土木外文翻译----建筑结构造价-建筑结构

　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 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 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 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 ﹩1,250,000.If 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 ﹩5,000,000.If 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 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 ﹩14.In 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 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, the more 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.

　Volume-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 be as bow as ﹩0.50 per pound. More complicated systems requiring much cutting and welding(such as a complicated steel truss or space-frame design) can go to ﹩0.70 per pound and beyond. For standard tall building designs (say, exceeding 20 stories),there would typically be about 20 to 30 pounds of steel/psf, which one should wish not to exceed. A design calling for under 20 psf would require a great deal of ingenuity and the careful integration of structural and architectural components and would be a real accomplishment.

　Concrete costs are volumetric and should range from an in-place low of ﹩150 per cu yd for very simple reinforced concrete work to ﹩300 per cu yd for expensive small quantity precast and prestressed work. This large range is due to the fact that the contributing variables are more complicated, depending upon the shape of the precise components, the erection problems, and the total quantity produced.

　Form work is generally the controlling factor for any cast-in-place concrete work. Therefore, to achieve a cost of ﹩150 per cu yd, only the simplest of systems can be used, such as flat slabs that require little cutting and much reuse of forms. Where any beams are introduced that require special forms and difficulty in placement of concrete and steel bars, the range begins at ﹩180 per cu yd and goes up to ﹩300.Since, in a developed country, high labor costs account for high forming costs, this results in pressure to use the simplest and most repetitive of systems to keep costs down. It become rewarding to consider the possibility of mass-produced precast and prestressed components, which may bring a saving in costs and\or construction completion time. The latter results in savings due to lower construction financing costs for the contractor plus quicker earnings for the owner.

　 To summarize, the range of cost per cubic yard of standard types of poured-in-place concrete work will average from $150 to $250, the minimum being for simple reinforced work and the maximum for moderately complicated post tensioned work. This range is large and any estimate that ignores the effect of variables above will be commensurately inaccurate.

　5.Summary

　The estimate and economical design of structure building are important and essential work, which should be valued by all architects and engineers and others. Better you do it, more profit you will receive from it!

　建筑结构的造价

　前言

　建筑物的结构设计是一个相当复杂的过程，不但要处理很多物质因素，还要考虑诸多非物质方面的因素。如果建筑物的结构形式对空间组织和美化环境的设计能够起到举足轻重的影响，那么它就是一个相当重要的物理因素，就应当采用分阶段的设计方法。

　 建筑物的经济问题是一个主要的非物质因素，在最终的设计中应予以重视。对一个具有创造性的设计而言，从某方面来说考虑经济性往往是一种制约，但这也并非是绝对的。如果事先清楚结构设计及施工组织方案与实现他们的造价之间的关系，那么创造性是同样可以实现的。调查表明，大多具有创造性的设计是在有竞争性的投标中获得成功的，而不是因为业主非常富有。尽管后者被大肆炒作，却很少使人信服。因此也可以说，真正具有创造性的设计应该具有很强的经济性。特别是今天，人们应该逐渐认识到，高雅和经济其实是一个可以统一的概念。

　因此，本文列举一些造价分析参数的简单解释，以及设计人员在他们的结构设计中考虑经济因素经常采用的一些设计手法。

　结构造价是通过其在建筑物总造价中所占的百分比来衡量的。或者说，由于结构工程只是一个项目总造价的一部分，因此还要考虑附加费用如地价（10%~20%）、筹资利息（100%~200%）、税金及维修费（20%左右）。不过上面这些因素都不在本文的讨论范围之内，文章将重点介绍工程造价。

　平均来说，单纯的结构造价大约占建筑物总造价25%。按照惯例，建筑物的结构造价和所谓的建筑造价是分开的。一般说来，所谓的建筑造价，往往是指那些与建筑的结构强度和物理完整性无关的因素。

　“基本服务设施费”组成了第三类工程费用，主要是指机械供给、电器设备以及其他一些服务体系费用等。一般说来，这部分费用大概占建筑物总费用的15%~30%，这主要取决于建筑物的类型。机械和电气费用，主要是指空调系统费用以及其他诸如管道系统、通讯、照明及动力设备等服务设施。

　在这种造价分类中非常显著的一点是，一个建筑物的设计方案的总体费用，应该有45%~60%分配给建筑因素。但现在这种状况正在迅速改变，因为高利率以及资金的缺乏，现在大多业主更倾向于节约型设计。因此，设计者可以考虑以下两条途径，他们可以直接影响建筑物的工程造价。

　第一个节约开支的途径是这样来考虑的，即凡是那些建筑问题和结构问题能够同时解决的地方往往有着很强的经济潜力。由于目前大多人都不愿将建筑物费用的大部分用于纯粹建筑设计，这种方法就显得尤为重要，也会节省一部分非结构预算，这一经费可用于一些本来会被削减掉的建筑需求。第二种节约开支的途径，则是设计人员在设计过程中综合考虑服务设施和结构体系，尽力提出一个能够解决房屋设计和施工难题的总建筑方案。

