TH E

STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER

Decommissioning of the A14 Huntingdon Railway Viaduct, Cambridgeshire

Published by
THE INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
Founded 1908 & Incorporated 1909 as

THE CONCRETE INSTITUTE

International HQ, 47-58 Bastwick Street, London, EC1
PRICE: 25 POUNDS

VOL. 100. JANUARY, 2022. NUMBER 1.

Cover_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 1 15/12/2021 11:27

 Call for speakers
for the
Institution of Structural Engineers
Using concrete in a changing
environment e-conference
5-7 July 2022
Virtual

Conference themes & topics:

Day 1: Concrete Day 2: Reusing +H`!4H[LYPHSLɉ

JPLUJ`
construction concrete buildings and novel materials
solutions • Assessment • Marginal gains
• Post Tensioning • Strengthening
• Design interventions (detailing
• Pre-Cast fabrication • Life extension and adaptation
ZSHIZZWHUKLÅLJ[PVUZSVHKPUN
‹:WLJPÄJH[PVU HUKÄUPZOPUN
• Practical use of novel materials

If you have a concrete project you would like to present, go to

istructe.org/concrete-conference-2022 to download
and submit a submission form by 28 January 2022.

TSE.Jan22_002.indd 2 13/12/2021 14:49

 12
Upfront
5
6
8
Editorial
News
Obituary: Jörg Schlaich
16
10 Not what anyone was expecting – President’s
end-of-term report

Features
12 100 not out: a century of The Structural Engineerr
16 Research into Practice essay 2019: Assessment

38
and retrofit of deficient reinforced concrete
structures using advanced composites

Climate emergency
21 Company-wide carbon targets: overcoming
barriers to progress

Professional guidance
25 Code of Conduct – an update for members
26 Qualifying standards review: what do I need
to know?

Project focus
28 Decommissioning of the A14 Huntingdon 28
COVER: DECOMMISSIONING OF THE A14 HUNTINGDON RAILWAY VIADUCT

Railway Viaduct, Cambridgeshire

Opinion
47
Volume 100 │ Issue 1 │January 2022

36 Viewpoint: Carbon-reduction measures – cutting

through the pushback
38 Viewpoint: Making the most of timber –
specialist skills for a complex material
40 Comment & reply: Thinking stone: some aspects
of the structural design evolution for the Padre
Pio church, Italy
43 Book review: Structural design for physical
security
44 Verulam

At the back
46 Diary dates
47 Spotlight on Structures
48 The Drawing Board
49 Services Directory
50 TheStructuralEngineer Jobs

3
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022

CONTENTS_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 3 15/12/2021 15:28

 Your Trust Mark
CARES is your trusted partner. With a 40-year track record of assurance and delivery,
CARES knows reinforcement. We work with YOU to create the confidence you need to
deliver safe, secure results.

Now, more than ever, product knowledge defines project performance. We deliver
secure digital certainty for you and your clients. Stay in the picture; stay fit for the future.
CARES: Your Trust Mark.

The CARES Way: tested, assured, certified

Qualit
Aut
y
hent
Prove icity
nance

The CARES mark identifies a specific mill in a specific country

Trust the CARES mark Country = 7 ribs Mill = 7 ribs

Specify CARES approved steel

reinforcement and the CARES Cloud –
confidence in the product and trusted
digital traceability from source to site.

ukcares.com
Independent, impartial and trusted Download the CARES CLOUD App FREE

TSE.Jan22_004.indd 4 13/12/2021 14:50

 Editorial Upfront

PRESIDENT
Jane Entwistle
BSc(Hons), CEng, FIStructE, MICE

CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Martin Powell

EDITORIAL
HEAD OF PUBLISHING
Lee Baldwin

MANAGING EDITOR
Robin Jones
t: +44 (0) 20 7201 9822
e: robin.jones@istructe.org
Robin Jones Managing Editor
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT
Ian Farmer

A milestone to
t: +44 (0) 20 7201 9121
e: ian.farmer@istructe.org

ADVERTISING
DISPLAY SALES
t: +44 (0) 20 7880 7632

be proud of
e: tse@redactive.co.uk

RECRUITMENT SALES
t: +44 (0) 20 7880 6235
e: tsejobs@redactive.co.uk

DESIGN
SENIOR DESIGNER
Nicholas Daley
‘HAS THE INSTITUTION EMBARKED ON A Eleana Savvidi shares her experience of facing
PRODUCTION RETRO REDESIGN?’ you might have asked resistance to new, lower-carbon approaches and
PRODUCTION DIRECTOR
Jane Easterman
yourself on seeing this month’s cover. No, but we considers how engineers can make the case for
are paying homage to The Structural Engineer’s these (page 36).
EDITORIAL ADVISORY GROUP
Will Arnold MIStructE
beginnings as it reaches a major anniversary – its We also explore how specialist timber expertise
Premma Makanji MIStructE 100th year of publication! can help overcome the challenges of the material
Allan Mann FIStructE
Chris O’Regan FIStructE The simple cover harks back to a time before in scenarios where it may be tempting to switch to
Angus Palmer MIStructE
Simon Pitchers FIStructE
colour photography and printing became widespread a design in steel (page 38); return to the design of
Eleana Savvidi MIStructE – and much else has, of course, changed the stone arches for Italy’s Padre Pio church (page
Subscription prices dramatically in the interim as 40); learn about the complex
Institutional: £479
Personal (print only): £110
technologies have advanced. decommissioning of a railway
Personal (online only): £110 But, as Allan Mann notes in our viaduct in Cambridgeshire
Personal (Student Member): £45
anniversary feature (page 12), WE PLAN TO (page 28); and discover how a
there are also constants for the
SHARE SOME young engineer’s research into
Single copies: £25 (incl. p&p)

Printed by profession – not least a desire seismic retrofit of reinforced

Warners Midlands plc
The Maltings, Manor Lane Bourne,
to embrace developments in HIGHLIGHTS concrete structures has
Lincolnshire PE10 9PH
United Kingdom
materials and knowledge, and
the ever-present risk of failure
FROM THE contributed to current best
practice (page 16). The author
© The Institution of Structural Engineers.
The Structural Engineer (ISSN 1466-5123) is and need to learn from past MAGAZINE’S of the latter article, Umut
published by IStructE Ltd, a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Institution of Structural
mistakes. PAST Akgüzel, was the inaugural
Engineers. It is available both in print and online. Allan has had a long-standing winner of the Institution’s
Contributions published in The Structural association with The Structural Research into Practice essay
Engineer are published on the understanding
that the author/s is/are solely responsible for the
Engineer (going back over 30 years) and he charts competition in 2019.
statements made, for the opinions expressed its evolution in recent years as we strive to keep the Finally, despite the difficulties that the new Omicron
and/or for the accuracy of the contents.
Publication does not imply that any statement or magazine relevant and support the goal of sharing variant of Covid-19 is bringing with it, I wish you all a
opinion expressed by the author/s reflects the
views of the Institution of Structural Engineers’
knowledge. happy, healthy and prosperous 2022!
Board; Council; committees; members Over the coming months, we also plan to share
or employees. No liability is accepted by such
persons or by the Institution for any loss or some highlights from the magazine’s past, as well as
damage, whether caused through reliance on
any statement, opinion or omission (textual
looking forward to what the future might hold. Key
or otherwise) in The Structural Engineer, or to that, as Allan concludes, are the contributions
otherwise.
of members. Do keep getting in touch if you would
The Institution of Structural Engineers
International HQ
like to propose an article or can offer your time and
47–58 Bastwick Street expertise as a reviewer.
London EC1V 3PS
United Kingdom
t: +44 (0)20 7235 4535
e: mail@istructe.org
As ever, we bring you a varied selection of content
this month. Post-COP26, we continue to consider
The Institution of Structural Engineers
Incorporated by Royal Charter the actions that structural engineers can take to
Charity Registered in England and Wales number
233392 and in Scotland number SC038263
achieve carbon reductions. While efforts advance
to introduce a legislative framework for low-carbon
buildings in the UK, via the Part Z initiative (https://
part-z.uk/), a roundtable report from the Climate
Emergency Task Group discusses the benefits of
setting carbon targets within firms (page 21), and

5
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022

EDITORIAL_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 5 16/12/2021 08:25

 Upfront News
Institution news
Institution
Past President
collects CBE
Institution of Structural Engineers Past
President John Nolan received his
CBE from HRH The Princess Royal
at a ceremony in Windsor Castle in
December. John was made CBE in
the 2020 New Year’s Honours list for
‘services to structural engineering and the
construction industry’.
John, who served as Institution
President in 2012, is a director of Nolan
Associates. Recently, he has contributed
to working groups established to inform
the Hackitt independent review, and has
worked on reviewing competencies within
the construction industry, as part of a
Construction Industry Council-led project
to support standards and professionalism.
Industry news
Institution contributes
to new parliamentary
sustainability report
The UK Parliamentary Office of Science
and Technology has issued a new
POSTbrief report on Reducing the
whole life carbon impact of buildings.
The report explores the emissions
associated with buildings, from design
to end of life, and presents an overview
of the opportunities for reducing their
carbon impact.
A number of IStructE members
contributed to the report, which also
extensively references guidance
published by the Institution in
response to the climate
emergency,
emer noting
that retrofitting
and repurposing
of exist
existing buildings
should be pprioritised where
achieve maximum
possible to achie
carbon savings.
Read the report at https://post.
parliament.uk/research-briefings/
post-pb-0044/.
NEWS_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 6
Industry news
Low Carbon Concrete Group routemap to launch in
early 2022
The Low Carbon Concrete seven strands, with chapter of an industrial consultation
Group (LCCG) – formed
of professionals from the
eight being a summary that
includes a timeline for action.
period, the final version of the
routemap will be published in
concrete and cement The strategies set out in each February by the Institution of
industry, academia, engineers strand of the document are Civil Engineers.
and clients – will shortly signposts for a cooperative Interested parties can
release a decarbonisation interaction between science- view the draft and contribute
routemap for the concrete based technology, available to the consultation until 7
industry. Brought together materials, skills, knowledge January at www.ice.org.uk/
by the Green Construction and approaches to designsign news-and-insight/latest-ice-
Board in its role as the es an
and delivery that creates news/low-carbon-concrete-
sustainability workstream of enhanced combined eff ffect. consultation-opens.
the Construction Leadership There is a focus on what at
Council, the LCCG has action can be taken nowow to
been working together since ncrete
optimise our use of concrete
January 2020 with a bias y, as
and its carbon intensity,
towards action. well as consideration off fu
ffuture
utu
tur
urre
The LCCG routemap sets technology.
out its proposals across usion
Following the conclusion
Industry news concurrently deploy. Significant progress has
already been achieved, but more needs to be
UK steel industry unveils
done and the roadmap identifies a number of
structural steelwork
initiatives and demonstration projects that are
decarbonisation roadmap already under way in Europe, demonstrating that
BCSA has published its 2050 decarbonisation the sector is taking action to address the climate
roadmap setting out the sector’s plans to emergency.
decarbonise to meet national net-zero targets. Technologies are only part of the roadmap,
The roadmap was developed by a team however; it is vitally important that the right
comprising the leading UK structural steel incentives, policy, infrastructure and funding are
suppliers and steelwork contractors, BCSA and put in place so that the technologies outlined
SCI. in the roadmap are commercially deployed to
The roadmap describes six decarbonisation the required timescales. These are required
strategies that all parts of the sector will both nationally and internationally so that
there is a level playing
field for decarbonising
steelmaking.
The roadmap was
formally launched by Lee
Rowley MP and Minister
for Industry (including steel)
on 22 November and is
available to download from
www.steelconstruction.
org and www.
steelconstruction.info.
Industry news
Latest CROSS-AUS newsletter available
CROSS-AUS has issued its latest newsletter covering safety issues in the region. Newsletter 6
contains four reports on:
Ò| Waterproofing exposed concrete slabs
Ò| The myth of quality assurance
Ò| Use of temporary barriers to control access to hazards
Ò| The reliability of technical data for proprietary products
Read the newsletter at www.cross-safety.org/aus/news-and-events/cross-aus-
newsletter-6.
6
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
15/12/2021 11:28
 PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY
INSURANCE SOLUTIONS
Always Happy to Talk
Structural Engineers and Associated Property Professionals
Great Rates for Established Firms and New Start Up Practices
Exclusive In-House Scheme with a Major UK Insurer
Wide Choice of other Insurers available to quote
Run-Off Cover available when you cease trading
Fast Quote Turnaround with Efficient Expert Service
Pro-active Claims Service
Interest Free Instalments Available
Complimentary Legal Review Service Available
Surveying Equipment And Office Insurance
Public Liability and Employers Liability Insurance

When the Insurance Market changes, find your port in a storm.

Anchorman Insurance at your service.
Specialist Professional Indemnity Insurance Brokers focussed on Sole Trader,
Small to Medium Sized Enterprises and New Start Up Practices since 1998.

Call us on 01837 55777

info@anchormaninsurance.co.uk
www.anchormaninsurance.co.uk

Proud members of Purple Partnership:

A leading Independent Insurance Broker Network

Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

TSE.Jan22_007.indd 7 13/12/2021 14:51

 Upfront Obituary
Obituary
Jörg Schlaich, 1934–2021
AMIN AKHTAR
Jörg Schlaich was born in 1934 in the village of
Kernen near Stuttgart, the third child of Elisabeth
(neé Weiss) and Ludwig Shlaich. After his school
years in the village of Stetten and small town of
Waiblingen, he trained in carpentry before studying
architecture and engineering at Stuttgart, Berlin and
Ohio universities, followed by three years working
for civil contractors in Stuttgart. By the 1980s,
Schlaich had become the leading engineer in the
Stuttgart cluster centred around the university.
To understand how this came about, one has to
go back to 1960 or so when Fritz Leonhardt, the
highly respected bridge engineer, was Professor of
Engineering and President of Stuttgart University.
Frei Otto was in Berlin investigating lightweight
structures and designing experimental tents
that were built by his tent-builder friend, Peter
Stromeyer.
Around 1961, Leonhardt – together with Curt
Siegel, Professor of Structural Design at the Faculty
of Architecture – arranged for the appointment
of Otto as Professor of Lightweight Structures at
Stuttgart and founded an institution, known as
the IL (Institut für leichte Flächentragwerke), that
undertook research into those subjects. This was
followed in 1969 by the founding by Leonhardt and
Otto of SFB 64, a ‘special research area’.
SFB 64 brought together several other
departments of the university, including the Institut
für Anwendungen der Geodäsie im Bauwesen
(IAGB) led by Professor Klaus Linkwitz and the
Institute of Statics and Dynamics of Aerospace
Structures (ISD) led by Professor John Argyris,
which was developing applications of digital
computers.
Schlaich joined Leonhardt’s partnership with
Wolfhart Andrä (LAP) in 1963, and in 1964 he
became a lecturer at the university, teaching
structures with a focus on design aesthetics.
Around this time, the Berlin architect, Rolf
Gutbrod, had been appointed to design the West
German pavilion for the 1967 Montreal Expo, with
Leonhardt as engineer and Otto as design adviser.
The design was to become a cluster of large cable-
net tents.
Otto developed the designs using stretch fabric
models. The agreed design was then made using
tensioned wires that became the scaled geometric
definition of the structure. The forces would have
been estimated using hand calculations so that the
components and connections could be suitably
sized. The trial structure was made by the steel and
cable contractor and, after use, was re-erected at
Vaihingen where it became the building to house
the IL.
Shortly after the Expo 67 project, work began
ORBIT_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 8
on the structures for the 1972 Olympic Games that
were to be held in Munich. The selected architect
was Günter Behnisch from Stuttgart and he was
supported by the members of the SFB 64. The
appointed engineers were LAP, with Jörg Schlaich
the Partner in charge of the project. The engineers’
task was to calculate the static forces in the
structures.
Schlaich would have known how the Expo
structure was designed and built, but this was
much larger. There were three major tented
structures on the landscaped site: the main
stadium, the athletic arena for gymnastics, etc.,
and the swimming hall. Otto and his collaborators
at the IL had made stretch fabric models for all of
them and also tensioned wire measuring models
to define the geometry and the forces. The IAGB
measured all the models and processed them
using their software based on their force-density
method to obtain greater accuracy.
The pattern models for the swimming hall and
stadium were accepted for ongoing development.
That for the athletic arena was felt to need further
optimisation. At this time, there was no software
available for analysing a flexible cable-net, but
Schlaich asked Argyris, who was at the forefront of
the development of finite element analysis and was
working on methods to analyse geometrically non-
linear structures.
Argyris was asked to apply this to the roof of the
athletic arena to check the accuracy of the wire
model and to calculate the forces. The analysis was
successful and gave results that could be passed
on to the engineers and the builders of the cable-
net. This work started the use of computer analysis
for cable and fabric structures.
The IL was in a central position in the design
development of the structures: it was building the
measurement and testing model and specified the
prestress forces, too. The engineers also had a
voice in the definition of
the prestress forces and
recommended higher
forces. This led to a
disagreement between
Otto and Schlaich.
Eventually, the higher
values were used, but
many years later Schlaich
told me he thought the
prestress a bit high.
In 1974, Schlaich
became a full professor
at the Institut für
Konstruktion und
Entwurf, a post he
held until 2000. After
the excitement of the
Olympic structures,
Second Hooghly Bridge,
Schlaich stayed on at Calcutta
LAP until 1979 when
8
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
he started his own firm with Rudolf Bergermann.
SBP continues to this day and has a remarkable
catalogue of projects that includes TV and
communications towers, cable-stayed and other
road bridges including the second Hooghly bridge
in Calcutta, and many lightweight footbridges.
SBP also developed systems for so called
spoke-and-wheel cable structures for stadium roofs
built in many parts of the world. It introduced many
variations and improvements to this system and
became the leading engineers for such stadium
structures.
Schlaich was also engineer for several concrete
shell structures. Of particular note was the roof of
a swimming pool at Alster, Hamburg, where the
roof was formed of three hyperbolic parabolas
fitted together on three primary supports. This
structure was investigated using a Perspex model.
He also designed a replica of Candela’s Xochimilco
restaurant shell, made in glass fibre-reinforced
concrete, which was installed in a park in Stuttgart
as a tribute to the Spanish-Mexican engineer.
With one of his doctorate students, Schlaich
designed systems for building very light and
transparent grid shells to cover courtyard spaces
within a building.
Schlaich inspired many students to become
structural engineers, several of whom worked
with his firm, SBP, and went on to start other
engineering businesses that helped to make the
city renowned for design engineering. He was
awarded the IStructE Gold Medal in 1990 and the
IABSE International Award of Merit in Structural
Engineering in 1991.
Jörg Schlaich died on 4 September 2021. He is
survived by his wife, Eve, children, Michael (also a
renowned structural engineer), Frieder, Sibylle and
Anne, and several grandchildren.
Ian Liddell
15/12/2021 16:32
 Steel
construction’s
Roadmap to
net-zero carbon

The UK
constructional
steelwork sector is
fully embracing the
ideals expressed at
COP26 and in the
UK’s climate change
legislation to achieve
decarbonised steel
structures by the
2050 Net-Zero
Carbon target date.
Its plans to achieve this are set out in a new
2050 Decarbonisation Roadmap.
The sector’s transition to net-zero by
2050 will be a complex journey involving a
diverse mix of innovative technologies that
are either proven or at the pilot stage. The
breadth of available technologies and other
measures is a major strength of the roadmap.
,WJLYHVŴH[LELOLW\WRUHVSRQGDQGUHDFWWR
enabling policies as they are developed and
implemented, and as new technologies are
commercialised at different timescales.
The 2050 Roadmap shows how a genuinely
circular and sustainable net-zero carbon
structural steel sector will be in place by 2050,
with substantial progress achieved by 2030,
with steel structures sustainably constructed,
adapted and extended to prolong their
lifetimes, and easily deconstructed for either
re-use or recycling at end of life.
The Roadmap is based on six
decarbonisation strategies, or ‘levers’, that the
sector will develop and deploy concurrently,
1 2 3 4 5 6
illustrated in the diagram to the right. 1990 2021 2050
7KH\LQFOXGHLPSURYLQJGHVLJQHIƓFLHQF\
Design &LUFXODU 'LUHFW 'HFDUERQLVDWLRQ &DUERQFDSWXUH 6WHHOWUDQVSRUW
to achieve structures using less steel, and HIƓFLHQF\ HFRQRP\ VWHHOPDNLQJ
HPLVVLRQ
RIWKH
HOHFWULFLW\
DQGXVHDQG
VWRUDJH&&86
IDEULFDWLRQ
DQGHUHFWLRQ
UHGXFWLRQV grid
reductions in direct steelmaking emissions. 120%

The levers are described in detail, along with -17.5% -15% -28% -6.5% -25% -8%
CO 2 Reduction CO 2 Reduction CO 2 Reduction CO 2 Reduction CO 2 Reduction CO 2 Reduction
estimated carbon reductions achievable
from each by 2050 and likely timescales to 90%

commercialisation.

