As the two companies approached the Promontory Mountains in Utah, both realized there was only one route through. Blasting began on both sides to lay track. The east slope was more difficult as the grade was steeper. On both sides, fills and trestles were necessary for crossing deep ravines. Finally on April 9, the Union Pacific, and on April 11, the Central Pacific, stopped trying to lay tracks ahead. Congress established that they would meet at Promontory Summit.
By April 16, 1869 the two crews were only 50 miles apart. The Union Pacific crew was delayed because it ran out of ties. They also had to build three more trestles to make the summit.
May 8 was the target date for the union of the two railroads. On May 7, the two lines were just 2,500 feet apart. Former California Governor Leland Stanford traveled to Utah along with other officials from California and Nevada, bringing two golden spikes with him. One was made by David Hewes, one of the Central Pacific's largest supply contractors. The other was sent by The San Francisco "News Letter." West Evans, the contractor who supplied most of the Central Pacific ties, hand-polished and waxed a special last tie made out of laurelwood. The Pacific Union Express Company sent a silver plated sledge for the final blow.
The Union Pacific team was not prepared by May 8. Many of the dignitaries traveling on their end got held up by weather or by labor disputes. However, on May 9 the Union Pacific laid the final 2,500 feet of track, leaving one length of rail separation. The two trains from the east arrived the morning of May 10th.
At noon on May 10, 1869 a ceremony began with approximately 600 people in attendance. The two engines, the Central Pacific's Jupiter and the Union Pacific's No. 119, stood cowcatcher to cowcatcher at each end of the last rail.
At 12:20 p.m., one official from each railroad joined together to lay in the ceremonial last tie using the gold spikes. The silver sledgehammer was used to "drive" the spikes, but not enough to damage them. (The real final tie, spike and sledge were ordinary.) The two trains were then driven together, and a bottle of champagne was broken over the laurel tie. A telegraph went out across the nation with the simple message: "Done." The transcontinental railroad was complete. At that instant in Promontory Point, Utah, coast-to-coast travel time was reduced from four to six months to six days. In just seven years, the Union Pacific railroad had built 1,086 miles of railroad lines from Omaha, Nebraska. The Central Pacific had built 690 miles from Sacramento, California. Both railroads had crossed a major mountain range, the Rocky Mountains in the East and the Sierra Nevada in the west.
While the Transcontintental Railroad was started in the midst of a war that divided America, its completion marked a new unity and connection between the east and west coasts that further defined the United States as a single nation. The railroad signaled the death knell for the "western frontier" as it made possible the large-scale immigration to, agricultural and other trade with, and ultimately the industrialization of the western U.S.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Transcontinental Railroad
The Central Pacific broke ground in Sacramento, California in January, 1863. The Union Pacific broke ground at the Missouri River bluffs near Omaha, Nebraska in December, 1863. A competition arose between the construction crews of the two railroads, to see who could finish first.
In December 1862, the Central Pacific Railroad awarded its first construction contract to Charles Crocker & Company. The construction company subcontracted the first 18 miles to firms with hands-on experience, and the Central Pacific reached Newcastle, California on June 4, 1864. From that point on, it was a long haul up the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
The physical construction of the rail line was a job with an enormous scope, and it was often a painfully slow process. There was also constant pressure to meet time or geographical deadlines. The construction crews had to cut grade, build snowsheds, blast through hard rock and lay track through snow. Deep fills, switchback routes, high trestles, huge rock cuts and fifteen tunnels were necessary to make it over the Sierras.
To create this rail line, an enormous amount of tools, materials and supplies were required. Each mile of track required 100 tons of rail, about 2,500 ties and two or three tons of spikes and fish plates (metal pieces that joined the rails and prevented climatic expansion and contraction of the metal). Some of the tools needed included wheelbarrows, horse drawn scrapers, two-wheel dump carts, shovels, axes, crowbars, blasting powder, quarry tools and iron rods. On top of that, locomotives, wheel trucks, switch mechanisms and foundry tools were needed as well.
Providing these supplies was no small challenge. All supplies for the Central Pacific came from the East, and the Panama Canal shortcut did not exist at that time. All material, rails, rolling stock and machinery was shipped around Cape Horn on the southernmost tip of South America, en route to California. River steamers then took the material upriver to Sacramento, where it was offloaded to platform cars and hauled up into the mountains. If a shipment didn't leave the East Coast on time (and this happened frequently) or if an accident occurred in the shipping, the resulting delay could create a great hardship. The contractors often cut corners, spiking only seven of every ten rails or allowing other shoddy work along the line.
In 1865, the construction company faced another shortage, a labor shortage. They hired Chinese workers against the wishes of the other laborers and their foreman, but when the first group proved to be efficient and hardworking, the contractor recruited more from California and China itself. It was the Chinese men and their back-breaking labor that would get the railroad through the Sierra Nevada.
While the Central Pacific crews were struggling through the mountains, they heard tales of the speed with which the Union Pacific crews were able to work. As they grew closer to the point where the two railroads would meet, the Central Pacific crews decided they had something to prove. Spurred on by their supervisors, on April 28, 1869 they laid an extraordinary ten miles of track across the Utah desert between sunrise and sunset. They used 25,800 ties, 3,520 rails, 55,000 spikes and 7,040 fishplates. The Irish and Chinese crews worked together and completed the ten mile stretch in 12 hours. This feat has never duplicated by human beings in railroad construction since. It also brought the Central Pacific rail within ten miles of the Union Pacific line, ensuring the Union Pacific could not hope to replicate the achievement.
Led by construction superintendent Samuel B. Reed, chief engineer Grenville M. Dodge and contractors John S. and Dan T. Casement, the task facing Union Pacific construction crews was relatively easy at first. Their route went largely through flat plains, following the Oregon Trail through the Platte Valley, then crossing the Continental Divide through the Black Hills in Wyoming.
While the terrain was comparatively easy to work in, Union Pacific construction crews faced one problem that their Central Pacific rivals didn't: Indians. In Nebraska, the Sioux and Cheyenne tribes continually harassed Union Pacific construction crews. Forts were established along the line to protect the railroad. When the workers weren't at work or asleep, they were at war with rifles at their sides, ready for the next Indian attack. Sometimes the Indians fought the workers; other times, they damaged the progress made by the construction crews. In August 1867 at Plum Creek, Nebraska, Cheyennes pried up some rails and caused the derailment of a freight train. The train crashed and the Indians looted the cars.
The Union Pacific's construction materials were sailed up the Missouri or brought in by wagon. Their biggest difficulty lay in getting railroad ties, since there were few natural trees as were found in the Sierras. They had to import the ties until the Chicago & Western railroad line was extended to reach the Black Hills of Wyoming and the Wasatch Mountains of Utah.
Both companies laid track essentially the same way. They sent crews far ahead to do a preliminary survey, then location surveys. The graders would grade 100 miles of track at a time. In the mountains they graded as much as 200 to 300 miles at a time since the actual building took so much longer. Bridge, culvert and trestle crews worked five to 20 miles ahead. Then the tracklayers came in, grabbing rails out of horse-drawn carts. Then came the men to pound in the spikes. At the end of each line was a base camp that supplied material and food to the workers. As construction of the line was completed every 100 to 200 miles, the base camp would move up to keep in proximity to the crews.
In December 1862, the Central Pacific Railroad awarded its first construction contract to Charles Crocker & Company. The construction company subcontracted the first 18 miles to firms with hands-on experience, and the Central Pacific reached Newcastle, California on June 4, 1864. From that point on, it was a long haul up the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
The physical construction of the rail line was a job with an enormous scope, and it was often a painfully slow process. There was also constant pressure to meet time or geographical deadlines. The construction crews had to cut grade, build snowsheds, blast through hard rock and lay track through snow. Deep fills, switchback routes, high trestles, huge rock cuts and fifteen tunnels were necessary to make it over the Sierras.
To create this rail line, an enormous amount of tools, materials and supplies were required. Each mile of track required 100 tons of rail, about 2,500 ties and two or three tons of spikes and fish plates (metal pieces that joined the rails and prevented climatic expansion and contraction of the metal). Some of the tools needed included wheelbarrows, horse drawn scrapers, two-wheel dump carts, shovels, axes, crowbars, blasting powder, quarry tools and iron rods. On top of that, locomotives, wheel trucks, switch mechanisms and foundry tools were needed as well.
Providing these supplies was no small challenge. All supplies for the Central Pacific came from the East, and the Panama Canal shortcut did not exist at that time. All material, rails, rolling stock and machinery was shipped around Cape Horn on the southernmost tip of South America, en route to California. River steamers then took the material upriver to Sacramento, where it was offloaded to platform cars and hauled up into the mountains. If a shipment didn't leave the East Coast on time (and this happened frequently) or if an accident occurred in the shipping, the resulting delay could create a great hardship. The contractors often cut corners, spiking only seven of every ten rails or allowing other shoddy work along the line.
In 1865, the construction company faced another shortage, a labor shortage. They hired Chinese workers against the wishes of the other laborers and their foreman, but when the first group proved to be efficient and hardworking, the contractor recruited more from California and China itself. It was the Chinese men and their back-breaking labor that would get the railroad through the Sierra Nevada.
While the Central Pacific crews were struggling through the mountains, they heard tales of the speed with which the Union Pacific crews were able to work. As they grew closer to the point where the two railroads would meet, the Central Pacific crews decided they had something to prove. Spurred on by their supervisors, on April 28, 1869 they laid an extraordinary ten miles of track across the Utah desert between sunrise and sunset. They used 25,800 ties, 3,520 rails, 55,000 spikes and 7,040 fishplates. The Irish and Chinese crews worked together and completed the ten mile stretch in 12 hours. This feat has never duplicated by human beings in railroad construction since. It also brought the Central Pacific rail within ten miles of the Union Pacific line, ensuring the Union Pacific could not hope to replicate the achievement.
Led by construction superintendent Samuel B. Reed, chief engineer Grenville M. Dodge and contractors John S. and Dan T. Casement, the task facing Union Pacific construction crews was relatively easy at first. Their route went largely through flat plains, following the Oregon Trail through the Platte Valley, then crossing the Continental Divide through the Black Hills in Wyoming.
While the terrain was comparatively easy to work in, Union Pacific construction crews faced one problem that their Central Pacific rivals didn't: Indians. In Nebraska, the Sioux and Cheyenne tribes continually harassed Union Pacific construction crews. Forts were established along the line to protect the railroad. When the workers weren't at work or asleep, they were at war with rifles at their sides, ready for the next Indian attack. Sometimes the Indians fought the workers; other times, they damaged the progress made by the construction crews. In August 1867 at Plum Creek, Nebraska, Cheyennes pried up some rails and caused the derailment of a freight train. The train crashed and the Indians looted the cars.
The Union Pacific's construction materials were sailed up the Missouri or brought in by wagon. Their biggest difficulty lay in getting railroad ties, since there were few natural trees as were found in the Sierras. They had to import the ties until the Chicago & Western railroad line was extended to reach the Black Hills of Wyoming and the Wasatch Mountains of Utah.
Both companies laid track essentially the same way. They sent crews far ahead to do a preliminary survey, then location surveys. The graders would grade 100 miles of track at a time. In the mountains they graded as much as 200 to 300 miles at a time since the actual building took so much longer. Bridge, culvert and trestle crews worked five to 20 miles ahead. Then the tracklayers came in, grabbing rails out of horse-drawn carts. Then came the men to pound in the spikes. At the end of each line was a base camp that supplied material and food to the workers. As construction of the line was completed every 100 to 200 miles, the base camp would move up to keep in proximity to the crews.
World's Largest Subway System Completed
The subway system was completed and opened for business on October 27, 1904. The price to ride was a nickel and 150,000 stood in line to take a ride on the first subway train. New Yorkers applauded IRT's innovations, especially its use of electric power which added nothing to the city's air pollution. With a four-track design that could run in each direction at both local and express speeds, IRT had built the fastest public transportation system in the world. Its slogan: "City Hall to Harlem in 15 minutes!"
Neighborhoods sprung up around the planned subway stations and the population grew. In 1900 few people lived in Brooklyn, but by 1914 it was home to one million people. On Monday, December 23, 1946, 8,872,244 people rode the New York subway system, a record that still stands today.
Thanks to IRT, New York City flourished and developed into the city it is today because the subways enabled people to live in one area of the large city and work in another, with quick and efficient travel in between.
Since the subway was built, over 100 stations have been renovated, with many more planned. More than 1,000 new cars have been put into use, at a price of $2.4 billion - more than it cost to build the entire subway system itself.
Neighborhoods sprung up around the planned subway stations and the population grew. In 1900 few people lived in Brooklyn, but by 1914 it was home to one million people. On Monday, December 23, 1946, 8,872,244 people rode the New York subway system, a record that still stands today.
Thanks to IRT, New York City flourished and developed into the city it is today because the subways enabled people to live in one area of the large city and work in another, with quick and efficient travel in between.
Since the subway was built, over 100 stations have been renovated, with many more planned. More than 1,000 new cars have been put into use, at a price of $2.4 billion - more than it cost to build the entire subway system itself.
Highway Construction in Arizona
A stretch of I-15 runs through the 500-year-old Virgin River Gorge in Arizona, an area that is known as a scenic wonder. When time came to build the interstate highway system through this area, the Kiewit Construction Company faced the challenge of building a highway system that was up to federal standards, yet did not ruin the beauty of the area.
Kiewit Construction Company started out as a local builder, as did many of the contractors who worked on the interstate highway system. After World War II, the company was forced to switch its focus to water projects because there was a great deal of that development going on in the western parts of the country. The company worked on many dams and canals, including the Friant-Kern Canal, which was designed to bring water to the Los Angeles area from Northern California; the Monticello Dam near Sacramento, a concrete arch dam that was built to feed water into the California Aqueduct; the concrete arch Flaming Gorge Dam on the Colorado River in Utah; and the earth-fill Garrison Dam on the Missouri River in North Dakota. When the United States and Canada began working together to develop the St. Lawrence Seaway in the mid-1950s, Kiewit contributed work on the Long Sault Canal and the Iroquois Dam.
