March 2025

Volume 103 | Issue 3

Responding to the
Grenfell report

History of New
York’s skyscrapers

Embodied carbon
of concrete

Retaining value
How a staged approach to investigations and targeted strengthening
helped a client realise its ambition for reuse and extension

pp01 TSE_March25_Cover.indd 1 19/02/2025 14:54

 ELEVATE YOUR
PROJECT ComFlor® composite steel floor decking

ComFlor® composite steel floor decking, from Building Systems UK, is the
most cost effective and efficient range of composite floor deck profiles in
Europe. Our extensive range of seven unique profiles is available with full
technical support, including a range of digital tools. Our ComFlor® software
is available to assist in the delivery of efficient design and construction for
optimum composite floor deck performance every time.
Scan the QR code to access
Full design and technical support from start to finish the ComFlor® software tool

www.buildingsystemsuk.com Rapidly select the most appropriate deck for your project

pp02-03 TSE_March25_Contents.indd 2 19/02/2025 14:56

 Upfront
5 Editorial
6 News
8 Institution election/transfer/reinstatement
lists
[insert Figure 3 from page 14]
Feature

12
12 Sutherland History Lecture: New
York’s skyscrapers: tracing origins and
technological evolution

Climate action
18 We’ve broken the climate: now what?

Professional guidance
20 CROSS Safety Alert: Temporary festival
stage – an extreme example of bad practice
22 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report:
an update on the Institution’s response

Technical
25 Classifying the embodied carbon of

22 32
concrete: a guide to three recent tools

Project focus
32 Mary Ward Centre, London: Risk
management of a heavy retro t and

39
vertical extension of a 1970s concrete-
framed building

Opinion
March 2025

39 Conservation compendium. Part 21:

The factor of safety dilemma
44 Verulam

At the back
MARY WARD CENTRE © MIKE DAVIES

46 Diary dates
Issue 3

48 Spotlight on Structures
49 Services directory
50 TheStructuralEngineer Jobs
Volume 103

3
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp02-03 TSE_March25_Contents.indd 3 19/02/2025 16:10

 INNOVATE FREELY

Scan this QR-Code

to learn more
about this project.

CAST CONNEX® custom steel castings Freeform castings allow for flexible building THE LEAF AT CANADA’S DIVERSITY GARDENS

allow for projects previously unachievable and bridge geometry, enabling architects Architects: Architecture 49 |
by conventional fabrication methods. and engineers to realize their design ambitions. KPMB Architects
Structural Engineers: Blackwell
Innovative steel castings reduce Custom Cast Solutions simplify complex General Contractor: Bird Construction

construction time and costs, and provide and repetitive connections and are ideal for Steel Fabricator & Erector: Supreme Group
Photography by Dan Harper
enhanced connection strength, ductility, architecturally exposed applications.
and fatigue resistance.

CUSTOM CASTING
www.castconnex.com
[email protected] | 808-196-8162

pp04-05 TSE_March25_Editorial.indd 4 19/02/2025 14:57

 Editorial Upfront

PRESIDENT
Mohamad Al-Dah
CEng, FIStructE

CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Yasmin Becker

EDITORIAL
HEAD OF PUBLISHING
Lee Baldwin

MANAGING EDITOR
Robin Jones
t: +44 (0) 20 7201 9822
e: [email protected]

EDITORIAL ENQUIRIES
Will Brown
t: +44 (0) 20 7201 9121
e: [email protected]

ADVERTISING
Robin Jones Managing Editor
DISPLAY SALES
t: +44 (0) 1223 378025
e: [email protected]

RECRUITMENT SALES
t: +44 (0) 1223 378045

Responding to
e: [email protected]

DESIGN
CPL One SENIOR DESIGNER
James Baldwin

the Grenfell
PRODUCTION
CPL One PRODUCTION EDITOR
Amy Bennett

EDITORIAL ADVISORY GROUP

Phase 2 report
Will Arnold FIStructE
Premma Makanji MIStructE
Allan Mann FIStructE
Chris O’Regan FIStructE
Angus Palmer MIStructE
Eleana Savvidi MIStructE

Subscription prices
Institutional (online only): £539.95
Institutional (print + online): £569.95
Personal (print only): £139.95
Personal (online only): £124.95
Personal (Student Member): £51.95
WITH THE UK GOVERNMENT EXPECTED in the assessment of older structures via three
Single articles – digital: £9.95
Single issues – digital: £14.95
to issue a formal response early this month examples, noting that applying current design
Single issues – print: £25.00 to the recommendations of the Phase 2 report procedures to an existing structure is unlikely to
Printed by of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, it is timely to be be helpful.
Warners Midlands plc
The Maltings, Manor Lane Bourne,
able to present an update from the Institution The rest of the issue focuses on the
Lincolnshire PE10 9PH on its own plans in this regard (page 22). The nstitution s parallel priorit of cli ate action.
United Kingdom
Institution has already written to the Ministry of Despite the ever more extreme weather events
© The Institution of Structural Engineers.
The Structural Engineer is published by IStructE
Housing, Communities and Local Government witnessed in 2024 as global heating exceeded
Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Institution to outline the actions it is taking, and these will 1.5°C, Will Arnold sees reasons for optimism
of Structural Engineers.
also be on the agenda for the Trustee Board and encourages structural engineers to keep
ISSN 1446-5123 (Print)
ISSN 2753-4421 (Online)
meeting in March. Proposed actions include working to reduce the emissions of their projects
reviewing existing processes and procedures to (page 18). Three tools that can help achieve
Contributions published in The Structural
Engineer are published on the understanding ensure appropriate standards of competence, this goal are examined in an article on the
that the author/s is/are solely responsible for the
statements made, for the opinions expressed
ethics and culture are maintained; issuing and assessment of the embodied carbon of concrete
and/or for the accuracy of the contents. revising guidance where necessary; and pursuing (page 25). The LCCG Market Benchmark,
Publication does not imply that any statement or
opinion expressed y the a thor s reflects the the mandatory accreditation of structural niversal lassification and lobal anding can
views of the Institution of Structural Engineers’
Board; Council; committees; members
engineers in the UK. all be used to set embodied carbon targets and
or employees. No liability is accepted by such Elsewhere in the issue, the developments define a pathwa to net ero.
persons or by the Institution for any loss or
damage, whether caused through reliance on described in the 2024 Sutherland History We also feature a case study of the Mary
any statement, opinion or omission (textual
or otherwise) in The Structural Engineer, or
Lecture (page 12) have some parallels with the Ward Centre in London (page 32), a project
otherwise. safety considerations that have driven post- that highlights the potential to reuse existing
The Institution of Structural Engineers Grenfell reforms. Don Friedman discusses the buildings if a suitable approach is taken. This
International HQ
47–58 Bastwick Street
technological changes that accompanied – and stunning transformation of a 1970s concrete-
London EC1V 3PS made possible – the drive to build upwards framed building won a Structural Award for its
United Kingdom
t: +44 (0)20 7235 4535 in US cities in the late 19th century. The need Planet and Process attributes, with the judges
e: [email protected]
to fireproof these sk scrapers, to protect commending the structural engineers for their
The Institution of Structural Engineers both life and insurance/commercial losses, diligent approach to establishing how the
Incorporated by Royal Charter
Charity Registered in England and Wales number was a key element of advances in design and structure could be strengthened and extended
233392 and in Scotland number SC038263
construction methods. rather than demolished.
Historic structures are also the subject of a We end with our usual letters (page 44),
new instalment in our Conservation compendium Diary dates (page 46) and Spotlight on
series (page 39). Charles Blackett-Ord Structures (page 48).
considers the application of factors of safety As ever, I hope you enjoy the issue.

5
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp04-05 TSE_March25_Editorial.indd 5 19/02/2025 14:57

 Upfront News

Industry news
Institution news HSE issues call for evidence in
Share your views in the Building Regulations consultation
IStructE digital tools survey The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as the Building Safety
The Institution is running Regulator (BSR), has launched a call for evidence on statutory
a survey to understand guidance supporting Part A of the Building Regulations on
how professionals in structural safety (Approved Document A).
structural engineering This call for evidence is seeking views on areas of the guidance
use digital tools. Whether requiring increased clarity, research, or further development.
you work in design, t for s the first step of the detailed review, which will include a
construction, research, or programme of work looking into potential changes to Approved
project management, your Document A. The HSE will consult in detail on any changes.
insights will help us create IStructE members are encouraged to respond to the survey.
guidance that trul reflects industr needs. The deadline for responses is 21 April.
Digital tools are transforming the
way we design, analyse and deliver Complete the survey online at https://consultations.hse.
structural projects, i proving efficienc , gov.uk/bsr/review-of-approved-document-a-structure.
accuracy and collaboration. However,
adoption varies widel across di erent
roles, companies and regions. By Industry news
sharing your experience, you’ll help us EngineeringUK proposes spending priorities for government review
identify key trends in digital adoption.
Your input will ensure that our guidance EngineeringUK has submitted a set of training, and retention
is practical, relevant and supports policy proposals for the UK government’s | reforming the national curriculum
professionals at all levels in making the spending review. Drawing on extensive | expanding routes into engineering
most of digital technology. research and first-hand e perience of working higher education.
The survey is open to anyone currently with STEM educators and employers, the
working in structural engineering: recommendations are aimed predominantly at The revenue implications for the government
engineers, technicians, researchers, and the Treasury and Department for Education. of these proposals would be in the region
more. The deadline to share your insights The spending priorities for STEM and of £800M, with the majority of expenditure
is 13 April. engineering education and skills are subdivided accounted for by redirecting unallocated
into six broad categories: apprenticeship levy funding towards a new
Take the survey at www. | growing engineering apprenticeships for model of directly funding apprenticeships for
surveymonkey.com/r/WJCHPYW. young people young people.
| ensuring high-quality careers provision and ngineering is a not-for-profit organisation
work experience in schools that works in partnership with the UK
Institution news | supporting e ective T engineering community, including over 400
outreach programmes businesses, to increase the pipeline of engineers
Enter our new Student
| improving STEM teacher recruitment, and technologists.
Challenge
The IStructE is launching a new Student
Challenge this year. The Challenge has Industry news
been created to engage university students
New research suggests industry optimistic
with wider holistic structural design
considerations that structural engineers about net zero despite trailing targets
must address to meet the needs of people Research by global proptech 19% reduction required by the
and planet, today and tomorrow. fir , , has revealed that UKGBC’s Net Zero Whole Life
The Challenge is designed to use, as its nearly three-quarters (73.4%) Carbon Roadmap.
basis, the major group project that already of UK built environment The report s findings
forms part of students’ degree work. professionals believe achieving underscore the need for
Entries need to explain how the group a net-zero built environment by bold policy action to ensure
project work addresses these challenges, 2050 is within reach. cross-sector collaboration and
via a few pages of graphics and text and an This optimism comes decisive action.
audio or video component. despite the UK falling short
To engage students across the globe, of key emissions reduction Read the 30 Years of
the submission window will run from the targets, with built environment Climate Hurt report at
end of 2025 through to mid-2026, to cater emissions dropping just 13% https://go.iesve.com/30-
for varying academic years. from 2018–22 – well below the years-of-climate-hurt/.
Awards will be given to emergent
examples of excellence in the submissions,
with the work celebrated across the Correction
IStructE and rewarded with a proportion of Are you working to a CPD plan?
the £4500 prize pot. In the February issue of The Structural Engineer, the Viewpoint article, ‘Are you working to a
CPD plan?’, was mistakenly attributed to Kate Wise. The author of the article was, in fact,
For more information, visit Susan Giahi-Broadbent. We apologise for this misattribution.
www.istructe.org/The-Student- A corrected version of the article is available at www.istructe.org/journal/volumes/vol-
Challenge. ume-103-(2025)/issue-2/viewpoint-are-you-working-to-a-cpd-plan/.

6
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp06-7 TSE_March25_News.indd 6 19/02/2025 14:58

 Enhance your
knowledge with
Leviat CPDs
Join Leviat’s experts for a series of
invaluable CPD seminars, covering
everything from façade support
and restraint to structural concrete
connections.
Designed to support you in
understanding key industry topics,
we will explore the latest regulations,
best practice and much more.

REGISTER
TODAY
Leviat
Tel: +44 (0) 114 275 5224
[email protected]

Leviat.com

Imagine. Model. Make.

pp06-7 TSE_March25_News.indd 7 19/02/2025 14:58

 Upfront News

Institution news
Institution election/transfer/reinstatement lists

14 March 2024 Member (Chartered Member MRA) (3) LI, Dang Sheng
At a meeting of the Membership Committee BORCHERS, Jacob Louis LUMB, Benjamin Charles
on 14 March 2024, the following were elected/ LAW, Chung Hang MAHADEVAN, Raju
transferred/reinstated in accordance with the NG, Kam Fai NG, Kenneth Kai Yun
Institution’s Regulations: RONALDS, Toby
Member (Chartered Member IM to CM) (2) RYAN, Martin
ELECTIONS AND TRANSFERS MCPHERSON, Gordon David SERBAN, Carol Mihai
Fellow (8) PENDER, Liam Michael WALTON, John Noah
COATES, Katherine Anne WILKES, Edward
CREAN, Patrick Joseph Associate (34)
DIRDAL, Erik ABDELMAKSOUD, Rana Ayman Aboelfetouh Associate (1)
GOHNERT, Mitchell ALFRED, Joshua Emil SELLADURAI, Sukumar
NEWBY, Thomas Karl ALI, Ahmed
SARKAR, Shibsankar BARTLEY, Sam Graduate (36)
SIMPSON, Nicholas James BASIMALLA, Samuel Morrison Student (1)
STOCKBRIDGE, Nicola Jayne BENN, Bryony Domville
BOGDANOV, Stiliyan Ivanov RESIGNATIONS
Member (26) CHACHADI, Sangeeta Anand The Membership Committee has accepted,
ALLAN, James Francis CHAMBERS, Jennifer with regret, the following resignations:
BAGGALEY, Kirsten CHIU, Ming Yan
CARUANA, Nicolette COOMBES, Ryan Jonathon Fellow (4)
CHAN, Kwan COWLEY, Matthew Thomas CLARKE, Peter Anthony
CHUNG, Ka Leung CURTIS, Matthaus SARKAR, Asit Kumar
CIZEK, Ondrej DOLTON, Thomas SQUIBBS, Neil Richard
FEWSON, Christopher Lionel DOUVAS, Alex TSANG, Paul Sau-Chung
GIANNI, Giulio GIBB, Lorna Beatrice
GODDARD, Ryan GITTINGS, Patrick Thomas Member (31)
HUDSON, Joseph KIRANSAL, Begum ARGUNHAN, Ercan
KALAFATI, Maria KOLOSSOV, Andrus BLACKMAN, Terence Richard
LLOYD, Shannon LEWIS, Richard BOND, Andrew French
O’DONNELL, Liam LOWE, Andrew BRIGHT, Allan Thomas
OWOYELE, Michael Olaniyi MASTERS, Julian Vincent Boothe CORCORAN, David
SETO, Chung Ting MCGINLEY, Patrick Joseph CRANSTON, Peter William
SIU, Lok Nga MILLER, Rebecca DUFFY, James
STONE, Sarah Elizabeth MILLMOOR, Michael Ian GANNON, Peter
TANG, Johnny MOHAMMADI MELKSARI, Tahereh HAYWARD, Gordon Neil
TIDEY, Angus MOLNAR, Gabor HUGHES, Paul Francis
TING, Kwun Shing MORENO, Cristian KERRIDGE, Neil Vincent
TRIANTOS, Andreas O’CONNELL, Clare Olivia LAMONT, Gordon Alexander
TSANG, Yi Cheung RADCLIFFE, Thomas LAU, Shing Lam
WALSH, Sally RUSHTON, Jack Christopher LIN, Paul Zheng
WILLIAMSON, Amanda SELBY, Ben Alastair MACPHAIL, Alistair David
YIM, Chi Ho WHITE, Oscar MIDDLETON, Colin Arthur
ZHAN, Leticia Yiyuan Ho WILLIAMS, Toby MORRIN, Colm
MURRAY, Francis Vincent
Member (Research and Development) (5) Technician (2) ROBERTS, Keith
BEHZADI-SOFIANI, Behnam HOLMES, Ben SEYMOUR, Harry
GKANTOU, Michaela WALKER, Gary SHELTON, Walter Edwin
HUANG, Yuli SHIPLEE, Christopher John
SHAN, Sidi Graduate (331) SMITH, Brian Barry Phillips
THAI, Tai Student (1516) TREACY, Kevin P
ia e ( ) TSUI, Shiu Wang
Member (Chartered Member Further WALLACE, Peter David
Learning) (8) REINSTATEMENTS , rian li ord
CHAN, Ka Yin Member (18) WESLEY, Iain Marshall
HIRT, Myles ANTAL, Nicholas John WOODHEAD, Alan Lindsay
KWOK, Ching Ho ANTYRAS, Athanasios YEUNG, Kin-Ming
LAM, Ching Lun AYINGARAN, Shivajini YOONG, Moke Kam
LEE, Hin Ting CHING, Kai Ip
LESLIE, Elliot Samuel McQueen CHUNG, Hak Kong Associate (4)
LUO, Deren CHUNG, Ho Yin GOH, Han Siang
LUO, GUANGPEI FUNG, Tak Fai HARRIS, Bryan David
HEARD, Andrew Charles LOWDEN, Graham Shaun Taylor
JACKSON, Iva PRIGGE, Peter Alec

8
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp08-11_TSE_March25_Membership lists.indd 8 19/02/2025 14:59

 News Upfront

Incorporated-Member (5) Fellow – Eminent Persons’ Route (3) JAISWAL, Mayank

BURTON, David Edward MITCHELL, Dervilla Mary MAN, Shi Ching
CARTWRIGHT, Arthur Steven NORMAN, James Alexander Paul SHING, Ho Yin
DAVIS, Paul Michael YOUNG, Ben YASDIMAN, Nezih Serdar
ECCLES, Andrew Ferguson
TAYLOR, Keith John Robert Member (45) Member (Chartered Member MRA) (13)
ARGENTO, Benedetto AYRISS, Christina
Graduate (29) AUGER, Samuel Henry Ross DEMPSTER, Michael
Student (3) BENN, Bryony Domville GRIFFIN, Andrew
BLACKIE, Andrew Robert NG, Ka Lok
DEATHS BRACKENBURY, Guy Cameron Frederick NUTTALL, Richard
The deaths of the following are CHAN, Hok Yi PATRICIO, Tiago
reported with regret: CHAN, Ngai POLSON, Andrew
CHANG, Ming Hin TAYLOR, Andrew
Fellow (6) CHAPPELL, Joseph TROFIMOV, Paul
BHARJ, Tarlochan Singh CHENG, Man Kit WAN CHOW WAH, Kevin
BROWN, Kenneth William John CHENG, Sze Chun WEBSTER, Andy Roy
BURGOYNE, Christopher John CHEOK, Gwan Yong YAN, Tsz Wai
FOLEY, Joseph CHEUNG, Chin Choi YU, Lok Wai
GEACH, Trevor Trenley Ward CHEUNG, Wan Lung
MCGREGOR, Thomas EGBE, Prince Idanemugo Member (Chartered Member IM to CM) (3)
GURNEY, Richard Anthony Francis DUNLOP, David
Member (12) HAZELL, Max KELLY, Martin
BAHRA, Baldev Singh HO, Wai Yin Mark WARDLEY, David Lee
BROWN, David Henry HSIAO, YU SOON
, rian li ord KOLOSSOV, Andrus Associate (10)
ENDERSBY, Patrick Blayney LEGGETT-AULD, Amy CLIPACI, Ion
, avid eo re LI, Sihao HAYAT, Omar
HIKONE, Shigeru LIU, Chun Yan KENNEDY, Joseph
LAWRENCE, Raymond LUI, Cheuk Him LAM, Hei
PATEMAN, Roy MOLNAR, Gabor LAU, Kwun Lun
PROCTER, Robert Leslie MORGAN, Morgan Ieuan MARIAN, Mihaela Roxana
TAM, Wai-Chu Edmond MORRIS, Joseph George MONAGHAN, Stephen
THORNE, Paul Richard NABI, Hussain ROSCOW, Andrew Thomas
WHITTLE, James Raymond NEWELL, Michael James SMIT, Joel
OSBORNE, Richard WYATT, Jonathan
Incorporated-Member (1) RADCLIFFE, Thomas
PENFOLD, Jeremy REDDY, Madhu Sudhan Technician (6)
REED, George Edward DAVIES, Kayden
Graduate (1) REHMAN, Abdul GLOVER, Edward
MILLER, Cyril Robert ROTHWELL, Conor Peter Gingles GOSLING, William
SELBY, Ben Alastair HADLEY, Shaun
TAM, Jit Hin MITCHELL , Chris
20 June 2024 THARMAKULASINGAM, Sujeevan Leonard O’DRISCOLL, Tom
At a meeting of the Membership Committee WAN, Yue Kei
on 20 June 2024, the following were elected/ WILLIAMS, Richard Andrew Graduate (264)
transferred/reinstated in accordance with the WONG, Lok Pan Student (808)
Institution’s Regulations: WRIGHT, Grace Florence Elsie ia e ( )
XU, Zhehan
ELECTIONS AND TRANSFERS YAU, Yam Wing REINSTATEMENTS
Fellow (12) YUEN, Ling Chi Member (7)
ARAFATH, Muhammad CHEONG, Wai Choy
BROWNE, Herbert Emerville Member (Research and Development) (1) CHU, Shu San
BURRIDGE, Jenifer Ann HEJAZI, Farzad ILSLEY, Andrew John
DEBOUTRIX-KENT, Jeremy Howard IRVINE, David
LIM, Hwee Sin Member (Chartered Member Further LEUNG, Ho Yan
OGILVIE, Gillian Mary Learning) (11) NANDAKUMAR, Kunnanchath
OGUNMEFUN, Mobolaji CHAN, Yan Wai PURCELL, Fiona
REID, Samuel John CHEUNG, Hing
ROLF, Andrew CHONG, Tang Han Incorporated-Member (1)
THOMAS, Haydn Llewelyn COSICO, Roochie Mico GILES, Dean Marvin
VERANO, Juvenal Paulino Juvy GRIGORUK, Alexander
WHEELER, Scott Christian HAMILTON, Kenneth Graduate (30)
HUI, Ho Man Student (3)

9
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp08-11_TSE_March25_Membership lists.indd 9 19/02/2025 14:59

 Upfront News

RESIGNATIONS 3 October 2024 Member (Chartered Member IM to CM) (1)

The Membership Committee has accepted, At a meeting of the Membership Committee on CARR, John Robert Douglas
with regret, the following resignations: 3 October 2024, the following were elected/
transferred/reinstated in accordance with the Associate (32)
Fellow (7) Institution’s Regulations: ALURU, Srikanta Mithra
BEACH, John BAO, Xuanbei
BICE, Alan George ELECTIONS AND TRANSFERS BARYLKIEWICZ, Bartosz
BROWN, Andrew Wallace Fellow (12) BASIL KUMARA, Wanni Arachchi Kankanamge
BURRELL, Paul Alexander BANCE, Andrew BATESON, Robert Nicholas
CARLTON, Roger Ernest BARHAM, Nick BAVAN, Mahesan
TRANFIELD, William BARNES, Jeremy Nigel BERKIN, Freya Colleen
VOLLAR, Stephen Robert CHAKRABORTY, Arnab BRUCE, James
CHAPPELL, Matthew BURROWS, Harry Francis Gilbert
Member (32) CROMIE, Norman James CHIU, Chung Kei
BACK, Stephen John HASKINS, Stephen Richard CHOW, Chin Yat Douglas
BALDRY, Tony John HAYES, Patrick Joseph FARJAWI, Saif
CHENG, Yuk Lun HELYER, John FIRTH, William James
CHIM, Chin Yiu KITCHING, Christopher Valentine GREEN, Thomas
CLARK, John , e re llan HOUGHTON, Luke Richard
CLARK, Stephen Richard James YIP, Chi Yuen Terence KAPOOR, Shivank
CROWE, Martin Ramsey KOLENIARIS, Giannis
HILLIARD, Gerald Winston Member (28) LAMBA, Mohit
HORROCKS, Nigel Joseph ARIYARATHNE, Ekanayake M D S B LAU, Emily
HUTCHINSON, Paul CALVERT, James LEWIS, Ben
KEE, Daniel CARR, Fiona Kingsley LO, Kam Pui
LARKMAN, David CHALK, Philip LOTT, Eleanor Rose
LIDDELL, Alan Malcolm CHAN, Yan Yin LUK, Wing Hung
LOVELL, Anthony Graham CHENG, Chun Yung MACAULAY, Chloe
LYNCH, Peter Colin CHENG, Hok Shan MBATIA, Samuel Thuo
MCVITIE, Alistair CHOW, Pui King POYA, Alisina
MORRIS, Brian John DUCAS, Emily SALE, Callum Andrew
MORTIMER, Andrew Charles HALLETT, Louis James SHANKS, David
RUDDLE, Mark Eugene HEIN, Moe THOMAS, James
RUSHEN, Phillip KNIGHT, Jonathan VENTHAM, Darren Michael
SANDERSON, Robert LAU, Tsz Hin WILSON, Iain
SATCHWELL, Matthew LAU, Tsz Yeung WOOLFORD, Scott John
SHALLCROSS, Adrian Nicholas LAU, Ying Lai Justin
SMITH, Richard James Gilbert LEE, Ho-Man Technician (1)
SPEAK, Michael John LIANG, Jiawei DANDAS, Franklin
STAWINSKI, Wojciech LING, Ka Wai
TAYLOR, John Michael MAERKL, Nick Graduate (266)
TSUI, Wai Tak REEVES, Elinor Moon Student (830)
UDUEHI, June ROBINSON, Lloyd Sebastian ia e ( )
WATKINS, Gareth SANDERS, Oliver James
WATT, John James SPINK, Matthew Rajay REINSTATEMENTS
WELLS, Glen Upton TALLANT, Elizabeth Fellow (1)
TRIPSA, Bianca-Alexandra CARLTON, Roger Ernest
Incorporated-Member (6) VIDELA, Jose Miguel
BARBER, Nicholas Peter VITA, John Member (17)
DIXON, Peter John WONG, Wai Lun ABDUL SHAKOUR, Mohamed
ELGOOD, John AU, Ming Chu Julie
HUGHES, Stuart Member (Research and Development BOLEM, V S R K Ravi Prasad
THOMAS, Barry Peter Route) (2) CHAN, Kit Ying
TWEED, David CAL, Yancheng EGUSQUIZA PRADO, Xabier
JAFARIAN, Mostafa FUNG, Hoi Fai
Graduate (47) HUGGETT, David
Student (2) Member (Chartered Member Further HUMPHREYS, Christopher George
Learning Exam) (7) KANG, Vance Yi Shu
DEATHS CHAN, Lok Chun LEE, James Michael
The deaths of the following are KAN, Pui Ying MU, Wei
reported with regret: KAN, Pui Ying TANG, Kin Man
MOK, Hoi Ting TSE, Leung Yau
Fellow (3) SIMPSON, Mark WADDUP, Daniel
BLOCKLEY, David Ian TAY, Cheong Wing WITT, James Anthony John
, eo re ichael TSUI, TSZ FUNG WONG, Mui Ling
VINCENT, Rodney James XIE, Hongyang
Member (Chartered Member MRA) (1)
BERBER, Oguz

10
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp08-11_TSE_March25_Membership lists.indd 10 19/02/2025 14:59

 News Upfront

Incorporated-Member (1) COLELLA, Simone e ( )

KIMBER, Gordon Ronald DOBSON, Andrew James BROWN, William Franklin
FIRTH, William James FENN, John Anthony
Graduate (40) KAPOOR, Shivank FRASER, James Ramsay
LAMBA, Mohit , li ord lan
RESIGNATIONS MARGRAVE-JONES, Samuel MATTHEWS, Stuart Lawrence
The Membership Committee has accepted, Rhys SMITH, Peter Frederick
with regret, the following resignations: MORRISON-WELLS, John WILLIAMS, Gordon Dill
O’BRIEN, Stephen
Member (7) OLIVER, Jennifer Leigh Member (17)
BROOKES, William Arthur SALE, Callum Andrew ANDERSON, Colin Thomas
HARDIMENT, Peter William TOLSON, Molly Van Doren T , evin eo re
HO, Chi Shun TSANG, Chi Hong BEADMAN, David Reginald
HO, Wai Kee WILLIAMS, Toby BEAUSIRE, Charles
NG, Kendrick Cheow ZHANG, Qianxi BIGNELL, Thomas Duncan
TSE, Ching Chuen BROWN, Michael Robert
WU, Po Tak Alex Me e ( e ea and De e en ) (2) CHENG, Wai Sun
AHMADI, Ehsan COX, David John
Graduate (25) MADHAVAN, Mahendrakumar COX, Glenn Alan
Student (1) DAWSON, Peter
ia e ( ) Me e (C a e ed Me e u e DRACOS, Andreas
ea nin ) ( ) , eo re hilip
DEATHS BAINES, Neil Paul T, eo re lan
The deaths of the following are CRAMMAN, Stephen James HOHL, Andrew
reported with regret: LAWTY, Jack JONES, Roger Martyn
LEE, Siu Hin LIZUCHOVA, Katerina
e ( ) STROUD, Thomas MCEWAN, Robin Alexander
ADEKOYA, Adewale THOMPSON, Alexander James
ELLIS, William George n a ed Me e ( )
LESTER, Eric Gerald Me e (C a e ed Me e M )( ) BEVAN, Robert
ROWE, Kenneth John BURNS, Benjamin SMART, Michael James
STAINSBY, Richard FU, Sarah SPEARS, Keith Murray
SUBEDI, Nutan Kumar HO, Jonathan Hoe-Kuen STENNING, Michael Francis
KLOUDA, Lukas THRIFT, Philip John
n a e ( ) KONG, Chan Pak WOULDS, Stephen
RAMPHAL, Shridath MCCULLOUGH, Robert
MCILROY, Ben Thomas ia e ( )
Member (11) LOMARD, Johan
BAILLIE, David ia e ( )
COLLISON, Richard Anthony BARNETT, Jonathan Graduate (5)
EDWARDS, David Alan CHAN, Si Nga Student (1)
FERNANDES, Francisco Luis Antonio FARRELL, Cian
GODDARD, Howard John LOUGHRIE, Joshua DEATHS
HOLLANDS, Frederick Thomas MUSAFER, Dhanish Rahim The deaths of the following are
OLIVER, Ernest Robert SPATAFORA, Miriam reported with regret:
PREST, Kenneth Ronald VAVAKAS, Athanasios
WATCHORN, Paul David John e (4)
WIGNARAJAH, Arunasalam Subramaniam Incorporated-Member (2) BRADFIELD, Simon Leslie
WRIGHT, Eric Duke CHASHEVA, Nadezhda Hristova FLINT, Anthony Ray
DAVIES, Alex LESTER, Albert
4 December 2024 MACGREGOR, David
At a meeting of the Membership Committee on adua e ( 5 )
4 December 2024, the following were elected/ Student (1098) n a e ( )
transferred/reinstated in accordance with the ia e ( ) MACCREADY, Paul
Institution’s Regulations:
REINSTATEMENTS Member (8)
ELECTIONS AND TRANSFERS Member (2) BROWN, Mervyn Arthur
e ( ) BENTLEY, Martin Andrew DYNE, Mary Elizabeth
JAWAHAR, Najwa ROGERS, John F EDWARDS, Alan David
GRIMSHAW, Rodney Erskine
e inen e n u e (2) e ni ian ( ) MOSES, Julian Warrick
BAVEREL, Olivier CLARKE, Dillon MULLEN, Eric James
DI SARNO, Luigi SILKOFF, Aubrey
Graduate (21) SMOLLETT, William Robert
Member (17)
BAO, Xuanbei RESIGNATIONS Incorporated-Member (1)
BIRCHAM, Thomas The Membership Committee has accepted, BACON, Gordon John
CAPRERA, Riccardo with regret, the following resignations:

11
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp08-11_TSE_March25_Membership lists.indd 11 19/02/2025 14:59

 Feature Sutherland History Lecture

New York’s skyscrapers:

tracing origins and
technological evolution
DONALD FRIEDMAN
PE, FASCE, FAPT
across Europe as examples of early
President, Old Structures Engineering, skyscrapers, which has broadened the
New York, NY, USA term into uselessness. And are metal-
fra ed towers the i el Tower being the
prime example – skyscrapers?
The use of two specific criteria will
SYNOPSIS narrow the structures to the generally
accepted group of early skyscrapers: i)
In this article based on his 2024 James Sutherland History the structure must be an ordinary useable
building; and ii) it must be tall for its
Lecture, Donald Friedman charts the development of conte t. The first criterion can be further
skyscrapers in the USA from 1870 onwards. He explores how a defined as the building having useable
enclosed space that occupies most of
need for denser construction in city centres, combined with an the structure’s height. In short, changes
imperative to protect these buildings and their occupants from to the amount of useable interior space
e d e e n i a an e i a ed e de i n are roughly proportional to changes in
the overall height. This rules out the i el
ever taller buildings. Donald also considers the relevance of Tower, chimneys, pyramids and church
these technologies to structural engineers today, particularly spires. It also rules out buildings such
as the 1877–94 Philadelphia City Hall,
in respect to the development of reduced-carbon systems and which is a broad and low building with a
the need to better understand old building structure. small-footprint tower, giving it the same
geometric typography as a church.
The second criterion is less clear
because it is always related to the time
Introduction while enabling denser construction in and location under consideration. Ten
The history of skyscrapers has downtown areas. The new technologies storeys was tall in US cities in 1870 but
produced a vast literature focused on that were developed – most importantly ordinary in 1900. That height is a good
the architecture of iconic buildings, but steel-skeleton framing – were needed minimum since it was rarely passed until
discussion of the technological changes for large buildings but not small ones, so the new technology was in common use.
that enabled the creation of this new the experimental prototypes became the There are many possible sets of criteria
building type is lacking. This is not simply tallest fully occupied buildings in the world. other than the two I have described,
an oversight in the historical record: but by using two broad and, hopefully,
understanding the social and material What is a skyscraper? non-controversial criteria in my research,
forces that shaped early skyscrapers can In order to discuss the changes in a tr ing to avoid the trap of defining
help with current-day issues. First, how technology that led to skyscrapers, we criteria to include or exclude buildings
do we maintain these buildings which need to define which buildings ualif , based on my favourites. For example, the
have commercial value and represent and that is in one sense impossible since use of structural slenderness (building
enormous amounts of embodied carbon there is no generall accepted definition height divided by least base dimension)
and energy; second, are there past of ‘skyscraper’. For example, skeleton skews the results against Chicago, where
developments that were abandoned 120 fra ing best defined using structural load larger lots tended to produce a lot of
years ago that may be of use today? paths: all loads applied to the building are stocky buildings. The fragmented and
In the simplest terms: after 1870, carried by a building-wide frame), which oddly shaped lots in downtown New York
people in the USA started relying entirely is a critical piece of the overall story, is a led to the construction of many slender
on relatively new industrial materials for poor choice as a re uire ent since its buildings early on.
building structure. That change happened use excludes such iconic buildings as
everywhere, but the USA pioneered the Monadnock and Rookery buildings in Types of skyscraper structure
in using new systems for tall, slender Chicago and the World Building in New As a structural engineer, I prefer the
buildings. This happened because York. On the other end of the spectrum, use of load paths as the main criterion
skyscrapers were a by-product of people li iting the re uire ents to si pl height to distinguish di erent t pes of building
addressing di erent proble s how leads to ancient pyramids (in Egypt and fra e. pecificall , a which portion of the
to prevent assivel destructive fires, Central America) and medieval cathedrals structure carries the gravity load of interior

12
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp12-17_TSE_March25_Feature_Sutherland History lecture.indd 12 19/02/2025 15:00

 Sutherland History Lecture Feature

KING’S PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWS OF NEW

YORK, BOSTON: MOSES KING, 1895, P. 665
FIGURE 1: Central Park Apartments exterior and plan of one apartment, showing bearing walls

tallest building in the world for two ears,

had a wall-braced cage fra e, visible
in the e terior-wall sections (Figure 2).
This was a full developed structural
t polog , not, as it ight see fro our
perspective, a step towards skeleton
fra ing. ooking at it in the conte t of
its era, this s ste uses each ele ent
in a anner to which it is suited steel
bea s in bending, cast-iron colu ns in
straight co pression, ass asonr as
shear walls.
n fra e-braced cages, lateral loads
were carried b the etal fra e rather
than the e terior walls. This theoreticall
allowed for thinner e terior walls, though
it can be hard to tell b looking at the
buildings. good e a ple is the
ave e er uilding in ew ork, with a
steel-and-wrought-iron o ent fra e,
which lacked real spandrel bea s and
FIGURE 2: orld ilding exterior and lower floor wall sections represents a steel floor eam, is the had colu ns located at the inboard
typical mass-brick walls, C is stone veneer at the street facades, D are cast iron-columns, E is the footing for faces of the big asonr piers in the
a column within the wall facade (Figure 3).
COPYRIGHT CLAIMANT AND PUBLISHER: DETROIT PUBLISHING CO., NEWSPAPER ROW, PARK ROW, NEW YORK, The final t pe is recognisabl odern
NEW YORK STATE, C.1900; WWW.LOC.GOV/ITEM/2016801880/ the skeleton fra e, where all of the
loads are carried b the fra e. The
word carried refers to the design, as
floors and roofs, b which portion carries boringl , consists of bearing-wall the built conditions specificall the lack
the gravit load of e terior and interior buildings. n the pure bearing wall of e pansion joints in earl asonr
walls, and c which portion carries wind s ste , all loads are carried b asonr curtain walls eant that load sharing
load ote that seis ic lateral loads were walls. good e a ple is the eight between fra es and curtain walls was
not addressed in practice until , linked buildings collectivel known as inevitable. The t aul uilding in
long after sk scrapers were an established the entral ark part ents, co pleted ew ork designed b eorge ost,
t pe. o bining these three load path in ew ork in (Figure 1). The the sa e engineering-trained architect
uestions in di erent wa s led to the i ed bearing wall t pe has asonr as orld and ave e er had a steel
develop ent of four ajor fra e t pes b bearing walls at the e terior and lines of o ent fra e. The colu ns were still
, as long as one considers a bearing- colu ns and girders at the interior. located inboard of the wall to provide
wall building to be a fra e t pe. ll had The ne t t pe is the wall-braced cage weathering protection , but the spandrel
precedents in urope and elsewhere, but fra e, in which floor load is carried b bea s were centred in the wall (Figure
not necessaril at the scale built in the a fra e, while e terior-wall weight and 4). n the long run, the switch to skeleton
starting in the s. lateral loads are carried b the walls. The fra es enabled an changes in
The first t pe, unsurprisingl and orld uilding in ew ork, the for , starting with the ease of creating

13
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp12-17_TSE_March25_Feature_Sutherland History lecture.indd 13 19/02/2025 15:00

 Feature Sutherland History Lecture
KING’S PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEWS OF NEW
YORK, N E N , ,

FIGURE 3: avemeyer ilding exterior and floor plan Note the steel col mns at the interior face of the
facade masonry piers, and the lac of spandrel eams f rther o t oard than the interior face of the piers

setbacks and transferring columns

to create large open spaces at the FIGURE 5: he ller latiron ilding
base of a building, but early skeleton- nder constr ction, showing how s eleton
frame buildings look much like their framing ena les the constr ction of the
predecessors. The first change the exterior wall independently at di erent levels
introduced that was visible to the public N N E
was the construction of supported E N , NE E ,
, NE , NE E,
curtain walls beginning at upper floors, C E
leaving the ground floor open for
construction traffic (Figure 5).
People who insist on the presence of obituary for Samuel Weiskopf, one of
a skeleton frame to determine whether the first consulting structural engineers
a building is a skyscraper come to working on buildings in New York
a disappointing conclusion: there is included the phrase ‘[h]e was a pioneer
a tie for the title of first sk scraper . in the construction of wind-braced
The Manhattan Building in Chicago sk scrapers , which, of course, accuratel
(constructed June 1889 to June 1891, implies that there had been skyscrapers
extant) and the London & Lancashire without wind bracing earlier on1.
Bank in New York (constructed October
1889 to May 1890, demolished) are Why change to
the first docu ented tall buildings new technology?
with their exterior walls supported If skyscrapers are the visible portion
b the fra es. The significance of of a nationwide phenomenon – a
Manhattan and London & Lancashire change in how the structure was
was not much discussed at the time constructed for buildings larger than
of their construction. These buildings houses – why did that change take
were moments in an evolutionary place? The technological change
process. Various changes in structural FIGURE 4: t a l ilding exterior and wall section required an enormous investment in new
technology happened in small steps, N N E E N , construction equipment and techniques,
even if those steps took place in rapid NE E , , NE , NE E, C in code changes, and in training of
E ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING,
succession: gradual increases in height E E , N E N, NE N E N , ,
structural designers and builders.
(not important in itself, but publicly henever so uch ti e, e ort and
visible and a driving force in using money is spent, there must be a reason.
metal columns), gradual increases in loads of interior framing to supporting In the context of the growth of the
slenderness, and gradual changes in gravity and wind loads of both framing economy and population, and the rapid
framing materials and details (cast iron and walls. In 1891, William Fryer, an urbanisation of the USA in the second
to wrought iron to steel for columns, for engineer who spent much of the 1880s half of the 19th century, the reason can
e a ple . epending on one s personal and 90s popularising iron and steel be simply stated as protecting the value
views of the underlying technologies, construction in New York, described of the built environment. It is hard to
there are as many as 40 or 50 buildings the evolution of column locations, as overstate the fla abilit of erican
over a 20-year period that cumulatively the metal went from being seen as cities of that era, or the difficult of
represent a break with the past. reinforcing for masonry piers, to being protecting big new buildings.
One example of the gradual a structural element in its own right, to The most prominent US city-wide
changes was that spandrel column being the primary structural element conflagration was hicago in , but
locations moved outboard, as their (Figure 6). The nature of the incremental that was an outlier only in its extent.
role changed from supporting gravity changes shows up in odd places: the There were widespread fires in oston in

14
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp12-17_TSE_March25_Feature_Sutherland History lecture.indd 14 19/02/2025 15:00

 Sutherland History Lecture Feature

1872, in Seattle and Spokane in 1889,

and in Baltimore in 1904. The 1906
earthquake in San Fransisco is famous,
but it is not as well known that the
da age fro fire after the uake was
on the same order of magnitude as the
direct damage from ground movement2.
The oston fire was arguabl a ore
direct cause for people to investigate
fireproof structure than the hicago
fire the ear before. The hicago fire
destroyed an estimated 17 500 buildings
over a large percentage of the built-
up area of the cit the oston fire
destroyed 776 in the downtown area FIGURE 6: The evolution of column location. Note the combination
(Figure 7). However, the insurance of cast-iron column with double spandrel in the plane of the wall
losses in hicago were onl three ti es WILLIAM FRYER, ‘SKELETON CONSTRUCTION: THE NEW METHOD
greater than Boston despite the loss of OF CONSTRUCTING HIGH BUILDINGS’, ARCHITECTURAL RECORD, 1 (2),
22 times as many buildings. Most of the OCTOBER–DECEMBER 1891

hicago losses were s all wood-fra e

houses and commercial buildings, and
were not insured. Boston’s losses were
large office and co ercial buildings
with both the buildings and contents
insured, highlighting the di erences
between a less-than-40-year-old
boomtown and a well-established older
cit . ollowing the oston fire, insurance
companies became more active in the
field of building design on a national
level, raising rates for buildings that
were not fire-protected and revising
their rate schedules as the technology
advanced to better represent the risk
fro di erent s ste s , and setting up FIGURE 7: Central Boston in November 1872
the Underwriters’ Laboratory to research COPYRIGHT CLAIMANT: JOSHUA SMITH. BOSTON, AFTER THE FIRE, 9 & 10 NOVEMBER,
building materials and systems. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, 1872; WWW.LOC.GOV/ITEM/2007661017/
Starting in 1872, individual building
fires were interpreted in the conte t of
the hicago and oston fires rather than, across the street (Figure 8). The bank
FRANCIS MOORE, HOW TO BUILD FIREPROOF AND
SLOW-BURNING, 3RD EDN, NEW YORK: CONTINENTAL PRINT, 1899

as in the past, being simply accepted as had significant floor collapses because
the wa things were. ost- oston fires its wrought-iron girders and cast-iron
were seen in the conte t of previous fires colu ns were not full fireproofed, and
and the knowledge that new structural e panded fro the radiant heat of the
aterials were available. n e a ple fire, pushing the girders o their seated
of the limits of forensic reporting is the column connections4,5. The lesson
destruction of New York’s Windsor Hotel learned here was that non-fla able
b fire in . The indsor was built structure can still be destro ed b fire.
in , after the hicago and oston Again, this was known, but having it
fires, but before the ew ork building demonstrated with a seemingly modern
laws recognised the e istence of fireproof building like the bank was important.
structure. It was 61m by 30m in plan, ven fire-protected buildings could
seven storeys high, and entirely wood be vulnerable. The 1893 Home Life
e cept for e terior asonr walls floors, Insurance Building in New York, a well-
elevator shafts, dumbwaiters, partitions, built e a ple of fireproof skeleton-fra e
stairs. It burned in less than an hour in structure, as defined in the s
1899, killing 45 people3. Fire spread code, was da aged b an fire
through the shafts and stairs, leaving that destro ed the adjacent five-store
people with no means of egress. The Rogers Peet store (Figure 9). The fire
rather obvious lesson learned was that spread through lot-line windows in the
buildings designed before the modern upper floors of o e ife nsurance to
codes were dangerous, which was true the contents there6,7. The lesson learned
but of limited use. was partiall a repeat of eap, that
ore instructive fire da age was unfireproofed neighbours are dangerous.
seen in at the fireproof But unlike Manhattan Savings, the
Manhattan Savings Bank, caused by the FIGURE 8: The Keap (right) and structure of Home Life was not badly
fire in the wood-floored eap uilding anhattan an ildings after the re damaged and was readily repaired

15
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp12-17_TSE_March25_Feature_Sutherland History lecture.indd 15 19/02/2025 15:00

 Feature Sutherland History Lecture

because the steel was protected by terra colu n loaded eccentricall , causing The critical lesson fro Triangle, that
cotta fireproofing. bending in iron colu ns not eant for protecting the building did not ean that
The arlington part ents collapse tension. hen a local overload on one the occupants were safe, upended the
in arked the end for cast-iron floor fro a plasterer storing aterials logic of the previous ears. uture
structure in ew ork, where it had caused one colu n to fail in bending, develop ent focused on protecting
re ained popular longer than other the resulting progressive collapse people e.g. b having ultiple interior
cities8. This e ectivel ended cage- levelled the building in under a inute. fire stairs rather than onl focusing on
fra e buildings, since the last popular The disaster that arks the end of the structural fireproofing.
version of that s ste , for eight- to earl stage of technical develop ent is
-store apart ent houses, used steel nearl as fa ous as the hicago Intersection of social
floor bea s with cast-iron colu ns. fire the fire at the Triangle and technical issues
nce cast iron was ruled out, people hirtwaist actor located on the th, sing the tools of technological histor
switched to constructing buildings of th and th floors of the cage- does not ean just looking at the
this class with steel skeleton fra es. fra ed sch uilding in ew ork9. develop ent of the building technolog ,
arlington collapsed during construction This was another fast- oving rapid but also looking at the social conte t
in , with the fra e erected to fire less than inutes that killed of the changes. ne starting point is to
of the planned store s. The design over despite the thorough fire chart various trends based on data fro
had nearl ever rectangular-tube iron protection of the structure (Figure 10). the decennial US census (Figure 11).
n order to co pare trends with greatl
di erent absolute values, the -a is is
si pl percentage change co pared
with , e cept for structural steel and
iron production, which was not easured
b the census before . hile all of
the trend lines tell interesting stories, the
develop ent of cage- and skeleton-fra e
technolog is ost clearl shown b the
vast growth in steel and iron production,
while brick production peaked around
and the overall nu ber of
buildings constructed re ained relativel
constant. The gradual ove toward
FIGURE 9: bigger buildings with ore steel fra ing
The Home Life contributed to those trends.
Insurance Building nlike those broad trends, an
and the Rogers accident of histor helped to define
Peet store before
so e of the di erences between
and after the re
ew ork and hicago buildings the
FRANCIS MOORE, downtown business district in lower
HOW TO BUILD
FIREPROOF AND anhattan has s all and irregular
SLOW-BURNING, lots with, in , badl frag ented
3RD EDN, NEW YORK:
CONTINENTAL PRINT, ownership. The e uivalent area in
1899 hicago s oop had larger lots, often
with joint ownership of contiguous lots.
This di erence is represented in the
greater slenderness of buildings in ew
ork (Figure 12).
lenderness akes bearing-wall
buildings less econo ical because
the walls do not get thinner proportionall
with the floor area, and so take up a
larger percentage of the gross area.
FIGURE 10: n , ew ork heavil do inated
The interior of the
Triangle factory
with buildings under wide and had
after the re he all of the buildings with a slenderness
contents have been greater than si , as a result of s all lots
destroyed, but the and the belief a ong an landowners
structural steel is that building tall buildings was a fast road
undamaged and the
to wealth.
terracotta va lt floor
is mostly intact The transitional cage fra es were far
ore popular in ew ork in the s
JIM FREDERICK, than elsewhere, in part because the cit
HOW THE TRIANGLE
FIRE TRANSFORMED had a well-established cast-iron industr
WORKPLACE SAFETY, but no steel ills. ore i portantl , cage
US DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR BLOG, fra es were ore popular in residential
25 MARCH 2021 buildings, which tended to be shorter

16
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp12-17_TSE_March25_Feature_Sutherland History lecture.indd 16 19/02/2025 15:00

 Sutherland History Lecture Feature

and less slender than office buildings,

COLONIAL TIMES TO 1970, WASHINGTON DC: US CENSUS BUREAU, 1976

DATA TAKEN FROM HISTORICAL STATISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES,
Structural iron and
and therefore were often designed b FIGURE 11: Trends in steel production
an architect using iron contractors population and items related
engineering services, rather than using to building technology
engineering consultants. igh-rise
apartment houses and hotels made
up a larger percentage of ew ork s
tall buildings than elsewhere which,
when coupled with the greater absolute Chicago population
nu ber of tall buildings constructed
in ew ork before , eans that
the bulk of earl high-rise residential General manufacturing
production
buildings were in ew ork, and an of
New construction cost
the had cage fra es.
Brick production
Conclusion NYC population
US population
ooking at the origins of sk scrapers
fro the viewpoint of technolog rather New building permits
than architecture, and specificall
structural loading and resistance, shifts
the standard narrative in so e interesting
wa s. There was no revolution, but rather
a series of changes as for s of etal NYC Chicago Other
fra ing developed for use in bridges were 12
adapted to buildings. ust as odern-
da engineers will design co posite

MANICE: PETER MACQUEEN, ‘PERPENDICULAR NEW YORK’,

structures in steel and concrete, using

FRANK LESLIE’S POPULAR MONTHLY, 36, 4 OCTOBER 1893

the specific properties of each aterial
in e bers where the are best suited, 9

engineers ears ago were designing

Slenderness

co posite structures in asonr , cast

iron and steel.
There is no engineering reason wh
6
the old for s cannot be ade to fit
odern standards for safet , and the
a have advantages. or e a ple, in
an area of low seis icit , the old cage-
fra e concept of a self-bearing e terior 3
wall can be co bined with odern
ideas about energ efficienc , reduced-
carbon s ste s such as heav -ti ber
interior fra ing and natural stone
sheathing , and reduced- aintenance 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
facades. n short, the technologies that Least Width In Meters
were abandoned then for the conceptual
si plicit of skeleton fra ing are still FIGURE 12: Pre-1900 skyscrapers, comparing structural slenderness to least base width. Buildings marked in
blue were in New York, those in red were in Chicago, those in green were in other US cities. Every building with a
viable and a be of interest. nd finall ,
slenderness greater than 6 is in New York; every building with a base width below 8.2m is in in New York. ‘A’ was the
understanding the co posite nature of 1897 Gillender Building, 83m and 19 storeys tall, on a site only 7.9m by 22.5m. Gillender was the only skyscraper
old building structure can allow for better with a slenderness greater than 10 until after 2000. ‘B’ was the 1893 Manice Building, 41m and 11 stories on a lot
distinction between structural and non- 4.9m by 16.8m. Manice was the most extreme of the early New York skyscrapers with rowhouse-sized footprints
structural da age fro weathering or
other events.
REFERENCES

Watch the lecture 1) ‘Samuel Weiskopf, Engineer, Is Dead’ (1936) New 5) ‘Big Fire in Broadway’ (1895) New York Times,
If you’d like to watch a recording of York Times, 21 December, p. 23 November 6, p. 8
Donald Friedman’s Sutherland History 2) Tyler S. (1906) San Francisco’s Great Disaster: A 6) ‘Destructive Fire in Sky-Scrapers’ (1898) New York
Lecture, visit the IStructE website at Full Account of the Recent Terrible Destruction of Times, 5 December, p. 1
www.istructe.org/resources/training/ Life and Property by Earthquake, Fire and Volcano in
7) ‘The Home Insurance Building Fire’ (1898)
james-sutherland-history-lecture-2024/. California and at Vesuvius, Harrisburg, PA: The Minter
Engineering Record, 39 (2), 10 December, pp. 24–27
Company
8) Starrett W. (1928) Skyscrapers and the men who
3) ‘The Windsor Hotel’ (1899) New York Times, 19
build them, New York: Scribner
March, p. 18
9) ‘141 Men and Girls Die in Waist Factory Fire’ (1911)
4) e ffe i e n a a ia ie ed
New York Times, 26 March, p. 1
Building’ (1895) Engineering News, 14 November, p. 332

17
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp12-17_TSE_March25_Feature_Sutherland History lecture.indd 17 19/02/2025 15:00

 Climate action easons for hope

We’ve broken the

climate: now what?
Despite the world missing its global heating targets, and ever more
extreme weather events occurring, Will Arnold sees reasons to be
optimistic and urges structural engineers to be bold in their climate action.

t s official, hu anit has been unable outh frica s worst drought in living increasing the annual policing budget
to keep global heating below . e or , and hectares of forest b .
co pared with pre-industrial levels. fires across the a on ainforest et, despite the warnings,
This figure has now been confir ed b that s an area the si e of ngland and hu anit also spent the ear e itting
authoritative groups including the orld ales co bined. urther concern record a ounts of 2 into our

eteorological rgani ation , the s co es fro the onset of certain tipping at osphere. n fact, we s ashed our
opernicus li ate hange ervice2, points, such as the fact that areas of previous world record b bn tonnes
and the s et ffice3 with the rctic per afrost have now thawed appro . . increase on
opernicus s esti ate even putting the to the point of e itting ore carbon according to the lobal arbon udget
nu ber at nearer . . This doesn t than the absorb each ear . ffice , which highlights that
et contravene the aris gree ent aving read the cli ate science, it growth in global fossil 2 e issions

which is based on a - ear average , feels neither sensational nor alar ist re ains persistent . eopolitical events
but it is worr ing that the figure has to sa that the cli ate is now broken. of are si ilarl disturbing, pointing
been passed within onl ears of the reak weather events are beco ing towards the further unshackling of an
agree ent being signed b world annual. alifornia s overnor said of the world s ost e issive industries.
leaders. opernicus spokesperson there is no longer a fire season in his
said in anuar that it was probabl state it s ear-round . esearch b Reasons for optimism
now i possible to keep the planet environ ental thinktank isters shows a This all sounds prett scar . s
within a - ear average of . 4
. doubling in the cost of da ages caused so eone who works in sustainabilit ,
The fact that this has been e pected b natural disasters each decade, FIGURE 1: such news can be at best
orrential floods
for so e ti e doesn t ake things an outpacing econo ic growth in ost disheartening, and at worst despair-
in Valencia,
less alar ing. saw unprecedented countries. n the , it esti ates that Spain, caused inducing. owever, still have hope
stor s across the , devastating the cost of flooding will be nearl over 230 deaths in that we are aking progress, and for
flooding in hina and urope (Figure 1), bn in this decade the e uivalent of October 2024 several reasons.
irst, in addition to its warnings
about fossil e issions, the
also notes that a decrease in land-use
change e issions in the past decade is
leading to an overall plateauing of total
e issions. Figure 2 shows this trend,
and also indicates that fossil e issions
are reasonabl likel to plateau in
the ne t decade, taking us past an
i portant inflection point and into what
will hopefull beco e a long period of
ear-on- ear decreasing e issions.
ater than needed, but o entu is in
the right direction.
econd, despite the negative
overall picture last ear, we see
significant signs of progress around
the world. hina, for e a ple,
ISTOCK.COM / SGAPHOTO

The esti ates that, in , hu anit

e itted . t 2 into the at osphere. This
includes both fossil e issions and land use
change-based e issions, but onl includes
carbon dio ide e issions, e cluding other
greenhouse gases.

18
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp18-19_TSE_March25_Climate Action.indd 18 19/02/2025 15:02

 Reasons for hope Climate action

is already well known for its groups forming, such as the on every project. Keep advocating
production of electric vehicles and Engineers Reuse Collective (www. for solutions that simply se less st .
solar panels; but importantly for our terc.org.uk/). Another is the way in And keep sharing your knowledge
industry, developments last year also which Part Z (https://part-z.uk/), an with the wider industry, so we can
led to the publication of an official industry-proposed amendment to the create change greater than the sum of
Chinese low-carbon steel standard UK Building Regulations, continues our parts.
(www.c2fsteel.com/), which will now under its own momentum: in a recent The race to rescue our climate and
drive the decarbonisation of both government inquiry into sustainability nature has only just begun.
primary and secondary steelmaking and housebuilding, almost half of the
in a country that produces half of all 81 written responses to the inquiry
steel on earth. Similarly, low-carbon advocated for better consideration Will Arnold
cement technologies seem to keep of embodied carbon in government MEng, CEng, FIStructE, CEnv
attracting investment, e.g. in the USA, policy6. Progress continues, ready
where Brimstone raised nearly a quarter to be turbocharged by the inevitable Will Arnold is Head of Climate Action at
of a billion dollars from private and regulation that will eventually come. the Institution of Structural Engineers.
federal investment.
Finally, I have hope because global Time to be bold
climate action is not solely led by those The overall mood music on climate
with political power. It is as much about might be a little melancholy right
REFERENCES
grassroots action. The UK Net Zero now, but there are plenty of reasons
Carbon Buildings Standard (www. to keep pushing for change. And
1) World Meteorological Organization
nzcbuildings.co.uk/) is an exemplar of whether you land on the side of the (2025) WM confirms 2024 as
this: our industry has been calling for outraged or the optimistic, one thing warmest year on record at about
embodied carbon regulation for at least is clear: we must take bolder action 1.55 C above pre-industrial level
a decade, with little positive response than ever. Concrete and constructional [Online] Available at: https://wmo.int/
from government. Tired of waiting, the steel alone are still responsible for news media centre wmo con rms
industry came together to launch this around 10% of global emissions, and 2024-warmest-year-record-about-
standard in 2024 in order to enable aggregate extraction still outpaces 155degc-above-pre-industrial-level
financers, developers and designers to coal by a factor of six, and oil by (Accessed: January 2025)
create retrofits and new buildings that a factor of 10. The proportion of 2) Copernicus (2025) 2024 is the
are truly aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory. global impact that is due to structural first year to e ceed 1.5 C above
It’s also worth remembering engineering will only increase if other pre-industrial level [Online] Available
the power of the ripple e ects industries reduce their emissions faster at: https://climate.copernicus.eu/
copernic s rst year exceed
that come from grassroots action. than we do, and so we must continue
15degc-above-pre-industrial-level
One example is the ways in which to increase our action. (Accessed: January 2025)
Structural Engineers Declare (www. The IStructE doesn’t intend to
structuralengineersdeclare.com/) slow down its climate action any time 3) Madge G. (2025) 2024: record-
brea ing watershed year for global
brought about a change in industry soon, and you shouldn’t either. Please,
climate [Online] Available at: www.
rhetoric that has led to other action keep talking about embodied carbon
meto ce gov a o t s news
and-media/media-centre/weather-
and-climate-news/2025/2024-record-
rea ing watershed year for glo al
climate (Accessed: January 2025)
4) Dinneen J. and Cuff M. (2025) ‘2024
con rmed as rst year to reach
warming limit’, New Scientist [Online]
Available at: www.newscientist.com/
article con rmed as
rst year to reach c warming
limit/ (Accessed: January 2025)
5) Luhn A. (2024) rctic permafrost is
now a net so rce of ma or greenho se
gases’, New Scientist [Online]
Available at: www.newscientist.com/
article arctic permafrost
is now a net so rce of ma or
greenhouse-gases/ (Accessed:
January 2025)
6) UK Parliament (2025)
Environmental sustainability and
housing growth inquiry website
[Online] Available at: https://
committees parliament wor
environmental-sustainability-and-
FIGURE 2: World CO2 emissions from fossil f els and land se change housing-growth/publications/
OURWORLDINDATA.ORG/CO2-AND-GREENHOUSE-GAS-EMISSIONS | CC BY (Accessed: January 2025)

19
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp18-19_TSE_March25_Climate Action.indd 19 19/02/2025 15:02

 Professional guidance CROSS report

CROSS Safety Report

Temporary festival
stage – an extreme
example of bad practice
This month’s report discusses an alarming situation regarding a temporary demountable
structure including concerns about the quality and accuracy of the design calculations.

Report several hundreds of metres from | The foundation reactions report

An experienced reporter in the the ain stage . used an i age of a di erent
temporary demountable structures structure, with di erent section
T field encountered an alar ing n addition to the above, the properties and overall geo etr .
situation at a site which raised safety calculations caused the reporter the The structure in the calculation
concerns about a stage structure. following concerns was significantl ore conservative
After the reporter reviewed some | The acco pan ing docu ents than the realit on site.
provided documents, they reached formed a small part of what is | The roof loading calculation
the following conclusions required for a proper analysis of used a di erent and again ore
| The stage supplier appeared to the various ele ents working as a conservative geo etr to that
have taken the name of a well- co posite structure. delivered on site.
respected overseas T supplier. | There was no conclusion to state
| The stage roof structure had whether the calculated deflections
previously been used by at least and forces are acceptable or not.
two other T contractors. Key learning outcomes | The truss member load check
| The design which linked the used the properties of steel,
second-hand roof structure to For event organisers and construction whereas the roof appeared to be
an entirel di erent substructure professionals: entirel alu iniu .
s ste with di erent kentledge | The design and installation of te porar structures
arrange ents de onstrated high should be given the sa e degree of attention as The reporter believes that the
levels of inco petence. primary structures to ensure they are safe regulator authorities should have
| The ethod of attaching | t is good practice to carr out independent design been ore active in identif ing
the kentledge was unacceptable checks on te porar structures. hartered shortco ings in the design and
and largel ine ective. t could ngineer having ade uate skill and e perience can construction of the stage structure.
have failed altogether under carry out these checks
uplift conditions. | arr ing out independent erection checks b a
| The ethod of attaching the person who is competent to do so, can ensure that The full CROSS Safety Report,
stor bracing was entirel the temporary structure is built in accordance with including links to guidance entioned,
wrong and was identical to that the design is available on the CROSS website
implicated in previous failures in the | nfor ation on all aspects of te porar structures report at
and anada. can be found in the truct s publication www.cross-safety.org/uk/safety-
| There was no anemometer on site Temporary demountable structures: Guidance on information/cross-safety-report/
although another contractor had procurement, design and use (2017) temporary-festival-stage-
one on another part of the site, extreme-example-bad-917.

20
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp20-21 TSE_March25_CROSS report.indd 20 19/02/2025 15:04

 CROSS report Professional guidance

Further reading

CROSS Safety Reports and Alerts:

| Licensing of temporary structures (report ID: 276)
| se of water lled containers to anchor temporary
THE SITUATION DESCRIBED structures (report ID: 255)

SUGGESTS ACTIONS THAT ARE, | Example of small temporary stage structure

(report ID: 302)
AT THE VERY LEAST, SCOSS Alert:
MISLEADING AND COULD BE | Temporary Stage Structures
POTENTIALLY FRAUDULENT (SCOSS alert ID: SC/12/001)

IStructE publication:
| emporary demo nta le str ct res idance
on proc rement, design and se

Expert Panel comments

This report draws similarities to be sensitive to sudden gusts. This
Licensing of temporary structures is concerning as a large number of
(report ID: 276), that was published people are likely to be close to these
What is CROSS?
in 2012. It is very worrying that stages. There have been cases of Collaborative Reporting for Safer Structures
the same issues are still being death, injury and panic resulting from (CROSS) helps professionals to make structures
experienced today. The Expert Panel such incidents. safer by publishing safety information based
comments provided in Report 276 The situation described suggests on the reports it receives and information in the
are also relevant to the issues raised actions that are, at the very least, public domain.
in this report. misleading and could be potentially CROSS operates internationally in the UK, US,
The 2012 CROSS Safety Alert on fraudulent. As equipment is sold and Australasia. All regions cover structural safety,
Temporary stage structures should on in the industry, the need for while CROSS-UK also covers fire safety.
also be referenced, along with thorough checking of both the
Temporary demountable structures: materials and the design increases.
Guidance on procurement, design Those licensing events ought to
and use, published by the Institution be demanding full designs for the
of Structural Engineers in 2017. structure, evidence of independent
CROSS has also published checking of the design and
several other reports over the years certification that what has been built
that suggest this is an ongoing accords with the design. This report
issue. These include Use of water highlights the importance of being an
filled containers to anchor temporary intelligent customer.
structures (report ID: 255), and As an industry, we have sensible
Example of small temporary stage precautions in place for the design,
structure (report ID: 302). erection, and ongoing inspection
It is concerning that no of sca olding. s this a odel that
anemometer was located at the we should be recommending for
main stage. This would indicate that temporary demountable structures
a wind management policy was not more widely?
in place, or if there was one then it Twelve years ago in Report
was not being implemented. 276, the Expert Panel raised the How reporting to CROSS works
Rather than designing for following question: The secure and confidential safety reporting system
maximum likely wind speeds as ‘The issue of a licence for a allows professionals to share their experiences to
would be required for permanent temporary structure should not be help others.
structures, many temporary an less e ective than the process Professionals can submit reports on safety issues
structures are wind managed. of gaining approval under Building related to buildings and other structures in the built
This re uires an e ective polic Regulations. Licensing mechanisms environment. Reports typically relate to concerns,
to be in place to monitor wind should preclude the possibility of near misses or incidents. Find out
speed and take appropriate workers and the public being at more, including how to submit
action when it reaches certain risk from the collapse of temporary a safety report, at https://bit.ly/
pre-determined speeds. Failure to structures but are the regulations cross-safety. Your report will
abide by the wind policy could have tight enough and are they being make a difference.
disastrous consequences. applied with sufficient rigour
The e ectiveness of operating in The Expert Panel asks – has there
this manner might be questioned been any change on this issue in the
as these light stage structures can last twelve years?

21
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp20-21 TSE_March25_CROSS report.indd 21 19/02/2025 15:04

 Professional guidance Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Phase 2 report:
an update on the
Institution’s response
The Institution of Structural Engineers summarises its proposed response to the Phase 2
report of the Grenfell Inquiry, following a government request for professional bodies to
act on the report’s recommendations.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 design, construction, adaptation,

Read the report
report (the report) by Sir Martin Moore- maintenance and refurbishment of
Bick was issued on 4 September 2024 The full Phase 2 report of buildings, bridges, and other structures
and the UK government promised to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, throughout the world.’
respond to its recommendations within along with an executive The government is looking to
six months, by 4 March 2025. summary, is available at www. industry to be proactive in response
Phase 1 of the Inquiry dealt with grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/ to the report. The Ministry of Housing,
the events of 14 June 2017 (the phase-2-report. Communities and Local Government
night of the fire and the subse uent (MHCLG) wrote to the Institution on
emergency response. It was primarily 18 October 2024, along with all other
concerned with establishing the course professional institutions involved in
of events on the day, the causes of the the built environment, to request the
fire and its escalation, and the actions Institution’s response to the report and
of the managers of the emergency to seek confir ation that the nstitution
services and local authorities. had accepted the report s findings and
Phase 2 dealt with the contributory was taking appropriate action. The
circumstances and decisions leading Institution responded on 5 November
up to the fire. ts broad the e was 2024. This letter is available on our
technical, looking into the refurbishment Building Safety Act (BSA) page
of the tower and its safety management. (www.istructe.org/resources/building-
Having established the contribution safety-act/).
of the external cladding to the We have actively supported the
uncontrolled spread of the fire in hase industry reforms instigated by the
1, the Phase 2 Inquiry examined the 2018 Hackitt report and the Building
culpability of the designers, contractors, Safety Act 2022 following the Grenfell
suppliers, technical bodies, regulators Tower tragedy, as reiterated in The
and government. Structural Engineer in October 20242.
The report runs to some 1700 Following issue of the report, an
pages. Conclusions on causation good design, the choice of suitable internal programme was put in place
and resultant recommendations materials and sound methods of to identify any further actions that the
cover dutyholder competence, roles, construction, each of which depends Institution should take in response
ethics, technical guidance, regulation, in turn in a large measure on a fourth, to the report, have these endorsed
governance of technical bodies, and the skill, knowledge and experience by the Institution’s Board, instigate
government policy on regulation and of those engaged in the construction those actions and communicate
response to safety issues. It therefore industry.’ (113.3) findings to e bers. The nstitution s
has deep significance to the operations This statement resonates with proposed response will be discussed
of the Institution at many levels, the Institution’s aims, as stated in its and decided at the March 2025
concluding: latest Annual Report1: ‘to accredit and Board meeting. It will consider
‘Safety of people in the built s pport a corps o hi hly alified recommendations for how both
environment depends principally on a structural engineers for the safe, members and the Institution should
combination of three primary elements, s staina le e ecti e and e cient operate post-Grenfell.

22
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp22-24_TSE_March25_Post-Grenfell Report Professional Guidance.indd 22 19/02/2025 15:04

 Grenfell Tower Inquiry e i na uidan e

Implications of the report for not understand the relevant provisions fire sa ety
members’ activities of the Building Regulations, Approved Members must be aware of, and
The report implies designers and, Document B or industry guidance.’ exercise, a clear understanding of
therefore, members should: (2.75) their contractual and legal duties,
| have greater competence in The implication for members is particularly with regards to interfaces
structural fire engineering that they need to have a knowledge with other disciplines and the checking
| have greater understanding of product regulations, testing and reviewing of specialist designs.
of testing regimes and a more certification and the uilding We are planning further guidance on
interrogative approach to Building Regulations to understand both this subject.
Regulations compliance the veracity and appropriateness of
| have greater awareness of materials and products in construction. u ine ndu
contractual roles and responsibilities Our Learning and Development The report is scathing in its assessment
| be aware of, and exercise, the department is planning a series of of the behaviours of many dutyholders
appropriate professional standards webinars in response. involved in the selection of combustible
expected of them. The report also states cladding at Grenfell, stating that these
that dutyholders had a poor fell well below standards to be expected
Competence in structural understanding of the legal framework of professionals.
e en inee in and incorrectly assumed that ‘None of those involved in the design
The report highlights a widespread adoption of Approved Documents of the external wall or the choice of
lack of co petence in fire engineering implied compliance with the Building materials acted in accordance with the
and the need for all those in industry to Regulations and, therefore, discharge standards of a reasonably competent
have a basic understanding of it: of dutyholders’ responsibilities. person in their position.’ (2.75)
‘Other construction professionals The implications for members are pecific criticis s include
and senior mem ers o the fire and that an interrogative approach to | failing to complete safety-critical
rescue services need to have a basic Building Regulations compliance must design work
nderstandin o the principles o fire be taken, with members aware of the | failing to understand
engineering as they apply to the built limitations of statutory guidance and design responsibilities
environment.’ (113.26) providing justification for their use. | inadequate checking of
Members may now be expected to Business Practice Note (BPN) on the subcontractor designs
have competence in: subject is planned. | failure to produce sufficient
| the fla abilit of aterials design information
| how fire is spread nde andin n a ua e | failure to visit site.
| how structures perfor in fire. and responsibilities
The report is highly critical of The test applied in the report was
Those working on higher-risk dutyholders’ lack of understanding not just what the contractual duties
buildings s will also need specific of their contractual roles and of professionals were, but what was
knowledge of the spread of fire responsibilities on the Grenfell reasonably expected of a professional
through cladding. Tower refurbishment project and to achieve a safe outcome.
The Institution has already how this allowed dangerous materials Members must be aware of, and
responded to this need by to be adopted: exercise, the appropriate professional
developing a Continuous Professional ‘The choice of combustible standards expected of them. These
evelop ent course in fire and materials for the cladding of Grenfell should be reflected in professional
structural engineering tructural fire Tower resulted from a series of errors appointments. Members may need
engineering and the Building Safety caused by the incompetence of the to go beyond their contractual duties
Act’), which has been delivered to organisations and individuals involved in the interests of safety. We plan
two cohorts, and will be delivered in the refurbishment … They did not to provide further guidance on this
twice yearly to broaden members’ properly understand the nature and via a BPN.
co petence in fire. scope of the obligations they had
We are also updating our two key undertaken, or, if they did, paid scant Implications of the report for
fire engineering guides, Introduction attention to them. They failed to the Institution’s activities
to str ct ral fire en ineerin and identify their own responsibilities for The report describes the role of
ide to the ad anced fire sa ety important aspects of the design and in independent bodies, such as the
engineering of structures, as well as each case assumed that someone else Institution, in promoting safety
our Structural aspects of cladding as responsi le or matters a ectin by producing technical guidance
guide in line with current technical and and overseeing competence. Its
legislative developments. conclusions require consideration by all
professional bodies.
C e en e in and unde andin M M M
D D
e in e i e and ui din Culture and ethics of the industry
e ua i n While the ethics of neither the
Parts 2 and 3 of the report C C Institution nor its members were
describe failings on the part of
dutyholders with regards to material
D brought into question in the report,
its revelations of unethical and
and product selection: unscrupulous behaviour have resulted
‘They were not familiar with or did in a sharp focus on the culture and

23
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp22-24_TSE_March25_Post-Grenfell Report Professional Guidance.indd 23 19/02/2025 16:15

 Professional guidance Grenfell Tower Inquiry

ethics of the industry that have structural engineering services. We

spread to the professions and the intend to pursue this with relevant
codes of conduct that they espouse. policy-makers in the UK.
Professional bodies should have THERE IS
standards of conduct for members, A STRONG Policy position
which they should enforce, and
should have internal systems in place CASE THAT THE The introduction to the report notes
that its terms were broad. As well as
to prevent manipulation. The Institution MANDATORY those issues that directly impact the
has such membership standards in
place, with a publicly available Code
ACCREDITATION Institution and its members, the report
set out a raft of recommendations for
of Conduct3. This is periodically OF STRUCTURAL governmental, regulatory and industry
reviewed and the observations of the ENGINEERS reform, often radical, covering topics
report will be taken into account in the
next review. SHOULD ALSO such as:
| the creation of an independent
BE ESTABLISHED Construction Research Body
Separation of commercial | the definition of an
interests from production of | the certification of products and
technical guidance competence of its members, should publication of test data
Both Part 2: The path to disaster be aware of emerging member | a legal requirement for government
(Ch. 3–14) and Part 3: The testing competence issues and should to report on the adoption of official
and marketing of products (Ch. address these via the provision of recommendations
15–29) of the report describe the training and setting of competence | a legal requirement on building
functions of independent industry standards. These aims are at the core owners to remedy defects.
bodies in preparing guidance and of the Institution’s activities.
technical information and in performing There is an emerging view that CPD The Institution is considering the
compliance testing. There are standards need to improve within need for formal policy in these areas
numerous criticisms of such bodies industry, with mandatory CPD for within its action plan.
for allowing commercial interests critical safety matters and, possibly, More will undoubtedly follow on this
to undermine their independence periodic assessment of professionals’ subject in the months and years ahead.
and integrity, through manipulation, ongoing competence. Our profession has already changed
collusion and deception. The Institution already sets CPD as a result of the Grenfell tragedy
Information promoted by the targets for members which are subject and will change further. The report is
Institution is accepted by industry. to audit, with a mandatory minimum a clarion call for all built environment
This requires us to review existing requirement for safety content, and professions, including the Institution
systems, and strengthen them if also provides CPD to members to and our members. It reminds us to
necessary, to ensure the integrity of promote competence. It is vital that remain steadfast in our expert focus
technical guidance production and members take steps to keep up to on structural safet for the benefit of
that publication is not compromised by date with safety matters and record the public and the built environment.
commercial considerations. this in their CPD return. Structural engineers have a crucial
role in transforming the culture of the
Industry competence Registration and oversight of the industry. The Institution is committed to
ike the ackitt report, the profession supporting members, and all structural
Grenfell Inquiry report denounces The report notes that: engineers, in this journey.
a lack of competence throughout ‘Designing buildings that are
the construction industry and sa e in the e ent o a fire re ires
repeatedly holds up the behaviour particular skill. It is a skill that can be
and competence of professionals ac ired only y specialised ed cation REFERENCES
against the standard that should and experience worthy of formal
be expected, noting an expectation recognition.’ (113.24)
1) Institution of Structural
that standards should be set and As a result, it recommends that
Engineers (2024) Annual report
enforced by professional bodies. The the pro ession o fire en ineer sho ld
and accounts for the year to 31
report states: be formally recognised and that both December 2023 [Online] Available at:
‘Our investigations have shown the title and the function should be www.istructe.org/resources/report/
that levels of competence in the protected by statute’ (113.25). It notes annual-report-and-accounts-2023/
construction industry are generally that the same argument applies to (Accessed: February 2025)
low…’ (113.12) other safety-critical professions. 2) Institution of Structural
and The uilding afet ct identifies Engineers (2024) ‘Grenfell Phase
‘The development and maintenance fire and structure as significant safet 2 report: lessons for us all’, The
of a statement of professional skills risks. There is therefore a strong case Structural Engineer, 102 (10), p. 12
should ultimately be the responsibility that the mandatory accreditation of 3) Institution of Structural
of the body that regulates the structural engineers should also be Engineers (2022) Code of Conduct
profession’. (113.27) established. This would protect public [Online] Available at: www.istructe.
The assertion is that a professional safety and promote the ongoing org/about-us/istructe-code-of-
body should be responsible for the competence of those providing conduct/ (Accessed: February 2025)

24
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp22-24_TSE_March25_Post-Grenfell Report Professional Guidance.indd 24 19/02/2025 15:04

 bodied carbon of concrete classification tools Technical

Classifying the
embodied carbon of
concrete: a guide to
three recent tools
FRAGKOULIS KANAVARIS can be used to assess and classify in the full document published on
MEng, PhD, CEng, CSci, CEnv, FIMMM, the embodied carbon of concrete, this matter through Climate Group’s
MICT, CAPM i.e. concrete mixes considering the ConcreteZero initiative7.
Specialist Technology, Analytics & Research | di erent constituents ce ents and
Materials, Arup, London, UK cementitious materials, aggregates, LCCG Market Benchmark
admixtures) excluding any presence The arket ench ark
of reinforcement. summarises the distribution of the
BRUCE MARTIN
In addition, in January 2024, embodied carbon of normal-weight
MA, CEng, MIStructE the Global Cement and Concrete concrete recently produced in the UK.
Associate Director, Expedition Engineering, ssociation disse inated a The ench ark covers stages
London, UK white paper on Global Banding of the in accordance with
embodied carbon of concrete5,6, which cradle to batching plant
was followed by an October 2024 gate or cradle to precasting ould .
Introduction update. The Global Banding adopts The arket ench ark is of
Assessing the embodied carbon of several features from the Universal particular use for comparing a
concrete and specifying limits or targets lassification and so e of its features concrete relative to alternative available
for the carbon footprint of concrete is are still under development. The GCCA’s products, for specification to ensure
increasingly relevant for the construction intention is that, once the Global good practice relative to the arket,
sector. In this context, two embodied anding has been finalised, it could be and to ensure availability of a concrete
carbon classification tools have been used by concrete producers in several that is specified using the niversal
developed and established in the UK: countries represented by the GCCA. lassification or lobal anding.
| the arket ench ark, which was This article briefl describes the The LCCG aims to provide an annual
published by the UK’s Low Carbon three tools and illustrates how they update of the arket ench ark
oncrete roup in 1
may be applied in the industry. The for normal-weight concrete used
| the niversal lassification e bodied analysis conducted by the authors in the , to reflect the e bodied
carbon scheme for concrete, which was incentivised through a steering carbon data for concretes shared with
was published by Arup for Innovate committee consisting of end users through the ineral roducts
in ,
. of the classification tools, including ssociation fro di erent
designers, contractors, industry cement/concrete manufacturers.
These two embodied carbon bodies and clients. The scope was Since the embodied carbon of
assessment tools follow the same determined following conversations concrete varies between regions,
method of calculating embodied with the Infrastructure Client Group uses and concrete t pes, a arket
carbon. This is based on cradle-to-gate , The oncrete entre, ench ark varies between arkets.
embodied carbon, including life cycle Concrete Zero, the LCCG and Innovate The LCCG aims to report on variations
anal sis odules defined . ore infor ation can be found in the embodied carbon of normal-
in BS EN 15804:20124, measured weight concrete between the UK
in kilogra s of carbon dio ide regions and between di erent uses.
e uivalent kg 2e) per cubic metre An anonymised version of the
) of concrete. However, they adopt data underl ing the arket
funda entall di erent approaches to
assessing the embodied carbon.
THIS ARTICLE BRIEFLY ench ark updates and reports on

DESCRIBES THE THREE

variations in embodied carbon of
The tools are complementary and concrete between regions and uses will
together provide a powerful instrument TOOLS AND ILLUSTRATES be publicly available.
for planning, specifying and reporting
the embodied carbon of concrete in
HOW THEY MAY BE APPLIED Table 1 summarises the LCCG
arket ench ark ratings, while
the short and long term. The tools IN THE INDUSTRY Figure 1 shows the 2024 update of the

25
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp25-29 TSE_March25_Technical_Embodied carbon of concrete.indd 25 19/02/2025 15:05

