International Survey

Changing attitudes to main structures for

multi-storey buildings
Abstract
A survey was undertaken in the UK during September to November 1990 to establish the attitudes to main
structures for multi-storey buildings of consulting engineers, architects, and the 'building team' as a whole -
taken to include clients, quantity surveyors and main contractors. Results are presented, and compared with
a similar survey from I983.

Many of the most far-reaching constructional develop- The interviews were conducted during the period
ments in recent years have been in multi-storey build- September to November 1990, and there were
ings. Arguably, the s u c c e s s of t h e s e major 49 interviews with consulting structural engineers, 39
developments may be gauged from the extent to which with architects and a further 27 with clients, main
they have been adopted, but that is only part of the story. contractors and quantity surveyors - 115 interviews in
For example, the tremendous swing in recent years from all.
concrete to steel frame construction, which commanded
a 51% share of the multi.storey floor area completed
in 1990 as against a lowly 27% in 1982, obviously
reflects changes in outlook as well as performance. The Choice of frame
bald fact of the change leaves unexplored not only the The results were illuminating. As far as choice of frame
differing attitudes of consulting engineers, architects and is concerned, the survey showed that for speed of
other members of the building team, but also the degree erection an overwhelming majority both of engineers
to which the end product - the steel frame - meets and architects - 90% in both cases - prefer steel. For
their varying needs. quickest total construction, the majority is less emphatic
With this in mind, Construction Markets, a specialist with 62% of engineers and 46% of architects preferring
independent marketing research consultancy, was steel; 14% of engineers and 12% of architects opting
commissioned last year by British Steel General Steels for precast concrete; and a modest 2% of engineers and
to undertake a study to establish the attitudes to main 5% of architects favouring in-situ concrete. Here, as in
structures for multi-storey buildings of, firstly, consulting other parts of the survey, a number of interviewees
engineers and architects and, secondly, the building expressed no preference.
team as a whole. For the purposes of the study, the latter The cheapest frame material for total development
category included clients, who were represented by cost was thought to be steel by 46% of engineers and
property developers, occupiers, and financial institutions 50% of architects, compared with 13% of engineers
such as insurance companies, pension funds and banks, and 18 % of architects who considered in-situ concrete
as well as quantity surveyors and main contractors. as cheapest, and 6% of engineers and no architects at
Architectural respondents were selected on a random all who favoured precast concrete.
basis with the proviso that they had been involved in a
multi-storey building project in excess of £10m main Table 1 Importance of factors in the choice of structural
contract value within the past two years. A represent- frame type
ative sample of leading consulting engineers and other
members of the design team were also selected on the Engineers Architects
basis of experience with major multi-storey buildings.
The actual interviewees were either project engineers, 1 Construction cost 1 Speed of construction
project architects, project quantity surveyors, project 2 Spans and Ioadings 2 Construction cost
managers or client representatives with a detailed 3 Speed of construction 3 Total development cost
knowledge both of the various frame types and the
reasons favouring their selection. 4 Total development costs 4 Spans and Ioadings
4 Speed of design and other
precontract tasks 5 Technical site conditions
The survey was commissioned by British Steel General Steels. 6 Site access and storage space 6 Height of structure
Further information from: Robert Latter, Structural Steels
Marketing, British Steel General Steels, Steel House, Redcar, 7 Fire resistance 7 Type of occupancy
Cleveland, TSIO 5QW, UK. Tel: (0642)474111. 8 Depth of floor zone 8 Fire resistance

CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING MATERIALS Vol. 5 No. 2 JUNE 1991 101

 I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L OF

Drawing together all aspects of adhesion science and technology

Central areas o fin terest include; • Industrial application reports

• Environment and weathering effects
• Design of adhesive-bonded joints • Research and Development
• Development of new adhesives • Technology transfer
• Bond strength and durability • Production methods

~ii!i:i~!i,~,~,,i
¸i~~
International n e w s of products, equipment,
publications a n d m e e t i n g s - R e s e a r c h
p a p e r s . Research r e p o r t s . C o n f e r e n c e
r e p o r t s . Book r e v i e w s - C a l e n d a r .
For a FREE s a m p l e c o p y a n d further
information contact Turpin Transactions,
Published quarterly ISSN O143 7496 The Distribution Centre, Blackhorse Road,
Letchworth, Herts SG6 1HN, UK
r~Ju TT E R WO R T H Tel: 0462 672555 Telex: 825372 TURPIN G
W E I N E M A N N
Fax: 0462 480947

