关键词不能为空

当前您在: 主页 > 英语 >

隔板英文(完整版)工程造价外文及翻译

作者:高考题库网
来源:https://www.bjmy2z.cn/gaokao
2021-01-19 19:40
tags:

想家了-隔板英文

2021年1月19日发(作者:提高)
The Cost of Building Structure

1. Introduction



The
art
of
architectural
design
was
characterized
as
one
of
dealing
comprehensively with a complex set of physical and nonphysical design determinants.
Structural considerations were cast as important physical determinants that should be
dealt with in a hierarchical fashion if they are to have a significant impact on spatial
organization and environmental control design thinking.
The
economical
aspect
of
building
represents
a
nonphysical
structural
consideration
that,
in
final
analysis,
must
also
be
considered
important.
Cost
considerations are in certain ways a constraint to creative design. But this need not be
so.
If
something
is
known
of
the
relationship
between
structural
and
constructive
design
options
and
their
cost
of
implementation,
it
is
reasonable
to
believe
that
creativity can be enhanced. This has been confirmed by the authors

observation that
most
enhanced.
This
has
been
confirmed
by
the
authors


observation
that
most
creative
design
innovations
succeed
under
competitive
bidding
and
not
because
of
unusual owner affluence as the few publicized cases of extravagance might lead one
to
believe.
One
could
even
say
that
a
designer
who
is
truly
creative
will
produce
architectural excellence within the constraints of economy. Especially today, we find
that there is a need to recognize that elegance and economy can become synonymous
concepts.
Therefore, in this chapter we will set forth a brief explanation of the parameters of
cost
analysis and the means
by which designers
may evaluate the
overall economic
implications of their structural and architectural design thinking.
The cost of structure alone can be measured relative to the total cost of building
construction. Or, since the total construction cost is but a part of a total project cost,
one
could
include
additional
consideration
for
land(10

20percent),finance
and
interest(100

200
percent),taxes
and
maintenance
costs
(on
the
order
of20
percent).But a discussion of these so-called architectural costs is beyond the scope of
this book, and we will focus on the cost of construction only.
On
the
average,
purely
structural
costs
account
for
about
25
percent
of
total
construction costs, This is so because it has been traditional to discriminate between
purely
structural
and
other
so-called
architectural
costs
of
construction.
Thus,
in
tradition
we
find
that
architectural
costs
have
been
taken
to
be
those
that
are
not



1





12


necessary for the structural strength and physical integrity of a building design.

Essential
services


forms
a
third
construction
cost
category
and
refers
to
the
provision of mechanical and electrical equipment and other service systems. On the
average,
these
service
costs
account
for
some
15
to
30
percent
of
the
total
construction cost, depending on the type of building. Mechanical and electrical refers
to
the
cost
of
providing
for
air-conditioning
equipment
and
he
means
on
air
distribution
as
well
as
other
services,
such
as
plumbing,
communications,
and
electrical light and power.
The
salient
point
is
that
this
breakdown
of
costs
suggests
that,
up
to
now,
an
average
of
about
45
to
60
percent
of
the
total
cost
of
constructing
a
typical
design
solution
could
be
considered
as
architectural.
But
this
picture
is
rapidly
changing.
With high interest costs and a scarcity of capital, client groups are demanding leaner
designs. Therefore, one may conclude that there are two approaches the designer may
take towards influencing the construction cost of building.
The first approach to cost efficiency is to consider that wherever architectural and
structural
solutions
can
be
achieved
simultaneously,
a
potential
for
economy
is
evident.
Since
current
trends
indicate
a
reluctance
to
allocate
large
portions
of
a
construction
budget
to
purely
architectural
costs,
this
approach
seems
a
logical
necessity.
But,
even
where
money
is
available,
any
use
of
structure
to
play
a
basic
architectural
role
will
allow
the
nonstructural
budget
to
be
applied
to
fulfill
other
architectural needs that might normally have to be applied to fulfill other architectural
needs
that
might
normally
have
to
be
cut
back.
The
second
approach
achieves
economy
through
an
integration
of
service
and
structural
subsystems
to
round
out
one

s effort to produce a total architectural solution to a building design problem.
The
final
pricing
of
a
project
by
the
constructor
or
contractor
usually
takes
a
different form. The costs are broken down into (1) cost of materials brought to the site,
(2)cost
of
labor
involved
in
every
phase
of
the
construction
process,
(3)cost
of
equipment purchased or rented for the project, (4)cost of management and overhead,
and(5)
profit.
The
architect
or
engineer
seldom
follows
such
an
accurate
path
but
should perhaps keep in mind how the actual cost of a structure is finally priced and
made up.
Thus, the percent averages stated above are obviously crude, but they can suffice
to
introduce
the
nature
of
the
cost
picture.
The
following
sections
will
discuss
the
range of these averages and then proceed to a discussion of square footage costs and



