The Institution of Structural Engineers

The achievement of
structural adequacy
in buildings

NOVEMBER 1990

The Institution of Structural Engineers

11 UPPER BELGRAVE STREET, LONDON SWlX 8BH
 Constitution of Task Group

G. Somerville, BSc(Eng), PhD, FEng, FIStructE, FICE, FIHT, FACI, MICT, Chairman
(British Cement Association)
P. R. Bartle, CEng, FIStructE (Consulting Engineer)
R. E. D. Burrow, BSc(Eng), CEng, FICE (formerly with Taylor Woodrow plc)
W. W. L. Chan, BSc(Eng), DIC, PhD, CEng, FIStructE, FICE (Consulting Engineer)
G. Davison, BSc, CEng, MIStructE, MICE, MIHT (London Borough of Wandsworth)
F. C. Greenfield, CEng, FIStructE, FICE, MIHT (formerly London Borough of Brent)
B. A. Haseltine, BSc, FCGI, DIC, FEng, FIStructE, FICE, FICeram (Jenkins & Potter)
Margaret Law, BSc, FIFireE, MSFSE, MSFPE (Ove Arup & Partners)
R. M. Lawson, BSc, PhD, ACGI, CEng, MIStructE, MICE (Steel Construction Institute)
D. W. Lazenby, DIC, DipCU, CEng, FIStructE, FICE (Andrews, Kent & Stone)
J. B. Menzies, BSc(Eng), PhD, DipCU, FEng, FIStructE (Andrews, Kent & Stone, formerly with the
Building Research Establishment)
Ralph L. Mills, MSc, CEng, FIStructE (Consulting Engineer, formerly with English Heritage)
B. R. Rogers, MA(Cantab), CEng, MICE (Kenchington, Little plc)
Brian Simpson, MA(Cantab), PhD, CEng, MICE (Ove Arup & Partners)

R. J. W. Milne, BSc Secretary (The Institution of Structural Engineers)

01990: The Institution of Structural Engineers

This publication is copyright under the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright
Convention. All rights reserved. Apart from any copying under the UK Copyright
Designs and Patents Act 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission
of the copyright owners.
Multiple copying of the contents of the publication without permission of the copyright
owners contravenes the aformentioned Act.

. . .

2 IStructE Structural adequacy buildings

Contents

Foreword 5 7 Strength, stability and robustness 21

7.1 Aims 21
1 Introduction 7.2 Definitions 21
1.1 General 7.3 Design process for strength, stability
1.2 Overall design issues and robustness 21
1.3 Structural adequacy 7.4 Populations of structures 22
Reference References 22

2 Pointers from the past 9 8 Serviceability 23

2.1 Lessons from past failures 9 8.1 General 23
2.2 Changing practices and standards 9 8.2 Principal serviceability factors 23
References 10 8.3 Serviceabilityperformance criteria 23
8.4 Movement, deflections and
3 Some basic requirements 11 vibration in buildings 24
3.1 General 11 References 25
3.2 Responsibilities 11
3.3 Performance, economy and risk 11 9 Fire 26
3.4 Sensitivity 11 9.1 General 26
3.5 Workmanship 12 9.2 Purpose of providing fire resistance 26
3.6 Quality assurance 12 9.3 Fire-resistance test 26
3.7 Thetimefactor . 12 9.4 Calculation methods 26
References 12 9.5 Methods of structural fire protection 26
9.6 Natural fire conditions 27
4 Designing for structural adequacy 13 9.7 Required periods of resistance 27
4.1 The basic process 13 References 27
4.2 Key requirements 14
References 15 10 Process of construction 10
Reference 10
5 Responsibility, communications and
management 16 11 Inspection and maintenance 30
5.1 Responsibility 16 Reference 30
5.2 Responsibility to society 16
5.3 Responsibility to his employer 16 12 Concluding remarks 31
5.4 Responsibility to the profession 16
5.5 Responsibility to the contractor 16
5.6 The contractor’s responsibility 16
5.7 Communications and management 17
References 17
6 Loading 18
6.1 General 18
6.2 Partial safety factors for loads 18
6.3 Dead loads 18
6.4 Imposed floor loads 18
6.5 Effect of load duration on strength 19
6.6 Imposed roof loads 19
6.7 Wind loads 19
6.8 Horizontal imposed loads
(excluding wind) 19
6.9 Explosions 19
6.10 Impact 19
6.11 Sonic boom 19
6.12 Earthquakes 19
6.13 Vibration 20
6.14 Induced loads 20
6.15 Notional horizontal loads 20
6.16 Construction loads 20
References 20
...

