RE: Cost Analysis[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: Cost Analysis
- From: Robert Rollo <rrollo(--nospam--at)TEAM-PSC.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 09:44:24 -0600
as former lead cost engineer, i have done many of these comparisons.
in our area (no union),
composite floor wins virtually every time basically because of the cost of the fireproofing. you are probably having to fireproof the deck in the joist example, but not in the composite example. we design the composite systems such that shoring is not required. that would probably bring them closer together. and yes, our comparisons include the column/footing size increases due to heavier DL on the composite system.
suggest doing a typical bay study to include all elements of both proposed UL assemblies to include column typical and footing increase. rather simple exercise and maybe you can get all parties to agree upon the unit prices before you do it, then there is nothing left to dispute if you can count the quantities . . .
r o b e r t d. r o l l o
Parkhill, Smith & Cooper, Inc.
4222 85th st
Lubbock, Texas 79423
(806) 473-2200 vox
(806) 473-3500 fax
From: Jason Kilgore [SMTP:jkilgore(--nospam--at)leok.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:35 AM
Subject: Cost Analysis
We currently have a disagreement in our office about relative pricing of
different floor construction methods for office-building type usage (fire-
proofed or not). Most of our work is in the Kansas City area, where unions
rule supreme and labor costs are high.
Both of the owners of my company are adamant about one of the methods,
several of the younger engineers disagree (but are out-ranked, so the
method is used).
If the disagreement continues, I'm going to do a mock building design using
the two methods and have a few construction companies price it.
Here are the two sides of the issue (very generalized). Any comments?
Use WF girders, steel bar joists at 2'0" - 2'6" o.c., with light-gage form
Advantages: Easier installation, lighter & easier-to-handle pieces, cheaper
deck, no shoring.
Disadvantages: Short spans require heavier joists for fire-rating, fire-
proofing more labor-intensive (requires wrapping each joist in mesh),
more pieces to install and fire-proof
Use WF girders, WF beams at 6'0"-8'0" o.c., heavier composite decking.
Advantages: Far fewer pieces, WF beams usually meet min. sizes for fire-
ratings, easier and faster to fire-proof.
Disadvantages: Pieces are larger, installation more difficult, deck far more
expensive, sometimes requires shoring for casting.
Jason W. Kilgore, P.E.
Leigh & O'Kane, L.L.C.
******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) to the list, send email to
* admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message type
* "join seaint" (no quotes). To Unsubscribe, send email
* to admin(--nospam--at)seaint.org and in the body of the message
* type "leave seaint" (no quotes). For questions, send
* email to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org ****** ****** ********
- Prev by Subject: RE: Cost Analysis
- Next by Subject: Re: Cost Analysis
- Previous by thread: Re: Cost Analysis
- Next by thread: RE: Cost Analysis