The roadmap can be downloaded at 60%

steelconstruction.info

30%

0%

TSE.Jan22_009.indd 9 13/12/2021 14:52

 Upfront President’s end-of-term report
DON MCQUILLAN
BSc(Eng), CEng,
FIStructE, FICE, FIAE,
FIEI, FCIHT, FConsE,
MAPM, MAE
2020/21 President of the
Institution of Structural
Engineers
It is difficult to believe that my extended term as
President has almost come to an end. What a
strange two years it has been in so very many
ways! In January 2020, Covid-19 was largely
unheard of in the Western world, and who would
have dreamed of the global disruption and,
sadly, the very many deaths it has caused in the
intervening period? Regrettably, the pandemic
shows no sign of easing up, manifesting as it is
doing in its variant strains.
By way of reminder, my 2020 Inaugural
Address was, not unsurprisingly, entitled 2020
vision: ‘For an understanding of the future, look
to the past’. That vision concluded by focusing
on three main initiatives for the Institution going
forward – three ‘big Cs’:
Ò| the climate emergency
Ò| the issue of competence
Ò| the creation of a truly global Institution.
Let me briefly summarise what the Institution
has achieved in the last two years on these
primary fronts because very significant progress
has been made indeed.
Climate emergency
You will all have seen the tremendous work and
output, in terms of best-practice guidance and
information to members, produced monthly
by the Climate Emergency Task Group since
early 2020, including the Structural Carbon
Tool. We are fortunate to now have Will Arnold
onboard as our ‘lead’ on climate action and
decarbonisation.
Competence
Everyone in the UK is waiting to see how
the Building Safety Bill will pan out, but with
the Building Safety Regulator in place, the
Institution is currently working on a proposal
for a competence-based specialist register for
anyone designing high-risk buildings (HRBs) of
the Grenfell-type in future. Inevitably, the scope
will widen to include other types of structures
and buildings: sports stadia, convention centres
and so on.
In the future, the Chartered Membership
Exam may well become the basic test of
general competence, with entry to a specialist
register becoming an additional requirement
in specific areas of practice. We foresee
Continuing Professional Development becoming
much more prescriptive, as is the case, for
Upfront President report_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 10
Not what anyone
was expecting –
President’s end-of-
term report
éFIGURE 1: Steel exoskeleton of One Centenary Way,
Birmingham
example, currently with the Structural Engineers
Registration scheme in Scotland. We even
foresee a time when we, as structural engineers,
will need to be periodically re-accredited and
possibly re-tested to retain our professional
status, as is the case in other jurisdictions and,
indeed, in other professions.
Creating a truly global Institution
This aim is currently being implemented under
the ‘Structured for Success’ (S4S) programme.
Already, the number of global electoral regions
has been reduced and the boundaries redefined
to ensure that there is better diversity and
representation from our international community.
Reshaping of the Board has largely been
completed in this respect; the next stage, on
which consultation is currently taking place, is
the reorganisation of Council and the current UK
and Ireland Regional Groups.
CROSS
What I have not mentioned is the sterling work
of another ‘big C’, CROSS (which now stands
for Collaborative Reporting for Safer Structures),
whose remit has been expanded to include
reporting on fire safety as well as structural
safety.
10
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
Covid presidency
I will likely go down in history as the ‘Covid
President’ for obvious reasons, including having
caught the virus at the end of 2020. Either that
or I might be remembered as the ‘Caretaker
President’, holding things together until there
was a measure of light at the end of the tunnel.
My presidency began in early 2020 with the
usual flurry of activity, including visits to six
Regional Groups. In addition, Deputy Chief
Executive Darren Byrne and I went to India at
the end of February 2020 to further develop
links with universities and to foster the growth of
student membership numbers. We also visited
consulting practices to promote the transfer
from student to graduate and then to chartered
membership. As with other countries, India has
its own professional institution, so the IStructE
has to make a case for the additional benefits
and value it offers.
However, when the pandemic kicked in and
many of us started to work from home, things
went suddenly very quiet on the Regional Group
front. On a personal level, when lockdown was
imposed and all travel shut down in the UK, I
very quickly reverted to full utilisation with my
company, RPS, and fitted in presidential duties
when required.
Nonetheless, thanks to our CEO, Martin
Powell, the Executive team, and our amazing
staff at HQ, the business of the Institution
continued seamlessly. Everyone adapted very
quickly to the virtual world, with Board meetings,
Council meetings and AGMs all conducted
very successfully online, the latter with a much
greater attendance than would normally be the
case.
Regional Group meetings were slow to get
going, with Yorkshire the first to take up my
offer of a technical webinar in late May 2020,
and then similar online ‘visits’ and presentations
began to gain momentum. I was also able to
deliver a lot more virtual keynote addresses
at conferences than I would normally have
done and ‘attended’ the full quota of headline
committee meetings.
Opening up
The online trend continued through to
September 2021, when my first live post-
lockdown visit was to the Wales Regional
Group in Cardiff, with a buffet meal after, and
an opportunity to network again. It was just
15/12/2021 11:29

amazing and a real tonic to the attendees as
well!
Then the People and Papers Awards
ceremony went ‘live’, combining the 2020 and
2021 winners, followed the next evening by the
2021 Gold Medal Address, which was delivered
at our Bastwick Street HQ, albeit to a restricted
audience, but also livestreamed and watched
by several hundred people. Travel restrictions
were conveniently lifted to allow the very worthy
recipient, Paul Fast, to fly over from Vancouver
for the occasion. Then, in early November, the
Structural Awards took place, again combining
the 2020 and 2021 entrants. Numbers were
likewise restricted, but it was also livestreamed.
So, things finally appear to be getting back
to some sort of a ‘new norm’, albeit amid the
uncertainty introduced by the Omicron variant
of Covid-19.
By the time my presidency ends, I will
have visited six more Regional Groups in
person. I also had the privilege of visiting the
first construction site, in November 2021,
facilitated by the Midland Counties Regional
Group. Figure 1 illustrates One Centenary Way,
Birmingham, which is being built over a very
busy city-centre dual carriageway. It has an
unusual exoskeleton steel frame and an internal,
steel, braced core providing stability.
Modern Uses of Timber in a Changing
Environment Conference
Virtual 22-23 March 2022
Programme highlights:
• Timber: the potential keynote: Simon Smith, Director, Smith & Wallwork
(HUKJOH[^P[O
‹ +H`ZLZZPVUZ!ÄYLZHML[`JVTWSPHUJLKLZPNUK\YHIPSP[`HUKTVYL
‹ +H`ZLZZPVUZ!JHSJ\SH[PVUZJVUULJ[PVUZYVSLZ
YLZWVUZPIPSP[PLZ KVTLZ[PJWYVQLJ[Z
Registration now open:
istructe.org/events/hq/modern-timber-conference
22114_timber_conference_HP.indd 1
Upfront President report_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 11
Personal highlights
I have grasped every possible opportunity
during my term in office to fly the ‘structural
safety’ flag, based on my current work as a
forensic engineer and expert witness, and I
have been highlighting the factors involved in
failures, the recurring trends and themes, and
lessons to be learned. This has been quite an
eye-opener for many.
Perhaps the outstanding highlight, as
mentioned in my previous reports in 2020, was
the Institution being chosen for the first time to
host the annual RedR reception immediately
prior to lockdown. Martin Powell and I were
privileged to welcome HRH The Princess Royal,
the President of RedR, to Bastwick Street. Over
80 guests, including the Deputy Lieutenant
of Greater London, the CEO and Trustees of
RedR, and fellow Patrons were present to hear
Her Royal Highness speaking in a passionate
and highly informed manner about humanitarian
aid work in different parts of the world impacted
by disasters.
A word of thanks
May we extend our sincerest thanks to
everyone at Regional Group committee level
for keeping activities going to support your
local membership through very challenging
Sponsored by:
Case studies:
‹ 3V^YPZLWYVQLJ[Z
• International
H[[LUKLLZ
‹ /`IYPKZ[Y\J[\YLZ
11
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022
President’s end-of-term report Upfront
times, albeit in a virtual way. The Institution
is indebted to you for all the hard work you
have put in behind the scenes, and it is hugely
appreciated! Because of you and our support
staff at HQ, the Institution is in excellent health
and is evolving as necessary to remain relevant
in a world which is changing very rapidly in so
many ways.
I must also highlight the excellent work of
Peter Terrell, our first ever independent Board
Chair, throughout 2020–21, and express my
best thanks on behalf of the Board. Peter has
brought a new dimension to the role and his
appointment has been invaluable and very
successful, reflected in his term being extended
until the end of 2023.
In closing, I would like to congratulate my
worthy successor, Jane Entwistle, and to wish
her a very enjoyable and successful term in
office; one hopefully with a lot less pandemic-
induced restriction.
Despite the unusual nature of my term in
office, I feel incredibly honoured and proud to
have been able to serve the Institution and you,
its members. My wife, Ruth, joins me in wishing
you and your families a very special, peaceful,
and illness-free end of year and start to 2022 in
whatever part of the world you are.
Networking opportunities:
‹ 3P]L8
PU[LYUH[PVUHSZWLHRLYZHUK
‹ ;HRLHZLH[H[]PY[\HS
YV\UK[HISLKPZJ\ZZPVUZ
‹ 4LL[HUKJVUULJ[^P[OV\Y
ZWVUZVYZ
0THNLJYLKP[!:[\KPV9/,
13/12/2021 9:36 am
15/12/2021 11:29
 Feature The Structural Engineer at 100
100 not out: a century of
The Structural Engineer
ALLAN MANN
BSc(Eng), PhD, FREng, FIStructE
Independent consultant and member of The
Structural Engineer Editorial Advisory Group
In 2008, the Institution of Structural
Engineers celebrated its centenary,
marking the occasion with a special issue
of The Structural Engineer1 (Figure 1).
The contents of this Centenary Issue e were
divided into four sections:
Ò| Structural engineering over the pastast
100 years
Ò| From the ground up: building high, h,
enclosing space, spanning voids
Ò| Process and practice: tools of the e
profession
Ò| Facing the challenge of change.
Each section contained 4–7 papers, rs,
each specially commissioned and, in n the
main, describing the enormous changes, nges,
technical developments and achievements ments
made by engineers over the Institution’s on’s
period of existence. Section 1 began n and material choices were proliferating,
with a paper on ‘The Institution and the
Journal’. The ‘journal’ itself, in its current
rent
form, dates from 1923, so this year b brings
i evolution of knowledge and the design
its own centenary – a fitting occasion to
revisit and update its history.
A brief history
The Institution’s first foray into publishing,
from 1909 to 1922, was entitled the
Journal of the Concrete Institute, reflecting
its founding as the Concrete Institute. The
very first paper was on ‘The composition
and uses of plain and reinforced concrete’.
But steel papers were not too far behind
as the Institution broadened its focus
from ‘concrete’ to ‘structural engineering’,
resulting in the adoption of its current
name in 1922 and a new journal in 1923,
soon to be christened The Structural
Engineer (Figure 2).
‘The Institution and the Journal’
traced developments throughout the
decades up to the late 1960s. Some
papers were research orientated, some
recorded significant structures (buildings
and bridges) as then built throughout the
Empire. As time progressed, there were
papers on the design and construction of
Britain’s first nuclear power stations, on
the Royal Festival Hall and Olympic stadia,
and on the demanding structures required
for extraction of North Sea oil. Above all,
it was possible to trace the origin and
Feature TSE at 100_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 12
Millau Viaduct and even speculating on a
3300m suspension bridge over the Strait
of Messina (which was never built).
Tall structures were also beginning to
proliferate, changing our city skylines:
London’s Shard; Kuala Lumpur’s Petronas
Towers; Dubai’s Burj Khalifa and London’s
Canary Wharf all featured.
Designs we prepare are useless if they
cannot be constructed and so Section 3
included a paper describing the century’s
evolution of construction methodology.
Likewise, readers were reminded of the
huge progress made in materials. At the
start of the 20th century, building materials
were still largely traditional, yet steel was
ëFIGURE 1: IStructE in use while reinforced concrete was
Centenary Issue just starting. By mid-century, steel and
with cover by artist reinforced concrete were common place
Stephen Wiltshire
with many of today’s products becoming
available.
Alongside these confident reports there
methodologies we have today in all the were other papers sounding caution.
major construction materials. Section 3 changed the tempo by warning
By the 1980s, the first papers emerged that progress had been accompanied
on computing, leading to a declining by setback and readers were reminded
interest in hand methods of analysis. of some notable disasters, coupled with
Production aspects were not overlooked warnings that all we do is risky.
and there were early papers on the Section 4: ‘Facing the challenge of
automation of routine calculations and change’ continued the theme. The topic
the first papers on computer-aided of sustainability was raised, as were the
design (CAD). Finite element analysis challenges we face of reducing squalor
was introduced around 1976. Although and poverty. There was a paper by Jo da
these techniques were feasible at that Silva on ‘Coping with natural and man-
time, it has been the explosive growth of made disasters’ (Jo was subsequently
cheap computing power over the past 25 awarded the Institution Gold Medal for her
years that has really revolutionised work work in this field).
practices as we recognise them today – The years since 2008 have shown us
and that change continues. all too graphically the terrible disasters
The Centenary Issue presented a nature can impose. Today, we at last seem
confident picture: our state of knowledge acutely aware that not only do we create
was advanced, and the profession’s ability man-made disasters, but our own actions
to conceive, design and construct hugely are exacerbating the natural disasters of
complex projects seemed assured. All regional fire, flood, mud slides, heat, cold
that was exemplified by the triumphs and storm. This matters, since it is our role
of structures such as the Beijing ‘Water to provide infrastructure resilient against
Cube’, the Eden Project domes, the such disaster and to provide protection to
Millennium Dome, various awe-inspiring huge populations.
stadia, and the hugely complex structures The Centenary Issue quoted from the
required for power generation. Institution’s 1983 jubilee, wherein Ted
The paper on bridges showcased huge, Happold warned of the energy crisis
long-span crossings culminating in the and the impact that would have on us
12
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
15/12/2021 15:11
 The Structural Engineer at 100 Feature

all. He warned of the scarcity of raw stepped up in our role of disseminating continues to publish case studies of
materials and the need for engineers to knowledge to the coming generations in a interest irrespective of size.
reduce world poverty, concluding: ‘The way that includes design and construction
problems structural engineers solve cut plus the way we operate as businesses. Buildings and bridges
across all our lives. Structural engineering In 2012, the format was revamped, Over the past 13 years, many iconic
is immensely satisfying because it is an driven by feedback of what our readers buildings around the globe have featured
art grounded in social responsibility’2. Set actually want (Figure 3). The Editorial in the magazine. In London: The Shard
against the recent COP26 conference Board had long aspired to provide more (Figure 4), Heathrow Airport, Olympic
in Glasgow, and our own embracing technical guidance for those in their early structures, and the Elizabeth line stations
of the challenges posed by the climate careers and this became possible via have all generated papers. Internationally:
emergency and the frightful risks it raises direct commissioning of articles. the Burj Khalifa, Centre Pompidou, Las
for billions of people, it seems that Ted’s From 2012, the number of issues Vegas observation wheel, Tianjin Finance
thoughts were prophetic. per year shrank from 24 to a more Center, Shanghai Expo and Singapore
manageable 12 (now 11, with a ‘bumper’ Sports Hub showcase not only what
Recent developments last issue of the year celebrating the incredible structures have been built,
The 2008 paper on The Structural Structural Awards) and the whole but also highlight that The Structural
Engineer included a section, ‘Wither publication was given a fresh look. Content Engineer’s prestige continues to attract
the Journal?’, which summed up: ‘for a was divided into colour-coded sections: in those who wish to share their experiences.
hundred years members have studied, addition to technical guidance and project There have also been spectacular
argued and set out their thoughts case studies, a new focus on ‘Professional bridges new and old, the old being those
within learned papers, and their written guidance’ covers both technical matters in need of repair: Brunel’s Albert Bridge
word is still the only effective way we of topical interest plus much-expanded to the Hammersmith flyover. And while
can pass down the raw material of skill content purely related to business practice. Hong Kong’s Stonecutters Bridge is
from generation to generation’. And we ‘Opinion’ allows for Viewpoints and the truly magnificent in scale, others such
queried: ‘we do have an immense store long-running Verulam section of readers’ as Singapore’s Helix Bridge or Northern
of knowledge so how are we to assimilate letters (now in its 56th year!). Ireland’s Carrick-a-Rede bridge are just as
what exists to help us build better?’ The online archive enables us to interesting. There is always something new
In 2006, technology permitted the summarise key themes covered from 2008 to write about and therefore something for
archives to be viewed online, giving to today and these echo and further much us to learn.
instant access to a searchable repository. of the content of our Centenary Issue.
But it remains a major challenge to distil People
what we have into digestible chunks for Celebration of achievement People lie at the heart of what we do and
the membership to read. Furthermore, We have not ceased to celebrate the recalling the lives of pioneers and the many
we were conscious of a responsibility amazing achievements of structural others who contribute is a function of The
to those new to the profession, writing: engineers worldwide. The Institution’s Structural Engineer, so we have published
‘each generation has to learn afresh the annual Structural Awards, and awards many profiles of practising engineers
lore previous generations took for granted for published papers, are a means of (www.istructe.org/thestructuralengineer/
and currently we do not serve the younger promoting what is best in the profession, article-series/profiles/).
generations well enough’. of urging others to excel in their own work, We have also witnessed the growing
If we look at how The Structural and of inspiring coming generations. presence of women with the Institution
Engineer has evolved from 2008 till today There has never been a shortage and the profession at large. Our centenary
(13 years later), we can see that change of spectacular structures, but the vast was presided over by Sarah Buck (the
has taken place. We have stepped back majority of our members are occupied in Institution’s first woman President) and the
from publishing research (now supported producing the essential designs of day- Centenary Issue was put together by Kathy
by a new journal, Structures) and we have to-day living and The Structural Engineer Stansfield, the female Editor at the time.

íFIGURE 2: First
issue to carry the
masthead The
Structural Engineer

ìFIG
ìFIGURE 3:
2012 relaunch
brought first
broug
Technical
Tech
Guidance Notes
Guid

13
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022

Feature TSE at 100_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 13 15/12/2021 15:12

 Feature The Structural Engineer at 100
In 2009, The Structural Engineer
published an article on the formidable
Marjem Chatterton (the Institution’s first
female Fellow in 1954, following Florence e steel rebar, alternative aggregates and fill,
Taylor as the first female Member in
1926). More recently, a 2019 Viewpoint
explored ‘A century of progress: the
Women’s Engineering Society at 100’,
while a two-part article in 2021 recalled
‘forgotten figures’ – pioneering women in n
the engineering field.
It seems astonishing now that we have ve
to single these women out as pioneers. By
the next anniversary, we would hope that at
women will long have been on an equal
footing to men in the profession.
We also seek to encourage young
engineers and a review of past issues
shows extraordinary talent in the Young
Researchers Conference, in essays from m history lessons so that all might learn.
winners of the annual Kenneth Severn
Award, and in reports from recipients of
the Pai Lin Li Travel Grant.
Education and training
Education and training have been
perennial topics of discussion, frequently
prompted by the evolution of design
practice underlain by IT. Several opinion
pieces and special issues have addressed
the challenge of how to develop structural
understanding. But has anything
changed? In 1923, the author of a paper
on structural engineering education noted
that: ‘a man who is thinking of putting
his son into one of the professions asks
himself, “Which will reward him best for
his labour?”’3 A glance at the past year’s
Verulam pages will show this remains a
hot topic!
The Structural Engineer’s core mission
has always been the sharing and
dissemination of structural knowledge. This
has continued, with a key shift since 2012
being a focus on more direct education
of younger readers via series of technical
guidance articles. Alongside those, there
has been renewed emphasis on topics
that would probably have been omitted
from the curricula and training received
by older members: risk, health and safety,
business practice, sustainability.
Then there are new topics such as the
ever-expanding opportunities presented
by advances in computing, and topics we
perhaps ought to know more about, such
as cost, fire and temporary works. The
methodology has been to produce special
issues and to commission whole series
of shorter articles to gradually build up
capabilities (Box 1).
Special issues
Numerous special issues have been
published (Box 2). Some have been
devoted to projects such as the London
Feature TSE at 100_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 14
BOX 1. THEMATIC SERIES AVAILABLE
ONLINE
The following article series have been published
in The Structural Engineer since 2012 and
are available online at www.istructe.org/
thestructuralengineer/article-series/.
Ò| Technical Guidance Notes
Ò| Business Practice Notes
Ò| Composite & Steel Construction compendium
Ò| Concrete Bridge Design & Construction series
Ò| Concrete Design Guide
Ò| Conservation compendium
Ò| Engineer’s Guide to PI Claims
Ò| Lessons from failure
Ò| Managing Health &
Safety Risks
Ò| Managing risk & contractual liability
Ò| Profiles
Ò| Structural use of bamboo
Ò| Temporary Works Toolkit
Ò| Timber Engineering Notebook
2012 Olympic structures and the Elizabeth
line stations. All the major construction
materials have been covered and there
have been several special issues dealing
with computing, structural modelling and
BIM. Specialisms such as bridges and
fire have been included, plus the more
abstract demands of health and safety,
risk, conservation and sustainability.
Finally, specials have been commissioned d
from regional groups in the UK and
internationally: Australia, New Zealand,
Singapore, South Africa.
Materials
The 2008 Centenary Issue included one
ion
paper charting the evolution of construction
materials and this trend on new materialss
has continued. Since 2008, we have
al
published information on all the traditional
materials, with timber receiving particular
14
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
attention. Additionally, we have profiled
timber and concrete composites, glass,
bamboo, brick, stone, alternatives to
and even ice.
Safety
The Centenary Issue recorded that,
in 1923, one of the very first papers
published was: ‘The failure of the
Knickerbocker Theatre’, with the author
putting the incident down to ‘miserable
design and construction, and a failure to
understand the principles of stability’4.
Alas, since then we have not eradicated
failures either large or small.
ëFIGURE 4:
Over the past 13 years, we have
The Shard
featured in 2014 continued reporting on major failures
and, with renewed vigour, published
Reported failures include the Deepwater
Horizon blowout (2010) (and subsequent
pollution); the Notre-Dame fire (2019);
the Grenfell Tower fire (2017); and
several building collapses such as the FC
Twente stadium roof in the Netherlands
(2012).
In the background, the scale of
infrastructure destruction from natural
disasters has continued, with notable
incidents being the Haitian earthquakes
of 2010 and 2021, the Italian earthquake
of 2016, and flooding and devastation
across the world consequent on storms.
On top of that, the scale of regional
fires throughout the world has been
truly frightening. Air and water pollution
remain high on the public’s concern.
Some of these events might appear
remote to readers, but they are all factors
we have to consider in design.
Moreover, we have run regular
updates from CROSS highlighting
myriad events directly relevant in more
day-to-day work. Of course, the Grenfell
îFIGURE 5:
Guidance on reducing fire and its link to unsafe cladding has led
embodied carbon to the UK government’s introduction of a
has been provided
new Building Safety Bill, and that is going
recently in response
to the climate crisis to affect all designers in the UK.
15/12/2021 15:12
 The Structural Engineer at 100 Feature

BOX 2. RECENT
SPECIAL ISSUES
Climate emergency
Ò| Olympic structures for
Perhaps the biggest change of all is that of
London 2012 – June 2012
the climate emergency. This affects us in
Ò| Building Information
two ways: firstly, there has been a growing
Modelling: Projects
recognition that construction accounts for a
and perspectives –
very significant amount of carbon emissions,
so there has been considerable thought
November 2013 PLEASE CONTINUE
over 2020–21 about how to tackle this –
Ò| Digital design: Tools, TO SUBMIT
both in The Structural Engineer (Figure 5)
techniques, perspectives –
March 2016 ARTICLES,
and through other Institution initiatives
(www.istructe.org/climate-emergency/).
Ò| Structural fire engineering – UNDERTAKE
Secondly, one way or another, we have to
January 2018
Ò| Structural engineering for
REVIEWS OR MAKE
design infrastructure for the conditions it has
to withstand both now and in the coming
the Elizabeth line – July 2018 SUGGESTIONS OF
years, and the climate is already changing to
Ò| 2040 vision – January 2020 WHAT YOU WOULD
a degree that affects design parameters. LIKE TO SEE
As part of the strategy to limit change,
there has been increasing recognition
that we have to reuse older structures, REFERENCES
R
with many articles offering guidance on
this. Conservation is a recognised subset
of the art of structural engineering and a 1) Centenary Issue (2008) The
‘Conservation compendium’ was published Structural Engineer, 86 (14)
in 2015–16. 2) Collins A.R. (ed.) (1983)
Structural Engineering – two
What next? centuries of British achievement,
In 2008, ‘The Institution and the Journal’ Chislehurst, Tarot Print Ltd
concluded by asking, ‘Wither the Journal?’. 3) Clapham H.H. (1923) ‘The
As The Structural Engineer marks its education of a structural engineer’,
own centenary, we should ask the same Journal of the Institution of
Structural Engineers, 1 (11), pp.
question. What is our mission? It remains
301–311
to share information we have learned for
mutual benefit; it is to enhance the training 4) Godfrey E. (1923) ‘The failure of
the Knickerbocker Theatre’, Journal
of younger readers; and it is to assist in the
of the Institution of Structural
life-long learning we all require. Engineers, 1 (2), pp. 34–36
It can also be a bit of fun: letting off
steam via Verulam, celebrating great
sketches in ‘The Drawing Board’, or HAVE
testing our understanding with the ‘And YOUR
finally…’ teasers. In recent years, these SAY
have undoubtedly taxed the skills of many tse@istructe.org
and generated some controversy.
But we cannot do any of this without
the generous contributions of readers:
please continue to submit articles, @IStructE
undertake reviews or make suggestions #TheStructuralEngineer #TheStructuralEngineer
of what you would like to see covered.