Prior to the building of I-15, there was no road to take people through the beautiful scenery of the Gorge. The Federal Highway Administration wanted the highway to run through the Gorge because of its beauty, and thanks to its previous work on waterways Kiewit was up to the task. In order to build the highway, the Virgin River had to be re-channeled twelve different times and the road squeezed between the deep walls of the canyon.
The Virgin River Gorge section of the interstate highway system opened in 1973, and in 1988 Arizona Highways Magazine stated that this section of the highway "enhanced rather than distracted from nature's handiwork." This is high praise indeed in an area whose citizens were rightfully protective of their region's natural splendor. So amazing was the job done by Kiewit Construction Company that this section of the interstate highway system has been deemed a wonder in itself.
To date, Kiewit has built more miles of the interstate highway system than any other construction company, including sections through Colorado's Glenwood Canyon, the Eisenhower Tunnel through the Colorado Rockies and the Ft. McHenry tunnel beneath Baltimore Harbor. Forbes Magazine called company president Peter Kiewit "The Colossus of Roads." Kiewit is still one of the largest transportation contactors in the United States today.
Highway Construction in Colorado
The longest tunnel built as part of the interstate highway system is the Eisenhower Memorial Tunnel under the Continental Divide. Four construction companies joined together to form Straight Creek Constructors, a name derived from where the west portal of the tunnel was located. The Division of Highways had estimated the cost of the project at $42.5 million, and the Straight Creek Constructors had the low bid at $54.1 million.
The project called for completing the westbound tunnel; starting the eastbound tunnel a short distance into each end; constructing combination portal and ventilation buildings for all tunnel entrances; and installing such facilities as lighting, other utilities and an electronic surveillance system. The first bore was to open three years after beginning construction, and the second several years later.
Construction began on March 15, 1968. There were a number of challenges that had to be faced by the construction company.
Geologists had discovered that the bedrock in the tunnel was 75% granite and 25% gneiss and schist. In the pilot bore, more than 26% of the length was in self-supporting rock, with 74% needing support. There was also 820 feet of what tunnelers describe as bad rock-not the most ideal situation. Additional problems arose because the first bore was not in the same spot as the pilot bore, and so conditions were different from what contractors were expecting.
The workers had to excavate 524,000 cubic yards of rock at an elevation of eleven thousand feet, which made efficiency for both man and machine much lower than expected. That area of the country has a long winter season, making the available time for working on the outside of the tunnel very short. In order to get the work done on schedule, 1,140 people worked in three shifts, 24 hours a day, six days a week.
The greatest problem the construction company faced was the mountain itself. There was simply no way to predict how it would react to the great tunnels being bored through it, and it didn't always cooperate as contractors had planned. Stress would often show up, for example, where theory would indicate there should be none. In order to overcome these obstacles, the construction company had to devise new methodology, like creating a way to mine and support a hole 50 feet high and 45 feet wide.
All told, contractors used 190,000 cubic yards of concrete to line the tunnel, 34,000 cubic yards of concrete for the buildings, and 10,000 tons of steel reinforcing bars and 23,400 tons of structural steel in the tunnel.
On March 8, 1973, the first of the twin tunnels was dedicated and opened to traffic. The second bore was opened in December, 1979.
Glenwood Canyon in Colorado, experts agree, was one of the most challenging sections of the interstate highway system, and another to which Kiewit Construction Company of Arizona lent its expertise. The canyon was formed by the Colorado River and includes 16 miles of steep, sheer cliffs on both sides of the river. Kiewit began work on the project in 1981, employing as many as 500 workers.
Because this is an amazingly scenic area, environmentalists and other nature enthusiasts were concerned that the highway would mar the canyon's beauty. So afraid were environmentalists that Kiewit would ruin their lovely landscape that in 1984 the Colorado Open Space Council and Sierra Club joined forces to seek a restraining order to stop construction. Their motion was rejected, but contractors were required to disturb as little of the canyon as possible, even facing fines if their work harmed certain trees.
Kiewit had to find a way to make engineering and the environment work together, and they did it by introducing a construction method that had never before been used in the United States: balanced cantilever construction. This method enables construction companies to build bridges from above, rather than below. First a bridge column is built and then a gantry, a special type of crane, is positioned on top of the column. Using precast segments that were brought in by truck, the gantry was used to build the bridge outward from the column.
Construction on I-70 through Glenwood Canyon was completed in 1992, one full year ahead of schedule, at the cost of $490.3 million. All in all, more than 40 bridges and viaducts made of precast box girders, precast I-beams, cast-in-place post tension box girders and welded steel box girders were used to preserve as much of the canyon as possible.
Kiewit Construction Company started out as a local builder, as did many of the contractors who worked on the interstate highway system. After World War II, the company was forced to switch its focus to water projects because there was a great deal of that development going on in the western parts of the country. The company worked on many dams and canals, including the Friant-Kern Canal, which was designed to bring water to the Los Angeles area from Northern California; the Monticello Dam near Sacramento, a concrete arch dam that was built to feed water into the California Aqueduct; the concrete arch Flaming Gorge Dam on the Colorado River in Utah; and the earth-fill Garrison Dam on the Missouri River in North Dakota. When the United States and Canada began working together to develop the St. Lawrence Seaway in the mid-1950s, Kiewit contributed work on the Long Sault Canal and the Iroquois Dam.
Prior to the building of I-15, there was no road to take people through the beautiful scenery of the Gorge. The Federal Highway Administration wanted the highway to run through the Gorge because of its beauty, and thanks to its previous work on waterways Kiewit was up to the task. In order to build the highway, the Virgin River had to be re-channeled twelve different times and the road squeezed between the deep walls of the canyon.
The Virgin River Gorge section of the interstate highway system opened in 1973, and in 1988 Arizona Highways Magazine stated that this section of the highway "enhanced rather than distracted from nature's handiwork." This is high praise indeed in an area whose citizens were rightfully protective of their region's natural splendor. So amazing was the job done by Kiewit Construction Company that this section of the interstate highway system has been deemed a wonder in itself.
To date, Kiewit has built more miles of the interstate highway system than any other construction company, including sections through Colorado's Glenwood Canyon, the Eisenhower Tunnel through the Colorado Rockies and the Ft. McHenry tunnel beneath Baltimore Harbor. Forbes Magazine called company president Peter Kiewit "The Colossus of Roads." Kiewit is still one of the largest transportation contactors in the United States today.
Highway Construction in Colorado
The longest tunnel built as part of the interstate highway system is the Eisenhower Memorial Tunnel under the Continental Divide. Four construction companies joined together to form Straight Creek Constructors, a name derived from where the west portal of the tunnel was located. The Division of Highways had estimated the cost of the project at $42.5 million, and the Straight Creek Constructors had the low bid at $54.1 million.
The project called for completing the westbound tunnel; starting the eastbound tunnel a short distance into each end; constructing combination portal and ventilation buildings for all tunnel entrances; and installing such facilities as lighting, other utilities and an electronic surveillance system. The first bore was to open three years after beginning construction, and the second several years later.
Construction began on March 15, 1968. There were a number of challenges that had to be faced by the construction company.
Geologists had discovered that the bedrock in the tunnel was 75% granite and 25% gneiss and schist. In the pilot bore, more than 26% of the length was in self-supporting rock, with 74% needing support. There was also 820 feet of what tunnelers describe as bad rock-not the most ideal situation. Additional problems arose because the first bore was not in the same spot as the pilot bore, and so conditions were different from what contractors were expecting.
The workers had to excavate 524,000 cubic yards of rock at an elevation of eleven thousand feet, which made efficiency for both man and machine much lower than expected. That area of the country has a long winter season, making the available time for working on the outside of the tunnel very short. In order to get the work done on schedule, 1,140 people worked in three shifts, 24 hours a day, six days a week.
The greatest problem the construction company faced was the mountain itself. There was simply no way to predict how it would react to the great tunnels being bored through it, and it didn't always cooperate as contractors had planned. Stress would often show up, for example, where theory would indicate there should be none. In order to overcome these obstacles, the construction company had to devise new methodology, like creating a way to mine and support a hole 50 feet high and 45 feet wide.
All told, contractors used 190,000 cubic yards of concrete to line the tunnel, 34,000 cubic yards of concrete for the buildings, and 10,000 tons of steel reinforcing bars and 23,400 tons of structural steel in the tunnel.
On March 8, 1973, the first of the twin tunnels was dedicated and opened to traffic. The second bore was opened in December, 1979.
Glenwood Canyon in Colorado, experts agree, was one of the most challenging sections of the interstate highway system, and another to which Kiewit Construction Company of Arizona lent its expertise. The canyon was formed by the Colorado River and includes 16 miles of steep, sheer cliffs on both sides of the river. Kiewit began work on the project in 1981, employing as many as 500 workers.
Because this is an amazingly scenic area, environmentalists and other nature enthusiasts were concerned that the highway would mar the canyon's beauty. So afraid were environmentalists that Kiewit would ruin their lovely landscape that in 1984 the Colorado Open Space Council and Sierra Club joined forces to seek a restraining order to stop construction. Their motion was rejected, but contractors were required to disturb as little of the canyon as possible, even facing fines if their work harmed certain trees.
Kiewit had to find a way to make engineering and the environment work together, and they did it by introducing a construction method that had never before been used in the United States: balanced cantilever construction. This method enables construction companies to build bridges from above, rather than below. First a bridge column is built and then a gantry, a special type of crane, is positioned on top of the column. Using precast segments that were brought in by truck, the gantry was used to build the bridge outward from the column.
Construction on I-70 through Glenwood Canyon was completed in 1992, one full year ahead of schedule, at the cost of $490.3 million. All in all, more than 40 bridges and viaducts made of precast box girders, precast I-beams, cast-in-place post tension box girders and welded steel box girders were used to preserve as much of the canyon as possible.
Interstate Highway System
The United States' Interstate Highway System was designated as one of the Seven Wonders of the United States in 1994 by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). To put this recognition into perspective one has only to look at other structures worthy of inclusion in the ASCE's list, including the Golden Gate Bridge, Panama Canal and the Hoover Dam.
The highway system, formally known as The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways, is a marvel in construction. Not only does it link the nation from coast to coast, but it also helped to increase business productivity as companies may now to get their goods anywhere in the United States more quickly and efficiently. In fact, since the highway system was started in 1956, our country has seen a tenfold increase in our gross national product, thanks to this massive project.
No one construction company is responsible for the highway system; it was a task too monumental for any single company to undertake. For the most part, each state, with help from the federal government, was responsible for its own sections of the interstate highway system. Some states built their roads through their various transportation departments and some contracted out the job to highly skilled highway builders. Here are a few of the states where construction companies overcame huge challenges to help create America's superb highway system.
Highway Construction in Louisiana
One section of I-10 in Louisiana was earning design awards before it even opened in March of 1973. That stretch is the elevated roadway that runs across the Atchafalaya Swamp. The construction company responsible for this section of the interstate highway system is Boh Brothers Construction.
The company was founded in 1909 when Arthur Boh built four duplexes in a small New Orleans neighborhood. When Arthur's brother Henry joined the company in 1913, they changed the name to Boh Brothers, a name it still carries today.
In the early part of the 20th Century they branched out from building construction and into drainage and sewage projects, growing modestly through the difficult times of the Depression. By this time the company started earning recognition for their expertise in underground work and pile-driving skills, eventually leading to them being considered the number one pile-driving contractor in the South. As the company grew, it worked on war-related facilities, utilities, subdivisions, power plants and overpasses. Henry brought in some key employees who would later play a crucial role the interstate highway system project, including J.A. Tedford, D.E. Guiza, the company's first registered engineer, and B.C.Stewart. Stewart was a man so committed to providing quality workmanship that he was known for tearing out work if he didn't feel it was good enough - even if that work had already been approved by inspectors. Stewart became the company's vice president and senior consultant, positions he still holds today.
By the time the interstate highway system was ready to be built in Louisiana, Boh Bros. was ready for the task. The elevated section of highway across the Atchafalaya Swamp was constructed from precast segments. These segments were cast at a plant on Lake Pontchartrain, and then floated through a maze of streams and canals by barge to the Atchafalaya River Basin. When they arrived at the building site, the segments were then lifted by large cranes and placed on top of the supporting columns.
The highway system, formally known as The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways, is a marvel in construction. Not only does it link the nation from coast to coast, but it also helped to increase business productivity as companies may now to get their goods anywhere in the United States more quickly and efficiently. In fact, since the highway system was started in 1956, our country has seen a tenfold increase in our gross national product, thanks to this massive project.
No one construction company is responsible for the highway system; it was a task too monumental for any single company to undertake. For the most part, each state, with help from the federal government, was responsible for its own sections of the interstate highway system. Some states built their roads through their various transportation departments and some contracted out the job to highly skilled highway builders. Here are a few of the states where construction companies overcame huge challenges to help create America's superb highway system.
Highway Construction in Louisiana
One section of I-10 in Louisiana was earning design awards before it even opened in March of 1973. That stretch is the elevated roadway that runs across the Atchafalaya Swamp. The construction company responsible for this section of the interstate highway system is Boh Brothers Construction.
The company was founded in 1909 when Arthur Boh built four duplexes in a small New Orleans neighborhood. When Arthur's brother Henry joined the company in 1913, they changed the name to Boh Brothers, a name it still carries today.
In the early part of the 20th Century they branched out from building construction and into drainage and sewage projects, growing modestly through the difficult times of the Depression. By this time the company started earning recognition for their expertise in underground work and pile-driving skills, eventually leading to them being considered the number one pile-driving contractor in the South. As the company grew, it worked on war-related facilities, utilities, subdivisions, power plants and overpasses. Henry brought in some key employees who would later play a crucial role the interstate highway system project, including J.A. Tedford, D.E. Guiza, the company's first registered engineer, and B.C.Stewart. Stewart was a man so committed to providing quality workmanship that he was known for tearing out work if he didn't feel it was good enough - even if that work had already been approved by inspectors. Stewart became the company's vice president and senior consultant, positions he still holds today.