2





12


volume-based
estimates
for
use
in
rough
approximation
of
the
cost
of
building
a
structural system.
2. Percentage Estimates
The
type
of
building
project
may
indicate
the
range
of
percentages
that
can
be
allocated
to
structural
and
other
costs.
As
might
be
expected,
highly
decorative
or
symbolic buildings would normally demand the lowest percentage of structural costs
as compared to total construction cost. In this case the structural costs might drop to
10

15percent
of
the
total
building
cost
because
more
money
is
allocated
to
the
so-called
architectural
costs.
Once
again
this
implies
that
the
symbolic
components
are conceived independent of basic structural requirements. However, where structure
and
symbolism
are
more-or-less
synthesized,
as
with
a
church
or
Cathedral,
the
structural system cost can be expected to be somewhat higher, say, 15and20 percent
(or more).
At the other end of the cost scale are the very simple and nonsymbolic industrial
buildings, such as warehouses and garages. In these cases, the nonstructural systems,
such
as
interior
partition
walls
and
ceilings,
as
will
as
mechanical
systems,
are
normally
minimal,
as
is
decoration,
and
therefore
the
structural
costs
can
account
for60 to 70 percent, even 80 percent of the total cost of construction.
Buildings
such
as
medium-rise
office
and
apartment
buildings(5

10
stories)occupy the median position on a cost scale at about 25 percent for structure.
Low and short-span buildings for commerce and housing, say, of three or four stories
and
with
spans
of
some
20
or
30
ft
and
simple
erection
requirements,
will
yield
structural costs of 15

20 percent of total building cost.

Special- performance buildings, such as laboratories and hospitals, represent another
category. They
can require long spans
and a more than
average portion
of the total
costs will be allocated to services (i.e., 30

50 percent), with about 20 percent going
for
the
purely
structural
costs.
Tall
office
building
(15
stories
or
more)
and/or
long- span
buildings
(say,
50
to
60
ft)
can
require
a
higher
percentage
for
structural
costs (about 30to 35percent of the total construction costs),with about 30 to 40 percent
allocated to services.
In
my
case,
these
percentages
are
typical
and
can
be
considered
as
a
measure
of
average
efficiency
in
design
of
buildings.
For
example,
if
a
low,
short-span
and
nonmonumental
building
were
to
be
bid
at
30
percent
for
the
structure
alone,
one
could assume that the structural design may be comparatively uneconomical. On the



3





12


other hand, the architect should be aware of the confusing fact that economical bids
depend on the practical ability of both the designer and the contractor to interpret the
design
and
construction
requirements
so
that
a
low
bid
will
ensue.
Progress
in
structural
design
is
often
limited
more
by
the
designer

s
or
contractor


slack
of
experience, imagination, and absence of communication than by the idea of the design.
If a contractor is uncertain, he will add costs to hedge the risk he will be taking. It is
for this reason that both the architect and the engineer should be well-versed in the
area of construction potentials if innovative designs ate to be competitively bid. At the
least
the
architect
must
be
capable
of
working
closely
with
imaginative
structural
engineers, contractors and even fabricators wherever possible even if the architecture
is very ordinary. Efficiency always requires knowledge and above all imagination, and
these are essential when designs are unfamiliar.
The
foregoing
percentages
can
be
helpful
in
approximating
total
construction
costs if the assumption is made that structural design is at least of average (of typical)
efficiency.
For
example,
if
a
total
office
building
construction
cost
budget
is

5,000,000,and
25
percent
is
the

standard


to
be
used
for
structure,
a
projected
structural
system
should
cost
no
more
than

1,250,
a
very
efficient
design
were realized, say, at 80 percent of what would be given by the

average

efficient
design
estimate
stated
above
the
savings,(20
percent),would
then
be

250,000
or
5
percent
of
total
construction
costs

5,000,
the

5,000,000
figure
is
committed, then the savings of

250,000 could be applied to expand the budget for

other

costs.
All
this
suggests
that
creative
integration
of
structural
(and
mechanical
and
electrical)
design
with
the
total
architectural
design
concept
can
result
in
either
a
reduction
in
purely
construction
design
concept
can
result
in
either
a
reduction
in
purely construction costs or more architecture for the same cost. Thus, the degree of
success
possible
depends
on
knowledge,
cleverness,
and
insightful
collaboration
of
the designers and contractors.
The above discussion is only meant to give the reader an overall perspective on
total
construction
costs.
The
following
sections
will
now
furnish
the
means
for
estimating
the
cost
of
structure
alone.
Two
alternative
means
will
be
provided
for
making an approximate structural cost estimate: one on a square foot of building basis,
and another on volumes of structural materials used. Such costs can then be used to
get a rough idea of total cost by referring to the

standards

for efficient design given



4





12


above. At best, this will be a crude measure, but it is hoped that the reader will find
that
it
makes
him
somewhat
familiar
with
the
type
of
real
economic
problems
that
responsible
designers
must
deal
with.
At
the
least,
this
capability
will
be
useful
in
comparing
alternative
systems
for
the
purpose
of
determining
their
relative
cost
efficiency.
3. Square-foot Estimating
As before, it is possible to empirically determine a

