CAPITAL COSTS OF
FREE STANDING STACKS
CONTRACT #68-02-099
August 15, 1973
-------
'"--
CAPITAL COSTS OF
FREE 'STANDING STACKS
CONTRACT #68-02-099
August 15, 1973
-------
V
CAPITAL COSTS OF FREE STANDING STACKS
by
Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc.
1329 Arlington Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45225
for the
Cost Analysis Branch
Strategies and Air Standards Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina
Contract #68-02-0299
Project Number JN-665
August 1973
-------
ULC
August 15, 1973
ABSTRACT
Capital costs of free standing stacks, including
liners and foundations, with factors for variations due
to wind loading, seismic loading, soil conditions, and
labor and material rates are presented in chart and table
form for quick and accurate estimation.
ii
-------
4 ^S>W.
August 15, 1973
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section . Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. PROCEDURE FOR COST ESTIMATING 2-13*
2.1 General 2-3
2.2 Estimating from Graphs 4-8
2.3 Seismic Effect 9-10
2.4 Effects of Geographical Factors 11-13
(Labor and Materials)
3. STACK DESIGN BASIS 14-17
3.1 General , 14
3.2 Concrete Stack 14-15
3.3 Brick Stack ' 15
3.4 Steel Stack ' " • 16
3.5 Brick Liners' ' 16
3.6 Steel Liners • 17
4. . BREECHING 18-19
4.1 Design Basis ..... 18
4.2 Design and Cost Summary 19
5. CHART SECTION 20-42
See page iv for list
6 . REFERENCES 43
7 . APPENDIX 44-63
111
-------
Vi
August 15, 1973
DRAWING (CURVES) LIST
Figure page
I. Seismic Zone Map 5
2. Basic Wind Load Map 6
3. Concrete Stacks - Shell Costs 21
4. Concrete Stacks - Foundation Costs 22
5. Steel Liners 23
6. Brick Liners 24
7. Effect of Wind Load on Concrete or Steel Stacks 25
8. Effect of Wind Load on Concrete or Steel Founda-
tions 26
9. Effect of Soil Conditions on Concrete Stack
Foundations 27
> 10. Effect of Seismic Zone 3 Conditions on Concrete ,
Stack Foundations 28
11. Brick Stacks - Shell Costs 29
12, Brick Stack - Foundation Costs 30
13. Effect of Wind Load on Brick.Stack Costs 33
14. Effect of Wind Load, on Brick Stack Foundation
Cost 34
15. Effect of Soil Bearing on Brick Stack Founda-
tions 35
iv
-------
•t*1/rt/yi,(iil*4 *-7'n
August 15, 1973
DRAWING (CURVES) LIST
Figure Page
16. Steel Stacks - Shell Costs 36
17. Steel Stacks - Foundation Cost - Steel Stacks
with Brick Liners 37
18. Steel stacks - Foundation Cost - Steel Stacks
with Steel Liners 38
19. Effect of wind Load on Steel Stack Foundations 41
20. Effect of Soil conditions on Steel Stack Founda-
tions 42
-------
V
August 15, 1973
TABLES
Table Page
I Soil Bearing Values 4
II Labor and Material Factors 13
III Breeching Design and Cost Summary 19
VI
-------
V
f4 ^S-n,
JN-665 August 15, 1973
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study offers procedures for estimating the capital costs
of free standing stacks of concrete, brick and steel primarily for
the utilities industry.
Many local conditions and factors influence the cost of a tall
stack and make meaningful cost estimating complex. This report pro-
vides a method of adjusting the costs due to variations in four
major factors: labor and materials costs, wind loading, soil con-
ditions and seismic forces.
The basic design conditions assumed in this study include the
following:
1. Labor & Material Rates - Cincinnati, Ohio.
2, Wind Load - 40 psf basis.
3. Soil Bearing - 4,500 psf.
4. Seismic Zone - 1.
Variations in capital cost estimates can be achieved using the
methods provided in this report, within the following limits:
1. Labor & Material Rates - 10 U.S. cities.
2. Wind Load - 30 psf and 50 psf.
3. Soil Bearing - 6,000 psf.
4. Seismic Zone - 2 and 3.
- 1 -
-------
VTJ L C.
JN-665 August 15, 1973
2.0 PROCEDURE FOR COST ESTIMATING
2,1 GENERAL
For the purposes of more detailed cost estimating, the
stack (as used in power plants) has been broken down into
three parts: (1) the shell, (2) the liner and (3) the foun-
dation. To arrive at the total cost of the stack, it is
necessary to add the costs for each of the three parts.
Separate graphs are provided in this report for each part.
Other graphs and tables have been provided to facilitate
cost estimating for local conditions which deviate from the
design standard.
A basic concept of this report is to maximize the use
of graphs and tables and minimize detail description and com-
putation. Thus, the chart section serves the prime function
of the report.
The chart section of this report is divided into three
parts which relate to shell material and are entitled -
CONCRETE, BRICK, STEEL. In each of the three sections are
graphs for installed costs of the shell, the liner and the
foundation. In addition, two charts of factors for wind
loadings to be applied to the stack cost and to the founda-
tion cost and a chart for soil condition to be applied to
the foundation cost. Summarizing, the chart section contains
the following graphs?
- 2 -
-------
v
4 ^s-n
JN-665 August 15, 1973
A. Concrete Stack
1. Installed cost of shell.
2. Installed cost of foundation.
3. Installed cost of steel liner.with insulation.
4. Installed cost of brick liner with insulation.
5. Shell - wind load factor.
6. Foundation - wind load factor.
7. Foundation - soil bearing factor for 6,000 psf
soil conditions.
