NASCC Steel Conference

February 10, 2006

STRUCTURAL STEEL VS REINFORCED

CONCRETE
By

Terry C. Pursley Project Director for Alberici Constructors Inc.

Terry C. Pursley has been working in the general construction industry for over 33 years on a wide range of project
types. A few of the major projects he has worked on include;

- A $200 million Milorganite producing facility in Milwaukee, Wisconsin incorporating both structural steel
framing and reinforced concrete floor slabs and shear walls.

- A $150 Million high rise luxury hotel and convention center complex in downtown St. Louis incorporating
tunnel form concrete erection for the superstructure of the Hotel and Structural steel framing for the
associated convention center.

- A $100 Million structural and architectural project for the sports arena in St. Louis (Home of the St. Louis
Rams) incorporating both pre-cast and cast-in-place concrete, and major long span roof trusses.

Terry has worked for Alberici Constructors Inc. out of St. Louis, Missouri since 1984. Prior to working with
Alberici, Terry worked as a project manager for a slip form concrete contractor in Minneapolis MN, and also spent
eight (8) years working with various design teams of Bechtel Power Corporation in their San Francisco office.

The vast majority of Terrys experience has centered on concrete and structural steel construction and their related
interface issues with architectural, mechanical and electrical disciplines and gives him a unique perspective on the
opportunities each type of construction brings to the project site.
NASCC Steel Conference
February 10, 2006
STRUCTURAL STEEL VS REINFORCED
CONCRETE
By
Terry C. Pursley Project Director for Alberici Constructors Inc.
During the course of my construction career I
have had the opportunity to work with many
excellent design firms and clients on a multitude
of high profile projects involving the use of both
structural steel and reinforced concrete elements.
Throughout this period I have found structural
steel to offer more cost and schedule benefits to
the construction team over similar benefits
offered by reinforced concrete construction with
respect to the erection of structural elements.
In most, if not all, of my projects Form vs
Function has been the governing criteria used
by most designers and clients in determining the
use of structural steel or reinforced concrete
components. Normally, as constructors, we have
had little or no say over what building materials
are selected by the design team. However,
advancements in the construction industry and
design techniques have clouded this historical
view and we are seeing more choices becoming
available for the use of either structural steel or
reinforced concrete members in the construction
of multiple building types.
I find structural steel has the following
advantages over reinforced concrete
construction:
1. Safety
2. Quality Control
3. Flexibility
4. Cost risk exposure
Ill discuss each item individually but before I do
let me discuss one over-riding issue I find to be
an advantage of structural steel and affects all
four of the items I have listed above.
Structural steel requires fewer
construction trade type personnel to erect
than does reinforced concrete.
To erect structural steel you generally need:
A. Ironworkers and
B. Operating Engineers
To form, set rebar, and place concrete you
generally need:
A. Carpenters
B. Laborers
C. Ironworkers
D. Operating Engineers
E. Cement Finishers, and you may need
F. Electricians and
G. Plumbers/Pipefitters for embedded
work.
Even in areas where jurisdictional issues are
minimized, the fact still remains that to produce
a structural element on the job site, there are
more individual functions to be performed for
reinforced concrete than the erection of structural
steel. The more functions required, the more
likely the chance for problems and increased
costs. I therefore prefer structural steel erection
as a means of reducing various risk factors.
Now back to the Four (4) basic advantages of
structural steel over reinforced concrete that I
mentioned earlier.
ADVANTAGES
SAFETY:
Of the advantages listed, I consider safety to be
the highest priority.
Historically, structural steel erection has been a
high risk endeavor. It would therefore appear
structural steel erection would not have a safety
advantage over reinforced concrete work, but my
experience indicates we need to look more
closely at this aspect.
With structural steel erection, the industry
standards for 100% tie-off and the use of aerial
lifts to make connections has allowed us to make
significant strides in protecting our steel erection
crews from life threatening falls. In addition, the
personnel mix of a steel erection crew tends to
NASCC Steel Conference
February 10, 2006
remain stable with not a lot of different
personnel changes. This stability allows more
focused on-site training and planning to be
shared with the crew. A stable crew allows
better monitoring of their safety performance and
tends to increase self-policing by crew
members to avoid unsafe practices.
With reinforced concrete placement, a stable
crew mix is not nearly as assured as it is with
structural steel erection. You may have a stable
formwork crew, a stable reinforcing steel crew
and a stable placement crew, but often times
these crews are not working together on a day in
and day out basis. In addition, various crew
members may not be needed on each concrete
placement, and thus there is less of a chance for
the entire crew to receive consistent training and
far less of a chance for the crew members to
develop a self-policing attitude.
My experience indicates there are more Doctor
Case injuries on concrete placements due to the
multiple work crews being used. Concrete
related injuries may not tend to be as severe as a
structural steel fall, but the impact upon the
project schedule for the multiple Doctor case
injuries is as great or more so with the reinforced
concrete work as compared to structural steel
erection.
QUALITY CONTROL:
Controlling the quality of the structural steel
fabrication is much easier and more reliable than
controlling the quality of reinforced concrete
work fabrication on the site.
Structural steel fabrication is normally
performed in a controlled environment in a
fabrication facility, with a consistent work force,
and readily inspected by third parties; whereas,
inspection of the on-site reinforced steel concrete
fabrication work is subject to all of the
