Cost Model Study - School Building PDF

Licensed copy from CIS: aktii@akt-uk.com, AKT II Limited, 13/01/2018, Uncontrolled Copy.
A single copy of this document is licensed to
aktii@akt-uk.com
On
13/01/2018
This is an uncontrolled copy. Ensure use of the

most current version of the document by searching
the Construction Information Service.
Xxxxxx : 0
A cement and concrete industry publication
Cost Model Study –

School Buildings
A comparative cost assessment of the construction of
a typical secondary school
A report commissioned by The Concrete Centre

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:
Cost Model Study –
Architecture plb – Architectural Design
Education architecture is at the core of Architecture plb’s work. They have been involved in over 100 projects, from early years to
higher education, new build and refurbishment, and advise on school design with professional and government bodies. Recent
School Buildings
award-winning commissions include Jersey College for Girls, Tanbridge House School, Horsham and Haute Valley School, Jersey.
www.architectureplb.com
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.
Contents
Arup aims to provide a consistently excellent multi-disciplinary service, helping its clients meet their business needs by adding
value through technical excellence, efficient organisation, personal service and a strong commitment to sustainable design.
www.arup.com
1. Summary 3
Davis Langdon LLP – Quantity Surveying

2. Introduction 4
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 3. Method of Study 5
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 maximizing value for money according to the specific 4. Brief 8
needs of the client and brief.
www.davislangdon.com
5. Design criteria and specifications 11
Costain Construction – Programming
Costain is a multi-disciplinary contractor with over 140 years involved in the building, civil engineering and specialist process 6. Programmes 38
contracting industries. Since its formation, Costain has been involved in many major construction projects throughout the
world including the recent Channel Tunnel Rail Link and St Pancras Station refurbishment, restoration of St-Martin-in-the-Fields 7. Summary of costs 43
in Trafalgar Square, Bradford Schools BSF and King’s College Hospital PFI. Costain are committed to providing the highest
quality facilities and environments in the primary, secondary and tertiary education sectors where students can excel.
www.costain.com
8. Study findings 46
Slimdek® is a registered trademark of Corus UK Ltd. Ribdeck® is a registered trademark of Richard Lees Steel Decking Ltd. 9. The Concrete Centre’s comments 56
10. Appendix A – Detailed programmes 64
11. Appendix B – Design criteria 70
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
www.concretecentre.com
CCIP-011
Published January 2008
ISBN 1-904818-60-1
Price Group P
© The Concrete Centre
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 their 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.
Front cover: Jersey College, Jersey. Acknowledgement Architecture plb

Printed by Aldridge Printing Group
Summary 1
1. Summary
This Cost Model Study compares the costs of constructing a typical secondary school,
using a variety of structural options.
A design was commissioned for a typical 1,400 place secondary school, based on the
different school typologies commonly seen in contemporary school design, to enable an
evaluation of the relative costs of a selection of different structural solutions in school
design to be carried out.
The school is a hybrid arrangement, combining courtyard and street typologies, which
is the most common model at present and is currently being used by both schools and
larger city academies. The form of plan is scaleable for future expansion and size of
institution.
Structural designs were developed for alternative framing solutions and 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 preliminaries, with the exception of external works. 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 the overall construction cost, the most economic solution was found to be
the PT Flat Slab option closely followed by the Steel + Hollowcore option, RC Flat Slab
option and Composite option at 1.9%, 2.0% and 2.1% more expensive respectively. The
In-situ + Hollowcore option was in fifth place at 2.8% more expensive than the PT Flat
Slab option with the Slimdek option being the least economic at 6.8% more expensive.
The main conclusion is that, for modern school buildings, the variation in total
construction cost is relatively small across the range of structural options considered
and that they are all relatively competitive. Therefore, it is the effect on non-structural
elements of the building that needs to be considered in the selection of the most
appropriate structural choice.
2 3
2 Introduction Method of study 3
2. Introduction 3. Method of study

This Cost Model Study – School Buildings was undertaken to provide both a comparison Brief The brief given to the design team asked for outline designs for a typical school, to
and an understanding of the construction costs associated with school buildings using reflect current design practice and the design team’s best judgement.
a variety of different structural solutions.
The design of a secondary school is the combination of numerous criteria. These range
The Concrete Centre commissioned a study which was undertaken between 2005 and from physical elements such as the building’s location and context within the site, the
2006 by the following consultants: site’s topography, environmental issues and site constraints, through to the educational
brief, which will dictate relationships between departments, year groups and the
I Architecture plb Architectural Design school’s pedagogy and pastoral care. The type and size of the building were to be
I Arup Structural Design determined by consideration of all of these drivers.
I Davis Langdon LLP Quantity Surveying
I Costain Construction Programming
The objective of the study was to provide an impartial comparison between various Outline designs The building was taken up to normal outline design stage, with associated outline
structural frame options for secondary school buildings of two/three storeys on specifications. The only differences were directly attributable to the structural frame
brownfield sites in urban locations. Particular emphasis was placed on cost. Identical material.
specifications were required, with the only permissible variations being directly
attributable to the material used in the structural frame. The architectural scheme, layout and specifications were based on contemporary
practice, prevailing DfES funding guidelines and current design guidance and regulations.
Whilst not exhaustive, this study illustrates the differences between a variety of
structural options designed to one particular set of contemporary criteria. No design was undertaken for external works and landscaping, these aspects being so
highly site-specific as to preclude meaningful consideration.
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 The extent, layout and complexity of external works are to a large extent dictated by
Langdon, based on pricing data obtained from their national cost database of recent the size, configuration and orientation of the site for each particular project, together
projects and therefore reflecting the current marketplace. 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
Procurement and construction planning/programming studies also formed part of the choice of structural solution is considered to be minimal.
commissions, in order that the effects of programme on costs could be included.
Consequently, whilst the programmes allow notional periods for the elements of
The cost models were developed using current best practice and are reported upon in external works to ensure completeness of preliminaries, consideration of such works in
this publication. Interest in any cost model study is the process of designing and costing detail is beyond the scope of this study.
alternative methods of constructing otherwise identical buildings, and this raises many
interesting issues for those commissioning, designing and constructing school buildings. The final structural zones represent those considered, by the design team’s experience
and judgement, to be optimum depths for the structures. A fire engineering approach
was not undertaken for the building. Indicative diagrams and descriptions for each of
the structural frame options considered are shown in the figures that follow.
4 5
3 Method of study Method of study 3
Option 1: PT Flat Slab Option 2: Steel + Hollowcore Option 3: Flat Slab Basis of costing and Drawings, specifications and structural schemes were prepared for each frame option to
quantities allow for an order of cost to be assessed and thus a comparison made. The level of
information provided on each scheme was equivalent to that which would be prepared
in a normal outline design.
Quantities and estimates of cost and areas were prepared from the outline design
information. Budget costings were assigned to all elements of construction – from
Post-tensioned in-situ concrete flat slab and Steel beams acting compositely with precast Reinforced in-situ concrete flat slab substructure, superstructure and external walls through to preliminaries – using rates
reinforced in-situ concrete columns. concrete hollowcore floor slabs. Steel columns. and columns.
appropriate to the specifications and location, with a base date of June 2006.
Option 4: Composite Option 5: In-situ + Hollowcore Option 6: Slimdek® Mechanical and electrical services were costed on a rate per m2 basis for each
sub-element.
The costings were presented in the form of summaries and are contained within
Chapter 7 Summary of costs.
Steel beams and metal decking both acting Reinforced in-situ concrete beams and columns Slimdek system comprising asymmetric beams
compositely with in-situ concrete floor slabs. with precast concrete hollowcore floor slabs. and metal decking, both acting compositely with
Steel columns. in-situ concrete floor slabs. Steel columns. Planning and programming Detailed construction programmes were prepared on the basis of the drawings,
specifications and quantities outlined in this report. These were summarised in the
KEY Concrete Steel
Figure 3.1
Structural frame options
form of bar charts and are contained within Chapter 6 Programmes. Procurement
programmes and contractor lead times were also considered.
Specifications and drawings Design criteria and outline specifications were finalised and scheme drawings were prepared
for all structural options. The design information is presented in this document as follows: A more detailed explanation of the planning and programming, including notes on
the assumptions made and the logic used, is given within Programmes. Examples
Architectural drawings of the detailed programmes are contained within Appendix A.
Form and layout of school
Ground floor plan
First floor plan
Sections
Design criteria
Architectural
Structural
Services
Outline specifications
Architectural
Structural
Services
Structural drawings
Partial floor plans and floor zone for each of the following
options:
PT Flat Slab
Steel + Hollowcore
Flat Slab
Composite
In-situ + Hollowcore
Table 3.1
Design information Slimdek
6 7
4 Brief Brief 4
4. Brief Figure 4.1

Key Design Guidance flow chart for the
completion of a school-specific brief
Initial studies and School design involves many different responses to specific sites. Consultation with
architectural precedents Architecture plb produced a study of architectural precedents, identifying the following
three main typologies commonly seen in contemporary school design: BREEAM for Schools
(2005)
Environmental Design & Sustainability

I The Street: Comprising different subject areas connected by a long covered space for
circulation. This space accommodates a variety of uses and can provide the principal Building Britain 87/90 Building Bulletin 99
Primary Schools
social space for the student community. Environmental Design Guidelines Briefing Framework for
feedback loop
Building Regulations Part L2 Primary Schools
I The Courtyard: Involving classrooms arranged in groups around open areas, usually at
Building Britain 101 Building Bulletin 86
low level to allow for good lighting to the classrooms. Ventilation of School Buildings (2005) School Grounds:
Building Regulations Part F A Guide to Good Practice
I The Campus: Often found when there is a difficult site with different levels, when it
Building Britain 93
is advantageous to group areas together and create a more open environment for
Acoustic Design of School Buildings
learning. Building Regulations Part E Continuing Education
Community Use
Schools for the Future: Designs for Learning Communities

These typologies are neither standard to every situation nor mutually exclusive. Different Raising Standards: Opening
Doors (DEE)
site contexts range from open greenfield sites to tight urban locations and the particular
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
educational specialism of the school will determine the final form, often resulting in a SEND Act 2001 Building Bulletin 94
combination of various facets of each typology. Inclusive School Design
Statutory Framework: a summary of statutory legislation which affects school design
Building Bulletin 95
The Education (School Premises)
Considerations
Regulations 1999
when School-specific
Future Learning Needs
compiling brief
Brief From the initial study, Architecture plb considered the features that could constitute a
a school
Curriculum Analysis
Secondary Education Only development
typical brief for the design of a secondary school and provided a report identifying key design brief Protection of School Playing Fields
design guidance and adopted criteria. This information, which is contained within www.sportengland.org
Cross-sector Centres
Appendix B, summarised the relationship between the design criteria, the reasons for
Sure Start/libraries/health
them and relevant guidance dealing with them. Planning Regulations Schools: Achieving Success
School-driven Needs
Key Design Guidance and Aspirations
The Building Regulations 2000
The flow chart in Figure 4.1 (opposite) brings into one diagram all of the different
forces, both legislative and client defined, which may affect the design requirements of
a typical school.
DfES Constructional Standards
Secondary Schools
Briefing Framework for
feedback loop
Secondary Schools
The Construction (Design and

Management) Regulations 2007
School Grounds:
A Guide to Good Practice
Health & Safety Regulations
8 9
4 Brief Design criteria and specifications 5
Adopted criteria: site selection 5. Design criteria and specifications

These criteria consist of a list of assumed site characteristics which would impose
specific design requirements on a typical school, mapped out alongside present Form of building, plans In response to the drivers outlined in Chapter 4 Brief and Appendix B, an initial outline
legislation and design guidance. An assumed site is shown in Figure 4.2, displaying the design was produced, providing a school of approximately 13,500m2 of gross internal
and elevations
following characteristics typical of many sites, often located during the past 50 years on area for a total of 1,400 pupils. Subsequently, the scheme was developed to a level that
the edge of towns, which have since grown to enclose the schools in a built-up area. allowed a structural analysis to be undertaken and a budget cost plan to be produced.
I Existing school to be re-located (1) The school is a hybrid arrangement, combining courtyard and street typologies, which
I Playing fields (2) is the most common model at present and is currently being used by both schools
I School car park (3) and larger city academies. This responds to the need for external covered play space
I Park (4) (unheated) which can be used in bad weather, as well the wish to have a main central
I Detached dwellings (5) space (heated) for dining and large group activities. The form of plan is scaleable for
I Semi-detached dwellings (6) future expansion and size of institution.
I Terraced dwellings (7)
I Brownfield site on the edge of a suburban development The preliminary form and layout of the school are shown in Figure 5.1, and the ground-
I Busy railway line on an elevated embankment to one boundary floor and first-floor plans are shown in detail in Figures 5.2 and 5.3 respectively.
I Main road to one boundary
I Single vehicular access point
Figure 5.1
Preliminary sketch plan of the building
Figure 4.2
Adopted criteria: site selection
1
main road into town
4 3
elevated train track
KEY
General teaching rooms Social and dining area Reception area
Access area/breakout space Service rooms Offices and admin
Shared teaching resource Sports and dance Assembly hall
S R
10 11
5 Design criteria and specifications Design criteria and specifications 5
Figure 5.2
Ground floor plan
General teaching rooms
Access area/breakout space
Shared teaching resource
Social and dining area
Service rooms
Sports and dance
Reception area
Offices and admin
Assembly hall
12 13
Figure 5.3
First floor plan
Science Prep Room