8. Foundation - seismic zone 3 effect.
B. Brick Stack
1. Installed cost of shell.
2. Installed cost of foundation for stack with
brick or steel liner.
3. Installed cost of brick liner with insulation.
4. Installed cost of steel liner with insulation.
5. Shell - wind load factor.
6. Foundation - wind load factor.
7o Foundation - soil bearing factor for 6,000 psf
soil conditions.
C. Steel Stack
1. Installed cost of shell.
2. Installed cost of brick liner with insulation.
3. Installed cost of steel liner with insulation.
4. Installed cost of foundation for stack with
brick liner.
5. Installed cost of foundation for stack with
steel liner.
6. Shell - wind load factor.
7. Foundation - wind load factor.
8. Foundation - soil bearing factor for 6,000 psf
soil conditions.
- 3 -
-------
Vt
JN-665 August 15, 1973
2.2 ESTIMATING FROM THE GRAPHS
The procedure for deriving cost estimates for tall stacks
begins with the establishing of those design conditions which
are within the scope of this report. These include: material
of construction of the stack and the liner, wind load, soil
bearing and seismic zone.
If the wind load and seismic zone are not known for the
locale, an approximate value can be obtained by referring to
Figure 1, page 5, for areas of equal seismic probability'"'
and Figure 2, page 6, for wind pressure.' ' For concrete
stacks, the ACI Standard 307-69 specifies a minimum design
wind loading of 30 psf, thus, for areas of the country with
minimum allowable wind pressures less than 30 psf, the above
design criteria governs.
If no test data on soil condition is available, the
following table can be used as a guide in selecting a
value for soil bearing. Values are in pounds per square
foot (psf).
SOIL BEARING VALUES
Table 1
Clay, moist 2,000
Sand, clean and dry 4,000
Clay, moderately dry 5,000
Sand and Gravel, well compacted 6,000
Gravel and Coarse Sand, well cemented 8,000
Next, turn to the chart section of this report and spe-
cifically to the sub-section identifying the stack by material
of construction - concrete, brick or steel.
On the basis of the height of the stack and the I.D. (in-
side diameter) at the top of the stack," determine the cost of
the stack for the basic conditions for shell, foundation and
liner* by referring to the appropriate charts. For example,
for concrete stacks
_ 4 _
-------
LU
O
O
105*
100«
CO
or
O
LU
co
•5°
70°
SEISMIC RISK MAP OF THE UNITED STATES
ZONE 0-No damage.
ZONE 1 - Minor damage; distant earthquakes may cause damage
to structures with fundamental periods greater than ""
10 seconds, corresponds to intensities V and VI
of the M M • Scale.
ZONE 2 - Moderate damage: corresponds to intensity VII of the M.M.* Scale.
?ONE 3 - Ma/or damage: corresponds to intensity VIII and higher of the M.M.* Scale.
This map is based on the known distribution of damaging earthquakes and the
MM* intensities associated with these earthquakes: evidence of strain release;
and consideration of major geologic structures and provinces believed to be
associated with earthquake activity. The probable frequency of occurrence of
damaging earthquakes tr> each zone was not considered in assigning ratings to
the various zones
•Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931
s
ft
o
i
UJ
t/t
I
C0
II*"
no*
104*
100*
•$•
VULCAN-CINCINNATI INC.
DWG B-SS-3OI7
-------
-^--^-r-.M i K NE §_oi A>^:r^K~=
-------
V
-s*'/>isrLfLZ
-------
v*
JN-665 August 15, 1973
D. Total Cost of Stacks
Shell $2,880,000
Foundation 975,000
Liner 1.200,000
Total $5,055,000
The total cost of the stack - $5,055,000 - is for condi-
tions of seismic zone 1 and labor and materials rates
based on rates in Cincinnati, Ohio0 Adjustments in cost
for other seismic zones and other labor and material
rates are discussed in the following sections.
8
-------
V
's4syisn.
-------
V,
JN-665 August 15, 1973
To make the correction for seismic zone 3 exceptions,
the procedure is as follows:
(1) Relate the foundation in question by stack diameter
and wind load to one of four cases listed in Figure
10.
(2) Note the case number of the exception and the corre-
sponding shaded zone on the graph.
(3) Find the stack height in the abscissa. Enter the
graph at this point and extend along the ordinate
to determine its intersection with the shaded zone
and specifically with its intersection with the
slope of the zone.
(4) From the point of intersection with the slope, read
the correction factor on the ordinate (Ratio Cost -
Seismic Zone 3).
(5) Multiply the correction factor by the basic founda-
tion cost to arrive at the adjusted cost for seismic
zone 3.
(6) If the extension of the height (#3 above) does not
intersect the shaded zone, then wind load forces
exceed the seismic zone 3 forces and the factor for
cost adjustment is based on the appropriate wind
load curve.
NOTE;
a. Brick stacks are not recommended for seismic
zone 3 areas.* '
b. The most recent seismic probability maps no'
longer include zone 0. No area is rated less
than zone 1.
