TALL BUILDINGS IN KUALA LUMPUR
- STEEL, CONCRETE OR BOTH?
Dr. Juneid Qureshi, Director, Meinhardt Singapore Pte. Ltd.
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
Kuala Lumpur
AGENDA
01
The need for
Productivity
02
Key
Considerations
in the design of
Tall Buildings
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
l
l
a
03
04
T
t in
Comparison of n
Key Issues
a
t
i & Concrete
Material Choice
o Steel
b
l
for Tall Buildings
Construction
i
a
c
Globally
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
05
an
Cost Comparison
of a Concrete &
Composite Tall
Building
06
Concluding
Remarks
TALL BUILDINGS
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
s
g
in
STRUCTURAL DESIGN CHALLENGES FOR TALL BUILDINGS
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
s
g
in
Others?
Construction Constraints
Architectural Vision
Developers Requirements
Structural Needs
TALL BUILDINGS KEY CHALLENGES
Key Design Challenges
 Efficient structural framing systems
 Drift control
 Dynamic behavior
d
l
i
u
B
ll
Foundation settlements
a
T at
n
t
Wind & Seismic Engineering
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
Parametric Modeling & Optimization
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
 Differential shortening between vertical elements



s
g
in
Source: CTBUH
TALL BUILDINGS MATERIAL SELECTION
Steel or Concrete or Both?
 There is no universal answer.
 The choice is dictated by several considerations such as
 design requirements
 building’s needs
 industry know-how
 market rates and conditions

d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
Experience is one of the best guides
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
s
g
in
TALLEST BUILDINGS LOCATION
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
Courtesy CTBUH
TALLEST BUILDINGS FUNCTION
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
Courtesy CTBUH
TALLEST BUILDINGS MATERIAL
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
Courtesy CTBUH
TALLEST BUILDINGS USA
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
One World Trade
Centre, 541.3m, 2014,
COMPOSITE
Willis Tower,
442m, 108flrs, 1974,
STEEL
432 Park Avenue,
425.5m, 85flrs, 2015,
CONCRETE
Trump Tower, 423.2m,
98flrs, 2009,
CONCRETE
Empire State Building,
381m, 102flrs, 1931,
STEEL
Bank of America Tower,
365.8m, 55flrs, 2009,
COMPOSITE
Aon Centre,
346.3m, 83flrs, 1973,
STEEL
John Hancock Centre,
343.7m, 100flrs, 1969,
STEEL
Chrysler Building,
318.9m, 77flrs, 1930,
STEEL
New York Times Tower,
318.8m, 52flrs, 2007,
STEEL
TALLEST BUILDINGS CHINA
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
Shanghai Tower,
632m, 128flrs, 2015,
COMPOSITE
Shanghai WFC,
492m, 101flrs, 2008,
COMPOSITE
International Commerce
Centre, 484m, 2010,
COMPOSITE
Zifeng Tower,
450m, 66flrs, 2010,
COMPOSITE
KK100,
441.8m, 100flrs, 2011,
COMPOSITE
Guangzhou IFC, 438.6m,
103flrs, 2010,
COMPOSITE
Jin Mao Tower,
420.5m, 88flrs, 1999,
COMPOSITE
Hong Kong Two IFC,
412m, 88flrs, 2003,
COMPOSITE
CITIC Plaza,
390.2m, 80flrs, 1996,
CONCRETE
Shun Hing Square,
384m, 69flrs, 1996,
COMPOSITE
TALLEST BUILDINGS EUROPE
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
OKO Tower, Moscow,
353.6m, 2015,
CONCRETE
Mercury City Tower,
Moscow, 338.8m, 2013,
CONCRETE
Stalnaya Vershina,
Moscow, 308.9m, 2015,
COMPOSITE
The Shard, London,
306m, 73flrs, Yr2013,
COMPOSITE
Capital City tower,
Moscow, 301.8m, 2010,
CONCRETE