IStructE Structural adequacy buildings 3

 Foreword

This report has been compiled by an Institution Task Group, which first met in July
1984 to rewrite and update the Institution’s 1976 report Criteria for structural
adequacy of buildings; to translate the philosophical approach of Aims of structural
design into basic technical considerations; to review the factors involved; and to set
criteria for these. A series of reports will then be produced on individual topics (such
as stability, fire resistance, durability, etc.) containing detailed methods for dealing
with these criteria.
The Task Group interpreted its present brief as requiring an overview - a broad
general statement on which subsequent more detailed reports could be based.
Having taken that basic decision, it was then necessary to consider the scope of the
report. An overview required that ‘buildings’ should mean the entire building
envelope, but with emphasis placed on the primary structure within that envelope.
The report would relate primarily to new construction, but hopefully the principles
could also apply to refurbishment - and, indeed, to other related types of structure.
Next, there was the question ‘to whom should the report be addressed?’ It was
resolved that the prime target should be structural engineers, possibly still at an
early stage in their careers. However, since the report was to present an overview
- and since engineers increasingly cope with their roles and responsibilities within
design teams - it was considered that the report should be written so that other
members of the design team (and the client) might also find it useful in appreciating
the advice of the structural engineer.
The Task Group was conscious that engineers generally prefer a numerate
approach to design, and started its work with the intention of providing ‘hard
numbers’ for performance criteria, wherever possible. However, buildings vary so
much one from another, both in terms of function and in design concept and detail,
that the derivation of numerical criteria of general applicability was not attempted;
these should be the domain of more detailed subsequent reports.
‘The achievement of structural adequacy’ might be deemed to be concerned
mainly with performance requirements, in a purely objective way. However, this
report is to provide an overview, which means that performance requirements must
be seen in the context of overall design, while recognizing the variable nature of the
construction process. Individual human input - in concept, in design and detailing,
in workmanship and supervision, in communications and management - has a
dominant influence on how well structures really perform in practice. The variable
nature of the construction process and individual human input mean that any report
of this nature may not apply in all respects to specific instances. Skilled
interpretation of it by the engineer employed for individual projects will be required,
but it is hoped that this report will assist in his task.
Finally, I am grateful to the Task Group and to its Secretary, Bob Milne, for their
continuous and unstinting support. Tackling a subject of this scale and nature is in
many ways much more difficult than narrower, more numerate topics and something
of a challenge. We have all learnt from experience - and enjoyed doing so.

September 1990 George Somerville, Chairman, Task Group

IStructE Structural adequacy buildings

Previous page 5
is blank
1 Introduction
1.1 General
The Institution’s report Aims of structural design’ contains
phrases all beginning with the words: ‘The structure must
.....’, but having a variety of endings: ‘..... fulfil its
intended function’, ‘..... be safe’, ‘..... be of least cost’.
No one would question these objectives, but they do
raise a number of questions. How safe is safe? Does least
cost mean initial cost or total-life cost? If the latter, what
should the total life be? Can we or should we specify it?
If so, do we have the knowledge at the design stage
consciously to aim for 60, 120 or some other number of
years? And what about function? This may be clear at the
initial stage, but the use to which a structure is put can
change, as indeed can the loading to which it is subjected.
The aim of this report is to take the broad view on these
matters, and to set down general principles for roviding
structural adequacy in buildings. In so doing, t e use of
erformance criteria is reviewed, which, should be fixed
K tions with resistance being provided against specified
g y reference to current design methods, to knowledge of
loadings and materials, and to standards and methods of
construction, so as to result in buildings that will be
structurally adequate.
Sections 1-4 are devoted to reviewing past experience
and current practice and hence to establishing the basic
principles that should be of interest to all members of the
design team. Sections 5-11 then consider in more detail
other aspects of particular interest to the structural
engineer. It should be noted that judgment and flexibility
in approach are considered essential in applying the
general principles to particular cases.
1.2 Overall design issues
The structural engineer is part of the design team for the
building as a whole. Within that team, he is mainly
concerned with the primary structure. The list of principal
issues given below relates to the performance of the
building as a whole. It contains matters of which the
structural engineer should be aware, if he is to carry out
his responsibilities adequately.
The principal overall design issues for a building are:
Client’s requirements
The client is responsible at the outset for defining his
requirements for the building, particularly its in-
tended use, appearance and maintenance policy
Performance required
The building as a whole will be required to perform
adequately in terms of:
0 intended use
0 structural safety (strength, stability and robustness)
0 serviceability
0 appearance
cost
The client needs to fix the budget but having regard
to the initial cost, and the cost of planned mainte-
nance, including the provision of facilities for inspec-
tion, routine maintenance, re air and replacement of
t! t: F
com onents. It is im ortant or the client to keep a
care ul and proper alance between performance,
economy and risk, and the design team must assist him
I- - - . -
IStructE Structural adequacy buildings
Previous page
is blank
Responsibilities
At an early stage the responsibilities and roles of the
client and individual members of the design team
should be identified (see Section 5 for the responsibi-
lities of the structural engineer). Lines of communica-
tion need to be established, and a sound management
structure needs to be created regarding all aspects of
the work
Safety
Buildings are required to be safe during construction
and, given appropriate maintenance, during their
intended life. Engineers translate this requirement
into the provision of adequate strength and stability.
This applies to performance in normal service condi-
loads, while achieving recognized factors of safety.
The design process is well established, generally with
statutory requirements being met by the use of Codes
of Practice and approved documents.
In addition, structures should have a degree of
robustness, so that they are unlikely to be sensitive to
adverse effects, such as misuse or accident, leading to
damage disproportionate to the cause. Robustness
cannot be quantified in all circumstances, but in
qualitative terms, considerable improvements can
usually be made by careful attention to structural
layout, to detailing, to the provision of alternative
load-carrying aths or to identifying and specially
f
treating critica elements, i.e. in following recommen-
dations contained in Codes and approved documents.
Consideration should also be given to the safety of
the building envelope. Design should aim to provide
adequate strength, stability and durability, i.e. to
avoid such things as spalling masonry, the failure of
fixings for cladding, and the loosening of concrete
cover because of corrosion.
Finally, the statutory requirements for fire safety
must be met
Serviceability
Buildings are designed to a specific brief, usually for
a specific function. Behaviour, such as deformation,
movement, cracking and vibration, should not impair
the use of the building during its design life. De-
terioration or defects should be limited, and appear-
ance should remain acceptable.
These aspects, together, represent serviceability,
and the provision of adequate serviceability is a key
element in design
Maintenance policy and repairs
There are two main phases in the life of a building,
design and construction on the one hand, and
performance in service on the other. The two phases
are strongly interdependent. There is a growing
awareness of the need to ‘manage’ structures during
their lifetime; central to that is the development of a
maintenance policy, and this, in turn, may affect the
decisions taken at the design and construction stage.
Costs during the two phases are important in deter-
mining an optimum design strategy, e.g. whether to
7
 use more durable materials in construction or cheaper
ones that will require more frequent inspection,
repair and replacement
(h) Durability
Materials and components used in building structures
are not all equally durable, and the deterioration to
which they are susceptible needs to be taken into
account in design.
These issues require specific consideration for every
building so that structural adequacy is achieved. Some-
times requirements may conflict, and relevant options
should be considered.