- 10 -
-------
V u L c
4 ^7'Ti
JN-665 August 15, 1973
2,4 EFFECTS OF GEOGRAPHICAL FACTORS
A study of labor rates and material costs for cities in
different parts of the country has been made to determine the
extent of variations in costs for labor and materials in the
construction of stacks„
The spread in labor costs between the high and low rates
was found to be 69% from the mean0 The spread in material
costs between the high and the low was found to be 30 % from
the mean, . Since these figures exceed the criteria of +_ 15%,
conversion factors, based on geographical location, for labor
and materials are herein provided (see Table II,< page 13) as
part of the study on costs of free standing stacks„
The hourly labor wage rates in this report are current
and were taken from Engineering New Record(3)0 The wage rate
foactos include fringe benefits and productivity for the area.,
A discussion of the derivation of the labor factor was pre-
sented in an interim report ("Effect of Geographical Factors,"
April 26, 1973) and can be found in ..the Appendix of this re-
port .
The materials factor is based on current prices in the
Engineering New Record'^^ '->' o rp^g makeup of the materials
factor is patterned after the materials component of Engi-
neering News Record's labor and materials costs index. This
also was discussed in detail in the interim report (see above)
and can be found in the Appendix,,
The labor and material factors presented in Table II are
intended to be used in conjunction with the graphs which can
be found in the chart section of this study to permit adjust-
ments in the stack cost estimates for other labor and material
rateso These factors make possible a correction for differ-
ences in construction costs in various locations around the
country.
The labor costs to material costs for stacks, including
foundations and liners,, was found to be approximately in the
ratio of 75/25= This relationship has been included in the
equation for adjusting the cost of stacks due to variation in
labor and material rates. The following is an example of
- 11 -
-------
V
JN-665
August 15, 1973
how to use Table II„
Assume that the cost of construction of a particular
stack in Cincinnati is $5,055,000 (from the example on page 7)
and it is desired to know what it would cost to erect the same
stack in New Orleans„ . From Table II, find the labor and ma-
terial factors (Lf, Mf) for Cincinnati and New Orleans.,
= 0.96
Cincinnati
New Orleans
GI = Cost of Stack in Cincinnati
Lf2 = 0,86
:'! = 0.96
Mf2 = 0.76
C2 = Cost of Stack in New Orleans
Equation: C« =
0.75(Lf_2) + Oo25(Mf_2)
Lf1 Mf!
Substituting in the equation the known values for Lf
and Mf, and C± = $5,055,000:
C2 = $5,055,000
0,75(0.86) + Oo25(0o76)
0.96
= $5,055,000 (Oc870)
C2 = $4,398,000
- 12 -
-------
JN-665
TABLE II
LABOR AND MATERIAL FACTORS
August 15, 1973
Location
Boston, Mass.
Chicago, 111.
Cincinnati, Oh.
Cleveland, Oho
Detroit, Mich.
Los Angeles, Calif,
New Orleans,. La,
New York, N. Y=
Philadelphia, Pa.
San Francisco, Calif,
Relative
Labor Cost
Factor
1.03
1.12
.96
1.03
1.30
1.00
.86
1.52
1.10
1,14
Relative
Material Cost
Factor i
.95
. .84
.96
.89
.98
1.00
.76
1.04
.97
.96
Calculations;
C2 = Cl
0.75 (Lf?) + 0.25 (Mf?)
Lfj_ Mf]_
GI = Cost of Stack from Chart (or known value)
C2 = Cost of Stack at Selected Location
Lf]_ + Mf^ = Labor and Material Factors for Chart Location
(say Cincinnati)
+ Mf2 = Labor and Material Factors for Selected Location
-V13
-------
V UT L c
I- • /r fl
\~*4/n^^srtsn.fJflJ4 ^>f'«
August 15, 1973
3oO DESIGN BASIS
3ol GENERAL
The design conditions for wind load, seismic load
and soil load for concrete, brick and steel stacks (basic
case) are:
a) Wind load: 40 PSF (pounds per square foot) basic
b) Seismic load: Earthquake Zone 1
c) Soil load: 4500 PSF
Stack flue gas temperature - 350°F
Stack design differential temperature - 50°F
Foundations for all stacks to be reinforced concrete with
3,000 PSI ultimate compressive stress«
Reinforcing steel - ASTM A-615 - Gr» 40
Stacks of 15 fto loDo, 20 ft0 I0D0 are to have a single
breeching. Stacks of 30 ft= I0D0 and 40 fto IoD0 are to have
two breechings at 120*.
Reference Numbers (1), (2), (7), (8), (9) , (10), (11),
(12), (13).
3o2 CONCRETE STACK
Inside diameters at the top, feet f 15, 20, 30, 40
Shape - 1:40 taper
Minimum wall thickness at the top -7,7, 8,25, 905 inches
respectively
•14-
-------
VULC
August 15, 1973
Materials - Ultimate Compressive Stress- 4500 PSI
Density - 150 Ibs/cu.ft.
Reinforcing Steel = A-615 - Gr. 40
Accessories - Galleries at 150 ft0 intervals
Hoist
Chimney Cap
Lightning Protection
Aviation Warning Lighting
3o3 BRICK -STACK (RADIAL)
Inside diameters at the top, feet - 15, 20, 30, 40
Shape - 1:40 taper
Minimum wall thickness at the top - 9^ inches
Materials:
Brick:
Manufacturer - Beldon Brick Co.