By the time the interstate highway system was ready to be built in Louisiana, Boh Bros. was ready for the task. The elevated section of highway across the Atchafalaya Swamp was constructed from precast segments. These segments were cast at a plant on Lake Pontchartrain, and then floated through a maze of streams and canals by barge to the Atchafalaya River Basin. When they arrived at the building site, the segments were then lifted by large cranes and placed on top of the supporting columns.
Hoover Dam
The Hoover Dam was built by Six Companies Inc, which was actually a consortium of several companies. A number of construction companies were interested in the job. After all, this was a historical project of great significance, as well as an incredible challenge. It soon became obvious, though, that no one company would be able to handle a project of this magnitude. Even the very biggest construction companies in that day had neither the capital nor the resources to take on such a job.
Harry Morrison, president of Morrison-Knudson Co., approached San Francisco banker Leland Cutler to seek financial backing for Morrison-Knudsen Co. for the Hoover Dam project. Cutler refused because he didn't think any one company could raise the $5 million bond that was necessary, but he did give Morrison the names of several other construction companies who might be interested in a joint venture. Morrison quickly realized the only way to get the Hoover Dam built was for several companies to join together, and he organized the Six Companies consortium.
At that time, the leading dam builder in the United States was Frank T. Crowe, a former Department of Reclamation superintendent. Crowe had spent twenty years working for the Department of Reclamation, as well as private construction companies. He had helped to build Arrowrock Dam in Idaho, the Jackson Lake Dam in Wyoming and Washington's Tieton Dam. Crowe had also developed a cableway system of delivering concrete and moving equipment that was far more advanced than any other system of its time.
Everything Crowe had ever done during his career helped prepare him for the building of Hoover Dam, which would be the biggest challenge of his life. Crowe aided Reclamation Commissioner Arthur Powell Davis in developing a cost estimate for a dam on the lower Colorado River as early as 1919 and also helped with the preliminary design in 1924.
Prior to 1925, when the Reclamation Service (which later became the Department of Reclamation) wanted to build a dam, the government did the project itself. In 1925, the government began contracting such projects out. Frank Crowe wanted very badly to work on the Hoover Dam; in fact, it had been a dream of his for a very long time. And now that the Reclamation Service had changed its way of doing business, Crowe had to choose between staying in his government job or working on the Hoover Dam. To work on off the Hoover Dam project, Crowe would be forced to leave his job and team up with a construction company. Crowe decided to join Morrison-Knudsen Co., and was instrumental in persuading Morrison to organize Six Companies.
Since Crowe had two decades of experience and had worked on the project's cost estimate for the government, he knew what went into the calculations the government used to develop their estimates. Morrison gathered together the construction companies that would make up Six Companies, made Crowe construction superintendent and won the contract on March 4, 1931. Six Companies bid $48.9 million for the project, a bid that was just $24,000 higher than the Department of the Interior had budgeted for the project and $10 million lower than the next lowest bid. At the time, this was the largest single contract the United States government had ever awarded. In today's dollars, that bid would be more than $577 million.
Six Companies Delivered Comprensive Construction Expertise
Each member of the Six Companies consortium brought a special expertise to the table. The Wattis Brothers of Utah Construction were well known for their expertise in building the early railroads in the western United States and Mexico. The JF Shea Company had started out as a plumbing business and was experienced in tunnel building and other underground work. Charles Shea knew people at the Pacific Bridge Company, and he convinced them to bring their expertise and capital to the project. Felix Kahn of San Francisco's MacDonald and Kahn had built a number of large buildings in San Francisco and contributed $1 million to the project. Henry Kaiser and Warren Bechtel were experienced in road building.
Word of the Hoover Dam project spread quickly, and Six Companies quickly received more than 2,400 job applications and over 12,000 letters of inquiry about jobs. This was during the Depression. Times were tough and many people desperately needed work. Workers flocked to the building area from all over country, more than 5,000 in all. Many brought their wives and children and lived in tents. With poor sanitation, little access to clean water, 119-degree heat and no utilities, this tent community was a living hell. Six Companies realized that these people would be here for years and something had to change. Along with the Reclamation Service and under Frank Crowe's guidance, Six Companies built Boulder City. Electricity was brought in, and a school, churches, post office, library, newspaper and stores were built.
Before construction on the dam could start, a monumental task was at hand. The construction companies had to divert the Colorado River away from the project's foundation site, and this could only happen during the winter. Crowe decided this needed to be done during the winter of 1932-33. Work on the tunnels began in May 1931. For 24 hours a day, seven days a week four tunnels, two on each side, were built right through the rock walls of the canyon. Each tunnel was 4,000 feet long, 56 feet in diameter, and lined with three feet of concrete, making them the second largest tunnels ever made.
The diversionary tunnels had to be built in the summer in order to be ready to divert the river in the winter. Conditions in the tunnels were brutal, with temperatures inside reaching 140 degrees Fahrenheit. As many as four workers died from heat prostration each week. To make matters worse, Six Companies used gasoline-powered trucks in the tunnel, something that had never been done before in underground mining, so carbon monoxide was added to the heat, dust, and fumes from the blasting.
Crowe was a mechanical genius, something he had proven time and time again on his previous dam projects. He conceived of many new inventions during the course of building Hoover Dam, one of which occurred during the building of the diversionary tunnels. He came up with a drilling jumbo, four platforms welded to a truck that carried 30 rock drills. This enabled construction workers to complete the tunnels and cofferdams by April 1932, a full year ahead of schedule. Construction on the dam base could now begin.
In order for Six Companies to recover its initial $5 million investment, it gave high prices for the work done in the diversion phase and lower prices for subsequent work. But in order for this to work, Frank Crowe had to place the 3.4 million cubic yards of concrete necessary to complete the dam for only $2.70 per yard, a price that was 35% lower than the price of the second lowest bidder. Further, Six Companies had agreed to a $3,000 per day penalty for every day the project went over schedule, so it was imperative that everything go according to plan. Crowe overcame these challenges magnificently. Not only was he able to get the concrete into place at the right price, he also did it ahead of schedule.
The base of the Hoover Dam, as with any dam, was the most important part of the structure. If the base wasn't built correctly, to there could be numerous potential problems with the rest of the structure. Construction workers had to use power shovels to dig through more than half-million cubic yards of river bottom mud to reach the bedrock 40 feet below, making the total excavation 125 feet, with grouting as deep as 150 feet. Simultaneously, high scalers blasted the canyon walls with jackhammers to make a smooth surface for the dam's construction. These scalers earned $5.60 a day and were some of the highest paid workers on the job.
On June 6, 1933, two years after Six Companies won the contract, they started pouring the concrete for the dam's base. In order to allow the concrete to dry properly and not crack during the process, construction workers had to pour 230 individual blocks of concrete for the base. All in all, 3.25 million cubic yards of concrete were used for the base, enough concrete to pave a highway 16 feet wide from New York to San Francisco.
The first eight-cubic-yard bottom-dump bucket of concrete went into the dam 18 months ahead of schedule. The dam's great mass of concrete was stripped of heat by pumping refrigerated water through 590 miles of pipe placed in the concrete as it was poured. The four 395-foot intake towers were taller than most buildings. The powerhouse's two 230-foot-high wings were designed to house 17 generating units. When construction was complete in 1935, the diversionary tunnels were closed, and the filling of Lake Mead began.
The Construction Project Completed
All in all, Hoover Dam stood 725 feet high, is 1244 feet wide, 660 feet thick at the base, tapering to a thickness of 45 feet at the top. It cost a total of $165 million to build and was completed in four and a half years. The project was begun in March 1931 and President Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated it on September 30, 1935. First power was produced in October 1936, more than two years ahead of schedule. A total of 4.4 million yards of concrete were used in its construction. The powerhouse used 17 generators in 10 acres of floor space to produce over 4 billion kilowatt-hours for California, Nevada, and Arizona.
The name of the dam has changed several times. Early in the construction process, surveyors thought the dam should be built at Boulder Canyon because of its granite floor, and the dam was to be called Boulder Dam. It was later determined that Black Canyon was a more suitable site since a dam in this location would not have to be quite as high, but the name was left as Boulder Dam. During the strike-driving ceremony on September 17, 1930, Secretary of the Interior Ray L. Wilbur named the dam Hoover Dam in honor of President Herbert Hoover, which came as a great surprise to everyone. In 1933 voters elected Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt as president, and his Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes changed the name back to Boulder Dam. Fourteen years later, a joint resolution of Congress changed the name back to Hoover Dam.
Harry Morrison, president of Morrison-Knudson Co., approached San Francisco banker Leland Cutler to seek financial backing for Morrison-Knudsen Co. for the Hoover Dam project. Cutler refused because he didn't think any one company could raise the $5 million bond that was necessary, but he did give Morrison the names of several other construction companies who might be interested in a joint venture. Morrison quickly realized the only way to get the Hoover Dam built was for several companies to join together, and he organized the Six Companies consortium.
At that time, the leading dam builder in the United States was Frank T. Crowe, a former Department of Reclamation superintendent. Crowe had spent twenty years working for the Department of Reclamation, as well as private construction companies. He had helped to build Arrowrock Dam in Idaho, the Jackson Lake Dam in Wyoming and Washington's Tieton Dam. Crowe had also developed a cableway system of delivering concrete and moving equipment that was far more advanced than any other system of its time.
Everything Crowe had ever done during his career helped prepare him for the building of Hoover Dam, which would be the biggest challenge of his life. Crowe aided Reclamation Commissioner Arthur Powell Davis in developing a cost estimate for a dam on the lower Colorado River as early as 1919 and also helped with the preliminary design in 1924.
Prior to 1925, when the Reclamation Service (which later became the Department of Reclamation) wanted to build a dam, the government did the project itself. In 1925, the government began contracting such projects out. Frank Crowe wanted very badly to work on the Hoover Dam; in fact, it had been a dream of his for a very long time. And now that the Reclamation Service had changed its way of doing business, Crowe had to choose between staying in his government job or working on the Hoover Dam. To work on off the Hoover Dam project, Crowe would be forced to leave his job and team up with a construction company. Crowe decided to join Morrison-Knudsen Co., and was instrumental in persuading Morrison to organize Six Companies.
Since Crowe had two decades of experience and had worked on the project's cost estimate for the government, he knew what went into the calculations the government used to develop their estimates. Morrison gathered together the construction companies that would make up Six Companies, made Crowe construction superintendent and won the contract on March 4, 1931. Six Companies bid $48.9 million for the project, a bid that was just $24,000 higher than the Department of the Interior had budgeted for the project and $10 million lower than the next lowest bid. At the time, this was the largest single contract the United States government had ever awarded. In today's dollars, that bid would be more than $577 million.
Six Companies Delivered Comprensive Construction Expertise
Each member of the Six Companies consortium brought a special expertise to the table. The Wattis Brothers of Utah Construction were well known for their expertise in building the early railroads in the western United States and Mexico. The JF Shea Company had started out as a plumbing business and was experienced in tunnel building and other underground work. Charles Shea knew people at the Pacific Bridge Company, and he convinced them to bring their expertise and capital to the project. Felix Kahn of San Francisco's MacDonald and Kahn had built a number of large buildings in San Francisco and contributed $1 million to the project. Henry Kaiser and Warren Bechtel were experienced in road building.
Word of the Hoover Dam project spread quickly, and Six Companies quickly received more than 2,400 job applications and over 12,000 letters of inquiry about jobs. This was during the Depression. Times were tough and many people desperately needed work. Workers flocked to the building area from all over country, more than 5,000 in all. Many brought their wives and children and lived in tents. With poor sanitation, little access to clean water, 119-degree heat and no utilities, this tent community was a living hell. Six Companies realized that these people would be here for years and something had to change. Along with the Reclamation Service and under Frank Crowe's guidance, Six Companies built Boulder City. Electricity was brought in, and a school, churches, post office, library, newspaper and stores were built.
Before construction on the dam could start, a monumental task was at hand. The construction companies had to divert the Colorado River away from the project's foundation site, and this could only happen during the winter. Crowe decided this needed to be done during the winter of 1932-33. Work on the tunnels began in May 1931. For 24 hours a day, seven days a week four tunnels, two on each side, were built right through the rock walls of the canyon. Each tunnel was 4,000 feet long, 56 feet in diameter, and lined with three feet of concrete, making them the second largest tunnels ever made.
The diversionary tunnels had to be built in the summer in order to be ready to divert the river in the winter. Conditions in the tunnels were brutal, with temperatures inside reaching 140 degrees Fahrenheit. As many as four workers died from heat prostration each week. To make matters worse, Six Companies used gasoline-powered trucks in the tunnel, something that had never been done before in underground mining, so carbon monoxide was added to the heat, dust, and fumes from the blasting.
Crowe was a mechanical genius, something he had proven time and time again on his previous dam projects. He conceived of many new inventions during the course of building Hoover Dam, one of which occurred during the building of the diversionary tunnels. He came up with a drilling jumbo, four platforms welded to a truck that carried 30 rock drills. This enabled construction workers to complete the tunnels and cofferdams by April 1932, a full year ahead of schedule. Construction on the dam base could now begin.
In order for Six Companies to recover its initial $5 million investment, it gave high prices for the work done in the diversion phase and lower prices for subsequent work. But in order for this to work, Frank Crowe had to place the 3.4 million cubic yards of concrete necessary to complete the dam for only $2.70 per yard, a price that was 35% lower than the price of the second lowest bidder. Further, Six Companies had agreed to a $3,000 per day penalty for every day the project went over schedule, so it was imperative that everything go according to plan. Crowe overcame these challenges magnificently. Not only was he able to get the concrete into place at the right price, he also did it ahead of schedule.
The base of the Hoover Dam, as with any dam, was the most important part of the structure. If the base wasn't built correctly, to there could be numerous potential problems with the rest of the structure. Construction workers had to use power shovels to dig through more than half-million cubic yards of river bottom mud to reach the bedrock 40 feet below, making the total excavation 125 feet, with grouting as deep as 150 feet. Simultaneously, high scalers blasted the canyon walls with jackhammers to make a smooth surface for the dam's construction. These scalers earned $5.60 a day and were some of the highest paid workers on the job.