1.3 Structural adequacy

What is meant by structural adequacy? Can structural
adequacy be judged against specific criteria?
In the past it became customary to relate structural
performance to criteria expressed in a narrow context, in
relation to specific aspects of performance or behaviour,
such as allowable, limiting or acceptable values for
deflection and crack width. Generally, the consideration
was limited to the behaviour of individual elements or
parts of a building. For example, limiting values are
sometimes set for deflection as a function of span, e.g.
span/250. While this approach may make a design check
apparently simple and precise in numerate terms, key
points to be borne in mind include:
( U ) the accuracy of the calculation is related to numerous
assumptions (e.g. elastic response, material and sec-
tion properties, load magnitude and distribution)
(b) the real criteria relate to more widely based consider-
ations such as:
0 prevention of damage to partitions or cladding
0 avoidance of unsightly a pearance
P
0 avoidance of opening o joints, and hence, expo-
sure to the elements.
This narrow use of criteria is of limited scope and is not
sufficient to define overall structural adequacy. What is
important is to identify and evaluate the factors affecting
the performance of individual elements and the building
as a whole, and to see that each is treated appropriately.
The setting of appropriate values for performance
criteria will not in itself provide structural adequacy. This
is merely one item in the overall design and construction
process; in particular cases, skilled judgment will be
required on many items in the process in order to achieve
structural adequacy.

Reference
1. Aims ofstructural design, 2nd edit., Institution of Structural
Engineers, London 1987