Science Lab Art Studio Art Studio Art Studio Art Studio Art Studio
Science Lab Science Lab Science Lab void
Science
Store
void
void
Science and Sculpture Court
Science
Science Lab Store Music Room Music Room Roof of
‘Sports Canopy’
Science Lab
void
ICT ICT void
Music Room Music Room void
Science Classroom Science Classroom
ICT void
ICT
Music Dept Base Music Store
Glass covered opening
Atrium Void
Staff Room
Learni
ng re source
centre
m
oo
Shared Teaching
sr
as
Resource
Cl
Share
Classroom d Teach
ingRe
Classro sourc
e
om
m
Faculty
oo
Classro Offices Faculty
om
sr
Offices
as
Cl
Classro
om S
Staff Workroom
Class
room
m
Class Shared Teaching
oo
room
sr
Resource
as
Cl
Class
room
e
centr
Class
room
m
urce
oo
Class
sr
room
as
so
Cl
ing re
General teaching rooms

Learn
Access area/breakout space

Faculty Base
Shared teaching resource
Learning resource centre
Service rooms
Sports and dance
Offices and admin
Assembly hall
14 15
SECTION aa
Figure 5.5
West elevation
For schools of this size, a single storey would be both uneconomical and unfeasible, with
long circulation routes. A mix of two- and three-storey spaces allows more economical
use of the site and has therefore been adopted.
This relationship between the various functional areas and the effects of the relationship
on the design are considered in further detail.
Architectural Plans and elevations

The plans are based upon the concept of the major departments being accessed off a
central circulation route or courtyard.
SECTION bb This relationship of the departments is a fairly common model, with the general teaching
classrooms, learning resource centre and administration spaces located to the south in
Above: Figures 5.4a a three-storey block. The specialist teaching spaces and large volume spaces, such as
Sections aa and bb the assembly and sports halls, are located to the north side of the central street.
Right: Figure 5.4b
Key plan showing location of sections The central street, which contains the dining space at ground floor level, controls the
flow of pupil circulation around the school and is covered with an ETFE lightweight
membrane roof.
Reception and administration areas

bb
aa
The entrance to any school is of utmost importance. It needs to be clearly visible and
accessible on arrival. The siting of the reception is at the front of the school and is easily
Courtyard located. There are two clearly separate entrances; one for pupils to use during peak
Admin & LRC times and the other for visitors and pupils arriving ‘out of hours’.
Faculty Building
Sports & Arts

The school’s main administration areas are located at ground-floor level at the front of
the school, with east and west facing windows. Pre-fabricated robust cladding panels
Science & Technology
are used to reflect the more cellular nature of the uses within the plan.
16 17
Figure 5.8
Learning resource centre (LRC)
Learni
ng reso
urce ce
ntre
Cla
Figure 5.6
e
centr
South elevation
e
sourc
ing re
Learn
General teaching block
The design driver behind the positioning of the general teaching classrooms is to ensure
future flexibility. Subjects being taught within the general teaching classrooms can be
changed in accordance with timetable requirements. The majority of the classrooms are
served by a central corridor, with support spaces such as teaching resource areas and
staff work-bases located on the other side of the corridor.
Figure 5.7
General teaching block
To ensure high levels of natural daylighting within classrooms, the south façade is
constructed of thermally-broken curtain walling, with a combination of coloured metal
and glass spandrel panels. With any large extent of south facing glazing comes the
problem of solar gain and glare. It is proposed that these issues are controlled by
providing a combination of external brise-soleil and internal glare blinds along the GROUND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR
entirety of the elevation.
Learning resource centre (LRC)

To meet the requirement for the LRC to be easily accessible to both pupils and public, it
has been located across two floors at the front of the school. The library is still a strong
visual icon of ‘learning’ and acts as the architectural beacon at the entrance. Access to
the LRC by the public is controlled by reception.
Lightweight coloured pre-fabricated cladding panels, together with external solar

shading, are used to emphasise the exciting nature of the LRC.
Specialist teaching classrooms

The specialist teaching classrooms, such as science and design technology, are located
around an open courtyard to the north side of the building. These classrooms tend to
be larger and deeper than general teaching rooms. They have a high degree of service
requirements and can produce acoustic and fume issues.
The design technology department is located at ground floor level, with the majority
of classrooms, prep areas and stores having direct external access for material deliveries.
18 19
Figure 5.10
The science department is located at first-floor level and has access via a covered Assembly, drama and sports halls
external walkway.
The elevations are treated with a combination of windows and robust cladding panels
at ground-floor level. The first-floor is clad with metal panels.
Figure 5.9a
Specialist teaching classrooms –
ground-floor layout
Assembly, drama and sports halls

The large volume spaces such as the main assembly hall, gymnasium, drama studio
and sports hall are all located to the north of the street. Natural daylight is provided
wherever possible by the use of roof lights.
Figure 5.9b
Specialist teaching classrooms –
first-floor layout
These volumes are typically double height, with the assembly hall making use of this
with a balcony at first-floor level. They are clad at low level with robust pre-fabricated
cladding panels, with panels of insulated silicone-modified render above. The sports hall
has sections of opaque structural glazing to the north and east façades.
Kitchen and dining facilities

The main kitchen and dining facility is located within the central street at ground-floor
level. This allows the central space to be fully utilised during lunch breaks, with fold-
down tables and chairs providing covers for up to 360 pupils. Deliveries, storage, waste
and plant are accessed via the north side of the site.
External materials
The design and selection of materials has been based upon the criteria that no specific
structural solution had been adopted and that programme implications are not deemed
to be ‘excessive’.
The proposed external materials are not reliant upon any particular structural system to
support them and can be readily found on modern school buildings across the country.
20 21
The roofs of the North and South Blocks are deemed to be ‘flat’ with minimal falls. These mechanically assisted ventilation, but are shallow enough on plan for a natural
are covered with a single-ply roofing membrane. The viewing deck area at first-floor level ventilation solution to be applicable.
is protected with paving slabs on spacers, whilst the main atrium roof is covered with a
lightweight ETFE membrane roof. The roof lights are twin-walled polycarbonate barrel vaults. The large volume spaces are mechanically ventilated, with localised plant sited at roof level.
External play spaces including hard and soft landscape

The use of hard and soft landscape as part of the learning environment is actively
encouraged in school design. The ‘feel’ of the central street space is one of a semi- Acoustic strategy The acoustic strategy follows the principles and requirements set out in Building
outdoor space, which is achieved with the use of external materials and finishes within. Bulletin 93. The structural solution adopted will have some impact upon how the
acoustic requirements are met within the school. Exposed dense structure may present
The science and sculpture courtyard is also an important teaching space, allowing issues with regard to excessive reverberation times. These can be attenuated by the use
breakout groups to conduct work outside whilst still within a supervised environment. of strategically placed areas of absorptive material around the perimeter of the room’s
It also provides a location for the exhibition of 3D art work. soffit and top of walls, and by the use of acoustic diffusers incorporated within or
attached to light fittings.
The first-floor courtyard that is accessed from the LRC above the reception area
provides an important area for informal study. Other factors to consider are the need for mass to reduce impact noise between floors
and the complexity of detailing.
A steel framed solution with a metal deck has less inherent mass than a precast
Environmental strategy The environmental strategy can have a huge influence upon the aesthetic of the school. concrete floor or in-situ solution and may require floating floors or suspended ceilings
Where the thermal mass of the building’s frame is used as a heat sink or for night to achieve the required noise reduction. These variables have not been separately
purging, the strategy of exposing the concrete soffit needs to be carefully considered. costed. Rain impact noise is also an issue that is more problematic with a lightweight
Omitting the ceilings can dramatically change the acoustic performance of the framed solution at roof level.
space and an exposed soffit always presents a challenge in respect of the satisfactory
co-ordination, routing and concealment of services. The complexity of detailing is an area that often gets over-looked when choosing a
frame solution. The flat soffits that are provided by precast concrete or in-situ concrete
However, besides the thermal benefits of an exposed soffit, additional advantages will be easier to finish internal partitions against. Conversely, providing an acoustically
exist. These include the increased floor to ceiling height within rooms, due to the ‘robust’ head detail of an internal wall against a profiled deck or steel downstand beam
omission of ceilings and the reduction in the quantity (and therefore costs) of the can be far more time consuming, both in initial installation and in subsequent re-work.
suspended ceilings. Similarly, the detailing of the acoustic treatment for service penetrations through both
structure and partitions is of equal importance.
Conversely, exposure of the structure also results in the consequent exposure of services,
which would otherwise be concealed by a suspended ceiling, with the potential problem It is essential that an acoustic consultant is employed at an early stage of the project,
that such services are then accessible to students and can suffer from vandalism. in order that appropriate detailing of acoustic issues is considered in sufficient time to
inform the choice of frame solution.
The school guidance given in Building Bulletin 87 encourages the use of natural
ventilation systems and the design assumes a natural ventilation strategy for the
majority of the shallow plan spaces. It has been assumed that external acoustic noise
levels will not prohibit the opening of windows. Fire strategy The building has been designed principally to meet Part B of the Building Regulations.
The atrium is deemed to have sufficient controlled smoke venting and smoke reservoir
The general teaching classrooms have opening windows and high-level wind catcher at high level and the building does not have sprinklers.
cowls that drive cross-ventilation through the classrooms.
Typically, each floor will form a compartment, with the General Teaching Block and
The central street is deemed to be naturally ventilated, with incoming air at low level Science Block forming a single compartment across two floors.
and exhaust air at roof level via electronically controlled vents.
There are obvious benefits with regard to fire protection by utilising different structural
The specialist teaching spaces require a combination of natural ventilation and framing solutions. A concrete frame has inherent fire protection but may result in larger
22 23
column sections. Conversely, the difficulty of protecting complex steel sections and Serviceability
junctions with profiled decks can also result in considerable time and expense, both in Deflections Deflections limited in accordance with the guidance in the appropriate Code of Practice.
initial construction and in subsequent remedial work. Fire rating 1 hr

Vibration Structural vibration performance to be in line with BS 6472:1992. The educational
structure is deemed to fall into the office criteria. For office areas, BS 6472 suggests that
during the day and night a response factor of 4 is acceptable for continuous vibration and
Design criteria Table 5.1 shows design criteria, representative of current good practice and standards, a response factor of 128 for impulse vibration, with up to 3 occurrences in a day.
forming the basis of the study.
Ground conditions
Table 5.1 Bearing pressure It has been assumed that the site provides a bearing capacity suitable for pad foundations
Architectural
Design criteria and a ground bearing ground floor slab with an N value of approximately 30 in a Standard
Floor to ceiling height Penetration Test. It is assumed that the water table is below founding level.
2,700mm Lateral stability Lateral stability to be provided by a combination of stability frame action and concrete
Building area schedule shear walls or steel diagonal bracing for each scheme.
Basic teaching 5,008m2 Propping Propping is required for the Slimdek system during construction where it spans more than
6.3m with lightweight concrete or 5.7m with normal weight concrete.
Halls 1,011m2
Environmental services
Learning Resource Centre* 1,701m2
Ventilation Natural ventilation to the majority of the shallow plan spaces.
Staff/administration 486m2
General teaching classrooms have opening windows and high-level wind catcher cowls
Storage 384m2 driving cross-ventilation through the classroom.
Dining/social 886m2 The central street is naturally ventilated with incoming air at low level and exhaust air at
roof level via electronically controlled vents.
Toilets/personal care 564m2
Specialist teaching spaces combine natural ventilation and mechanically assisted
Circulation 2,774m2 ventilation where required, but are shallow enough on plan for a natural ventilation
solution to be applicable.
Plant 428m2
Large volume spaces mechanically ventilated with localised plant sited at roof level.
Kitchen 203m2
* Inflated above BB98 guidelines to enable community access and taken into account within funding
stream calculation.
Table 5.2 Architectural

Structural Outline specifications
External envelope
Loads
External walls
Imposed Load: Live Loading Assumptions (as per BS 6399-1:1996)
Generally Infill between columns to be 140mm medium weight blockwork, tied in to structural
Type Description UDL (kN/m2) Concentrated Load (kN)
columns, with rendered finish.
B Kitchen 3.0 4.5
North Block & 50mm thick tilted precast concrete cladding panels (typical panel size 1.2m x 2.4m) fixed
C Communal dining room 2.0 2.7 South Block with variable depth stainless steel brackets. Approximately 100mm insulation within void.
administration
C Classroom 3.0 2.7 wing
C Reading room with no book storage 2.5 4.5 North Block Timber cladding comprising 20mm thick x 70mm & 100mm wide random strips of larch
C5 Assembly areas without fixed seating 5.0 3.6 sculpture cladding in a natural finish. Stainless steel fixings, fixed back to 50mm x 50mm battens
courtyard and counter battens. 100mm insulation compressed within 50mm void.
C3 Corridors, hallways, aisles 4.0 4.5
South Block Coloured cladding panels, fixed with s/s fixings, back to aluminium cladding rails
C4 Dance halls & studios, gymnasia, stages 5.0 3.6 classrooms (1.2m centres). Approximately 100mm insulation within void.
C5 Stages in public assembly areas 7.5 4.5 Front entrance In-situ fair-faced concrete.
canopy
E Library 4.0 4.5
Roofs
E Plant room 7.5 4.5
Flat roofs generally Vapour-check layer, insulation to falls and single ply membrane roof.
Dead load
Atrium roof ETFE lightweight membrane roof.
Self-weight plus superimposed dead load of ceiling & services – 0.5 kN/m2. Finishes – 0.25 kN/m2 on external
elevation. Where lightweight partitions are specified a 1kN/m2 imposed load has been applied. Rooflights Twin-wall polycarbonate domes, non-opening with vented kerbs.
Line loads
External Cladding – 8 kN/m. A 10kN/m line load has been assumed where blockwork partitions are specified. (This
is based on 140mm thick blocks forming a 3m high wall.).
24 25
Glazing Walls
North-light glazing Aluminium double glazed system, powder-coated, with remotely operated electric vents. Generally Vinyl emulsion paint to all surfaces.
Entrance screens Heavy duty screens and doors, powder coated aluminium with stainless steel Circulation areas Wall glaze paint.
ironmongery.
Changing areas Plain tiling to door height (2,100mm above FFL). Moisture resistant vinyl-emulsion
Windows Punch-hole type composite timber/aluminium system, powder coated aluminium external paint above.
section, double-glazed windows and opening lights. Coloured glass spandrel panels within
Toilets Moisture resistant vinyl-emulsion paint to all surfaces.