102 CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING MATERIALS Vol. 5 NO. 2 JUNE 1991

 These findings represent a big change in attitudes
since a similar survey was conducted in 1983. Then only
77% of engineers and 45% of architects preferred steel
for speed of erection, 37% of engineers and 5% of
architects plumped for steel for fastest total construction
(an overwhelming majority expressing no preference),
and 10% both of engineers and architects considered
steel cheapest for total development costs.
The survey also sought to establish how frequently
members of the building team compared the cost of
frame materials. The responses indicated that in 70%
of cases a comparison was made within the past 12
months and in only 3 % of cases was the last com.
parison made more than two years ago.
Engineers and architects were presented with a list
of 18 factors "which could be important in the choice
of structural frame type", and asked to rank them in
order of importance. The results are given in Table l.
A feature of these responses is that they indicate
much less importance is placed now on fire resistance
when deciding upon the frame - this having been listed
in the 1983 study at equal first (along with "Construction
cost") by the engineers and fourth by architects.
Perceived advantages
All 115 members of the building team in the study were
asked how closely they associated each frame material
with nine specific advantages. These were:
• Speed of construction
• Flexibility of layout in use after completion of frame
• Flexibility to change building design as erection of
frame proceeds
• Ability to alter the building internally, eg services,
access
• Clear spans (without columns) allows best flexibility
of floor layout internally using ...
• Refurbishment of structures previously built: which
type of material is easiest?
• A frame type which does away with the need for
suspended ceilings, ie direct plastering to structural
frame
• Quality control is best in ...
• Fire damage to structural framework requires least
renewal using ...
If respondents placed a material first, second or third,
the frame type was given three, two or one marks
respectively, but a frame material could also be given
zero points if it were considered not to be associated
with a given advantage at all.
Overall, the whole building team found steel to have
the closest association with the nine advantages, steel
scoring 73%, followed by in situ concrete with 64% and
precast concrete with 51%. Engineers considered steel
to have the closest association with all the advantages
except Nos 3, 7 and 9, where in situ concrete was
selected, and architects too considered steel to be
superior generally.
Form o f contract
Building team members and clients were also asked
to state their preference for forms of contract used
on multi-storey buildings. Their responses are listed in
Table 2.
CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING MATERIALS Vol. 5 No. 2 JUNE 1991
Table 2. Form of contract preferred
Other building
Engineers Architects team/clients All
1 JCT 380/0 82o/0 33O/o 51°/o
2 No preference 44% 30/0 23o/o 27%
3 Design and build 12% 6% 10% 9%
4 Management contracts 4% 6% 14O/o 7%
5 British Property
Federation 10O/o 2%
6 ICE 2% 1%
7 Other forms of contract 3% 10O/o 3%
The overall view of all building team members, including
clients, shows 51% favouring JCT, 27% having no
preference, 97o favouring design and build, and 7%
preferring management contracts. Architects have a
particularly strong preference for JCT, with 82% in
favour.
A slightly reduced sample of architects were asked
if they would ever specify a design and build package
of system multi.storey building - 50% said they would,
44% said they would not, and 6% were unsure.
Right at the end of the interviews - to reduce the
possibility of prejudicing responses - all members of
the building team, including clients, were asked if they
accepted that steel was the predominant frame material
and, if so, whether they believed it would continue to
be so. Overall 62% of the team members believe steel
will continue to be the leading structural material for
multi-storey frames against 23% indicating otherwise.
Engineers and architects both believe in steel's
continuing leadership by a margin of almost 3 to 1,
whereas the other respondents find in favour of steel's
continued dominance by just over 2 to 1.
Conclusion
Steel is the frame material most favoured by members
of the building team, especially engineers and architects,
for speed of erection, quickest total construction, and
cheapest total development costs. Steel is also the frame
material most closely associated overall by the team
members with nine specific advantages. The majority
of the building team members not only accept that steel
is the predominant multi-storey frame material but also
believe it will continue to be so in the future.
As we have seen, these attitudes represent a
tremendous change in outlook. In an industry
traditionally regarded as conservative, the speed of that
change may seem surprising but it becomes less so
when viewed against the background of steel's
increasing overall competitiveness.
In terms of cost, for example, official statistics show
that the UK price of structural steel products ex-mill has
fallen by 30% relative to inflation since June 1976 while
ready mixed and structural precast and prestressed
products have exceeded the rise in inflation. Another
survey has revealed a 32% fall since 1982 in the
average cost of achieving required fire resistance levels.
This is of particular significance because the need for
fire protection has for long been pinpointed by designers
and users as the main disadvantage of steel
construction.
103
 At the same time, the contribution that steel - as
a precision, quality controlled product with off-site
fabrication - can make to speed of construction has
become increasingly well recognised. Where column-
free areas, and thus longer spans, are required, the cost
saving between steel and other forms of construction
increases considerably and, in very large grids, steel is
often the only feasible solution. Building developers and
owners place an increasing premium upon column-free
areas, mainly because of the freedom they provide for
the rearrangement of floor spans, and designers favour
them too because of the greater scope they offer for
architectural expression within a building.
A further factor is the growing appreciation of the
exceptional post-construction adaptability of steel. In
today's fast changing world where within the 60.year
design life of a building frame, there will be a need to
change the services on average every 20 years, the
interior every five years, and the communications and
controls every two years, the adaptability of a steel
structure is of paramount importance.
The above estimates of design life are from Ove Arup
who further calculate that the cost of the building frame
represents just 5% of the total building cost, with only
steel giving maximum flexibility in the future to replace
the expensive internal services.