　承包商通常会用不同的方式做出工程项目的最终报价。他们往往将其分为场地材料费、每一个施工过程中的劳动力资源费、工程所需购买、租借的装备费、经营管理费以及利润。建筑师以及工程师很少考虑的像上面所述的那么精确，但是头脑中应该有一个清楚的概念，那就是一项结构工程的实际造价最终使用什么方法定价以及承包商又是怎样标价的。

　显然，上面讲到的百分比平均数有些粗略，但是它足以说明总体造价的组成情况了。下面的几部分将讨论这些平均数的范围。并进一步阐述对建筑物造价进行粗略估计时用到的百分比估价、平方英尺估价和单位体积估价。

　百分比估价

　建筑物的类型将决定结构费用以和他费用所占的白分比范围。正如所希望的，装饰性或者标志性较强的建筑物的结构造价在总体造价中所占的比重相对较低。一般而言，结构造价所占的百分比可低至工程总造价的10%~15%，这是因为更多的钱被用到那些非结构费用上了。这又一次说明“装饰”部分是与基本的结构要求无关的。然而对于一些诸如教堂类的综合性标志建筑物，对其结构体系的造价相对较高，其百分比可达到15%~20%或者更高。

　与之相对的是一些诸如仓库或者车库之类简易的和非象征性的工业建筑物，对于这种建筑，由于内部隔墙、天花板、管道设备系统以及装修部分要求较低，其结构造价在工程总体造价中所占的比例往往能达到60%~70%，有时甚至可达80%。

　对于一些中等高度（5~10层）的办公楼或住宅楼，其结构造价在总体造价中所占的比例，大约维持在25%这一中间值；而对于一些低矮且跨度小的商业用房和住宅，大约3~4层高且跨度为20~30英尺以及简单的竖向要求，其结构造价将占总造价15%~20%。

　而一些特殊用途的建筑，如实验室和医院，则另当别论。他们需要较大的跨度以及高要求的机械设备。这就导致总体造价大部分将被用于服务费用（大约30%~50%）,而单纯的结构造价约占20%。对于15层或者以上的高层办公楼以及大跨度（约50~60英尺）建筑物，其结构造价在总体造价中将占较高的百分比（约30%~35%），而服务费用约占30%~40%。

　在任何情况下这些百分比数据都是具有典型性的，并可作为衡量建筑物设计平均效益的尺度。例如，如果一个较低的小跨度且不具备纪念价值的建筑物，仅仅结构造价投标就为30%的话，那么可以肯定这个结构设计是相当不经济的。另一方面，建筑师应该注意到的一个容易混淆的事实就是，经济投标往往取决于设计者和承包人对设计的理解及施工的实际能力，能力强就能提供一个较低的投标。创造性设计受限往往是因为设计者或承包商在经验、想象力等方面的匮乏。如果承包者没有把握，那么它就会加大投资，以防可能遇到的意外风险。因此要使有创造性的设计在投标时具有竞争力，作为一名建筑师它应能够洞察工程潜力所在。至少建筑师应该尽可能地与想象力丰富的结构工程师、承包商甚至制造商密切配合。相反，即使对于最为普通的建筑设计，如果仅仅靠设计手册，是很难取得经济效益的。效率离不开专业知识，而最为重要的是想象力，这一点在面对一个不太熟悉的项目是尤为重要的。

　如果建筑物结构设计具有中等（或标准）的效益时，前面所提到的百分比就对建筑物总造价估算有着很大的帮助。例如，如果一座办公楼总体造价500万美元，其中有25%是结构造价的标准，那么这一工程结构体系造价就不能超过125万美元。若设计很合理，比如是按上述的中等效益设计估算造价的80%时，那么就有25万美元，也就是5%的总体建筑费用被省下来。如果这500万资金已经到位，那么节省下的25万美元就可用于其他的经济开支。

　上面所有阐述表明，结构设计和建筑整体设计（机械和电器）的创造性结合的概念，将有助于减少单纯的结构造价，或在相同造价下提供更多的建筑费用。这样，设计成功的程度将取决于设计者的专业知识、灵活性以及设计者和承包人之间的密切合作。

　上面讨论的仅仅是提供一种关于建筑总体造价的全面视图，下面的部分将提供对建筑的结构造价进行估价的方法。有两种可供选择的方法将用来进行结构造价的近似估计：其一是根据单位平方英尺建筑面积来进行估价；另一种则是根据所用的结构材料体积进行估价。参考上面所提到的结构造价标准，结构估价有助于对建筑的总体造价进行大概的了解。当然，这样得到的只是一个粗略的估价，但却会使设计负责人员对实际设计中经常要面对的经济问题有所了解。至少，这些将有助于对可供选择的结构体系的相对成本效益进行对比。

　平方英尺估价

　如前所述，在一个特定的时期和地区，是可以根据相似工程的平均造价，来经验地确定准平方英尺造价系数。设计者和承包人有效的利用材料和劳动力的能力不同，会导致不同平均水平的经济效益。

　对于“标准”的结构体系而言，每平方英尺的造价为10~16美元，例如，普通的办公楼平均水平在12~16美元之间，而住宅型建筑的范围则是10~14美元。对以上两种情况，下限适用于短跨低矮的建筑，而上限则适用于较大跨度及中等高度的建筑。