Enter a sketch in the next competition – deadline 1 March 2022

The Dr D awin i g Bo
B ardd Sket
Sk etch
etch
ches must be: To take part, su
ubmit you
our
our
is The Structural • hand drawn (no CAD, except for o ‘gu guided fre
gu ree- entries
s to
t : tse@istructe.org
Ennggiine
neer
eer
er’ss quart
’s ua
art
r erlyy hand’) Each pub blliish
s ed
e entryy will
skket
etch
tcch hiin
n
ng
g co
comp
mpet
e ition, • from a real project or ass ssssig
gnnmmen nt receive e a frree sin nglgle e-
gle e boook
ok
judg
d ed
dg e by Ro Ronn Sl
S ade • at a suitable scale fo or puublb ic
icat
cattio
ionn (i( .e
e. no
ot to
tooo from theh Inssttiitu t ttiion
on’ss cur
u rent
FISt
S ru
St r uc
cttE of WS SP
P. intricate/detailed). list
st of tiitles
st es.
P ease also submit a sho
Pl ort descriptio on (15 1550 wordrd
ds)
s
to
o put the sketch into con
context.
nte
extxt. Background sketc
et h by Kev
K in Lyons
y (Lyons O’Neill)

15
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022

Feature TSE at 100_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 15 15/12/2021 15:12

 Feature Research into Practice essay 2019
Assessment and retrofit
of deficient reinforced
concrete structures using
advanced composites
UMUT AKGÜZEL
PhD, MSc, CEng, MIStructE
Principal Structural Engineer, Ramboll,
London, UK
Introduction
Existing reinforced concrete (RC)
structures built before the introduction
of modern seismic codes contribute
significantly to the disastrous
consequences of earthquakes.
The majority of these structures are
substandard and deficient in light of our
current knowledge and design codes.
During his post-graduate studies,
the author was involved in national and
international research projects focusing
on the assessment of seismic vulnerability
of existing buildings and the use of
advanced composite materials (fibre-
reinforced polymers, FRPs) for structural
rehabilitation, appropriate to Turkey and
New Zealand’s earthquake-risk building
stock.
These projects were sponsored by
NATO (Scientific Affairs Division) and
New Zealand’s Foundation for Research
Science & Technology. During this
period, the author collaborated with a
broad spectrum of people from different
disciplines and backgrounds, including
independent researchers, practising
structural designers, manufacturers, and
local government building officials.
Following meticulous analytical and
numerical modelling, as well as verification
methods that included extensive
experimental work, the author successfully
developed simple but accurate
assessment and design procedures for
FRP retrofit solutions. These cost-effective
and low-invasive techniques were used
to mitigate the poor performance of RC
frames with infill masonry panels (which is
a common construction practice in Turkey
and Mediterranean countries) and deficient
RC corner beam–column joints with and
without slabs.
The research findings were
disseminated through a number of
RESEARCH INTO PR_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 16
conferences, in peer-reviewed journal
papers and also industry technical
guidelines. The project outcomes were
ultimately incorporated into the Turkish
Earthquake Code and New Zealand
Seismic Assessment Guidelines and
underpin current best practice for the
international community of civil engineers.
Seismic strengthening of
infilled RC frames with
composite materials
(MSc Research Project –
Bogaziçi University, Istanbul,
Turkey, 2001–05)
Background
Following the two major earthquakes that
struck Turkey in 1999, there was a broad
recognition by Turkey’s governmental, non-
governmental and academic institutions
of the urgent need for an appropriate
seismic risk-mitigation strategy, as well as
systematic retrofitting of key structures,
using a rationalised policy1.
A significant amount of research had
previously been conducted into various
strengthening techniques to enhance the
seismic performance of the predominant
structural system of the region, which is
RC frames with unreinforced masonry infill
16
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
BOX 1. KEY DEFICIENCIES OF NON-
SEISMIC PRE-1970S RC STRUCTURES
Ò| Weak column/strong beam configuration making
floors vulnerable to collapse from failed columns
Ò| Shear capacity insufficient to form plastic hinges for
both columns and beam
Ò| Beam–column joint region with inadequate shear
capacity and confinement
Ò| Beams often framing eccentrically to the columns
Ò| Tie configuration with 90° hooks
Ò| Tie spacing too large to provide adequate
confinement links
Ò| Lap splice length too short to provide force transfer
in high-moment regions
Ò| Plain round-type longitudinal bars with low bond
capacity
Ò| Inadequate attention to lateral deformations
panels (Box 1). Although strengthening
RC frames by introducing RC infills to
selected frame bays in both directions
proved to be an effective seismic
rehabilitation technique, the construction
work involved is tremendously demanding
and the procedure requires evacuation
íFIGURE 1: In-plane
of the building for several months. As a
and out-of-plane
lateral loads acting result, its applicability in the rehabilitation of
on infilled frames existing structures was neither feasible nor
practical at that time.
Under earthquake excitation, infilled
frames are subjected to simultaneous
in-plane and out-of-plane loads. In-plane
storey shear forces are due to horizontal
loadings generated by inertia forces
transferred from floor diaphragms. The
out-of-plane inertial forces may stem from
the mass of the infilled panel or from out-
of-plane floor movement (Figure 1).
The influence of a masonry infill panel
(Box 2) in framed structural systems
varies. In the in-plane direction, the infill
frames, either intentionally or otherwise,
provide a much stiffer frame bay than
an equivalent open frame. This ‘solid’
bay will consequently attract a much
greater magnitude of lateral load and may
intentionally or otherwise contribute to the
lateral stability of the frame.
The interaction forces, which develop
at the contacts between the masonry infill
15/12/2021 16:34

BOX 2. INFILL WALLS
Infill walls should always be
considered as a structural
element and included in the
lateral system, in contrast to
the widely expected practice
of ignoring them in the design
process. Poor construction
quality and lack of good
engineering design often yield
poor earthquake performance,
resulting in serious damage and
loss of stability.
and RC elements, may cause unexpected
behaviour of the structure. At this instant,
redistribution of lateral loads from infill walls
to the main structural system will take
place and may result in severe damage to
individual structural elements (Figure 2a).
Various forms of damage may occur in
the infill panels, such as bed-joint sliding,
diagonal tension or corner compressive
failure (Figure 3a).
On the other hand, masonry infill
walls have a positive effect on the
inter-storey drift values. Under small-
scale seismic displacement demands,
frame inter-storey drifts become smaller,
resulting in less damage to the RC
frame members. However, at increased
lateral deformations, the masonry will
be damaged beyond a certain drift
level, independent of storey shear force
demand2 (Fig. 3b).
Research summary
To overcome these shortcomings, during
his MSc studies the author participated
in an international research programme,
which was carried out as NATO Project
977231 ‘Seismic Assessment and
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings’ and led
by Middle East Technical University3. The
aim was to develop efficient, economical,
and easily applicable strengthening
techniques for existing non-ductile RC
frames in Turkey.
In this context, an alternative
strengthening method consisting of
externally bonded carbon fibre-reinforced
polymer strips (CFRPs) applied to the
brick infilled RC frames was proposed
and experimentally validated. This
pre-earthquake retrofitting approach
was a relatively novel technique in
comparison to the introduction of new
cast-in-place concrete walls. Most of the
previously recorded studies were based
on small-scale prototypes and involved
strengthening of individual RC members
or brick walls. The majority of the work
conducted by others related to brick-wall
strengthening of the out-of-plane
response of walls with externally bonded
FRP (Box 3).
By this new method, it was intended
RESEARCH INTO PR_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 17
a) View of heavily damaged
deficient RC frame
éFIGURE 2: Damage and strengthening of RC frames
éFIGURE 3: Typical example of non-seismic bare frame vs infill frame behaviour under in-plane seismic loading2
to convert the non-loadbearing existing
masonry panels to form a new lateral
load-resisting system by strengthening
and integrating them within the existing
structural system. Compared with
conventional retrofitting techniques
(notably jackets of in situ concrete and
shotcrete), FRPs provide more cost-
effective and easier solutions (Boxes 4
and 5), with less disruption to the building
operation and occupants. Generation
of debris, waste, noise and air pollution
are minimised within the building and its
surroundings, thus reducing the risk of
accidents and health hazards.
In the laboratory, five 1/3 scale, one-
bay, two-storey models were constructed
with common deficiencies observed in
existing RC frames and tested under
reversed cyclic lateral loading3. A number
of models, each reinforced with identical
unidirectional CFRP strips applied in a
cross-overlay formation, were tested with
varying CFRP anchorage lengths.
FRP anchor dowels (Fig. 4b), prepared
by twisting the strips of FRP sheets, folding
into two and screwing into pre-drilled holes
with epoxy resin, were used to reduce the
delamination/debonding of the FRP sheets
from the surface of the wall.
To demonstrate the actual application
in practice, frames and infills were
assembled by professional construction
workers. FRP retrofitting of all specimens
was undertaken by a specialist contracting
service (Fig. 2b).
17
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022
Research into Practice essay 2019 Feature
COURTESY OF OTS ENG. & CONSULTANCY
(WWW.OTSPROJE.COM.TR/EN/)
b) Infill frame strengthening c) FRP strengthened RC frame of
of test specimen office building in Istanbul
The work undertaken during the
author’s MSc studies indicated that the
proposed FRP retrofit scheme yielded a
significant enhancement in the response
of the walls under seismic loading. For
building stability, the masonry infills in the
existing RC frames, formerly regarded as
non-structural elements, can successfully
be transformed into structural walls.
The strengthened specimens yielded
a gradual and prolonged failure, more
energy dissipation and increased apparent
post-peak strength. Following verification
through analytical studies, structural
models were developed to estimate the
behaviour of FRP-strengthened RC frames
with infill walls.
Assessment and design
procedure for FRP-retrofitted
RC corner beam–column
joints
(PhD Research Project –
University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand,
2006–11)
Background
During his PhD, the author was involved in
an extensive research project on deficient
concrete beam–column joints (Fig. 2a) to
develop assessment methodologies and
feasible seismic retrofit solutions based
on the use of FRPs. This research was
part of a multi-year project funded by the
Foundation of Research Science and
Technology (FRST) for ‘Retrofit Solutions
15/12/2021 16:35
 Feature Research into Practice essay 2019

BOX 3. TYPICAL APPLICATIONS OF FRP SYSTEMS íFIGURE 4:

Flexural strengthening
FRP attached to the bottom tension face of a
concrete flexural member with fibres oriented
along the length of the member to increase
flexural strength (Figure 4a). Traditional RC
design principals can be applied. However,
two fundamental differences exist: the FRP
strengthening system behaves in a linear
elastic fashion and it is more susceptible to
detachment.
Shear strengthening
Increasing the flexural strength may result
in shear failures, which are brittle and
undesirable failure modes. Further external FRP
reinforcement by wrapping or partially wrapping
The Shard
the members needs to be applied,featured
accounting
in 2014
the case of corner joints subjected to
for additional shear strength requirements high fluctuation of the axial load, due to
(Fig. 4a and b). the high shear demand accompanied by
reduced joint strength, as the axial load
Axial strengthening decreased in one loading direction (Fig. 6c
A passive strengthening system to improve and Fig. 7b). As a consequence, a hybrid
concrete compressive strength, reduce the failure mechanism occurred, consisting of
required splice length, and increase the shear gradual debonding of the FRP sheet in the
strength. The FRP serves to confine concrete by vicinity of the joint, bond deterioration and
restraining the lateral expansion of the concrete damage to the joint concrete core.
and modify the compressive properties of the After implementing a modified retrofit
existing concrete similar to the action of well- scheme in the next beam–column joint
detailed transverse reinforcement (Fig. 4c). specimen, significant improvements
Note that the FRP confinement is activated only resulting in the development of a
after the cracking of concrete; the mechanism is more appropriate hierarchy of strength
somewhat similar to shear strengthening. (Box 6) were observed (Fig. 7c).
Hence, the sequence of events in the
subassembly was modified, as targeted,
b) Shear in such a way that the brittle joint shear
wall due to damage mechanism was protected and

COURTESY OF OTS ENG. & CONSULTANCY (WWW.OTSPROJE.COM.TR/EN/)

a) Downstand
beams due to
inadequate shear
reinforcement
c) Deficient column damaged due to corrosion of reinforcement and creep under high axial load
for New Zealand Multi-Storey Buildings’4.
Alternative damage and failure modes
may be encountered in older beam–
column joints depending on the type
(e.g. exterior or interior joint) and the
adopted structural details for exterior joints
with no transverse reinforcement. The
anchorage solution adopted is of particular
importance because it affects the
efficiency of the shear transfer mechanism
in the joint region, which strongly depends
on a compression strut mechanism upon
the onset of diagonal cracking in the joint.
For example, the combination of hook-end
anchorage with plain round bars led to a
peculiar brittle mechanism consisting of
the expulsion of a concrete wedge at the
outer side of the column5 (Figure 5).
Scarce information is available in the
literature on the response of deficient
and retrofitted exterior joints under
multi-dimensional earthquake conditions
(varying axial load and biaxial bending)
inadequate
horizontal
reinforcement
and flexural
(Figure 6). Most studies concentrated
on the two-dimensional response, thus
subjecting the specimens to unidirectional
cyclic loads under constant axial load
(Fig. 6b and Figure 7a). In addition,
relatively limited work has been dedicated
to the development of a simple, but
reliable analysis and design procedure for
FRP-strengthened joints.
Research summary
To address these issues, the author
designed and carried out a series of
quasi-static tests on 2/3 scale deficient
beam–column joint subassemblies under
varying multiaxial load demands5 (Figure
8a). As demonstrated by the experimental
evidence, a minimum retrofit scheme
designed under constant load assumptions
can provide satisfactory results in terms of
seismic performance (Fig. 7a).
However, the same scheme was proved
to be an inadequate retrofit solution in
shifted to a more ductile beam hinging
mechanism.
However, in the case of a corner beam–
column joint application under severe
multiaxial loading demands, the same
retrofit solution proved to be insufficient,
exhibiting debonding of FRP layers in the
beam and joint region (Fig. 7d)5.
In the next stage, the author developed
a design procedure and an analytical
model together with a practical retrofit
strategy for improving the performance of
deficient RC beam–column joints using
FRP materials (Fig. 8b). Further tests,
including a shake table assessment of
a non-ductile three-storey 2/5 scale RC
frame model structure and finite element
studies, were also carried out to validate
the proposed assessment and retrofit
solutions6,7.
The test outcomes highlighted the
risk of underestimating or overlooking
multiaxial load demand, leading to a non-
conservative assessment of the sequence
ëFIGURE 4: of events that could occur, and inadequate
Typical strengthening design of the retrofit intervention (Fig. 7b
applications using
FRPs and c). However, if multiaxial demand
is fully taken into account, the proposed
retrofit solutions provide significant
improvements in seismic performance
(Fig. 8b).
Dissemination of knowledge
and impact on construction
industry
The experience gained from these projects
has been successfully demonstrated on
many occasions both in the research
community and the construction industry.
The completed research and findings
have been actively used to refine existing
models and have paved the way for
economically feasible rehabilitation
techniques for structural engineers in
earthquake zones, confronted with a
significant stock of structures in need of
retrofitting or rehabilitation.

18
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org

RESEARCH INTO PR_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 18 15/12/2021 16:35

 Research into Practice essay 2019 Feature

Main mechanisms of
exterior joint shear
resistance with beam
bars bent into or outside
the joint with 90° hooks

ëFIGURE 5:
Effects of varying
axial load on
the behaviour of
exterior beam-
column joints

Laterally loaded frame Joint damage mechanism with hook-ended bars

Previous studies
using constant
axial load

ìFIGURE 6:
Multi-dimensional
earthquake forces
acting on corner
beam–column joints
Bi-directional forces on real structure Author’s studies involved more realistic conditions

Development and standardisation of

simple, cost-effective structural retrofitting BOX 4. RETROFITTING WITH FRPS – WORTH CONSIDERING
solutions, which can fulfil the requirements
Ò| Limit-state design principles to be followed
for public safety with the least disruption to
Ò| Failure mechanisms are associated with material strains and stress levels
occupancy, will enhance public safety and
Ò| Adopt capacity design principles to guarantee ductile flexural instead any of brittle shear failure
improve quality of life, at a cost that both
Ò| Characterise FRP system as a composite comprising individual fibres and fibre resin system
the owners and the national economy can
Ò| Apply strength reduction factors for uncertainties and environmental condition effects
bear. It is an area of engineering research
Ò| The design has to reflect the ability of transferring forces by means of bond interface
that is at the forefront of international
Ò| Design calculations are based on analytical and (semi-)empirical models
earthquake loss-mitigation strategies.
Ò| The properties of the fibres in the direction of strengthening to be used to determine the resultant
The results of these studies have been
forces
published in textbooks2, disseminated
Ò| FRP exhibits a linear elastic stress–strain relationship until failure, which is sudden and brittle
in highly regarded academic journals3,5,6,
Ò| FRP has no resistance against compressive forces due to early detachment from concrete
and included in state-of-the art technical
substrate
guidelines8. The project outcomes were
Ò| Premature debonding prevents exploitation of the full load-carrying capacity of the FRP system
ultimately incorporated into the Turkish
Ò| FRP anchors can be used to supress debonding
Earthquake Code9 (Fig. 3c) and the New
Zealand Seismic Assessment Guidelines,

19
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022

RESEARCH INTO PR_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 19 16/12/2021 10:31

 Feature Research into Practice essay 2019

BOX 5. STRUCTURAL
FIRE ENDURANCE
NOTES ON FRP ëFIGURE 7:
SYSTEMS Test series to
determine efficiency
Ò| The fibres are unlikely to be of retrofit solutions
affected under more
demanding load
Ò| Polymer resins and adhesives situations which
are affected at critical temp were found to be
(~50–80°C – deterioration of adequate under
constant axial load5
FRP properties)
Ò| Specific advice from îFIGURE 8: Testing of beam–column joint subassemblies
manufacturer for a layer of
suitable insulating material
over the fibre material
Ò| Verifications for the
unstrengthened element
must be performed if no
special measures are taken

which are used by structural engineers

nationwide10,11.
The author also utilised his research
project outcomes to further benefit the
construction industry. He was seconded to
the University of Canterbury Quake Centre
(www.quakecentre.co.nz/) to develop
online seismic engineering courses for
structural engineers. UC Quake Centre is Test specimen and quasi-static testing setup with FRP retrofit scheme proposed and verified via
a partnership between the New Zealand instrumentation designed for multiaxial loading tests and analytical studies
government, the University of Canterbury,
and several leading industry groups.
The author also assisted with recovery
efforts in the aftermath of the 2010–11 BOX 6. HIERARCHY OF STRENGTH IN RETROFIT STRATEGY
Christchurch earthquakes12 and received Any adequate retrofit strategy should aim to convert the hierarchy of strength within a deficient
the Fulton-Downer Gold Medal – the existing beam–column joint, ensuring the sequence of failure events are beam hinge è column
President’s Award – in 2011 from the hinge è joint hinge. This hierarchy meets capacity design principles and prevents a soft storey
Institution of Professional Engineers New mechanism forming.
Zealand.

REFERENCES

1) Republic of Turkey Ministry of
National Education (MEB) (2003)
Seismic Risk Mitigation for School
Buildings in Istanbul, Istanbul:
MEB (in Turkish)
2) Ozden S., Akguzel U. and
Ozturan T. (2011) ‘Seismic
strengthening of infilled reinforced
concrete frames with composite
materials’, ACI Structural J., 108
(4), pp. 414–422
3) Ozden Ş., Akguzel U. and
Ozturan T (2003) ‘Seismic retrofit
of R/C frames with CFRP overlays’,
In: Tanvir Wasti S. and Ozcebe G.
(eds.) Seismic Assessment and
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, pp. 357–382
4) Ingham J. (2006) ‘Current
seismic retrofit research in New
Zealand’, The Structural Engineer,
84 (11), pp. 20–21
5) Akguzel U. and Pampanin S.
(2010) ‘Effects of variation of axial
load and bidirectional loading on
seismic performance of GFRP
retrofitted reinforced concrete
exterior beam-column joints’, J.
Compos. Construct., 14 (1), pp.
94–104; https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0268(2010)14:1(94)
6) Quintana Gallo P., Akgüzel U.,
Carr A.J. and Pampanin S. (2021)
‘Seismic response of a non-ductile
RC frame building subjected to
shake-table excitations’, Bull.
Earthquake Eng.; https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10518-021-01228-4
7) Akgüzel U., Quintana Gallo
P., Pampanin S. (2011) ‘Seismic
strengthening of a non-ductile
RC frame structure using
GFRP sheets’, Proc. 9th Pacific
Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand, 14–16 April
8) fib (Federation International
du Beton) (2006) Bulletin 35:
Retrofitting of concrete structures
by externally bonded FRPs,
Lausanne: fib, pp. 179–182
9) Ministry of Public Works
and Settlement, Government
of Republic of Turkey (2007)
Specification for Structures to be
Built in Disaster Areas
10) New Zealand Society
for Earthquake Engineering
(2017) Technical Guidelines for
Engineering Assessment: The
Seismic Assessment of Existing
Buildings [Online] Available at:
www.eq-assess.org.nz/ (Accessed:
December 2021)
11) Akguzel U., Kam W.Y.,
Cameron M. and Govind S. (2014)
‘A case study of displacement-
based seismic assessment of an
existing hospital building in Timaru,
New Zealand’, 2nd European
Conference on Earthquake
Engineering and Seismology,
Istanbul, Turkey, 25–29 August
12) Pampanin S., Kam W.Y.,
Akguzel U., Tasligedik A.S. and
Quintana-Gallo P. (2012) ‘Seismic
performance of reinforced concrete
buildings in the Christchurch
central business district’ (Natural
Hazards Platform Recovery
Project), University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand

20
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org

RESEARCH INTO PR_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 20 15/12/2021 16:35


2.Low carbon
Company-wide carbon targets:
overcoming barriers to progress
Setting company-wide carbon targets for projects is an effective way to bring about behavioural
change within a firm, leading to widespread carbon accounting and reductions across a firm’s
portfolio. This report summarises a roundtable held to discuss barriers and opportunities for
setting targets within firms.
Introduction
A roundtable discussion between industry
leaders, facilitated by the Institution of
Structural Engineers, was held in early
October 2021 to discuss the topic of
project carbon targets across firms. The
meeting was held with the aim of learning
from each other’s experiences, and
searching for common ground around
level of ambition, process and metrics.
The invited firms represented a broad
spectrum of structural engineering –
from eight employees up to 18 000,
and covering project types from bridges
to buildings. The following firms were
represented: Aecom, Arup, Atkins, BDP,
Buro Happold, Eckersley O’Callaghan,
Elliott Wood, Expedition Engineering,
Foster + Partners, Integral Engineering,
Laing O’Rourke, PJCE, Price & Myers,
Ramboll, Robert Bird, Structure
Workshop, Walsh, WSP.
Attendees committed to individual
actions that included working to mandate
a requirement to calculate carbon on
every project, and setting project-specific
carbon targets on every project. Other
commitments are listed at the end of this
article.
This note shares some of the learning
outcomes of the roundtable, with the
aim of encouraging other firms to set
their own targets. While the conversation
focused on the UK market, many of the
lessons and discussions are relevant to
members around the world.
Why set targets?
Participants expressed a range of views
on the need to set targets, although
the most prevalent view was that
targets need to be set in order to drive
behavioural change, as setting targets for
every project would lead to:
Ò| project teams calculating carbon on
every project
Ò| a greater drive towards finding carbon
reductions in designs
Ò| questioning what sorts of projects to
bid for in the first place.
Climate company wide_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 21
Company-wide carbon targets
Others saw targets as an indication
of ambition, knowing that failure to meet
targets was possible, but would still result
in industry progress in the meantime.
And some were clear that if they were
to set targets, they would also need to
meet them, and so would want to create
a route map setting out how they were
going to get there (with some allowance
for ‘faith in the unknown’).
Progress
Nearly half of the firms in attendance had
set carbon targets on all of their
projects (Figure 1). Less than a quarter
had no targets or carbon calculation
requirements in place at all, and the
remainder fell somewhere between
the two extremes. It was noted that
attendees from firms without targets were
pushing discussion on the topic within
leadership of their firms.
Within the firms which had set a target,
the level of ambition of these targets
required change in the way they run their
business, although no one felt that this
îFIGURE 1: Target-
setting progress went as far as a fundamental reset of
among attendees their services offered. There were a range
From the firms in attendance, how many...
22%
44%
22%
11%
21
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022
Climate emergency
of different approaches to the sorts of
targets firms set, including:
Ò| targets across the firm’s portfolio, e.g.
50% reduction in designed emissions
by 2030 (vs 2021 levels)
Ò| project-specific stretching targets,
e.g. aiming for SCORS B rating for all
projects designed today
Ò| project baselines, e.g. no projects will
achieve worse than a SCORS E rating,
from today
Ò| net-zero targets, e.g. all projects to
achieve net zero through accredited
offsetting.
Barriers and solutions
The majority of the workshop was spent
discussing barriers to setting targets, and
sharing ideas for ways in which these
barriers could be overcome
(Table 1). It was noted that some barriers
fall outside the control of individual
firms (e.g. carbon regulation, design
codes, industry databases, supply chain
decarbonisation), but that these do not
excuse inaction within firms.
Regardless of barriers, and the level
of control that we have over them, it
...have set targets for use on every
relevant project?
...are developing a set of targets,
or have optional targets?
...don’t have targets, but require
carbon calculations on every
project?
...don’t have mandated targets or
calculation requirements in place?
15/12/2021 15:08
 Opinion
Climate emergency
Planning application
Company-wide
procedures
carbon targets
TABLE 1: Barriers and potential solutions discussed during workshop
Barriers
Commercial issues
Increased resource required within firms. Both in terms of resource needs in
order to calculate and design for carbon on all projects, and the additional upfront
resource needed to gather historical carbon data in order to set targets scaled
against a baseline.
Note that this was a prevalent issue across all sizes of firms.
Concern about losing competitive advantage and being undercut. If lower-
carbon projects come with a price premium, or perceived premium, this can be
detrimental in a competitive tender process.
Examples of such concerns include increased design fees, or an expected/
perceived increase in construction cost.
Data and methods
Lack of publicly available benchmarking data, leading to inappropriate targets.
Guidance on residential and commercial projects exists cross-industry, but with
little detail. There is a particular lack of data for typologies where the sample size
is small (e.g. stadia).
Many firms are collecting their own data, but this can be patchy, as it isn’t always a In the USA, the EC3 has been growing for some time, and many are reporting their
standard part of the engineer’s scope yet.
Lack of sharing – where data is being collected by firms, it is often not shared with done to help members to add data (and add detail to existing data), and how to
others.
A lack of consistency around methods and assumptions hinders target setting
and carbon calculations, as there is a lack of comparability across projects or
firms.
Range of projects
Most firms have a broad portfolio of work. Where this is particularly varied, data
for any single typology can be scarce and very project-specific.
Most firms do not know how their as-designed emissions vary between sectors,
again creating difficulty in deciding where to focus to have the biggest impact.
Overall industry emissions split between sectors is also not understood,
meaning that the industry is focusing on all sectors together, rather than the
handful of sectors that may have the biggest impact.
kgCO2e/m2 is recommended as the metric for all project types, but may be
inappropriate for some typologies (e.g. stadia, which could be measured in
kgCO2e/seat)
Early involvement
Structural engineers have insufficient control over the achievability of project
targets if they are unable to make recommendations during project briefing and
concept design stages.
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
Climate company wide_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 22
Possible solutions
Consensus was that behavioural change is required, requiring uplift in resource
until it has become normalised.
Some spoke about having made such a transition within a year, with carbon
accounting now normalised on all projects.
One attendee noted after the meeting that the market continues to evolve rapidly,
and that clients are asking for lower-carbon results more quickly and are looking
for engineers who can deliver on this.
Some argued the opposite to this barrier, and they found that upskilling around
carbon was giving them a competitive advantage.
Often lower-carbon solutions are cheaper due to material savings (e.g.
smaller column grids, or more direct load paths), and savings potential can be
demonstrated during a tender process.
Globally, free-to-use carbon databases are growing in popularity.
In the UK, the Built Environment Carbon Database (www.becd.co.uk) is due to
launch in mid-2022, and the Institution encourages its UK members to use the
BECD to share data on their projects.
project data through the SE2050 commitment’s database.
The Climate Emergency Task Group (CETG) will consider what more can be
encourage more sharing between firms.
This barrier should not prevent engineers from tracking carbon and monitoring
against targets. However when doing so, they should be clear about what level of
accuracy/consistency they are working with, and should be able to account for
this when making decisions and communicating with others.
Agreement that better use could be made of BIM to add consistency – modelling
more thoroughly and embedding carbon within the model.
In the UK, an update will be made to the RICS Professional Statement1 in the first
half of 2022, to add more direction to parts of the statement that currently lead to
inconsistency.
Companies which had already set goals, or imposed a requirement to calculate
carbon on every project, had since gained an understanding of the magnitude of
carbon emissions from each sector, average values, ranges, etc.
This also helped identify which sectors within their portfolio was most impactful,
where their efforts could be concentrated going forwards.
Again, the use of free-to-access databases (such as the BECD in the UK) is
needed in order to gather the data required to determine a sectoral breakdown,
and so members are encouraged to share data with these databases.
It is also noted that firms’ own sectoral breakdown can still be determined in-
house, and used to direct the focus within each firm
Again, more data will enable a better understanding of this.
Specific to the UK, a recommendation has been made to the BECD development
team to consider what additional data should be requested for new project entries
in order to enable different metrics to be used in outputs later on.
The CETG will consider what can be done to educate more widely across the
industry on the benefits of early engineer engagement. The goal should be to
show how bringing engineers on board earlier enables greater carbon savings,
along with appropriate target setting.
Referral to existing sources of information may be a quick win (such as guides by
LETI2 and the UKGBC3 in the UK).
22
15/12/2021 15:09
 Company-wide carbon targets Climate emergency

Lack of regulation
Unanimous agreement at the roundtable that the industry needs regulation
requiring embodied carbon assessment and limits.
This would provide a level playing field, tackling some concerns around
competitive disadvantages described in the ‘internal barriers’ section above.
It was noted that there was unanimous support at the roundtable for the Part Z
initiative that is leading the push for UK regulation on embodied carbon, which the
Institution supports. Firms not aware of Part Z are encouraged to visit
www.part-z.uk and ask their own senior leadership to add their formal support.
Feedback on the proposed document itself is also welcome.

Regulation could also be used to identify stretch targets if written in a way that The CETG is happy to speak to members outside the UK who would like to learn
indicates how it will ratchet down over time, encouraging clients to go beyond more about the initiative.
regulation, and adding a competitive advantage to those firms which are able to
design lower-carbon buildings.
Design and design codes
Codes of practice are overly conservative, and do nothing to prevent conscious Safety factors (covered in national annexes) could be updated relatively quickly,
overdesign by engineers. and the CETG will work with the Eurocode committee to target this update.

While there is some flexibility within the Eurocodes (and there will be more in the The CETG will also look at whether best practice guidance on the topic can be
next generation), there is no ‘best practice’ guidance on load reduction that developed to enable more immediate steps to be taken on projects.
engineers can follow and rely on during or following design.

Designing for serviceability leads to the addition of material not required for Consensus that if serviceability is dictating the sizing of elements, the structural
safety. configuration is suboptimal.

Engineers should focus on strength-based design, and strongly advocate for

structural configurations that enable this (refer to Design for zero4).
Over-design still happens consistently across the industry – the MEICON survey5 Avoiding this 25% through precise design gets us halfway towards the 2030 50%
from 2018 was quoted as showing that, on average, by their own admission, reduction target that many firms are working towards.
engineers add a 25% ‘sleep at night’ factor to their designs.

IT WAS NOTED THAT SOME BARRIERS FALL OUTSIDE THE CONTROL

OF INDIVIDUAL FIRMS, BUT THAT THESE DO NOT EXCUSE INACTION
WITHIN FIRMS
was highlighted that, as professional
engineers, we have a responsibility
to do what we can to drive down the
emissions of our work – and that there
are reputational risks to firms not doing
this. Exemplar firms should be leading the
way to drive the change needed across
the industry.
Finally, it was noted that a holistic
approach is needed to reduce total
whole-life carbon on projects, as well as
feeding into wider sustainability objectives
such as biodiversity, resilience, and
raising communities out of poverty. We
shouldn’t act in isolation as structural
designers, but strive for total sustainability
through collaboration, and set targets in
the context of other disciplines to make
them meaningful.
Next steps
The workshop concluded with the
individuals present making commitments
that included:
Ò| mandating the need to calculate
carbon on every project
Ò| setting project-specific targets unique
to each project, at the start of the
firm’s involvement in the design
Ò| setting informal targets within local
teams to push progress, while waiting
for the firm’s overall corporate target
Ò| publicly supporting industry targets
such as those set out by WGBSD,
World GBC, etc.
Ò| creating a ‘50% carbon reduction’
roadmap, utilising quick wins,
deeper change, and faith in the
unknown
Ò| driving better conversations
between client, consultant and
contractor on the topic of carbon
Ò| advocating for the regulation of
embodied carbon to government.
Summary
Many of those present have already
set company-wide carbon targets,
and it is inevitable that many more
will join them in 2022. While there are
many perceived barriers to making
such commitments, firms can make
significant steps today that will lead
to the behavioural change required to
reduce the carbon associated with all
of our designs.
We thank the attendees for giving
their time to attend the roundtable,
and for committing to continue to
push for change within their firms and
across the industry.
#TheStructuralEngineer
This report has been prepared by the
IStructE Climate Emergency Task
Group (CETG). To contact the CETG
about any aspect of this report, email
climateemergency@istructe.org.
#TheStructuralEngineer
REFERENCES
1) RICS (2017) Professional statement:
Whole life carbon assessment for the
built environment [Online] Available
at: www.rics.org/globalassets/
rics-website/media/news/whole-life-
carbon-assessment-for-the--built-
HAVE environment-november-2017.pdf
YOUR (Accessed: November 2021)
SAY 2) LETI (2021) Client Guide for Net Zero
Carbon Buildings [Online] Available at:
www.leti.london/clientguide (Accessed:
November 2021)
3) UK Green Building Council (2017)
Embodied Carbon: Developing a
Client Brief [Online] Available at: www.
tse@istructe.org ukgbc.org/ukgbc-work/embodied-
carbon-practical-guidance/ (Accessed:
November 2021)
4) Orr J.J., Cooke M., Ibell T.J., Smith
C. and Watson N. (2021) Design for
@IStructE zero, London: IStructE Ltd
5) MEICON (2018) Minimising Energy
in Construction: Survey of Structural
Engineering Practice. Report [Online]
Available at: www.meicon.net/
survey2018 (Accessed: November
2021)

23
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022

Climate company wide_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 23 15/12/2021 15:09

 DELTABEAM® enables open spaces
and slim floors with timber slabs

DELTABEAM® Composite Beam allows combining a renewable

and ecological material, wood, with two of the strongest
materials, steel and concrete. DELTABEAM® is an excellent
solution for creating a slim floor structure with wooden slabs.

BENEFITS OF USING
DELTABEAM® WITH WOODEN SLABS
DELTABEAM® allows architectural freedom
Open spaces with minimum columns
A smooth ceiling allows straight and easy HVAC installations
Flexible layout and floor plan over the entire life cycle of the building
Integrated fireproofing
Fast and safe erection process
www.peikko.co.uk
w w i o.c ..uk

TSE.Jan22_024.indd 24 13/12/2021 15:04


Code of Conduct – an update
for members
Kristy MacDonald provides a summary of the key revisions to the Institution’s new Code of Conduct.
The Institution’s Code of Conduct sets a
benchmark for members’ professional and
ethical behaviour, providing an assurance to all
that our members carry out their professional
activities in accordance with the Institution’s
values and principles.
The Professional Conduct Committee has
recently undertaken an in-depth review of the
Code of Conduct and Guidance Notes and
launches the new Code (www.istructe.org/
about-us/istructe-code-of-conduct/) on 1
January 2022.
Our members set and maintain the high
reputation that the structural engineering
profession holds in society by providing
their services with professional excellence,
integrity, fairness, care and courtesy; by
communicating effectively to various audiences;
and by exercising appropriate judgement in the
performance of their role.
Integrity, fairness and competence sit at the
heart of the Institution’s values and principles
and form the foundation of the Code of
Conduct’s Articles, Principle Statements and
Guidance Notes.
Members of the public and other
professionals rely on the advice and service
provided by members of this Institution. Honesty
is essential (even if the advice is contrary to
the client’s expectations) to provide a safe and
effective service for clients and their agents.
Operating with integrity and fairness engenders
respect from clients and other professionals and
provides a platform for open communication
and effective professional relationships.
The Code of Conduct now includes explicit
THE ARTICLES OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT
Members shall:
1) act with integrity and fairness and in accordance with the principles of ethical
behaviour;
2) have regard to the public interest as well as the interests of all those affected by
their professional activaities;
3) uphold the reputation of the profession;
4) maintain and broaden their competence and, where appropriate, assist others to
do so;
5) undertake only those tasks and accept only those appointments for which they
are competent;
6) exercise appropriate skill and judgement;
7) not maliciously or recklessly injure or attempt to injure the reputation of another
person;
8) avoid conflicts of interest.
CODE OF CONDUCT_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 25
Code of Conduct
obligations towards safety, sustainability,
climate change, and diversity and inclusion,
demonstrating that members of the Institution
undertake their professional duties with the
upmost consideration for their client’s rights,
and cognisant of the short-term and long-term
impacts of their actions, taking measures to
protect their client’s interests while considering,
and respecting, life, law, the environment and
public good.
Members are employed for their
demonstrable competence, for their high level of
technical knowledge and skills, used to design
and provide advice for safe and serviceable
structures. The Institution’s requirements for
Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
ensure that members’ skills and knowledge
are current and relevant to the specific areas
in which they practice, and to the services and
advice that they provide.
Members are, justifiably, held in high
professional regard. Adherence to the values
and principles, as defined by the Code of
Conduct, sets members apart from those
structural engineers who are not members
of the Institution, providing an excellent
endorsement of members’ ethical and
professional conduct.
For further information, contact
conduct@istructe.org.
Dr Kristy MacDonald
Kristy MacDonald is Board Secretary and Head
of Professional Conduct at the Institution of
Structural Engineers.
25
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022
Professional guidance
THE CODE OF
CONDUCT SETS A
BENCHMARK FOR
MEMBERS’
BEHAVIOUR
GUIDANCE NOTE 7:
SUSTAINABILITY AND
CLIMATE CHANGE
Members should be aware of the
impact their professional duties
have on the environment and take
proactive measures to operate
in a sustainable manner. In doing
so, members should consider
the effects of their design and
the impact of that design on the
environment by considering the
whole lifecycle of the building
through design, construction, use,
reuse and demolition such that it
reduces unnecessary consumption
of resources and minimises waste.
GUIDANCE NOTE 9:
EQUALITY, DIVERSITY &
INCLUSION (EDI)
Members should be aware of and
have a commitment to equality,
diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the
performance of their professional
duties. In doing so, members will
engender a positive and supportive
culture, free of bullying, harassment,
victimisation, and unlawful
discrimination and where respect for
all colleagues and clients is upheld.
FURTHER READING
The Institution’s Business Practice Notes
provide additional and complementary
guidance to the obligations set down by
the Code of Conduct. Find the series at
www.istructe.org/thestructuralengineer/
article-series/business-practice-notes/.
15/12/2021 11:30
 Professional guidance Professional registration update
Qualifying standards review:
what do I need to know?
The IStructE Membership team reports on changes to the assessment process
leading to professional registration which will come into force in 2023.
The Institution has recently undertaken
a review of its assessment criteria for
the examinations and interview leading
to professional registration (Chartered or
Associate-Membership), and changes
will be introduced during 2023. This
article sets out the rationale for the
review and the changes planned, and
provides some initial pointers for anyone
looking to undertake their Professional
Review in the coming years. It will be
the first in a series of communications
about these changes to support
candidates through the assessment
process.
Graduate members targeting an
application date of 2023 or beyond
should start planning and collating
their Initial Professional Development
(IPD) in accordance with the new IPD
regulations. You can find resources
such as the IPD regulations guidance on
the website (www.istructe.org/training-
and-development/ipd/ipd-regulations).
Throughout 2022 we will be releasing
bite-sized guidance and other useful
information to help you structure your
IPD.
Review of assessment
criteria
Two task groups were set up to review
the assessment criteria for the exams
and interview. They were chaired by
senior members of the Institution and
brought together a range of expertise
from across the membership. As
the structural engineering industry is
continually evolving, the task groups
considered:
Ò| the Future of Our Profession report
(www.istructe.org/future-profession/),
which resulted from focus groups
held at the Institution’s Council and
Board meetings in 2019
Ò| structural safety following publication
of the Hackitt Review and the
Building Safety Bill
Ò| the climate emergency and the skills
that engineers of the future will need
to be able to tackle the crisis
Ò| inclusive design
Ò| the latest version of the UK Standard
for Professional Engineering
Competence (UK-SPEC v4),
published by the Engineering Council
in late 2020, against which all
Prof Guidance Standards_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 26
Professional Engineering Institutions
assess CEng, IEng and EngTech
registrations
Ò| other issues such as reflecting the
language used in the UN Sustainable
Development Goals.
The review included consultation
with key stakeholder groups: PRI
Co-ordinators, the Application and
Professional Review Panel, the Exams
Panel, the Membership Committee
and the Young Members’ Panel. The
changes were approved by the Board in
July 2021.
What are the changes and
how do they affect me?
The full IPD guidance document is
available on the website, and sets out
the new IPD objectives. The website
also gives details of the changes made
to the format of the seven-hour exam.
But, before we talk about the
changes that have been made, it’s
worth noting that the fundamental
principles of the exam and interview
remain the same. We are largely testing
the same competences, with some
THE COMPLETE REVIEW OF
THE IPD REGULATIONS
WILL HELP ENSURE THAT
THE SKILLS OF FUTURE
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
FULLY REFLECT THE
CONCERNS AND
PRIORITIES OF THE
INSTITUTION AND WIDER
INDUSTRY, WHILE THE
OVERHAUL OF THE
FORMAT SHOULD MAKE IT
EASIER FOR CANDIDATES
AND THEIR EMPLOYERS TO
FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT
IS REQUIRED TO PASS THE
REVIEW
David Rafferty, Chair of the Application
and Professional Review Panel
26
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
additions, and some changes to format
to make them more user-friendly.
Applicants will still need to pass both
the exam and the interview before they
can be elected to either Chartered or
Associate-Membership, and will still have
the choice of which element to take first.
Changes to exams
Exam candidates will still be asked to
provide two distinct and viable solutions
to the design brief, but some changes
will be introduced to demonstrate what
is expected of the modern structural
engineer.
The exam will have a greater
emphasis on sustainability or economy
of design, with the candidate needing to
show an understanding of the balance
between safety and economy, and
the ability to carry out basic carbon
calculations for the materials chosen.
Candidates will be expected to show
an understanding of safety and risk
mitigation in the method statement
element of the exam.
Changes to IPD Core
Objectives
The Core Objectives can be viewed
in full on the website along with
other Professional Review guidance
documents. The current 13 core
objectives have been rationalised to a
new list of 10 that will be introduced in
2023.
Each of the new objectives follows
a unified format, with a clearly set-out
list of skills and activities which must be
demonstrated to satisfy the objective,
and a list of additional skills that may
be demonstrated but are not yet
compulsory. It is anticipated that items in
the ‘may’ list could be promoted to the
‘must’ list as part of ongoing reviews in
the coming years.
The assessment levels required for
each of the core objectives have also
been rationalised, and the ‘appreciation’
assessment level has been removed.
Applicants will be asked to demonstrate
either ability (B), knowledge (K) or
experience (E) depending on the
objective.
Find out more at www.istructe.org/
training-and-development/ipd/ipd-
regulations.
15/12/2021 11:31
 350
jobs
posted on average
every month

thestructuralengineer.org/jobs
The Structural Engineer Jobs is the official jobs board for
The Institution of Structural Engineers.
The perfect place to find the latest structural engineering vacancies.

Professional Review
Interview on-demand
preparation course
New practical online course to help you
maximise your interview preparation, build
your portfolio and increase your chances of
Z\JJLZZPUHUHJJLZZPISLHUKÅL_PISL^H`
Price: £295 + VAT

–––
With this course, you will learn to:
‹ Develop your portfolio
‹ Understand how to prepare for the interview
‹ Learn valuable interview techniques and advice
‹ .YV^`V\YJVUÄKLUJLMVYPU[LY]PL^
‹ Identify any gaps in your preparation
Buy now for
12 months access
www.istructe.info/PRI-course

TSE.Jan22_027.indd 27 15/12/2021 12:26

 Project focus Huntingdon Railway Viaduct demolition

Decommissioning of the A14

Huntingdon Railway Viaduct,
Cambridgeshire
SYNOPSIS

This paper discusses the demolition of the network in the area.

central suspended span of the Huntingdon
Railway Viaduct, which crosses the East
Coast Main Line on the west side of the
Cambridgeshire town. The structure
became redundant in December 2019
when a new offline section of the A14 was
opened to the south of the town as part of
a National Highways improvement scheme.
The ageing viaduct had become a
challenging and expensive asset to
maintain, but demolition presented many
difficulties, including the need to limit
disruption to the railway. The eventual
removal of the entire viaduct will bring a
significant environmental improvement
within Huntingdon, and presents an
opportunity to restructure the local road
The logistical and engineering challenges
presented by the removal of the central
span, where traditional demolition methods
were unsuitable, were substantial. These
included making sure that a series of
known and potential structural defects,
such as a defective post-tensioning
system and weak half-joints, did not cause
disruption or pose a safety risk to the local
community or critical transport routes that
the viaduct crosses.
Rigorous planning, assessment, design
and (de)construction allowed these risks
to be effectively mitigated. Demolition of
the central suspended span commenced
in December 2019 and was completed in
August 2020.

COLIN GEORGE
BSc, CEng, MICE
Deputy Head of Structures, National
Highways

MARK HATCHER
BEng, CEng, MICE, PgC
Technical Director, AECOM

CHRIS LAW
MA, MEng, CEng, MIStructE
Engineering Manager, formerly Balfour Beatty
(on behalf of A14 Integrated Delivery Team)*

IONUŢ PĂUNESCU
MEng, CEng, MICE
Principal Engineer, AECOM

* 2016–20

28
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org

Project Focus_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 28 15/12/2021 11:32


A14 Integrated Delivery Team and partner organisations
A14 Integrated Delivery Team
Client and Technical Approval Authority:
Contractor’s Joint Venture:
Designer’s Joint Venture:
Partner organisations
Technical Approval Authority:
Technical Approval Authority:
Technical Approval Authority:
Mobile protection deck (supply and design):
Lifting gantry (supply, design and
operation):
Viaduct assessment designers/checkers:
Wire sawing operations:
Background
The A14 is a vital transport corridor within the
UK, connecting the Midlands to the country’s
busiest container port at Felixstowe. The road
carries around 85 000 vehicles per day, 26%
of which is HGV traffic (against the national
average of 10%)1,2.
Historically, the A14 between Cambridge and
Huntingdon has frequently been congested,
with traffic disrupted by breakdowns, accidents
and roadworks (Figure 1).
National Highways’ solution was to construct
the £1.5bn Cambridge to Huntingdon
improvement scheme, over a length of approx.
25 miles. The scheme will relieve congestion,
enable local businesses to operate more
effectively, and allow a number of major
residential developments to proceed.
It includes a new offline three-lane
dual carriageway, passing to the south of
Huntingdon. This will allow removal of the
Huntingdon Railway Viaduct, which has carried
the A14 over the East Coast Main Line and
the busy Brampton Road, in a three-level
arrangement, since its construction in 1975.
Following removal of the viaduct, an
alternative route will be provided through
Huntingdon, making use of the Brampton Road
bridge to cross the railway line and constructing
a new link road to connect with the A14 to the
west.
Description of structure
The viaduct (Figure 2) is a six-span structure,
with an overall length of 225.8m. It carries two
lanes of traffic in each direction, separated by
a central reserve. Spans 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are
32.3m in length, measured between the centres
of bearings. Span 4 crosses the East Coast
Project Focus_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 29
Huntingdon Railway Viaduct demolition
National Highways
Balfour Beatty, Costain, Skanska
Atkins, Jacobs
Network Rail
Cambridgeshire County Council
Huntingdonshire District Council
Pro Steel Engineering
Abnormal Lifting Equipment (now Mammoet)
AECOM, Hewsons
Kilnbridge
Main Line and Brampton Road (Figure 3), and
consists of two cantilever sections carrying a
suspended span via half-joints, with an overall
length of 64.3m.
The viaduct superstructure features two
distinct forms of construction. Spans 1, 2
and 6, and the suspended section of Span
4, consist of simply supported precast
pre-tensioned concrete box beams, post-
tensioned transversely and topped with an in
situ reinforced concrete deck slab which is
integral with in situ reinforced concrete fascias
and parapet edge beams. Spans 3 and 5,
îFIGURE 1: Traffic and high
volumes of HGVs on previous A14
29
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022
Project focus
and the cantilever sections of Span 4, feature
longitudinally post-tensioned in situ cellular
concrete box construction.
Demolition constraints
Demolition of a complex structure in a
weakened condition (Box 1), without causing
significant disruption to the railway or road
below, presented a challenge. The outer spans
(1, 2 and 6) were located above surface-level
car parks and private access roads, and away
from critical infrastructure, and so could be
demolished traditionally. However, the need
to keep critical public infrastructure open
necessitated a more involved approach for the
inner spans, and particularly for the suspended
section of span 4.
Key constraints applicable to the suspended
span were:
Ò| track possessions on the East Coast
Main Line – these were mostly limited to
overnight Saturday to Sunday morning.
Solutions involving long-term railway closures
were also considered, but it is unlikely they
would have been accepted.
Ò| local authority highway Brampton Road
below the viaduct – a key route into
Huntingdon from the west that could not be
closed for long periods.
Ò| headroom above the local authority road
(Fig. 4) – this was already below the level
required by current standards and there was
a history of vehicle strikes with the structure.
Temporary works below the viaduct (required
for access and to catch minor debris)
could not impinge further on the headroom
provision, and had to be robustly protected
from impact in order to safeguard personnel
working below the soffit of the viaduct.
Ò| load-carrying capacity of the viaduct
– while the viaduct was certified for normal
‘40t’ traffic loading, it was not certified for
15/12/2021 11:33
 Project focus Huntingdon Railway Viaduct demolition
heavier abnormal loads. This limited capacity
resulted in similarly onerous limitations on
construction loading (cranes, temporary
works, lifting gantries, etc.) during demolition
(although as permanent load was relieved
some increase in live load capacity was
realised as a consequence).
Ò| transverse post-tensioning – the condition
of the transverse post-tensioning in the
suspended section of Span 4 was unknown,
particularly how heavily stressed the tendons
were, and whether they were fully or
partially grouted within their ducts (or even
ungrouted). There was therefore a risk that a
considerable amount of strain energy could
be stored that might be released suddenly
during demolition.
Optioneering
The contractor’s engineering team responsible
for the removal method carried out a detailed
optioneering exercise, identifying 26 alternative
methods to remove the viaduct, broadly divided
into two approaches: traditional demolition or
demolition by deconstruction (Box 2).
Traditional demolition options
These options considered a traditional
progressive demolition of the structure, broken
down onto a working platform below. Options
in this group focused on the need to provide
a working platform and protect the assets
beneath (East Coast Main Line and Brampton
Road). Measures considered ranged from long-
term closure and partial (temporary) removal
of the rails and road infrastructure through to
installation of heavy-duty crash decks to allow
the assets to remain open.
Demolition by deconstruction
These options considered some form of
‘piecemeal’ segregation and lifting out of
individual structural elements. While the
protection of the railway and Brampton Road
remained a key constraint, the engineering
optioneering focused on identifying suitable
elements to break the structure down
into and their deferring weights and sizes,
Project Focus_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 30
BOX 1. Asset management
challenges
Keeping the viaduct safe and serviceable,
while open to normal traffic loading, has
been a significant challenge for over 20
years. Monitoring systems providing real-
time information, frequent maintenance
interventions, and restrictions on abnormal
loads have all played a part. Two issues
with this structure, in particular, which
have challenged National Highways and
its supply chain for a number of years,
have been addressed by intensive active
management of the structure as follows:
1) Deterioration of the longitudinal
post-tensioning system: Investigations in
1998 and 1999 identified voids and water
ingress in post-tensioning ducts, as well as
corroded tendons. An acoustic emission
monitoring system was subsequently
installed to ‘listen’ for wire breaks in the
post-tensioning system. Approx. 52 wire
breaks (and a further 10 possible wire
breaks) have been recorded in the following
22 years. A sensitivity analysis concluded
that a much greater number of breaks
could be tolerated without having to restrict
30
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
íFIGURE 2: Huntingdon Railway Viaduct viewed from air
ìFIGURE 3: Maintaining continuous operation of road and
railway was key constraint
normal traffic loading over the viaduct.
2) Weak and deteriorating half-joints
supporting the suspended section of
Span 4: The lower portion of the half-joints
on each of the externally visible fascias,
as well as some of the upper portions
adjacent, exhibited cracks at their re-
entrant corners. Monitoring over a period
of approx. 24 years indicated progressive
opening of the lower half-joint cracks and
ongoing deformation of the half-joints. In
addition, progressive assessments of the
half-joints showed these to be theoretically
substandard.
A system of safeguarding steelwork
(Figure 4) was installed in 2003 and
enhanced in 2014. This was fixed below
the structure to provide an alternative load
path in the event of half-joint failure. While
it successfully addressed concerns with the
half-joints, it also introduced a headroom
restriction on the local authority road below.
A number of mitigation measures, such
as fixed and vehicle-activated signs, local
diversion routes and overheight turnaround
facilities, were necessary to make the
risk of the headroom restriction as low as
reasonably practicable.
íFIGURE 4: Safeguarding
steelwork introduced
headroom restriction on
Brampton Road in 2014
15/12/2021 11:33
 Huntingdon Railway Viaduct demolition Project focus

BOX 2.
Optioneering
The team considered
26 different options
for the removal of the
central span, including
an elegant cable-stayed
rotating truss gantry
(Figure 5). Eventually,
a simpler suspended
span-type lifting gantry
was selected.

ìFIGURE 5: Early concept

sketch of cable-stayed truss
gantry

alternative lifting methods (to reflect these), the to the soffit of the viaduct, and could not
maintenance of stability, and the strength of the realistically be undertaken only during railway
structure to withstand new forces imposed by track possessions and road closures. The
the equipment and operation. solution was to provide a mobile protection
deck (MPD) directly below the soffit supported
Demolition procedure from the safeguarding steelwork. This served as
The broad approach finally adopted was to a working platform for operatives, and to catch
deconstruct the structure, generally by following debris from the saw-cutting operations.
the original construction sequence in reverse. The procedure for removing the individual
However, to simplify the process on site – most beams is summarised as follows:
notably in allowing the majority of the fascias Ò| Brackets were attached to the safeguarding
and edge beams to be removed at the same steelwork to support rail beams along which
time as the outer precast beams – it was the MPD would traverse.
necessary to change some parts of this reverse Ò| The MPD was fabricated remotely, then
sequence. transported onto Span 4 of the viaduct using
This variation, along with the deteriorated self-propelled modular transporters (SPMTs).
condition of the structure, made it essential Ò| Two 300t cranes operating from the viaduct
to conduct a detailed analysis considering all lifted the MPD, slewed it over the eastern
the key stages of the demolition process, to ìFIGURE 6: Central span’s prestressed beams were edge, and then lowered it onto temporary
help ensure that the structure remained stable segregated and lifted out with hydraulic lifting gantry extensions of the rail beams extending
throughout demolition operations.
In essence, the suspended section of Span
íFIGURE 7: Mobile protection deck
4 was removed by lifting the prestressed was lifted into place at Christmas
box beams individually using a lifting gantry with tandem 300t cranes
supported on the viaduct and spanning over
the suspended section. However, extensive
preparatory work (design, assessment,
construction and management) was required to
facilitate this process.
This was primarily because, as with most
prestressed concrete structures, a simple
reverse construction sequence was not possible
due to the irreversible action of cement curing;
both within the grouted post-tensioning tendon
ducts and infill between beams, and within the
in situ deck, fascias and parapet edge beams.
Instead, it was necessary to separate cured
elements mechanically.
The geometry of the in situ fascias and
edge beams was also necessarily complex to
accommodate the plan alignment of the A14
crossing the structure, which features a curve,
and consequently a significant superelevation.
Therefore, before the beams could be lifted,
the deck needed to be separated into individual
beams by longitudinal diamond wire cutting
(Figure 6). This operation required access

31
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022

Project Focus_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 31 15/12/2021 11:33

 Project focus Huntingdon Railway Viaduct demolition
beyond the plan footprint of the viaduct. NB
This operation was carried out on Christmas
Day 2019 during a closure of the East Coast
Main Line and Brampton Road (Figure 7).
Ò| The lifting gantry was fabricated off site,
transported onto the viaduct using SPMTs
and then lowered onto skid track supports
oriented transversely to the span of the
viaduct. The skid tracks allowed the gantry to
traverse the width of the viaduct.
Ò| Stability brackets were fixed to each
prestressed beam before it was separated
from the rest of the deck. This helped to
ensure that the beams were stable when no
longer connected to the rest of the deck.
Ò| Starting from the west side of the deck, saw
cutting was used to separate the beams,
which were then lifted by the gantry strand
jacks and a bespoke lifting cradle before
being transported off the deck on SPMTs. NB
Individual beam weights were up to approx.
200t (the heaviest being the outer beams
due to their composite fascias and edge
beams) and each lift was undertaken during a
weekend overnight track possession. Fig. 6
shows the first edge beam, once segregated,
îFIGURE 10: Extract from 1972 as-built
drawings of six-span structure which played
key role in its structural assessment
Project Focus_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 32
íFIGURE 8: Gantry
in place prior to first
beam lift in April 2020
being lifted out.
Ò| Following removal of the last beam, the lifting
gantry was removed from the 32.0m wide
gap in the deck in a reverse launch using
SPMTs and counterweights.
Ò| Finally, the MPD was removed using a crane
operating from ground level.
Mobile protection deck
The MPD facilitated access to the underside of
the viaduct for operatives, provided protection
from debris to publicly accessible areas below,
and contained arisings from the concrete
sawing operation. It was supported from the
tips of the existing safeguarding steelwork under
the cantilever sections of Span 4 via running rail
beams.
The MPD was 6.5m wide and spanned 28m
between rail beams, which in turn extended
across virtually the full width of the bridge deck.
It was mounted on wheels so that it could be
moved across a width of the viaduct deck
sufficient to provide protection against either
falling debris or slurry beneath any planned
saw-cut position, with up to four precast beams
being safeguarded at any one lateral position of
32
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
the MPD.
The structure of the MPD comprised two
main beams (featuring large-diameter circular
hollow sections, determined to deliver a more
cost-effective whole-life option than the original
trusses) spanning between the rails, and
provided 1500mm of solid edge protection for
operatives working on the MPD.
However, where headroom was limited
above Brampton Road, the soffit of the MPD
necessarily stepped up and reduced the height
of the solid edge protection. A demountable
barrier was therefore incorporated into the MPD
over the affected length.
When the MPD was entirely located below
the intact viaduct soffit, the barrier was lowered,
but when the edge of the MPD was positioned
beyond the edge of the viaduct deck, the
barrier was raised to provide 1500mm of edge
protection.
The non-slip floor comprised plywood
supported on secondary steel beams spanning
between the two main girders, and was of
sealed construction to contain the slurry arising
from sawing operations. It also featured a
drainage system, to remove the slurry to tanks
for safe disposal, and a lighting system.
The MPD wheels were double-flanged to
help keep them on the rails. Also, in the event of
derailment, lateral displacement of the MPD was
physically limited such that the platform could
not fall. The wheels were each driven by an
electric motor, with wheels and motors housed
in wheel blocks of the type used in overhead
travelling crane technology.
Lifting gantry
The lifting gantry structure consisted of two
parallel box girders (1120mm wide by 1550mm
deep) with their centrelines 4.4m apart. The
ëFIGURE 9: Section though bridge deck, beams
and lifting gantry, which spanned 42m onto bridge
cantilevers and had safe lifting capacity of over 200t
16/12/2021 08:58