Naberezhnaya Tower,
Moscow, 268.4m, 2007,
COMPOSITE
Triumph Palace,
Moscow, 264.1m, 2005,
CONCRETE
Sapphire Tower,
Istanbul, 261m, 2010,
CONCRETE
Commerzbank Tower,
Frankfurt, 259m, 1997,
COMPOSITE
Capital City Tower,
Moscow, 257.2m,2010,
CONCRETE
TALLEST BUILDINGS UAE
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
Burj Khalifa, Dubai,
828m, 163flrs, 2010,
STEEL / CONCRETE
Princess Tower, Dubai ,
413.4m, 101flrs, 2012,
STEEL / CONCRETE
23 Marina, Dubai,
392.4m, 88flrs, 2012,
CONCRETE
Elite Residence, Dubai ,
380.5m, 87flrs, 2012,
CONCRETE
Almas Tower, Dubai,
360m, 68flrs, 2008,
CONCRETE
JW Marriott Dubai,
355.4m, 82flrs, 2012/13,
CONCRETE
Emirates Tower 1,
Dubai, 354.6m, 2000,
COMPOSITE
The Torch, Dubai,
352m, 86flrs, 2011,
CONCRETE
Rose Rayhaan, Dubai ,
333m, 71flrs, 2007,
COMPOSITE
Al Yaqoub Tower,
Dubai, 328m, 2013,
CONCRETE
TALLEST BUILDINGS SINGAPORE
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
UOB Bank Plaza One,
280m, 66flrs, 1992,
STEEL
OUB Centre,
277.8m, 63flrs, 1986,
STEEL
Republic Plaza,
276.3m, 66flrs, 1996
COMPOSITE
Capital Tower,
255.4m, 52flrs, 2000,
COMPOSITE
Skysuites @ Anson,
250m, 2014,
CONCRETE
Altez @ Enggor St.,
250m, 62flrs, 2014,
CONCRETE
The Sail @ Marina Bay,
245m, 70flrs, 2008,
CONCRETE
MBFC Office Tower II,
245m, 50flrs, 2010,
CONCRETE
ORQ North Tower,
245m, 50flrs, 2006,
COMPOSITE
Ocean Financial Centre,
245m, 43flrs, 2011,
CONCRETE
TALLEST BUILDINGS MATERIAL
Reasons for this trend?
 Concrete is perceived to be cheaper than steel
 Developing countries have more concrete technological expertise than steel


s
g
n use of concrete
More tall residential and mixed-use developments favor some
i
d
il
u
B
Increased performance requirement can be better
addressed
by composite
l
l
construction rather than one material aloneTa
t
a
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
STEEL OR CONCRETE KEY ISSUES
Concrete
Steel
Floor Construction, Spans & Services Integration
Range of floor types – beam &
slab, flat slab, ribbed, banded,
coffered with options for insitu, pre-cast, RC and PT.
Generally uni-directionally spanning
steel beams with concrete slabs on
metal decks acting compositely.
s
g
in
Raffles Link,
d One
l
i
u Singapore
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i cell-form,atruss-girder
Castellated,
c
PT Banded Beams can span
H
n
construction
can
span
even longer
u
n
economically up to around
o
a
C& allowsrbintegration of building
16m.
© services
within the structure to
U
d floor to floor depths.
minimize
n
a
Rolled Sections are generally most
For short to moderate spans of economical for spans up to 15m.
up to 10m, possible to achieve Fabricated sections can span
very shallow floors with PT flat economically up to 25m.
plates.
STEEL OR CONCRETE KEY ISSUES
Steel
Concrete
Columns
Generally much larger than
steel or composite columns.
Much smaller column sizes possible.
CFT’s allow smaller column size &
reduced labour & construction time
due to simplified connections and
elimination of formwork
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
SRC columns offer flexibility
n
t
i
o
a) large steel
section tob
maximize
l
i or a
c
capacity,
Hfor erection only
n section
u
b)
nominal
n
Co rba
© dU
an
s
g
in
STEEL OR CONCRETE KEY ISSUES
Concrete
Steel
Seismic Loads
Concrete buildings are heavier
thereby attracting higher
seismic loads,
Lower seismic forces due to lesser
mass.