B
8 (1 IStructE Structural adequacy buildings
2 Pointers from the past
2.1 Lessons from past failures
Major collapsei of buildings in service are fortunately few;
collapses during construction are less rare. Loss of
serviceability, in some form or another, is more common.
The reasons for major collapses can generally be determi-
ned, and usually involve exceptional or unforeseen loads,
gross errors, the neglect of sound engineering practice, a
lack of care in design or construction, or poor communica-
tions. Loss of serviceability may arise from a single cause
or, more commonly, from a combination of causes, which
individually may appear to be of minor importance.
Commonly, these involve a mixture of design and con-
struction issues. They rarely arise from numerical mis-
takes and are most often linked to shortcomings in
detailing, the neglect of some practical factor, or the
failure to appreciate the overall behaviour of the structure
or the interaction between its elements.
Documented case histories of individual collapses do
exist - both during construction and in service. However,
numerically, they are not sufficient to draw completely
general conclusions. It is only with certain categories of
building (e.g. low-rise housing, prefabricated reinforced-
concrete houses, the industrialized, factory-made struc-
tures of the 1960s) that comprehensive data on defects and
deficiencies exist - largely through the efforts of the
Building Research Establishment.
If the causes of defects and deficiencies can be related
to loss of serviceability and even collapse, then some
general lessons can indeed be learnt. In his residential
address to the Institution in 1984, Paterson P presented
statistical data relating to 10 000 cases over a 10 year
period in France, covering all common building materials.
Since there is good reason to believe that British experi-
ence is similar to that of the French, some of that evidence
is presented here.
5 1*/a
I\\ 7.5%
Design Construction Faulty materials Faulty
maintenance
Fig. 1 Origin of defects in completed buildings in terms of
frequency of occurrence
78%
Detective general Poor detailing Unsuitable Errors in
materials
Fig. 2 Origin of design faults in terms of frequency of
occurrence
IStructE Structural adequacy buildings
Fig. 1, taken from Paterson’s paper, categorizes defects
in terms of frequency of occurrence, and attributes these
to one of four origins; there is a dominant influence of
design and construction on the number of defects. Fig. 2
further subdivides the design faults in Fig. 1 into four
subsets where it can be seen that detailing is the major
contributor. Information of this kind requires case-by-
case analysis to identify and evaluate the basic factors
involved so that future design and construction practice
can be improved, better criteria established, and more
effective means found to see that these criteria are met.
In this type of analysis, it is important to relate
structural work to that of other interacting disciplines.
Table 1has been derived from Paterson’s data. This shows
that 52% of the faults arose in the building envelope
rather than its supporting structure, while 23% were
attributed to internal fittings and services. These subdivi-
sions are not clear-cut, since there must be some interde-
pendence; however, Table 1 emphasizes the need for an
integrated approach by architects, structural engineers
1
and services engineers in reducing the incidence of
building defects.
Table 1 Location of defects’
part of building % of defects
~~
external masonry
cladding and roofing
basic structure, including foundations
internal fittings, services, etc.
Less easy to quantify is the growing understanding that
many of the failures that occur can best be described as
systems failures: they come about through a breakdown
of the organizational and human relationships through
which the work is accomplished. This less tangible cause
of failure can be dealt with only by forms of contractual
arrangement, management, organization and documenta-
tion that encourage good communication within the
project team and foster an awareness and concern for
good design, detailing and construction practices.
Additionally, the client has an important role to play,
a subject covered by an Institution report.2 Apart from
the need to be aware of what performance he might
reasonably expect from a building in relation to its cost,
the client also has responsibilities concerned with
administering and maintaining the building in use. The
neglect of these can also lead to loss of serviceability and
sometimes more serious failures.
2.2 Changing practices and standards
While it is important to apply information obtained from
the examination of structures built in the past, lessons
learnt need to be continually updated and adapted in
response to technical and organizational developments
and the changing needs of clients.
It is also important when assessing the adequacy of
existing buildings to recognize changes that have occurred
in design and construction standards and practices. In this
respect, it is of interest to note that there are a number of
areas where standards have been made more stringent in
the past two decades; these include:
9
(a) wind and snow loadings margins against some form of unserviceability. There is
(b) tying together floors and walls less room for error, and hence a greater need to identify
(c) resistance to overloads - particularly to avoid dispor- and take account of all significant factors that can affect
portionate collapse the actual performance of buildings. Associated with this
( d ) quality of materials for members exposed to the is a growing awareness that the definition of a sound
weather, and internal aggressive conditions and sul- maintenance strategy is an integral part of the design
phate attack of concrete foundations process.
(e) amount of minimum concrete cover to steel in Against this background, structural engineers are faced
members in ( d ) above with taking decisions to meet clients’ briefs, based on
( f ) provision for building movement, i.e. settlement, judgment and experience in the light of statutory require-
ground heave, thermal and differential movement, ments and the guidance of Codes and Standards.
deflection criteria Although many straightforward situations can be treated
(g) provision for support of cladding brickwork, concrete, in a routine manner, using simple guidelines based on
etc. experience, the ra idly changing character of the market
(h) limitations of the use of high-alumina cement and signals caution. T hpere are in fact no completely general
calcium chloride in the making of concrete solutions, and there are unique factors in every project.
(i) care in the selection of aggregates and cement so as It is through awareness of all the factors involved and
to minimize the risk of damage due to alkali-silica operating within a proper overall technical framework
reaction in the finished concrete that the designer can arrive at appropriate options from
(j) increased bearings for precast concrete beams and slabs which to select the most satisfactory solution.
( k ) increased edge distances in bolted steel connections
( I ) reduced design strength for bolts in steel connections
to take account of prying action. References
In general many technical developments are evolution- 1. Paterson, A . C.: ‘The structural engineer in contexl’,
ary, and the effects of individual changes are often Struct.Engr., 62A, no. 11, Nov. 1984, p. 335
difficult to detect and evaluate in terms of their influence 2 . Guide to the performance of building structures, Institution
on structural performance. Nevertheless, their cumulative of Structural Enginers, London 1984
effect can be considerable when viewed over the expected
design life of a building. For that reason some of the most
important areas of ongoing change are itemized here:
0 Function. Structural performance criteria may
change directly through change of use (as with
many industrial, commercial and public buildings),
or indirectly through some change of performance
requirements such as the upgrading of thermal or
acoustic standards. The provisions to be made for
services are continually growing and present in-
creasing roblems in the upgrading of older buildings
0 Load e&&. Loads and loading effects can change
in association with changes in use and any accom-
panying modifications to the structure
0 Environmental effects. Feedback from in-service
performance indicates a need for greater considera-
tion to be given to environmental effects, both at
the macro- and micro-level. New as well as familiar
forms of aggressive action are encountered, e.g.
through building on landfill sites or contaminated
ground, or the use of de-icing salts in garages
0 Materials. Existing structural materials are gra-
dually being modified and developed, becoming
stronger in general and sometimes less satisfactory
in other respects
0 Construction methods. Construction processes are
continually changing in response to pressure for
greater efficiency and the demand for short con-
struction times, aided by developments in materials
and new design forms
Construction industry. The make-up of the con-
struction industry itself is continuing to evolve,
becoming more specialist and management
oriented: there are more links in the chain, while
responsibility for the end product has tended to be
more widely spread
0 Design. Design methods are still developing,
largely influenced by growing knowledge of mate-
rial and structural behaviour and more powerful
analytical techniques. Design philosophy has also
changed as confidence in this increased knowledge
has enabled engineers to deal with safety issues in
terms of risks and probabilities.
These developments, over several decades, have led to
lighter buildings, subjected to different types and intensi-
ties of loading, designed to higher stresses and lower
factors of safety. A art from design against collapse, the
P
cumulative effect o all these trends is a reduction of the

10 IStructE Structural adequacy buildings

3 Some basic requirements
3.1 General
The design process for most projects passes through three
initial stages:’ feasibility, outline proposals and scheme
design. Early in this process it is important to determine
two important issues:
0 the client’s detailed requirements, especially those
regarding purpose, function, appearance and main-
tenance policy
0 the responsibilities and roles of the client and
individual members of the design team, the lines of
communication between them and the management
structure of the project.
These issues are dealt with in reference 2.
These early decisions will have a significant influence
on the overall adequacy of the building (see Table 1 and
Figs. 1 and 2). The structural engineer has and important
role to fulfil in all three stages. The work of the design
team as a whole should be fully integrated.
During the detailed design stage, the structural en-
gineer must pay particular attention to statutory require-
ments relating to health and safety: the emphasis here will
be on the provision of adequate strength, stiffness and
stability under both normal and abnormal loads (including
fire). Building Regulations, approved documents, British/
Euro Standards and Codes of Practice are key references
in this respect. Additionally, all aspects of serviceability
require consideration: these include movements, crack-
ing, durability, vibration, watertightness, etc. Require-
ments relating to serviceability can often be more onerous
than those pertaining to safety, and it is the decisions and
actions taken by designers in this area that have most
influence on the actual performance of buildings. Again,
Standards and Building Regulations provide some mea-
sure of guidance, but this is by no means comprehensive.
3.2 Responsibilities
Responsibilities of all the parties involved in a project
must be clearly defined and accepted. They can have a
significant effect on the achievement of adequacy of the
completed structure. The parties involved include the
client, the entire design team and the contractor, includ-
ing any specialists. This subject is covered in Section 5 ,
especially in relation to the responsibilities of the structu-
ral engineer.
When discharging his duties, the designer must guard
against taking on responsibilities beyond his brief. Re-
ports of meetings of the Institution of Structural En-
gineers have highlighted these considerations, and also
the implications for responsibility and the extent of
professional indemnity
3.3 Performance, economy and risk
The adequacy of a completed structure is measured in
terms of appearance, safety, serviceability, functional
efficiency and cost. Absolute freedom from risk of failure
in any of these respects is unattainable. There is uncer-
tainty over the nature and scale of loads and their effects.
Materials vary in their properties, and there may be
uncertainty about their performance in the context of the
IStructE Structural adequacy buildings
structure. Methods of analysis and design, however
refined, have inbuilt limitations of accuracy because of the
simplifying approximations that they employ. There may
be errors of design and variations In standards of
workmanshi and practice.
P
The art o the structural engineer lies in identifying all
the significant factors, assessing the relevant uncertain-
ties, and them making decisions in his design so that there
is an acceptable probability of adequacy of the final
structure.
The designer must consider the gravity of the consequ-
ences of inadequacy. In providing strength and stability,
for example, he will set higher margains than when
considering serviceability: the potential consequences are
more serious and the probability of occurrence must
therefore be less. The setting of appropriate margins
a plies not only for buildings in normal conditions, but
P
a so when establishing the level of integrity or robustness
required to allow for misuse, accidents or other abnormal
loads, including fire.
All parties concerned, including the client, should be
aware of the uncertainties involved in the design, so that
the optimum balance is achieved between performance
and economy.
3.4 Sensitivity
The designer should be aware that some combinations of
materials, structural form and detailing are more sensitive
to the level of construction skill than others. If an above-
average standard of workmanship is required to achieve
the desired level of performance, then special steps will
be necessary so that this happens, perhaps involving trials
or higher levels of supervision and control by the
contractor. This may be particularly important if a series
of buildings or building components are to be constructed
to the same design.
The designer should remember that the simple well-
tried solutions usually satisfy a client’s needs most
.
effectively and should not be tempted to indulge the range
of his creative talents where they are not relevant. The
major part of his skill lies in recognizing and understand-
ing the key parameters in the design, finding the optimum
compromise where there are conflicting factors, and
achieving the result within an economic cost.
Another essential aspect of sensitivity is concerned with
verifying the adequacy of the design concept by systematic
procedures, sometimes referred to as ‘failure mode and
effects analysis’. This involves a series of ‘What if .....’
questions to examine the sensitivity of the structure to
departures from specification, e.g. poor tolerances or
weak materials. It is also valuable in studying the potential
consequences of misuse or accident, and how the structure
could continue to function if, for example, one or more
key members were weakened or removed. Such analyses
also help in establishing whether the design has sufficient
redundancy and is a means of identifying key elements
which may require special treatment in design.
‘What if .....’ questions are usually followed by ‘How
.....’ questions. How can the damage, misuse or error
occur - corrosion? impact? weathering? accidental over-
load? The probability of occurrence and the extent of
these events can then be assessed, and any necessary
11
amendments made to the design to reduce the risk
involved to an acceptable level. There is a strong
economic factor involved in this type of analysis. While
some aspects of performance can be improved by inexpen-
sive amendments of the initial design, more economic
solutions to other aspects may lie in developing effective
inspection, maintenance and repair systems, or, in ex-
treme cases involving accidents, by resorting to insurance.
3.5 Workmanship
An integral and crucial part of ensuring the structural
adequacy of a building is the provision of a specification
that lays down the requirements for the work and the
minimum acceptable standards of workmanship. It is
equally important subsequently to see that this specifica-
tion is met. The first of these tasks is within the remit of
the designer; the second is the res onsibility of the
P
contractor. Appropriately skilled sta f and good com-
munications coupled with effective management, motiva-
0 safety: strength and stability
0 serviceability: function, movement, cracking, defor-
mation, watertightness, vibration, appearance,
weathering, etc.
In all these respects, adequacy relates to conditions of
normal use and, in the case of safety, to acceptable - if
reduced - standards in abnormal loading conditions
(including fire). The structure must be adequate during
the construction phase and throughout its service life.
How long the in-service period should be will depend on
the use of the building: at present no rigorously prescribed
periods are laid down in regulations and standards. For
the guidance of the designer, a period should be agreed
within which the building should require no substantial
unexpected work but only anticipated maintenance.
This subject is treated in Sectlon 11 of the report, but
is mentioned now as a fundamental since it can have
profound implications affecting both the type of structure
selected and its detailed design.