Wo Canton, Ohio
Type = Fire Clay Brick
Size - Double 8x3 3/4 x 41/2 tapered
Weight = approx, 11 lbs« each
Ultimate Compressive Stress (Masonry) - 3,000 PSI
Mortar = ASTM C-270-71 type M
Density (Masonry) -.120
Accessories - Chimney Caps
Lightning Protection
Aviation Warning Lights
Metal Rungs spaced at 10 feet
-15-
-------
VlLJ L C
August 15, 1973
3o4. STEEL STACK
Inside diameter at the top, feet - 15, 20, 30, 40
Shape - Cylindrical with conical transition pieces
at 95 or 190 foot intervals„ Cone sections
are 10 feet or 20 feet vertical height with
approxo 15° taper„
Materials:
Steel - ASTM A-242(l) - Cpr-Ten steel
Stainless Steel (top 5 feet) - ASTM A-240, Type 321
Corrosion allowance - 1/16 inch
Accessories - Aviation Warning Lighting
Grounding
Metal rungs spaced at 10 feet
3.5 BRICK LINERS (RADIAL)
Inside diameters, feet - 8, 13, 23, 33
Corresponding shell inside diameter feet - 15, 20, 30, 40
Wall thickness at top - 9 inches
Shape - Cylinderical
External Insulation - 3" thick fiberglass with wire mesh
cover
Materials;
Brick:
Manufacturer - A0 P» Green
Mexico^ Missouri
Type - "Empire" - stiff mud
Size - 9" x (4V - 4") x 3", tapered
Ultimate Compressive Stress (Masonry) - 3,000 PSI
Mortar = ASTM C 105
•16=
-------
V
??x<-
-------
V
August 15, 1973
4oO BREECHING
4,1 BREECHING DESIGN
The cost of breeching for the various diameter stacks
is presented here on a per lineal foot basis„ Thus, the
design is limited to this degree.
The basis for design is as follows:
A, Flue Gas Condition
Temperature - 350°F
Pressure - + 2"WC
B. Breeching Area -1.2 times the internal cross
sectional area of the liner
Co Breeching Width - 0.6 times the diameter of the liner
D. From B & C, the aspect ratio of the breeching (H/W) -
2.6/1
E. Material - USS Cor-Ten meeting ASTM A-242(1) specifications
F. Exceptions to B & C (above) - 30' and 40" diameter
stacks to have two breechings each at one half the allow-
able area
G. External reinforcing ribs to be continuously welded to the
shell
-18-
-------
August 15, 1973
BREECHING DESIGN AND COST SUMMARY
TABLE III
Stack I. Do
Ft.
15
20
30
40
Liner I0D?
Ft.
8
13
23
33
„ ,**• .
Breeching
Width
5
- 8
7
10
Dim o -Ft.
Height
12.5'
20,3'
18'
26'
Cost per Foot
of Length
$1,095.00
2,110.00
2,609.00*
3,530.00*
* Cost for single breeching, two required.
-19-
-------
V
August 15, 1973
5,0 CHART SECTION
This section of the report contains the graphs for
estimating installed costs of stacks of concrete, brick
and steelo
-20-
-------
CONCRETE
-------
-21-
-------
-22-
-------
-------
ion
9. -;
- ~^3^~| I !~i~!"|
_
T:!--:. F-EE1:
__ ....pL-UU;..! —-!
TTT !~"I~i~1"'!"T'i^ M"HlTTTT~
1'! 111 rrrri'.'"!""'!'!!
-24--
-------
rr- -TTr-Tb^CTREtE^ OE^STEJSJr
-25-
-------
-26-
-------
iT_L_( _!_. IJ.J.L
'!r * '* i ' r'
.-|—;—. —| f .—r~t~
IT i M
4-4—i—I—L--4
tr-
J-..-.L_ f
-i-S TK--F OS -JNBA
-_---4-.-- --_
_J .-pJlf j-j-44,-.4-.4-j i Jlj-L
^--M-f-r-H-l
_i_j ' _ J-tj_.j/i_uu:
LLLL.LLTL
-27--
-------
l±t±±H±t
j-L-l^If^S^
'
mxnimi
1 '
±L-±r±i±r±tx
:uj-u:n_
^
ZONEH3HE$v
?,ON'BRG&Sr
_I—IJZL 'OL!_Q—i
H±td±a
.-L.-J. __ _1_ — —!
HJJ_L-IJ
-28-
-------
BRICK
-------
i i I I | I I.I I |i l.i- |.',||'i!ll,l;'
-------
10Q
—»—H+H-1
SKE5H
tiitttTJi
I I , ;7 I , , . i . l^H
- ' ~i~" j; fl"7 ' i . '";" T[~~~"
-------
i \s\~\
i"'/!._n~n i r
' ; 1 i i 7 i i i
i_J-_L J_L ; I., 1 j ' !"!ZL..Tl'l
___!
•jj_L!./C-rir:.i-._i_:
r
Tti iJi;ijj.J/jj'J~~i~^r/j^~~_j" H' • H^j--^
~ ~ '
:
.HiLiii'l i Ca-
4 ' 56 78
-31-
-------
ion
f—T-t-f-1-:— -1-4 tsoTr-ir- rri T Mt5Dr-:r
-------
-feR-ltK-rs TACK [GtiS TS-j
.-33-
-------
-34-
-------
i it i I I LI i i ?YMT'i"r':"^"i"Tl I rt"i
~ TT") i r i tiT~iTOI!frrTTrTT7TTti
-35-
-------
STEEL
-------
1G.CL-T
8.CL
: -I * __:,
-i. *"* w i\O
^fgililig^^
'•""•'' - '' ' '
~
f '.-16 .' l"M ^ r
^
2:-rxT-r't~r;cc
riiBMPrr:
-36-
-------
SC.Q.