Steel is also more ductile which is
beneficial for seismic force
resistance.
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
s
g
in
STEEL OR CONCRETE KEY ISSUES
Concrete
Steel
Lateral Load Resistance
Concrete buildings generally
provide better lateral stiffness
& coupled with the extra
damping (mass) provides
better dynamic performance.
The lower lateral stiffness of steel
construction is one of the reasons
for adoption of composite tall
buildings utilizing a concrete core
with steel floor framing.
d
l
i
u
B
lltaller
Outriggers are addeda
for
T stability
buildings for enhanced
&
t
a
n
t
stiffness.
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
s
g
in
NDIA, Doha
STEEL OR CONCRETE KEY ISSUES
Concrete
Steel
Foundations
Concrete buildings are heavier
& therefore require larger
foundations.
Foundations can be lighter by 30%
to 40% lighter.
This is a significant advantage in
poor soil conditions or to protect
existing below ground structures.
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
Transfer Structures
H
n
u strength-to-area
n
o
The low strength-to-area ratio Higher
ratio
a
C
b
r the preferred choice
and low shear strength is a©
makes steel
U
significant disadvantage.
for
d transfer structures.
n
a
One Raffles Quay, Singapore
STEEL OR CONCRETE KEY ISSUES
Concrete
Steel
Deflections
Variable material properties &
time dependent creep &
shrinkage effects make precise
deflection predictions difficult.
No time dependent change in
properties making long term
movement control simpler.
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
Vibrations
H
n
u aframed
n construction
o
The mass of concrete
Lighter steel
C needs torbbe designed specifically to
construction generally
© limit
U
mitigates vibration concerns
vibration.
d
except for very long spans.
an
s
g
in
Dynamic
property
Floor
response
Dynamic
property
Signature Towers, Dubai
Floor
response
STEEL OR CONCRETE KEY ISSUES
Concrete
Steel
Fire Protection
Provides inherent fire
resistance.
Bare steel has low fire resistance.
Conventional protection provided
by intumescent paint, spray
coatings or wrappings. CFT’s allow
moderate fire resistance without
protection.
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
Standardization
l
i
afor economy
c
H
n
Buildable design & detailing
Standardisation
is
key
u Particularly
n
o
helps but is less critical than
and speed.a
in selection
C
b
steel construction.
© ofd element
Ur types and connections.
an
s
g
in
With enhanced detailing,
resistance in excess of four
hours can be achieved.
STEEL OR CONCRETE KEY ISSUES
Concrete
Steel
Adaptability
The continuous nature of
concrete makes it more
challenging to modify or
strengthen.
Discrete nature facilitates removal,
additions or strengthening.
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
Propping during Construction
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
s
g
in
In-situ concrete requires propping
constraining fast erection. Precast
concrete can eliminate this
constraint.
No propping required with secondary
beams spaced to suit metal deck
spanning capability.
NDIA, Doha
STEEL OR CONCRETE KEY ISSUES
Concrete
Steel
Construction Accuracy
Less accurate because of onsite activities.
More accurate due to off-site
controlled manufacturing.
d
l
i
u
B
Sustainability
ll
a
The difference of embodied
Steel has the addedT
benefit oft
a and
n
t
i
o
CO2 of concrete & steel
having potential
to
be
reused
b
il
buildings is insignificant
recycledcrepeatedly, a
n nH
u
compared to a building’s
o ba
operational CO2 emissions. C
© d Ur
an
s
g
in
Late Changes
More amenable to late
changes.
Changes are disruptive.
STEEL OR CONCRETE KEY ISSUES
Steel
Concrete
Speed
Requires less lead-in time
(superficial attraction)
Requires greater lead-in time &
fabrication speed is important.
Is labour-intensive.
Higher potential for faster
construction due to
prefabrication.