glazing system, security glass to ground floor.
Sports hall 25mm thick birch-faced MDF panels, finished with three coats of matt clear lacquer to
Curtain walling Double-glazed PPC aluminium curtain walling system. Stainless steel ironmongery.
a height of 3,600mm above FFL.Viny-emulsion paint above.
and entrance
doors/screens Toilets
Structural glass U-Shaped structural glass units in steel frame to ground floor of the South Block Floor 2mm thick, cushion-backed rubber sheet with 100mm high coved skirting.
administration wing.
Walls Glazed ceramic tiles. Full height cubicle partitions and doors.
External sun- Mild steel grid supported on stainless steel brackets, held within painted steel frame. In the
Ceilings Pre-finished 500mm x 500mm metal tile with concealed grid.
shading LRC cantilever (south and west façade), horizontal timber brise-soleil held in PC aluminium
frame, attached to a hung lightweight steel structure. Skirtings Ceramic tile.
Doors External doors to classrooms: composite timber/aluminium system, powder coated WCs Suspended WC pans with concealed cisterns.
aluminium external section, timber frame insulated panel within glazing system.
Washbasins Fully or semi-recessed vanity mounted hand basins with concealed UPVC pipework.
Internal planning Urinals White vitreous china.
Internal walls
Hand drying Recessed paper towel dispensers.
Classrooms Generally, 140mm concrete blockwork tied in to structural columns, other than between
classrooms, where proprietary metal stud partitions with dry lined plasterboard lining Staircases
(2 x 12.5mm dense plasterboard on either side of a 70mm stud with 50mm mineral wool Floors Precast terrazzo (primary stair) or granolithic (secondary stair) treads and risers with
insulation) are used to provide flexibility. non-slip nosings, with mild steel painted stringer.
Specialist teaching 140mm concrete blockwork tied in to structural columns. Walls Emulsion-painted suspended plasterboard dry-lining.
rooms, toilets, Ceilings Emulsion-painted suspended plasterboard dry-lining.
showers, changing
rooms and kitchens Handrails Painted mild-steel top and secondary rails.
Finishes Balustrade Painted mild-steel posts.

Floors Internal doors
Classrooms HD carpet with 100mm high PVC skirting. Doors and side Timber doorsets, heavy duty, solid core doors with softwood frames and architraves;
panels paint finish. Safety glass to BS requirements and fire rated glass as required for
Assembly hall Hardwood timber flooring and 100mm x 18mm matching timber skirting.
compartmentation.
Sports hall 8mm thick cushion-backed sports vinyl and 100mm x 18mm timber skirting.
Ironmongery Heavy duty stainless steel ironmongery. Stainless steel kick plates to all doors. All internal
Administration & Anti-static carpet sheet. doors to circulation areas to have floor springs and electronic alarm-operated hold-back
offices devices.
Design & tech- 2mm thick, cushion-backed rubber sheet, with 100mm high coved skirting.
nology rooms, wet
areas, toilets &
laboratories
Atrium & sculpture Concrete paving, 450mm x 450mm x 50mm, two colour.
Structural options In respect of structural options, the building divides naturally into two types of space
court requirements.
Ceilings
Classrooms – Fair-faced finish to concrete or paint to soffit of decking; acoustic reflector to light fittings; Short span areas: These comprise general teaching classrooms, larger specialist teaching
South Block perimeter plasterboard bulkhead, painted. areas such as design & technology rooms and laboratories, administrative offices, shared
Classrooms – Perforated acoustic plasterboard, painted. teaching resource areas, SEN rooms, library, learning resource centre, support services
North Block
areas, kitchens, toilets and changing rooms. In these cases the general structural grid
Corridors Perforated pre-finished metal panel to provide access to services. varies within the range of 8.25m x 5.53m, 8.25m x 7.75m, 8.25m x 8.05m and 8.25m x
Toilets, offices, Plain plasterboard, painted. 8.20m, according to the specific type of space and the taper of the building.
changing rooms,
stores
Long span areas: These are located within the North Block and comprise the assembly
hall with a grid of 8.25m x 16.6m, the gymnasium hall and dance studio with a grid of
8.25m x 14.15m, and the sports hall with a grid of 8.25m x 18.30m.
26 27
In these cases, long spans have been catered for by the use of cellular steel beams in provide a steel alternative which also incorporates the flat soffit benefits of the
the horizontal structure, regardless of the structural solution adopted for the shorter reinforced and the post-tensioned concrete flat slab. In addition to those two benefits,
span spaces. The vertical structure is either concrete columns with shear walls or steel the ASB and deep-profiled decking systems also give the benefit that arises with
columns with braced bays, according to the frame option. permanent formwork in the speed of construction.
The six structural options adopted for the school building reflect contemporary norms
in the construction industry: Structural layouts Details of the structural configurations for each of the frame options selected follow.
These relate to the technology areas in the North Block, highlighted on the key plan
I A Post-Tensioned Flat Slab option has been developed to reflect the possibilities of (Fig 5.12, left). Similar configurations are found in the general classroom areas in the
reduced slab thicknesses achievable using post-tensioned structures. The benefits of South Block, with slight modifications to the structural grid, but resulting in very similar
the reinforced flat slab are maintained, i.e. simplified formwork and services installation, spans. On the key plan (Fig 5.12, right) are the long-span structural configurations found
with the additional benefits of reduced quantities of concrete and reinforcement within the large volume spaces such as the main assembly hall, gymnasium, drama
in the structural frame, as well as smaller areas of external cladding and internal Figure 5.12 studio and sports hall.
partitioning resulting from the reduced storey height. The reduced slab thickness in the Highlighted areas on the key plan showing the
technology area for the short span options (left)
post-tensioned solution also reduces the weight of the building to be carried to the and the sports hall for the long span options (right)
foundations, which becomes more beneficial the higher the building.
I The Steel + Hollowcore option utilises pre-stressed, precast units, acting compositely
with the steel. By utilising the units on full grid spans, the steel piece count is
minimised. Composite action between the steel and precast concrete in the final stage
reduces the steel weight requirements. The slab thickness and depths of beams (due
to the increased slab span) result in a larger structural zone. This system benefits from
the off-site fabrication/precasting and minimised steel tonnage that results. It is
possible to support the precast concrete units within the depth of the beam on
continuously welded shelf angles, to reduce the overall structural depth if there was a
specific constraint. This has not been adopted for the purpose of this study as any
savings achieved as a result of reducing the building height may be cancelled out by
the higher fabrication costs. The reduced structural thickness achievable with steel is
investigated by adopting the asymmetric steel beam system (Slimdeck option).
I The Flat Slab option gives a traditional in-situ reinforced concrete construction
solution, which optimises the benefits of modern formwork systems. This provides a flat
soffit which facilitates the installation of services and enables simple detailing of the
junctions of the heads of partitions with the soffit, and of services and structural
penetrations through partitions.
I The Composite option gives minimum thickness of slab with short spans for the
deck, resulting in relatively shallow secondary beams. The steelwork selection criterion is
based on the minimum weight achievable utilising composite action between the steel
and the concrete slab and decking. Another benefit of the steel deck system is the use
of the decking as a permanent formwork for speed of construction.
I The In-situ + Hollowcore option adopts concrete columns and downstand beams
with hollowcore precast units, providing benefits in speed of construction and, by
increasing off-site manufacture, giving benefits in on-site labour time and costs.
I The Slimdeck option (asymmetric steel beam system) has been developed to
28 29
7750 8075 8075 8075 8075 7750 6300 7750 8075 8075 8075 8075 7750 6300
C1
200mm RC Shear wall 200mm RC Shear wall C1 457 x 152 x UB52 C1 457 x 152 x UB52 C1 457 x 152 x UB52 C1 457 x 152 x UB52 C1 457 x 152 x UB52 C1 457 x 152 x UB52 C1 406 x 140 x UB39
200mm RC Shear wall
139.7 x 3.2 CHS
139.7 x 3.2 CHS
139.7 x 3.2 CHS
139.7 x 3.2 CHS

139.7 x 3.2 CHS
139.7 x 3.2 CHS
139.7 x 3.2 CHS

c
8250
8250
457 x 191 x UB67 C1 457 x 191 x UB67 C1 457 x 191 x UB67 C1 457 x 191 UB67
C1 457 x 191 x UB67 C1 457 x 191 UB67 406 x 178 UB54
d d d C2 C2 C1
C1 C1 C1 C1 C1
457 x 152 x UB52 457 x 152 x UB52 457 x 152 x UB52 b
139.7 x 3.2 CHS
139.7 x 3.2 CHS
139.7 x 3.2 CHS
139.7 x 3.2 CHS

254 x 146 UB31
c
8250
8250
All Columns Columns a
400 x 400 unless C1: 203 x 203 UC60
otherwise noted C2: 254 x 254 UC73
457 x 191 x UB67 b C1 457 x 191 UB67 457 x 191 UB67 406 x 178 UB54
C
C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2
4
200mm RC Shear wall
200mm RC Shear wall
254 x 146 UB31
139.7 x 3.2 CHS

139.7 x 3.2 CHS
139.7 x 3.2 CHS
139.7 x 3.2 CHS

Beams
8250
8250
c a
a = 356 x 127 UB33
b = 406 x 178 UB54
c = 254 x 146 UB31
d = 139.7 x 3.2 CHS
457 x 191 x UB67 b 457 x 191 UB67 457 x 191 UB67 406 x 178 UB54
C1 C1 C1 Full Height Void to C1 C2 C2 C2
Full Height Void to Sculpture Court
Sculpture Court
254 x 146 UB31
139.7 x 3.2 CHS
139.7 x 3.2 CHS
139.7 x 3.2 CHS

139.7 x 3.2 CHS
8250
8250
c a
200mm RC Shear wall 200mm RC Shear wall C1 457 x 152 x UB52 C1 b C1 (Denotes braced bay) 457 x 152 UB52 457 x 152 UB52 406 x 140 UB39
C1 C2 C2 C2
Figure 5.13 Figure 5.14

Option 1: PT Flat Slab Option 2: Steel + Hollowcore
NOTES A193 mesh in 50mm structural topping NOTES

250
250
1. 250mm post-tensioned concrete flat slab to upper floors 200mm Hollowcore 1. 200mm precast concrete hollowcore units with 50mm minimum
2. Concrete Class C32/40 mesh reinforced structural topping on steel frame to upper floors
Reinforcement PT Duct
900
2. Concrete Class C32/40
800 (min)
500
3. High yield reinforcement
1207
Services zone
Services zone 3. Steel Grade S355
350 (min)
4. Post Tensioning: each post-tensioning tendon has 5 No. 12.7mm2
150
Ceiling and lighting zone strands 4. Assumed design imposed loads: Type C - Classroom
5. Assumed design imposed loads: Type C - Classroom
150
Ceiling and lighting zone 5. Vertical dimensions (mm)
Section through floor zone
6. Vertical dimensions (mm) Section through floor zone Slab 250mm
(1)
Slab 250mm Services zone 807mm Floor zone = 1,207mm
Services zone 500mm Floor zone = 900mm 406 x 178 UB60 Ceiling/lighting 150mm ⯝ 1,210mm
13
S
Ceiling/lighting 150mm
CH
Floor – ceiling 2,700mm
~ 4000
9x
Varies
4.0
4.0
9x
CH
Total: 3,910mm
13
S
(1)
Total: 3,600mm 457 x 191 UB67 Including downstand beams
13
S
9x
CH
~ 4000
Varies
4.0
4.0
CH
9x
S
13
Varies
Typical Braced Bay
30 31
7750 8075 8075 8075 8075 7750 6300
200mm RC Shear wall 200mm RC Shear wall
200mm RC Shear wall
8250
8250
All Columns
400 x 400 unless
otherwise noted
200mm RC Shear wall
200mm RC Shear wall
8250
Full Height Void to
Sculpture Court
8250
200mm RC Shear wall 200mm RC Shear wall

Option 3: Flat Slab NOTES Option 4: Composite NOTES
325
325mm RC slab 1. 325mm reinforced concrete flat slab to upper floors 1. 130mm lightweight concrete slab with mesh reinforcement on
1.2mm Ribdeck AL on steel frame to upper floors
2. Lightweight concrete Class C32/40
975

500
Services zone 3. Steel Grade S355

5. Vertical dimensions (mm)
150
Ceiling and lighting zone 5. Vertical dimensions (mm)

Slab 325mm
Section through floor zone Slab 130mm
Services zone 500mm Floor zone = 975mm
(1)
Services zone 807mm Floor zone = 1,087mm
Ceiling/lighting 150mm ⯝ 1,090mm
Total: 3,790mm
Total: 3,790mm
(1)
Including downstand beams
32 33
7750 8075 8075 8075 8075 7750 6300
280 ASB105 280 ASB105 280 ASB105 280 ASB105 280 ASB105
C1 280 ASB105 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 300 ASB185 C1
300 ASB196
300 ASB196
300 ASB196
300 ASB196
300 ASB196
300 ASB196
8250
280 ASB124 280 ASB124 280 ASB124 280 ASB124 280 ASB124 280 ASB124
a d
280 ASB124 280 ASB124 280 ASB124 280 ASB124

280 ASB124 C1 C1 C1 280 ASB124 203 x 102 UB23
C1 C1 c c c C2 C2 + 300 x 10 PLT C2
C1 280 ASB105 C1 280 ASB105 C1 280 ASB105 C1 280 ASB105 C1
300 ASB185
300 ASB196
300 ASB196
8250
280 ASB124 c 280 ASB124 280 ASB124
a d
b
b
Columns
C1: 254 x 254 UC73
280 ASB124 c C2: 254 x 254 UC89 280 ASB124 280 ASB124 203 x 102 UB23
C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 + 300 x 10 PLT C2
300 ASB196
300 ASB196
300 ASB185
c Beams
8250
280 ASB124 b 280 ASB124 280 ASB124 d
a a = 254 x 146 UB31 b
b = 300 ASB185
c = 280 ASB74
d = 280 ASB124
280 ASB124 c 280 ASB124 280 ASB124 203 x 102 UB23
C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 + 300 x 10 PLT C2
Full height void to
Sculpture Court
300 ASB196
300 ASB196
300 ASB185
8250
280 ASB124 c b 280 ASB124 280 ASB124
b b d
C1 280 ASB105 C1 c C1 C1 C2 C2 280 ASB74 C2

(Denotes braced bay) 280 ASB105 280 ASB105

Option 5: In-situ + Hollowcore Option 6: Slimdek
NOTES A193 mesh NOTES
In-situ concrete slab
342
SD225 Deep decking
1. 200mm precast concrete hollowcore units with 50mm minimum 1. 342mm (o/all) concrete slab on SD225 deep decking on
mesh reinforced structural topping to upper floors. In-situ 300 ASB196 asymmetricSsteel beams to upper floors
500 (min)
reinforced concrete beams and columns
992
2. Concrete Class C32/40 Services zone
3. Steel Grade S355
150
Ceiling and lighting zone
Section through floor zone 5. Vertical dimensions (mm)
5. Vertical dimensions (mm)
Slab 342mm
Slab 250mm 406 x 178 UB60
Services zone 500mm Floor zone = 992mm
(1)
Services zone 800mm Floor zone = 1,200mm
Ceiling/lighting 150mm ⯝ 995mm
S
13
CH
~ 4000
9x
4.0
4.0
9x
CH
13
S
300 ASB185 Total: 3,695mm
Total: 3,900mm
(1)
13
Including downstand beams
S
CH
9x
~ 4000
4.0
4.0
9x
CH
13
S
Varies
Typical Braced Bay
34 35

Long span areas – typical structure 18300 1Long span areas – typical structure 18300
for PT Flat Slab, Flat Slab and for Composite, Steel + Hollowcore
In-situ + Hollowcore options and Slimdek options
Top Tee 686 x 254 x UB125 Top Tee 686 x 254 x UB125
200mm RC Shear wall Bot Tee 686 x 254 x UB125 200mm RC Shear wall Bot Tee 686 x 254 x UB125
S HS S
.0 SH
x6 .0
50 x6
1 15
0
0x
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS

15 0x
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS

150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
15
8250
8250
15 15
0x 0x
15 15
0 0
x6 x6
.0 .0
SH S HS
S
Bot Tee 686 x 254 x UB125 Bot Tee 686 x 254 x UB125
S HS SH
S
.0 .0
x6 x6
0 0
15 V 15
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS

0x 0x
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS

15 15
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS

150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
8250
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS 150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS 150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
8250
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS 150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS 150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
15 15
0x 0x
15 15
0 0
x6 x6
.0 .0
SH S HS
S
S HS S
.0 SH
x6 .0
5 0 x6
x1 0
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS

15
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS

0
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS

15
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS

0x
15
8250
8250
15 15
0x 0x
15 15
0 0
x6 150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS x6
.0 .0
SH 16 S HS
S 8x S
5.0 CH
CH 5 .0
S 8x
16
~ 4000
Bot Tee 686 x 254 x UB125 S
CH Bot Tee 686 x 254 x UB125
5 .0
S 8x S
SH 16 SH
.0 .0
x6 150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
x6
0 0
15 15
0x 0x
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS

15 15
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS

150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS
16
533 x 210 UC92
533 x 210 UC92

S
8x
CH
~ 4000
5.0
5.0
8250
8250
CH
8x
S
16
15 15
0x 0x
15 150 x 150 x 6.0 SHS 15
0 0
x6 x6
.0 .0
SH SH
S
16
S
8x
CH
~ 4000
5.0
5.0
200mm RC Shear wall Top Tee 686 x 254 x UB125 200mm RC Shear wall Top Tee 686 x 254 x UB125
CH
8x
S
16
Denotes purlin span using All columns 400 x 400 mm Denotes purlin span using (Denotes braced bay)
262 Z 23 @ 1500c/c Varies 262 Z 23 @ 1500 c/c
Typical Braced Bay All columns 533 x 210 UC92
36 37
6 Programmes Programmes 6
6. Programmes Table 6.2

Programme activities in relation Activity
Weeks -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -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
to frame commencement Steel + Hollowcore
A comparison of the overall programme durations, showing each of the periods from
Slimdek
procurement to completion, is given in tabular form below and is summarised in
graphical form in ‘Appendix A’ – Detailed programmes, where the detailed programmes
Composite
for the Flat Slab and Composite options are also presented.
Table 6.1 KEY
In Situ + Hollowcare
A comparison of the programme durations
Frame package procurement
Contractor lead t ime PT Slab
Structural Procurement Lead time Overall Frame Overall
Construction
option time (weeks) (weeks) construction construction project time
time (weeks) time (weeks) (weeks) Frame du ration Flat Slab
Project c ommencement
PT Flat Slab 10 8 65 8 83
Composite 10 12 66 6 88
Construction programmes – A five-day week was assumed. Holidays have been shown on the programme but no
In-situ + Hollowcore 10 8 67 10 85 allowance has been made for inclement weather. A simplified view has been taken of
assumptions and logic
Steel + Hollowcore 10 12 67 9 89
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 factors are
Slimdek 10 12 67 9 89 highly site-specific and could result in shorter or longer construction periods. For those
Flat Slab 10 4 69 13 83
activities not related to the structure, similar resources and sequences have been
assumed for all the options.
Also, it was assumed that the ground-floor slab would be fully or substantially complete
Procurement programme The procurement element is identical for each option at ten weeks, comprising two before the frame is erected, providing a clear lay-down area for both precast concrete
weeks for collation of information, four weeks for bidding, three weeks for bid frame members and steelwork. This provides a safer flat surface for steelwork erectors
evaluation and one week for award of contract, assuming a traditional approach to to work from mobile elevated working platforms. Also, it was assumed that two tower
works package sub-contracting. cranes would be used and that long-lead items, such as the lift and some plant, would
be pre-ordered.
With the Flat Slab, PT Flat Slab and Slimdek options, although the availability of a clear
Lead times The lead time for the concrete frames is between four and eight weeks, comprising one unimpeded soffit would permit greater use of prefabrication in the M&E services
week for working drawings, one week for drawing approval, from one to four weeks for content (with consequent programme savings), no allowance has been made for any
material procurement and one week for mobilisation. reduction in the construction programme as a result of this potential benefit.
The lead time for the steel frames is 12 weeks, comprising four weeks for working There is only a four week difference in overall construction time between the shortest
drawings, one week for drawing approval, one week for material procurement, five duration option, PT Flat Slab at 65 weeks, and the longest duration option, Flat Slab,
weeks for manufacture and one week for mobilisation. at 69 weeks. Three options had the same construction time at 67 weeks – In-situ +
Hollowcore, Steel + Hollowcore and Slimdek. The Composite option had an overall
The frame package procurement and lead times have been shown in the summary construction time of 66 weeks.
programme as sequential activities prior to project commencement. If these activities
are considered in relation to frame commencement, the relative ability of the various A comparison of the overall programme durations, showing each of the main construction
options to incorporate late design changes, before the start of the frame package activities, follows in graphical form. The North Block is generally two-storeys high and
procurement, can be appreciated. comprises the larger technology rooms, service areas, cloakrooms, assembly hall, dance
studio, gymnasium and three-storey high sports hall. The South Block is three-storeys
Procurement of the Steel + Hollowcore and Slimdek would have to start eight weeks high and includes general teaching spaces, administration offices and the learning
before project commencement, with procurement of the Composite having to start resource centre. The programmes for all six options are summarised in graphical form in
seven weeks, In-situ + Hollowcore five weeks, PT Slab four weeks and Flat Slab one Table 10.1 of Appendix A - Detailed programmes, where the detailed programmes for the
week before project commencement. Flat Slab and Composite options are also presented in Tables 10.2 and 10.3.
38 39
6 Programmes Programmes 6
Table 6.3a Table 6.3c

P Flat Slab showing overall construction time of 65 weeks
PT In-situ + Hollowcore showing overall construction time of 67 weeks
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Activity No. of weeks Activity No. of weeks
Establish Site 2 Establish Site 2
Substructure Works - South Block 13 Substructure Works - South Block 13
Substructure Works - North Block 11 Substructure Works - North Block 11
Superstructure - South Block 14 Superstructure - South Block 14

Superstructure - North Block 12 Superstructure - North Block 14
Superstructure - Covered Courtyard 8 Superstructure - Covered Courtyard 8
Roof Finishes - South Block 8 Roof Finishes - South Block 8
Roof Finishes - North Block 8 Roof Finishes - North Block 8
Roof Finishes - Covered Courtyard 8 Roof Finishes - Covered Courtyard 8
External Envelope - South Block 16 External Envelope - South Block 16
External Envelope - North Block 16 External Envelope - North Block 16
Cladding - Covered Courtyard 7 Cladding - Covered Courtyard 7
Blockwork - South Block 20 Blockwork - South Block 20
Blockwork - North Block 18 Blockwork - North Block 15
M&E 1st Fix - South Block 17 M&E 1st Fix - South Block 18
M&E 1st Fix - North Block 15 M&E 1st Fix - North Block 15
Plaster/render/screeds - South Block 16 Plaster/render/screeds - South Block 16
Plaster/render/screeds - North Block 14 Plaster/render/screeds - North Block 14
M&E 2nd Fix - South Block 11 M&E 2nd Fix - South Block 13
M&E 2nd Fix - North Block 10 M&E 2nd Fix - North Block 10
Ceilings - South Block 13 Ceilings - South Block 13
Ceilings - North Block 10 Ceilings - North Block 10
Floor finishes - South Block 12 Floor finishes - South Block 12
Floor finishes - North Block 8 Floor finishes - North Block 8
FF&E - South Block 11 FF&E - South Block 12
FF&E - North Block 8 FF&E - North Block 8
Final Fix - South Block 10 Final Fix - South Block 11
Final Fix - North Block 9 Final Fix - North Block 9
Testing & Commissioning 11 Testing & Commissioning 11
External works 18 External works 18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Week number Week number
Table 6.3b Table 6.3d

Composite
M showing overall construction time of 66 weeks Steel + Hollowcore showing overall construction time of 67 weeks
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Activity No. of weeks Activity No. of weeks
Establish Site 2 Establish Site 2
Substructure Works - South Block 13 Substructure Works - South Block 13
Substructure Works - North Block 11 Substructure Works - North Block 11
Superstructure - South Block 12 Superstructure - South Block 14
Superstructure - North Block 11 Superstructure - North Block 14
Superstructure - Covered Courtyard 8 Superstructure - Covered Courtyard 8
Roof Finishes - South Block 8 Roof Finishes - South Block 8
Roof Finishes - North Block 8 Roof Finishes - North Block 8
Roof Finishes - Covered Courtyard 8 Roof Finishes - Covered Courtyard 8
External Envelope - South Block 16 External Envelope - South Block 16
External Envelope - North Block 16 External Envelope - North Block 16
Cladding - Covered Courtyard 7 Cladding - Covered Courtyard 7
Blockwork - South Block 20 Blockwork - South Block 20
Blockwork - North Block 18 Blockwork - North Block 15
M&E 1st Fix - South Block 17 M&E 1st Fix - South Block 18
M&E 1st Fix - North Block 15 M&E 1st Fix - North Block 15
Plaster/render/screeds - South Block 16 Plaster/render/screeds - South Block 16
Plaster/render/screeds - North Block 14 Plaster/render/screeds - North Block 14
M&E 2nd Fix - South Block 13 M&E 2nd Fix - South Block 13
M&E 2nd Fix - North Block 10 M&E 2nd Fix - North Block 10
Ceilings - South Block 13 Ceilings - South Block 13
Ceilings - North Block 10 Ceilings - North Block 10
Floor finishes - South Block 12 Floor finishes - South Block 12
Floor finishes - North Block 8 Floor finishes - North Block 8
FF&E - South Block 12 FF&E - South Block 12
FF&E - North Block 8 FF&E - North Block 8
Final Fix - South Block 11 Final Fix - South Block 11
Final Fix - North Block 9 Final Fix - North Block 9
Testing & Commissioning 11 Testing & Commissioning 11
External works 19 External works 19
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Week number Week number
40 41
6 Programmes Summary of costs 7
Table 6.3e
Slimdek showing overall construction time of 67 weeks 7. Summary of costs
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Activity No. of weeks Costs Prices used in this study have been prepared by Davis Langdon, based on pricing data
Establish Site 2
Substructure Works - South Block 13 obtained in June 2006 from their national cost database of recently tendered projects.
Substructure Works - North Block 11 Rates are based on construction in the Midlands.
Superstructure - South Block 14