On June 6, 1933, two years after Six Companies won the contract, they started pouring the concrete for the dam's base. In order to allow the concrete to dry properly and not crack during the process, construction workers had to pour 230 individual blocks of concrete for the base. All in all, 3.25 million cubic yards of concrete were used for the base, enough concrete to pave a highway 16 feet wide from New York to San Francisco.
The first eight-cubic-yard bottom-dump bucket of concrete went into the dam 18 months ahead of schedule. The dam's great mass of concrete was stripped of heat by pumping refrigerated water through 590 miles of pipe placed in the concrete as it was poured. The four 395-foot intake towers were taller than most buildings. The powerhouse's two 230-foot-high wings were designed to house 17 generating units. When construction was complete in 1935, the diversionary tunnels were closed, and the filling of Lake Mead began.
The Construction Project Completed
All in all, Hoover Dam stood 725 feet high, is 1244 feet wide, 660 feet thick at the base, tapering to a thickness of 45 feet at the top. It cost a total of $165 million to build and was completed in four and a half years. The project was begun in March 1931 and President Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated it on September 30, 1935. First power was produced in October 1936, more than two years ahead of schedule. A total of 4.4 million yards of concrete were used in its construction. The powerhouse used 17 generators in 10 acres of floor space to produce over 4 billion kilowatt-hours for California, Nevada, and Arizona.
The name of the dam has changed several times. Early in the construction process, surveyors thought the dam should be built at Boulder Canyon because of its granite floor, and the dam was to be called Boulder Dam. It was later determined that Black Canyon was a more suitable site since a dam in this location would not have to be quite as high, but the name was left as Boulder Dam. During the strike-driving ceremony on September 17, 1930, Secretary of the Interior Ray L. Wilbur named the dam Hoover Dam in honor of President Herbert Hoover, which came as a great surprise to everyone. In 1933 voters elected Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt as president, and his Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes changed the name back to Boulder Dam. Fourteen years later, a joint resolution of Congress changed the name back to Hoover Dam.
Empire State Building
The Empire State Building is a marvel of engineering and architecture, and it occupies a unique place in the history of construction companies and construction management. Not only was the 1453-foot, 103-story structure built in just over 13 months, the construction company that took on the daunting job allegedly began with nothing on hand - no equipment or supplies that would be sufficient for such an enormous undertaking. How they accomplished the task is a case study in early, successful commercial construction management.
Legend has it that General Motors executive John J. Raskob conceived of the project when he decided to best his arch-rival, Walter Chrysler, who had begun construction on the 1046-foot Chrysler Building. The Chrysler Building was already in competition with the Bank of Manhattan Building at 40 Wall Street to be the tallest building in the world.
Raskob rounded up a group of well known investors that included Coleman and Pierre S. duPont, Louis G. Kaufman and Ellis P. Earl to form Empire State, Inc. He appointed former Governor of New York and Presidential candidate Alfred E. Smith to head the group. Raskob then went to architectural firm Shreve, Lamb & Harmon Associates, who were known as the best skyscraper architects in the city. He told them he not only wanted an office building whose height would exceed that of the Chrysler Building, but he wanted it to be finished first.
The decade of the 1920s was known as the Art Deco Period in design. The Empire State Building's architects wanted to make this building something that would stand out, even in this era. One way they did this was by creating a building with four facades facing the street, rather than just the one that most buildings have. The highlight of the building would be its imperious tower, set off by the buildup of the lower levels and the indented setbacks of the center. Steel columns and beams were to be used to form a stable 3-D grid. Because the column grids were to be closely spaced, the open spaces in the building would be obstructed. As a result, there would be no column-free spaces on any of the building's floors.
The schedule on this project was as adventurous as the design. The project would be done, the architects planned, in only eighteen months.
General contractors Starrett Brothers and Eken, who were known as the premier "skyline builders" of the 1920s, made a bold bid to win the job. Not only did they promise that they could get the job done on time, but they announced that they would purchase custom-fitted equipment to fulfill the contract. The Starrett Brothers were sure that other commercial contractors trying get the job had assured the client that they had plenty of equipment, and what they didn't have they would rent. The Starret Brothers decided to take a different tack. During the interview process, when asked how much equipment the construction company had on hand they answered that they didn't own anything that would be useful on this project. They explained to the investors that the size and scope of the Empire State Building would create unusual problems. Ordinary building equipment would not suffice so they would have to design and purchase all new, custom pieces. They would sell that equipment and credit the investors with the difference when the project was complete. Their opinion was that this would cost less than renting secondhand equipment and would be more efficient. The investment group agreed.
With such an extremely tight schedule, Starrett Bros. and Eken had to start planning immediately. They determined that more than sixty different types of trade people would be required and that most supplies would need to be ordered to specification because the immense job scope. The supplies had to be made at the plants in as close to finished state as possible, to minimize preparatory work needed at the site. The companies they hired had to be dependable, able to provide quality work, and willing to adhere to the allotted timetable. Time had to be scheduled nearly to the minute. The schedule dictated that each section of the building process overlapped - not a moment was to be wasted.
The Empire State Building was the first commercial construction project to employ the technique of fast-track construction, a commonplace approach today but very new in the early 20th Century. This technique consists of starting the construction process before the designs are fully completed in order to reduce delays and inflation costs. In this case, it was imperative to use the fast-track construction method to win the race for the tallest building. In order to make this work, the structural engineer makes a schematic design based upon the architect's sketches. The schematic design includes the materials to be used in construction (either reinforced concrete or steel), types of floors and column spacing.
The contractors began excavation for the new building in January 1930, even before the demolition of the site's previous occupant, the original Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, was complete. The Starrett Brothers had pioneered the simultaneous work of demolition and foundation-laying just a year earlier when building 40 Wall Street, an earlier competitor in the race to erect the world's highest building. Two shifts of 300 men worked day and night, digging through the hard rock and creating the foundation.
Less than two months later, in March 1930 construction began on the steel skeleton. The frame of the skyscraper rose at the rate of four and a half stories per week, or more than a story a day. No comparable building has been built at a similar rate of speed. This accomplishment came about through effective logistics combined with a skilled, organized workforce.
The project became a model of efficiency. The contractors created various innovations that saved time, money and manpower. The 60,000 tons of steel for the framework were manufactured in Pittsburgh and transported immediately to New York via train, barge and truck. Legend has it that the steel posts and beams arrived at the site marked with their place in the framework and with the number of the derrick that would hoist them. Workers could then swing the girders into place and have them riveted as quickly as 80 hours after coming out of the furnace and off the roller.
A railway was built at the construction site to move materials quickly. Since each railway car -- a cart pushed by people -- held eight times more than a wheelbarrow, the materials were also moved with less effort. The steel girders could not be raised more than 30 stories at a time, so several large derricks were used to pass the girders up to the higher floors.
In those days, bricks used for construction were usually dumped in the street and then moved from the pile to the bricklayer by wheelbarrow as needed. The streets would have to be closed off, while the labor of moving the bricks was backbreaking and inefficient. With ten million bricks needed for this job, the old method would be impractical and wasteful of time. Instead, Starrett Brothers and Eken devised a chute that led to a hopper in the basement. As the bricks arrived by truck, the contractors had them dumped down the chute. When they were needed, the bricks were released from the hopper and dropped into carts, which were then hoisted up to the appropriate floor.
While the outside of the building was being constructed, electricians and plumbers began installing the internal necessities of the building. Timing for each trade to start working was finely tuned, and the building rose as if being constructed on an assembly line - one where the assembly line did the moving and the finished product stayed put.
In addition to the steel frame, construction materials included 62,000 cubic yards of concrete; 200,000 cubic feet of Indiana limestone and granite, which comprised most of the exterior; 10,000 square feet of Rose Famosa and Estrallante marble; 6,500 windows, whose spandrels were sandblasted to blend their color into the tone of the windows; and 300,000 square feet of Hauteville and Rocheron marble for the elevator lobbies and the corridors on the office floors.
The Starrett Brothers managed a workforce of 3,500 men, who put in seven million man-hours including work on Sundays and holidays. The workers earned $15 a day, an excellent rate of pay in the early 1930s.
The project was completed ahead of schedule and under budget. Instead of taking 18 months as anticipated, the construction took just under fifteen. Due to reduced costs during the Depression, the final costs totaled only $24.7 million instead of the estimated $43 million.
In September of 1930, only partially finished, the Empire State Building officially became the world's tallest skyscraper. The 1046-foot Chrysler Building, which was completed in May 1930, had held the title for only a few months. When the 85th floor of the Empire State Building was completed, it officially eclipsed its rival.
Construction was completed on April 11, 1931, one year and 45 days after it had begun. President Herbert Hoover officially opened the building on May 1, 1931 by pressing a button in Washington, D.C. which turned on the building's lights. The Empire State Building remained the world's tallest skyscraper for more than 40 years, until the World Trade Center Towers were constructed in 1972.
Although it is no longer the tallest building in the world, the Empire State Building is a crowning achievement of architecture, a symbol of New York City, and most of all an amazing accomplishment in the field of commercial construction.
Seventy-three elevators wait to take visitors to the upper floors, but if you prefer the stairs you'll have to climb 1860 steps. Seventy million people have viewed the world from the platforms on the 86th and 102nd floors-approximately 35,000 a day. Famous visitors include Lassie, KISS, Prince Charles and Fidel Castro. The building has appeared in over 50 different movies, including "An Affair to Remember" and "When Harry Met Sally." Floodlights in 18 different color combinations shine on the top of the building on special occasions and holidays.
Interestingly, the building was designed to be a lightning rod for the area and it works: the Empire State Building is struck approximately 100 times each year. In 1945, the structural integrity of the building was tested when a twin-engine B-25 bomber crashed into the 79th floor. Fourteen people were tragically killed, but the building remained standing. Even though one of the plane's engine went right through the entire building, damage was confined to the outer wall.
The lobby of the building is a spectacular feat in itself. It rises five stories and is finished in Art Deco stylings, with large bronze medallions that honor the workers who created this amazing building. The crowning touch is a metal mosaic that features the building as the center of the universe. Marble and granite grace the lobby and are highlighted with brushed stainless steel.
Legend has it that General Motors executive John J. Raskob conceived of the project when he decided to best his arch-rival, Walter Chrysler, who had begun construction on the 1046-foot Chrysler Building. The Chrysler Building was already in competition with the Bank of Manhattan Building at 40 Wall Street to be the tallest building in the world.
Raskob rounded up a group of well known investors that included Coleman and Pierre S. duPont, Louis G. Kaufman and Ellis P. Earl to form Empire State, Inc. He appointed former Governor of New York and Presidential candidate Alfred E. Smith to head the group. Raskob then went to architectural firm Shreve, Lamb & Harmon Associates, who were known as the best skyscraper architects in the city. He told them he not only wanted an office building whose height would exceed that of the Chrysler Building, but he wanted it to be finished first.
The decade of the 1920s was known as the Art Deco Period in design. The Empire State Building's architects wanted to make this building something that would stand out, even in this era. One way they did this was by creating a building with four facades facing the street, rather than just the one that most buildings have. The highlight of the building would be its imperious tower, set off by the buildup of the lower levels and the indented setbacks of the center. Steel columns and beams were to be used to form a stable 3-D grid. Because the column grids were to be closely spaced, the open spaces in the building would be obstructed. As a result, there would be no column-free spaces on any of the building's floors.
The schedule on this project was as adventurous as the design. The project would be done, the architects planned, in only eighteen months.
General contractors Starrett Brothers and Eken, who were known as the premier "skyline builders" of the 1920s, made a bold bid to win the job. Not only did they promise that they could get the job done on time, but they announced that they would purchase custom-fitted equipment to fulfill the contract. The Starrett Brothers were sure that other commercial contractors trying get the job had assured the client that they had plenty of equipment, and what they didn't have they would rent. The Starret Brothers decided to take a different tack. During the interview process, when asked how much equipment the construction company had on hand they answered that they didn't own anything that would be useful on this project. They explained to the investors that the size and scope of the Empire State Building would create unusual problems. Ordinary building equipment would not suffice so they would have to design and purchase all new, custom pieces. They would sell that equipment and credit the investors with the difference when the project was complete. Their opinion was that this would cost less than renting secondhand equipment and would be more efficient. The investment group agreed.
With such an extremely tight schedule, Starrett Bros. and Eken had to start planning immediately. They determined that more than sixty different types of trade people would be required and that most supplies would need to be ordered to specification because the immense job scope. The supplies had to be made at the plants in as close to finished state as possible, to minimize preparatory work needed at the site. The companies they hired had to be dependable, able to provide quality work, and willing to adhere to the allotted timetable. Time had to be scheduled nearly to the minute. The schedule dictated that each section of the building process overlapped - not a moment was to be wasted.
The Empire State Building was the first commercial construction project to employ the technique of fast-track construction, a commonplace approach today but very new in the early 20th Century. This technique consists of starting the construction process before the designs are fully completed in order to reduce delays and inflation costs. In this case, it was imperative to use the fast-track construction method to win the race for the tallest building. In order to make this work, the structural engineer makes a schematic design based upon the architect's sketches. The schematic design includes the materials to be used in construction (either reinforced concrete or steel), types of floors and column spacing.
The contractors began excavation for the new building in January 1930, even before the demolition of the site's previous occupant, the original Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, was complete. The Starrett Brothers had pioneered the simultaneous work of demolition and foundation-laying just a year earlier when building 40 Wall Street, an earlier competitor in the race to erect the world's highest building. Two shifts of 300 men worked day and night, digging through the hard rock and creating the foundation.
Less than two months later, in March 1930 construction began on the steel skeleton. The frame of the skyscraper rose at the rate of four and a half stories per week, or more than a story a day. No comparable building has been built at a similar rate of speed. This accomplishment came about through effective logistics combined with a skilled, organized workforce.
The project became a model of efficiency. The contractors created various innovations that saved time, money and manpower. The 60,000 tons of steel for the framework were manufactured in Pittsburgh and transported immediately to New York via train, barge and truck. Legend has it that the steel posts and beams arrived at the site marked with their place in the framework and with the number of the derrick that would hoist them. Workers could then swing the girders into place and have them riveted as quickly as 80 hours after coming out of the furnace and off the roller.
