Cost Comparison Studies

Recent cost studies comparing 5 different building types has revealed that the cost associated with using concrete based material generally resulted in a less than 5 percent increase in the overall construction cost when compared to the least expensive alternatives. This minimal increase (often as little as 1%) can be recovered over the life of the structure due to its low maintenance and insurance costs, durability, resistance to mold, and the ability to remain structurally sound, and withstand water damage in the event of a fire.

Cost comparison studies of 5 Building Types.

with wood floor system

LIGHT GUAGE STEEL FRAMING with cast-in-place concrete floor system on metal form deck

LOAD BEARING CONCRETE MASONRY construction with precast concrete plank floor system

PRECAST CONCRETE WALLS and precast concrete floor system

INSULATED CONCRETE FORM (ICF) walls and precast concrete plank floor system

To accurately evaluate the relative construction cost between each of the five building systems, a multi-family residential structure was schematically designed meeting all of the requirements of the International Building Code 2003 edition.

The Design Team:

Architect & Engineer: Haas Architects Engineers, State College, Pennsylvania

Code Official: Tim E. Knisely – Senior fire and commercial housing inspector for Center Region Code Administration, State College, Pennsylvania

Cost Estimation: Poole Anderson Construction. State College, Pennsylvania

Cost Estimation Location: Framingham, Massachusetts

Cost Estimation Location: Framingham, Massachusetts

This study has now been conducted in over 40 cities throughout the United States and Canada and the results have consistently shown the affordability of concrete based construction materials.

The preceding information was an excerpt from the Fire Safe Construction Cost Comparison Study and is protected under copyright law and is used by permission here.

For more information please download the Executive Summary Report >