Steel Vs Concrete
Hi NCARB Community,
I have a question regarding the cost differences between steel and concrete systems for remote site construction. I’ve come across conflicting information from various third-party providers and even some Wiley publications.
From my understanding, the choice between steel and concrete depends on multiple factors. For example, concrete generally requires more labor and construction time, while steel requires more specialized labor for fabrication but can be erected more quickly. When considering all these factors together, I’m still unsure which system is more cost-effective in remote site conditions.
I’d greatly appreciate it if someone could elaborate on this topic or share their insights based on experience.
Thank you,
Monica
-
General Cost Trends
-
Low- to mid-rise buildings (≤6 stories):
Concrete often comes out cheaper due to material cost and no need for fireproofing. -
High-rise and large-span structures:
Steel can be more cost-effective due to speed of erection and lighter foundations. -
Approximate starting points (U.S., 2025 market – very rough ranges):
- Steel frame commercial: $150–$300/sq ft
- Concrete frame commercial: $130–$280/sq ft
—Gang Chen, Author, Architect, LEED AP BD+C (GreenExamEducation.com)
-
Low- to mid-rise buildings (≤6 stories):
-
Hi Monica,
I'd say you are correct in your analysis. Steel is faster to erect, and less labor intensive, but can be more "focused" or "specialized" labor which can add to cost. Labor costs should never be ignored or underestimated, as they can account for a large portion (or sometimes the majority) of something's cost. Another thing to consider with remote sites is that the materials have to be transported to the site, and I think they usually calculate this cost by weight of the material being transported, and the distance it's being transported. You also have to account for the cost of getting the tradespeople out there to do the work. It sounds like you're asking this in regards to a real-world scenario, though. So I'm not sure how accurate the general rules would be. If I were you, I might suggest to your client that it could be prudent in the long run to hire a cost estimate consultant, almost like a construction manager, but maybe only for the comparison of the two structural systems. Let them do a "rough bid" for you and see how much each system would cost. Not saying that this would be the case, but if one is $200k and the other is $100k, it would definitely be worth paying the CM's relatively low construction fees to confirm.
-
The key limitation is the remote location. Once water is added at the concrete plant, the clock starts ticking. The truck must be emptied on site within 90 minutes. Loving County, Texas, for example, is more than one hour’s drive from the nearest concrete plant, making it likely that we can’t practically build with concrete there. The time window is shorter in hot or arid weather (maybe 45 minutes), and longer if we include admixtures (maybe 2.5 hours). But man, we’re in trouble if we hit traffic. The hardened concrete will need to be chiseled away manually on the inside of the drum. In rare cases we have to trash the drum and replace it with a new, $40,000 one. We can set up a temporary concrete batch plant on site if needed, but again, in almost every case, when the site is extremely remote, steel is preferable.
Michael Eemann, Amber Book creator
-
All above comments are very valid.
However, framing type should also be considered and I feel it should have also been part of the question.
A moment connection-steel framing system would probably be more expensive than a flat plate concrete system. It requires intensive and specialized labor in the field. It also requires fireproofing or special painting , plus a decking structure.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments