Go to Studor
Australia
Hong Kong
Puerto Rico
United States
Belgium
Italy
South Korea
Canada
Japan
Spain
China
Macau
Sweden
France
Mexico
Taiwan
Germany
New Zealand
Turkey
Greece
Portugal
United Kingdom

Cost Comparison Reports

The savings, both in material and labour costs, which can be experienced by installing the Studor products vary depending on the building. Over the years, various cost comparisons have been undertaken to provide illustrative savings in different countries for different types of buildings:

Supply and Installation of Three High Rise Sewer Stack Systems Across Four Building Heights: Report dated July 2015
Hamilton Harbour, Queensland, Australia: Summary report dated August 2012
High-rise vent system: Reports dated February and March 2012
Ford Field Stadium, Detroit, USA: Report dated June 2011
Low rise residential dwellings: Report dated January 1995

Supply and Installation of Three High Rise Sewer Stack Systems Across Four Building Heights: Report dated July 2015

Supply and Installation of Three High Rise Sewer Stack Systems

Independent report commissioned by: Studor Australia Pty Ltd, with an independent forward by Jason Harris, Revit Plumbing Design Manager, Smith Brothers Plumbing.
Cost comparison independently prepared by: An independent consultant and estimator based in Sydney, Australia to the design and bill of quantities provided by an independent hydraulics consultant based in Brisbane, Australia.
Project details: Four buildings of heights 8, 40, 70 and 90 floors.
Savings: The Studor System was shown to be most cost-effective of the three drainage systems compared (Studor System, Reduced Velocity Aerator Stack System (RVASS) and a traditional passive ventilated Fully Vented Modified Stack System (FVMSS)) for all 4 building heights. The savings ranged from 46% to 15%.
More information: If you wish to view the summary report, please complete the below form.

The Studor System, incorporating AAVs and the P.A.P.A. device is, in our experience, a modern and economic drainage configuration that can be specified for any building type or height, with significant savings, as evidenced by this report and our experience.

Hamilton Harbour, Queensland, Australia: Summary report dated August 2012

Hamilton Harbour

Independent report commissioned by: Studor Australia Pty Ltd, with an independent forward by John Turner, MSc CEnv MCIWEM FIHEEM FCIPHE, Director of Britewater International Ltd.
Cost comparison independently prepared by: Two plumbing estimation businesses located in Brisbane, Australia.
Project details: High rise apartment block of 22 storeys.
Savings: The Studor System was shown to be lower in cost compared to a Reduced Velocity Aerator Stack System (RVASS) and a traditional passive ventilated Fully Vented Modified Stack System (FVMSS): 17.5% lower than RVASS; and over 6.0% lower than FVMSS.
More information: Read the case study here. If you wish to view the summary report, please complete the below form.

Years of professional experience have taught me that it is a real challenge to provide a constructive and comprehensive cost comparison for any of the building engineering services; sewer stacks are no different.

Nevertheless, the way in which this study has been developed in an impartial and detailed manner, using experienced independent quantity surveyors, designers and consultants, should give any reader confidence that the evidence presented is based on standard construction processes and a practical analysis of the actual costs applied to each system. In other words, it is a level playing field.

High-rise vent system: Reports dated February and March 2012

Hamilton Harbour

Independent report commissioned by: IPS Corporation.
Cost comparison independently prepared by: Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD, FASPE, President of JB Engineering and Code Consulting, P.C.
Project details: 10 storey residential building with 45 units.
Savings: The total savings of the installed cost of the venting system with AAVs was greater than 39%, whereas the total savings of the installed cost of the venting system with both AAVs and P.A.P.A.s was greater than 70%.
More information: Read the consolidated summary report here. If you wish to view the summary report, please complete the below form.

Ford Field Stadium, Detroit, USA: Report dated June 2011

Ford Field Stadium

Independent report commissioned by: IPS Corporation / Studor, Inc.
Cost comparison independently prepared by: Ronald L. George, DPD, President of Plumb-Tech Design & Consulting Services LLC, Lead Plumbing Engineer on the project; and Robert C. Hulsey Jr., PE, President of Hulsey Engineering.
Project details: Stadium, comprising 1,830,0002 feet, including the renovation of an existing 9 storey warehouse building.
Savings: Installing Studor AAVs made a saving of over US$ ¼ million on installation.
More information: Read the case study here. If you wish to view the summary report, please complete the below form.

Low rise residential dwellings: Report dated January 1995

Dwellings

Independent report commissioned by: Studor, Inc.
Cost comparison independently prepared by: Don Bremer, Engineering Associate and Julius Ballanco, P.E., President of JB Engineering and Code Consulting, P.C.
Project details: Three design layouts for low rise dwelling units, each complying with one of the three models of US plumbing codes (BOCA, SBCCI and IAPMO).
Savings: By utilising the Mini-Vent and Maxi-Vent, the savings for each dwelling unit ranged from 47% to 54%, when compared to a system with the vents extending to the outdoors.
More information: If you wish to view the summary report, please complete the below form.

Please complete the below form to be emailed a link to download the reports as pdf files.






Type the characters you see in the picture below