780
Service Containers: Cost Comparison (Example)
2. Location Near Entrance Door. At the entrance door to each room, the
following outlets will be provided:
a. One light switch,
b. one thermostat (including the thermostat itself) and,
c. one night light.
783.2
RESULTS OF COMPARISON
Provision of the outlets at the patient bedside as described above would
cost an estimated 5 per patient using conventional construction, i.e.
services within the partition.
Surface mounting services and enclosing them with furring would cost
approximately 30% more, whereas the use of proprietary enclosures could
cost 50-80% more.
If the comparison is made in a situation where patient beds are not back-
to-back, the difference between the cost of conventional installation and
the cost of furring out services will be no more than the cost of the furring.
(This amounts to approximately per unit, or per patient.) In this
case the proprietary enclosure would be only 30-50% more than the cost
of conventional installation.
The difference in cost between conventional installation and surface
mounting services is mostly due to the increased cost of outlets for
medical gases and not to the electrical work. This is reflected in the cost
comparison for electrical services near the entrance door.
At the location near the entrance door, the difference in cost between
conventional construction and the use of a surface mounted raceway is
approximately 20%. Conventional construction would cost approximately
and surface mounting would cost 0.
It must be emphasized that all percentages quoted will be greatly reduced
when the cost comparisons are considered in relation to the total
subsystem costs of the various subsystems involved.
The benefits of surface mounting services have been discussed in Section
723.
3 - 252
Previous Page