 Technical bodied carbon of concrete classification tools

a e CC Ma e en a a in concrete used in the UK in 2022

appro i atel corresponded to the
died a n CC Ma e en a CC Ma e en a a in niversal lassification reference curve
a i n a e a in 202 u da e 2024 u e uen u da e as will be de onstrated in
subsequent sections).
Lower carbon than data Market beating Market beating n the niversal lassification as
submitted to the LCCG originall developed, the e bodied
carbon reference curves range from
>0 to 20% LCCG – A LCCG – 1 (1.1–1.4) to . This reflects concrete
>20% to 40% LCCG – B LCCG – 2 (2.1–2.4) availabilit in the current and near-
future market. However, the EC
>40% to 60% LCCG – C LCCG – 3 (3.1–3.4) reference curves can be extended
upwards or downwards depending on
>60% to 80% LCCG – D LCCG – 4 (4.1–4.4) regional and market needs.
For example, to enable use in regions
>80% to 100% LCCG – E LCCG – 5 (5.1–5.5)
internationall where concrete is ore
Higher carbon than data LCCG – F Outlier mixes carbon-intensive than the baseline
, the reference curves can
submitted to the LCCG
be e tended upwards, as ,
, etc. i ilarl , as technologies
around concrete decarbonisation
Market Benchmark. To avoid confusion relevance for market transformation mature, carbon-negative concretes
with the niversal lassification and policies, standardised guidance might emerge, and the EC reference
Global Banding ratings, the 2024 documents, or to formulate long-term curves can be extended downwards
update and subsequent updates e bodied carbon targets for ulti ear into the carbon-negative rating band
will use numerical ratings instead of construction projects. as , , etc. n e tended
alphabetical ratings. Each rating can be rup was appointed b nnovate version of the niversal lassification
further refined b four subdivisions , to develop a classification for embodied carbon of concrete is
2, 3, 4) which each represent a nominal s ste with fi ed e bodied carbon shown in Figure 3.
fractile of concrete recentl available rating bands for concrete, labelled
in the market. For example, LCCG (Figure 2). The rating bands are D a CC a andin
rating . represents concrete in the set between e bodied carbon n anuar , the
lowest 5% of the market while rating 5.4 reference curves at 0, 20, 40, 60, disseminated a white paper on
represents concrete in the highest 5% and , of the baseline . The efinitions or lo car on and near
of the arket. onversel , rating baseline was generated based ero emissions concrete or
3.2 represents 45–50% of the market. on the embodied carbon of notional o ar on rod ct roc rement
To avoid confusion between rating mixes for normal-weight concrete nitiati e art ethodolo y5. This
s ste s, references to the made in the UK and elsewhere using was followed in arch b art
arket ench ark should clearl ortland ce ent with no use of merical definitions6. The method
identif that reference is to the supple entar ce entitious aterials has been presented in the ndustrial
Market Benchmark and the version s . oints on the reference eep ecarbonisation nitiative
referenced, e.g. LCCG – C.2 [2023] or curves are defined for each of the but has not been endorsed/adopted
LCCG – 3.2 [2024]. concrete strength classes included b the .
The Market Benchmark is based within Eurocode 28. The Universal The white paper proposes a Global
principall on the e bodied carbon lassification is acco panied b user Banding for concrete that is similar
of concrete produced in the UK notes2,3 which define ter s such as to, and influenced b , the niversal
b e bers. dditional data baseline and rating . lassification, with so e features
is received fro industr , which The mean embodied carbon of being under development (Figure 4).
includes data relating to concrete
not produced b e bers. The
method of generating the Market
Benchmark is described in more detail
in the annual updates.

ni e a C a i ai n
The niversal lassification assesses
the embodied carbon of concrete
relative to ratings that are unchanged
over time or between markets. The
niversal lassification is therefore
better suited than the d na ic arket
ench ark for defining how the
average embodied carbon of concrete
is required to change over time, e.g.
to define a pathwa to net ero, and
setting medium/long-term targets. The
niversal lassification is of particular  LCCG Market Benchmark, 2024 update

26
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp25-29 TSE_March25_Technical_Embodied carbon of concrete.indd 26 19/02/2025 15:05

 bodied carbon of concrete classification tools Technical

In the GCCA proposal, the top of values for the vertical a is, there will be

Cradle-to-gate embodied carbon of concrete (kgCO2e/m3)

and defines a global threshold a process of normalisation to determine
value’ concrete. The top of Band national values for those countries where
is calculated with the following environmental product declarations are
assumptions: a) use of a CEM I cement; deter ined to di erent product categor
b) the cement carbon footprint is taken rules, or where there are other variations
as the mean minus one standard in ethods of calculating e bodied
deviation of the carbon footprint carbon. This would be valid for countries
of CEM I production in 2020 in the which decide to use s banding
principal concrete producing countries over other s ste s.
c) the cement content is the least Development of the GCCA’s Global
weight of ce ent re uired to eet each anding has trailed that of the other
strength class d the carbon footprint s ste s discussed in this note. The
of all other constituents, transport and has recentl disse inated a
anufacturing processes is the version of the lobal anding with a
average values in the countr where the FIGURE 2: niversal lassi cation carbon-negative a is for e bodied
concrete is produced. for embodied carbon of concrete carbon and with the strength ranges
In the GCCA proposal, the bottom of e tended to a based on the
and defines a near ero e ission niversal lassification bands curves.
concrete. This di ers fro the niversal egardless, significant ti e a be
lassification in which and is ero re uired to finalise nor alisation of
emissions (EC0) or below. The bottom national values in all countries.
of Band A is calculated based on the t is worth noting that the
Cradle-to-gate embodied carbon of concrete (kgCO2e/m3)

following assu ptions. recentl ebruar disse inated

| The clinker content of the cement is an adapted version of the s
reduced to 52%. lobal anding for the .
| The cement carbon footprint is taken
as the nternational nerg genc Assessment of current
near- ero ce ent value this market on Universal
IEA value assumes the use of carbon Ca i a i n
capture and storage to per anentl Recent market data can be overlaid on
se uester carbon dio ide generated the niversal lassification, unveiling
during anufacture of the clinker. the powerful combination of the
However, it is not restricted to this arket ench ark with the niversal
technolog to achieve this level of lassification. Figure 5 overla s the
emissions and it should be noted data used to generate the update
that such technologies are not et of the LCCG Market Benchmark on the
available to scale). niversal lassification. t de onstrates
| The ce ent weight is reduced b that the average e bodied carbon of
around relative to the weight concrete used in the in
used to calculate the carbon FIGURE 3: niversal lassi cation for em odied car on of broadl corresponded to the niversal
footprint for the top of band E. concrete with extended bands to account for more carbon-intensive lassification e bodied carbon
| All other constituents, transport and and carbon-negative concretes reference curve EC60. The combined
anufacturing processes have a s ste is e pected to be adopted in
carbon footprint of ero. national standards, e.g. the fifth edition
FIGURE 4: Draft GCCA Global Banding, of the National Structural Concrete
ollowing the -deter ined before national normalisation pecification , for setting targets
for the embodied carbon of concrete.
The figure also illustrates the wide
spread in the embodied carbon of
concrete that is used across the ,
with the specified concrete depending
on project re uire ents a ong other
things. ote that it is not possible to
i ediatel transfor the arket so
that all concrete has embodied carbon
close to the 2022 lower bound. It is
highl likel that, for the foreseeable
future, there will continue to be a large
spread in the embodied carbon of
concrete within each strength class.

De nin a a a
to net zero
etting targets for the e bodied
carbon of concrete is critical so that
industr can plan and install the

27
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp25-29 TSE_March25_Technical_Embodied carbon of concrete.indd 27 19/02/2025 15:05

 Technical bodied carbon of concrete classification tools

infrastructure required to deliver carbon FIGURE 5:

reductions in line with the targets. Box-and-whisker
Structural engineers can use these plot of data used
to generate 2023
tools to set embodied carbon targets
LCCG Market
when working on projects, which will be Benchmark overlaid
a re uire ent in the fifth edition of the on Universal
. niversal lassification targets lassi cation
for embodied carbon have already been (strength classes up
set by major clients in their Five Client to C60/75 only)
Carbon Commitment9. Additionally, a
pathwa to net ero can be defined at
national level, for a particular market
sector, by an individual client, or by a
group of clients.
Figure 6 illustrates how the
niversal lassification ight be
used to set targets for the average
embodied carbon of concrete to
meet the Industrial Decarbonisation
Strategy of the UK government10. This
is extracted from LCCG workstream
12, which assesses how the various The approach provides scope for The niversal lassification has
methods for reducing the embodied higher-carbon ‘legacy’ concrete to be been developed based on data for
carbon of new concrete may be used used where a long history of successful concrete produced in the UK, EU and
to meet a planned pathway to net use is important. Guidance will be elsewhere. It can be used to assess
zero. It could be used as a basis for needed on which uses require concrete concrete produced in countries globally.
structural engineers to set embodied with a long history of successful use, However, methods of calculating
carbon targets depending on the time and which uses are appropriate for embodied carbon may vary between
period. More information will be shared concrete with a shorter track record. certain countries and so will the carbon
in subsequent publications. factors of di erent constituent aterials.
se of a pathwa to define the Closing remarks s such, the di erent ethods a
average embodied carbon of concrete The Market Benchmark and the report di erent e bodied carbon for the
is compatible with the wide spread in niversal lassification are established same concrete. Therefore, care should
embodied carbon within each strength tools for rating the embodied carbon be taken when comparing Universal
class. This enables concrete with higher of concrete, while the Global Banding lassification ratings of concrete
embodied carbon to continue to be is a recently disseminated tool with the produced in di erent countries.
used where performance requirements same purpose. The Market Benchmark The Global Banding is under
or construction constraints require, is specific to the arket for all development by the GCCA for
while concrete with lower embodied normal-weight concrete. The distribution global application, as with the
carbon is used elsewhere to achieve the of the embodied carbon of concrete niversal lassification. odification
target average embodied carbon. available in other markets varies. factors will be applied nationally to

REFERENCES

1) Low Carbon Concrete Group and Green 5) Global Cement and Concrete Association 9) Construction Leadership Council (2024) Five
Construction Board (2022) Low Carbon (2024) White paper: Definitions for low carbon Client Carbon Commitments: Setting a path
Concrete Routemap [Online] Available at: www. and near zero emissions concrete for IDDI Low to Net Zero construction [Online] Available at:
ice.org.uk/media/q12jkljj/low-carbon-concrete- Carbon Product Procurement Initiative. Part 1: www.constructionleadershipcouncil.co.uk/wp-
routemap.pdf (Accessed: February 2025) Methodology, Rev. 03 content/uploads/2024/04/Five-Client-Carbon-
Commitments-29.04.24.pdf (Accessed: February
2) Arup and Innovate UK (2023) Embodied 6) Global Cement and Concrete Association
2025)
Carbon Classification Scheme for Concrete (2024) White paper: Definitions for low carbon
[Online] Available at: www.arup.com/ and near zero emissions concrete for IDDI Low 10) Toplis P. and Burridge J. (2024) ‘National
globalassets/downloads/insights/e/embodied- Carbon Product Procurement Initiative. Part 2: tr ct ral oncrete peci cation loo ing
car on classi cation scheme for concrete Numerical definitions ahead to the fth edition , The Structural
em odied car on classi cation scheme for Engineer, 102 (4), pp. 24–25; https://doi.
7) Martin B. and Kanavaris F. (2024)
concrete-report.pdf (Accessed: February 2025) org/10.56330/CWYH1406
Classification methodology for embodied
3) Munro M., Kanavaris F. and Falkner H. (2023) carbon of concrete, Climate Group’s 11) Arnold W., Astle P., Drewniok M. et al. (2023)
Em odied car on classi cation scheme for ConcreteZero [Online] Available at: www. The efficient use of GGBS in reducing global
concrete’, Concrete (London), 57 (8), pp. 8–11 theclimategroup.org/our-work/news/ emissions [Online] Available at: www.istructe.
classi cation methodology em odied car on org reso rces g idance e cient se of gg s
4) British Standards Institution (2020)
concrete (Accessed: February 2025) in-reducing-global-emissions/ (Accessed:
BS EN 15804:2012+A2:2019 Sustainability of
February 2025)
construction works. Environmental product 8) British Standards Institution (2004) BS EN
declarations. Core rules for the product 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014 Eurocode 2: Design of
category of construction products, London: BSI concrete structures. General rules and rules for
(withdrawn) buildings, London: BSI

28
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp25-29 TSE_March25_Technical_Embodied carbon of concrete.indd 28 19/02/2025 16:14

 bodied carbon of concrete classification tools Technical

FIGURE 6: o eti es, a concrete with higher

Target Universal e bodied carbon will result in lower
lassi cation E project and or global e issions.
rating for average
n particular, if a concrete uses a high
embodied carbon of
concrete produced proportion of ground granulated blast-
in UK – pathway furnace slag or an other
to net zero based potentiall constrained resource to
on UK Industrial reduce e bodied carbon, this a be an
Decarbonisation inefficient use of and a lead to
Strategy10 with
allowance for
an increase in global e issions11.
rate of growth in i ilarl , if the volu e of a lower-carbon
concrete production concrete used is uch larger than that
at 50% of rate of of an ordinar or business-as-usual i
growth of GDP with a higher carbon footprint, it could
result in higher e issions and
inefficient utilisation of resources. n such
cases, particular care is re uired when
esti ating e issions.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge
take account of di erences in ethods lassification or an other robust the support of the nfrastructure lient
of calculating embodied carbon and static sche e should be used to roup towards the co pletion of the
significant ti e a be re uired for infor relevant targets and thresholds, original stud 7 and the contributions
finalisation in all countries. its co bination with industr data of the project steering group and
The co bination of the enables a prag atic approach towards oncrete ero towards the finalisation
arket ench ark and niversal concrete decarbonisation. and launch of this work. The first author
lassification for s a powerful tool The tools ust be used in the conte t would also like to thank atthew
towards setting targets for e bodied of reducing overall project and global unro fro rup for his contributions in
carbon of concretes. hile the niversal greenhouse gas e issions. developing the niversal lassification.

29
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp25-29 TSE_March25_Technical_Embodied carbon of concrete.indd 29 19/02/2025 16:15

 EXPERIENCE
YOU CAN
RELY ON,
EXPERTISE

CARES Chief Executive Officer

YOU CAN
TRUST

CARES auditors are the gold standard in the steel industry.

With unmatched global reach and technical competence,
our team ensures every certification meets the highest standards.
As Your Digital Golden Thread to Structural Safety, CARES
brings expertise and innovation to protect what matters most.
CARES Cloud App

Assured Steel Certification

Independent Impartial Trusted
carescertification.com

CARES Ad-Feb
pp30-31 2025-Structural
TSE March25_DPS Engineer-Editorial.indd
ad.indd 30 1 18/02/2025 15:07
19/02/2025 12:55 CARE
 Supplied and sponsored by CARES Advertising feature

Supplied and
sponsored by

Real progress in risk mitigation

demands ‘real rigour’ in supply chain regulation
Assessing structural integrity in construction projects
must never stand still. To do so implies a level of pro-
Build it – and
gress that achieves complete risk removal – worthy, they will come.
but a goal that can never be met Complete with fully regulated
reinforcing steel.
Regardless of plus a range of materials, rebar and other
CARES Chief Executive Officer
Lee Brankley,

its resources, any elements essential to progress through project Typical construction sites in the Middle East
review of real world gateways. are many things but rarely associated with rolling
events demonstrate Full product provenance is now readily landscapes rich with heavy harvests of corn.
an element of risk available, digitally, via the CARES Cloud Yet there is a real Hollywood ‘Field of Dreams’
has entered a failed bringing real time visibility and proven data. moment about the UAE policymakers’ decision
scheme, despite our This transparency is critical to the confidence set to create a global precedent in steel.
best efforts. Collectively on which CARES services have developed for After repeated concerns about the source,
this means we all, to a more than 40 years. Continuous improvement quality and integrity of materials entering their
degree, work in the risk mitigation business. underpins all that we do; digital assurance drives construction supply chain, regulators at the
That means constantly sharing knowledge – our approach, with knowledge-sharing central Ministry of Industry and Advanced Technology
and solutions. to the approach CARES offers, in particular (MoIAT) set about demonstrating their stated
The government’s decision on the future of where that knowledge can assist policymakers ‘progressive vision’ by introducing the world’s first
Grenfell Tower announced last month came as they look to learn from the lessons of the past fully traceable regulation covering safety-critical
in large part as a result of consistent expert in shaping the regulatory framework. Placing steelmaking materials used in UAE projects.
assessments indicating deconstruction is reinforcing steel at the centre of policymakers’ This wholly digitally-led initiative has
necessary ‘at the earliest possible opportunity.’ considerations post-Grenfell has become introduced a transformative step-up in the
Unambiguous knowledge shared, yet the human an overarching priority for CARES, with the way in which product assurance is delivered
reaction and political fallout continue, even as conclusion of the Inquiry now seeming on track for consultants, clients and project managers
first steps towards a sensitive deconstruction towards that overdue step. confirming the processing and source of
takes shape. Grenfell Tower may have been built ten years constructional steels across the United Arab
The practical reality for all of us who share a before CARES was formed – by government, Emirates.
deep concern not only at the manner in which manufacturers and the professional bodies – yet Now other nations appear on track to follow
this awful tragedy took place, but also at the the passage of time, plus the constant search for the lead set by legislators. The EU is engaged
shocking failings the Grenfell Inquiry exposed, risk mitigation, shows that regardless of how long in active discussions with various stakeholders
is what more can we learn from this about it takes the heartbreaking lessons of the past can around the practicalities of moving to digital
risk? Truly awful behaviours allowed to fester, still help prevent the needless tragedies of the assurance, and there are strong indications other
unchecked, will no doubt lead to consequences future. nations are preparing to follow suit.
elsewhere, in time. But as the human, legal and Through the CARES Upstream Cloud,
political aftermath continues to unfold, certain traceability of critical product information and
immediate measures stand out which are provenance data is instantly available – tracked
self-evident. to the source of steel billet manufacturing.
Foremost is the urgent need to eradicate Declarations of conformity are digitally shared,
‘gaming’ in supply chain processes which allow and CARES conducts rigorous, unannounced
those who continue to place commercial gain audits of materials entering the supply chain.
above project safety – unless their deceit is “Digital assurance represents the way forward
eradicated. for regulators seeking certainty in product
Sadly, there are still pockets of vulnerability provenance,” said CARES Chief Executive
across international project routes where a Officer, Lee Brankley.
tiny minority of individuals still seek to exploit “We are delighted to have been able to work
ambiguity in design or product specification. so closely – and constructively – with colleagues
The Institution of Structural Engineers is to be at MoIAT during their regulatory development
congratulated on its comprehensive structural and rollout phases. Initial results are extremely
submissions guidance for higher-risk buildings encouraging with several manufacturers already
under the Building Safety Act. In particular, achieving accreditation, with others in process.
the importance of reinforcing steel product “Perhaps more importantly for a vibrant
assurance – absolutely critical to the integrity of international product supply chain like reinforcing
any major scheme – is highlighted, with CARES’ steel, this sets a precedent – thanks to the far-
certification referenced on no less than eleven sighted approach adopted by the UAE – which
occasions in relation to post-tensioned concrete other nations can now follow,” he added.

