ + Hollowcore Option 6 - Slimdek
three steel-framed options for the short-span solutions (7.5m) and one
concrete and one steel option for the long-span solution (15.0m).

Figure 2: Building B - Six-storey

B
9m
PLAN SECTION B-B
Reinforced in-situ concrete Slimdek system comprising
7.5m beams and columns with asymmetric beams and metal
precast concrete hollowcore decking, acting compositely
floor slabs. with in-situ concrete floor slabs.
Steel columns.

Long-span options - Building B only

Note: Internal columns omitted in 15m long-span option B Typical column spacing 7.5m and 9m.

Option 7 - PT Band Beams Option 8 - Long-Span Composite

Note: Internal columns omitted in 15m long-span option
SECTION B-B

Post-tensioned in-situ concrete Long-span cellular steel beams

mn spacing 7.5m and 9m. flat slab and band beams with and metal decking, both acting
reinforced in-situ concrete compositely with in-situ concrete
Note: Internal columns omitted in 15m long-span option
columns. floor slab. Steel columns.

5
 Office Cost Study

Cost and programme data

The tables in this section highlight the itemised costs and timescales for construction of Building A and
Building B. Prices were prepared by Davis Langdon, based on pricing data obtained from the practices
national cost database of recently tendered projects. Rates for Building A are based on construction in
the south-east and rates for Building B are based on construction in central London. The pricing base date
is July 2013.

Table 2: Building A - Summary of costs as total of element

Short-span options
In situ + Steel +
Element Flat Slab Composite PT Flat Slab Slimdek
Hollowcore Hollowcore
Element Total Element Total Element Total Element Total Element Total Element Total
Substructure 189,629 180,450 192,520 190,508 185,786 182,649
Frame & Upper Floors 523,660 561,165 564,413 611,206 651,979 1,006,217
Roof 222,648 222,648 222,648 222,648 222,648 222,648
Stairs 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000
External Cladding 1,226,840 1,235,290 1,249,460 1,214,290 1,262,590 1,236,330
Internal Planning 141,703 153,665 145,598 140,202 156,351 153,482
Wall Finishes 51,454 50,040 50,140 49,258 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 192,179 192,179 192,179 192,179 192,179 192,179
Mechanical 1,285,834 1,311,551 1,285,834 1,285,834 1,311,551 1,285,834
Electrical 637,811 649,880 637,811 637,811 649,880 637,811
Lifts 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000
BWIC 139,976 139,976 139,976 139,976 139,976 139,976
Preliminaries 680,000 661,600 698,400 689,200 661,600 661,600
Contingency 390,336 396,719 395,499 395,749 406,344 427,508
Overheads & Profit 250,992 253,916 254,689 254,464 259,435 271,569
Total 6,525,802 6,601,819 6,621,906 6,616,065 6,745,298 7,060,782

Reception space at the mixed-use Cardinal Place development in London.

6
 Office Cost Study

Table 3: Building A - Summary of costs as /m2 and % of build cost

In situ + Steel +
Flat Slab Composite PT Flat Slab Slimdek
Element Hollowcore Hollowcore
/m2 /m2 /m2 /m2 /m2 /m2
Substructure 41 2.9% 39 2.7% 41 2.9% 41 2.9% 40 2.8% 39 2.6%
Frame & Upper Floors 113 8.0% 121 8.5% 122 8.5% 132 9.2% 140 9.7% 217 14.3%
Roof 48 3.4% 48 3.4% 48 3.4% 48 3.4% 48 3.3% 48 3.2%
Stairs 14 1.0% 14 1.0% 14 1.0% 14 1.0% 14 0.9% 14 0.9%
External Cladding 264 18.8% 266 18.7% 269 18.9% 262 18.4% 272 18.7% 266 17.5%
Internal Planning 31 2.2% 33 2.3% 31 2.2% 30 2.1% 34 2.3% 33 2.2%
Wall Finishes 11 0.8% 11 0.8% 11 0.8% 11 0.7% 11 0.8% 11 0.7%
Floor Finishes 59 4.2% 59 4.2% 59 4.1% 59 4.1% 59 4.1% 59 3.9%
Ceiling Finishes 27 1.9% 27 1.9% 27 1.9% 27 1.9% 27 1.9% 27 1.8%
Fittings 13 0.9% 13 0.9% 13 0.9% 13 0.9% 13 0.9% 13 0.8%
Sanitary 41 2.9% 41 2.9% 41 2.9% 41 2.9% 41 2.8% 41 2.7%
Mechanical 277 19.7% 283 19.9% 277 19.4% 277 19.4% 283 19.4% 277 18.2%
Electrical 137 9.8% 140 9.8% 137 9.6% 137 9.6% 140 9.6% 137 9.0%
Lifts 15 1.1% 15 1.1% 15 1.1% 15 1.1% 15 1.0% 15 1.0%
BWIC 30 2.1% 30 2.1% 30 2.1% 30 2.1% 30 2.1% 30 2.0%
Preliminaries 146 10.4% 143 10.0% 150 10.5% 148 10.4% 143 9.8% 143 9.4%
Contingency 84 6.0% 85 6.0% 85 6.0% 85 6.0% 88 6.0% 92 6.1%
Overheads & Profit 54 3.8% 55 3.8% 55 3.8% 55 3.8% 56 3.8% 59 3.8%
Total 1406 1422 1427 1425 1453 1521