Superstructure - North Block 14
Superstructure - Covered Courtyard 8
Roof Finishes - South Block 8
Roof Finishes - North Block 8 Preliminaries
Roof Finishes - Covered Courtyard 8
External Envelope - South Block 16 The cost of the main contractor’s preliminaries for each option was based on two
External Envelope - North Block 16
Cladding - Covered Courtyard 7
separate elements. A lump sum was included to allow both for non-work-related aspects
Blockwork - South Block 20 such as contractual requirements for insurances, employer’s facilities etc., and for fixed
Blockwork - North Block 18
M&E 1st Fix - South Block 17 one-off costs such as site establishment, access roads, crane bases, services connection
M&E 1st Fix - North Block 15
Plaster/render/screeds - South Block 16
charges etc.
Plaster/render/screeds - North Block 14
M&E 2nd Fix - South Block 13
M&E 2nd Fix - North Block 10
Ceilings - South Block 13
Ceilings - North Block 10
Floor finishes - South Block 12
Floor finishes - North Block 8
Table 7.1a
FF&E - South Block 12 Overall cost analysis
FF&E - North Block 8
Final Fix - South Block 11
Final Fix - North Block 9
Overall cost analysis
Testing & Commissioning 11
PT Flat Slab Steel + Flat Slab Composite In-situ + Slimdek
External works 19
Hollowcore Hollowcore
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Week number Element Element total Element total Element total Element total Element total Element total
Table 6.3f Substructure 823,065 799,272 851,509 777,674 822,344 777,674

Flat Slab showing overall construction time of 69 weeks Frame/upper floors 1,633,588 1,506,866 1,806,468 1,651,306 1,814,522 2,663,106
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Roof finishes 1,117,110 1,117,110 1,117,110 1,117,110 1,117,110 1,117,110
Activity No. of weeks
Establish Site 2
Stairs 250,500 250,500 250,500 250,500 250,500 250,500
Substructure Works - South Block 14
Substructure Works - North Block 13 External cladding 2,953,570 3,227,376 3,034,060 3,145,700 3,149,578 3,080,750
Superstructure - South Block 17
Superstructure - North Block 13 External windows & doors 298,960 306,742 301,750 303,760 306,670 301,150
Superstructure - Covered Courtyard 8
Roof Finishes - South Block 8 Internal planning 1,055,010 1,162,322 1,065,300 1,161,625 1,106,640 1,111,263
Roof Finishes - North Block 8
Roof Finishes - Covered Courtyard 8 Wall finishes 427,665 416,410 426,080 413,050 450,425 405,560
External Envelope - Both Blocks 16
Cladding - Covered Courtyard 7 Floor finishes 699,400 699,400 699,400 699,400 699,400 699,400
Blockwork - South Block 20
Blockwork - North Block 18 Ceiling finishes 368,519 368,519 368,519 368,519 368,519 368,519
M&E 1st Fix - South Block 17
M&E 1st Fix - North Block 15 Fittings 1,485,000 1,485,000 1,485,000 1,485,000 1,485,000 1,485,000
Plaster/render/screeds - South Block 16
Plaster/render/screeds - North Block 14 Sanitary 148,500 148,500 148,500 148,500 148,500 148,500
M&E 2nd Fix - South Block 13
M&E 2nd Fix - North Block 10 Mechanical 2,092,500 2,134,350 2,092,500 2,134,350 2,092,500 2,092,500
Ceilings - South Block 13
Ceilings - North Block 10 Electrical 1,775,250 1,810,350 1,775,250 1,810,350 1,775,250 1,775,250
Floor finishes - South Block 11
Floor finishes - North Block 8 Lifts 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000
FF&E - South Block 11
FF&E - North Block 8 BWIC 472,500 472,500 472,500 472,500 472,500 472,500
Final Fix - South Block 11
Final Fix - North Block 9 Contingency 1,176,085 1,198,891 1,198,083 1,201,451 1,201,459 1,262,062
Testing & Commissioning 11
External works 18 Preliminaries 1,725,000 1,755,000 1,785,000 1,740,000 1,755,000 1,755,000
Overheads & profit 1,114,934 1,136,346 1,137,452 1,137,647 1,146,295 1,190,673

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Week number TOTAL £19,697,156 £20,075,455 £20,094,981 £20,098,442 £20,251,212 £21,036,697
42 43
7 Summary of costs Summary of costs 7
Separate allowances were made for time-related costs, such as management and staff, Key rates
site accommodation, services and facilities, cranage, etc. Such costs vary according to Key rates used in the structural elements of the study are tabulated below:
programme 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 Costain. Table 7.2 Structural elements Unit Rate
Key rates for structural elements

Concrete in walls m3 £120.00
Preliminaries equate to an on-cost of 10.9% of the basic construction cost.
Concrete in suspended slabs m3 £110.00
Lightweight concrete in suspended slabs m3 £135.00

Finance and rental costs Concrete in beams m3 £110.00
The study did not include assessment of the costs of financing the project. Concrete in columns m3 £110.00
A193 mesh reinforcement m3 £3.40
A 252 mesh reinforcement m3 £3.90
Reinforcement in suspended slabs tonne £765.00
Reinforcement in beams tonne £765.00

Table 7.1b
Elemental cost analysis Reinforcement in walls tonne £765.00
Elemental cost analysis Reinforcement in columns tonne £765.00
PT Flat Slab Steel + Flat Slab Composite In-situ + Slimdek Post-tensioning to floor slabs m2 £27.00
Hollowcore Hollowcore Intumescent coating - 60 minute (site applied) m2 £12.50
Element Element total Element total Element total Element total Element total Element total Formwork to walls m2 £30.00
Substructure 61 4.2% 59 4.0% 63 4.2% 58 3.9% 61 4.1% 58 3.7% Formwork to soffits of suspended slabs m2 £30.00
Frame/upper floors 121 8.3% 111 7.5% 134 9.0% 122 8.2% 134 9.0% 197 12.7% Formwork to beams m2 £42.00
Roof finishes 83 5.7% 83 5.6% 83 5.6% 83 5.6% 83 5.5% 83 5.3% Formwork to columns m2 £42.00
Stairs 19 1.3% 19 1.2% 19 1.2% 19 1.2% 19 1.2% 19 1.2% 150mm hollowcore planks m2 £42.00
External cladding 219 15.0% 239 16.1% 225 15.1% 233 15.7% 233 15.6% 228 14.6% 200mm hollowcore planks m2 £47.00
External windows & doors 22 1.5% 23 1.5% 22 1.5% 22 1.5% 23 1.5% 22 1.4% Solid grade S355 steel beams tonne £1,300.00
Internal planning 78 5.4% 86 5.8% 78 5.3% 86 5.8% 82 5.5% 82 5.3% Solid grade S355 steel columns tonne £1,300.00
Wall finishes 32 2.2% 31 2.1% 32 2.1% 31 2.1% 33 2.2% 30 1.9% Solid grade S355 steel columns hollow sections tonne £1,620.00
Floor finishes 52 3.6% 52 3.5% 52 3.5% 52 3.5% 52 3.5% 52 3.3% ASB grade S355 steel beams tonne £1,600.00
Ceiling finishes 27 1.9% 27 1.8% 27 1.8% 27 1.8% 27 1.8% 27 1.8% Cellular grade S355 steel beams tonne £1,730.00
Fittings 110 7.5% 110 7.4% 110 7.4% 110 7.4% 110 7.3% 110 7.1% Ribdeck AL 1.2mm steel decking m2 £21.00
Sanitary 11 0.8% 11 0.7% 11 0.7% 11 0.7% 11 0.7% 11 0.7% SD225 steel decking (propped) m2 £34.00
Mechanical 155 10.6% 158 10.6% 155 10.4% 158 10.6% 155 10.3% 155 9.9% Shear studs - 19mm x 100mm No £1.20
Electrical 131 9.0% 134 9.0% 131 8.8% 134 9.0% 131 8.8% 131 8.4% Shear studs - 19mm x 120mm No £1.20
Lifts 6 0.4% 6 0.4% 6 0.4% 6 0.4% 6 0.4% 6 0.4%
BWIC 35 2.4% 35 2.4% 35 2.4% 35 2.4% 35 2.3% 35 2.2%
Contingency 87 6.0% 89 6.0% 89 6.0% 89 6.0% 90 6.0% 94 6.0% Key rates used in other elements of the study are tabulated below:
Preliminaries 128 8.8% 130 8.7% 132 8.9% 129 8.7% 130 8.7% 130 8.3%
Non-structural dry-lined metal stud partitions & finishes m2 £65.00
Overheads & profit 82 5.7% 84 5.7% 84 5.7% 84 5.7% 85 5.7% 88 5.7%
Blockwork walls, plastered both sides m2 £50.00
TOTAL £1,459 £1,487 £1,488 £1,489 £1,500 £1,558
44 45
8 Study findings Study findings 8
8. Study findings frame cost at 9% of total project cost, however this option also generates a higher cost
for the external envelope due to the increased storey height, resulting in an overall cost
The study findings are presented in the following manner. 2.8% higher than the PT Flat Slab.
The costings are divided into the following eight primary components which together The most expensive option was the Slimdek option, which was found to be 6.7% more
make up the overall cost of each scheme design: expensive than the most cost-effective option, PT Flat Slab. Although benefiting from a
lower storey height and an open flat soffit, it was found that the mass of steel in the
I Substructures ASB sections produces a relatively high frame cost, at 13% of total project cost,
I Frame and upper floors significantly higher than all the other options.
I Cladding
I Internal planning These figures are based on cost per m2 of gross internal floor area.
I Roof finishes and internal finishes
I Mechanical & electrical services
I Preliminaries Table 8.2
I Contingency and overhead & profit
1575
Overall building costs
1550
For each component, the costs per m2 of gross internal floor area for each of the six
structural solutions are compared graphically, and in tabular form, with the most
1525
economic option for that component being used as the datum for comparison.
1500
Table 8.1
£/m2
Average elemental breakdown
M&E, Lifts and BWIC 23% 1475
for all six solutions External Cladding 17%
Internal Planning 5%
1450
Roof Finishes 1425

and Internal
Substructure 4% Finishes 20%
1400
PT Flat Slab Steel + Flat Slab Composite In-situ + Slimdek
Frame and Upper Floors 10%
Preliminaries 9%
Contingency and O/h&P 12% Overall building costs
£/m² %+
1 PT Flat Slab 1,459
Overall costs Based on the building footprints and outline specifications compiled by Architecture plb, 2 Steel + Hollowcore 1,487 1.9
together with the structural design information and calculation provided by Arup, 3 Flat Slab 1,488 2.0
all six structural options are within approximately 7% of each other, after adjusting 4 Composite 1,489 2.1
time-related preliminaries for construction programme differences. 5 In-situ + Hollowcore 1,500 2.8
6 Slimdek 1,558 6.8
In terms of total project costs, the PT Flat Slab option was found to produce the most
cost-effective overall solution, followed by the Steel + Hollowcore option, the Flat Slab
option and Composite option, which are all virtually identical.
The Steel + Hollowcore option had the most competitive frame component at 8% of
total project cost, but this was offset by higher external envelope costs due to the
greater storey height. The In-situ + Hollowcore option also had a relatively competitive
46 47
Substructures Frame and upper floors