31
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

12:55 CARES Ad-Feb

pp30-31 2025-Structural
TSE March25_DPS Engineer-Editorial.indd
ad.indd 31 2 18/02/2025 15:07
19/02/2025 12:55
 Project focus ar ard entre, ondon

tructuralAwards2024
Winner: Planet & Process

Mary Ward Centre,

London: Risk management
of a heav retrofit and
vertical extension of a 1970s
concrete-fra ed building
SYNOPSIS
ALISON WALLIS
This article outlines how a motivated client and design MEng, CEng, MICE, MIStructE

team collaborated to repurpose a derelict concrete-framed Associate Director, SD Engineers, London, UK

building in Stratford, east London. The case study highlights MIKE DAVIES
the importance of early conversations for reuse projects MEng (Hons), CEng, MIStructE
and e need a in e i na e e ien ed in e Co-Founder & Director, SD Engineers,
London, UK
to allow clients to understand the primary risks and enable
them to make informed decisions. It demonstrates common
i a ia ed i ea e e and an Introduction
ar ard is an adult education charit
oversimplistic and conservative approach can be detrimental based in ondon which re uired pre ises
when assessing the viability of reusing an existing building. to relocate and grow its services. The
charit identified ueenswa ouse a
The case study also highlights the current commercial derelict s concrete-fra ed building
challenges that can inhibit the wider uptake of circular in tratford, in the east of the cit , as a
potential new ho e.
economy principles and building reuse. An approach of The charit was able to secure a grant
e en i n and ea u ua di a i n i e ei ed fro the kills for ondoners apital
und for the building s refurbish ent.
be a greater risk than a demolition and new-build solution, s environ ental benefits are i portant
with numerous areas which could cause uncertainty and, when appl ing, the funding was
dependent upon the reuse of the
potentially, commercial issues. e isting concrete fra e. There were also
n i in an e a nan ia in en i e in e a an potential cost and progra e benefits
to the client depending on the e tent
a ffe ed e ea e nd n u i e of structure that could be reused. The
ad in a e a a . i an e ed e ien e isting building o ered onl appro .
of the space re uired to cater for
Ma ad i e i ni an u n in e en ar ard s growing needs, so it was
required for the investigations needed to understand the full clear that e tending would be necessar .
The building was subse uentl
cost and complexity of retention, and minimise the project e tended b two store s on top and
risks to acceptable levels. . to the front to occup a portion of
the wide pave ent space which the
client owned (Figure 1).
preli inar sche e was put
forward b an engineer for a steel-
fra ed airspace e tension on top of

32
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp32-38_TSE_March25_Project focus.indd 32 19/02/2025 15:08

 Mary Ward Centre, London Project focus

FIGURE 1: Finished building for Mary Ward Adult Education Centre

DANIEL SHEARING
the existing frame. Upon completion complete an independent review to unoccupied for several years.
of their investigations and analysis, better understand whether retention The structure, which is a typical 1970s
they concluded that a complete could be achieved commercially. A reinforced concrete (RC) frame, has a
refurbishment and extension of the robust and systematic approach was 220–255mm deep beam-and-pot slab,
existing structure would be commercially needed to verify the capacity and cast into supporting perimeter and
unviable and a demolition and new-build suitability of the existing frame, reviewed internal beams. Mass concrete pads
approach should be adopted. Given the against the design proposals. support the columns, with ground-
funding structure and cost estimate for bearing slabs at ground and lower
a new-build solution, this put the viability Existing building ground-floor levels, and a retaining wall
of the project at significant risk. The building, designed for office use, along the centre of the building, forming
As SD Engineers have experience occupied a split-level site, with the front the steps in level to the rear. The building
in similarly complex refurbishment portion three storeys and the rear four had a blockwork central lift and stair
projects, we were approached to storeys (Figure 2). It had been core which had been retrofitted during

Project credits
Client: Mary Ward Adult Education Centre

Architect: AWW

Structural engineer: SD Engineers

Project manager: Featherstone

Geotechnical: Soils Limited

Quantity surveyor: Beadmans

Contractor: Curo Construction

M&E consultant: Promode

MIKE DAVIES

Principal designer: MLM

CDM coordinator: MLM

Acoustic consultant: RBA Acoustics

FIGURE 2: Queensway House (front elevation), pre-intervention

33
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp32-38_TSE_March25_Project focus.indd 33 19/02/2025 15:08

 Project focus Mary Ward Centre, London

a previous intervention, and two corner

stair cores framed in brickwork.

Justifying the case for reuse

Not all existing buildings will be suitable
for retention and reuse. The client was
informed that a further detailed study
would be required to identify whether
the building could be reused or whether
an efficient new-build structure would
indeed be a better solution overall.
Clear communication with the client
on the risks is vital and they must be
prepared to invest in these investigations
as a sunk cost. This is a particular
commercial challenge for building reuse.
Having previously worked on a project
with a highly ambitious brief, where we
added 120 residential units split across
three store s on top of an e isting three-
storey ‘live’ superstore on Peterborough

RICHARD CHIVERS
High Street, we have learned that the
best way to tackle such challenges is
to use a systematic approach and split
the investigation works into stages,
addressing the highest-risk areas first.
If the initial investigations are promising,
this can give the client the confidence to FIGURE 3: Concrete repairs and new steelwork to support additional upper storeys
invest further in more exploratory works,
tackling the next highest residual risks,
and so on. drawings existed. However, we had

RICHARD CHIVERS
The previous engineering access to the investigations carried out
assess ent had identified so e by the previous engineers and undertook
key risk areas which suggested a a site inspection to enable us to plan the
refurbishment approach was unlikely to intrusive survey investigations required.
be feasible. These included: We then commissioned a series of
| low concrete strength to the frame aterial-testing procedures and intrusive
(25N/mm2) opening-up works to further validate the
| unsuitability to support a dance studio existing building’s fabric capabilities and
with high imposed/dynamic loading at address the key risk areas directly.
proposed fourth-floor level
| need for expensive foundation Superstructure investigations
strengthening throughout Concrete samples were taken
due to the load increase and and localised breakouts carried out
presence of compressible silt below on elements at each level, including
existing foundations colu ns, slabs, down-stand bea s
| proposed demolition of the weak roof and walls. Given the low sample
slab as this could not support the strength found previously, further
proposed floor loading. concrete samples were taken to
test the compressive strength and
Additionally, an ambitious for carbonation.
cantilevered staircase supported from The existing RC elements were
the core had been proposed but would extensively scanned with a Ferroscan
have re uired significant strengthening to surve as a cost-efficient non-destructive
the existing frame. FIGURE 4: New steel framing at roof level method to gain further information. This
With the information available at the was combined with a series of targeted
time, we concluded that the level of local breakouts to expose and validate
risk to the project cost and programme commitment to retention. the bar diameter and spacing from
was indeed too high for the client to When undertaking a heavy the Ferroscan, while also showing the
commit to a planning application based refurbishment of an existing building, condition of the bars.
on reuse. However, we classed these one of the first actions should be to A sample of reinforcing steel was
as ‘medium’ risk items with potential to thoroughly review archive information. extracted for tensile testing to establish
become ‘low’ risk. Following discussion We reviewed the building control and its material properties. The existing
with the client, we agreed that planning archives, but none of the building design loadings and stresses
investment in further investigation works original structural information was were taken as per the historic 1970s
was worthwhile, particularly given their available, and only a few architectural concrete design code of practice, CP

34
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp32-38_TSE_March25_Project focus.indd 34 19/02/2025 15:08

 Mary Ward Centre, London Project focus

1141. Two types of reinforcing bars were

commonly used at the time: high yield
and mild steel. Proof stress testing was
undertaken to confir which bars had
been used in which location.
The compressive strength of the
concrete was found to be variable
and ranged from C20/25 for beams,
to C30/37 for columns, to C25/30 for
slabs. Carbonation of the concrete was
found to only be at surface level, so the
risk of reinforcement corrosion was low,
as confir ed b the breakouts. ith
careful detailing of the new waterproofing
and cladding systems, the design life
of the building could reasonably be
extended for another 30–50 years.
The capacity of the existing beams
and columns could be directly calculated
from the results of the intrusive
investigations and dimensional surveys.

RICHARD CHIVERS
A column load design check was
performed in line with both the old CP
114 and current Eurocode 22 in practice.
ased on the findings of the intrusive
investigations, the existing roof RC
ribbed slab was found to be insufficient
in bending to support the proposed floor FIGURE 5: New composite floor for one of additional storeys, and view of central lift core
build-ups and imposed load. It therefore
required strengthening (Figure 3).
The other floors used a load foundation pads were founded within

MIKE DAVIES
comparison of proposed versus existing a thin layer of very weak Langley silt
to justify the educational use, backed member, while others were situated
up by checks on the ribbed beams. As within the Kempton Park gravel member.
such, the ground, first and second floors The Lambeth group (clays) were found
did not require strengthening. 5–10.0m below ground level.
The rear elevation required Initially it was feared that foundations
strengthening as several columns bearing on the weak Langley silt
were found to have inadequate biaxial member would need to be underpinned
bending capacity with the additional or widened, with a significant i pact
load of the proposed development. on cost, programme and embodied
The front and central rows of columns carbon. However, by working
were all found to be able to support the collaboratively with the geotechnical
proposed loadings without any additional engineering consultants, the design
strengthening works. team agreed on a strategy to explore
whether strengthening could be
Foundations avoided. We supplied detailed time-
A commonly cited rule of thumb among loading information split out between
engineers is that a 10% increase in dead and imposed loads and those
load on shallow foundations can be i pacting brittle sensitive finishes, i.e.
accommodated without experiencing glazing. The geotechnical engineering
unacceptable settlement or ultimate consultants then adopted an analysis
performance. Any load increase method assuming the foundations
beyond this typically requires detailed were underlain by a thin layer of weak
justification or, all too co onl , the FIGURE 6: Existing concrete frame with steel strengthening cohesive soil (mimicking that found) over
auto atic specification of underpinning a cohesive soil of var ing sti ness. The
strengthening as a conservative and same exercise was carried out with the
easier solution for the engineer. been e tre el difficult and e pensive same weak cohesive soil, this time over
Even with the additional two as the tops of the pads were over 4m a granular soil.
upper floors built using lightweight below the pavement level. Foundations The analysis demonstrated the
construction, the total load increase located on party wall lines would also overall ultimate bearing capacity was
calculated on some of the foundations have been complex to strengthen. highl influenced b changes in the soil
was found to be over 35%. Due to the We commissioned new boreholes mass beneath it and was not primarily
split-level basement at the front of the and trial pits to better understand determined by the thin clay layer directly
site, underpinning or extending the pad foundation geometry and bearing strata. underlying the existing foundation.
foundations in this location would have Excavations revealed that some of the Pore water pressure had dissipated

35
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp32-38_TSE_March25_Project focus.indd 35 19/02/2025 15:08

 Project focus Mary Ward Centre, London

RICHARD CHIVERS
the introduction of cables to suspend
the landings from the new roof. This
largely retained the architect’s and
client s vision while significantl reducing
forces onto the structure and therefore
reducing the complexity, cost and
carbon of the design. The stairs were
later reconfigured further to provide
additional internal usable space but
still utilised hangers to minimise the
structural requirements of the frame and
load onto the existing structure.
Given that the structure would remain
exposed, meetings were held with the
client and design team to discuss the
aesthetic of the strengthening works.
It was agreed that steelwork would be
used to strengthen slabs and columns,
providing an economical and honest
story of the relationship between the
new and existing structures.
Rather than demolish the existing
‘weak’ roof slab, we proposed to
FIGURE 7: New steel cross-bracing installed at either end of building to provide additional stability introduce a steel grillage below the
slab. This grillage split the existing slab
span, allowing the slab to support the
and ultimate bearing failure was found FIGURE 8: Revit model of steel-framed comparator increased floor loadings. The grillage
to be a governing factor. Analysis also acts as a transfer structure to
estimated that, following installation support the new columns above.
SD ENGINEERS

of the glass facade, the increase in Retaining the slab reduced the need for
foundation load would result in less than te porar works and for a new floor to
3mm of settlement. As a result of the be installed.
analysis, only two of the existing shallow Existing columns were strengthened
foundations at the rear of the building with parallel-flange channel sections
needed to be strengthened. New bolted either side and packed tight to
foundations were designed to bear into the floor and soffit to take the additional
the Kempton Park gravels with the same loading (Figure 6).
settlement criteria. A new braced lift core and steel
cross-bracing at either end of the
Proposed structure building enhanced the stability to
The additional storeys were designed to account for the increased wind load
be constructed using steelwork and a a) Front elevation from the taller structure with the
metal deck slab (Figures 4 and 5), with addition of two storeys. The end-bay
an exposed structural aesthetic to clearly cross-bracing was a hybrid of new
showcase the interface between the new steelwork and existing concrete
and existing sections and the structural columns and beams (Figure 7).
odifications. This e posed structure nvestigative works confir ed the
suited the budget of the client and the existing elements, including rebar in the
ambition to achieve a low-carbon columns through to the foundation, had
design. Alternative options reviewed for capacity for the additional shear and
the additional storeys included precast axial loads and could withstand the
concrete planks and a mass-timber design forces without further
frame. The mass-timber solution was strengthening being required.
found to be the lowest carbon but was The new central lift core required
cost-prohibitive for the client. piles due to the restricted footprint and
To address the vibration concern from b) Rear elevation overturning forces to be resisted. The
the proposed dance studio, a series of settlement criteria of the piles did not
options were considered by the client vary greatly from those of the new and
and the design team. These included using an acoustic floating floor. The existing foundations.
lowering the ground-floor slab to create acoustic floating-floor solution was An iterative sensitivity analysis was
the re uired floor-to-ceiling heights at selected as the most economical and conducted between the sti ness of the
the base of the building, retaining the low-carbon approach. new end-elevation cross-bracing, and
position but structurally isolating the The ambitious cantilevered feature the sti ness of the new braced core.
new steel columns and beams from the staircase design was reviewed and This was in order to achieve acceptable
existing RC structure, or isolating the alternative options explored to reduce building wind drift, while not exceeding
new structure from the source vibration the loads on the existing frame through pile capacity tension limits in the

36
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp32-38_TSE_March25_Project focus.indd 36 19/02/2025 15:08

 Mary Ward Centre, London Project focus

0 4 2
i e e e e ea e a n e ui a en
0 0

44 0
522 ne a i nd n e
4

2 e e n u i n ea dai and ee ea

i in ( . )
Other substructure 44 a e a e a i a unnin ea
( . )
Frame and roof
2 a e (2. 2. ) e e e an e a ain a e
e a
in (2.2 2. ) C e/m 2
e ed e n ee a e
2
Structural walls
(2.5 2. ) 5 2e/m2 e e ee a e
Other 22 2e/m
2
e e ee a e

FIGURE Carbon emission breakdown by element, storey addition and strengthening design option (tCO2e)

proposed core and preventing uplift from i a ed e died a n(C 2

e) disproportionate collapse requirements.
occurring in the existing pad foundations M du e 5 and C Although the building has an RC frame,
900
below the new braced bays. 791 there are no tie beams between the
800 740
perimeter and internal columns; the
a and e e i n 700
columns are tied by the beam-and-pot
600
The investigations revealed that the 472 floor. n intrusive investigation and
500 444
concrete cover to the existing reinforced calculations were therefore performed
400
rib beams was highly variable, from to confir that the reinforce ent
300
as much as 35mm in some areas to detailing between the existing slab
200
as little as 8mm in others. This level and edge bea s satisfied the tie force
100
of cover did not meet current code specified in the code. This approach
0
re uire ents for inherent structural fire e ddi i n en enin e ee a e omitted the need to introduce new tie
performance or structural performance 5 C members, which would have added
for reinforcement bond. i a ed e died a n(C e) cost, carbon, and complexity to the
Structurally, the slab had M du e 5 e e en
2
services distribution.
performed adequately over its life, 800
and the applied load to the slab was 700 Carbon assessment
not being increased. On this basis, a 600
To inform their progress on reducing
performance-based approach could 500
embodied carbon in designs, designers
be satisfied without unnecessar 400
should collect data and evidence, and
strengthening being introduced. 300
bench ark projects. This infor ation
or the fire issue, we e plored also allows clients to ake infor ed
200
co issioning a finite-ele ent anal sis decisions about their schemes,
100
to assess the fire perfor ance of the particularly with regards to reducing
0
slab as a whole, as a way to avoid the e ddi i n en enin e ee a e carbon emissions and the impact of
need for additional protection measures. i in Other substructure
construction on the environment.
However, the very low cover in numerous Frame and roof frame e a in To calculate the saving in CO2 by
Structural walls Other
areas meant this approach was deemed opting for the refurbishment approach,
to be unviable. i a ed e died a n ( C 2e) a new steel-framed building was
The solution adopted was the M du e 5 ie e a e developed for comparison. The new
inclusion of a thin cementitious render steel fra e was anal sed in Tekla3
to all the e isting soffits to provide 800
and imported into Revit4 ( i u e ),
sufficient cover. This posed a setback assuming the same foundations as
600
for the architectural team as they had provided in the proposed option
envisioned showcasing the painted soffit and etal deck slab to allow a
400
of the bea -and-pot floor. t also added like-for-like co parison.
both cost and carbon to an otherwise As both the existing and new
200
stripped-down interior. frames were fully modelled in Revit,
technicians used the plug-in for Revit (using
A4

C
A4

e
5
5

0
Di i na e a e EOC ECO25) to calculate the embodied
The proposed height and new use carbon of the two options. Subsequently,
-200
eant the building was reclassified the Structural Carbon Tool6 was used
D

as a consequence class 2b structure to calculate how much CO2 would be

D

-400
according to the urocodes. t e ddi i n en enin e ee a e produced by the single elements.
was required to be tied vertically FIGURE 0 Carbon emission comparison – refurbishment The carbon assessment for the
and horizontally to satisfy current and steel-frame extension vs new-build steel frame structural refurbishment calculated there

37
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp32-38_TSE_March25_Project focus.indd 37 19/02/2025 15:08

 Project focus Mary Ward Centre, London

was a reduction of over 40% in for sufficient investigations can be difficult

REFERENCES
embodied carbon compared with the to justify for most clients, but especially
construction of a new building (not difficult for a charit . hile T is still
1) British Standards Institution (1969)
including the demolition of the existing charged on refurbishment projects in the CP 114:1969 The structural use of
frame), with the scheme meeting RIBA UK, and planning reform and a carbon reinforced concrete in buildings,
and LETI targets (Figures 9 and 10). tax are still in development, a grant such London: BSI (withdrawn)
as this is another tool the government 2) British Standards Institution
Conclusion can use to enable reuse possibilities that (2004) BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014
The process of reusing the 1970s would otherwise not be financiall viable Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
structures. General rules and rules for
concrete-fra ed office building ca e for most clients. buildings, London: BSI
with extensive challenges, at both This case study highlights that, when
3) Trimble (2025) Tekla [Online]
design and construction stages. With a assessing whether it is commercially Available at: www.tekla.com/uk/
project of this type, the key to success viable to retain and extend an existing about/tekla-trimble (Accessed:
is communication and systematic risk building, an oversimplistic or conservative January 2025)
management to fully understand the approach will not only limit new 4) Autodesk (2025) Revit [Online]
commercial viability. innovations in construction, but will be Available at: www.autodesk.com/uk/
The upfront investment required detri ental in the fight against cli ate products/revit/overview (Accessed:
January 2025)
for sufficientl detailed investigative change. Reusing existing building stock
works to determine the key risks for and reclaimed materials will be one of 5) Eckersley O’Callaghan (2021)
Plugin and Play with EOC ECO2: our
refurbish ent viabilit can be significant, the greatest contributions structural
new tool for measuring embodied
with no guarantee they will yield a positive engineers can make in reducing the carbon [Online] Available at: www.
outcome. Additionally, even with extensive embodied carbon emissions associated eocengineers.com/plugin-and-
investigations, there will always be with construction projects. play-with-eoc-eco2-our-new-tool-
for-measuring-embodied-carbon/
further challenges uncovered throughout Mary Ward Adult Education Centre
(Accessed: January 2025)
construction, so a suitable contingency is opened its doors to students and clients
needed with refurbishment projects. in epte ber , arking a significant 6) Elliott Wood (2025) The Structural
Carbon Tool, v.3 [Online] Available
Without the Skills for Londoners milestone in its transformation and its at: www.istructe.org/resources/
Capital Fund, this project might have ability to provide additional services for a guidance/the-structural-carbon-tool/
never come to fruition. The upfront cost worthy cause. (Accessed: January 2025)

38
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp32-38_TSE_March25_Project focus.indd 38 19/02/2025 15:08

 Part 21 | Factors of safety Opinion

Conservation compendium
Part 21: This article forms part of the Conservation
compendium, which aims to improve

The factor of
the way engineers handle historic fabric
through the study of historic materials,

safety dilemma
conservation philosophy, forms of
construction and project examples. Articles
in the series are written by Conservation
Accredited Engineers. The current series
editor is Gez Pegram.