îFIGURE 11: Steel brackets providing stability to outer beams (also visible in Fig. 6)
a) In section
girders spanned 42m between the cantilever
sections of Span 4 and across the suspended
section of the span (Figures 8 and 9).
Each of the longitudinal girders was
made up of discrete lengths of box section
interconnected with pin connections at the top
and bottom flanges providing flexural capacity in
both sagging and hogging.
The box girders, which were part of an
adaptable system developed by Abnormal Load
Engineering, were connected at each end by
transverse skid beams. These were located in
skid tracks which extended over the full width
of the deck such that the lifting gantry could be
moved transversely over the deck.
Two strand jack carriages, which took the
form of portal frames, spanned transversely
between the two longitudinal girders of the lifting
gantry. Strand jacks were supported from the
transverse cross-heads of these portal frames.
The vertical legs of the strand jack carriages
had a skid beam at their base. The skid beams
were seated within skid tracks mounted on top
of the longitudinal girders. This arrangement
enabled lifting of individual suspended-
span beams, and then allowed them to be
transported to the north cantilever where they
were transferred to SPMT units for removal from
the viaduct.
The strand jack carriages were moved within
the skid tracks by push/pull rams. The lifting
gantry was also moved transversely across the
deck using push/pull rams located within skid
tracks.
Demobilisation of lifting gantry
and MPD
Following removal of the final beam from the
suspended span, first the lifting gantry and then
the MPD were demobilised. A counterweight
was added near the north end of the
cantilevering portion of the lifting gantry along
with a traditional lightweight ‘launching’ nose,
such that the reaction at the southern skid track
could be negated and then the gantry moved
across the gap now created following removal
of the suspended span.
Once the gantry had been moved
Project Focus_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 33
Huntingdon Railway Viaduct demolition
FOR THE PURPOSE
OF THE
ASSESSMENT, THE
STRUCTURE WAS
MODELLED AS A 3D
LINEAR ELASTIC
SPACE GRILLAGE
sufficiently far north, it was possible to remove
the counterweight and then use another
arrangement of SMPTs to transport the gantry
off the structure.
The MPD was then removed from the steel
safeguarding beams in a more conventional
manner using a lifting crane.
Assessment of viaduct
To verify that the viaduct could be expected
to remain in a stable condition throughout
the suspended span removal process, it
was necessary to undertake a quantitative
assessment of the viaduct superstructure for the
loads that would be imposed on the structure at
each stage of demolition. Given the complexity
of the structure and the analysis required, the
assessment was subject to an independent
check by a separate firm of consulting
engineers.
In addition to loads imparted on the viaduct
by the suspended MPD, lifting gantry, SPMTs
and cranes, other construction loads, such
as excavators, planers and telehandlers, were
also considered in the assessment. In some
cases, the loading from these was quantified
and assessed explicitly; while for others, simple
comparison with a broad load pattern similar
to that applicable for a 40t assessment live
load spectrum was adopted, in order to reduce
assessment effort and cost.
For the purpose of the assessment, the
structure was modelled as a 3D linear elastic
space grillage, with member properties based
on the available as-built drawings (see example
33
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022
Project focus
b) On elevation
in Figure 10), the details of which had been
verified as far as reasonably practicable by on-
site inspections.
Two variants of the structural model were
utilised, to provide confidence that the largely
unknown actual condition of the half-joints
in Span 4 could be taken into account. The
first was based on the assumption that the
half-joints were totally ineffective and carried no
load (i.e. all load passing from the suspended
span was taken through the alternative load
path provided by the safeguarding steelwork),
while the second variant assumed that load
was shared between the half-joints and the
safeguarding steelwork in proportion to their
relative stiffnesses. Further subvariants were
considered to represent the suspended span at
various stages of deconstruction.
As well as confirming the theoretical
adequacy of the viaduct during the demolition
process, required output from the analysis
included deformations of the safeguarding
steelwork and cantilever span at various stages
of demolition (e.g. during removal of beams
from the suspended span). This information
was needed as input data (i.e. imposed
support deformations) for the design of the
MPD rail beams and the transverse skid beams
supporting the lifting gantry.
The assessment work resulted in several
changes to the initial demolition proposal, as
well as a number of conditions being imposed
on the demolition operations:
Ò| The webs of the in situ cellular construction
forming the cantilever sections of Span 4
had insufficient theoretical capacity in shear
to accommodate the loads generated by the
initial proposal for the lifting gantry. Changes
to the design of the gantry, including an
increased span, were required to avoid
theoretical overload.
Ò| Road surfacing and verge infill materials had
to be removed from the suspended span
before the gantry could be transported into
place on the viaduct.
Ò| The MPD would have to be located at
the west end of its supporting rail beams
and remain in that position throughout the
15/12/2021 11:33
 Project focus Huntingdon Railway Viaduct demolition
installation of the gantry.
Ò| Crane outrigger loads had to be distributed
both longitudinally and transversely across
the deck to avoid generating local overstress
in the viaduct superstructure.
Ò| Amendments were required to the axle
configuration of the SPMTs used to transport
the removed precast prestressed beams off
the viaduct.
Ò| SPMTs were prohibited from operating within
3.0m of the east edge of the deck.
Ò| Substantial changes were required to the
proposal for demobilisation of the lifting
gantry as the reverse launch initially proposed
generated sagging moments in Span 3
considerably in excess of the theoretical
capacity.
The need to impose these constraints is
indicative of the significant challenge involved in
demonstrating the adequacy of the viaduct at all
stages of the demolition process.
Stability of outer beams
In addition to assessing the viaduct as set out
above, it was necessary to design a series
of stability brackets to prevent instability of
the beams following their separation from
the remainder of the deck, and to keep the
deck nominally in the same position following
the effective removal of the fixed and guided
bearings within the half-joints.
In the case of the inner prestressed beams,
their symmetry meant that the inner stability
brackets each took the form of a small restraint
plate secured either side of the half-joint via
short resin anchors. In the case of the outer
beams, however, the substantial weight and
eccentricity (relative to the bearing position)
of the composite in situ edge beam and
fascia meant that substantial stability brackets
were required. These were approx. 4.5m
Project Focus_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 34
long, comprising a pair of I-beam sections,
connected into a semi-closed box by composite
flange plates (Figure 11; also visible in the
aerial photograph at the start of the article).
These outer stability brackets supported the
composite outer beams via a series of four
Macalloy bars placed in pre-cored holes in the
in situ fascias.
During the deconstruction, a decision was
made to remove as much of the in situ edge
construction as was reasonably practicable
from the final beam. This minimised the risk of
excessive rotation or the actual in situ weight of
the deck preventing the lifting gantry from being
able to lift within the weekend possessions. In
addition, the upper and lower half-joints were
each packed with a pair of jacks and assessed
locally for load imposed via these jacks, to
further reduce the likelihood of an issue with the
final beam lift.
Conclusion
The final suspended beam was lifted out from
the structure on 23 August 2020, and shortly
after this the lifting gantry and MPD were also
successfully removed.
The safe completion of such a key element
of the A14 project was more than a simple
milestone; delivery of these works was a
testament to the ethos of the A14 Integrated
Delivery Team (Figure 12), its partner
organisations and National Highways.
The detailed planning and delivery of the
works by, among others, four separate design
organisations, four independent Technical
Approval Authorities and three major works
contractors represented a truly collaborative
delivery.
Demolition of the structure also has facilitated
research into innovative technologies with the
potential to deliver a step-change in the asset
management of similar structures (Box 3).
34
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
çFIGURE 12: A14 Integrated
Delivery Team, which relied on
support and collaboration of
key partner organisations
BOX 3. Following stages
of demolition and research
work
At the time of drafting this article,
preparatory work was under way
for the demolition of the post-
tensioned cantilever and back
spans that support the suspended
span. In addition, a research project
had been initiated to investigate
the effectiveness of historic non-
destructive testing and monitoring
methods for this viaduct, as well
as potential emerging technology,
by salvaging sections from the
post-tensioned spans for testing
away from Huntingdon. It is hoped
that the research project may be
used to inform future monitoring
methods for other structures with
similar attendant asset management
challenges.
REFERENCES
1) UK Road Traffic Statistics
(2017) A14, Huntingdon,
Cambridgeshire [Online] Available
at: https://roadtrafficstats.uk/traffic-
statistics-cambridgeshire-a14-
huntingdon-99952#.X7EX4zg3aUk
(Accessed: 15 November 2020)
2) Department for Transport (2017)
Statistical data set. Road traffic
statistics (TRA). Annual daily traffic
flow and distribution (TRA03)
[Online] Available at: www.gov.uk/
government/statistical-data-sets/
road-traffic-statistics-tra#annual-
daily-traffic-flow-and-distribution-
tra03 (Accessed: 15 November 2020)
HAVE
YOUR
SAY
tse@istructe.org
@IStructE
#TheStructuralEngineer #TheStructuralEngineer
16/12/2021 08:58

SCI Tedds modules
for specialist steel design
SCI is launching a range of specialist SCI Tedds modules.
These will compliment and extend the capability of the
widely recognised Tekla Tedds software.
In many cases SCI Tedds Modules will supplement an SCI
publication, or Advisory Desk note, by providing a tool that
implements the design process that has been described.
SCI is uniquely placed to produce such tools with over
30 years of experience in providing information and global
expertise to the construction sector.
The SCI is committed to helping the steel construction industry meet
design, manufacture, installation and commercial objectives.
@SCIsteel steel-construction-institute
TSE.Jan22_035.indd 35
www.steel-sci.com
7KHÀUVW0RGXOHSCI P424 – Method for Extending Fire
Test ResultsZLOOEHWKHÀUVWRIWKHPRGXOHVWREHFRPH
available and will implement the procedures described
by the SCI publication “Fire Resistance of Light Steel
Framing”, (P424).
7KHPRGXOHDOORZVORDGHGZDOORUÁRRUÀUHUHVLVWDQFHWHVW
UHVXOWVWREHH[WUDSRODWHGWRZDOOVRUÁRRUVZLWKFHUWDLQ
YDULDWLRQVLQWKHLUVSHFLÀFDWLRQ
This makes the calculation easier and quicker to perform
and has credibility with checking Authorities and warranty
providers due to its SCI provenance.
Scan for more info or contact
+44 (0)1344 636501
Visit our website teddsmodules@steel-sci.com
13/12/2021 14:58
 Opinion Planning
Standingapplication
up for carbon
procedures
reduction
Viewpoint
Carbon-reduction
measures – cutting
through the pushback
Eleana Savvidi laments the resistance that engineers can face when proposing lower-carbon
solutions, but urges members to stand firm against misguided pushback.
The climate emergency movement has been
gaining momentum in the last couple of years.
With Engineers and Architects Declare pushing
us all to reckon with the reality of our impact on
the environment and make changes to our
practices, we have been working hard to make
a dent in our projects’ carbon footprints.
There are trusted and well-researched
changes to construction materials and methods
we specify that can help in this: using timber or
other lightweight methods of construction
where possible, downgrading concrete
strengths where sensible to do so, thinking
about material and energy reduction in every
decision we make, from steel connections to
interrogating design assumptions.
This does not necessarily come with a price
tag; often some of the carbon-friendly materials
will offer other advantages, such as speed of
construction and reduced foundation sizes, that
make them competitive. Some changes actually
save money!
However, there is still significant pushback
– usually when contractors and/or estimators
become involved – to revert to a ‘traditional’
structure (usually meaning a carbon-heavy one).
Many of us have designed a structure with
sensible, cost-effective, and appropriate
carbon-reduction measures, only to have it all
‘value-engineered’ away – even when it wasn’t
a more expensive scheme. What is going on
here?
Common arguments
Some common arguments include novelty
(‘we’ve never done it this way before’), quality
(‘I’ve heard or feel like this would be worse
quality’) or cost (or rather a misperception of
cost).
This can all be debunked factually: many of
these ‘novel’ ways of construction are actually
now well-trodden and have significant
precedent; quality arguments often ignore
standard detailing that has been in use for
decades; cost arguments are often a
misunderstanding of indirect savings from, for
example, a lightweight building giving savings
VIEWPOINT CARBON_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 36
MANY OF US
HAVE DESIGNED
A STRUCTURE
WITH CARBON-
REDUCTION
MEASURES,
ONLY TO HAVE IT
ALL ‘VALUE-
ENGINEERED’ AWAY
on foundations.
In costing we also come up against issues of
rigid and well-established supply chains (again,
the novelty of doing something that’s not
‘business as usual’). There is often also even a
misunderstanding of how to price materials
such as engineered timber. Holistic comparative
pricing (including architectural or M&E elements)
of scheme options is often not undertaken or
not considered, and even here misperceptions
about what will typically lead to the cheapest
building can overrule us.
The arguments are often not factual but
based on a lack of confidence. Ultimately,
costing is a commercial, risk-based exercise as
much as a quantity measurement. Risk
assessment can boil down to the assessor’s
confidence or experience with something, not
necessarily facts and data.
Where does this leave us?
This can feel like an uphill battle for engineers,
made all the more frustrating by the fact that
while we all feel the urgency and the
responsibility we have when faced with climate
change, in practice we do not have ultimate
control of many of these decisions on a project.
It’s very tempting to rely on future legislation
saving the day – we all agree that strong but
sensible legislation is crucial. However, while
legislative changes are under way, they won’t
36
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
come immediately, and we cannot rely on them
in the short term. Making positive changes to
the way we build in the next decade is crucial,
but grassroots change can also accelerate
progress – so any ground we gain in the short
term matters and can bring legislation forward.
We must continue to educate and challenge
collaborators, providing evidence of precedent
for what we’re proposing, providing information
on the quality of a product, pushing quantity
surveyors and cost estimators to consider
indirect savings of time and money. It becomes
harder and harder to argue against something
when evidence stacks up against you; and if
you can mount a financial argument, this can
be especially successful. Industry policy
documents can also be a tool here – the more
something can be presented as endorsed by
professional bodies, the more leverage we will
have with stakeholders.
When any large-scale changes need to
happen in an industry, pushback is inevitable.
However, despite our frustrations, we must not
let that dissuade us and must continue to push
to gain ground wherever we can to accelerate
change in legislation and industry attitudes,
which will lead to long-term progress.
E
Eleana Savvidi
MEng, CEng, MIStructE
M
Eleana is a Senior Engineer at Morph
Structures in London, with a decade of
experience in a varied range of structures
from historic to new-build.
HAVE
YOUR
SAY
tse@istructe.org
@IStructE
#TheStructuralEngineer #TheStructuralEngineer
15/12/2021 11:34
 ©ArcelorMittal photo library
Three-span bridge, total length 56.5m, using HE900A in Arcorox® S460J2W
Sustaining the future of bridges and infrastructure
with Arcorox® weathering sections
When designed with Arcorox® sections together with XCarb™ recycled and renewably
produced, your bridge will meet all cost, design and strength requirements, while achieving
tomorrow’s most stringent embodied carbon and safety targets.
Towards carbon neutral steel
Arcorox® sections can be produced with XCarb™.
If you want to give your Arcorox® project the
lowest carbon impact on the market, you can
combine it with S460 grade for low weight, and
XCarb™ for low embodied carbon.
To produce XCarb™ recycled and renewably
produced steel, ArcelorMittal uses up to 100
percent scrap and electricity from renewable
sources such as solar and wind power.
ArcelorMittal estimates that XCarb™ recycled
and renewably produced steel will have a carbon
footprint as low as 0.3 tonnes of CO2e per tonne
of steel product when using 100% scrap, which is
supported by a published EPD.
XCarb™
TSE.Jan22_037.indd 37
Arcorox® offers the widest range of weathering
steel sections on the market. How your bridge will
reach the other side, the choice is yours, but when it
comes to Arcorox®, the options are almost endless:
the range goes to UB 1100x400x697, and to UC
356x406x509, while moving to S460 grade will allow
you to be even more creative with less weight and less
embodied carbon. In addition, we offer the deepest
beams and greatest inertia available on the market,
hence greater spanning and serviceability capability.
Our Arcorox® sections have the well-known qualities
of weathering steel: no need for a protective coating
now or in the future. You save costs and maintenance
downtime,thus keeping safety risks as low as possible
and with minimum closures.
Available from stock
At ArcelorMittal, we keep an eye on the Arcorox®
smallest details, and in the UK hold a
strategic stock of popular Arcorox® angles
and PFC for economic bridge bracings and
bridge ancillary steelwork.
13/12/2021 15:00
 Opinion Planning
Specialist
application
timber design
procedures
Viewpoint
Making the most of timber
– specialist skills for a
complex material
Oscar Emanuel urges engineers not to be put off by the challenges of timber, and to seek early
specialist input where necessary to make the most of this natural material.
Timber is not steel. It is not even concrete.
Whereas when you buy a steel beam it is entirely
consistent, timber does not immediately have this
homogeneity. Making a larger steel beam, or a
stronger one, is simply a matter of specifying the
correct grade of steel and the correct dimensions.
The only restrictions are transport and lifting
capacity.
Timber is more complex. We value it for the fact
that it is a natural material, but that also means
that we have to work with it in a different way. A
construction industry where most engineers have
been educated in the behaviour of steel and
concrete is not best equipped to do this.
For example, timber has variable physical
properties in a way that steel and concrete do not.
Choice of species, speed of growth, altitude,
forest orientation, forest management techniques
and applied treatments will all affect the base
material in terms of strength, durability, elasticity,
machinability and aesthetic appearance. And
there are limitations – natural limitations – on the
sizes of individual timber pieces that are available.
Understanding these properties becomes more
important as we make greater demands on
timber. Spans become longer, buildings become
higher and more complex. We are moving way
beyond solutions that can rely on tradition or rule
of thumb.
There are some impressive timber structures
around, but little measure of the ones that got
away – the structures where somebody took the
original intention, decided it was too difficult and
changed it to steel.
Understanding risks
Another important area is risk, which is seen as
particularly high if a technology is unfamiliar or
there is believed to be a level of uncertainty in a
project. Much of the cost of construction comes in
the form of risk. Contractors, who typically have
woefully low margins, will bid high if they believe
that there is a high level of risk. By reducing that
risk, experts in timber construction can lower bid
costs and ensure that timber remains a
competitive option.
This involves an understanding of engineering
and of making, which need to sit side by side
Viewpoint Timber_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 38
EFFECTIVE DESIGN AT AN EARLY STAGE
CAN RESULT IN SAVINGS IN BOTH TIMBER
VOLUME AND PROGRAMME TIME,
BRINGING COST SAVINGS
rather than in separate silos. It is important,
for example, to understand what the available
timber can do. Where designers are attempting
new things, the use of prototypes can
move knowledge forward and minimise risk
(Case study).
The London Zoo project demonstrates the way
in which the engineer and timber contractor can
work together, combining their understanding of
the material with the latest computational
techniques.
Developing expertise
The UK has some of the best architects and
engineers in the world, but does not have a great
culture of building in timber. This is in contrast, for
example, to the Vorarlberg region of Austria, and
adjacent parts of Switzerland and Germany.
There, a craft tradition of using the abundant local
timber has evolved into sophisticated engineering
of products.
Creating an organisation in the UK that
combines skills that previously remained separate
can enable us to compete with those
organisations without the tie of a single supplier. It
should be of major importance in extending the
application of timber in innovative construction.
In addition, we need to think of economy of
material. Although timber has great sustainability
credentials, we should still not use more of it than
is needed. Like all resources, it is limited, and there
are costs associated with its processing and
transport. Some of this economy can come from
design, but some can come from making use of
more of the resource that we have – that is, using
more of the tree.
Potential economy of material is often lost
through fear of risk due to inexperience or
unfamiliarity with the fact that timber is a
38
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
non-standard material. Project engineers and
main contractors too often rely on the design
service of a timber manufacturing company to
finish off the design of connections once that
manufacturer has been locked into delivery of a
contract.
This detailed design by manufacturers often
happens alongside value engineering and a
redesign to suit specific timber supply chains. It
occurs at a late stage, usually under programme
constraints, and can weaken the architectural and
engineering intent of projects. It is a ‘design assist’
service that enables products to be sold.
This contrasts with a true design service that
can really add value and that can even enable
projects to go ahead because the risks have been
understood at a time in the process where options
for timber specification are still being considered.
In contrast to the late-stage design modification
outlined above, a collaborative early workflow will
allow architects and engineers to use the expertise
of the timber contractor’s in-house engineering
teams at an early stage, helping to guide and
define the choice of timber species, processes
and products, as well as informing budgets and
aiding decisions about the most appropriate
manufacturing route to use.
There is a place for the 21st century timber
contractor to work alongside and within the
professional design team, to enable the transition
to timber construction and to avoid the disconnect
between practical timber engineering and the
project aims.
There may be a concern that this approach is
just adding another professional to the team, and
another fee that needs to be paid. But effective
design at an early stage can result in savings in
both timber volume and programme time, bringing
cost savings to the project. In addition, this
15/12/2021 15:10
 Specialist timber design Opinion

Case study: Laminated bamboo for London Zoo

approach should protect the design intention and
minimise the possibility of ‘value engineering’ at a When Foster + Partners with engineers at learnt a considerable
later stage. and Expedition Expedition, we amount about the
Engineering developed a experimented with the properties of the material
Specialist input design in laminated modulus of elasticity and that could be valuable in
So, where does a specialist timber consultancy fit bamboo for a new lamella thickness in a future. Our research
in? We do not want to take work away from the primate habitat at London feedback loop. Then we showed that the material
traditional engineer. Just as there should be no Zoo, Xylotech worked prototyped different worked as well as, or
conflict between the work of general structural with them to help realise configurations and tested better than, would have
engineers and the specialist timber contractor’s the design, which would them with the University been expected, opening
engineers, so there should be no conflict between include a grid shell and a of Bath. the way for further use of
the timber consultant and the traditional engineer. 30m-long tunnel. Curving Ultimately, for other this fast-growing and
The global project engineer will retain their bamboo in this way was reasons, the project did renewable material in
overall responsibility and their role as checking new, so, in consultation not go ahead, but we had curved structural forms.
engineer. What the specialist consultant will be
doing is to bring forward in the project the input
that usually comes from the manufacturer’s
engineer – without commitment to a particular
maker or process. In this way, we are confident
that a specialist consultant can add real value to a
project.
As technology continues to improve, it should
be possible to harness it to produce more
intelligent and bespoke designs, and not merely to
fall back on standard solutions that try to make
timber more like other materials, rather than
celebrating its unique properties. By working to
develop the most integrated solutions, through IT
that is as seamless as possible, starting with the
design and ending with CNC cutting, a specialist
consultant should be able to introduce the
certainty that will reassure the contracting team,
and achieve a result that uses material as
éFIGURE 1: Bamboo samples for London Zoo project
effectively as possible.
The answer to all the challenges surrounding
the use of timber lies in knowledge – in enhancing
the education of professionals and in building
bridges between those who design and those
who manufacture, marrying inherent craft
knowledge with the best new techniques. At
Xylotech, we intend to be those bridge builders,
using our expertise to carry through the intentions
of the architect and engineer, while minimising the
risk to the contractor and the client.