Pad foundations are suitable for the ground conditions assumed for the building. Costs When the costs of the frame and upper floors only are compared, the most economic
for the ground-floor slab and associated earthworks were found to be identical for all option is the Steel + Hollowcore, followed by the PT Flat Slab (+8.0%) and Composite
solutions. option (+8.9%). The Flat Slab and In-situ + Hollowcore options are identical (+19.6%)
and are followed by the Slimdek option (+75.9%). The differences are partly due to the
Costs for the complete substructure were found to be lowest for the Composite and dual use of the concrete walls both as structural and external walls/internal partitions in
Slimdek options, with costs for the alternative options ranging from 1.7% to 8.6%. the concrete framed options. However, these are partly offset by the cost differences in
Whilst smaller pads are utilised for the lighter buildings, reinforced concrete pads are the external cladding and internal planning elements.
required for the inner members of the structural grid on the Flat Slab and PT Flat Slab
options, entailing larger volumes of excavation for working space, together with the A significant feature of the comparison is a 47% premium cost required to achieve a
additional costs of the formwork and reinforcement. clear, flat soffit with the Slimdek system as opposed to the Flat Slab option, rising to a
63% premium when compared with the PT Flat Slab. This is due to the greater mass of
the asymmetric beams, together with the higher cost of the propped SD225 decking
Table 8.3
Substructure costs
70 when compared with the Ribdeck AL.
(Note: stairs have been excluded from the graphical presentation for clarity, being of
60 equal cost for all options).
50 Table 8.4
200
Frame and upper floors costs
180
40
160
£/m2
140
30
120
£/m2
100
20
80
10 60
40
0 20
Composite Slimdek Steel + In-situ + PT Flat Slab Flat Slab
0
Steel + PT Flat Slab Composite In-situ + Flat Slab Slimdek
GF Slab
Substructure costs
Foundations
£/m² %+ Fire protection
Frame and upper floor costs
Earthworks
1 Composite 58 Decking and slabs
£/m² %+
2 Slimdek 58 Steel frame
1 Steel + Hollowcore 112
Formwork
3 Steel + Hollowcore 59 1.7 2 PT Flat Slab 121 8.0
Reinforcement
4 In-situ + Hollowcore 61 5.2 3 Composite 122 8.9
Concrete frame
5 PT Flat Slab 61 5.2 4 In-situ + Hollowcore 134 19.6
6 Flat Slab 63 8.6 5 Flat Slab 134 19.6
6 Slimdek 197 75.9
48 49
Cladding, windows and external doors Internal planning

The costs of the external cladding, windows and external doors span a range of For the Internal Planning (internal partitions, WC cubicles and internal doors) component,
approximately 9%, from the most economic option, the PT Flat Slab, to the least the PT Flat Slab was found to be the most economic option, followed by Flat Slab
economic option, the Steel + Hollowcore. This range is a direct reflection of the (+1.3%), Slimdek and In-situ + Hollowcore (+5.1%), with Composite and Steel +
differences in storey height across types of frame and the dual use of structural walls Hollowcore being the most expensive (+10.3%). Again, this is a function of the reduced
referred to in the frames and upper floors discussion. storey height available with those structural options that produce a clear flat soffit and
the dual use of structural walls previously referred to.
The Slimdek option also offers a storey height only slightly higher than the Flat Slab
and PT Flat Slab options, whilst a premium is payable for the Composite, Steel + It should be noted that, for the Composite, Steel + Hollowcore and Slimdek options,
Hollowcore and In-situ + Hollowcore options, due to the depth of the structural zone account is taken in the costing of the added complexity of fire and acoustic sealing of
produced by the downstand beams. Storey heights vary from 3,600mm on the partition heads against irregular soffits of steel decking and around the junctions of
PT Flat Slab option to 3,910mm on the Steel + Hollowcore option, to accommodate intersecting steel frame members. With approximately 3,000 linear metres of partitions,
these increased structural zones this is a significant factor.
The external façade is important in optimising solar shading to improve the working
Table 8.6
environment of pupils and staff, as well as reflecting the ethos and image of the school. Internal planning costs 100
As the external envelope represents an average of some 17% of total project costs, the
effect of different storey heights is therefore significant. 80
These figures do not include external windows and doors costs.

60
Table 8.5 300
External cladding, windows and
£/m2
external doors costs
250 40
200
20
£/m2
150
0
PT Flat Slab Flat Slab Slimdek In-situ + Composite Steel +
100 Hollowcore Hollowcore
50 Internal doors
Internal planning costs
Internal planning
£/m² %+
0
1 PT Flat Slab 78
PT Flat Slab Flat Slab Slimdek Composite In-situ + Steel +
Hollowcore Hollowcore 2 Flat Slab 79 1.3
3 Slimdek 82 5.1
External cladding
External cladding, windows and external 4 In-situ + Hollowcore 82 5.1
External doors & windows doors costs
5 Composite 86 10.3
£/m² %+
6 Steel + Hollowcore 86 10.3
1 PT Flat Slab 241
2 Flat Slab 247 2.5
3 Slimdek 250 3.7
4 Composite 256 6.2
5 In-situ + Hollowcore 256 6.2
50 51
Roof finishes and internal finishes, fixtures and fittings Mechanical & electrical services
With regard to the costs of the roof finishes, there was no difference between all of the In respect of the direct costs of lifts, mechanical services, electrical services, sanitary
structural options. It should be noted that approximately 17% of the roof finishes costs installations and builder's work in connection, there was no noticeable difference
relate to roof lights, of which there is a there is a significant quantity in order to achieve between all of the structural solutions.
the required strategy for the provision of ventilation and daylighting.
However, with regard to the relative ease of installation of the mechanical and electrical
The slight differences in internal finishes costs are entirely contained within the wall services, a premium is incurred for the additional difficulty encountered where the
finishes and reflect the dissimilar storey heights. services distribution has to be installed around downstand beams of varying sizes,
shapes, number and complexity, as are found with the Composite and Steel +
It should be noted that the elemental presentation of the finishes also distorts the Hollowcore options.
comparison slightly, with finishes to the concrete walls in the Flat Slab, PT Flat Slab and
In-situ + Hollowcore options being located within the wall finishes element, whilst Table 8.8
the finishes to the equivalent lightweight partitions used in the Composite, Steel + Mechanical and electrical services costs 350
Hollowcore and Slimdek options are located within the internal planning element.
300
Table 8.7
120
Finishes costs 250
Note
Roof finishes and fixtures 100
and fittings have been excluded
200
from the comparison being
of equal cost for all options.
£/m2
80
150
60
100
40
20 50
0
Slimdek Composite Steel + Flat Slab PT Flat Slab In-situ + 0
Hollowcore Hollowcore PT Flat Slab In-situ + Flat Slab Slimdek Steel + Composite
Ceiling finishes
Finishes costs Builders work in construction
Floor finishes Mechanical and electrical costs
£/m² %+ Lift installation
Wall finishes £/m² %+
1 Slimdek 109 Electrical installation
1 Flat Slab 338
2 Composite 110 0.9 Mechanical installation
2 In-situ + Hollowcore 338
3 Steel + Hollowcore 110 0.9 Sanitary fittings & wastes
3 PT Flat Slab 338
4 Flat Slab 111 1.8
4 Slimdek 338
5 PT Flat Slab 111 1.8
5 Composite 344 1.8
52 53
Preliminaries Contingency, overheads & profit

The budget for preliminaries for each option was based on two separate elements. A A design contingency of 7.5% has been included within the budget costs to reflect the
lump sum to allow for both non-work related aspects such as contractual requirements outline nature of the design information developed at this stage of a project. The
for insurances, employer's facilities etc., together with fixed one-off costs such as site budget costs also contain an allowance of 6% in respect of overheads and profit.
establishment, access roads, crane bases, services connection charges, etc.
Table 8.10
Separate allowances were made for time-related costs such as management and staff, site Contingency, overheads and profit 200
accommodation, services and facilities, cranage, etc. Such costs, therefore, vary according
to programme duration and the sequencing of operations within the programme. 180
160
Detailed consideration of items within the preliminaries, e.g. size of particular cranes,
was beyond the scope of this study. 140
The value drivers behind school design tend to be more orientated towards quality, 120
£/m2
security, acoustics and cost-in-use. Similarly, key programme drivers tend to be factors
100
such as the available window between school terms or years, the possible need to
decant between existing and new buildings, the ability to shut down and transfer data 80
servers, the topography of the site etc., rather than the speed of frame construction.
60
In addition, the value drivers for a school building are not generally expressed in the
40
form of commercial rent, although this may vary in PFI procurement, where a smooth
revenue stream is important. 20
Table 8.9 140 0

Preliminaries costs PT Flat Slab Steel + Flat Slab Composite In-situ + Slimdek
120
100 Overheads and profit

Contingency, overheads and profit costs
Contingency
80 £/m² %+
£/m2
1 PT Flat Slab 169

60
40 3 Flat Slab 173 2.4

4 Composite 173 2.4
20
0 6 Slimdek 182 7.7

PT Flat Slab Composite Steel + In-situ + Slimdek Flat Slab
Time-related preliminaries
Preliminaries costs
Fixed preliminaries
£/m² %+
1 PT Flat Slab 128
2 Composite 129 0.8
5 Slimdek 130 1.6
6 Flat Slab 132 3.1
54 55
9 The Concrete Centre’s comments The Concrete Centre’s comments 9
9. The Concrete Centre's comments total construction cost, minimising the cladding area represents considerable value to
the client. Smaller floor-to-floor heights have reduced cladding areas and hence lowered
Main conclusion The main comment on the study is that, for a range of structural options commonly costs. Of increasing importance is the potential benefit that a reduced cladding area has
used in the construction of schools, the most economic structural solution was found to on the building's energy use.
be the PT Flat Slab option. This produced savings of between 1.9% and 6.8% in overall
construction costs in comparison with alternative solutions. Whilst the construction

of the post-tensioned slab is more specialised than the more traditional reinforced
concrete, the method is becoming increasingly popular in the UK industry. Internal planning It should be noted that a premium is incurred on the Composite, Steel + Hollowcore
and Slimdek options in sealing and fire stopping at partition heads against the irregular
soffits of the steel decking and around non-rectangular shaped intersecting frame
members. Failure to consider this aspect at the design stage can result in expensive and
Differences in cost The main source of savings between the various options lies in the superstructure, when time-consuming remedial work late in the construction programme.
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.
Mechanical and Mechanical and electrical services represent a large proportion of the overall construction
Although preliminaries are very similar, other than time-related aspects, individual electrical services costs of the buildings, averaging 23% of the total. The design team was briefed not to
projects may have logistical difficulties, site constraints, access, adjacent buildings, etc. design the services in detail, nor to take into account any benefits associated with the
that are particular to that project and will affect the preliminaries. Such aspects are concrete frame's greater potential for fabric energy storage or lower storey heights. The
intrinsically project specific and are therefore beyond the scope of the study. only difference is the additional difficulty in installing the services distribution around
downstand beams of varying sizes, shapes, number and complexity, as found with the
There are no differences in the design or specification of the mechanical and electrical Composite and Steel + Hollowcore options.
services as a result of the structural designs selected; however, those designs involving
downstand beams of varying depth, cross-section and frequency incur a cost premium
as a result of the added complexity of installing the services around such projections. 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.
Foundations Foundations for the Steel + Hollowcore, In-situ + Hollowcore, Flat Slab and PT Flat Services installation is simplest below a flat soffit, permitting maximum off-site
Slab cost more, but account for a relatively small proportion of the overall cost, the fabrication of services, higher quality of work and quicker installation.
difference between the foundations across the options equating to less than 0.3% of
the overall costs. To a certain extent, this cost premium can be mitigated by adopting These advantages can typically produce cost-savings on initial services’ installation costs.
post-tensioned slabs, which are typically some 15% lighter than Flat Slab construction, More importantly, because they facilitate the use of pre-fabricated services equipment
resulting in a difference of between 3% and 4% in foundation costs. 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.
Frame and upper floors When considering the frame and upper floors only, the cost of Steel + Hollowcore has Flat soffits also allow greater future adaptability for building refurbishment, new layouts
been shown to be the least expensive option, followed by the PT Flat Slab. The other and cellular arrangements. In addition, different service requirements are straightforward
solutions increase in cost up to approximately 20% more for the Flat Slab and and more easily accommodated.
In-situ + Hollowcore solutions. The Slimdek option is significantly more expensive, at
approximately 76% more than the cheapest option. Whilst these benefits also exist with Slimdek, this study shows the significant cost
premium incurred with this option and how the Flat Slab and PT Flat Slab options are
the most economic ways of achieving a clear, flat soffit.
Cladding The thinner the overall structural and services zone, the lower the cladding cost. Given
that the cladding on the building in the study represents approximately 16% of the
56 57
Programmes General conclusions programmes. However, it is becoming increasingly common to use prefabrication for
The Flat Slab, PT Flat Slab and In-situ + Hollowcore options offer an advantage in lead the M&E services distribution, which can offer programme advantages when used in
times, from start of package procurement to commencement on site, over the conjunction with the open flat soffits provided by the Flat Slab, PT Flat Slab and Slimdek
Composite, Steel + Hollowcore and Slimdek options. This advantage may, however, be options. Prefabrication of sections of the M&E installations also offers advantages in
offset with these options by pre-ordering of the steel and pre-booking of fabrication subsequent maintenance and refurbishment of the building. No account is taken within
slots, provided that the risks associated with pre-ordering are fully understood, the programmes of any construction time savings resulting from such prefabrication.
appropriately apportioned and properly managed.
Construction programmes Finance costs Although the reported costings excluded the effects of finance costs, if finance costs
The programmes reflect a pragmatic contractor's approach to the construction process. were to be considered, they should not be limited to the construction period alone as,
Inevitably, different planners would produce slightly different programmes based on a in most cases, finance costs also affect the procurement and lead times.
considerable number of variable factors. Overall project programmes are highly
influenced by the procurement route and type of contract adopted, and alternative It is not possible to examine the entire project from inception to completion, as the
procurement approaches such as construction management or design and build would duration prior to the commencement of procurement cannot be defined on a generic
no doubt produce different results. For example, construction management and design basis. However, consideration of the periods that have been identified in the programmes
and build approaches lend themselves to concrete construction, where the ability to for procurement, lead time and construction would produce the following comparison
accommodate late information and variations are particularly beneficial, as the work (see Table 9.1), assuming a rate of 7.75% p.a. (base rate + 2%) and comparing the
can be let before the design of following packages has been finalised. Table 9.1 programme saving against the shortest overall construction time, the PT Flat Slab option.
Comparison of finance costs
The programmes prepared for this study reflect one procurement approach but, in PT Flat Slab Steel + Flat Slab Composite In-situ + Slimdek
practice, contractors are more likely to programme to a pre-set completion date. This Hollowcore Hollowcore
will reflect their knowledge of the type of contract, their projected costs, the risk profile Construction cost £1,459 £1,487 £1,488 £1,489 £1,500 £1,588
in £/m²
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
Overall programme 83 89 83 88 85 89
in play at the time of the project. in weeks
A practical view had to be taken of such factors as logistics, site access, boundary Extra/saving (+/-) £0 +£4 £0 +£3 +£1 +£4
constraints, cranage, etc., which are essentially site-specific. It could be argued that the in finance costs @
7.75% p.a.
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 Adjusted construction £1,459 £1,491 £1,488 £1,492 £1,501 £1,562
cost in £/m²
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 This comparison takes no account of differences in cumulative finance costs arising
intumescent coatings have removed fireproofing from the critical path altogether. from the different cash flow profiles experienced with the differing forms of
However, although not on the critical path, the fireproofing activity requires a greater construction. For example, the Composite, Steel + Hollowcore and Slimdek options
level of detailing and causes disruption that can adversely affect other trades, e.g. require greater expenditure early on than the Flat Slab, PT Flat Slab and In-situ +
difficulties caused by fixings penetrating through fire-proofing and the resulting damage Hollowcore options, where the 'pay as you pour' principle works in the client's favour. A
needing rectification. 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.
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.
Acoustics Acoustic requirements are an important part of the design, with intrusive noise
The durations of first fix, second fix and M&E installations are essentially the same, pollution, both within the building and into and out of the building, and the require-
with slight differences in phasing appearing to make little difference to the overall ment for natural ventilation being key environmental priorities. Evidence indicates that
58 59
high background noise, generated outside the classroom, or magnified sound from Fire With more than 2,000 schools in the UK each year suffering fires large enough to need
inside the space, causes stress and reduced performance for both teachers and pupils. action by local fire brigades, fire resistance is an important issue, both in design and
constructability. Fire proofing to steel construction generally consists of one or more
Factors to consider are the need for mass to reduce impact noise between floors and separate trades following on after the steel frame has been erected, either using
the complexity of detailing. intumescent coatings or fire-resistant boarding. Concrete is inherently fire resistant and
normally requires no added fire protection.