Table 4: Building B - Summary of costs as total of element

Short Span Options Long Span Options Short Span Options

In-situ + PT Band Long-Span Steel +
Flat Slab PT Flat Slab Composite Slimdek
Element Hollowcore Beams Composite Hollowcore
Element Element Element Element Element Element Element Element
Total () Total () Total () Total () Total () Total () Total () Total ()
Substructures 1,148,893 1,099,218 1,016,120 1,136,782 1,165,218 1,048,644 1,097,360 1,073,024
Frame & Upper Floors 1,697,511 1,944,848 1,947,363 1,815,172 2,213,772 2,348,306 2,304,808 3,404,470
Roof 520,312 520,312 520,312 520,312 520,312 520,312 520,312 520,312
Stairs 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000
External Cladding 6,045,240 5,942,030 6,052,235 6,149,780 6,183,405 6,052,235 6,307,205 6,068,850
Internal Planning 280,204 277,222 352,472 283,055 284,084 352,382 363,208 353,088
Wall Finishes 225,267 220,743 247,583 224,039 218,637 232,379 254,975 253,925
Floor Finishes 1,167,221 1,167,221 1,167,221 1,167,221 1,167,221 1,167,221 1,167,221 1,167,221
Ceiling Finishes 702,366 702,366 702,366 702,366 702,366 702,366 702,366 702,366
Fittings 132,500 132,500 132,500 132,500 132,500 132,500 132,500 132,500
Sanitary 725,120 725,120 725,120 725,120 725,120 725,120 725,120 725,120
Mechanical 4,544,360 4,544,360 4,635,000 4,544,360 4,544,360 4,635,000 4,635,000 4,544,360
Electrical 2,464,912 2,464,912 2,509,408 2,464,912 2,464,912 2,509,408 2,509,408 2,464,912
Lifts 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000
BWIC 502,920 502,920 502,920 502,920 502,920 502,920 502,920 502,920
Preliminaries 2,760,000 2,730,000 2,760,000 2,850,000 2,730,000 2,760,000 2,700,000 2,700,000
Contingency 1,566,662 1,573,183 1,593,196 1,582,540 1,616,762 1,624,559 1,646,580 1,698,380
Overheads & profit 1,008,620 1,011,158 1,023,833 1,021,323 1,036,144 1,041,814 1,052,039 1,081,738
Total 26,224,107 26,290,113 26,619,649 26,554,402 26,939,733 27,087,166 27,353,022 28,125,186