9..Q-,
:S^i^^^^fp
^•>-£:t=r-T-SrP,
- --.-..
k-t T-I «• •.- om>/-if j liLo>»J^.- I* J J-.U-^£?isJLw£.Si. jJ. i\£ic\.r_ .3.--=.::
. .. .-. •-.-]•• .vy---l -• .•:-..-._- i --.•..-_-...• t-: . __;_.-:. •) ri"-"r_"""
"
6.0-
I
I
M u
; n
(o a
JS
i
i
I
:^~-.r:TL2-:~:.-^-~~i~~rJ^-rr\:£.~^~-r---}z
t±±r;::l::!L ~
j j I ,_\_ u— 1— .
—1—I—| ; ~ i j | j"
it;rH=}4±t^±q4^^4t;:
iTrriaiiLuu::
•JsUWH-U-k.
__..n._/. -/-*—:-—v
—PI-K-I-H-
ZEffi
-37-
-------
lOQ—-r^rr
_^___ -_
i.t _i -tr±rt_ jv izji'i:
_!._£. Cli . ' ',..'..
tLiTt-pi-ntr'-t—
_!_l_f_J 1—___
+I-P4-444-P
rr- ^FH-t-l- r-H--—t -4-f-i-f-
i__U-4_i_ : '.—,— i—1 —1—i -- .. -t -i—, > .— i— l—M- -
, .
-i^^
•38-
-------
_tj——-1—1—-^L-.Hj-
j iji n i i
i !"n fi nvf;i'i;nTnriXiiiu.n i IT
i~iT! ...rT'nj.'i'n^ i
-------
h±tirBRIGK
ILI-NER-l COS
T I jl [. M
f^EEEEEEE
,* . . i i~'~~ r^""!~? • ~
i-4-14
PTTT TVJ~l'"Ti "'TTTT:
-------
=H-H4fH±
zr;.t^-L^-
n_
i- „. -i ..i. ,L. L ^ J
-f-Uf^ '-• EF^EGT-f
--- -, - 1 --- - | -- - i — i
T'iTrnTiii _L..L •
_
F -^WINDLOADI- NG -H-
±H+rtttr
-^H-rr ---r-j---l-4-4
a ' ' i _.-.U-iJXLTi
nxrzrrizr
TrfFFfflf
rTTj' TTI i"
i~rn~iTrrT
tt-xttr
.U-LL,_4-i_r4_J
I I I I I ' ^ T I
i_|T+J
tftH
-------
-fi.g-n-iq-- --fJ-HH
t-t-H-i-r-t-H-h-v-t-i
1 -- •—-
±EEELtEEEE
LH-t-H-r-H- \-t •<*->-
4=&5^-^-fa-rh
_,.. j.^
- j—t; r","-1—r~t '—•—i—fr-
— -, , -T--t- ) -i~-r- , J - - -i -. ~r- - f — —^—1 ) 1 -;—'-*- »--^—f—+
-T--|—!-{ 4-T-|- - . -j- — .-4-!^ ; - I -Tjjp|.-l.-.-4_f- (.-Hj
—i—<--'-t-T—I—' i---f-t-- -4--."- ;.-,m,..i_tlU: .,. l-f -•
-r—i-r-t -I- i-T-r-t-j -'.-[ 4-t-H-t—t-.-j-j—.-; -1- -[-r"
—f-r-r !-l |—r- T- -i--1-* •!-•*- •—-1-+- -iH -.-* ---t-f-i
_,_[£[•_,._
^:±
tt±±tr
.r;
-toil:
•;-r-hi" ~t~rrT"H-~t~7Ti i"'"^ ~ "i±_"»xl ^xd^^iruii tL:r^.ii
_,..nr_;. rL4_I_L._T j l_..J..r J.^ - _•_, ..'_4_ /.si_^_i.O_. -v-;-t -i - -(-. -1- '
"•^•^"fj1 '"iHirJ-tt/ • t_-;-/i^,:-^f-*Ji'-'-f-t-vt- f-^--H\r'' _T •|r.Tr'
"j-r^i-Ul-^|_^-^.l-O::4-f i-. t-p/^v-X ,Tt ~NI: z^-Ctrrr^ ^;:
-H-1-t"H"R-^H-Ff-f7-b'l- r-rr>-hi-i->NiH-r*'>t-H4- -^^~
TfP^PTF
dMKi^rftm-=
^TIOiJCOSTS)
_TO; ..BASICIS.QI.Lj
-42-
-------
V
August 15, 1973
6=0 REFERENCES
1. Specification for the Design and Construction of Reinforced
Concrete Chimneys (ACI 307 - 69).
2o Structural Handbook, Section 7, page 7-17.
3. Engineering News Record (ENR) - Feb. 1, 1973.
4. Engineering News Record (ENR) - Feb. 8, 1973,
5o Engineering News Record (ENR) - Feb. 15, 1973.
6. Uniform Building Code, pub. - International Conference of
Building Officials, supplied by publisher.
7. ASA A 58.1 - 1955 American Standard Building Code Requirements,
8. Structural Engineering Handbook, Gaylord and Gaylord, 1968
Section 26, Chimneys„
9o ANSI - A 58.1 - 1972, Building Code Requirements for Minimum
Design Loads in Buildings and other Structures,
10. Building Code Requirements for Engineered Brick Masonry,
Structural Clay Products Institute, 1969,,
11o Recommended Building Code Requirements for Engineered Brick
Masonry, Structural Clay Products Institute, 1966.
