TRM 9

TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL

COMPARISON OF CONCRETE AND STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS INTRODUCTION

1 of 8 Rev 1 Date: 8/94

This note examines the advantages and disadvantages of concrete and steel framed structures. Particular types of structural frames are not considered, but the following basic design criteria have been assumed for the purposes of this note: Structural grid: 7.5m x 7.5m Live loading: 4kN/m2 (imposed load) + 1kN/m 2 (partitions) The following assessment criteria are used for the purposes of comparison: Cost Programme Procurement Fire resistance Services distribution Services penetrations Flexibility Durability/Maintenance Self-weight Foundations Frame deflections and vibrations Frame movements Acoustic insulation Thermal insulation Adaptability Aesthetics Assessment Criteria Cost Two reports have recently been produced to examine the comparative costs of concrete and steel framed buildings: 'A report on the comparative costs of concrete and steel framed office buildings', C.H. Goodchild, 1993 (published by the British Cement Association on behalf of the Reinforced Concrete Council). Comparative Structure Cost of Modern Commercial Buildings', R.M. Lawson, 1993 (published by the Steel Construction Institute).

WSP Consulting Engineers

TRM 9

TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL

COMPARISON OF CONCRETE AND STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS

2 of 8 Rev 1 Date: 8/94

The reports seek to establish the comparative total costs of 'real' buildings designed using a variety of structural frames. The buildings considered had relatively simple, repetitive structural frames, and their findings are summarised below: Concrete frame(flat slab) (/m2 gross) Building M4
7.5m x 7.5m grid Budget cost 75/ft2 Live load 4+1 kN/m2

Steel frame (composite) (/m2 gross) 791.11 729.48 617.57 575.32

+/(%)

3-storey 7-storey 3-storey 7-storey

770.97 711.33 587.13 545.32

+2.61 +2.55 +5.18 +5.49

Building M62
7.5m x 7.5m grid Budget cost 55/ft2 Live load 4+1 kN/m2

Overall costs per m of gross Building A floor

2600 m2 floor area 7.5m x 6.0m grid Live load 3.5+1 kN/m2

Building B
18000 m2 floor area 7.5m x 7.5m grid Live load 3.5+1 kN/m2

Steel frame options

Composite beam and slab Slim floor (pc units) Composite trusses (long span)

554 560 564 580 572

843 857 863 856 872 892

Concrete frame options

RC flat slab RC waffle flat slab Precast double-tee units (long span)

As expected, both reports establish that the material which they represent is the cheaper form of construction. The main conclusion to be drawn from these reports is that there is little to choose in terms of cost between the two materials for a typical building with a 7.5m x 7.5m grid. Programme The reports described above also considered the time taken to erect the frames for the two forms of construction. The findings are summarised below.

WSP Consulting Engineers

TRM 9

TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL

COMPARISON OF CONCRETE AND STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS

3 of 8 Rev 1 Date: 8/94

Concrete frame (flat slab) (weeks) Building M4

7.5m x 7.5m grid Budget cost 75/ft2 Live load 4+1 kN/m2

Steel frame (composite) (weeks) 8 15 9 15

3-storey 7-storey 3-storey 7-storey

14 19 13 20

Building M62
7.5m x 7.5m grid Budget cost 55/ft2 Live load 4+1 kN/m2

Frame construction time (weeks) Building A

2600 m2 floor area 7.5m x 6.0m grid Live load 3.5+1 kN/m2

Building B
18000 m2 floor area 7.5m x 7.5m grid Live load 3.5+1 kN/m2

Steel frame options

Composite beam and slab Slim floor (pc units) Composite trusses (long span)

5 5 9

9 10 8 16

Concrete frame options

RC flat slab

RC waffle flat slab Precast double-tee units (long span)

12 9

16 16

Steelwork frames can start earlier and are erected more quickly than their concrete equivalents. This allows the external cladding and roof finishes to start earlier. However, the need to fireproof the steelwork and the additional amounts of external cladding offset this advantage to some degree. The British Cement Association report concludes that the overall construction programmes for the two forms of construction are broadly similar (with concrete being up to two weeks faster in some cases). The Steel Construction Institute Report concludes that the steel framed buildings retain the advantage, with an overall construction programme some 6 to 12 weeks shorter. Recent experience has suggested that concrete framed buildings can be built as quickly as steel framed buildings, particularly when procurement times are taken into account. Procurement