Oscar
Os Emanuel
With two decades of international experience in
the structural timber industry, Xylotek’s
Managing Director, Oscar Emanuel, brings a
holistic understanding of the design, delivery
and management of complex projects.
www.xylotek.co.uk/

éFIGURE 2: Testing of bamboo section éFIGURE 3: Prototype of curved bamboo tunnel

HAVE
YOUR
SAY
tse@istructe.org WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT DESIGNING AND BUILDING
WITH TIMBER?
Attend the IStructE’s online Modern uses of timber in a changing environment
conference, 22–23 March 2022. Details at www.istructe.org/events/hq/modern-
@IStructE timber-conference/.
#TheStructuralEngineer #TheStructuralEngineer

39
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022

Viewpoint Timber_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 39 15/12/2021 15:10

 Opinion Planning
Thinkingapplication
stone procedures
Comment & reply
Thinking stone: some aspects
of the structural design evolution
for the Padre Pio church, Italy
GABRIELE DEL MESE
Dr-Ing, CEng, MIStructE, Arch Hon C
Former Director, Arup (retired);
Founder, Arup-Italia Design Studio, Milan
Introduction
The August 2020 issue of The Structural
Engineer featured a paper by Alistair Lenczner
which describes the design and construction
of the stone-arched church for Padre Pio, in
southern Italy1. Design started in 1990, when
the Italian architect Renzo Piano (RPBW)
appointed Arup as structural consultant. The
Arup director Peter Rice, who sadly died in
1992, initiated development of its ‘preliminary’
design stage, which was completed by 1994.
What follows highlights some aspects of the
project’s design and describes the reasons for
some important structural changes made to
the previous scheme.
In 1995, I was asked to lead the project’s
detailed design and deliver it to the Italian
tender stage. At that time, I had already
worked in the Arup London office for 22 years
and was familiar with Arup’s philosophy of
‘integrated multidisciplinary design’ and ‘total
architecture’.
During those years, I had been responsible
for the design and construction of many large
projects in the Middle East and Europe, and
my previous engagement with this gifted
architect dated to the late 1970s, when Rice
‘posted’ me for several months to Piano’s
office in Genoa to be ‘the architect’s resident
engineer’.
When I took on this project, I analysed the
‘preliminary’ output with a small team of young
engineers. Our task was presumed to be a
routine design completion of what had already
been crystalised in Rice’s scheme. This view
soon proved to be too optimistic, mainly
because of the serious seismic hazard posed
by any masonry building in the area, as well as
the absence of a national code for that
material. I arranged several meetings with the
architect to discuss the way forward and the
structural changes that, in my opinion, would
be necessary. Piano agreed to the proposals
outlined below.
The scene was now set for the start of a
wonderful creative vision: the design of an
Opinion Comment Reply_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 40
important loadbearing masonry structure,
unreinforced, located in a highly seismic area,
and without the bondage of the ‘middle third’,
which for centuries had conditioned civil
engineering construction. This vision was
enthusiastically shared with the numerous Arup
colleagues who accompanied me on this
journey.
The ‘new design’ needed a longer delivery
timeframe than had been expected and a
larger team. Thus, at this point, we benefited
with the contribution of Alistair Lenczner,
among others, who had worked on the
1990–94 scheme under Rice. He joined the
group of young engineers whose task was the
form-finding of the new arches.
What followed was a delicate renegotiation
of a complex and challenging contract as, on
the same project, we were subconsultant to
the architect and simultaneously employed by
the main client, or its contractors, for various
specific tasks. Many of these were impractical
to delegate and therefore fell into my lap.
These included the writing of specifications
and the supervision of a ‘tailored’ geotechnical
and seismic site investigation which was
crucial for the definition of a seismic spectrum
appropriate for that site. I also had to write
many of the technical reports in Italian;
organise meetings with local and national
authorities; plan a programme with feasible
targets and delivery dates; chair internal and
40
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
external design meetings; and write the
laboratory test specification which had been
planned for the stone arches’ connections.
On structural solutions
We can never know what this project would
have looked like had Peter Rice been able to
develop it further. For any single design
challenge, there may be many structural
engineering solutions. Of these, some are
insignificant, some may be banal or ordinary,
while a few may prove to be good or even
exceptional.
Rice’s design association with Piano
certainly wasn’t an ordinary partnership at that
point in their working relationship, and their
proposal to use natural stone arches to
support the roof of the church – a choice
strongly supported by the Capuchin monks –
was a great design intuition.
The design went through three distinct
stages, as documented in the published paper,
and briefly set out below.
First design stage (1990–94)
The need to better accommodate the growing
crowd of the late Padre Pio pilgrims led the
Capuchin monks, in 1990, to ask Piano
(RPBW) to be the architect for a large ‘liturgical
meeting hall’. Rice, who was already working
with Piano, was the Arup designer responsible
for the project.
ëFIGURE 1: Part
models from first
design stage (1990–94)
15/12/2021 11:35

éFIGURE 3: Multi-centre fixed-feet arches
THE PROPOSAL TO
USE NATURAL
STONE ARCHES TO
SUPPORT THE ROOF
OF THE CHURCH
WAS A GREAT
DESIGN INTUITION
The project envisaged a hall with a large
spiral plan, whose roof was supported not by
columns, but by parabolic pinned stone
arches, externally reinforced with steel. It also
included a system of steel cables to cope with
global stability, as shown in Figures 6 and 7 of
Lenczner’s paper.
Second design stage (1995–97)
In 1995, the scene was set to progress the
project. The building was requested to have a
life expectancy of around 475 years, despite
being close to an active fault in one of the most
highly seismic areas of the Mediterranean.
Because of this, some additional design issues
needed to be addressed. These are described
below with reference to one of the models of
Opinion Comment Reply_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 41
ëFIGURE 2: Hand
sketches of changes to
scheme (Gabriel Del Mese,
29/10/1996)
GABRIELE DEL MESE
éFIGURE 4: Typical fixed-feet arch – mock-up for load test
the preliminary scheme (Figure 1).
Ò| All arches – i.e. most of the total
deadweight – had been shaped to have
larger cross-sections at the crown, and
slender ones at the base. This increased the
lever arm of the global centre of gravity of
the total structural system (the so called
‘barycentre’ of the system), resulting too in
an increase of undesirable overturning
forces due to severe seismic effects. The
national seismic code had, in fact, changed
since the preliminary design.
Ò| The spiral plan of the hall meant that
pinned-feet arches would become more
vulnerable than normal to out-of-plane
torsional/horizontal/seismic forces;
therefore, the overall stability was deputised
mainly to a large system of steel cables,
interacting with the ‘V-shaped struts’, as
described in the paper. This cable system
became much too visible in the hall’s space
(see Figure 6 of the paper) and, furthermore,
the number of cables was likely to increase
to cope with higher seismic effects
according to the latest seismic code.
Ò| Due to the chosen parabolic profile of the
arches, the ‘V-shaped struts’ springing from
them to support the detached roof became,
in places, too long and abnormally
dominant; in some instances, only a few
could be of use. Furthermore, not being
41
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022
Thinking stone Opinion
‘perpendicular’ to the centreline of the arch
profile, they would discharge undesirable
load components on the arches, which
would cloud the ‘understanding’ as well as
the ‘governing’ of the ‘spatial’ behaviour of
the whole arched system under high
seismic loads.
I discussed these concerns with Piano in
1995, and this led to us focusing on the
following aims:
Ò| The principle of an ‘arched covered space’,
using natural stone as shown in the original
1990–94 scheme, was to be retained, but
the parabolic profile of the arches would be
changed to a ‘more suitable’ curved shape,
to be defined, in order to achieve a better
visual and seismic performance.
Ò| The feet of the newly shaped stone arches
would change from pinned to fixed, and
their cross-sections would be larger at the
base and thinner at the crown, i.e. the
opposite of the 1990–94 scheme.
These apparently simple changes, when
developed, would generate some important
benefits (as explored in the sketches in
Figure 2):
Ò| The lowering of the centre of gravity
(barycentre) of the whole structural mass
would, in turn, reduce the overturning
resulting from the seismic forces, thus
improving the overall seismic stability.
Ò| The V-shaped structural struts supporting
the roof could now be positioned
perpendicularly to the centrelines of each
‘circular’ profile of arch, thus transmitting
to it only perpendicular and easily
‘predictable/governable’ forces.
Ò| All previously visible external arch
reinforcement and steel stability cables
could now be omitted. The slightly
curved roof plate was now working as a
‘structural diaphragm’, with the important
task of redistributing to the stronger
arches all out-of-plane forces generated
by wind or earthquake.
While these decisions, based mainly on
structural intuition and experience, were taken
relatively quickly, their actualisation took much
longer. We all started working with immense
enthusiasm on the new scheme, which now
had the precise aim to pursue a ‘simple/
cleaner’ unreinforced stone-arched structure
for the Padre Pio hall in a highly seismic area.
Thus, the long and difficult task commenced to
define a suitable mathematical shape for each
arch, together with the search for their
enigmatic ‘fourth hinge’.
This was cleverly achieved by our young
team of engineers who worked well with
Alistair Lenczner in the manner described in
the paper (Figures 3 and 4).
15/12/2021 11:35
 Opinion Thinking stone
GABRIELE DEL MESE
éFIGURE 5: Perforated voussoirs for internal reinforcement
Final design stage (1997–2004)
The Arup team completed its work in March
1997, handing it over to local Italian engineers,
who took over the intricate task of gaining local
and national approvals. The Italian consultants
chose to retain the shape of the unreinforced
fixed-feet arches (as defined by Arup in the
second stage) but added internal steel
reinforcement to them, woven through six large
holes in each voussoir (Figure 5). This is how
the arches gained national approval and how
they were finally built.
Final thoughts
Every person involved in this project worked
collaboratively and with great enthusiasm. I
hope that the seed we planted years ago can
foster a renewed interest in future generations
of designers to use masonry – whether
reinforced or not – as a beautiful and
long-lasting building material.
My own interest in the use of unreinforced
stone arches was sparked by the disastrous
earthquake which hit southern Italy – not far
from Padre Pio – with a magnitude of 6.9 on
the Richter scale in November 1980. It caused
thousands of deaths and reduced several
ancient stone-built towns to rubble.
I went to southern Italy to help as a
volunteer, inspecting mainly public buildings,
and was greatly impressed by the fact that,
while many stone churches collapsed, their
main stone arches, all circular, remained stable
(Figure 6). Professor Jacques Heyman’s
research on stone arches helped me to
understand why, and formed the basis of the
design for this project.
HAVE
YOUR
SAY
tse@istructe.org
@IStructE
#TheStructuralEngineer #TheStructuralEngineer
Opinion Comment Reply_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 42
GABRIELE DEL MESE
ìFIGURE 6: Stone arches still standing after 1980 earthquake in southern Italy
I HOPE THAT THE SEED WE
PLANTED YEARS AGO CAN FOSTER
A RENEWED INTEREST IN FUTURE
GENERATIONS TO USE MASONRY
Reply
ALISTAIR LENCZNER
CEng, FIStructE, FICE, FRSA
When I wrote my ‘Speaking stone’ article on the Padre Pio
church (The Structural Engineer, August 2020), this was done
so with the benefit of having had access to Arup’s document
archive for the project. This was significant as I wanted to
ensure that the story of the Padre Pio church design was as
accurate as possible.
The documents in the archive allowed me to gain clarity with
regard to the chronology of the design development of the
church roof structure with its stone arches. The documents
also reminded me when and why the important design
decisions were made between Arup and RPBW, starting from
the project’s inception in 1990. I maintain that my account of
the church’s design development is essentially accurate,
including all the key design decisions for which I was
continuously involved from the outset of the project.
While some of Gabriele Del Mese’s account of how the
project design happened differs somewhat from how I recall it,
what remains clear is that the project that stands today is a
testimony to the combined efforts of a strongly motivated
design team that had the ambition to show that natural stone
still has a place as a modern-day structural material.
REFERENCE
1) Lenczner A. (2020) ‘Speaking stone – a retrospective look at the stone arch design for the Padre
Pio church, Italy’, The Structural Engineer, 98 (8), pp. 30–39
42
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
15/12/2021 11:35

Review
This accessible book on physical security will be useful to both engineers new to the subject and
those more experienced seeking a reference document, say Andrew Morrison and Giles Prosser.
Structural THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL
ENGINEERS (ASCE) has published an update
Design for to its guidance on implementing physical security
Physical within structural building design, which is now over
20 years old. The new Manual of Practice provides
Security an overview of the typical design considerations
encountered in new construction and renovation of
Editors: Peggy Van Eepoel and facilities for physical security. The constant change
Sharon M. Gallant in threat tactics and types has led to the need for
Publisher: ASCE physical security designs that account for these new
Price: $180.00 considerations and anticipate the environment of the
ISBN: 978-0-784-41549-8 future, with flexibility and adaptability being priorities.
Chapters 1 and 2 present physical security
concepts along with the range of typically
encountered threats, the physical loads and effects,
and the associated building vulnerabilities and risks.
The threats covered include blast, forced entry and
ballistic attack.
Chapters 3 to 7 discuss the potential effects of
these threats on a wide range of structural and
non-structural systems and components. They
present methods to analyse and design for these
effects. The concept of resilience is discussed in
these chapters, an important overarching principle of
which physical security is a key element.
The remaining chapters cover the particular
challenges associated with assessing and upgrading
existing structures, along with advice on how to
apply physical security to large bridge structures,
closing with guidance on the important topics
of blast, forced entry, ballistic and crash testing,
presenting key questions to ask if you are developing
a test programme and processes to go through to
ensure the programme provides maximum benefit.
References tto test standards include US and ISO/
standards. The subjects of disproportionate
UK standard
and progres
progress collapse are discussed within. A
useful overv
overview of explosion investigation is also
provided, alt although UK readers will need to seek
alternative g guidance on the nuances of the UK court
procedures compared to those described.
manual is a broad and comprehensive
This manu
overview of the extensive array of considerations
that designe
designers and engineers involved in physical
security shoshould be aware of, and it provides many
examples an and tips to help the reader understand the
applicability to their own projects, including reference
attacks.
to past attac
The extrem
extreme nature of blast loading and other
physical effe ects, such as forced entry and ballistic
attack, meameans that loads are very severe and
the structura
structural demands intense, with non-linear
beh havi
a our an
behaviour and acceptance of damage being
ffundamental.
unndamenta The highly complex topics of loading
a nd respons
and response are discussed in a clear, easy-to-
understand manner with illustrative examples and
diagrams.
43
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022
BOOK REVIEW_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 43
Book review Opinion
The book includes extensive discussion of
analysis and design of components, particularly for
blast, where static, dynamic and empirical methods
are presented, along with limitations of methods
and key considerations.
In addition to technical guidance, there is plenty
of advice to the engineer responsible for physical
security on how to handle these requirements
throughout the project. The importance of early
engagement with the design team and remaining
involved during the construction stage is highlighted
within the manual.
The manual is written from a US perspective,
but this sits comfortably because the majority
of published historical guidance on these topics
has emanated from the USA, building on the
legacy of military research and intense homeland
security considerations, particularly over the last
20 years. However, readers should be aware of
the significant body of physical security guidance
available through the UK Centre for the Protection
of National Infrastructure (CPNI) and the extensive
UK design experience which is accessible through
the Register of Security Engineers and Specialists
(RSES). This highlights the importance of using
suitably qualified engineers for this type of work, a
point underlined by the ASCE manual.
The manual covers a wide range of
considerations well, but physical security is a
constantly evolving subject area and inevitably there
are gaps in the manual. However, the principles
which apply are clearly stated and this would steer
readers in the right direction on any topic likely to
be encountered.
Overall, the style of the book makes it accessible
to engineers new to the subject, while also
providing experienced engineers with a thorough
reference document, together with numerous links
to publications providing more detailed technical
information.
Andrew Morrison
Andrew started his career in building structural
design before choosing to specialise in dynamic
loading, including seismic, blast and impact. He
has made extensive use of US and UK guidance
on handling these challenging design topics.
Giles Prosser
Giles has worked in physical security design
throughout his career. This experience has
covered the range of considerations from threat
and vulnerability risk assessments through to
various types of analysis and detailed design of
structural and non-structural components.
15/12/2021 11:35
 Opinion Letters
Verulam
Readers’ letters, comments and queries
Design
responsibilities
MELVIN HURST
Verulam’s comment on Brian Hughes’
letter (October 2021), on the importance
of ensuring that what is designed is
actually built, struck a chord with me in
relation to a recent small design I
undertook. It was for the steel frame of a
new church assembly hall, and I provided
full calculations and sketches of the main
details – connections, bracing, etc. –
sufficient to obtain Building Regulations
approval and for the contractor to
prepare fabrication drawings.
When I enquired of the architect what
progress there had been, if any (this was
during the first lockdown), I was told that
the steel frame had already been erected.
When I contacted the contractor with a
view to visiting the site to check that my
design had been implemented fully, I was
told in no uncertain terms that the design
had had to be altered, and that any visit
on my part was unnecessary. I replied by
explaining the relevant responsibilities of
designer and erector, but my remarks fell
on deaf ears; no details were forthcoming
regarding any changes made to my
design.
After much soul-searching, I was
forced to write to the architect, contractor
and building owner, stating that although I
stood by my design, I could take no
responsibility for any defects that could
be shown to be as a result of deviations
from that design during construction. I
agreed to forego the portion of my fee
that had allowed for construction
supervision by me.
So I can heartily endorse Verulam’s
caveat to Brian’s case for division of
responsibilities. Checking on design intent
is not only wise – it is essential.
I COULD TAKE NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY
DEFECTS THAT COULD BE
SHOWN TO BE AS A RESULT
OF DEVIATIONS FROM
THAT DESIGN
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org
VERULAM + HP_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 44
HAVE
YOUR
SAY
Any one studying failure will find a
common theme of deviations from
design intent. To be clear, there may
well be sound reasons for variations,
either on grounds of practicality or
cost or programme: they may be
improvements. But variations should
always be confirmed with the main
designer. If this is not done, the
person who alters the design may
take on a design responsibility.
Paying for
professional
services
PHILIP GARRISON
I read in the November/December issue
that Nigel Evans’ potential client has
nagging doubts, on reflection, that
learning beam design from a short
YouTube video is an adequate substitute
for a three-year degree course, several
years of on-the-job training and
experience, and the passing of a
professional examination.
It’s a pity that Mr Evans didn’t tell us
how his client reacted when informed
he’d actually have to pay for professional
services. Life’s so unfair, isn’t it?
As a variation on this theme, many
readers will have encountered friends of
friends who are planning improvement
work to their homes, perhaps an
extension or a loft conversion. Having
found somebody to knock up some
drawings for them, they have just
discovered that the drawings need to be
approved by a structural engineer – surely
just an irritating formality?
They find out that you’re a structural
engineer. In the conversation that follows,
they ask you if you would cast your eye
over the drawings. That expression, ‘cast
your eye’, is crucial. It suggests the
following:
Ò| The client considers there is no real
work in this for you. You don’t have to
do anything beyond giving the
drawings a sustained glance. With
your experience, it is supposed, this is
more than enough time to satisfy
yourself that all is in order.
Ò| Because there is no expenditure of
44
Send letters to…
All contributions to Verulam should be
submitted via email to: tse@istructe.org
Contributions may be edited on the grounds
of style and/or length by the Institution's
publishing department.
effort on your part, and because you
and your ‘client’ are such good
friends (you may not even have met),
he or she does not anticipate paying
you for this work. After all, it’s not as
if you’re a solicitor or accountant, to
whom he’s used to paying fees.
Anybody can be an engineer, surely?
Ò| However, your client is a generous
soul and, because he values your
budding friendship, he will tell you
that there is ‘a pint in it for you’ the
next time the two of you find
yourselves in a pub together. This is
in lieu of any professional fees you
might otherwise have levied, which
surely wouldn’t come to more than a
fiver?
Whether you ever received that pint
or not, rest assured that if some
problem subsequently comes to light
that your eye-casting did not identify,
then your friend’s legal advisers will be in
touch. With this in mind, I’ve learned,
over the years, to say no to such
approaches. I’ll never be rich, but I’m
quite capable of paying for my own
beer, thank you very much!
Verulam wonders if any readers
have good lines to share suggesting
ways of politely declining to give
free advice? A starter might be to
suggest the party engages a
structural engineer to get insurance
cover.
A sceptical view
of insurance
DONALD HOLLIDAY
In response to letters to Verulam on
professional indemnity (PI) insurance in
recent issues – am I not right that in the
1960s and ‘70s there was no such thing
as PI insurance, because the partners of
consultancy firms were personally liable
for the firm’s losses?
Personally, having had an unpleasant
experience with car insurance providing
cover that certainly was not what it said
on the tin, I’m against insurances that
are not legally compulsory!
15/12/2021 11:36
 Letters Opinion

every profession, but is often structures, listing the initial design

There may have been an era where
having insurance perhaps conveyed
doubts about a party’s competence,
or perhaps there were halcyon days
when fees were large enough to
cover losses? Those days are gone.
Nowadays we need to be much more
professional about the proper
allocation of risk, responsibility and
liability. There are plenty of eye-
watering examples of things going
wrong to prove that proper insurance
cover is vital.
underestimated as there is little to show
for it until inspiration occurs!
‘Thinking time’ is cheap compared with
unnecessary construction work on site
– particularly in historic listed buildings,
which are her speciality. ‘Less is more’
can save huge costs, so it’s important to
ask ‘Why?’ rather than ‘How?’. The
history of buildings is essential when
considering alternative uses, so perhaps
a ‘logbook’ for all buildings and
criteria and any alterations, additions
and maintenance which have been
carried out, might be a good idea?
Margaret has found that limiting live
floor loadings in historic buildings can
often avoid any intervention, so saving
considerable costs. However, average
wind speeds have increased over the
last few decades, and may increase
more with climate change, so this should
also be checked out in my opinion.
Margaret Cooke is an inspiration to us
all – with the ability to ‘think outside the
box’, which is how we make progress.

Paying for There can be a debate about this.