12. Technical Notes on Brick and Tile Construction - #19A (1964)
and #19B (1964), Structural Clay Products Institute.
13. Eli Czerniak, Foundation Design Guide for Stacks and Towers,
Hydrocarbon Processing, page 95-114, June 1969.
-43-
-------
V
*4 ^s-n
April 26, 1973
APPENDIX
A. Effects of Geographical Factors
B. Development of Labor Cost Factor
lo Average Hourly Rate
2. Composition of Construction Crews
3. Composite Hourly Labor Rates
4. Productivity Factor
5. Equalized Wage Rates
C = Development of Material Cost Factor
-44-
-------
Vr
April 26, 1973
CAPITAL COSTS OF FREE STANDING STACKS
TASK ORDER N00 5
A. EFFECTS OF GEOGRAPHICAL FACTORS
A study of labor rates and material costs for cities
in various parts of the country has been made to determine
the extent of variations in costs for labor and materials
in the construction of stacks,,
The spread in labor costs between the high and low
rates was found to be 69% from the mean. The spread in
material costs between the high and the low was found to be
30% from the mean. Since these figures exceed the criteria
of +_ 15%, conversion factors, based on geographical location,
for labor and materials are herein provided (see Table I
page 4) as part of the study on costs of free standing stacks,
The hourly labor wage rates in this report are current
and were taken from Engineering News Record (1)„ The wage
rate factors include fringe benefits and productivity for the
area. A discussion of the derivation of the labor factor is
presented later in this section of the study on -capital costs
of stacks,
-45-
-------
V u L c
/4~ ~S-n
April 26; 1973
The materials factor is based on current prices in
the Engineering News Record (2) , .(3) . The makeup of the mate-
rials factor is patterned after the materials component of
Engineering News Record's labor and materials cost index.
This to be reviewed in more detail later in this section of
the study of capital costs of stacks.
The labor and material factors presented in Table I
are intended to be used in conjunction with the graphs which
can be found in another section of this study and which
depict capital costs of stacks versus height for various
diameters and for materials of concrete, steel and brick.
These factors make possible a correction for differences in
construction costs in various locations around the country.
The following is an example of how to use Table I„
Assume that the cost of construction of a particular
stack in Cincinnati to be $1,000,000 and it is desired to
know what it would cost to erect the same stack in New Orleans.
From Table I, find the labor and material factors (Lf, Mf) for
Cincinnati and New Orleans„
-------
April 26, 1973
Cincinnati Lfn = 0.96
New Orleans
Cn = Cost of Stack in Cincinnati
Mf1 = 0,96
Lf2 = 0.86
Mf2 = 0.76
= Cost of Stack in New Orleans
Equation: C2 = GI
0.75(Lf2) + 0,25(Mf2)
Mfi
Substituting in the equation the known values for Lf
and Mf, and C-, = $1,000,000:
= $1,000,000
0096
= $1,000,000 |0.870)
C2 = $870,000
0.75(0c86) + Oo25(0o76)
0096
-47-
-------
V
April 26,. 1973
TABLE I
LABOR AND MATERIAL FACTORS
Location
Relative
Labor Cost
Factor
Relative
Material Cost
Factor
Boston, Mass.,
Chicago, 111.
Cincinnati, Oh.
Cleveland, Oh»
Detroit, Micho
Io03
1.12
.96
Io03
1,30
Los Angeles, Calif. 1000
New Orleans, La»
New York, N0Y0
Philadelphia, Pa,
.86
Io52
lolO
San Francisco, Calif* 1.14
Calculations:
C2 =C1
0,75 (Lf2) + 0,25 (Mf2)
.95
.84
.96
.89
.98
1.00
.76
1,04
.97
.96
C]_ = Cost of Stack from Chart (or known value)
C2 = Cost of Stack at Selected Location
+ Mf-^ = Labor and Material Factors for Chart Location
(say Cincinnati)
Lf2 + Mf2
= Labor and Material Factors for Selected Location
•48-
-------
V
April 26, 1973
B. DEVELOPMENT OF LABOR COST FACTOR
Average Hourly Rate ,
The average hourly rate for the composite construc-
tion crew that might be assembled to erect a stack has
been calculated on the basis of percent time participation
for each craft and the wage rates for the crafts in cities
aroung the country„ ' The wages for the various crafts can
be found in Table III (page 19)„
The percent time participation for the crafts for
construction is developed from current information on
the makeup of construction crews„ The following section
describes the procedure used to arrive at the composite
construction crew0
Composition of Construction Crews
The various crafts that might be used to construct
Stacks of concrete, steel or brick are numerous and would
make calculations cumbersome0 Since this report is con-
cerned with a composite crew and average wage rates the
selection of crafts was limited to the major crafts as
follows; (1) iron worker, (2) cement mason, (3) laborer,
(4) carpenter, (5) boiler maker, (6) operating engineer,,
-------
VULC
April 26, 1973
Construction crews for the various crafts are sub-
ject to contract agreements and may not be uniform through-
out the country. Therefore, the compositions of the crews
listed below should be considered as typical. The intent of
the following is to establish the number of laborers, operat-
tin engineers, foremen, and area foremen relative to the
crafts involved in the construction.