Concrete's mass and damping qualities meet the required BB93 acoustic performance
and contribute to a productive environment, isolated from the noise and vibrations Detailing at the heads of partitions is an area where proper fireproofing can be difficult
from floor to floor. to achieve in a simple manner, with the junction of the vertical and horizontal structure
often combining with services perforations through partitions.
Concrete achieves the required acoustic performance with a minimum of extra acoustic
finishes. To meet the robust finishes demanded by a heavily used educational With both concrete flat slabs and right-angled concrete downstand beams, an effective
environment, as well as to exploit the performance of the thermal mass, the tendency detail is generally easy to design and construct in such cases. With profiled metal
can be to lean towards many hard interior finishes. It should be borne in mind that the decking and steel beams, the detailing tends to be more complex, particularly with
requirements for acoustic absorption within teaching spaces can conflict with using the primary and secondary steel beams being of different profiles, and can lead to
benefits of thermal mass through fabric energy storage. buildability and re-work problems later in the programme.
Also of importance is the re-usability of the structure after a fire. A concrete structure
generally can be repaired and re-used, whereas a steel structure will usually require
Flexibility Flexibility and adaptability are essential design requirements for any school, with re-building. The choice of building material is a factor in insurance companies' fire risk
classroom size a key consideration. In the short term, flexibility is needed to rearrange assessments, which recognise the inherent performance of the building material in the
the teaching environment to suit different activities. Short-term flexibility can be event of a fire and which can have a consequent effect on insurance premiums.
achieved by movable partitions, although in many cases the tendency is for teachers
and pupils to move to a larger space rather than modify an existing space.
In the longer term, adaptability is needed over the life of the school to allow internal Cost in use There are several areas where cost in use benefits arise, such as:
walls to be moved, to change the size or use of spaces or suites of spaces.
Adaptability may require the school to be built in large, long structural sections of, I Increased durability of the structure resulting in lower repair and replacement costs.
I Using a painted finish directly onto the structure reducing repair and maintenance
say, three 60m2 classrooms that can be changed to one of 60m2 and one of 120m2. It
should be recognised that such adaptation tends to be carried out as part of a major
costs.
re-orientation of space within a school, involving a significant degree of work to
the building fabric, whichever structural form has been selected for the initial I Operational energy savings arising from the use of concrete's thermal mass, which
construction. represent an additional benefit over and above insulation U-values and result in lower
repair and maintenance costs for mechanical plant.
There is usually a cost associated with providing a structure that will permit the
greatest flexibility and adaptability, without compromising durability, maintainability The combination of solar shading and the use of concrete's thermal mass and night
and cost-in-use, and whilst also meeting acoustic and fire requirements. cooling characteristic was the most popular strategy used by BSF's Exemplar School
Design teams to avoid summertime overheating. Utilising the inherent thermal mass
With steel construction, infill partitions are generally based on a demountable stud of concrete enables cooling to be provided by the fabric of the school building.
system which, whilst offering flexibility, can be less resistant to everyday wear and tear Designers incorporated the thermal mass as precast concrete hollowcore floors or cast
and vandalism, with consequential effects on maintenance and cost-in-use. in-situ concrete.
A construction method using concrete walls offers a more durable form of construction
and can often be simply painted, without a need for plaster finishes, giving both initial
cost and whole-life cost benefits, with reduced repair cost, disruption and maintenance Sustainability Sustainability, an issue of ever-growing importance, is increasingly being embedded into
downtime. building regulations and client demands.
60 61
9 The Concrete Centre’s comments
To ensure maximum sustainability for the school project, a wide range of factors,
including site security, community use and access and inclusion, should be considered
alongside better-known environmental factors such as energy efficiency and waste
minimisation.
To be truly sustainable, the economic assessment of any school design needs to be

based on whole-life financial and environmental costs. It is important to note that the
environmental impacts from buildings come mainly from their use: i.e. heating, cooling
and lighting. These impacts are typically five to ten times more than the impacts from
the structure's construction materials.
Exploiting thermal mass to reduce the 'in-use' costs of a school building gives a large
sustainability benefit.
62 63
10 Appendix Appendix A 10
10. Appendix A – Detailed programmes

Table 10.1
Cost Model Study: Summary Programme
Oct November December January February March April May June July August October November December January February March April May June July August S
Line Name Duration 16 30 13 27 11 25 8 22 5 19 5 19 2 16 30 14 28 11 25 9 23 6 20 3 17 1 15 29 12 26 10 24 7 21 4 18 3 17 31 14 28 12 26 9 23 7 21 4 18 1
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69
PT Flat Slab
1 Frame Duration - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building 8w 1 1
2 Frame Duration - Sports, Arts and Science & Technology Building 5w 2 2
3 Overall Duration 83w 3 3
Composite
In situ + Hollowcore
Steel + Hollowcore
Slimdek
Flat Slab
Periods
Frame Duration Procurement Contractor Lead in Period Construction
Date June 2006 Author - AA Programme No:Summary/01
Client The Concrete Centre
Revision comments: Updated June 2006
Project School Buildings - Cost Model Study Notes
Programme Summary Programme
64 65
10 Appendix A Appendix A 10
Table 10.2 April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August Sep
Cost Model Study: Option 1 - Flat Slab Line Name Duration 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 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 69 70
1 Mobilisation/Site Establishment 10d +1 1
+
Substructure Works - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building
2 Construction foundation 6w 2 2
3 Underslab drainage & service ducts 6w 3 3
4 Stub columns and walls 4w 4 4

5 Construct ground floor slab 5w 5 5
6 Substructure Works - Sports, Arts and Science & Technology Building 65d +6 6
+
Superstructure - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building
7 Concrete columns and walls to 1st floor 4w 7 7
8 1st Floor slab 6w 8 8
9 Columns and walls 1st to 2nd floor 5w 9 9
10 2nd floor slab 5w 10 10
11 Columns & Walls to Roof 3w 11 11
12 Roof structure 6w 12 12
13 Roof Finishes 8w 13 13
Superstructure - Sports, Arts and Science & Technology Building

14 Concrete columns and walls to 1st floor 4w 14 14
15 1st Floor slab 6w 15 15
16 Columns and walls 1st to Roof 5w 16 16
19 Building Envelope - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building 80d 19

+ 19
+
Building Envelope - Sports, Arts and Science & Technology Building
20 Cladding North Elevation 8w 20 20
21 Cladding South Elevation 8w 21 21
22 Cladding East Elevation 4w 22 22
23 Cladding West Elevation 4w 23 23
Covered Courtyard
24 Roof Structure 8w 24 24
26 Cladding Works to covered court yard 7w 26 26
Key Milestones
27 Roof Watertight - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building 27 27
28 Roof watertight - Sports & Arts and Science Technology 28 28
29 Roof watertight - Covered Courtyard 29 29
Ground Floor Finishes - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building

30 Blockwork to underside of services 9w 30 30
31 H/L M&E services 1st fix 9w 31 31
32 Complete blockwork to full height 8w 32 32
33 Plaster/render/floor screed 8w 33 33
34 ME Services 2nd Fix (including cabling) 8w 34 34
35 Ceilings 8w 35 35
36 Floor Finishes 7w 36 36
37 Fixed Furniture 7w 37 37
38 Finals 7w 38 385d
39 First Floor Finishes - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building 145d 39

+ 39
+ 10d15d
40 Second Floor - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building 140d 40

+ 40
+
Ground Floor Finishes - Sports, Arts and Science & Technology Building
49 Finals 7w 49 49 20d
50 First Floor Finishes -Sports, Arts and Science & Technology Building 115d 50
+ 50
+ 10d
51 Commissioning and Witness Testing 55d 51

+ 51
+
10d
52 External Works 90d 52
+ 52
+
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 69 70
Line Name Duration 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1
April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August Sep
Date June 2006 Author - AA Programme No:Option 1/01
Programme Option 1 - Flat Slab
66 67
10 Appendix A Appendix A 10
Table 10.3 April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August
Cost Model Study: Option 4 - Composite Line Name Duration 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11
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
1 Mobilisation/Site Establishment 10d +1 1
+
Substructure Works - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building
2 Construction foundation 6w 2 2
3 Underslab drainage & service ducts 5w 3 3

4 Construct ground floor slab 4w 4 4
5 Substructure Works - Sports, Arts and Science & Technology Building 55d +5 5
+
Superstructure - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building
6 Structural Steel 4w 6 6
7 Metal decking 2w 7 7
8 Structural topping 2w 8 8
Superstructure -Sports, Arts and Science & Technology Building

11 Structural Steel 3w 11 11
12 Metal decking 2w 12 12
13 Structural topping 2w 13 13
16 Building Envelope - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building 80d 16

+ 16
+
Building Envelope - Sports, Arts and Science & Technology Building
17 Cladding North Elevation 8w 17 17
18 Cladding South Elevation 8w 18 18
19 Cladding East Elevation 4w 19 19
20 Cladding West Elevation 4w 20 20
Covered Courtyard
21 Roof Structure 8w 21 21
23 Cladding Works to covered court yard 7w 23 23
Key Milestones
24 Roof Watertight - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building 24 24
25 Roof watertight - Sports & Arts and Science Technology 25 25
26 Roof watertight - Covered Courtyard 26 26
Ground Floor Finishes - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building

35 Finals 7w 35 355d
36 First Floor Finishes - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building 145d 36

+ 36
+ 10d15d
37 Second Floor - Faculty & Admin/LRC Building 140d 37

+ 37
+
Ground Floor Finishes - Sports, Arts and Science & Technology Building
46 Finals 7w 46 46 20d
47 First Floor Finishes - Sports, Arts and Science & Technology Building 115d 47
+ 47 10d
+
48 Commissioning and Witness Testing 55d 48
+ 48
+
10d
49 External Works 90d 49
+ 49
+
12 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
Line Name Duration 16
23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11
April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August
Date June 2006 Author - AA Programme No:Option 4/01
Programme Option 4 - Composite
68 69
11 Appendix B Appendix B 11
11. Appendix B – Design criteria Design criteria Reason for criteria

6 An additional pedestrian and cycle access point is With large school sites, it is common to find several
situated on the southern boundary of the site pedestrian access routes onto the site, each of which
Adopted criteria: Site The information in Table 11.1 (below) provides the site selection criteria that have been and would be heavily used by children coming to has an increased security implication.
adopted for the design for the typical school. These are selected as being typical of and from school from the direction of the town
selection centre.
many urban and suburban sites that a design team may be presented with. However,
this is not an exhaustive list, with other more specific design criteria being applied to 7 The site is predominantly flat. A rise of 2.5m All sites will impose their own characteristics on an
occurs in the form of an embankment between approach to the design of a school. A slope of some
specific sites and specialised school briefs.
the existing primary school and the playing fields type can be assumed on most sites due to the scale of
beyond. the sites on which most schools are located.
The Table has been split into two sections: This gradient may be higher or lower, depending on the
location of the site selected.
I Design Criteria: These act as an outline brief for the building, setting the key issues
8 Ground conditions are known to be good, posing Many schools located on brownfield sites, which have
which would be presented by the site, the client and the buildings program. no restriction on the choice of foundation type. not been previously used for education, may have issues
I Reason for Criteria: This provides a brief explanation as to why each criterion
with ground conditions. These could vary from old
quarry sites to clay and sand seams. Good ground
has been selected to represent the brief of a typical school. conditions are assumed, as this is a variable with too
many permutations to model accurately.
Table 11.1 Design criteria Reason for criteria