But... RC frame system revival continues

A detailed new audit of building
construction in 1990 shows that
reinforced concrete frame con-
struction continues to regain market
share lost to steel in the 1980s.
in 1990 reinforced concrete
accounted for 55% of frames for
buildings with three or more storeys
for which contracts were let during
the year. This is an increase from
some 53% in 1989 when the first
annual audit of the market was
jointly carried out by independent
market research consultants IFT and
IMS for the Reinforced Concrete
Campaign (RCC). In each year the
study covered over 1000 projects
comprising over 1200 separate
buildings throughout Great Britain.
The RCC has been active on a
number of fronts since its formation.
It has already produced a suite of
seven publications, ranging from
design and construction handbooks
to detailed case studies, with eight
more to be published in the coming
year. Two major research studies
covering aspects of frame design
and construction where unneces-
sarily conservative attitudes are
limiting the fullest exploitation of
speed and efficiency of reinforced
concrete construction are nearing
completion. Results and advisory
literature will be available to
designers, contractors and material
suppliers by early summer this year.
Further information on the
Reinforced Concrete Campaign from
Martin Southcott, Reinforced Con-
crete Campaign Manager, Wexham
Springs, Slough SL3 6PL, UK. Tel:
0753 662727. Fax: 0753 660499.

Japan changes steel Standards

On January 1 the JIS (Japanese Industrial Standards)
for steel products changed to the SI (Syst~me Conventional SI unit
Characteristic values unit
International des Unit~s, or International System of
Units). In future all transactions in Japanese iron and
steel products covered by JIS will be conducted in Tensile strength by kgf/mm 2 N/ram 2
tensile test
accordance with the SI unit system, both in Japan and
abroad. Absorbed energy in kgf.m J
There are three major revisions in the standards. impact test
First, designations of steel types that are expressed
in terms of a unit of force have been changed. For Pressure in kgf/cm 2 MPa
hydrostatic test
example, the designation SS41 in JIS G3101 (Rolled
Steel for General Structures) is changed to SS400,
reflecting the change of the unit of force from the non-
SI metric unit k g f / m m 2 to the S1 unit N / m m 2 and the
consequent adjustment of value from 41 to 400. countries also use it. The United States will adopt the
However, designations of such products as alloy steel SI unit system in 1992. So Japan is preparting to shift
for steel structures, stainless steel, tool steel and spring to that system for its JIS, in the interest of
steel, which are not expressed in terms of a unit of force, internationalization. The standardization of units in the
remain unaltered (See Tables 1 to 3). long run will mean release from the great labour of
Next, the characteristic values in JIS shown will now conversion among the various systems now in use. In
be expressed in the S! unit system. (For specific addition, the shift to the SI unit system will ensure
examples, see Table 4). smooth international transactions in steel products.
Third, all inspection certificates for iron and steel Some designations of steel types in the JIS will
products will be recorded in the SI unit system as well. change, while others will not. And characteristic values
Japan has recognised that, in Europe, the shift to the (mechanical test values) for certain steel products in JIS
SI unit system has been completed and that many Asian will be more or less changed due to rounding of the

104 CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING MATERIALS Vol. 5 No. 2 JUNE 1991