Cost
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
s
g
in
One Raffles Quay, Singapore
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
Building Description
GFA:
85,000 m2
Height:
130m
No. of Floors:
30
Typ. Floor Height: 4.3m
Typ. Floor Area: 2800 m2
Clear Span:
up to 15.5m
Lateral System: Dual System RC Core + Frames
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
RC Building
Steel-Concrete
Composite Building
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
13.5m
s
g
in
15.5m
d
l
i
u
B
ll
Framing
9m
9m Systems Considered
a
T at
n
t 12.5m
Floor Framing Graphics
i
o
b
l
12.5m
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
RC Building – Typical Parameters
Composite Building - Typical Parameters
n
Long Span PT Band Beam: a
2400x 600 Deep
Long Span Steel Beams: UB610 x 229 x 92
13.5m
15.5m
Short Span PT Band Beam: 2400x 550 Deep
Edge Beam: 500x600 Deep
PT Slab Thickness: 200 Typical
Primary Core Wall Thickness: 350
Secondary Core Wall Thickness: 250
Columns : 1.0m x 1.0m
Short Span Steel Beams: UB610 x 229 x 113
Edge Steel Beams: UB533 x 210 x 66
Slab: 130 on Re-Entrant Deck
Primary Core Wall Thickness: 300
Secondary Core Wall Thickness: 250
Columns : 0.8m dia. CHS
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
Design Criteria
Gravity Loading:
Dead Load (DL)
Superimposed Dead Load (SDL)
Live Load (LL)
Cladding (SDL)
:
:
:
:
Wind Inter-story Drift
Floor Vibrations and Acceleration:
: H / 500
: Acceleration ≤ 0.5%g
Self-weight of elements
1.5 kPa
3.5 kPa + 1 kPa for Partitions
1.0 kPa (on elevation)
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
Lateral Loading:
B
ll 50-year Return Period
Wind Speed
: 22m/s Mean
Hourly,
a
T ~ 1.3akPa
t
Wind Load Pressure
: Max Pressure
n
t
iBC3, q=1.5, Ground Type D
o 1998-1,
Seismic
: SS-EN
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
n
Deflections & Drift Parameters:ou
a
C rb: L / 250, 20 mm maximum
Interior Beams, Live Load
© d U : L / 350
Interior Beams, Incremental Deflection
Perimeter Beams, Live Load an
: L /500, 10 mm maximum
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
Building Dynamic Characteristics
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T = 3.5 s
T = 3.1 s
T
t
a
n
t
i
o
b
il
a
c
n nH
u
Co rba
© dU
an
1
T1 = 3.2 s
RC Building
Composite Building
2
T2 = 2.9 s
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
Building Performance Comparison
Veq1 = 3.81%*W = 24.9 MN
Veq2 = 3.95%*W = 41.6 MN
Veq2 = 4.05%*W = 26.5 MN
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
35
Seismic–Composite
30
Wind–
RC/Composite
25
Storey
Veq1 = 3.41%*W = 35.9 MN
Seismic–RC
20
15
25
20
20
Seismic-RC
Wind– 5
RC/Composite
5
0
1000
2000
3000
Lateral Storey Forces
0
4000
-200000
SeismicComposite
800000
1800000
2800000
Overturning Moment
Seismic-RC
30
25
10
0
Wind-RC
30
15
10
35
15
10
Seismic–
Composite
Δ = h / (200.v.q)
35
Composite Building:
Δ = h / 500
[ γl = 1.0, q=1.5]
RC Building:
Storey
Sd (T) = Se (T). γl
q
Wind–
Composite
5
0
38000000
10
Inter-storey Drift
20
30
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
Member Force Envelopes
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
RC Building
Composite Building
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
Costing Data
Pricing information was obtained from Langdon & Seah & verified through a combination of local sources
Baseline Unit Costs (“All-in,” incl. labour)
Concrete Grade
(fcu)
Cost (S$/m3)
d
l
i
u
B
60
S$ 165
ll
a
T at
n
Rebar Cost (S$/T)
S$ 1,350
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
Post-tensioning (S$/T)
S$ 6,250 H
n
u an
o
C rS$b45
Formwork (S$/m2)
© dU
Structural Steel incl. studs (S$/T)n
S$ 5,000
a
s
g
in
40
S$ 140
50
S$ 145
Metal Deck (S$/m2)
S$ 50
Steel Fireproofing (S$/m2)
S$ 25
Foundation Costs (S$/ ton / m )
S$ 0.60
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
Building Weight
(normalized)
1.0
1.00
Normalized Building Weight
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll 0.7
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
RC Building
Steel-Concrete Composite Building
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
Concrete Costs
(normalized; excluding rebar & PT)