　与普通的住宅性建筑相似，普通工业建筑结构简单，通常每平方英尺的造价为10~14美元。尽管工业建筑的跨度很大，且荷载较重，但他们的布局简单，在内墙、隔墙以及天花板方面的要求较少，且一般不高。换句话说，设计和安装的简单化，可以弥补工业建筑因大跨度和重载所造成的额外造价。

　当然也存在着不同于平均水平的情况。变化的限度取决于体系的复杂程度、跨度超长的程度、特殊的荷载和地震条件等。例如，位于旧金山的Crown Zellerbach 银行和办公楼就是个例子，结构造价相当高。60英尺跨度的钢架以及底部用来承受地震荷载的自由支撑的柱子，连同旧金山糟糕的土壤状况，都造成了较高的造价。在那个时期，这样的设计是非同寻常的，正是因为其特殊的用途及标志性，它才被允许以建筑物各方面都高出同类建筑物的平均水平的造价进行建造。因此，其结构造价在总体造价中的比重也比普通建筑物高很多。

　现在将进一步叙述超长跨度的影响。正常跨度的范围规定为：住宅楼16~25英尺；办公楼20~30英尺；工业建筑为25~30英尺，且每平方英尺承重200~300磅；车库建筑为50~60英尺，且相对较轻。如果跨度增加一倍，结构造价将会提高大约20~30%。

　工业建筑中较大的荷载也无形中提高了建筑物的结构造价。如果一个工业建筑的荷载增加到每平方米500磅（大约2~3倍）的话，其结构造价也将提高20~30%。

　上面所述都是针对楼层系统而言的，对采用有效正交各向异性体系的公寓屋顶，不管是钢结构还是预应力混凝土，其现代设计者经济的限值都是150英尺。尽管钢结构空间框架常大于150英尺，其制造费用也将大大增加。

　无论如何，长跨度体系都有其特殊性，它可能较多，也可能较少的影响总体建筑造价时，对于特殊的建筑物，其结构造价将随着设计的不同而明显地改变 。结构形式越特殊，由设计知识、设计的创造性以及施工技术所决定的造价节俭潜力就越大。

　体积度量估价

　初看起来，一个建筑师不善于精确地估计建筑过程中所用到的材料体积，如果要得到更高的精度，可以通过工程中所用到的材料体积来估计造价。虽然进展非常缓慢，但通过努力学习后，是可以实现这一估计的。

　体积度量估价，是通过制定结构系统中需要的以磅或吨记的钢材、立方体的钢筋或预应力混凝土的市场价格来实现的。对于这样一个初步估计，没有必要去深究它的详细造价。例如，混凝土的现浇造价将包括模板、脚手架、钢筋、劳动力等费用和间接费用。钢结构则包括构件制作及安装的费用。

　以重量计的建筑钢材的市场价格，从每磅0.50美元到0.70美元不等。对于低层建筑，可采用现成的宽翼缘型钢构件，只需要极少的加工，因而成本可降低至每磅0.50美元。而复杂的结构体系需要较多的切割和焊接（如复杂的钢桁架或空间框架设计），因而其钢材价格可达0.7美元甚至更高。对于标准的高层建筑设计，每平方米大概将由20~30磅钢材，这是设计人员不希望超过的量值。而每平方米低于20磅的设计，则需要很强的创造力以及建筑物设计和结构设计上完美的结合，其可称得上是一个真正的成就。

　混凝土的价格是以体积计量的，其范围从简易的每立方米150美元的现浇钢筋混凝土工程，到非常昂贵的每立方米300美元的小批量所谓预制和预应力工程不等。出现如此大的价格范围。是因为影响因素较复杂，包括预制构件的形状、安装的难易和生产总量。

　模板通常是现场浇筑混凝土构件的决定性因素，因此，为得到每立方米150美元的价格，需要采用最简单的体系方可，例如需要很少的模板加工量并可多次使用模板。一旦梁存在，就需要专门的模板，由于混凝土和钢筋的放置上的困难，价格由每立方米180美元上升到每立方米300美元。在发达国家，由于较高的劳动力费用，导致较高的模板造价，这就迫使人们采用最简单的和大批量可重复使用的结构构件来实现造价的削减。当现场浇筑价格开始接近每立方米240美元时，就应该考虑大批量生产的预制和预应力构件的使用，这样将会减少造价和缩短工期。后者将会因为公开支附费用的降低，使承包商快速赢利。

　总的来说，每平方米现场浇筑混凝土的标准价格将从150美元~250美元不等，其下限适用于简单混凝土工程，而上限则适用于中等复杂程度的后张预应力工程。这样一个价格范围相对较大，任何忽略了上述影响因素的估价，都将是不准确的。

　总结

　 建筑物的成本估计及节约设计，是一项重要而又必须的工作，每一个建筑师和结构工程师及相关的建筑业工作者。都应给予充分的重视。这一工作做得越好，得到的回报就越多。

相关关键词： 建筑结构职称论文 建筑结构职称