tion and supervision of the work force are of paramount

importance in the second task. References
1. Communication of structural design, Institution of Structu-
ral Engineers, London 1975
3.6 Quality assurance 2. Guide to the performance of building structures, Institution
Inspection and testing play an important part in the of Structural Engineers, London 1984
building process, and should involve the structural en- 3. Tietz, S . B . : ‘Responsibility, liability, and professional
gineer. In a contractual situation, matters laid down in the idemnity insurance - security v. design quality?’, Report of
specification, drawings and general instructions should be Council debate of 26 March 1987, Struct. Engr., 65A, no.
capable of being checked, with agreed procedures estab- 5 , May 1987, p. 208
lished for action if unsatisfactory work is identified as 4. Sandberg, A. C. E.: ‘Liability - a review’, Struct. Engr.,
construction proceeds. 63A., no. 3 , March 1985, p. 86
Formal quality-assurance (QA) procedures operate 5. BS 5750: Quality systems, British Standards Institution,
routinely in most manufacturing industries so that pro-
ducts are to specification. These procedures are now at an London (seven parts)
evolutionary stage in the construction industry. QA 6. Guide to good management practice for engineering design
involves a discipline of management incorporating co- offices, Institution of Structural Engineers, London (to be
ordinated and documented controls that can be audited published)
independently as a means of verifying the quality of a
process: it is applicable to all stages of a project from
concept, through design, production and commissioning.
In the construction industry it has so far been taken up
mainly by product manufacturers and in high-technology
projects for the defence, electricity generation and oil
industries. The clients for such projects require the
structural engineer and the contractor to function within
organizations which have been audited and approved
according to the requirements of BS 5750’ (Euronorm
29000-29004). The wider use of QA in the building
industry is at the development stage for both site and
design office work; currently, views on this are mixed.
Figs. 1 and 2 clearly indicate that, to strive for a higher
level of structural adequacy in the future, it is necessary
to establish appropriate standards for design, detailing
and construction procedures and, equally important, to
see that they are used and met. While each project may
have its own unique solution, there is nevertheless an
underlying core of good general practice, the application
of which is necessary in most instances. Conceivably, this
can be achieved better under the umbrella of Q A . The
acceptance and success of Q A can come only if it
encompasses the building process as a whole, and if
benefit accrues both to the client and to those involved
technically and commercially in the provision and use of
the building.6

3.7 The time factor

Durability and maintenance policy are subjects of consid-
erable interest at present, stimulated by the unsatisfactory
performance of many structures built during the postwar
period. There is need to develop a clear rational approach
to the maintenance of structural adequacy with time.
Adequacy, in structural terms, relates particularly to
the following factors:

12 IStructE Structural adequacy buildings

4 Designing for structural adequacy

4.1 The basic process 0 providing alternative means of stability, should an

Table 2 highlights that the designer has a series of options
available to adjust the design to meet any required level
of adequacy. While a certain minimum quality is required
in each of the items of the Table (usually set down in
statutory documents, approved documents, Codes of
Practice or other guidance), the process has flexibility.
For example:
( U ) It might be sensible to increase some of the margins
or factors of safety (item 3 of Table 2) if there were
reasons to believe that standards in, say, workman-
ship (item 6) or maintenance (item 7) might not be
achieved or if a relatively untried material was to be
used (item 5 )
(b) In appraising the likely performance of a building in
the event of misuse or accident, key elements may be
identified as crucial to stability.' Design options m-ight
then include one or more the following:
0 strengthening the elements themselves or making
them more damage resistant
element be destroyed
0 taking measures to prevent potentially damaging
extreme loads from reaching the key elements.
This represents an interplay between items 1 to 4 of
Table 2.
In any individual design, the options chosen at all stages
of the process must be mutually compatible. At their most
basic, performance requirements should be practical,
achievable and realistic; they should be based on designs
and details that can be built using standards of materials
or workmanship that are not difficult to achieve normally
on site, and which do not require special precautions or
exceptional skills to achieve them.
In summary, the client's requirements regarding the
function of the building in the short and long term
must be clearly established. As a member of the design
team, the role of the structural engineer is to select
and implement the option in design and construction
which he considers will best meet these requirements.

Table 2 Interactive factors affecting structural adequacy . ..

Item Description
1 design situations
2 performance requirements
3 consequences of failure, margins
and factors of safety
4 design and detailing models
5 materials specifications
workmanship and construction
on site
minimum levels of maintenance
Comments
This involves considering situations in which the structure may be required
to perform, including construction, normal use, accidents and possible
modification or demolition. The more critical situations must be selected for
analysis, as appropriate, and for these, the values of actions (loads) must be
derived. These actions may be nominal, being given in Codes and Standards,
together with standard load conditions and combinations.
These can range from the very general (e.g. t h e structure should safely
transmit all loads to the ground) to the specific (e:g. flexural crack widths
should be less than 0.3 mm). For durability, design life would be considered
here.
Infringement of the various performance criteria will have consequences that
vary in severity between the extremes of catastrophic collapse and some
slight improvement of appearance or loss of serviceability.
Factors of safety are introduced to cover uncertainties in the other six
items, to limit the number of design situations that need to be analysed, and
thus to lead to satisfactory in-service performance.
Design and detailing rules and equations are derived from experience,
theories or research, aimed at modelling the actual behaviour of a structure,
structural element or material under various actions. They incorporate
simplifications in representing material characteristics and in the assumptions
and mathematics of structural analysis.
The procedures for seeing that the properties assumed in item 4 are in fact
achieved.
These are the minimum standards deemed necessary to meet the desired
performance requirements, when associated with the procedures and
assumptions in items 3, 4 and 5 above.
This is not a common component of the design process at present. If
durability is to be dealt with more consciously, it will be necessary to set
standards relating the maintenance requirements for a building appropriate
to the standards adopted in its initial design and construction. This is similar
to the relationship between design (items 1 to 5) and workmanship (item 6).
The adequacy of maintenance work requires checks equivalent to those for
new construction (see Section 11).