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T a0.5t
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
1.0
1.0
Normalized Concrete Costs
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
RC Building
Steel-Concrete Composite
Building
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
Rebar & PT Costs
(normalized)
1.0
1.0
Normalized Rebar & PT Costs
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
0.3
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
RC Building
Steel-Concrete Composite Building
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
Structural Steel Costs
(normalized; including decking & FP)
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© d0.0U
an
2.3
Normalized Steel Costs
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
s
g
in
RC Building
Steel-Concrete Composite Building
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
Foundation Costs
(normalized)
1.0
1.0
Foundation Costs
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll 0.7
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
RC Building
Steel-Concrete Composite Building
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
Total Structural Material Costs
(normalized)
1.25
Normalized Structural Costs
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
s
g
in
1.0
RC Building
Steel-Concrete Composite Building
COMPARATIVE COST STUDY THE BIG PICTURE
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
s
g
in
COMPARATIVE COST STUDY THE BIG PICTURE
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
s
g
in
TYPICAL TALL BUILDING COMPARATIVE COST STUDY
Total Project Construction Costs
(normalized)
Normalized Structural Costs
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
s
g
in
1.0
RC Building
1.04
Steel-Concrete Composite Building
COMPARATIVE COST STUDY THE BIG PICTURE
Other Costs & Revenues
Project Costs
GFA =
Land Cost =
Legal Fee & Stamp Duty =
Total Project Duration=
Property Tax =
Associated Costs (Prof. & Site Supervision Fee) =
Marketing & Advertisement =
GST =
Interest of Financing Cost for Land =
Interest of Financing During Construction =
85,000 sq-m
$19,000 per sq-m of GFA
4% of land cost
33 months
0.5% x land cost x duration
~ 8% of Total Construction Cost
~ 5% of Total Construction Cost
7% of Construction & Assoc. Costs
5% of Land Cost, Legal Fee & Property Tax
5% of Construction & Associated Costs x 0.5
Preliminaries / month =
10% of Total Construction Cost
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
Rental Return + Preliminaries
C rb
© dU
Net Efficiency=
80%
Occupancy Rate=
80%
n
a
Rental Rate $$/sq-ft/month=
$10 per sq-ft per month (net floor area)
COMPARATIVE COST STUDY THE BIG PICTURE
Total Development Construction Costs
(normalized)
Normalized Structural Costs
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
s
g
in
1.0
RC Building
1.005
Steel-Concrete Composite Building
COMPARATIVE COST STUDY THE BIG PICTURE
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
s
g
in
COMPARATIVE COST STUDY THE BIG PICTURE
Total Project Construction Costs
with One Month Lesser Construction Time for Composite Building
(normalized)
Normalized Structural Costs
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
1.0
RC Building
0.98
Steel-Concrete Composite Building
COMPARATIVE COST STUDY THE BIG PICTURE
Total Project Construction Costs
with Two Month Lesser Construction Time for Composite Building
(normalized)
Normalized Structural Costs
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
s
g
in
d
l
i
u
0.94
B
ll
a
T at
n
t
i
o
b
l
i
a
c
H
n
u an
o
C rb
© dU
an
1.0
RC Building
Steel-Concrete Composite Building
CONCLUDING REMARKS FUTURE TRENDS
 As Singapore develops, labour costs will continue to rise.
 Productivity will continue to be the key driver
s
g
in
 Project cost is dictated by completion period – not material cost.
d
l
i
u
B
l
l
a
In addition to performance benefits, composite
buildings
offer far higher potential for
T
t
a
n
greater productivity & hence lower costs
t
i
o
b
il
a
c
n nH
u
Co rba
© dU
an
 The perception that steel means higher cost must be seen in perspective

What do you think will be the material of choice for these future buildings ?