A railway was built at the construction site to move materials quickly. Since each railway car -- a cart pushed by people -- held eight times more than a wheelbarrow, the materials were also moved with less effort. The steel girders could not be raised more than 30 stories at a time, so several large derricks were used to pass the girders up to the higher floors.
In those days, bricks used for construction were usually dumped in the street and then moved from the pile to the bricklayer by wheelbarrow as needed. The streets would have to be closed off, while the labor of moving the bricks was backbreaking and inefficient. With ten million bricks needed for this job, the old method would be impractical and wasteful of time. Instead, Starrett Brothers and Eken devised a chute that led to a hopper in the basement. As the bricks arrived by truck, the contractors had them dumped down the chute. When they were needed, the bricks were released from the hopper and dropped into carts, which were then hoisted up to the appropriate floor.
While the outside of the building was being constructed, electricians and plumbers began installing the internal necessities of the building. Timing for each trade to start working was finely tuned, and the building rose as if being constructed on an assembly line - one where the assembly line did the moving and the finished product stayed put.
In addition to the steel frame, construction materials included 62,000 cubic yards of concrete; 200,000 cubic feet of Indiana limestone and granite, which comprised most of the exterior; 10,000 square feet of Rose Famosa and Estrallante marble; 6,500 windows, whose spandrels were sandblasted to blend their color into the tone of the windows; and 300,000 square feet of Hauteville and Rocheron marble for the elevator lobbies and the corridors on the office floors.
The Starrett Brothers managed a workforce of 3,500 men, who put in seven million man-hours including work on Sundays and holidays. The workers earned $15 a day, an excellent rate of pay in the early 1930s.
The project was completed ahead of schedule and under budget. Instead of taking 18 months as anticipated, the construction took just under fifteen. Due to reduced costs during the Depression, the final costs totaled only $24.7 million instead of the estimated $43 million.
In September of 1930, only partially finished, the Empire State Building officially became the world's tallest skyscraper. The 1046-foot Chrysler Building, which was completed in May 1930, had held the title for only a few months. When the 85th floor of the Empire State Building was completed, it officially eclipsed its rival.
Construction was completed on April 11, 1931, one year and 45 days after it had begun. President Herbert Hoover officially opened the building on May 1, 1931 by pressing a button in Washington, D.C. which turned on the building's lights. The Empire State Building remained the world's tallest skyscraper for more than 40 years, until the World Trade Center Towers were constructed in 1972.
Although it is no longer the tallest building in the world, the Empire State Building is a crowning achievement of architecture, a symbol of New York City, and most of all an amazing accomplishment in the field of commercial construction.
Seventy-three elevators wait to take visitors to the upper floors, but if you prefer the stairs you'll have to climb 1860 steps. Seventy million people have viewed the world from the platforms on the 86th and 102nd floors-approximately 35,000 a day. Famous visitors include Lassie, KISS, Prince Charles and Fidel Castro. The building has appeared in over 50 different movies, including "An Affair to Remember" and "When Harry Met Sally." Floodlights in 18 different color combinations shine on the top of the building on special occasions and holidays.
Interestingly, the building was designed to be a lightning rod for the area and it works: the Empire State Building is struck approximately 100 times each year. In 1945, the structural integrity of the building was tested when a twin-engine B-25 bomber crashed into the 79th floor. Fourteen people were tragically killed, but the building remained standing. Even though one of the plane's engine went right through the entire building, damage was confined to the outer wall.
The lobby of the building is a spectacular feat in itself. It rises five stories and is finished in Art Deco stylings, with large bronze medallions that honor the workers who created this amazing building. The crowning touch is a metal mosaic that features the building as the center of the universe. Marble and granite grace the lobby and are highlighted with brushed stainless steel.
Bob Moore Construction, Steel Buildings and Tilt-up Construction
Bob Moore Construction's history with steel buildings goes back to 1946. Prior to making the transition to traditional and tilt-up construction, Bob Moore Construction was the largest representative in the United States for A & S Building Systems, a respected steel building manufacturer. In the late 1970s they became a builder for Butler Buildings and quickly became one of Butler's largest volume builders in the Southwest United States. Today, Bob Moore Construction matches that tradition of excellence in steel buildings with 30 years of experience in tilt-up construction and traditional construction.
A general contractor that is well schooled and experienced in all types of commercial construction, Bob Moore Construction can help you determine what the best approach is for your upcoming project: Steel, concrete or a combination of the two. If you would like to learn more about tilt-up construction or discuss how Bob Moore Construction can help on your upcoming project, please call us at (817) 640-1200 or click here to contact us online.
A general contractor that is well schooled and experienced in all types of commercial construction, Bob Moore Construction can help you determine what the best approach is for your upcoming project: Steel, concrete or a combination of the two. If you would like to learn more about tilt-up construction or discuss how Bob Moore Construction can help on your upcoming project, please call us at (817) 640-1200 or click here to contact us online.
Steel and Concrete Together: Using the Strengths of Each
Up until now the previous articles focused on buildings made entirely of steel. An important fact to remember is that the use of steel in building is not necessarily exclusive of concrete or blocks. In larger or more sophisticated projects the different raw materials and construction methods are frequently used together.
Here are some very common examples of how steel, concrete and tilt-up construction are used together to provide the best quality and value:
· A large steel office building or retail center may use tiltwall concrete panels for interior fire walls or exterior facades. The Mervyn's department store in the Dallas / Fort Worth, Texas area pictured to the right was constructed in just this manner.
· An existing manufacturing building or warehouse made of concrete blocks could be expanded by adding a steel lean-to structure to one of its exterior support walls.
· A distribution center built using the cement blocks of traditional construction will frequently use a steel roofing system and a rigid frame similar to what a metal building might use. Regardless what material is used, this combination of a rigid frame and steel roof is necessary to provide a large clearspan.
These are just a few situations where the best choice for a project might be a steel building with tilt-up construction components, or a concrete structure with steel framework, roof system or steel add-ons or expansions. A general contractor who is well versed in the advantages and limitations of all methods of construction can help determine what is the best approach on any given project.
Steel Buildings - The Right Choice for the Right Construction Projects
Not surprisingly, there are many factors that influence what type of building is right for any particular situation. Prefabricated steel buildings provide an excellent alternative for many applications. In general steel is a superior choice for storage buildings, shelters, work shops, garages, hangers, indoor tennis courts and other sports facilities, and a wide range of smaller structures. In specialized circumstances where a large clearspan is needed, a steel building or steel / concrete building will normally be the best solution.
For most larger buildings, and those with greater durability requirements, however, a careful analysis will often demonstrate that a concrete tilt-up building or a blend of steel systems and concrete offer the best mix of cost-effectiveness and long term value.
Here are some very common examples of how steel, concrete and tilt-up construction are used together to provide the best quality and value:
· A large steel office building or retail center may use tiltwall concrete panels for interior fire walls or exterior facades. The Mervyn's department store in the Dallas / Fort Worth, Texas area pictured to the right was constructed in just this manner.
· An existing manufacturing building or warehouse made of concrete blocks could be expanded by adding a steel lean-to structure to one of its exterior support walls.
· A distribution center built using the cement blocks of traditional construction will frequently use a steel roofing system and a rigid frame similar to what a metal building might use. Regardless what material is used, this combination of a rigid frame and steel roof is necessary to provide a large clearspan.
These are just a few situations where the best choice for a project might be a steel building with tilt-up construction components, or a concrete structure with steel framework, roof system or steel add-ons or expansions. A general contractor who is well versed in the advantages and limitations of all methods of construction can help determine what is the best approach on any given project.
Steel Buildings - The Right Choice for the Right Construction Projects
Not surprisingly, there are many factors that influence what type of building is right for any particular situation. Prefabricated steel buildings provide an excellent alternative for many applications. In general steel is a superior choice for storage buildings, shelters, work shops, garages, hangers, indoor tennis courts and other sports facilities, and a wide range of smaller structures. In specialized circumstances where a large clearspan is needed, a steel building or steel / concrete building will normally be the best solution.
For most larger buildings, and those with greater durability requirements, however, a careful analysis will often demonstrate that a concrete tilt-up building or a blend of steel systems and concrete offer the best mix of cost-effectiveness and long term value.
When Does Concrete Make More Sense?
There are several factors that may make other methods of construction, most notably tilt-up construction, a better choice than steel buildings.
The most obvious factor is the building's size. For projects less than 50,000 square feet, steel is generally the least expensive alternative. For a building of this size, the fixed or "open the door" costs of a tilt-up construction project (like the rental of a large crane, for example) make it more expensive than steel, even though concrete is usually a less expensive raw material. As projects become larger than 50,000 square feet, however, the lower price of concrete starts to offset tilt-up construction's fixed costs and this method becomes cost-competitive with a metal building. The larger the building, the more advantageous tilt-up construction becomes.
The cost of the steel building kit will usually be lower than a price quoted for a concrete building, even a tiltwall building. If customizing or modifications to the kit are necessary to meet the owner's needs, these design costs must be included when comparing the prices. Also, the kit price may not include costs that are normally incorporated into a quote for a tilt-up or traditionally constructed building. Some of those costs include concrete foundation, permits, erection and assembly costs, taxes, electrical wiring, plumbing, environmental controls, ductwork, interior finishing, etc.
The location of the project will also influence whether a steel building is even an option. Builders in agricultural or lightly populated areas generally have fewer code restrictions placed on them. The closer a building is planned to a densely populated area, the more stringent the fire codes, building permitting requirements and other municipal standards become. In some cases steel buildings can not be used in certain areas for this reason. Other times, fire codes may require steel buildings to be built further apart than tilt-up structures, requiring a larger plot of land for the project. This is why, in urban areas, buildings closer to the downtown area are generally made of concrete and steel buildings become more common on the outskirts of town.
The reason steel buildings face greater code limitations is that they generally offer less fire protection than tilt-up or other concrete buildings. While steel is not combustible, it is not considered fireproof because it can distort or lose its structural strength when exposed to heat. Further, a fire on one side of a metal wall can generate destructive heat on the other side, damaging the property inside. Steel building designers use a variety of technologies, from sprays to fire-retardant panels or blankets, to mitigate the fire-resistive problem. By comparison, a typical 6.5" concrete wall has a fire resistive rating of four hours or more. Tiltwall and concrete provide superior fire protection for the property and people inside a building.
The intended use for a building will also influence whether steel or concrete is the best choice. In general steel buildings work very well for storage buildings, indoor sports facilities, work shops, and aircraft hangers, but they are less suited for higher-trafficked buildings. Comparatively speaking, steel walls are less durable than concrete walls. This holds true in the face of natural forces (bad weather, earthquakes) as well as for truck or forklift accidents. When a building is damaged by a vehicle, the damage is generally more localized and less expensive to repair for a tilt-up or concrete building than for a steel building. For owners who want to build a warehouse or other facility where trucks or forklifts will be used, this can be a very important consideration. Defense contractor facilities, prisons, or other buildings that require positive security also are much better suited to impenetrable concrete than to comparatively unsecure steel.
While steel is reasonably durable, concrete remains the material of choice for buildings that require less upkeep and maintenance over the years. Concrete is impervious to corrosion, rotting, rust or insect infestation; tiltwall buildings created in the 1940s are still standing today with little apparent wear. The fact that builders in earthquake-prone California now use tilt-up construction for 90% of their single-story commercial buildings indicates that concrete buildings are cost-competitive and extremely durable.
When factoring in potential repairs and ongoing maintenance, it's apparent that the real dollar difference between operating a steel building and a concrete building can be significant. Further, the added fire safety and durability of a concrete building will usually be reflected in lower insurance premiums. If the owner decides to sell the property, they will most likely find that a tilt-up or other concrete building depreciates less and than a steel building will.
The most obvious factor is the building's size. For projects less than 50,000 square feet, steel is generally the least expensive alternative. For a building of this size, the fixed or "open the door" costs of a tilt-up construction project (like the rental of a large crane, for example) make it more expensive than steel, even though concrete is usually a less expensive raw material. As projects become larger than 50,000 square feet, however, the lower price of concrete starts to offset tilt-up construction's fixed costs and this method becomes cost-competitive with a metal building. The larger the building, the more advantageous tilt-up construction becomes.
The cost of the steel building kit will usually be lower than a price quoted for a concrete building, even a tiltwall building. If customizing or modifications to the kit are necessary to meet the owner's needs, these design costs must be included when comparing the prices. Also, the kit price may not include costs that are normally incorporated into a quote for a tilt-up or traditionally constructed building. Some of those costs include concrete foundation, permits, erection and assembly costs, taxes, electrical wiring, plumbing, environmental controls, ductwork, interior finishing, etc.
The location of the project will also influence whether a steel building is even an option. Builders in agricultural or lightly populated areas generally have fewer code restrictions placed on them. The closer a building is planned to a densely populated area, the more stringent the fire codes, building permitting requirements and other municipal standards become. In some cases steel buildings can not be used in certain areas for this reason. Other times, fire codes may require steel buildings to be built further apart than tilt-up structures, requiring a larger plot of land for the project. This is why, in urban areas, buildings closer to the downtown area are generally made of concrete and steel buildings become more common on the outskirts of town.
The reason steel buildings face greater code limitations is that they generally offer less fire protection than tilt-up or other concrete buildings. While steel is not combustible, it is not considered fireproof because it can distort or lose its structural strength when exposed to heat. Further, a fire on one side of a metal wall can generate destructive heat on the other side, damaging the property inside. Steel building designers use a variety of technologies, from sprays to fire-retardant panels or blankets, to mitigate the fire-resistive problem. By comparison, a typical 6.5" concrete wall has a fire resistive rating of four hours or more. Tiltwall and concrete provide superior fire protection for the property and people inside a building.