CHARLES BLACKETT-ORD The characteristics relevant to an existing procedures to an existing structure is unlikely
CEng, FICE, CARE
structure that are known within reasonable to be very helpful and can be misleading. In
Director, Blackett-Ord Conservation, Appleby, UK
limits include: the case of a historic structure, the designer
| the strength of traditionally used materials may have to adjust the input, assumed load
| the design loading, or at least the loading paths and calculation model until a sensible
Introduction which has been applicable in use result is obtained. In other words, they must
A previous Conservation compendium article | the foundation conditions. calibrate their assessment, otherwise it appears
looked at assessing realistic live loads in historic erroneously that some drastic intervention must
buildings1. This article considers the philosophy All of these can be subject to change be done to the structure to make it stand up.
of factors of safety and how they should or over time: the materials can deteriorate, the Compliance with current codes and
should not be applied to older structures. loading requirement may alter, and the ground standards is awkward simply because these
This article is not a review of safety conditions may change. require inputs which may be unknown. This is
factors as such, but a discussion on how it In assessing an existing historic building, all where an appreciation of a structure’s inherent
is appropriate to use engineering judgement these issues need to be examined. A visual factors of safety comes in, and they usually
in their selection and application. For those or intrusive inspection can confir aterial help understand the discrepancy between what
that need support fro official sources, refer to condition, and ground conditions can be stands up in practice and what fails in theory.
BS 7913:19982, cl. 5.2: assessed by site investigation. Both the ground A selection of hypothetical examples will
‘Old buildings that have stood the test of conditions and the loading histor will benefit show how these principles can be applied,
time require judgement to be exercised when from some historical research. In all cases, if with particular reference to the following
making decisions about their conservation. the structure shows no sign of distress, and if considerations.
This judgement should be based on an there is no intention of increasing the applied | Calculating self-weights based on measured
understanding of principles informed by loading or altering the ground conditions, the di ensions can give confidence in the load
experience and knowledge, including that of extent of further investigations can be limited figures and allow justification of reduced
relevant legislation. British Standards and other to what seems sensible. However, in all cases, dead load factors.
specifications and codes of practice should a visual inspection should be the starting point | Future performance can be gauged against
not be applied unthinkingly, in the context of of any assessment, and this should be done by a proven history of greater or equal loading
building conservation.’ the engineer, if at all possible, not relying on, for in use.
One wonders if this is the only British instance, others’ drone surveys. | Materials factors of safety are conservatively
Standard that acknowledges ‘experience Structural analysis and check calculations biased towards the lowest quality of the
and knowledge’? may then follow, but applying current design materials used at the time of construction.
They can be reviewed in the context of
Application of factors of safety the building process, the client’s attention
The history of factors of safety was discussed to quality, and the status of the structure.
in a pertinent article written for The Structural Historic records may show the foundry used,
Engineer by Alasdair Beale some 20 years ago3. etc. Testing is useful, but often if materials are
A conclusion was that their development was APPLYING CURRENT variable in nature, testing all elements or even
based on statistics, rules of thumb and intuition. DESIGN a representative sample may be impractical
A factor of safety is required to allow for the
unknown in material properties and external PROCEDURES TO unless the structure can be dismantled.
| eflection li its should be relevant to the
loading conditions, some of which are known AN EXISTING situation. Considerations might include
uncertainties, and some completely unknown.
The latter are, b definition, i possible to predict, STRUCTURE IS machinery sensitivity as well as resilience of
the surface finish.
but service records can be useful in assessing the UNLIKELY TO BE
extent of the unknown. For instance, a satisfactory
service record of 200 years can be reassuring, if
VERY HELPFUL AND Some structures stand up against all the
odds. Figure 1 illustrates a masonry wall that
not a guarantee of future performance. CAN BE MISLEADING must have been standing before the props

39
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp39-43_TSE_March25_Viewpoin Factors of safety.indd 39 19/02/2025 15:09

 Opinion Part 21 | Factors of safety

now imposed, assuming that it is in the same

condition as it was when it opened and there
are no pedestrians.
An interesting practical point is that bridges
commonly have a signed vehicle load limit,
in this case 3t, but no pedestrian load limit is
stated. In this example, the remaining notional
capacity of 37t approximates to a pedestrian
load of around 2.5KN/m2. So the bridge could
take fire engines, etc. weighing substantiall
more than 3t if there are no pedestrians on it.
Pedestrian loading is determined by national
guidance, but this is not usually announced
to bridge users. While signage can specify
a reduced vehicle load, pedestrians are
neglected in spite of the loading being 10 times
the vehicle loading.
The factor of safety used is of less relevance
than the loading to which it is applied.

Critical load considerations

A suspension bridge is a convenient structure
to consider because of its simplicity. It is
composed of two towers, chains (or cables)
spanning between them, and hangers
connected to the chains to support the deck.
Anchorages in the ground are needed at each
end of the chains. All these elements will have
their own factors of safety, some of which can
be assessed and some of which are estimated.
Any structural analysis needs to consider
the individual elements as well as the whole
structure. In this case, the most critical single
element is the hanger. The maximum imposed
load on a hanger is determined by the individual
load of a vehicle located immediately next it,
whereas all the loads on the other elements
are calculated from the full imposed load on
the bridge. This may possibly include a greater
number of vehicles and pedestrians.
FIGURE 1: Propped masonry wall Imposed loading for historic bridges should
be considered carefully and should be realistic.
A limit of, say, one vehicle at a time, each
were introduced! But, of course, there is no weighing 3t, needs to be enforced if this is
guarantee as to how much longer it would have assessed as critical, as opposed to one that is
stood up without the propping. Our analytical arbitrarily set low in the hope that no one dare
capabilities are limited and cannot assess every A STRUCTURE WILL exceed it excessively. In the case where load
load path. As others have said, a structure will
itself try every possible load path before falling
ITSELF TRY EVERY is critical, there is little incentive for a delivery
van driver with a vehicle weighing 4t not to
down, and we may never know which load path POSSIBLE LOAD PATH ‘chance it’, or for a second van not to follow
actually applies. the first while it is still on the bridge. ossible
BEFORE FALLING enforcement measures could include load cells
Example 1: Suspension bridge
To illustrate the difficulties of appl ing factors of DOWN AND WE MAY and control barriers.
A combination of pedestrian and vehicle
safety to an existing structure, consider the case
of a typical 19th century iron suspension bridge,
NEVER KNOW WHICH loads can be used in specifying a maximum
load on the bridge. However, following highway
still standing but closed to traffic pending ACTUALLY APPLIES specifications in particular, for s all bridges
repairs, spanning 50m. on private estates does not necessaril
According to contemporary records at the produce the most onerous loading for a historic
time of its opening, a crowd of people rushed 1.0. In reality, it is most likely to have been more. structure. A more rational loading regime with
on to the bridge, calculated as being equivalent Over recent decades, there has been a a reduced pedestrian load and an increased
to a distributed imposed load of over 40t. The vehicle weight limit of 3t, which is to be retained vehicle load could result in a reduced overall
permanent dead load on the bridge has been after a major refurbishment, making a total load on the bridge, even allowing for an
estimated at around 100t, so the total load on load 103t, plus pedestrian loading. With no increased dead load (see Figure 2, C and D).
the bridge could have been 140t. If the total pedestrians, the factor of safety of the whole Much more consideration could be given
load at the opening was in fact close to the repaired bridge will now be at least 140/103, to physical load testing on existing structural
full limiting capacity of the bridge, the factor of or 1.36, and the bridge can in fact take at components, particularly wrought iron, where
safety at that moment will have been near to least 40/3 = 13 times the vehicle load limit such components can be detached, such as

40
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp39-43_TSE_March25_Viewpoin Factors of safety.indd 40 19/02/2025 15:09

 Part 21 | Factors of safety Opinion

140
A typical small highway bridge from the 18th
Live Ped Live Ped Live Ped
or 19th century would have been intended for
Load = Load = Load =
0.9kN/m2 0.5kN/m2 an imposed load of a few tonnes from carts,
120 2.5kN/m2 herds of cattle or a traction engine. Many of
(Approx)
Live Veh these bridges, because of their inherently robust
Load 3x form, now carry modern highway loading. This
100 Live Veh
Load = could be represented as an increase in design
3 Tonnes loading over time from 4t to 40t in 200 years.
80 Can a factor of safety, inherent form or
redundancy be used to allow for an estimated
future growth in road vehicle weight? Should a
60 bridge now be designed for, say, 60t vehicles to
Dead Dead Dead Load
Load + Load + allow for this weight sometime in the future?
5% 5%
Live Load The failure of a single hanger in a suspension
40 (Vehicle)
bridge, which shows no other signs of failure,
Live Load results in a redistribution of loads which the
20 (Pedestrian) structure can absorb, and this redistribution can
be assessed by calculation and analysis.
In some cases, load redistribution may result
0 in some dramatic geometric change (Figure 3),
ic le but the structure has nevertheless found a way
(A) istor (B) owab (C) esign (D) esign th
m H ing A ll ad n D ation nD wi of standing up.
xim
u
Loa
d
der
n Lo ) d e r i ) d r tion le
e
Ma plied Mo esign tored Mo d Var Less Mo Varia Vehic
A p D fa c Loa l 15% d d
Loa rease ding Example 2:
(Un (To
ta
Inc Loa Retaining walls to coal drops
Retaining walls are another area where modern
FIGURE 2: Bridge live load considerations engineering assessments can be misapplied.
A good example is coal drops. These are, in
e ect, large retaining walls that supported an
the hangers on a suspension bridge. retained. If every element is tested, the factor embankment on which coal trains travelled in
The justification of wrought iron is of safety will be less than if only a sample is order to discharge their load through chutes
interesting. Current manufacturers will not tested. The factor of safety need hardly apply or side-tipping into separate wagons at the
guarantee the strength of any replacement to material strength if the element has been lower level. A typical structure might be 6–8m
parts that are needed, so engineers default proved by testing to have known properties. high and 100m long. There are few of these
to mild steel, a modern material for which Masonry bridges have lasted far longer than structures remaining and the fewer there are,
known properties can be guaranteed. This can their builders presumably ever imagined. That the ore significant the beco e as historic
often lead to replacement of original material is not to say that just because a bridge has structures. How should they be assessed?
unnecessarily. Rather than opting for a modern lasted a long time, it will continue to function etaining walls are di erent to other
steel of known strength, the wrought iron indefinitel . Those that have failed are not structures as the main concerns, apart from
should be strength tested and, where possible, around anymore. the imposed loads, relate to potentially variable
backfill aterial and its oisture content, and
the foundation conditions. Design of new
retaining walls re uires significant factors of
safety to allow for the unknowns in the materials
and ground conditions; typically, factors of
safety of 2.0–3.0 are used against overturning.
For existing structures, however, the fact that
the structure may have already stood for 200
years needs to be considered. Clearly, if they are
in a safety-critical location supporting live railway
lines, then they must be assessed to current
standards, and caution should be exercised.
If not, they may be considered as landscape
structures. Any existing structure must have
a factor of safety of at least 1.0, applied to
overturning and maximum bearing pressure, or
it would have already failed.
What about the imposed load? This has
been reduced from many tens of tonnes from
its use by coal trains, to nearly zero with current
modest short-term pedestrian loading. This
imposed load reduction would increase the
minimum factor of safety against overturning
from, say, 1 to 1. 5 and against maximum
ground bearing pressure from 1 to 3.5.
Figure 4 shows the historic structural
develop ent of a coal drop, which has su ered
FIGURE 3: Load redistribution settlement and subsequent buttressing. At no

41
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp39-43_TSE_March25_Viewpoin Factors of safety.indd 41 19/02/2025 15:09

 Opinion Part 21 | Factors of safety

AS BUILT SIGNIFICANT LEAN BUT NO BUTTRESS ADDED & PARAPET NO FURTHER MOVEMENT.
[ 1830 ] COLLAPSE WALL REBUILT STRAIGHT OPERATION CEASED IN 1960s -
[ 1900 ] [ 1920s ] LOADING REDUCED
[ 2020 ]
FIGURE 4: Structural development of coal drop

time has there been any collapse. The current the point of collapse. n higher factor would
arrangement of reduced loading should be mean that someone entering would not have
acceptable on a historic assessment without an e ect on the structure e cept perhaps
further justification . THE PROBLEM WITH floor loading. risk anal sis would assess the
Nevertheless, there are unknown foundation
conditions to consider. If these are regarded as
SITE INVESTIGATION chance of a collapse at the e act sa e ti e as
the inspection, when the inspection procedure
a risk, there ust have been a change to a ect IS THAT IT CAN ONLY has no influence on the structure.
the soil parameters. This is most likely to be from s the building cannot be justified as it stands,
variation in ground water, root damage, or the EVER BE PARTIAL – initial proposals for repair could include a facade
impact of burrowing animals, all of which can
be assessed by investigation or inspection. The THE RESULTS ONLY retention system or the provision of precast
concrete domes replicating the brick vaulting
problem with site investigation, however, is that it
can only ever be partial – the results only apply to
APPLY TO WHAT IS inside the building. This intervention would not be
conservation in an sense, but it would divert all
what is actually tested. We all know how easily a ACTUALLY TESTED responsibility for loading on to modern materials
site investigation can miss the most critical feature! of (supposedly) known strength.
The approach of an engineer working ore conservation-based approach for
to current codes would be to carry out a Example 3: allowing safe access for inspection or for further
design for a wall of similar cross-section on Brick vaulted mill building work would start by considering what factor of
conservatively assumed ground conditions. If further greatl si plified e a ple is a th safet should appl to the e isting structure.
this fails, the calculation is done again, varying centur ill building with floors supported on s it is still standing, this ust be at least . .
the para eters until it stands up , or else it cast iron columns with brick vaults between. hat is needed to allow safe access argin
apparently needs to be strengthened. The vaulting is stabilised with iron tie bars of posed loading can be strictl
Once strengthening starts, the need for spanning between the columns at vault controlled at this stage. Removing the added
justification and guarantees co es in. n thing springing level. n this e a ple, the roof was concrete would immediately improve the loading
new usually requires some form of approval. covered with a thick layer of concrete nearly a conditions and the factor of safety and reduce
Piling is often an acceptable intervention hundred years ago. Some of the tie bars have the urgenc for a detailed anal sis of what s
because the piling contractor will provide some broken. The building has been designated as there. In this case, the actual process of removal
sort of warranty. The Pali Radici system (root unsafe for access. has to considered, and this in itself could apply
piles) and ground anchors are probably also Many of us have come across the problem di erent loading in the short ter .
useful because the too can be guaranteed or of a building being designated as unsafe It is also pertinent to consider the conditions
test loaded. But leave the structure alone? Who for access, often by building control. The under which the odd tie bar might have failed.
will guarantee it then responsibility and duty of care of someone One possibility is that this might have occurred
Of course, if the future loading is be increased needing to go into it for an inspection is during a period of very cold weather, so access
or load paths changed, the situation is more increased because of the unsafe designation, in warm weather should be a safer prospect.
complicated, but past history of use is essential regardless of its validity. It could be said that The central vaults are safer than the peripheral
to establish whether, in fact, the new loading for access for an inspection to be unsafe, vaults after a tie failure because in the centre
is an increase, or just a reversion to loading for the building has to be in a state of unstable there is more scope for load distribution to
which the structure was originally intended. equilibrium with a factor of safety of 1, i.e. on adjacent vaults (Figure 5).

42
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp39-43_TSE_March25_Viewpoin Factors of safety.indd 42 19/02/2025 15:09

 Part 21 | Factors of safety Opinion

SCENARIO A - CONTINUOUS TIE BAR - STABLE

SCENARIO B - ONE TIE BREAKS (CENTRE BAY), REDISTRIBUTION OF FORCES

PREVENTS WIDER COLLAPSE

SCENARIO C - ONE TIE BREAKS (END BAY), INTERNAL BAYS REMAIN UPRIGHT FIGURE 5: Mill
END WALL FAILS building structure

Conservation engineering Partial safety factors for materials are largely ‘guaranteed’. We need to use our engineering
approach derived from the statistical chance of failure experience and judgement and not just rely on
The conservation approach should always start due to poor workmanship (e.g. in concrete) standards and codes to give the answer.
with the existing structure, determine why it is and variations in natural materials (e.g. in The application of engineering judgement,
still standing and assess its significant defects, timber), both of which in standing historic which comes with experience, may not always
if there are any. Analysis comes a distant buildings must have been proved over time to receive the respect that it has had in the past,
second, and the structure must be analysed be well within the normal limits of acceptability. but it is essential in the context of conservation.
for what it is, not for what it would be if it were To recalculate the section sizes with current
designed today as a new structure. Looking at factors of safety and arrive at section sizes
the overall picture, a historic structure that is larger than those that have existed for many Conservation compendium
still standing must have a factor of safety of at years is unhelpful.
Read more articles in the series at www.
least . , and it a have withstood significant The common but incorrect assumption is
istructe.org/conservation-compendium.
‘unknown’ higher loads, misuse or overload that no trust should be placed in anything
over its lifetime. that is not new and specificall designed for
Assuming the materials are found to be in the purpose. Why should something new and
good condition, or can be repaired to make ‘guaranteed’ be better than a structure that has REFERENCES
them so, the matter of a factor of safety for proved itself over time, even though it does not
materials is irrelevant. A factor of safety can have the right piece of paper to back this up?
be applied to live loading, but this needs to It is noteworthy that the recent New Civil 1) Hume I. and Miller J. (2015) ‘Conservation
take into account the change from historic to Engineer 50th anniversary issue4 included a list compendium. Part 7: Imposed load in historic
modern loading. There may, of course, need to of structural failures over the period, and they buildings: assessing what is real’, The
be an allowance for additional future external are all modern structures. Historic structures Structural Engineer, 93 (6), pp. 40-43; https://
doi.org/10.56330/CCHJ4493
loading, such as wind and rainfall. don’t just give up and collapse without
When approaching the conservation of a warning because they are old! In fact, others 2) British Standards Institution (1998) BS
historic structure, the question also arises as have demonstrated that older structures are 7913:1998 Guide to the principles of the
to why partial safety factors should be applied frequently overdesigned by modern standards. conservation of historic buildings, London:
BSI (withdrawn)
to existing materials that have already proved ffice floor loading is a case in point1,5 and
their strength. Why test a brick and then add historic working stress guidance always 3) Beal A.N. (2011) ‘A history of the safety
a partial safety factor of 3.5? What does this includes generous safety factors. factors’, The Structural Engineer, 89 (20), pp.
mean if the performance has been satisfactory As conservation engineers, we should be 20–26
over many years? Although many of the factors able to assess the strength and stability of 4) New Civil Engineer 50 (2022) 50th
considered when arriving at such a partial existing structures taking account of their anniversary supplement to New Civil
safety factor may not apply, there is always the loading history and future requirements. We Engineer, June 2022
possibility of future unforeseen loading, due to should not have to provide new interventions 5) English Heritage (1996) ffice oor loading
climate change, for instance. just because they are the only parts that can be in historic buildings, London: English Heritage

43
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp39-43_TSE_March25_Viewpoin Factors of safety.indd 43 19/02/2025 15:09

 Opinion Letters

Verulam
Send letters to…
All contributions to Verulam should be
submitted via email to: [email protected]

Contributions may be edited on the grounds

of style and/or length by the Institution's
Readers’ letters, comments and queries publishing department.