7
 Office Cost Study

Table 5: Building B Summary of costs - as /m and % of build cost

Short Span Options Long Span Options Short Span Options

In-situ + PT Band Long-Span Steel +
Element Flat Slab PT Flat Slab Composite Slimdek
Hollowcore Beams Composite Hollowcore
/m2 % /m2 % /m2 % /m2 % /m2 % /m2 % /m2 % /m2 %
Substructures 70 4.4% 67 4.2% 62 3.8% 69 4.3% 71 4.3% 64 3.9% 67 4.0% 65 3.8%
Frame &
103 6.5% 118 7.4% 118 7.3% 110 6.8% 134 8.2% 142 8.7% 140 8.4% 207 12.1%
Upper Floors
Roof 32 2.0% 32 2.0% 32 2.0% 32 2.0% 32 1.9% 32 1.9% 32 1.9% 32 1.8%
Stairs 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
367 23.1% 361 22.6% 367 22.7% 373 23.2% 375 23.0% 367 22.3% 383 23.1% 368 21.6%
Cladding
Internal
17 1.1% 17 1.1% 21 1.3% 17 1.1% 17 1.1% 21 1.3% 22 1.3% 21 1.3%
Planning
Wall Finishes 14 0.9% 13 0.8% 15 0.9% 14 0.8% 13 0.8% 14 0.9% 15 0.9% 15 0.9%
Floor Finishes 71 4.5% 71 4.4% 71 4.4% 71 4.4% 71 4.3% 71 4.3% 71 4.3% 71 4.2%
Ceiling
43 2.7% 43 2.7% 43 2.6% 43 2.6% 43 2.6% 43 2.6% 43 2.6% 43 2.5%
Finishes
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 44 2.8% 44 2.8% 44 2.7% 44 2.7% 44 2.7% 44 2.7% 44 2.7% 44 2.6%
Mechanical 276 17.3% 276 17.3% 281 17.4% 276 17.1% 276 16.9% 281 17.1% 281 16.9% 276 16.2%
Electrical 150 9.4% 150 9.4% 152 9.4% 150 9.3% 150 9.1% 152 9.3% 152 9.2% 150 8.8%
Lifts 36 2.3% 36 2.3% 36 2.3% 36 2.3% 36 2.2% 36 2.2% 36 2.2% 36 2.1%
BWIC 31 1.9% 31 1.9% 31 1.9% 31 1.9% 31 1.9% 31 1.9% 31 1.8% 31 1.8%
Preliminaries 167 10.5% 166 10.4% 167 10.4% 173 10.7% 166 10.1% 167 10.2% 164 9.9% 164 9.6%
Contingency 95 6.0% 95 6.0% 97 6.0% 96 6.0% 98 6.0% 99 6.0% 100 6.0% 103 6.0%
Overheads &
61 3.8% 61 3.8% 62 3.8% 62 3.8% 63 3.8% 63 3.8% 64 3.8% 66 3.8%
profit
Total 1,593 1,597 1,615 1,613 1,636 1,643 1,661 1,708

Two Pancras Square, London is a BREEAM Outstanding nine-storey office with a concrete frame to provide thermal mass. Architect: Allies and Morrison; Engineer: AKT II

8
 Office Cost Study

Cost comparison and conclusions

The study showed that a concrete frame can produce the most economic solution. Choosing concrete can
produce savings of up to 7% in overall construction costs.

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 structural frame option, when compared with the flat slab
option as the base case.
The largest cost and the main source of savings (as can be seen from
the cost summaries, Tables 2 to 5) lies in the superstructure, when
the frame, cladding and internal planning are all taken into account;
here concrete has a definite advantage. With regard to finishes and
preliminaries, other than time-related aspects, there are minimal
differences between options.
Substructure - foundations
Concrete construction is generally heavier than steel-frame construction,
and this is reflected in the higher cost of foundations to the concrete-
framed options. However, although foundations for the concrete options
can cost more, they account for a relatively small proportion of the overall
cost. To some extent this cost premium can be offset by adopting post-
tensioned slabs, which are typically some 15% lighter.
Frame and upper floors
To compare flat soffit solutions with similar floor-to-floor heights, and
hence similar cladding areas, the concrete flat slab option and the steel
Slimdek option can be considered. This shows that concrete is more
favourable in price by 90%. Comparisons of other solutions can be made
by reviewing Tables 2 to 5.