The intended use for a building will also influence whether steel or concrete is the best choice. In general steel buildings work very well for storage buildings, indoor sports facilities, work shops, and aircraft hangers, but they are less suited for higher-trafficked buildings. Comparatively speaking, steel walls are less durable than concrete walls. This holds true in the face of natural forces (bad weather, earthquakes) as well as for truck or forklift accidents. When a building is damaged by a vehicle, the damage is generally more localized and less expensive to repair for a tilt-up or concrete building than for a steel building. For owners who want to build a warehouse or other facility where trucks or forklifts will be used, this can be a very important consideration. Defense contractor facilities, prisons, or other buildings that require positive security also are much better suited to impenetrable concrete than to comparatively unsecure steel.
While steel is reasonably durable, concrete remains the material of choice for buildings that require less upkeep and maintenance over the years. Concrete is impervious to corrosion, rotting, rust or insect infestation; tiltwall buildings created in the 1940s are still standing today with little apparent wear. The fact that builders in earthquake-prone California now use tilt-up construction for 90% of their single-story commercial buildings indicates that concrete buildings are cost-competitive and extremely durable.
When factoring in potential repairs and ongoing maintenance, it's apparent that the real dollar difference between operating a steel building and a concrete building can be significant. Further, the added fire safety and durability of a concrete building will usually be reflected in lower insurance premiums. If the owner decides to sell the property, they will most likely find that a tilt-up or other concrete building depreciates less and than a steel building will.
Steel Building Advantages
One reason for the fast growth of the prefabricated steel building industry is the fact that steel building manufacturers have created prefabricated systems for a wide range of applications. Steel buildings used to be limited to storage facilities and aircraft hangers. Now, steel is used very successfully for structures as small as toll booths and vending machine shelters, and as large as barns and agricultural facilities, work shops, sports facilities, even churches and retail centers. Steel buildings are frequently used in larger buildings like commercial aircraft hangers and sports arenas, where a large clearspan space is required. (Clearspan is an interior space of a building where the roof is supported by the bordering structural walls and framework, and not with columns.)
Steel provides some other benefits in many circumstances. Generally speaking, prefabricated steel buildings can also be erected more quickly than traditionally constructed buildings. Assuming that the prefabricated kit does not require significant customizing, the project's design phase is reduced considerably with the use of the steel building system. While this is true for the design phase, site preparation and construction phases for larger steel buildings are normally comparable with similarly sized tilt-up structures.
Perhaps the main reason for the expanding use of steel buildings is construction cost. Assuming that the building fits the parameters and limitations of what is appropriate for steel, prefabricated steel building kits are generally less expensive than custom-designed structures built using traditional construction or even tilt-up construction. Also, with the use of finishes, facades and other wall claddings, builders can craft beautiful facilities that avoid the traditional "tin shed" look associated with steel buildings.
For smaller warehouse, industrial and commercial projects, particularly those under 50,000 square feet, these benefits make steel buildings an extremely attractive alternative for the cost-conscious building owner. Also, steel buildings are frequently the right choice for larger buildings where a large clearspan space is required.
Steel provides some other benefits in many circumstances. Generally speaking, prefabricated steel buildings can also be erected more quickly than traditionally constructed buildings. Assuming that the prefabricated kit does not require significant customizing, the project's design phase is reduced considerably with the use of the steel building system. While this is true for the design phase, site preparation and construction phases for larger steel buildings are normally comparable with similarly sized tilt-up structures.
Perhaps the main reason for the expanding use of steel buildings is construction cost. Assuming that the building fits the parameters and limitations of what is appropriate for steel, prefabricated steel building kits are generally less expensive than custom-designed structures built using traditional construction or even tilt-up construction. Also, with the use of finishes, facades and other wall claddings, builders can craft beautiful facilities that avoid the traditional "tin shed" look associated with steel buildings.
For smaller warehouse, industrial and commercial projects, particularly those under 50,000 square feet, these benefits make steel buildings an extremely attractive alternative for the cost-conscious building owner. Also, steel buildings are frequently the right choice for larger buildings where a large clearspan space is required.
Why do Design/Build Contractors Choose Tilt-up Construction?
Tilt-up construction provides numerous advantages over steel buildings or traditional construction for warehouses, call centers, distribution centers, retail stores, office buildings, storage facilities and other types of industrial and commercial projects. Generally speaking, a one- to two-story structure larger than 50,000 square feet with less than 50% wall opening space is an excellent candidate for tiltwall construction.
But what are the advantages?
· Savings in Construction Costs - Tiltwall provides numerous construction cost savings. This method of construction uses locally available materials rather than ones that must be manufactured and shipped in. This means that raw material costs are lower, available when needed and less prone to price fluctuations. Tilt-up work crews are typically smaller than the crews used in traditional construction and are normally comprised of local labor. That translates to reduced labor costs. Because of the economies of scale, the larger the footprint for the building, the more these savings improve the project's total cost.
· Fast Construction Schedule - Tiltwall offers several opportunities to "compress" the schedule and deliver the building very quickly. Erecting the walls with tilt-up panels is faster than building walls using traditional construction techniques. The trades can begin work earlier in the process on a tilt-up project, which allows greater overlapping of project phases. Because the building is made of ready-mix concrete from local sources, the project is less likely to be affected by transportation delays as well. All these factors provide for a faster, more predictable schedule with fewer opportunities for delays and associated cost overruns.
· Safety - Tilt-up is a proven, safe method of construction. The vast majority of the project takes place on the ground rather than on scaffolding, reducing many of these risks normally faced by workers.
· Aesthetics - Tiltwall buildings are not prefabricated. Each one is custom-designed for the client's needs and preferences. A full range of building finishes, wall textures and adornments, colors, even curved walls, are available with this method. Tilt-up provides architects and designers with virtually unlimited flexibility in crafting a building that is functional, durable and aesthetically pleasing.
The benefits of a project built with tiltwall construction continue long after it is completed:
· Durability - Tilt-up buildings are extremely durable. Many structures created in the 1940s are still in operation today, with little apparent wear. A testament to the strength of tilt-up construction, general contractors in earthquake-prone California now use this method for 90% of their one-story industrial building projects.
· Fire Safety - The concrete used in tilt-up panels meets the fire-resistance standards of even the most demanding building codes. For example, a 6.5" concrete wall offers a fire resistance rating of four hours or more. Tilt-up panels are also frequently used in the building's interior as fire walls. Tiltwall buildings offer real protection and safety for their tenants' employees, property and ongoing operations.
· Ease of Maintenance - Tiltwall buildings require little in the way of ongoing maintenance, outside of periodic cleaning and repainting as desired. Concrete is impervious to insect or rodent infestation, so this problem becomes a relative non-issue as well.
· Repairs and Expandability - In the event a wall is damaged by a forklift or truck, damages are typically more localized on a panel than in other types of structures, like steel buildings. Also, the modular design of the panels allows for easier repairs and expansion of the building.
· Security - Facilities that require positive security and management of the interior environment - prisons, classified manufacturing facilities, businesses with clean rooms - will appreciate the strength and control afforded by concrete and tilt-up buildings.
· Reduced Insurance Premiums - Because tiltwall buildings have superior fire resistance ratings and have been proven to withstand severe weather and earthquakes, these buildings typically enjoy better insurance rates than steel buildings or other types of structures.
· Reduced Operating Costs - Concrete provides excellent insulation, reducing the ongoing heating and cooling costs for the tenant. This insulation extends to sound as well as temperature. Workers in a tiltwall office building located in a noisy area will be less affected by the environment. By the same token, a manufacturing business that generates noise will have less effect on its neighbors and will find it easier to comply with local noise ordinances.
Prefabricated Steel Buildings Provide an Economical Construction Alternative
he term "steel building" is often associated with simple storage sheds and basic structures. With advancements in the industry over the past forty years, however, steel buildings have broken that stereotype and are being used for an ever-growing list of larger and more complex applications. Steel has found its way into advanced farm buildings, riding arenas, aircraft hangers, commercial centers and more.
Prefabricated Steel Building Background
The 20th century marked the beginning of the steel building industry. With the widespread use of automobiles in the early 1900s, one of the first uses of steel building was the garage. As consumers saw the low cost and value of steel, storage facilities, garages and storage sheds made of galvanized steel quickly spread around the country. In the first decade of the 1900s innovative builders also created farm storage buildings and grain bins out of steel instead of wood. By the end of the Depression, these storage bins had proven their durability when compared to wood structures. This was validated in 1938, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture ordered 30,666 steel grain bins to store surplus crops. This order amounted to 1 ½ times the number of steel grain bins created by the entire industry only one year before.
In 1940 Butler Manufacturing Company introduced the first line of prefabricated steel buildings using rigid frame design. (A rigid frame is a skeleton for the building's framework, made of steel girders.) This allowed businesses to purchase larger and more capable steel buildings at a lower cost and with a shorter construction schedule. By this time, the aeronautical world had embraced steel as well; steel aircraft hangers were being widely used in the civilian and military sectors.
Following World War II, engineers continued to improve prefabricated steel buildings, increasing the size and sophistication of these building "kits." The Metal Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA) was founded in 1956 to drive innovation, standardization, and greater acceptance of prefabricated steel buildings. Their efforts have worked; the MBMA estimates that steel building systems were used for about $1 million of new construction in 1960. In 2000, steel building systems accounted for almost 1.16 billion square feet and $2.5 billion of new low-rise commercial construction
But what are the advantages?
· Savings in Construction Costs - Tiltwall provides numerous construction cost savings. This method of construction uses locally available materials rather than ones that must be manufactured and shipped in. This means that raw material costs are lower, available when needed and less prone to price fluctuations. Tilt-up work crews are typically smaller than the crews used in traditional construction and are normally comprised of local labor. That translates to reduced labor costs. Because of the economies of scale, the larger the footprint for the building, the more these savings improve the project's total cost.
· Fast Construction Schedule - Tiltwall offers several opportunities to "compress" the schedule and deliver the building very quickly. Erecting the walls with tilt-up panels is faster than building walls using traditional construction techniques. The trades can begin work earlier in the process on a tilt-up project, which allows greater overlapping of project phases. Because the building is made of ready-mix concrete from local sources, the project is less likely to be affected by transportation delays as well. All these factors provide for a faster, more predictable schedule with fewer opportunities for delays and associated cost overruns.
· Safety - Tilt-up is a proven, safe method of construction. The vast majority of the project takes place on the ground rather than on scaffolding, reducing many of these risks normally faced by workers.
· Aesthetics - Tiltwall buildings are not prefabricated. Each one is custom-designed for the client's needs and preferences. A full range of building finishes, wall textures and adornments, colors, even curved walls, are available with this method. Tilt-up provides architects and designers with virtually unlimited flexibility in crafting a building that is functional, durable and aesthetically pleasing.
The benefits of a project built with tiltwall construction continue long after it is completed:
· Durability - Tilt-up buildings are extremely durable. Many structures created in the 1940s are still in operation today, with little apparent wear. A testament to the strength of tilt-up construction, general contractors in earthquake-prone California now use this method for 90% of their one-story industrial building projects.
· Fire Safety - The concrete used in tilt-up panels meets the fire-resistance standards of even the most demanding building codes. For example, a 6.5" concrete wall offers a fire resistance rating of four hours or more. Tilt-up panels are also frequently used in the building's interior as fire walls. Tiltwall buildings offer real protection and safety for their tenants' employees, property and ongoing operations.
· Ease of Maintenance - Tiltwall buildings require little in the way of ongoing maintenance, outside of periodic cleaning and repainting as desired. Concrete is impervious to insect or rodent infestation, so this problem becomes a relative non-issue as well.
· Repairs and Expandability - In the event a wall is damaged by a forklift or truck, damages are typically more localized on a panel than in other types of structures, like steel buildings. Also, the modular design of the panels allows for easier repairs and expansion of the building.
· Security - Facilities that require positive security and management of the interior environment - prisons, classified manufacturing facilities, businesses with clean rooms - will appreciate the strength and control afforded by concrete and tilt-up buildings.
· Reduced Insurance Premiums - Because tiltwall buildings have superior fire resistance ratings and have been proven to withstand severe weather and earthquakes, these buildings typically enjoy better insurance rates than steel buildings or other types of structures.
· Reduced Operating Costs - Concrete provides excellent insulation, reducing the ongoing heating and cooling costs for the tenant. This insulation extends to sound as well as temperature. Workers in a tiltwall office building located in a noisy area will be less affected by the environment. By the same token, a manufacturing business that generates noise will have less effect on its neighbors and will find it easier to comply with local noise ordinances.
Prefabricated Steel Buildings Provide an Economical Construction Alternative
he term "steel building" is often associated with simple storage sheds and basic structures. With advancements in the industry over the past forty years, however, steel buildings have broken that stereotype and are being used for an ever-growing list of larger and more complex applications. Steel has found its way into advanced farm buildings, riding arenas, aircraft hangers, commercial centers and more.
Prefabricated Steel Building Background
The 20th century marked the beginning of the steel building industry. With the widespread use of automobiles in the early 1900s, one of the first uses of steel building was the garage. As consumers saw the low cost and value of steel, storage facilities, garages and storage sheds made of galvanized steel quickly spread around the country. In the first decade of the 1900s innovative builders also created farm storage buildings and grain bins out of steel instead of wood. By the end of the Depression, these storage bins had proven their durability when compared to wood structures. This was validated in 1938, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture ordered 30,666 steel grain bins to store surplus crops. This order amounted to 1 ½ times the number of steel grain bins created by the entire industry only one year before.
In 1940 Butler Manufacturing Company introduced the first line of prefabricated steel buildings using rigid frame design. (A rigid frame is a skeleton for the building's framework, made of steel girders.) This allowed businesses to purchase larger and more capable steel buildings at a lower cost and with a shorter construction schedule. By this time, the aeronautical world had embraced steel as well; steel aircraft hangers were being widely used in the civilian and military sectors.
Following World War II, engineers continued to improve prefabricated steel buildings, increasing the size and sophistication of these building "kits." The Metal Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA) was founded in 1956 to drive innovation, standardization, and greater acceptance of prefabricated steel buildings. Their efforts have worked; the MBMA estimates that steel building systems were used for about $1 million of new construction in 1960. In 2000, steel building systems accounted for almost 1.16 billion square feet and $2.5 billion of new low-rise commercial construction
Precast Concrete, Tilt-up Construction and Tiltwall:
Several terms - tilt-up panel construction, tiltwall construction, precast concrete building construction - are used to reference new or nontraditional cement building processes. Do they all mean the same thing? If not, what are the differences?