‘thinking time’
DAVID BRETT
What a credit Margaret Cooke is to our
profession – as was ably demonstrated
during her fascinating IABSE Milne Medal
Lecture recently. ‘Less is more’ was the
theme, and the case studies shown
illustrated this brilliantly.
Her comment during the lecture that:
‘Thinking time is an investment, not a
cost’ reminded me of my old boss Ove
Arup’s maxim that: ‘Good design doesn’t
cost more’. ‘Thinking time’ is important in
Ove Arup was probably right in the
sense that overall good design (i.e.
office time + construction time)
EXCELLENT BOOK ARRIVED FROM need not cost more, and many wise
@ISTRUCTE TODAY – A HUGELY heads would say increasing office
VALUABLE ADDITION TO THE time (including thinking time) will
#NETZERO CONVERSATION. reduce site costs and make a
ORGANISED AROUND THE BUILD project cheaper overall. But with
NOTHING > BUILD LESS > BUILD competitive fees, can we persuade
CLEVER > BUILD EFFICIENTLY clients of that virtue?
HIERARCHY, IT’S FULL OF
AUTHORITATIVE DETAIL, AND [Ed. – We hope to bring you an
GENUINELY THOUGHT PROVOKING. article adapted from Margaret’s
@BRIAN_DUGUID lecture later in the year.]

CM Exam on-
demand preparation
course
Prepare for your Chartered Membership Exam wherever
you are in the world. Our course contains engaging
videos, sample answers & supporting information from
Chartered members & exam experts that has helped
hundreds achieve chartership
Price: £295 + VAT

–––
With this course, you will learn to:
‹ Plan your own preparation for the exam
‹ Recognise what is required to pass each module
‹ Create viable solutions to exam questions
‹ Use conceptual tools to develop answers
‹ Identify any gaps in your preparation Buy now for
12 months access
www.istructe.org/onlineexamprep

45
thestructuralengineer.org
thestructuralengineer.org || January
October 2022
2019

VERULAM + HP_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 45 15/12/2021 11:36

 At the back Diary dates

Unless otherwise stated,

evening technical meetings
start at 18:00 and are free of
charge to attend.

History Study Group meetings

start at 18:00 and are free of
charge to attend. Registration

Diary dates
is not required except for the
Annual Business Meeting held
in January.

Industry workshops and CPD

courses are held at HQ unless
otherwise stated. Note that more current information may be available from
the Institution website: www.istructe.org/events

ONLINE LECTURE 10:00–17:30 LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE

13 January Price: Members: £295.00 + VAT; Standard:
£395.00 + VAT 20 January
President’s inaugural address
Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2022/ Inaugural meeting and hot pot supper 2022
Jane Entwistle
historic-timber-structures-assessment-and- Guest: Martin Powell, IStructE CEO
18:00–19:30
reuse/ 18:30–21:30
Price: Free
Price: £28.50
Register: www.istructe.org/events/hq/president-
3, 10, 17, 24 February Booking: www.istructe.org/events/lancashire-
s-inaugural-address-2022/
Conceptual design for structural engineers: cheshire/lancashire-cheshire-inaugural-meeting-
an introduction and-hot-pot/
ONLINE CONFERENCES
15 March Presenter: Oliver Broadbent
Young researchers conference 10:30–12:30 MALAYSIA
13:00–16:00 Price: Members: £295.00 + VAT; Standard:
24 January
Price: Free £395.00 + VAT
Fitness for purpose structural integrity
Register: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2022/ Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2022/
assessment for ageing fixed offshore platform
young-researchers-conference/ conceptual-design-for-structural-engineers/
Speaker: Wong Bak Shiiun
18:00–20:00 (GMT + 8)
22–23 March 4, 11, 18, 25 February and 4 March
Price: Free
Modern Uses of Timber in a Changing Net-zero structural design
Register: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1
Environment conference Presenters: Will Arnold and Oliver Broadbent
PGb3d6nbpl5I0MaZFtka1Gd0rvX7PPcDfkln
14:00–18:00 10:30–12:30
zg_Z00M/viewform?edit_requested=true
Price: Members: £175.00 + VAT; Standard: Price: Members: £535.00 + VAT; Standard:
£275.00 + VAT; Student members: £45.00 + VAT £715.00 + VAT
Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2022/net- NORTH THAMES
Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/modern-
timber-conference/ zero-structural-design/ 27 January
Meet the President
WEBINAR 8 February Speaker: Jane Entwistle
27 January Eurocode 9: design of aluminium structures 18:00–20:00 (followed by buffet)
Graphic statics webinar series: Graphic Presenter: Meini Su Price: Free
statics: from basics to computational tools 10:00–17:00 Register: https://mtp2022.eventbrite.co.uk
Speakers: Ashley Kacha and Juney Lee Price: Members: £295.00 + VAT; Standard:
£395.00 + VAT
12:30–13:45 NORTHERN IRELAND
Price: Members: £45.00 + VAT; Standard: £70.00 Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2022/
+ VAT eurocode-9-design-of-aluminium-structures/ 11 January
Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/graphic-
Use of structural concrete in a zero carbon
statics-webinar-series-5/ REGIONAL GROUPS future (online)
Note that in-person events are subject to Speaker: Paul Astle
change due to Covid restrictions. Please visit 18:15–20:00
ONLINE EXAM PREPARATION
www.istructe.org/get-involved/regional-groups/ Price: Free
26 January
for the latest information. Contact: laura.killeen@designid.co.uk
Exam preparation day
Presenter: Stephen Vary
10:00–17:30 CHESTER AND NORTH WALES WESTERN COUNTIES
Price: £295.00 + VAT Wednesdays, 19 January–2 March
6 January
Booking: www.istructe.org/events/hq/2021/ Eurocode 2 design of concrete structures part
Mobile mud spring mitigation – Imperial
exam-preparation-day-2022/ one – General rules and rules for buildings
County, California (online)
Speaker: Travis Deane (online)
ONLINE CPD COURSES 18:30 Presenter: Bob Benton
2 February 15:30–19:30
Price: Free
Historic timber structures: assessment and Price: Members: £200; non-members: £275
Register: www.istructe.org/events/chester-north-
reuse Booking: www.istructe.org/events/western-
wales/mobile-mud-spring-mitigation-california/
Presenters: Philip O’Leary and Keerthi counties/eurocode-2-design-of-concrete-
Ranasinghe structures-(1)/

46
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org

DIARY_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 46 15/12/2021 11:37

 Spotlight on Structures At the back

All articles in Structures

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

Read the latest issue

Volume 34 of Structures (December 2021) is now available to read at
www.sciencedirect.com/journal/structures/vol/34.
Editor-in-Chief, Leroy Gardner, has selected a paper on seismic
simulation tools and methods for developing countries as his
‘Featured Article’ from this issue. The article will be available free of
charge for six months.

Editor-in-Chief’s Understanding the earthquake behavior where there is limited investment in

of structures is the first step towards research, the application of such tools to
Featured Article developing a strategy for earthquake- meet the current need for experimental
Seismic simulation tools resilient design and construction of the campaigns is generally not feasible, and
and methods appropriate for built environment. The growing number hence alternative tools and methods
developing countries of earthquake simulators (shake tables) are sought. In this context, a detailed
Jitendra Botharaa, Rajendra globally has allowed researchers to review into alternative cost-effective tools
Desaib, Jason Inghama and closely study the response of different and methods such as shock tables,
Dmytro Dizhurc building types when subjected to harmonic shake tables, and controlled
a
Dept. of Civil and Environmental simulated earthquake shaking. Typically, underground explosions for experimental
Engineering, The University of such simulators are sophisticated testing was undertaken and is reported
Auckland, New Zealand and complex testing apparatus herein. Furthermore, the design, detailing,
b
National Centre for Peoples that require high levels of skill and and construction of a shock table and a
Action in Disaster Preparedness, experience for their effective operation harmonic shake table are presented.
Ahmedabad, India and are associated with high costs of
c
Dizhur Consulting, Auckland, installation, operation, maintenance, Ò| Read the full paper at https://doi.
New Zealand and repair. In developing countries org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.07.067

Register for alerts

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

47
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022

SPOTLIGHT ON STR_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 47 15/12/2021 11:38

 Att the
th
he back
ba
ack
k Th
The
he Dr
Drawing
raw
wing
g Boa
Board
B ard
d
The Drawing Board
Judged by Ron Slade.
This month Ron has selected a sketch by Victoria Tinney of Clancy Consulting. Victoria
receives an e-book of herchoice from the Institution bookshop.
01 02
Transfer slab to allow construction
of smaller stepped back floors in a
light weight weight construction
such as timber
Reduce finishes in building by
exposing concrete soffits and
columns. Thermal mass from the
concrete can be utilised in the
building energy strategy.
Concrete columns can be shaped to
suit aesthetic and practical
requirements - blade to sit within
walls, circular in large open rooms etc
Use of a regular square grid will
provide the most efficient structure,
reducing cost and carbon footprint.
Architect/Developer should work
the floor layouts around this
This sketch formed part of a feasibility
study for a new 12-storey building on
a congested site in a city centre.
Important to the project was
understanding the measures that may
need to be taken to build it. It also
highlights steps that can be taken to
reduce the carbon footprint of the
project – including building the upper
storeys in lightweight timber, using
cement replacement and optimising
the grid layout for efficiency.
Consideration was also given to other
design disciplines: reducing the
surface water discharge through the
use of blue-green infrastructure, as
well as using the inherent thermal
mass to reduce the operational
energy use.
DON’T FORGET TO SUBMIT YOURS...
To enter, submit a sketch to tse@istructe.org together with a short description to put it into context (150 words). Sketches must be hand drawn
(no CAD, except for ‘guided freehand’) and from a real project or assignment (i.e. not drawn for the competition). The next deadline is 1 March 2022.
THE DRAWING BOAR_TSE Jan 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 48
Concrete cores continue up to provide
stability to lighter-weight levels above
Utilise stepped roofs for water harvesting
(blue roof) and encourage biodiversity with
a green roof
Projecting balcony options include insitu
concrete or slide on aluminium frames
Use of concrete frame provides inherent fire
protection to structure, reducing volume of
finishes and protective paints required
Concrete construction to utilise cement
replacement products such as GGBS,
and secondary aggregates, if available,
to reduce carbon footprint.
Cladding panels attached to concrete
frame, can be designed for a no
scaffolding solution
Ron’s comments
Victoria’s sketch was hand drawn but
coloured and annotated in PDF
editing software. In a way, I think it is a Ron Slade
carefully ‘constructed’ sketch, hand BSc(Eng), CEng, FIStructE
drawn but not necessarily freehand.
Ron Slade is Structural Director at
To me, you don’t have to be an artist
capable of beautiful free-flowing WSP. Ron received his BSc First
linework to add a human touch. An Class Honours in Civil Engineering
annotated hand-drawn sketch is a at City University, London and became a
great way of summarising and Chartered Member of the Institution of
focusing on important proposals at Structural Engineers in 1971 when he was
feasibility stage – and somehow this awarded the Institution’s A.E. Wynn prize. He
approach helps to show personal was first appointed as a director in 1982.
commitment to a project. Ron is also the author of Sketching for
Engineers and Architects, published by
Routledge.
48
48
J
January
an
anuary
nuua
arrry 2022
20
202
022
22 | thestructuralengineer.
tth
thestructuralengineer.org
hes
stttrrruc
s ctttu
c ura
u ale
a en
ngiin
ne
n ee
eerrr.o
e orrrg
o g
15/12/2021 11:39
 Telephone: +44 (0)20 7880 6245 Email: structuralengineer@redactive.co.uk Services Directory

ANALYSIS & DESIGN SOFTWARE

STRAP software for analysis and

design of cold formed, concrete, steel
and pre & post-tensioned structures. QUIKPOR
RT - MULLTI SPAAN
Fine GEO5 geotechincal software for
soil structure interaction, slope stability, + QUIKJOINT - COMPRREHEENSIIVE
earth pressure, sheeting & pile design.

Trial downloads at www.sigma-x.net

£2695.00 3
EC
UK: +44 (0) 203 603 1442
Ireland: +353 (0) 86 85 45 425
www.sigma-x.net

ANALYSIS & DESIGN

GET THE JOB DONE!
VISIT
www.quiksoft.co.uk
and download your free trial
Email: sales@quiksoft.co.uk
or call 08456 250 280

REINFORCED CONCRETE DETAILING STRUCTURAL DESIGN & CAD DRAWING

z R.C. Detailing Specialists

TONY DOYLE ASSOCIATES LTD
z Established 1980
Extensive experience
COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN & DRAWING
z
z Proven reliability
z Large capacity
Paul Benham Ltd
Civil & Structural Engineering Draughting Service

mail@paulbenhams.co.uk
01273 730956
www.paulbenhams.co.uk Au t o CAD D r a u g h t i n g S e r v i c e s
Established in 1988, we are a team of
professional technicians with ofÀces in
WANT TO ADVERTISE Weston super Mare, providing an efÀcient
on-demand service for our clients
YOUR PRODUCTS &
- RC Detailing Specialists -
SERVICES HERE? - Structural Drawing GA·s & Details -
Contact 020 7880 6245 or email - Bespoke Drawings for all Applications -
structuralengineer@redactive.co.uk
Tel: 01934 808468
www.tonydoyleassociates.co.uk

49
thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022

P&S recreated.indd 49 14/12/2021 16:47

 Services Directory
Recruitment Telephone:
Telephone:
+44 (0)20
+447324
(0)202755
7880Email:
6245 Email:
tsejobs@redactive.co.uk
structuralengineer@redactive.co.uk

tĞ͛ƌĞ ĂŶ ĂǁĂƌĚͲǁŝŶŶŝŶŐ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂů ĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ ƐƚƵĚŝŽ ƌĞĐƌƵŝƟŶŐ ĨŽƌ ƚǁŽ

ƌŽůĞƐŝŶŽƵƌ>ŽŶĚŽŶƚĞĂŵ͘tĞŽīĞƌŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉLJŽƵƌĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ
ďLJ ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐ ŽŶ Ă ƌĂŶŐĞ ŽĨ ŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƟŶŐ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ŽĨ ǀĂƌŝŽƵƐ ƐĐĂůĞƐ͕ ƵƐŝŶŐ ďŽƚŚ
ƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂůĂŶĚŝŶŶŽǀĂƟǀĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚĞĐŚŶŝƋƵĞƐ͘ĞƐŝŐŶͲůĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĨŽƌŵ
ƚŚĞ ĨŽĐƵƐ ŽĨ ŽƵƌ ǁŽƌŬ͕ ƐŝƫŶŐ ĂůŽŶŐƐŝĚĞ ŽƵƌ ƉŽƌƞŽůŝŽ ŽĨ ŵŽƌĞ ƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƵƐŝŶŐƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞĂŶĚƐƚĞĞůĨƌĂŵĞƐ͘

Senior Structural Engineer Structural Technician

WĂƐƐŝŽŶĂƚĞĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƟǀĞ͕ǁŝƚŚďĞƚǁĞĞŶ
ϲͲϴ LJƌƐ͛ ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͘ zŽƵƌ ƐƚƌŽŶŐ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƟŽŶƐŬŝůůƐǁŝůůƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞ
ŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůĂŶĚĞdžƚĞƌŶĂůůŝĂŝƐŽŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͕
ĂŶĚ LJŽƵ ǁŝůů ŚĂǀĞ ƌĞƐƉŽŶŝƐŝďůŝƚLJ ĨŽƌ
ƚŚĞ ĚĞůŝǀĞƌLJ ŽĨ ŬĞLJ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ ƉĂĐŬĂŐĞƐ͕
ŝŶƉƵƚ ŽĨ ƚĞĂŵ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐ ĂŶĚ ŽƚŚĞƌ
resources.
DŽƟǀĂƚĞĚĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƟǀĞϯDŽĚĞůůĞƌ
ǁŝƚŚ Ăƚ ůĞĂƐƚ Ϯ LJĞĂƌƐ͛ ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͘
zŽƵ͛ůů ŚĂǀĞ ŐŽŽĚ ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ ŽŶ Ă
ƌĂŶŐĞŽĨƉƌŽũĞĐƚƚLJƉĞƐĂŶĚĂŶŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ
ŝŶ ŝŶŶŽǀĂƟǀĞ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĞƐ͕
ĂŶĚ ǁŝůů ďĞ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ƚŽ ƉƌŽĂĐƟǀĞůLJ
ůĞĂĚ ƚŚĞ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ĚƌĂǁŝŶŐ
ƉĂĐŬĂŐĞƐ͕ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƚŽƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘

How to apply
Visit our website ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽƌďĞƩͲƚĂƐŬĞƌ͘ĐŽŵͬĐĂƌĞĞƌƐĨŽƌĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĚĞƚĂŝůƐĨŽƌĞĂĐŚ
ƌŽůĞ͘ŵĂŝůLJŽƵƌsĂŶĚƐŽŵĞĞdžĂŵƉůĞƐŽĨLJŽƵƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŽƌŬ;ŵĂdžŝŵƵŵϰŶƌ
ϰƉĂŐĞƐͿƚŽ^ĂŶĐŚŝĂƵŶŶĂƚĂĚŵŝŶΛĐŽƌďĞƩͲƚĂƐŬĞƌ͘ĐŽŵ͘

Technical Director
Are you a MIStructE or FIStructE member looking
to take your structural engineering career in a new
direction? Do you have the breadth of technical
expertise, and knowledge of legislation and regulation,
alongside strong leadership, communication and
PUÅ\LUJPUNZRPSSZ[VILHISL[VM\SÄS[OLYLX\PYLTLU[ZVM
this exciting new senior role at IStructE?
;OPZ\UPX\LHUKK`UHTPJYVSL^PSSSLHK[OL0UZ[P[\[PVU»Z
technical and engineering policy development,
working with our members to ensure that IStructE is
HSLHKPUÅ\LUJLYVUL_[LYUHSIVKPLZ[OH[YLWYLZLU[
Structural and Civil Engineering. For the full job description
and to apply, please visit:
istructe.org/about-us/work-for-us

21116_tech_director_HP_AD.indd 1 13/12/2021 9:49 am

50
January 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org

P&S recreated.indd 50 15/12/2021 14:07

 Telephone: +44 (0)20
Telephone:
7880 6245
+44 Email:
(0)20 7324
structuralengineer@redactive.co.uk
2755 Email: tsejobs@redactive.co.uk
Services
Recruitment
Directory

Jobs
Attract the right candidate for less -
Advertise for just £379
Only The Institution of Structural Engineers can provide such a dedicated and receptive audience, whose
experience and creative abilities are suɉciently diverse to Äll any vacancy, regardless of seniority.

Our Äve options oɈer various levels of targeting and visibility. These include:

£379 £879
DIGITAL DIGITAL & PRINT

Job board ad live for 1 month, Job board ad live for up to 3 months,
with logo with logo
Featured in top section of search
results
Included on two job newsletters
£1,575 ¼ page in The Structural Engineer
RAPID RESPONSE

Job board ad live for 1 month,

with logo
Featured in top section of search
results
Call 020 7324 2755
Included on two job newsletters or email
¼ page in The Structural Engineer tsejobs@redactive.co.uk
Targeted email sent to matching to book your advertising today.
candidates

“
We needed to recruit an additional structural engineer for our growing Berkshire-
based business, and looked to the Institution to find the right candidate. I was
pleased to learn that their recruitment service has been streamlined. The new
options (five, with a further opportunity to create a bespoke package) offer
various levels of exposure and targeting.
We went with the competitively-priced ‘Digital & Print’ option. Our vacancy was
immediately added to The Structural Engineer Jobs Board, and was followed up
with a print advertisement in The Structural Engineer. We received response in
two spikes – coinciding with the digital and print pushes - and were delighted
with the quality and quantity of response. Having successfully recruited one of
the short-listed candidates, we’ll certainly use the service again.

51
Michael Aubery Partnership

thestructuralengineer.org | January 2022

”
John M Staves, Managing Director,

P&S recreated.indd 51 14/12/2021 16:47

 Upcoming online
CPD courses
Historic timber
structures:
assessment
and reuse
2 February
10:00-17:30 GMT
–––
Price
Standard: From £355 + VAT
Members: From £265 + VAT
Learning outcomes
࠮ Recognise timber as
an engineering material
and explain the inherent
strengths and weaknesses
of this organic and ‘living’
material
࠮ Identify the cellular
structure of timber in
relation to softwoods
and hardwoods, and
appreciate the species
PKLU[PÄJH[PVUZ[YH[LNPLZ
available
࠮ Appreciate the timber
grading rules to softwoods
and hardwoods, and
employ the rules and
strategies in assigning
strength classes to timber
used in existing structures
Book your place
istructe.info/courses
TSE.Jan22_052.indd 52
Conceptual Eurocode
design for 9: design of
structural aluminium
engineers: an structures
introduction 8 February
10:00-17:00 GMT
3-24 February
10:30-12:30 GMT –––
––– Price
Standard: From £355 + VAT
Price
Members: From £265 + VAT
Standard: From £355 + VAT
Members: From £265 + VAT
Learning outcomes
࠮ List the considerations
Learning outcomes
necessary when
࠮ Explain the design
deciding to design in
process as a series of
structural aluminium
discrete steps
rather than in steel
࠮ Describe the
࠮ Determine how to select
characteristics of a
the most appropriate
good design brief and
aluminium alloys for a
use this knowledge to
structural application
write your own brief
࠮ Examine the pros
࠮ Describe and use
HUKJVUZVMKPɈLYLU[
techniques for idea
material forms and
generation
jointing methods
࠮ Describe and use
࠮ Perform limit state
techniques for
calculations in
modelling and testing
accordance with the
your ideas
Eurocode
࠮ Prepare rules for
execution (fabrication
and erection)
Eurocode 8: an
introduction to
seismic design
of buildings
10 February
09:30-17:30 GMT
–––
Price
Standard: From £355 + VAT
Members: From £265 + VAT
Learning outcomes
࠮ Describe E/Q damages
and identify their causes
࠮ Apply principles of
conceptual design of
E/Q-resistant structures in
practice
࠮ Appreciate ground
motions and geotechnical
aspects in structural
seismic design
࠮ Apply performance
requirements and
compliance criteria for
various types of buildings
࠮ Select models and
methods of analysis of
buildings for seismic
actions
࠮ Carry out equivalent
static analysis of simple
buildings
࠮ Carry out safety
]LYPÄJH[PVUZ
࠮ Carry out simple structural
element design and detail
13/12/2021 15:01