WSP Consulting Engineers

TRM 9

TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL

COMPARISON OF CONCRETE AND STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS

4 of 8 Rev 1 Date: 8/94

The long lead-in times for steel frames (to allow the production of drawings and fabrication to take place) can have a significant effect on the overall programme. In general, 12 weeks should be allowed from the award of the sub-contract to the erection of the first steel elements on site. Recent experience has suggested that lead-in times are increasing again as the steel fabricators begin to obtain more work. The lead-in time for steel will be absorbed if a concrete sub-structure has to be built before the superstructure. The lead-in time can also be absorbed to some extent by pre-tendering the steelwork contract. Fire resistance Reinforced concrete has an inherent fire resistance and can easily achieve up to four hours fire resistance, providing there is sufficient concrete cover to the reinforcement bars. Most steel-framed buildings will require fire protection. There are a variety of protection systems available depending on the degree of protection required - spray systems, boarded systems, intumescent coatings and concrete encasement. Fire protection may also provide a certain amount of corrosion protection at the same time. Services distribution A concrete flat slab (or waffle flat slab) structure provides a uniform structural soffit level to allow more flexibility for the distribution of services. In contrast, a steel structure gives a larger overall ceiling void but there will be 'pinch points' underneath the steel beams. For a 7.5m x 7.5m grid, typical overall structural depths are given below: Solid flat slab: Waffle flat slab Composite steel frame Slim floor'/precast slab 325mm 400mm 585mm (maximum) 350mm

The composite steel beam/composite slab solution will require a deeper overall ceiling void (and hence a greater floor to floor dimension).

WSP Consulting Engineers

TRM 9

TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL

COMPARISON OF CONCRETE AND STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS Services penetrations

5 of 8 Rev 1 Date: 8/94

Steel and concrete frame structures will both have an insitu concrete floor slab, which will, in general, allow flexibility in the positioning of services openings. However, certain types of concrete slab (flat slab, in particular) cannot incorporate openings near column positions, or very large openings. The inherent 'redundancy' in a reinforced concrete slab can often allow openings to be post-drilled. Similarly, post-drilled fixings can be used to the slab soffits for supporting cable trays and pipes. Precast floor slabs, used in conjunction with a steel frame, are far less flexible, and services openings must be determined at the time the fabrication drawings are produced. Post-drilled holes are not usually possible and there are limits on the location of fixings to the soffits for services. As discussed above, a level soffit can be achieved with concrete flat slab structures, avoiding the need for holes in downstand beams. Holes can be formed in steel beams, but their location must be determined at the time of the production of the fabrication drawings. If there are a large number of openings, a castellated beam or fabricated truss can be used instead. Flexibility The lead-in time for the production of fabrication drawings means that steel framed structures are not always tolerant to late design changes. In contrast, it is possible to make design changes to a concrete frame up until the moment the formwork is erected on site. The flexibility provided by steel and concrete frame structures in the location of services openings is discussed above. Durability/Maintenance Concrete has an inherent durability and maintenance will be low, provided that good quality concrete is achieved at the time of construction. Steel will corrode in the presence of oxygen and water. However, inside a dry, heated building, bare steel will only rust superficially and corrosion rates will be low because of the low amount of water present. Corrosion protection will only be required for internal steel elements if they are likely to be exposed to moisture (such as condensation). Self-weight In general, a concrete framed building will have a greater dead load than a steel framed building. This has implications for the design of columns and foundations. For a 7.5m x 7.5m column grid, typical floor dead loads are as follows: Solid flat slab Waffle flat slab Composite steel beams .8 kN/m 5.4 kN/m 2.7 kN/m

WSP Consulting Engineers

TRM 9

TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL

COMPARISON OF CONCRETE AND STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS Foundations

6 of 8 Rev 1 Date: 8/94

As discussed above, the foundations for a concrete framed building will be larger than those for a steel framed building. For a 5 storey building with a 7.5m x 7.5m grid, typical foundation sizes (unreinforced concrete footing) for an internal column may be: Solid flat slab Waffle flat slab Composite steel beams 4.75 x 4.75 x 2.00 dp 4.25 x 4.25 x 1.90 dp 3.70 x 3.70 x 1.65 dp