IStructE Structural adequacy buildings 13

While general rules and guidance are available to guide
him in this task, he must be alert and aware of their use
and be flexible in applying them to each individual
situation. A systematic approach of the kind indicated
above can assist in this.
The real purpose in presenting the overall basic process
in this way is to demonstrate that structural adequacy
depends on a number of factors (seven, in Table 2 terms).
Each is important in itself, as is their interaction. Within
limits, each item can be adjusted to meet different
required levels of adequacy, as indicated briefly above.
The individual items in Table 2 are considered further in
this reDort as follows:
items 1 and 3 Sections 4 and 6
item 2 Section 8
items 4 and 5 Sections 7 and 9
item 6 Section 10
item 7 Section 11
4.2 Key requirements
4.2.1 Safety
The provision of adequate strength and stability is
essential for the safety of any building both in service and
during construction. In general, the items listed in Table
2 are covered in statutory and approved documents,
Codes of Practice and other guidance, which lay down
acceptable standards and methods for meeting them. The
use of these has become routine, but the designer should
always be aware of the points made in Section 2, and
should check out the basic matters listed in Section 3,
especially with regard to:
0 robustness in the event of misuse or accident
0 any potential reduction of safety with time because
of deterioration
0 the safety of the building envelope as a whole, and
not just the structural elements.
.4.2.2 Serviceability
A building is serviceable provided that movements,
deformations, lack of watertightness or any other factor,
from whatever cause, do not impar the use of the building.
Assessing or achieving serviceability can be complex,
because there are many different and interrelated facets
to be considered (the most important of these are
identified and categorized in Section 8). The subject is
also difficult to handle since the interpretation of 'ade-
quacy' is often subjective. A certain deflection may be
satisfactory in an industrial building but excessive in an
office building: criteria for environment or vibration may
depend on the occupancy of the buildin or the nature of
the equipment to be installed in it 6 . g . hospitals or
computer facilities).
When considering serviceability, engineers tend to
concentrate on the deformation of structural elements, for
which general guidance is available in Codes of Practice.
However, Table 1demonstrates that deficiencies are more
likely to occur in the building envelope as a whole.
Moreover, the actual performance depends heavily on the
characteristics and quality of the materials in the finished
building, which in turn depend on the standards of
workmanship achieved. In dealing with these complexities
there are three important steps:
0 Awareness. There is need to establish and under-
stand the significant factors affecting serviceability,
starting with item 1 of Table 2. In addition to dead,
imposed and wind loading, the most significant
influence here is that of environment, both natural
and manmade, at both macro- and micro-levels. In
particular, temperature and moisture movement
14
are key factors. The direct effects that they produce
require considertion: so too do the possible indirect
effects arising from, for example, moisture-carrying
deleterious materials, moisture and/or temperature
causing ground movement, or relative movement
between elements. More attention is also required
by those involved in research and development to
identify and elucidate the factors involved. Some
guidance is now beginning to appear (e.g. refer-
ences 1 and 2), but much more is required.
0 Assessment. Assessing the significance of the va-
rious factors has two stages. First, to calculate or
assess the magnitude and nature of each relevant
factor; and secondly, to match the results with the
performance required. The first requires informa-
tion; the second demands judgment of that infor-
mation based on experience. Such experience is not
simply that of the individual engineer or organiza-
tion, but experience of the past that has been
carefully collected, analysed and documented in
generally available publications. The detail re-
quired goes beyond the scope of Codes of Practice:
state-of-the-art reports such as references 3 , 4 and 5
are helpful but deal mainly with materials
0 Selection. Selection of the best option depends on
the magnitude, effect and significance of each
factor. For example, both structural and non-
structural cracking in concrete are well
u n d e r ~ t o o dand
~ . ~ can be controlled in a variety of
ways - by reinforcement, by proportioning mem-
bers appropriately, by good detailing, by the choice
of concrete mix and good concreting practice
(including size, shape and sequence of pours,
compaction and curing).
Movements in general have a strong bearing on both
the serviceability and durability of buildings, and in
dealing with these the broad options available given in
subsection 8.4.
4.2.3 Durability and maintenance
Durability and maintenance together determine the
length of time for which a building can usefully be kept in
service. Deterioration and defects can sometimes erode
safety margins and, where this might be significant, the
design of a building should preferably be such that
indications of structural weakening would be detected
during normal inspection and maintenance.
The basic requirements of durability are illustrated
diagrammatically in Fig. 3. This indicates some important
E t Fig. 3 Loss of durability with time
tl
.-
c I ~ S p r e a of
d performance
.c_ I
I
Minimum required
T [3~;i
.)
Y
performance (not usually
specif ied in design)
I I
I I
Construct ion
i
A
*
Time
completed
points that affect the whole design approach to safety and
serviceability. These are:
0 the variation in inherent durability built in at the
design/construction stage, which may often be a
matter of judgment.
0 the considerable variation of actual performance
(the hatched area)
IStructE Structural adequacy buildings
 0 the need for a maintenance plan roviding perform-
ance somewhere between curve /? I]
(normally much
too expensive) and curve [3] (both dangerous in
safety terms and expensive in remedial terms).
Some variant of curve [2] is probably realistic.
If Fig. 3 is associated with Table 2, then the need for
planned inspection and maintenance (item 7 of Table 2)
becomes immediately apparent. Indeed, the inclusion of
this item ‘minimum levels of maintenance’ highlights a
factor that is not adequately considered by the client at
the design stage. A building represents an investment that
should be Properly managed during its lifetime and
planned maintenance (as o posed to crisis-management)
P
should be an integral part o that process. The level of this
maintenance should be clearly established by the client on
the advice of the design team as part of the design brief,
since it may not only affect the nature, materials and cost
of the initial construction, but will also determine what
special provisions have to be made in the design for
inspection facilities, routine maintenance and the repair
or replacement of components. Components in the
structure and fabric of a building will not all be equally
durable, and this should be recoginzed in the design,
together with any requirements the client might have
regarding future alterations or change in use.
Fig. 3 should be closely linked with the remainder of
Table 2. However, while attention to items 5 and 6 will
undoubtedly contribute to durability, the greatest need is
to develop items 1 to 4 of Table 2.
Central to this theme is item 2 (performance require-
ments). In Fig. 3, this implies the definition of the two
arrowed lines, relating to minimum performance require-
ments. It has been argued that this would be difficult, if
not impossible, in any generally quantified way.6 Indeed
the very term ‘design life’ raises difficulties both of
definition and application. First, it differs for the different
types of element in a building and their environment, and
secondly, it is critically dependent on maintenance. It may
be more realistic to speak in terms of ‘durability and
maintenance’. The key point is that a maintenance plan
should be part of the design, and in preparing this. an
initial period, agreed with the client, should be borne in
mind, during which the building should need no more
than routine maintenance.