Taking should either:

| advise the client an ‘extra over’ (EO)
issue. Engineers need to realise how the
e ecution standard is reall influencing
responsibility cost for connections, or fabricators. Maybe it’s time for engineers

for steelwork
| explain to the client that the fabricator to be audited?
will charge for the connection detail,

design as when we submit a cost to fabricate

the steel, and advise of an EO for
Mr Olden rightly draws attention to
poor business practice. In any
MARK OLDEN connection design, this is greeted project, large or small, it should be
In my experience as a steel fabricator, understandably with a sigh. clear who is responsible for what.
far too many engineers are not keeping Second, steelwork design broadly
up with current specifications laid down While this process minimises the encompasses design, fabrication
by Execution Class auditors. Fabricators engineer’s fee, it risks the chance and erection. The whole is
are audited yearly to ensure full of errors and blurs the boundaries unsatisfactory, and may be unsafe,
compliance with their Execution Class of responsibility. if proper attention is not given to
status, and, as the years pass by, many Temporary works are very topical but each part and that applies especially
more areas are coming under increasing basic feasibility of construction that is to feasibility of building. The National
scrutiny. Unfortunately, in my experience, mostly overlooked. An engineer visits u u a ee e i ai n
far too many engineers are not keeping a site to look at an extension, say, the de ne e n i i i ie . Further
up with current specifications, are not installation of bifold doors. It should advice is available via: https://doi.
fulfilling their full design responsibilities be foreseeable that a large part of the org/10.56330/FQHA9282.
nor acting professionally in terms of existing structure (e.g. brickwork) must
information control.
We frequently encounter problems
be removed, especially in the case
of installing door support steelwork. Designing
with basic engineer’s drawings on
small domestic work, and sometimes
Under CDM Regulations there is a legal
obligation to advise and ensure that by hand
information is missed even on the project is buildable and safe under ROBERT ATKINSON
large projects with ‘blue chip main temporary conditions. Without such I read with interest Richard Eastwood’s
contractors’. Examples: guidance, too many builders resort to view on designing by hand (January
1) The Execution Class (normally using Acrows. 2025) and am in complete agreement.
Execution Class 2 covers) is left The same could be said for installing My design work is predominantly
undefined. o, in theor , if the a large ridge beam within an existing carried out by hand, which I would
execution status is not noted, and roof: the engineer should know only too consider appropriate for the majority of
‘Bill and Ben the shed-welding gang’, well that the beam will need splicing for domestic and light industrial projects.
who have no Execution Class or erection – so they should then design When I do have the odd occasion to
systems for full traceability, fabricate a splice, consider how the beam may provide an opinion on work by others,
the steel, then, surely the engineer be installed and, if temporary works are I am often surprised by the use of
takes some responsibility, if the steel required, advise. complex design packages, which
fails at a later date? We have recently undertaken a produce numerous pages of calculations
2) Grades of steel are incorrect, T Te porar orks upervisor for the simplest structure.
with sections maybe stated as ourse. The first point ade was o eti es the outco es are even
275 for UCs/UBs while hollow that we should only work to engineer/ more astounding, a recent example
section grades are often omitted or architect’s ‘construction issue’ drawings. being the adoption of an extremely
sometimes called HF355 for a basic adl , we are often onl supplied with heavy UC frame for a small opening in
post or wind post, when more than ‘preliminary issues’ or similar. We are a terraced house. This returns one to
likel would suffice. required to submit our own drawings that perennial issue about the loss of
3) Weld sizes are not given (even if it’s back for approval. The course’s advice feel for the structural solution resulting
just fillet weld unless noted was that subcontractors should work in complete reliance on a computer-
otherwise’). This omission occurs only to an approved A/B or C system, generated solution. Overdesigning of
even if, for example, base plate details and not accept ‘no comment’ status structures may be described as lazy or
or other fi ings are provided. (which means just that and the drawing incompetent but at least generally safe,
is unapproved , e ectivel leaving the although perhaps not always for the
Another big issue with small jobs subcontractor taking the responsibility. poor builder! On the basis of the above
is that the engineer sizes all the steel A very experienced engineer said to example, however, how on earth do
sections but leaves the connections me 15 years ago, when the then CE these designers know if the result is an
to the fabricator. In the old days, the Execution Class came into force, ‘who unsafe one, particularly when working on
fabricator could use their experience, will police it?’ Now, the auditors are well complex structures?
or the ‘Green Book’, but we are not and truly policing the fabricators. And, as
allowed to do that now. Connections we live in a blame culture, the insurers First, there is absolutely nothing
must be designed. Hence, engineers will become engineers when there is an wrong with ‘designing by hand’. You

44
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp44-45 TSE_March25_Verulam.indd 44 19/02/2025 15:10

 Letters Opinion

can argue that using computer party wall surveyor, recent frustrations in a competency requirement similar
packages automates the process, have led to dialogue with building control to Part J or making reference to and
e a a in i e e ien that appears to highlight the problem. requiring that of CDM 2015 – ‘Are you
perhaps minimising the risk of This being that of the glaring legislative a designer?’
arithmetic error. However, the omission/loophole that building control 2) The Building Regulations being
overwhelming feedback is suggestive still have no legal powers to enforce HSE similarly revised/updated.
of packages being used statutes, including CDM Regulations 3) CDM to be reissued and rewritten with
inappropriately and providing excess 2015. They must enforce the Building regard to the matter of competent
output. Either way, an essential skill is Regulations making no reference to designers to make it enforceable by
to know from experience that the competence. building control.
answer is ‘about right’. Professional readers will be aware that
the CDM Regulations apply to domestic We cannot continue to permit

Protecting projects, making it patently clear what

the skills, knowledge and experience
non-designers taking design work o
small professional practices and then

engineers’ status requirements are required to be a

designer, which includes membership
expecting/leaving these professional
practices to the unrewarding and
STEVE JOHNSON of a professional body! Yet the building uneconomical work of clearing up the
A continuation of sorts to the recent letter, control officers cannot enforce this and ess of these un ualified designers, and
‘State of the industry’ (January 2025). must deal with just about anyone who then having to indemnify it!
We have recently seen doctors cares to call themselves a designer Considering the future of the
through their union and the British while, at the same time (and rightly so), profession: what parent would advise
Medical Association initiate legal action not being able to o er design advice. their child to get educated and into such
against the General Medical Council over Fortunately, my practice doesn’t a profession?
the matter of protected titles. The totality currently rely solely on domestic
of new construction legislation doesn’t projects, but I fear for those members This is perennial annoyance for
appear to address this ongoing issue. whose professional practices do! many members. But there is
What should we as small practitioners Initial discussions with building control right now an opportunity now via
be asking of our professional body? Or and RICS contacts have suggested the a consultation on Approved
are other routes required/available? following possible solutions: Document A. Whatever your
As a structural engineer, in my roles 1) Approved Document A to the Building feelings, reply to this survey:
as structural defects consultant and/or Regulations to be revised, bringing http://bit.ly/3CYrMJR.

The future
of structural
design
The world is changing, fast. In this new
thought leadership title, the authors
try to answer the question “What is the
future of structural design?”
Central to their response is an examination
of the role of uncertainty in the design
process. This book is a “What if?” rather rder now:
Order
than a “How to” – founded in the theory of istructe.org/resources/guidance/
reliability and risk-based design. the-future-of-structural-design

21681_future_of_structural_design_HP.indd 1 A
45
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp44-45 TSE_March25_Verulam.indd 45 19/02/2025 15:10

 At the back Diary dates

Most events run by IStructE

HQ are being delivered online.
For in-person events, a
location will be given.
History Study Group meetings

Diary dates
start at 18:00 and are free of
charge to attend. Registration
is not typically required
Meetings may be online or
in person.
For Regional Group events,
check the website for the
latest information. Note that more current information may be available
from the Institution website: www.istructe.org/events

CONFERENCE Register: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2025/ Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2025/

20 March fibuk-what-s-happening- building-resilience-protective-design
Young researchers conference
Time: 13:00–16:15 26 March 25 March
Venue: Online Permanent design solutions to Eurocode 8: an introduction to seismic
Price: Free reduce temporary works in facade design of buildings
Register: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2025/ retention schemes Trainer: Prof Costas Georgopoulos
young-researchers-conference-2025 Speakers: Emily McKay, Patrick Clayton and Time: 10:00–17:30
John Price Venue: Online
WEBINARS Time: 18:00–19:30 Price: Member: £335 + VAT; Standard: £445 + VAT
5 March Venue: Online Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2025/
Structural Awards 2025: Crafting your Price: Free eurocode-8-an-introduction-to-seismic-design
submission for global recognition Register: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2025/reduce-
Time: 09:00–10:00 temporary-works-in-facade-retention-schemes 26 March
Venue: Online Eurocode 8: worked examples of
Price: Free HISTORY STUDY GROUP the dynamic analysis and seismic
Register: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2025/ 31 March building designs
structural-awards-2025 The Crystal Palace subway Trainers: Prof Costas Georgopoulos and
Speakers: Cristian Petrescu, Ian Harper and Dr Kong Kian Hau
3 April Clive England Time: 10:00–17:30
Large panel systems Venue: The Alan Baxter Gallery, 75 Cowcross Venue: Online
Time: 13:00–14:00 Street, London EC1M 6EL and online Price: Member: £335 + VAT; Standard: £445 + VAT
Venue: Online Price: Free Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2025/
Price: Members: £45 + VAT; Standard: £70 + VAT Contact: [email protected] eurocode-8-worked-examples-of-the-dynamic-
Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2025/ analysis
large-panel-systems CPD COURSES
4 March 26 March
LECTURES Business and strategic planning Practical law: dealing with domestic clients
13 March Trainer: Parag Prasad Trainer: Rob Langley
fibUK: what’s happening? 2025 Time: 10:00–13:00 Time: 13:00–17:30
Speakers: Fragkoulis Kanavaris, Jose C. Matos, Venue: Online Venue: Online
Robert Wheatley and Corin Walford Price: Member: £275 + VAT; Standard: £365 + VAT Price: Member: £275 + VAT; Standard: £365 + VAT
Time: 18:00–19:30 Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2025/ Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2025/
Venue: Online business-and-strategic-planning practical-law-dealing-with-domestic-clients-march
Price: Free
18 March 1–2 April
Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures Understanding structural behaviour
SPONSORED CONTENT Trainers: Jenny Burridge and Emily Halliwell Trainer: Mark Moppett
Time: 10:00–17:30 Time: 09:30–17:30
25 March Venue: IStructE HQ Venue: Online
Insights on Rothoblaas connections Price: Member: £335 + VAT; Standard: £445 + VAT Price: Member: £575 + VAT; Standard: £765 + VAT
for hybrid construction Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2025/ Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2025/
Speakers: Santi Davi and Francesco eurocode-2-design-of-concrete-structures understanding-structural-behaviour
Manni
Time: 12:00–13:00 20 March 8 April
Venue: Online Building resilience: protective design and Practical law: client appointments and
Price: Free blast engineering for structures terms of engagement: a legal toolkit
Register: www.istructe.org/events/ Trainers: Bob Sheldon and Mariella Gallo Trainer: Rob Langley
hq/2025/insights-on-rothoblaas- Time: 10:00–17:30 Time: 10:00–17:30
connections Venue: Online Venue: Online
Price: Member: £335 + VAT; Standard: £445 + VAT Price (early booking): Member: £365 + VAT

46
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp46-47 TSE_March25_DiaryDates.indd 46 19/02/2025 15:11

 Diary dates At the back

(£325 + VAT); Standard: £485 + VAT Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hong-kong/ SCOTLAND

Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2025/ application-status-of-integrated-construction
practical-law-client-appointments 27 March
NORTH WEST C D e ina De i n ff i e
REGIONAL GROUPS modular construction
Note that events are subject to change. 6 March Speakers: Robert Hairstans, Patrick Hayes,
Please visit www.istructe.org/get-involved/ CROSS: Lessons learned from structural Matthew Egan, Glen Rust and Matt Stevenson
regional-groups for up-to-date information and safety reporting Time: 10:00–17:00
registration details. Speaker: Paul Livesey Venue: 3 Watt Place, #Unit 3B, Blantyre G72 0AH
Time: 18:00–20:00 Price: £80–£100
EAST MIDLANDS Venue: Online Booking: https://bit.ly/4hZbP4U
Price: Free
14 March Booking: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cross- SURREY
Chairperson’s installation dinner 2025 collaborative-reporting-for-safer-structures-
Speakers: Yasmin Becker and Dave Byron tickets-1221297195789 14 April
Time: 18:15–23:00 Beaulieu RDR Phase 3 bridge installation
Venue: Pride Park Stadium, Dave Mackay Suite, REPUBLIC OF IRELAND & using SPMTs
Pride Park, Derby DE24 8XL Speaker: Nicholas Lake
NORTHERN IRELAND
Price: From £45 Time: 18:00
Booking: www.istructe.org/events/east- 14 April Venue: Lecture Theatre M, University of Surrey,
midlands/chairperson-s-installation-dinner-2025 REBLADE: Re-blading of Irish wind Guildford GU2 7XH
turbines using novel technologies Price: Free
HONG KONG Speaker: Dr Yadong Jiang Contact: Edward Bromhead
Time: 13:00–14:00 ([email protected])
29 March Venue: Online
Technical visit: Application status of Price: Free
integrated construction (MiC) Register: www.eventbrite.com/e/reblade-re- Regional Group Committee members
Time: 11:00–21:30 HKT blading-of-irish-wind-turbines-using-novel- should submit details of forthcoming
Venue: Huizhou and Pingshan, Mainland China technologies-tickets-1248137616209 events to: [email protected]
Price: HK€600

12 June 2025
• isk ase a roaches
• ui ing a sa et cu ture
• he esign ui contract
mitigating inherent risks
• re enting technica risks
• oi ing common
construction errors

21710_structural_safety_conference_HP_update.indd 1 pm
47
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp46-47 TSE_March25_DiaryDates.indd 47 19/02/2025 15:11

 At the back Spotlight on Structures

All articles in Structures

are available free of charge
to paying-grade members
of the Institution as one of
their mem ership ene ts
The journal is available
online at:
www.structuresjournal.org

Editor’s Featured Article

The Featured Article for Volume 68 of Structures is now available.
Lei Wang, Associate Editor, has chosen a paper studying the bearing
capacity of steel tubes reinforced with high-ductility concrete.
This article is available to read free of charge.

Experimental study on ultimate bearing Engineering, Imperial College London, following parameters on both unreinforced
capacity of short thin-walled steel tubes London, United Kingdom and reinforced thin-walled steel tubes was
reinforced with high-ductility concrete investigated: length-to-slenderness ratio,
Rui-Sheng Chena,b, Hao-Yu Zhanga, Thin-walled steel short colu ns often su er width-to-thickness ratio and the thickness
Xin-Kai Haoa,c, Han-Xi Yua, Tao Shia,c, from local buckling and limited load-carrying of reinforced high-ductility concrete. The
Hang-Sheng Zhoud, Rong-Bing Wanga, capacity. To address this issue, this study uses ultimate load-carrying capacity, failure
Zhi-Fang Zhaoa and Pengjie Wange high-ductility concrete to reinforce thin-walled modes and local buckling behaviour of
a
College of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang steel tubes, aiming to enhance both their steel tubes are evaluated and high-ductility
University of Technology, Hangzhou, China load-carrying capacity and ductility. However, concrete can enhance the mechanical
b
Zhejiang University of Technology the challenge lies in the low bond strength performance of thin-walled steel tubes.
Engineering Design Group Co. Ltd, between steel and high-ductility concrete. A design equation is proposed to predict
Hangzhou, China Therefore, the paper aims to propose an the ultimate strength of short thin-walled
c
Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering appropriate bond interface treatment to ensure steel tubes reinforced with high-ductility
Structures and Disaster Prevention and a reliable bond between these two materials. concrete, which provides design guidelines
Mitigation Technology (Zheijang University of Subsequently, axial compression tests were for the application of high-ductility concrete
Technology), Hangzhou, China conducted for twelve short thin-walled steel strengthening existing steel tube structures.
d
Eco-Industrial Innovation Institute ZJUT, tubes, comprising three unreinforced steel
Quzhou, China tube columns and nine columns reinforced | Read the full paper at https://doi.
e
Department of Civil and Environmental with high-ductilit concrete. The e ect of the org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.107109

Register for alerts

If you’d like to receive regular updates about new content in Structures, register for email alerts at www.sciencedirect.com.

48
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp48 _TSE_March25_Spotlight on Structures.indd 48 19/02/2025 14:55

 Telephone: +44 (0)1223 378 025 Email: [email protected] Services Directory

ANALYSIS SOFTWARE ANALYSIS & DESIGN

BIM Services You Can Depend On

• Full Scope Coordinated Service
• Architectural, Structural & MEP Retaining Wall Package
• Infrastructure Autodesk Civil 3D®
• Local Project Coordinators in UK
• No Job Too Large or Too Small!
• Free 24 Hour Fee Quotations

Phone: +44 (0)1202 603031

E: [email protected] cadsconsulting.com
The Programmes
REINFORCED CONCRETE DETAILING Slope Stability

Cantilever Wall Retaining wall foundations, backfill,

R.C.
R.C. Detailing Specialists in 2D/3D BIM
terrain, pore water, surcharge,
Detailing Specialists Gravity Wall
base anchors, soil nails, geotextile
Services for1980
Established Civil & Structural Projects Gabion reinforcement, bearing caps, anti-slide
Extensive Engineering
Extensive experience experience Masonr y Wall piles, ear thquake, stability, staged

Provencapacity
Large reliability
expert team Redi-Rock Wall
construction and more…

Large capacity
Established 1980 Prefab Wall For a trial or further information contact

Paul Benham
Paul BenhamLtd
Ltd Spread Footing Sigma-X
e: [email protected]
Civil
Civil&&Structural
StructuralEngineering
EngineeringDraughting & Modelling
Draughting Service Service Save 40% by purchasing the
GEO5 Retaining Wall Package w: www.sigma-x.net
[email protected] compared to purchasing the t (UK): + 44 (0)203 603 1442
01273 730956
www.paulbenhams.co.uk programmes individually. t (Irl): + 353 (0)86 85 45 425

IStructE_magazine_-_March 2025.pdf 1 10/02/2025 11:38:22

ANALYSIS SOFTWARE SOFTWARE

The software behind the cellular beam

Enables the specification of plated members up to 2.3 metres deep, with

thicknesses ranging from 8 mm to 120 mm.

Incorporates minimum-weight design capabilities, adhering to the "use

less material" philosophy to contribute significantly to global
decarbonisation efforts.
C
Provides full flexibility for steel/MEP coordination, allowing users to position
cell openings as needed.
M
Offers a comprehensive range of material interfaces, including CLT,
Metal Deck, and precast concrete units, ensuring optimal design solutions
Y for various projects.

Supports both composite and non-composite design configurations.

CM Scan the QR code
for the instructions Includes carbon calculation features, enabling users to assess the
ANALYSIS & DESIGN on how to embodied carbon associated with their beams, including circular benefits
MY download the free
as outlined in Module D.
UK Fbeam software

CY

Allows users to design for fire ratings ranging from 15 minutes to 120
CMY minutes, in 15-minute increments, suitable for all project types.

Features built-in optimisation regimes to ensure the specification of the

K most cost-efficient beams.

Provides fully tested and proven fire performance.

Includes test data compliant with BS and EN standards.

Offers a variety of on-site and off-site product options.

The FBEAM/FIREBEAM software is third party verified and accredited by the SCI.

For further information please visit our website www.fabsec.co.uk or contact [email protected]

49
thestructuralengineer.org | March 2025

pp49 TSE_March25_Directory.indd 49 19/02/2025 12:21

 Recruitment Telephone: +44 (0)1223 378 047 Email: [email protected]

SERVICES DIRECTORY – ANALYSIS SOFTWARE

UK’s Leading RC
Detailing Service
• 2D Drawings & Bar Bending Schedules
• 3D Reinforcement Models in Revit
Senior / Structural Engineer
We have an exciting opportunity for an experienced structural engineer
• Local Project Coordinators in UK
with an enthusiastic self-motivated disposition, excellent project and
team development skills who is looking for a new challenge! • Expert Detailers You Can Rely On!
Based in Truro we operate throughout Devon and Cornwall, we offer a
full range of Structural, Civil Engineering and Party Wall services. • ISO9001:2015 Certified Checking
We currently work mostly in the residential and commercial
sectors on a wide spectrum of projects that range in size from • No Job Too Large or Too Small!
small domestic alterations up to large multi-million-pound projects
in interesting locations.
Competitive salary depending upon experience. Benefits
• Free 24 Hour Fee Quotations
Package includes 25 days holiday, sick pay, healthcare, company
pension and flexi time.
An engineering degree MEng/BEng in structural engineering
is required, 3-4 years proven consultancy experience and ideally
Phone: +44 (0)1202 603031 | E: [email protected]
working towards chartership with the IStructE.

To apply please send your CV and a cover letter to

Business Development Director, Emily Caulfield at
[email protected]
cadsconsulting.com

Want to
advertise
your products
and services?
Get in touch with
the TSE media team

Contact 01223 378 008

or email [email protected]

50
March 2025 | thestructuralengineer.org

pp50-52 TSE_March25_Recruitment.indd 50 19/02/2025 12:20

 Upcoming CPD
courses

Online Online Online London HQ

Building Eurocode Practical law: Understanding

resilience: 8: worked dealing with structural
protective examples domestic behaviour
design and blast 26 March clients 1-2 April
engineering 10:00 - 17:30 GMT 26 March 09:30 - 17:30 BST
20 March ––– 13:00 - 17:00 GMT –––
10:00-17:30 GMT Price
Member: £335 + VAT ––– Price
Member: £575 + VAT
––– Standard: £445 + VAT Price Standard: £765 + VAT
Price Member: £275 + VAT
Member: £335 + VAT Learning outcomes Standard: £365 + VAT Learning outcomes
Standard: £445 + VAT • Understand the dynamic • Apply powerful, qualitative
analysis of buildings Learning outcomes (non-numerical) techniques
Learning outcomes • Carry out the dynamic • Negotiate and document to the solution of a range of
• Describe structural analysis of a 2DOF frame clear, enforceable framed structures
responses to blast loading by hand agreements with non- • Apply checking protocols
with reference to ‘equivalent • Appreciate the principles professional clients for computer output
single degree of freedom’ of conceptual design • Understand the context and establish a reliable
analysis of earthquake resistant of consumer protection interpretation of the results
• Use pressure impulse structures regulations • Apply the qualitative
diagrams for approximate • Describe the provisions of • Identify and prevent approach to the
response assessment Eurocode 8 misunderstandings related approximate analysis of
• Employ principles and • Apply the performance to fees, project variations, structures as an aid to the
guidelines for protective requirements and delays, and respective creation of the structural
design against the effects compliance criteria of responsibilities of both model
of blast for concrete, steel, Eurocode 8 parties and contractors
masonry and façade • Carry out building element • Handle complaints
elements design to Eurocode 8 by appropriately and Book now
• Understand Hostile Vehicle hand professionally
Mitigation • Enhance your
• And more communication skills to
facilitate smoother payment
Book now processes
Book now
Book now

Book your place

istructe.info/courses
pp50-52 TSE_March25_Recruitment.indd 51 19/02/2025 12:20
 Will your project
become an icon of
structural engineering
excellence?
Judged across the key attributes of Planet, People,
Process, and Profession, the awards celebrate excellence
in design, creativity, and technical expertise that shape
the future of our industry. Showcase your work on an
international stage and be part of a community driving
positive change in the built environment.

Entry deadline: 14 April

Enter now:
istructe.org/Structural-Awards/Enter-the-Awards
Sponsored by

21697_SA_2025_entries_FP_ad.indd 1
pp50-52 TSE_March25_Recruitment.indd 52 17/01/2025 9:03 12:20
19/02/2025 am