As previously stated in this article, tilt-up and tiltwall are two terms used to describe the same process. For a tilt-up concrete building, the walls are created by assembling forms and pouring large slabs of concrete called panels directly at the job site. The panels are then tilted up into position around the building's slab. Because the concrete tiltwall forms are assembled and poured directly at the job site, no transportation of panels is required. One major benefit of this is that the size of the panels is limited only by the needs of the building and the strength of the concrete panels themselves.
Tiltwall panels can sometimes be extremely wide and/or tall. Tilt-up panel have been measured at just over 69 feet across and almost 93 feet from top to bottom. Thus, architects and tilt-up concrete contractors have a great deal of flexibility in planning and creating their buildings.
Because concrete tilt-up walls are poured outdoors, contractors are at the mercy of climatic conditions. When temperatures drop below freezing, curing the concrete panels becomes more difficult and expensive. This is why tilt-up construction is particularly popular in southern parts of the United States, where cold weather occurs less frequently. Certainly, tilt-up concrete buildings are built in northern areas, but the window of time for temperate weather is much smaller and less predictable, which can make construction schedules more difficult to meet.
The precast concrete building process is similar to tilt-up construction, but it addresses the challenges presented by weather. For precast concrete buildings, work crews do not set up forms at the job site to create the panels. Instead, workers pre cast concrete panels at a large manufacturing facility. Because the precast concrete forms are poured indoors, this activity can take place regardless the weather conditions. After curing, the precast concrete panels are trucked to the job site. From this point, precast concrete buildings are assembled in much the same manner as tiltwall buildings.
The fact that precast concrete walls are formed at a manufacturing facility resolves the weather issue, but presents a different limitation not found in tilt-up construction. Because the panels must be transported - sometimes over long distances - places a substantial limitation on how wide or tall each panel can be. It would be impossible to load precast panels that were 60 feet wide or 90 feet long onto trucks and transport them any distance. For a precast construction project, the panels must be smaller and more manageable to allow trucks to haul them over the road to their final destination. This places greater design restrictions on architects and limits the applications where precast construction can be used.
Clearly, tilt-up or tiltwall construction and precast concrete are similar processes. Because tilt-up affords more flexibility, it is the method of choice in locations where the weather allows it. Precast concrete is a suitable choice in circumstances where environmental factors and the construction schedule preclude tiltwall as a viable option.
As previously stated in this article, tilt-up and tiltwall are two terms used to describe the same process. For a tilt-up concrete building, the walls are created by assembling forms and pouring large slabs of concrete called panels directly at the job site. The panels are then tilted up into position around the building's slab. Because the concrete tiltwall forms are assembled and poured directly at the job site, no transportation of panels is required. One major benefit of this is that the size of the panels is limited only by the needs of the building and the strength of the concrete panels themselves.
Tiltwall panels can sometimes be extremely wide and/or tall. Tilt-up panel have been measured at just over 69 feet across and almost 93 feet from top to bottom. Thus, architects and tilt-up concrete contractors have a great deal of flexibility in planning and creating their buildings.
Because concrete tilt-up walls are poured outdoors, contractors are at the mercy of climatic conditions. When temperatures drop below freezing, curing the concrete panels becomes more difficult and expensive. This is why tilt-up construction is particularly popular in southern parts of the United States, where cold weather occurs less frequently. Certainly, tilt-up concrete buildings are built in northern areas, but the window of time for temperate weather is much smaller and less predictable, which can make construction schedules more difficult to meet.
The precast concrete building process is similar to tilt-up construction, but it addresses the challenges presented by weather. For precast concrete buildings, work crews do not set up forms at the job site to create the panels. Instead, workers pre cast concrete panels at a large manufacturing facility. Because the precast concrete forms are poured indoors, this activity can take place regardless the weather conditions. After curing, the precast concrete panels are trucked to the job site. From this point, precast concrete buildings are assembled in much the same manner as tiltwall buildings.
The fact that precast concrete walls are formed at a manufacturing facility resolves the weather issue, but presents a different limitation not found in tilt-up construction. Because the panels must be transported - sometimes over long distances - places a substantial limitation on how wide or tall each panel can be. It would be impossible to load precast panels that were 60 feet wide or 90 feet long onto trucks and transport them any distance. For a precast construction project, the panels must be smaller and more manageable to allow trucks to haul them over the road to their final destination. This places greater design restrictions on architects and limits the applications where precast construction can be used.
Clearly, tilt-up or tiltwall construction and precast concrete are similar processes. Because tilt-up affords more flexibility, it is the method of choice in locations where the weather allows it. Precast concrete is a suitable choice in circumstances where environmental factors and the construction schedule preclude tiltwall as a viable option.
What is Tilt-up Construction? How Are Tiltwall Buildings Constructed?
A tilt-up construction project begins with job site preparation and pouring the slab. During this phase of the project, workers install footings around the slab in preparation for the panels.
The crew then assembles the panel forms on the slab. Normally, the form is created with wooden pieces that are joined together. The forms act like a mold for the panels. They provide the panels' exact shape and size, doorways and window openings, and ensure the panels meet the design specifications and fit together properly. Next, workers tie in the steel grid of reinforcing bars into the form. They install inserts and embeds for lifting the panels and attaching them to the footing, the roof system, and to each other.
The slab beneath the forms is then cleaned of any debris or standing water, and workers pour concrete into the forms to create the panels.
Now comes the point where tilt-up construction, or tiltwall construction, gets its name.
Once the panels have solidified and the forms have been removed, the crew connects the first panel to a large crane with cables that hook into the inserts. The size of the crane depends on the height and weight of the panels, but it is typically two to three times the size of the largest panel. The crew also attaches braces to the panel. The crane lifts, or "tilts up," the panel from the slab into a vertical position above the footings. Workers help to guide the panel into position and the crane sets it into place. They connect the braces from the tiltwall panel to the slab, attach the panel's embeds to the footing, and disconnect the cables from the crane. The crew then moves to the next panel and repeats this process.
It's easy to be amazed as you watch the mobile crane tilt up a panel from the ground and set it into its place. Massive panels weighing 50,000 to 125,000 pounds or more dangle from the crane's long lines. The crew works as a team, setting the braces and guiding the panel with remarkable precision. The speed of the process is also remarkable; an experienced tiltwall crew can erect as many as 30 panels in a single day.
Once all the panels are erected, the crew apply finishes to the walls with sandblasting or painting. They also caulk joints and patch any imperfections in the walls. From this point the crew moves to the installation of the roof system and the trades begin their work inside the building.
The crew then assembles the panel forms on the slab. Normally, the form is created with wooden pieces that are joined together. The forms act like a mold for the panels. They provide the panels' exact shape and size, doorways and window openings, and ensure the panels meet the design specifications and fit together properly. Next, workers tie in the steel grid of reinforcing bars into the form. They install inserts and embeds for lifting the panels and attaching them to the footing, the roof system, and to each other.
The slab beneath the forms is then cleaned of any debris or standing water, and workers pour concrete into the forms to create the panels.
Now comes the point where tilt-up construction, or tiltwall construction, gets its name.
Once the panels have solidified and the forms have been removed, the crew connects the first panel to a large crane with cables that hook into the inserts. The size of the crane depends on the height and weight of the panels, but it is typically two to three times the size of the largest panel. The crew also attaches braces to the panel. The crane lifts, or "tilts up," the panel from the slab into a vertical position above the footings. Workers help to guide the panel into position and the crane sets it into place. They connect the braces from the tiltwall panel to the slab, attach the panel's embeds to the footing, and disconnect the cables from the crane. The crew then moves to the next panel and repeats this process.
It's easy to be amazed as you watch the mobile crane tilt up a panel from the ground and set it into its place. Massive panels weighing 50,000 to 125,000 pounds or more dangle from the crane's long lines. The crew works as a team, setting the braces and guiding the panel with remarkable precision. The speed of the process is also remarkable; an experienced tiltwall crew can erect as many as 30 panels in a single day.
Once all the panels are erected, the crew apply finishes to the walls with sandblasting or painting. They also caulk joints and patch any imperfections in the walls. From this point the crew moves to the installation of the roof system and the trades begin their work inside the building.
Tilt-up Construction: An Old Idea for General Contractors With New Innovations
The basic principle behind tilt-up construction - constructing walls horizontally, on the ground, and then lifting them into place - is not a new idea. Evidence exists that some buildings constructed during the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages used this approach. More recently, American settlers in the 1800s gathered for "barn raisings" where they constructed the wood walls for their buildings and tipped them up into place.
The 20th century marked the true beginnings of modern tiltwall construction. The development of concrete reinforced with rebar in the early 1900s allows builders to create tilt-up commercial structures as we think of them today: One- to two-story structures built with walls comparable in width to those created with other methods of construction.
Even with this innovation, tilt-up construction did not gain wide acceptance until after World War II, when the mobile crane was first developed. The mobile crane allowed builders far greater ability to lift the massive panels into place, regardless where the job site happened to be. At about this time, ready-mix concrete was introduced to the industry, making tilt-up an even more viable alternative.
These new technologies occurred at precisely the right time. The late 1940s brought about a post-war boom in the construction of manufacturing and industrial facilities across the United States. Innovation, timing, and the need for large, warehouse-styled buildings opened the door for tiltwall construction. The three factors combined to encourage general contractors to embrace tilt-up as an economical means of delivering quality projects that meet even the most demanding specifications and schedules.
Over the years, industry experts have continued to refine and enhance the tiltwall process, allowing general contractors and design-build construction managers to drive greater capabilities and creativity in its use. In 1986 the Tilt-up Concrete Association (TCA) was created to establish processes and standards to ensure continued growth in quality and acceptance for this method of construction.
Tiltwall has since been used in buildings as large as 1.7 million square feet, with individual panels reaching as high as 91 feet and weighing 150 tons. The TCA reports that 15% of all industrial buildings in the U.S. were created using tilt-up construction. It is growing at an annual rate of almost 20% and is used in over 650 million square feet of new building construction each year. In Texas and other sunbelt states, tilt-up accounts for as much as 75% of new one-story commercial building construction. Builders in Mexico, Canada and Australia are also using tiltwall construction on an increasingly frequent basis.
The 20th century marked the true beginnings of modern tiltwall construction. The development of concrete reinforced with rebar in the early 1900s allows builders to create tilt-up commercial structures as we think of them today: One- to two-story structures built with walls comparable in width to those created with other methods of construction.
Even with this innovation, tilt-up construction did not gain wide acceptance until after World War II, when the mobile crane was first developed. The mobile crane allowed builders far greater ability to lift the massive panels into place, regardless where the job site happened to be. At about this time, ready-mix concrete was introduced to the industry, making tilt-up an even more viable alternative.
These new technologies occurred at precisely the right time. The late 1940s brought about a post-war boom in the construction of manufacturing and industrial facilities across the United States. Innovation, timing, and the need for large, warehouse-styled buildings opened the door for tiltwall construction. The three factors combined to encourage general contractors to embrace tilt-up as an economical means of delivering quality projects that meet even the most demanding specifications and schedules.
Over the years, industry experts have continued to refine and enhance the tiltwall process, allowing general contractors and design-build construction managers to drive greater capabilities and creativity in its use. In 1986 the Tilt-up Concrete Association (TCA) was created to establish processes and standards to ensure continued growth in quality and acceptance for this method of construction.
Tiltwall has since been used in buildings as large as 1.7 million square feet, with individual panels reaching as high as 91 feet and weighing 150 tons. The TCA reports that 15% of all industrial buildings in the U.S. were created using tilt-up construction. It is growing at an annual rate of almost 20% and is used in over 650 million square feet of new building construction each year. In Texas and other sunbelt states, tilt-up accounts for as much as 75% of new one-story commercial building construction. Builders in Mexico, Canada and Australia are also using tiltwall construction on an increasingly frequent basis.
Tilt-up Construction: A General Contractor's Approach to Innovative Commercial Building Construction
Have you ever driven past a construction site and seen massive cranes lifting huge panels of concrete in the air? Have you watched with amazement as a new commercial building seems to spring into place, almost overnight? What you have witnessed is tilt-up construction, an innovative method for building office buildings, retail centers, warehouses, distribution centers, call centers, manufacturing facilities and other commercial / industrial structures with amazing speed, safety, and cost benefits.
So what is the difference between tilt-up and other types of construction?
In traditional forms of wall construction, the walls can be built with CMU blocks or blocks faced with brick. For some types of buildings, the exterior wall is made up of structural steel columns with heavy gauge metal studs covered with gyp sheathing, which is then faced with brick or stucco. Regardless which traditional approach is used, building the exterior walls is a time-consuming, multi-stepped process. A tiltwall building's walls are created horizontally in large slabs of concrete called panels. The panels are then lifted, or tilted up, into position around the building's slab. This means the tilt-up structure's exterior wall is virtually finished when it is tilted into place.
Tilt-up construction (also called tiltwall or tilt wall construction) has a long history, but its widespread use is a relatively new phenomenon. In spite of this, tiltwall construction is fast becoming the method of choice for constructing modern warehouses, call centers, distribution centers, retail stores, office and storage buildings and other types of industrial and commercial facilities.
So what is the difference between tilt-up and other types of construction?
In traditional forms of wall construction, the walls can be built with CMU blocks or blocks faced with brick. For some types of buildings, the exterior wall is made up of structural steel columns with heavy gauge metal studs covered with gyp sheathing, which is then faced with brick or stucco. Regardless which traditional approach is used, building the exterior walls is a time-consuming, multi-stepped process. A tiltwall building's walls are created horizontally in large slabs of concrete called panels. The panels are then lifted, or tilted up, into position around the building's slab. This means the tilt-up structure's exterior wall is virtually finished when it is tilted into place.