Table 6: Summary comparison chart Building A

Insitu + Steel +
Building A Flat Slab Composite PT Flat Slab Slimdek
Hollowcore Hollowcore
Substructure -4.8% 1.5% 0.5% -2.0% -3.7%
Frame & Upper Floors 7.2% 7.8% 16.7% 24.5% 92.2%
External Cladding 0.7% 1.8% -1.0% 2.9% 0.8%
Internal Planning 8.4% 2.7% -1.1% 10.3% 8.3%
Base case for
Wall Finishes -2.7% -2.6% -4.3% 1.5% -2.4%
comparison
M&E, lifts and BWIC 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0%
Preliminaries -2.7% 2.7% 1.4% -2.7% -2.7%
Contingency 1.6% 1.3% 1.4% 4.1% 9.5%
Overheads & Profit 1.2% 1.5% 1.4% 3.4% 8.2%

Table 7: Summary comparison chart Building B

In-situ + PT Band Long-Span Steel +

Building B Flat Slab PT Flat Slab Composite Slimdek
Hollowcore Beams Composite Hollowcore
Substructures -4.3% -11.6% -1.1% 1.4% -8.7% -4.5% -6.6%
Frame & Upper
14.6% 14.7% 6.9% 30.4% 38.3% 35.8% 100.6%
Floors
External Cladding -1.7% 0.1% 1.7% 2.3% 0.1% 4.3% 0.4%
Internal Planning -1.1% 25.8% 1.0% 1.4% 25.8% 29.6% 26.0%
Base case for
Wall Finishes -2.0% 9.9% -0.5% -2.9% 3.2% 13.2% 12.7%
comparison
M&E, lifts and BWIC 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.7% 0.0%
Time-elated
-1.1% 0.0% 3.3% -1.1% 0.0% -2.2% -2.2%
Preliminaries
Contingency 0.4% 1.7% 1.0% 3.2% 3.7% 5.1% 8.4%
Overheads & profit 0.3% 1.5% 1.3% 2.7% 3.3% 4.3% 7.2%

9
 Office Cost Study

External cladding Programmes

The thinner the overall structural and services zone, the lower the cladding
cost. Given that the cladding in the study represents between 18% and
23% of the construction cost, minimising the cladding area represents
considerable value to the client. The minimum floor-to-floor height is
almost always achieved with a post-tensioned (PT) flat slab and separate
services zone, offering the potential for additional storeys in high-rise
buildings and thus improved rental or sales return.
Concrete-framed options offer a significant advantage in lead times a
saving of up to 10 weeks and yet the overall construction programme
times are almost identical. Inevitably, different planners would produce
slightly different programmes based on a considerable number of variable
factors. For example, construction management and design and build
approaches lend themselves to concrete construction, where the ability to
accommodate late information and variations is particularly beneficial.

Reduced cladding areas can also have the potential benefit that Nett lettable area
energy use can be reduced, reducing in turn the operational costs of There are two main areas in which differences in nett lettable area are found:
the building.

Core areas the area occupied by concrete cores tends to be slightly

Internal planning
smaller than that needed for steel cores, due to the allowance for
A premium is incurred on steel-framed options in sealing and fire steel bracing zones and the fact that structural concrete walls also
stopping at partition heads against the irregular soffits of the steel serve as partitions.
decking and around irregularly shaped intersecting frame members; this
Stairs are typically re-sized as a result of the reduced storey height
is taken into account in the cost study. Unless this is considered at an
module, producing slightly increased net lettable areas.
early stage it can result in expensive and time-consuming remedial work
late in the construction programme.
A previous cost model study on commercial buildings[2] found that,
on an overall basis, the difference can be as much as 1.5% extra nett
Mechanical and electrical services
lettable floor area, and this finding is still valid.
Mechanical and electrical services represent a large proportion of
the overall construction costs of the buildings, averaging up to 33%. Finance costs
However, a flat soffit provides a clear zone, free of any downstand
The results of considering finance costs for the periods that have
beams, enabling more services to be pre-fabricated off-site and making
been identified in the programmes for procurement, lead time and
them much simpler to install. This improves the speed and quality of
construction are presented in Table 10. This assumes a rate of 5% p.a.
installation, reduces the risk of errors, provides flexibility in the design
and is presented as an additional cost compared with the option with
and frees up design resources to be used elsewhere.
the shortest duration.

It also provides cost-in-use benefits in the form of reduced maintenance

This comparison takes no account of differences in cumulative finance
downtime, as equipment can be changed-out much more quickly, giving
costs arising from the different cash flow profiles experienced with the
greater flexibility and less disruption to an occupiers business operations. Flat
differing forms of construction. For example, the steel-framed options
soffits also offer greater flexibility to accommodate new service requirements,
require greater expenditure earlier on than the concrete-framed options,
layout or cellular arrangements, as well as building refurbishments.
where concretes pay as you place principle works in the clients favour.