standard

per-square-foot cost
factor based on the average of costs for similar construction at a given place and time.
more-or-less
efficient
designs
are
possible,
depending
on
the
ability
of
the
designer
and contractor to use materials and labor efficiently, and vary from the average.
The
range of square-foot
costs for

normal

structural
systems
is

10 to

16
psf. For example, typical office buildings average between

12 and

16 psf, and
apartment-type
structures
range
from

10
to


each
case,
the
lower
part
of
the range refers to short spans and low buildings, whereas the upper portion refers to
longer spans and moderately tall buildings.
Ordinary
industrial
structures
are
simple
and
normally
produce
square-foot
costs
ranging
from

10
to

14,as
with
the
more
typical
apartment
building.
Although
the
spans
for
industrial
structures
are
generally
longer
than
those
for
apartment
buildings, and the loads heavier, they commonly have fewer complexities as well as
fewer
interior
walls,
partitions,
ceiling
requirements,
and
they
are
not
tall.
In
other
words, simplicity of design and erection can offset the additional cost for longer span
lengths and heavier loads in industrial buildings.
Of course there are exceptions to these averages. The limits of variation depend on
a system

s complexity, span length over

normal

and special loading or foundation
conditions. For example, the Crown Zellerbach high-rise bank and office building in





San Francisco is an exception, since its structural costs were unusually high. However,
in
this
case,
the
use
of
60
ft
steel
spans
and
free- standing
columns
at
the
bottom,
which
carry
the
considerable
earthquake
loading,
as
well
as
the
special
foundation
associated
with
the
poor
San
Francisco
soil
conditions,
contributed
to
the
exceptionally high costs. The design was also unusual for its time and a decision had
been made to allow higher than normal costs for all aspects of the building to achieve
open
spaces
and
for
both
function
and
symbolic
reasons.
Hence
the
proportion
of
structural to total cost probably remained similar to ordinary buildings.
The effect of spans longer than normal can be further illustrated. The

usual

floor



5





12


span range is as follows: for apartment buildings,16 to 25 ft; for office buildings,20 to
30
ft;
for
industrial
buildings,25
to
30
ft
loaded
heavily
at
200
to
300
psf;
and
garage-type structures span,50 to 60 ft, carrying relatively light(50

75 psf) loads(i.e.,
similar
to
those
for
apartment
and
office
structures).where
these
spans
are
doubled,
the structural costs can be expected to rise about 20 to 30 percent.
To increased loading in the case of industrial buildings offers another insight into
the dependency of cost estimates on

usual

standards. If the loading in an industrial
building
were
to
be
increased
to
500psf(i.e.,
two
or
three
times),
the
additional
structural cost would be on the order of another 20 to 30 percent.
The
reference
in
the
above
cases
is
for
floor
systems.
For
roofs
using
efficient
orthotropic (flat) systems, contemporary limits for economical design appear to be on
the order of 150 ft, whether of steel or prestressed concrete. Although space- frames


are often used for steel or prestressed concrete. Although space- frames are often used
for steel spans over 150 ft the fabrication costs begin to raise considerably.
At any rate, it should be recognized that very long-span subsystems are special cases
and
can
in
themselves
have
a
great
or
small
effect
on
is
added,
structural
costs
for
special buildings can vary greatly from design to design. The more special the form,
themore
that
design
knowledge
and
creativity,
as
well
as
construction
skill,
will
determine the potential for achieving cost efficiency.
4. Volume-Based Estimates
When more accuracy is desired, estimates of costs can be based on the volume of
materials used to do a job. At first glance it might seem that the architect would be ill
equipped
to
estimate
the
volume
of
material
required
in
construction
with
any
accuracy, and much less speed. But it is possible, with a moderate learning effort, to
achieve some capability for making such estimates.
V
olume-based
estimates
are
given
by
assigning
in-place
value
to
the
pounds
or
tons of steel, or the cubic yards of reinforced or prestressed concrete required to build
a
structural
system.
For
such
a
preliminary
estimate,
one
does
not
need
to
itemize
detailed
costs.
For
example,
in-place
concrete
costs
include
the
cost
of
forming,







falsework,
reinforcing
steel,
labor,
and
overhead.
Steel
includes
fabrication
and
erection of components.
Costs of structural steel as measured by weight range from

0.50 to

0.70 per
pound
in
place
for
building
construction.
For
low-rise
buildings,
one
can
use
stock
wide-flange structural members that require minimum fabrication, and the cost could



6





12

想家了-隔板英文


想家了-隔板英文


想家了-隔板英文


想家了-隔板英文


想家了-隔板英文


想家了-隔板英文


想家了-隔板英文


想家了-隔板英文



本文更新与2021-01-19 19:40,由作者提供,不代表本网站立场,转载请注明出处:https://www.bjmy2z.cn/gaokao/534466.html

(完整版)工程造价外文及翻译的相关文章