conditions one runs into on the site. Bad
weather, poor shop drawings, numerous people
involved in multiple tasks, and inspectors being
spread too thin to inspect all items closely.
Inspection of the structural steel field erection
can be readily performed and is normally not a
last minute item, which is often the case with
reinforced concrete placement.
Good quality repair work on structural steel
components is normally much easier to perform
than on concrete structural components and the
finished repair work is normally more visually
acceptable on structural steel than repairs to
concrete work.
FLEXIBILITY:
This may seem to be an odd advantage, but
often, during the course of construction, the
client or designer wants to make a change in the
structure. I have found almost invariably such
modifications to a structural steel frame are
easier to accommodate and less costly to
implement than similar changes to a reinforced
concrete structure.
Platform and stairway modifications are both
prime examples we often have to accommodate
and it has been my experience modifications of
these elements on a structural steel frame are
much easier to accommodate than similar
modifications upon a reinforced concrete frame,
especially if additional shoring is required.
COST RISK EXPOSURE:
This item highlights my Stable Crew issue.
When you have one similar skill set of
personnel performing steel erection, your ability
to manage that one skill set is much easier than
with the multiple personnel skill sets needed for
reinforced concrete steel work.
Off-site fabrication risk with structural steel is
much less than reinforced concrete on-site
fabrication since it is accomplished in a more
controlled environment. Reinforced concrete
fabrication is performed in the field with all the
normal risk factors and variables associated with
on-site work.
Erection of the structural steel is again
accomplished by a more stable crew and unlike
concrete doesnt have to wait a certain number of
cure days before you can build upon it. You
can move forward with much more control of the
process and therefore at a less cost risk.
All these factors come into play when
contractors price their work and apply
contingency or profit/risk money to their bids.
Coincidently, in my opinion there is much less
risk to the job progress from issues that may
arise with structural steel than may occur with
reinforced concrete work.
NASCC Steel Conference
February 10, 2006
DISADVANTAGES:
I would be remiss, if I did not point out three
problem areas with structural steel construction
over that experienced with reinforced concrete
work. These are:
1. Painting structural steel
2. Fireproofing structural steel, and
3. Moment connections
PAINTING;
Poor surface preparation and poor prime painting
of structural steel has been and continues to be a
problem. In theory it should not be, but there are
still too many people who fail, intentionally or
inadvertently, to perform this task well. A good
surface prep and prime painting performance is
invaluable to a project. Poor surface prep and
prime painting has cost fabricators, contractors
and clients significantly more money and
headaches than it should. Continuous
improvement is needed in this aspect.
FIREPROOFING:
Fireproofing is a big mess, a coordination
problem, and a schedule issue that reinforced
concrete does not share. The impact of
Fireproofing can be minimized; however, by
working with the designers to limit the need for
fireproofing, making sure adequate time is
allowed in the schedule for this activity to take
place, and using a quality fireproofing
subcontractor to perform the work are activities
that will minimize the impact of this aspect.
Fireproofing installation is no place to cut
corners because it never pays to give this item
less attention than it deserves. I also recommend
fireproofing should be clearly called out on the
structural drawings rather than hiding it in the
specifications and/or architectural drawings.
While fireproofing may be considered an
architectural feature, its direct impact is to the
structural steel and the estimators, fabricators,
erectors, and fireproofing applicators need a
clear description on the structural drawings so
confusion is minimized and costs are lowered.
MOMENT CONNECTIONS:
Moment connections are costly and time
consuming and to the extent possible they should
be eliminated or minimized. Sometimes, the
Form vs Function issues dictate the need for
major and multiple moment connections and thus
they must be provided, but where possible, such
connections should be designed so they can
performed in the fabrication facility with their
tighter controls. Where this is not possible the
use of bolted moment connections should be
considered. When field performed welded
moment connections must be used it is critically
important to ensure the craft person(s)
performing the welds are well qualified and
tested for the particular procedure. In addition
testing agencies must be provided timely access
to these joints so as to not impact the schedule.
CONCLUSION:
When the Form vs Function criteria allows a
choice of structural steel versus reinforced
concrete construction, I believe the choice of
structural steel is the easy choice from a general
contractors point of view. When selected in
coordination with a quality fabricator, structural
steel construction provides a safe environment,
tighter quality control, more flexibility, and
reduces risk to the bottom line. Concerns with
painting, fireproofing and moment connections
need to be recognized, but these items can be
managed and in my opinion are lesser risk
factors than various risks that occur with
reinforced concrete
NASCC Steel Conference NASCC Steel Conference
February 10, 2006 February 10, 2006

STRUCTURAL STEEL VS REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL STEEL VS REINFORCED CONCRETE

ADVANTAGES
STABLE CREW
SAFETY

QUALITY CONTROL
Structural steel requires fewer construction trade type
personnel to erect than does reinforced concrete. FLEXIBILITY

COST RISK EXPOSURE

NASCC Steel Conference NASCC Steel Conference

February 10, 2006 February 10, 2006

STRUCTURAL STEEL VS REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL STEEL VS REINFORCED CONCRETE

DISADVANTAGES CONCLUSION
PAINTNG

FIREPROOFING
When selected in coordination with a quality fabricator, structural
steel construction provides a safe environment, tighter quality
MOMMENT CONNECTIONS control, more flexibility, and reduces risk to the bottom Line.