Table 8: Comparison of build costs - Building A and Building B

Insitu + Steel +
Building A Flat Slab Composite PT Flat Slab Slimdek
Hollowcore Hollowcore
Construction cost in /m2 1,406 1,422 1,427 1,425 1,453 1,521
Programme in weeks 64 70 66 65 70 70
Savings in finance costs @
0 3 1 1 3 3
5% p.a. (/m2)
1,406 1,425 1,428 1,426 1,456 1,524

In-situ + PT Band Long-Span Steel +

Building B Flat Slab PT Flat Slab Composite Slimdek
Hollowcore Beams Composite Hollowcore
Construction cost
1,593 1,597 1,615 1,613 1,636 1,643 1,661 1,708
in /m2
Programme in weeks 83 82 93 86 83 95 91 91
Savings in finance
costs @ 5% p.a. 0 -0 4 1 0 5 4 4
(/m2)

10
 Office Cost Study

Inherent cost benefits of concrete

Initial capital cost is not the sole driver for clients, whose main objective is almost certainly to achieve
optimum value from an overall solution. The additional benefits which can be gained from choosing a
concrete solution are below.

Fire protection
Fire protection is generally not needed for concrete structures as the
material has inherent fire resistance of up to four hours. This not only
removes the time and cost involved in providing added fire protection,
but it also potentially enhances property safety, lowers insurance
premiums, increases re-usability of the structure and significantly
reduces down-time for an occupier after a fire.

V ibration
The inherent mass of concrete means that concrete floors generally
meet vibration criteria at no extra cost, requiring no extra stiffening. For
more information on vibration, refer to A Design Guide to the Footfall-
Induced Vibration of Structures available from The Concrete Centre[3].

Durability and adaptability

Concrete is an inherently durable material, with a potential service
life running into hundreds of years, if needed. In addition, sustainable
construction now demands adaptable structures in order that their
economic viability is enhanced. Flat slabs automatically permit fully
adaptable horizontal services distribution, and design of predetermined
soft spots can add future-proofing of vertical servicing as well. Ribbed
slabs, waffle slabs and precast flooring solutions are similarly adaptable.

Exposed soffits and thermal mass

A concrete structure has a high thermal mass. By exposing the soffits,
thermal mass can be utilised through fabric energy storage (FES)
to reduce initial plant costs, minimise or eliminate the need for air
conditioning and substantially reduce the lifetime operational costs of
the building. Utilisation of FES permits the designer to create naturally
ventilated buildings, giving occupants the chance to control their
environment to ensure optimum employee productivity. In addition,
suspended ceilings can be reduced or eliminated, giving valuable initial
cost and programme benefits and reduced lifetime maintenance costs.
For more information on thermal mass, refer to Utilisation of Thermal
Mass in Non-residential Buildings available from The Concrete Centre[4].
References
1. Commercial Buildings Cost Model Study,
CCIP010, The Concrete Centre, 2007
2. Goodchild, CH, Cost Model Study - A Report on
the Comparative Costs of Concrete & Steel Framed
Office Buildings, Reinforced Concrete Council and
British Cement Association, 1993
3. Wilford, MR and Young P, A Design Guide for
Footfall Induced Vibration of Structures, CCIP-016,
The Concrete Centre, 2006
4. Utilisation of Thermal Mass in Non-residential
Buildings, CCIP-020, The Concrete Centre, 2006

11
 The Concrete Centre
Gillingham House
38-44 Gillingham Street
London SW1V 1HU

Ref. TCC/03/57
ISBN 978-1-908257-12-3
First published 2008
MPA The Concrete Centre 2014

The Concrete Centre is part of the Mineral

Products Association, the trade association for the
aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, lime, mortar
and silica sand industries.

www.mineralproducts.org

www.concretecentre.com

All advice or information from MPA -The Concrete Centre is intended only for use in the UK by those who will evaluate the significance and limitations of its contents and take
responsibility for its use and application. No liability (including that for negligence) for any loss resulting from such advice or information is accepted by Mineral Products Association
or its subcontractors, suppliers or advisors. Readers should note that the publications from MPA - The Concrete Centre are subject to revision from time to time and should therefore
ensure that they are in possession of the latest version.

Printed onto 9Lives silk comprising 55% recycled fibre with 45% ECF virgin fibre. Certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.