Case Study on the Effect of 690 mpa (100 ksi) Steel Reinforcement on Concrete Productivity in Buildings
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 139, Issue 11
Abstract
High-strength steel reinforcement in buildings had previously been limited to specialized applications, but recently published design guidance allows expanded use. A case study, conducted to investigate productivity benefits of using 690 mpa (100 ksi) versus 414 mpa (60 ksi) reinforcement, found that there was little to no benefit in using 690 mpa (100 ksi) steel in slabs, post-tensioned girders, and columns, but the beam reinforcement weight was reduced by 36%. The 2010 material cost ratio of 690 mpa (100 ksi) to 414 mpa (60 ksi) reinforcement was two, outstripping the weight reduction. However, labor cost is a function of weight, bringing the overall cost of 690 mpa (100 ksi) reinforcement to within 35% of 414 mpa (60 ksi) reinforcement cost. The material cost ratio will presumably decrease over time; if it drops by 30% or more, 690 mpa (100 ksi) reinforcement will be more economical. Labor costs, which vary by location, strongly influence the productivity benefits of 690 mpa (100 ksi) reinforcement. The use of 690 mpa (100 ksi) reinforcement is more favorable in expensive labor markets and it appears to be currently competitive in some. The paper’s primary contribution to the overall body of knowledge is the quantitative understanding of the economic factors that influence the ability of 690 mpa (100 ksi) steel reinforcement to have a productivity advantage over the use of conventional 414 mpa (60 ksi) steel reinforcement. Practitioners, designers, and researchers can use this information to understand the cost and productivity impact of high-strength reinforcing steel.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Construction Industry Institute and its industry members of the Research Team 252, Construction Productivity Program, for supporting this research effort.
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (1956). “Building code requirements for reinforced concrete.” ACI 318-56, Detroit.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (1963). “Building code requirements for reinforced concrete.” ACI 318-63, Detroit.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2008). “Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-08, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2011). “Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-11, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Concrete Institute Innovation Task Group 6. (2010). Design guide for the use of ASTM A1035/A1035M Grade 100 (690) steel bars for structural concrete, Farmington Hills, MI.
ASCE. (2010). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.” ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VA.
ASTM. (2010). “Standard specification for deformed and plain, low-carbon, chromium, steel bars for concrete reinforcement.” A1035/A1035M, West Conshohocken, PA.
Behm, M. (2005). “Linking construction fatalities to the design for construction safety concept.” J. Saf. Sci., 43(8), 589–611.
Cooke, T. (1990). Concrete pumping and spraying: A practical guide, Thomas Telford, London.
Hinze, J., and Wiegand, J. (1992). “Role of designers in construction worker safety.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 118(4), 677–684.
Koch, J. A., and Moavenzadeh, F. (1979). “Productivity and technology in construction.” J. Constr. Div., 105(4), 351–366.
Marshall and Swift. (1997). Dodge unit cost book, McGraw-Hill, New York.
O’Connor, J. (1985). “Impacts of constructability improvement.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 111(4), 404–410.
Ostwald, F. (2001). Construction cost analysis and estimating, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Peurifoy, R., and Oberlender, G. (2002). Estimating construction cost, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Post, N. (2007). “High-strength rebar called revolutionary.” Engineering News-Record, 259, McGraw-Hill, New York.
RSMeans. (2009). RSMeans building construction cost data, 68th Ed., RSMeans Company, Kingston, MA.
Salter, W. (1966). Productivity and technical change, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 139 • Issue 11 • November 2013
Copyright
© 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 20, 2012
Accepted: Feb 12, 2013
Published online: Feb 14, 2013
Published in print: Nov 1, 2013
Discussion open until: Jan 13, 2014
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.