1. Iron Workers
1 crewj 4 men + 1 foreman
4 crews + 1 area foreman
Foremen
Area Foreman
Total
2 o Cement Mason
1 crew: 6 men + 1 foreman
4 crews + 1 area foreman
Foremen
Area Foreman
MANPOWER SUMMARY
Iron Worker Laborer Oper. Eng.
4
16
21
Mason
- 6
24
Total
29
3. Carpenters
1 crewj 7 men + 1 foreman
4 crews + 1 area foreman
7
28
2
8
10
8
10
Laborer Oper, Eng,
9
36
8
36
8
Carpenters Laborer Oper,. Eng.
7
28
•50-
-------
April 26, 1973
Carpenters Laborer Oper> Enq.
•Y^™""^*•"•"
Foremen 4
Area Foreman 1 __
Total 33 28 0
40 Boiler Makers Boiler Maker Laborer Oper, Enq.
1 crews 4 men + 1 foreman 4 4
4 crews + 1 area foreman 16 16 4
Foremen 4
Area Foreman __1 __
Total 21 16 4
Summarizing the above by craft (and including operat-
ing engineers and foremen with the craft) the totals and com-
posite crew makeup in table form is as follows:
TABLE II
Percent
Totals Participation
Iron Worker 31 15
Cement Mason 37 17
Laborer 88 41
Carpenter 33 15
Boiler Maker 25 12
214 100%
•51-
-------
V,
April 26, 1973
Composite Hourly Labor Rates
The next step in developing the labor factor was to
calculate composite hourly labor rates based on wages in
selected locations around the country„ Table III list the
wages for the various cities„
For each location, the labor rate of each craft in
the composite crew is multiplied by the percent participa-
tion of the craft. The following example for Boston, Mass.
shows how the composite hourly rate was determined.
% Time
Participation x Labor Rate = Dollars
Iron Worker
Cement Mason
Laborer
Carpenter
Boiler M.aKer
,100% $8.57
Table IV summarizes the composite of hourly rates for
each of the selected locations.
15/100
17/100
41/100
15/100
12/100
9.82
9o54
6.90
9o37
10o32
Io47
1.62
2.83
1.41
1.24
-52 =
-------
V
r • —-p- 9
\^4St\ffsfs>\/91,f},<*44 +~S'r1
April 26, 1973
TABLE III
HOURLY LABOR WAGE RATES
Boston
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Detroit
Los Angeles
New Orleans
New York
Cement Boiler
Iron Worker Mason 'Laborer Carpenter Maker
$ 9o82 $ 9,54 $6.90 $ 9037 $10.32
10o90 9o94 7,62 9.605 9.90
9o985
10.43
11.253
10o865
7o67
12c25
Philadelphia 10054
San Francisco 10=865
9o90
10.49
10o788
lOoll
7.685
12 = 24
6 = 23
7o48
8o27
7o545
4.40
8o81
9»70 10o265
10044 10.53
10042
7o31
11.15
8o90 110982
8 = 73
110085 11.12
90963 6o85 10.17 10.565
10099 80015 10o03 12=325
(1) ENR, Feb0 1, 1973
-53-
-------
April 26, 1973
TABLE IV
COMPOSITE HOURLY RATES
Craft
Iron Worker
Cement Mason
Laborer
Carpenter
Boiler Maker
Rate + Fringe
Craft
Iron Worker
Cement Worker
Laborer
Carpenter
Boiler Maker
Rate + Fringe
Percent
Participation
15
17
41
15
12
100%
(1) _
Percent
Participation
15
17
41
15
12
100%
(D _
Boston
1.47
1.62
2.83
1.41
1.24
$ 8.57
$10.71
Los
Angeles
1.63
1.72
3.09
1.34
1.44
$ 9.22
$11.53
Chicago
1.64
1.69
3.12
1.44
1.19
$9.08
$11.35
New
Orleans
1.15
1.31
1.80
1.10
1.05
$ 6.41
$ 8.01
Cleveland
1.56
1.78
3.07
1.57
1.26
$ 9.24
$11.55
New
York
1.84
2.08
3.61
1.66
1.33
$10.52
$13.15
Cincinnati
1.50
1.68
2.55
1.46
1.23
$ 8.42
$10.53
Pheladelphia
1.58
1.69
2.80
1.52
1.27
$ 8.86
$11.08
Detroit
1.69
1.83
3.39
1.56
1.34
$ 9.81
$12.26
San
Francisco
1.63
1.87
3.29
1.50
1.48
$ 9.77
$12.21
(1) Insurance, taxes, supervision, etc. - 25% of Base Pay
-5 A-
-------
£JU
April 26, 1973
Productivity Factor
The determination of labor rates in a locality is
not sufficient in itself to establish the labor cost of
construction in that area0 The real.labor rate should also
include the productivity. Relative productivities for
locations around the country are difficult to establish and
such information as is available^ '' ' ' must have latitude
and subject to interpretation as the factors involving
productivity are subject to change«, A partial list of
factors influencing labor productivity includes the following:
Construction volume in the area
Size and intricacy of the project
Availability of mechanical equipment
Degree of conjestion in the construction area
Union regulations
Quality of project supervision
Weather conditions and climate
A survey * ' of construction contractors was made during
the period 1963-1967 to determine productivities for the various
crafts in different locations and from this data an attempt was
made to establish standard productivity factors„ Table V pre-
-55-
-------
April 26, 1973
sents average values for relative productivity for various
locations based on the 1963-1967 survey0
The productivity factor does not mean that the worker
applies himself at a constant rate for eight hours„ The
time required for lunch, morning and afternoon coffee breaks,
etc. reduce the actual work day to about 6% hours or 81%
of an eight hour day= Such conditions are more of less
standard across the country and are considered to apply to
the various locations mentioned in this reporto
Productivity in.the construction industry is said
to be declining in recent years„ However, the conditions are,
for the most part, uniform across the country, thus, relative
productivity for 1963-1967 is considered to be valid'*5'„
-------
April 26, 1973
TABLE V
AVERAGE RELATIVE PRODUCTIVITY FACTORS
Location
Boston,, MasS
Chicago,
Cincinnati, Oh0
Cleveland, Oh0
Detroit, Mich0
Houston, Texas
Los Angeles, Calf0
Mobile, Ala0
New Orleans, La 0
New York, N0Y0
Philadelphia j Pa „
San Francisco, Calf,
Relative Productivity Factors
90
88
.82
.91
loOO
086
.81
.75
Cl) Los Angeles is taken as base with productivity of 1,00
Refo CE, Dec0, 1972 - Mendel
-------
April 26, 1973
Equalized Wage Rates
The composite wage rates for the various locations
are combined with the relative productivity for that loca-
tion to arrive at an equalized wage rate.