Adopted site criteria for typical school
and relevant design guidance 1 A brownfield site on the edge of a suburban Many of the secondary schools to be built over the
development. next 10 years are part of the Government’s Building
Schools for the Future (BSF) initiative. This is a Adopted criteria: Design The information in Table 11.2 which follows provides the design criteria of assumed
The site for the school is presently home to a school and client needs which would impose specific design requirements on a typical
programme to tackle the under investment in schools
primary school. This school has been relocated to
over recent years.
requirements
another site with a new purpose-built building. school, mapped out alongside present legislation and design guidance.
These new schools will be located on sites already
The site is of a generous size and it is possible to
occupied by a school, which often have buildings which
accommodate all sports facilities on-site. The
have come to the end of their life-cycle. The new
However, this is not an exhaustive list, with other more specific design criteria being
construction of a new secondary school is part of
school will often directly replace that school or merge applied to schools which require a larger or smaller facility, or which have a more
the educational development plan for the Local
two or more schools together. particular pastoral or educational ethos.
Education Authority (LEA).
2 The site is surrounded on its north, south and Many of the secondary schools, which were built in the
west sides by a mix of housing comprising semi- 1950’s through to the 1970’s, were sited in suburban The following Table has been split into the same two sections set out in Table 11.1
and detached dwellings with rear gardens, which locations, in response to continued post-war population opposite.
overlook the site. growth in these areas.
These sites were often located on the edge of towns
and villages, which have since grown to enclose the
schools in a built-up area.
3 The north and east sides of the site are edged Many existing school sites have mature trees on their
with mature trees, comprising oak, ash, sycamore boundaries. These may be subject to tree protection
and chestnut. No trees are located within the orders or retained for their aesthetic value. Mature trees
site, apart from those on the boundary. can, however, have a significant impact on a design
with regard to the building’s location and the impact of
possible undesired shading.
4 A mainline railway lies along the east edge of the Schools are often situated near busy main roads.
site. This is subject to frequent rail traffic However, larger trunk roads, motorways and railway
throughout the day. The line is situated on an lines can be a source of sound pollution.
elevated embankment.
The acoustic requirements of classroom design are very
To the west of the site lies a main road, which high, with the disturbance from noise pollution created
conveys traffic into and out of the nearby town. by cars, trains and aeroplanes needing to be minimised.
5 There is a single access point to the site for all A single vehicular access is a common arrangement,
vehicular traffic at the northwest corner of the particularly in a built-up area. This often sets some of
site. the parameters in terms of siting the building. It also
highlights any possible issues that may be connected
with delivery, emergency and drop-off vehicle access.
70 71
11 Appendix B Appendix B 11
Table 11.2 Design criteria Reason for criteria Design criteria Reason for criteria
Design criteria – assumed school and
client needs 1 A secondary school of 1,250 pupils with a sixth This would represent the typical size of most secondary 8 Parking must be accommodated for both public Car parking provision is an important aspect of planning
form of 150 students. schools being built at present. There are many variations use and staff use on-site, as well as a drop-off the school’s site layout and the subsequent effect
in scale, with some schools accommodating in excess area for general pupil drop-off and also disabled on the location of the building, taking into account
of 1,600 pupils, as well as larger scale city academies student drop-off close to the main entrance. criterion number 4 above.
accommodating these numbers.
9 In line with present research and understanding Providing natural ventilation throughout a school, as
These are often scaled-up variations of one of the of the environmental design of a classroom, well as passive heating and cooling opportunities, are
standard model typologies: ‘Street’, ‘Campus’ and which affect children's learning, all teaching proven to increase alertness and productivity of pupils,
‘Courtyard’. spaces, theatres and sports halls are to be These are seen as ‘environmental / sustainable’ design
naturally ventilated. Where at all possible, these issues. However, unlike solar water heaters or PVs,
2 The school is a specialist ‘Business and Enterprise’ Schools are now applying for ‘specialist school status’ in spaces are also to use passive solar heating and these three strategies must be built into the physical
school. Subjects such as maths, business studies, some capacity. This provides the school with an extra thermal cooling. This strategy results in greatly fabric of the building. The opportunity to look at the
ICT and economics are bought together to stream of income (capital expenditure for the primary reduced capital and maintenance costs of issue of providing natural ventilation within a three-
form this core specialisation. Although this is specialisation only), as well as an increase in awareness services, as well as reduced ongoing energy costs. storey building also offers the chance to test a model
the school’s primary specialisation, it is also a and value within the wider community. which is often excluded or overlooked. These are rapidly
specialist sports school. becoming very important design criteria.
Additional specialisations can be applied for. However,
they may not bring the same financial benefit.
10 External sports provision, with a mix of hard and Schools require large amounts of land for the provision
soft surfaces, forms a crucial part of the school’s of both formal and informal play.
3 The school will share some of its sports facilities Part of achieving specialist status requires schools to
arrangement, due to the specialist nature of the
with the new local primary school and other build links with the local community. Also, Building The formal provision is highlighted by the requirements
school.
schools, as part of their remit as a specialist Bulletin 95 ‘Designing for Learning Communities’, to deliver a physical education curriculum.
sports school within the LEA. Part of this remit is highlights the important position which schools hold
the forging of, and supporting links with, other within communities. The size and location of playing-fields for sports such as
educational institutions. football, rugby and other athletic activities can present
The integration of community-wide services such as limitations for the siting of the building.
The school’s ‘Learning Resource Centre’, Youth Centre’s ‘SureStart’ (family and child healthcare
comprising ICT and library facilities, supports etc.) and other media facilities is becoming more 11 Other factors which relate to the constructional There are many issues relating to material choice that
business and enterprise and will also be open to common and encouraged by Government policy. form of the building must be considered in the may affect the whole-life costing of a building and
the public at times. development of the design, such as the impact therefore affect the building’s BREEAM rating. This can
of structure and materials on fire prevention. also impact on the ability to insure a school building.
4 Security is a concern with regard to both the mix School security is always a high priority, not only within
of uses within the school and public access. the building itself, but also within the site. The fire resistance of the building structure can also
have a significant effect on both the cost and the visual
Measures would need to be taken to ensure Security issues can play a part in defining the siting of a appearance of the building.
security for the pupils and the school buildings, building, its height and the robustness of the materials
as well as the houses which adjoin the site. used in respect of vandal protection. The structure adopted greatly affects and influences
issues relating to the fire and spatial strategies on which
5 The school favours a hybrid type of building This is the most common model of school the school design is founded.
arrangement, combining a courtyard and street development at present. The form of plan is scaleable
The use of large internal open areas to connect
typology. This is in response to the need for in mind of future expansion and size of institution. A
circulation areas may require sprinkler use. There are
external covered play space (not-heated), which hybrid model is being used by both secondary schools
also cost implications with regard to different fire
can be used in bad weather, as well as the wish and larger city academies.
strategies being adopted.
to have a main central space (heated), which can
hold the whole school in a single gathering space
for dining and large group activities. 12 Due to the built-up nature of the site, acoustic The acoustic requirements form an area of considerable
requirements will be an important aspect of the debate, as the acoustic performance can have a
6 The school follows a strong pastoral ethos and The way in which a school is managed and the teaching design. dramatic effect on the design and performance of a
educational pedagogy. The establishment of practices it adopts will have a fundamental effect on school building and consequently on the effectiveness
Intrusive noise pollution, both into the school
educational faculties represents this. These the planning of the building, the way spaces are to of the learning process.
from adjacent sources such as passing rail and
faculties define the teaching aspects of the be used and the location and proximity of different road traffic, as well as from the school to local
school. functions to each other. houses, is a priority when considering the need to
Each faculty contains several subjects, which join naturally ventilate the building within its context.
together to deliver a strong inter-related model
of education, such as maths and ICT with
business, economic and enterprise studies, or 13 Scale Local planning issues may limit the height of school
English with French, German and other languages building, and its massing.
in a combined language faculty.
14 Access issues The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) imposes design
requirements upon the building in relation to access.
7 A mix of two- and three-storey accommodation Due to the spatial requirements of most secondary
has been agreed on. schools of this size, a single storey building would be In dealing with a three-storey building, all levels of the
both uneconomical and unfeasible, with long circulation school must be accessed in a manner which does not
routes. A mixture of two- and three-storey spaces disadvantage disabled users.
allows more economical use of the site and can be
beneficial in creating interesting internal environments
spatially.
72 73
11 Appendix B
Relevant Guidance
Official documentation and related documents which outline the requirements
or design issues in relation to the design are listed below, together with contact
references:
I Building Bulletin 98: Briefing Framework for Secondary Schools

I Building Bulletin 98: Acoustic Design of Schools

I Building Bulletin 98/99
I BREEAM for Schools, BRE
I Building Bulletin 87/90: Environmental Design Guidance
I Building Bulletin 7: Fire and the design of educational buildings
I Building Bulletin 101: Ventilating Buildings
I Building Bulletin 87/90: Environmental Design Guidelines
I Building Regulations: Parts E & L, DCLG, www.planningportal.gov.uk
I Building Bulletin 93: Acoustic Design of Schools
I Secured by Design for Schools 2005, www.securedbydesign.com/pdfs/schools.pdf
I DQI for Schools information, www.dqi.org.uk/schools
I Protection of School Playing Fields:
Section 77 Schools Standards & Framework Act 1998
DfEE Circular No. 3/99 June 1999, www.dfes.gov.uk
I Town & Country Planning Act 1990
I Local planning restrictions
I Teachernet/DfES publications and Building Bulletins are available at
www.teachernet.gov.uk
For further information contact:
www.nbseducator.co.uk
www.teachernet.gov.uk/schoolbuildings
www.teachernet.gov.uk/schoolsandproperty
www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk
www.teachernet.gov.uk/sbareaguidelines
www.sportengland.org
74
CI/Sfb
UDC
624.94.04.003
Cost Model Study – School 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 school buildings.
for construction of a typical secondary school. Six floor
design options were evaluated, budget costings were assigned For more information visit
to all elements of construction and adjustments were made www.concretecentre.com/publications
to reflect time-related costs attributable to differences in the
construction programme.
The publication outlines the analysis, the detailed costings and

programme for each structural alternative, and provides a useful
resource for architects, engineers and contractors involved with
evaluating the cost competitiveness of structural options for school
buildings. The publication also includes relevant design information
that can contribute to meeting the diverse needs of a modern
education system.
CCIP-011
Published January 2008
ISBN 1-904818-60-1
Price Group P
© The Concrete Centre
Riverside House, 4 Meadows Business Park,

Station Approach, Blackwater, Camberley, Surrey GU17 9AB
Tel: +44 (0)1276 606800
www.concretecentre.com

Cost Model Study - School Building PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Cost Model Study - School Building PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Licensed copy from CIS: aktii@akt-uk.com, AKT II Limited, 13/01/2018, Uncontrolled Copy.

A single copy of this document is licensed to

This is an uncontrolled copy. Ensure use of the

Cost Model Study –

A report commissioned by The Concrete Centre

Arup – Structural Design

Davis Langdon LLP – Quantity Surveying

10. Appendix A – Detailed programmes 64

11. Appendix B – Design criteria 70

Published by The Concrete Centre

CCIP publications are available from the Concrete Bookshop at www.concretebookshop.com

Front cover: Jersey College, Jersey. Acknowledgement Architecture plb

2. Introduction 3. Method of study

4. Brief Figure 4.1

Environmental Design & Sustainability

Schools for the Future: Designs for Learning Communities

Statutory Framework: a summary of statutory legislation which affects school design

The Construction (Design and

Health & Safety Regulations

Adopted criteria: site selection 5. Design criteria and specifications

Access area/breakout space Service rooms Offices and admin

Shared teaching resource Sports and dance Assembly hall

General teaching rooms

Access area/breakout space

Shared teaching resource

Social and dining area

Sports and dance

Offices and admin

Science Prep Room

Science Lab Science Lab Science Lab void

Music Room Music Room void

Science Classroom Science Classroom

Music Dept Base Music Store

Glass covered opening

General teaching rooms

Access area/breakout space

Learning resource centre

Sports and dance

Offices and admin

Architectural Plans and elevations

Reception and administration areas

Sports & Arts

Learning resource centre (LRC)

Lightweight coloured pre-fabricated cladding panels, together with external solar

Specialist teaching classrooms

Assembly, drama and sports halls

Kitchen and dining facilities

External play spaces including hard and soft landscape

initial construction and in subsequent remedial work. Fire rating 1 hr

Table 5.2 Architectural

Toilets Moisture resistant vinyl-emulsion paint to all surfaces.

Finishes Balustrade Painted mild-steel posts.

200mm RC Shear wall

139.7 x 3.2 CHS

139.7 x 3.2 CHS

139.7 x 3.2 CHS

139.7 x 3.2 CHS

139.7 x 3.2 CHS

139.7 x 3.2 CHS

139.7 x 3.2 CHS

139.7 x 3.2 CHS

139.7 x 3.2 CHS

139.7 x 3.2 CHS