Frame deflections and vibrations The sag in a structural element will become noticeable if the deflection exceeds span/250 and this is used as a design criterion for both steel and concrete structures. eg for a 7.5m span, the sag will become noticeable when the deflection exceeds 30mm. The deflection of a concrete element will be influenced by elastic, creep, shrinkage and thermal strains. However, for a composite steel beam, bending deflection is the governing criterion. A large deflection will have implications for internal partitions, brittle finishes and the depth of the raised floor. Deflections of steel beams can be partially reduced by using an initial pre-camber. Lightweight structures (such as a composite steel beam/composite slab frame) can be more susceptible to vibration than heavier structures. Composite steel structures are usually designed to ensure that the natural frequency of the beams is greater than 5Hz. However, in some cases, quite perceptible vibration can be induced by a person walking across a floor, even if the floor frequency is above 5Hz. Experience has shown that a low level of vibration, just above perception levels, is not disturbing to most people when engaged in normal occupations (e.g. office work). In addition, most computers and other items of normal electronic equipment are not particularly sensitive to vibration. Therefore, although it may not be possible to eliminate perceptible vibration altogether, composite construction provides a serviceable solution. Frame movements The horizontal movements of elements within a building may arise from both structural and material factors. These effects may be summarised as follows: - temperature movement (The coefficients of thermal expansion of steel and concrete are very similar (about 12 x 10-6). This corresponds to an extension of 1.2mm over a 10m length for a 10oC rise in temperature). - long term shrinkage of slabs - early age thermal contraction of slabs - horizontal forces (eg wind loads) The horizontal movements are restrained by shear walls, cross-bracing or frame action. Movement joints are provided in a building to control the horizontal movements (particularly those resulting from temperature or shrinkage). It is generally considered that overall movement joints should be provided in concrete frames at plan lengths in the range of 60m to 70m (ref: CIRIA Technical Note 107: Design for movement in buildings). Steel framed buildings should be provided with movement joints at a spacing of 75m to 90m. Acoustic insulation

WSP Consulting Engineers

TRM 9

TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL

COMPARISON OF CONCRETE AND STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS

7 of 8 Rev 1 Date: 8/94

The acoustic separation provided by the floor slab is related to its thickness. In simple terms, the thicker the slab, the greater the acoustic separation. For a 7.5m x 7.5m column grid, likely floor slab thicknesses are shown below: Solid flat slab Waffle flat slab Composite steel frame 325mm 100mm 100mm

Thermal insulation/absorption The typical thermal conductivity of lightweight concrete (at 3% moisture) is 0.81 - 0.88 W/m 0K. The typical thermal conductivity of normal density concrete (at 3%) moisture) is 1.73 W/m 0K. The normal density concrete slab is, therefore, a better absorber of heat than a lightweight concrete composite slab. Conversely, the lightweight concrete slab is a better insulator than a normal density concrete slab. Adaptability The need to provide a building frame which can be adapted to suit the needs of a future tenant is becoming increasingly important. It is usually straightforward to adapt a steel framed building e.g. to add beams to frame a new opening. It can be considerably more difficult to adapt a concrete framed building, particularly a flat slab structure, which places limitations on the locations of openings. Aesthetics The need to provide fire protection to steelwork beams means that it generally needs to be hidden behind a ceiling. A good quality finish can be achieved in insitu concrete when the structure is properly detailed and constructed. Alternative quality finishes can be achieved using needle-gunning or acid etching. Precast concrete offers the best opportunities for achieving a good quality finish. Summary Table

CRITERIA Cost Programme Procurement Fire resistance Services distribution Services penetrations Flexibility Durability/Maintenance Loading

CONCRETE FRAME 5 4 4 4 4 4 5

STEEL FRAME _ 5 5 5 5 5 4 WSP Consulting Engineers

TRM 9

TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL

COMPARISON OF CONCRETE AND STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS Foundations Frame deflections/vibrations Frame movements Acoustic insulation Thermal insulation/absorption Aesthetics 4 5 Conclusion 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 5

8 of 8 Rev 1 Date: 8/94

indicates advantage over other material indicates disadvantages when compared to other material indicates broadly similar to other material

It is concluded that most modern structural systems in steel, composite and concrete construction all have broadly equal economic merit. However, it is necessary to consider the choice of the structural system in relation to its influence on other non-structural, and often more expensive aspects, of the building construction, in order to make the final decision on the type of building frame.

Evelyn Murray WSP Consulting Engineers

WSP Consulting Engineers