Composite Wage Rate/(Relative Productivity) = Equalized
Wage Rate
The equalized wage rate places the construction labor
costs for the various locations on the same basis<, Thus, if
100,000 manhours are required' to construct a concrete stack
X hundred feet high and Y feet in diameter, then the labor
cost of such a stack in Detroit and New Orleans would be:
Detroit 100,000 x $14095 = $1,495,000
New Orleans 100,000 x $ 9,89 = $ 985,000
Table VI summarizes the equalized wage rates for the
selected locations. In addition, the relative labor cost
factors, with Los Angeles taken as the base, has been calculated
from this wage rate. The factors developed here, and presented
in Table VI, make up the labor component of the Stack Con-
struction Cost formula of Table I»
-58-
-------
VUL«
April 26, 1973
^S'Tt
Location
Boston, MasSo
Chicago, 111.
Cincinnati, Oho
Cleveland, Oh =
Detroit, Mich.
Los Angeles, Calf0
New Orleans, La.
New York, N=Y«
Philadelphia, Pa*
San Francisco, Calf,
TABLE VI
EQUALIZED WAGE RATES
Composite Productivity Equalized
Relative
Labor
Rate + Fringe
$10=71
11.35
10 = 53
11.55
12.26
11.53
8 = 01
13 = 15
11 = 08
12 = 21
Factor
.90
.88
.95-
.97
.82-
1,00
.81
.75
.87
.93
Wage Rate
$11.90
12 = 90
11,08
11.91
14.95
11 = 53
9,98
17 = 53
1 = 73
13 = 13
' Cost Factor
1.03
1 = 12
.96
1 = 03
Ic30
1 = 00
.86
1 = 52
1 = 10
1 = 14
(1) Composite wage rate divided by the relative productivity,
-59^
-------
r • • —A 9
\^4jS?1S>4s}-ls71.fZ.&*4 -^S
-------
Jwfwns,£ J
-------
V JL X
Location
Boston
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Detroit
Los Angeles
New Orleans
New York
Philadelphia
San Francisco
PORTLAND
CWT (1)
Col. 1
1.36
1.27
1.28
1.30
1.26
1 = 47
1.21
1»21
1.10
1.33
CEMENT
22.56 CWT
Col. 2
30.68
28.65
28 = 88
29.33
28 = 43
33.16
27.30
27.30
24.82
30.00
MATERIAL
STRUCT .
CWT (1)
Col. 3
12.20
12.45
12.79
12.96
12.76
13.65
10.00
13.34
12 = 85
14.35
PRICES AND INDEX
STEEL
10 CWT
Col. 4
122.20
124.50
127.90
129.60
127.60
136.50
100.00
133.40
128=50
143.50
REINF=
CWT ^
Col, 5
9.75
7.50
9.60
8.10
10.23
9.65
7.40
11.00
10.05
8.50
BAR
15 CWT
Col. 6
146.25
112.50
144=00
121.50
153=45
144.75
111.00
165=00
150.75
127.50
Total
Mat'l
Cost
Col.7(2>
299.13
265.65
300.78
280=43
309=48
314=41
238.30
325=70
304.07
301=00
Relative
Mat'l
Cost Factor
(3)
= 95
.84
.96
.89
."98
1.00
.76
1 = 04
.97
= 96
(3) Relative material cost index is based on material cost in L.A. taken as 1.00.
(2) Col. 7 is the sum of column 2, 4 and 6.
(1) Cement Pricing from ENR-Feb. 8, 1973, Steel Pricing from ENR-Feb. 15, 1973.
Cement is based on carload lots. Steel price is F.O.B. warehouse.
-62-
-------
V_,
Uy>>7v7 fcVT-//4 _/>*
April 26, 1973
References
lo Engineering News Record (ENR) •- Feb. 1, 1973
2. Engineering News Record (ENR) - Feb. 8, 1973
3. Engineering News Record (ENR) - Feb. 15, 1973
4. Fundamentals of Cost Engineering - H. Carl Bauman
5. Chemical Engineering Dec. 11, 1972 - 120-124, Otto Mendel
6. Engineering News Record (ENR) - March 22, 1973, 78-84
-63-
------- |