Tilt-up construction (also called tiltwall or tilt wall construction) has a long history, but its widespread use is a relatively new phenomenon. In spite of this, tiltwall construction is fast becoming the method of choice for constructing modern warehouses, call centers, distribution centers, retail stores, office and storage buildings and other types of industrial and commercial facilities.
Construction Costs Summary
When fundamental raw materials like steel, concrete and petroleum experience double-digit inflation rates, the amount of time for which material suppliers, subcontractors, general contractors and cost estimators can commit to pricing grows shorter and shorter. Established commercial construction companies like Bob Moore Construction have outstanding relationships with major subcontractors and suppliers, as well as the expertise to provide as much pricing information and commitment as possible. But the fiscal reality of the global economy and the ramifications of natural disasters shackle all participants in the building process when it comes to projecting construction costs, long term. When prices for core raw materials are increasing at eight to ten times the economy's inflation rate, it is very difficult to commit to pricing several months in the future that is still cost-competitive.
Given that the volatility of raw materials and supplies will not be diminished in the near future, developers must seek out ways to compress the construction schedule and work with leading industry partners to increase the legitimacy of their project budget. For example:
· Engaging a general contractor or construction manager earlier in the process is a good way to control time in the initial planning phases, as these experts understand permitting and other legal requirements and can ensure all documentation is filed thoroughly and in a timely manner, reducing schedule delays early on.
· Approaches to construction like tilt-up construction and Fast Track have reduced the timetable for delivering a construction project considerably.
· Some building owners are taking a more active role in the design/bid/build process and are functioning as a team member to streamline communications and drive faster completion of projects as well.
Developers and business owners should leverage these approaches and work with general contractors who have the relationships with quality suppliers to maximize their ability to project and budget construction costs accurately through the end of the building's construction process.
Given that the volatility of raw materials and supplies will not be diminished in the near future, developers must seek out ways to compress the construction schedule and work with leading industry partners to increase the legitimacy of their project budget. For example:
· Engaging a general contractor or construction manager earlier in the process is a good way to control time in the initial planning phases, as these experts understand permitting and other legal requirements and can ensure all documentation is filed thoroughly and in a timely manner, reducing schedule delays early on.
· Approaches to construction like tilt-up construction and Fast Track have reduced the timetable for delivering a construction project considerably.
· Some building owners are taking a more active role in the design/bid/build process and are functioning as a team member to streamline communications and drive faster completion of projects as well.
Developers and business owners should leverage these approaches and work with general contractors who have the relationships with quality suppliers to maximize their ability to project and budget construction costs accurately through the end of the building's construction process.
External Forces Drive Price Extreme Fluctuations in Construction Supplies and Raw Materials
In 2004, Steel was the primary culprit for increased construction supply costs. The largest factor influencing this was China's burgeoning economy, which has driven phenomenal growth in their construction and manufacturing needs. China's demand for steel in 2004 increased by 38 million tons; just their demand increase was as much as the total annual steel usage for Mexico and Canada . . . combined. This massive increase in demand, coupled with reduced supplies of raw materials and a weaker American dollar, drove the price for steel up 66% in one six-month period in 2004 and made long-term cost estimating for a wide range of construction projects virtually impossible.
As a result, in 2004 steel producers added surcharges or renegotiated contracts to raise prices and help offset their higher costs, or simply canceled orders they couldn't fill. Steel's spiraling prices finally peaked and started to reverse themselves in 2005, although they remain 20 - 30% higher now (mid- to late-2005) than their January 2004 levels.
Concrete also was in high demand in 2004 and 2005, driving up prices and lead times for this raw material as well. While concrete prices have not inflated as dramatically as steel's, they have increased 10 - 12% between January 2004 and mid-2005.
Consumer demand and finite supplies also played a major role in the cost of gasoline and petroleum products over the past 12 - 24 months. In December 2004 oil sold for $37 per barrel. In September 2005 oil cost more than $63 per barrel, following temporary spikes in August that exceeded $70 per barrel. This resulted in price jumps of 50% for gas and diesel fuels, as well as significantly increased manufacturing and delivery prices for virtually every product and process in construction.
For the remainder of 2005 and into 2006, the greatest affect on construction costs may well be the result of natural - and not man-made - forces. This year Hurricane Katrina caused at least $125 billion in economic damage and could cost the insurance industry up to $60 billion in claims. Estimates for damage to infrastructure such as roads, bridges and the utility system in New Orleans alone exceed $10 billion. Thousands of businesses and more than 300,000 homes were damaged by Katrina, most of them beyond repair. Following Katrina was Hurricane Rita, which caused an additional $10 - 15 billion in damages in Texas and Louisiana.
In the short term, the repair process will place heavy demands on a wide range of building materials like lumber, steel, plywood, electrical components, glass, roofing materials, asphalt, carpeting, drywall and PVC piping, so costs and delivery times for these items are likely to increase nationwide. Skilled construction labor, particularly framers and drywall installers, will also be at a premium as far away as north Texas. Katrina will result in a temporarily reduced demand for concrete in the region as workers focus on repairs rather than new construction. This reduced demand may or may not translate into price reductions, however; New Orleans is the country's largest port of entry for imported concrete, and with that city's diminished functionality, available supplies will be reduced as well as local demand.
For the long term, Katrina's impact on our nation's oil supplies and continually increasing demand may have the greatest affect on construction costs. Several American refineries and oil delivery mechanisms were affected by Katrina; as a result, already-tight oil supplies were further diminished by the hurricane and the cost to manufacture and deliver products or operate construction equipment is likely to continue its rise. Adding refinery capacity in our country would take at least a decade so we have no short term solution to this problem.
As a result, in 2004 steel producers added surcharges or renegotiated contracts to raise prices and help offset their higher costs, or simply canceled orders they couldn't fill. Steel's spiraling prices finally peaked and started to reverse themselves in 2005, although they remain 20 - 30% higher now (mid- to late-2005) than their January 2004 levels.
Concrete also was in high demand in 2004 and 2005, driving up prices and lead times for this raw material as well. While concrete prices have not inflated as dramatically as steel's, they have increased 10 - 12% between January 2004 and mid-2005.
Consumer demand and finite supplies also played a major role in the cost of gasoline and petroleum products over the past 12 - 24 months. In December 2004 oil sold for $37 per barrel. In September 2005 oil cost more than $63 per barrel, following temporary spikes in August that exceeded $70 per barrel. This resulted in price jumps of 50% for gas and diesel fuels, as well as significantly increased manufacturing and delivery prices for virtually every product and process in construction.
For the remainder of 2005 and into 2006, the greatest affect on construction costs may well be the result of natural - and not man-made - forces. This year Hurricane Katrina caused at least $125 billion in economic damage and could cost the insurance industry up to $60 billion in claims. Estimates for damage to infrastructure such as roads, bridges and the utility system in New Orleans alone exceed $10 billion. Thousands of businesses and more than 300,000 homes were damaged by Katrina, most of them beyond repair. Following Katrina was Hurricane Rita, which caused an additional $10 - 15 billion in damages in Texas and Louisiana.
In the short term, the repair process will place heavy demands on a wide range of building materials like lumber, steel, plywood, electrical components, glass, roofing materials, asphalt, carpeting, drywall and PVC piping, so costs and delivery times for these items are likely to increase nationwide. Skilled construction labor, particularly framers and drywall installers, will also be at a premium as far away as north Texas. Katrina will result in a temporarily reduced demand for concrete in the region as workers focus on repairs rather than new construction. This reduced demand may or may not translate into price reductions, however; New Orleans is the country's largest port of entry for imported concrete, and with that city's diminished functionality, available supplies will be reduced as well as local demand.
For the long term, Katrina's impact on our nation's oil supplies and continually increasing demand may have the greatest affect on construction costs. Several American refineries and oil delivery mechanisms were affected by Katrina; as a result, already-tight oil supplies were further diminished by the hurricane and the cost to manufacture and deliver products or operate construction equipment is likely to continue its rise. Adding refinery capacity in our country would take at least a decade so we have no short term solution to this problem.
Construction Cost Estimating Presents New Challenges
The past two years have been marked by dramatic extremes for our economy and the construction industry. As a result, this period may be one of the most volatile on record when it comes to pricing of construction supplies, materials and services.
From the general contractor's perspective, the good news is that America's demand for new commercial and residential building has been on the increase in 2005. According to the U.S. Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce, as of August 2005 construction spending was estimated at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $1,108.5 billion, 6.1 percent above August 2004. During the first eight months of 2005, construction spending amounted to $723.7 billion, 9.0 percent above the same period in 2004. From July to August 2005, the fastest growing segments of the construction industry were highways and nonresidential private construction, outpacing the rate of growth in residential and all other facets of public construction.
Demand for new construction is growing at a healthy, but not excessive rate, which should bode well for stable construction costs, right? Unfortunately, this is not the case. External forces have resulted in phenomenal rate increases for a wide range of integral construction supplies, raw materials and services. This fact has made the process for long term cost projections more difficult now than it's ever been.
From the general contractor's perspective, the good news is that America's demand for new commercial and residential building has been on the increase in 2005. According to the U.S. Census Bureau of the Department of Commerce, as of August 2005 construction spending was estimated at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $1,108.5 billion, 6.1 percent above August 2004. During the first eight months of 2005, construction spending amounted to $723.7 billion, 9.0 percent above the same period in 2004. From July to August 2005, the fastest growing segments of the construction industry were highways and nonresidential private construction, outpacing the rate of growth in residential and all other facets of public construction.
Demand for new construction is growing at a healthy, but not excessive rate, which should bode well for stable construction costs, right? Unfortunately, this is not the case. External forces have resulted in phenomenal rate increases for a wide range of integral construction supplies, raw materials and services. This fact has made the process for long term cost projections more difficult now than it's ever been.
Articles on statutory provisions : Construction Law Articles
The Fairness in Contracting Act governs the use of the following contract provisions in construction contracts, for both public and private contracts.
No damage for delay clause. The Fairness in Contracting Act prohibits no damages for delay clauses, when the reason for the delay is the result of the owner's [or contractor's] act or failure to act. Ohio Revised Code §4113.62. Defective plans and specifications are the leading reasons for owner-caused delay damages and time extensions in Ohio. To recover delay damages, a contractor must establish that (a) the owner breached the contract, (b) the breach caused a delay to the contractor's performance, and (c) the contractor was damaged.
Final lien waiver. Upon completing the job, the contractor must usually complete a final lien waiver. The Fairness in Contracting Act provides that the requirement to sign a final waiver of claims in order to obtain final payment is void and against public policy, if the contractor has asserted a claim or request for an adjustment to the contract price. Ohio Revised Code §4113.62(B). No longer will contractors be caught between waiving a previously asserted claim, and getting paid for its work.
Waiver of bond claim on public project. Similarly, the waiver of a claim on a surety bond on a public project is void and unenforceable under the Act. Ohio Revised Code §4113.62. Thus, owners or contractors cannot leverage a waiver of a claim on a surety bond, by withholding final payment.
Notice of furnishing on public projects. In order to preserve rights under a surety bond on a public project, the Act requires a contractor or supplier to provide a notice of furnishing consistent with the mechanic’s lien law.
Pay when paid clauses. Although initially drafted to address "pay when paid" clauses, the Act as enacted simply provides that such clauses do not prohibit a contractor or supplier from protecting its rights against a surety bond or through a mechanic’s lien.
"Pay when paid" and "pay if paid" provisions remain popular and enforceable. Most pay when paid clauses only serve to delay the time for payment to the subcontractor, whereas a properly worded pay if paid clause may actually shift the burden of nonpayment to the subcontractor. How do contractors shift the burden of nonpayment by the owner? Say it clearly in a contract provision. What should be said? The contract should state that: (a) the subcontractor is paid only if the general contractor is paid, (or the subcontractor will not be paid unless the general contractor receives payment from the owner); and (b) the subcontractor assumes the risk of nonpayment by the owner due to insolvency or other inability to pay. Such contract language has been held by many courts to sufficiently shift the burden of nonpayment to the subcontractor .
No damage for delay clause. The Fairness in Contracting Act prohibits no damages for delay clauses, when the reason for the delay is the result of the owner's [or contractor's] act or failure to act. Ohio Revised Code §4113.62. Defective plans and specifications are the leading reasons for owner-caused delay damages and time extensions in Ohio. To recover delay damages, a contractor must establish that (a) the owner breached the contract, (b) the breach caused a delay to the contractor's performance, and (c) the contractor was damaged.
Final lien waiver. Upon completing the job, the contractor must usually complete a final lien waiver. The Fairness in Contracting Act provides that the requirement to sign a final waiver of claims in order to obtain final payment is void and against public policy, if the contractor has asserted a claim or request for an adjustment to the contract price. Ohio Revised Code §4113.62(B). No longer will contractors be caught between waiving a previously asserted claim, and getting paid for its work.
Waiver of bond claim on public project. Similarly, the waiver of a claim on a surety bond on a public project is void and unenforceable under the Act. Ohio Revised Code §4113.62. Thus, owners or contractors cannot leverage a waiver of a claim on a surety bond, by withholding final payment.
Notice of furnishing on public projects. In order to preserve rights under a surety bond on a public project, the Act requires a contractor or supplier to provide a notice of furnishing consistent with the mechanic’s lien law.
Pay when paid clauses. Although initially drafted to address "pay when paid" clauses, the Act as enacted simply provides that such clauses do not prohibit a contractor or supplier from protecting its rights against a surety bond or through a mechanic’s lien.
"Pay when paid" and "pay if paid" provisions remain popular and enforceable. Most pay when paid clauses only serve to delay the time for payment to the subcontractor, whereas a properly worded pay if paid clause may actually shift the burden of nonpayment to the subcontractor. How do contractors shift the burden of nonpayment by the owner? Say it clearly in a contract provision. What should be said? The contract should state that: (a) the subcontractor is paid only if the general contractor is paid, (or the subcontractor will not be paid unless the general contractor receives payment from the owner); and (b) the subcontractor assumes the risk of nonpayment by the owner due to insolvency or other inability to pay. Such contract language has been held by many courts to sufficiently shift the burden of nonpayment to the subcontractor .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)