References
1. Alexander, S. J., & Lawson, R. M.: Design for movement
in buildings, Technical note 107, CIRIA, London 1981
2. Structure-so;/ interaction, Institution of S t r uct U ral En -
gineers, London 1989
3. Harrison, T. A . : Early age crack control in concrete, Report
91, CIRIA, London 1981
4. Non-structural cracks in concrete, Technical report no. 22,
Concrete Society, London 1982
5. Hawes, F. L.: Appearance inotters - 6: the weathering of
concrete buildings, Report no. 47.106. C & CA, Slough.
1985
6. Somerville, G.: ‘The design life of concrete structures‘.
Struct. Engr., 64A, no. 2 , Feb 1986, p. 60, and discussion,
Struct. Engr., 64A, no. 9, Sept 1986, p. 223

IStructE Structural adequacy buildings 15

5 Responsibility, communications and
management
5.1 Responsibility
A structural engineer may play a part in a building project
as a member of the design team, as an inspector of work
being constructed, as a member of the construction team
or as an adviser to an owner or purchaser. The engineer’s
responsibilities will be somewhat different depending on
what role he plays, but his responsibility to the profession
and to society will be constant. When involved in the
design aspects of a building, the structural engineer has
the overall responsibility to provide within the cost plan
and commensurate with safety, a structure that will
perform acceptably during the required life of the build-
ing, and which is capable of being erected. In design, he
should pay attention to the stability of the structure as a
whole as well as to the calculated stresses in individual
components or to the deflection and serviceability of
individual members. If changes to the design of the
structure are made necessary by unforeseen site condi-
tions, or as a result of requests for change made by the
building owner, his architect, or by the contractor, the
effect on overall stability must not be overlooked while
satisfying the other matters, e.g. strength, serviceability,
etc. His responsibility may include, where required by the
owner, examining the erection scheme to see that the
principal factors essential to the stability of the building
(which are, or should be, embodied in the design and
specification) are properly adhered to. The designing
structural engineer should satisfy himself that the contrac-
tor is properly addressing the question of the adequacy of
the qualification and experience of his site inspectorate in
the work to be undertaken. The designing structural
engineer should advise the building owner on the need for
resident site monitoring; where the employer requires
such monitoring, it is the designing engineer’s responsibil-
ity to see that such staff are competent to carry out their
responsibilities and have recourse to their headquarters
for advice where necessary.
When a structural engineer is employed for site inspec-
tion, or as a member of the construction team, he should
make himself familiar with the designer’s requirements for
the drawings and specification, and try to see that the
principal factors are properly adhered to.
5.2 Responsibility to society
An engineer should respect the present and long-term
interests of society. Hence, although the structural en-
gineer’s prime duty of care is to the person employing
him, he should at all times have regard to the safety of
persons using the building. The engineer should not only
see that the building remains safe and serviceable during
his client’s interest but should also strive to see that it
possesses at least the functional, aesthetic and durability
standards nationally accepted for a building of that kind.
Society’s interests are protected to some extent by the
requirements of building regulations, Codes of Practice
and other statutory or advisory documents. However, it
is the structural engineer who must interpret these
requirements and exercise engineering judgment to
discharge his responsibility to provide an adequate
structure.
The structural engineer, therefore, carries a heavy
responsibility for public safety. He should not claim
16
competence to deal with matters beyond his skill. The
consequences of negligence can be severe. The standard
of care expected from a structural engineer, in whichever
capacity he is acting, is normally that of a prudent and
reasonable engineer, not of one inexperienced in the work
he has undertaken to do, nor of someone especially well
experienced compared to an average engineer.
5.3 Responsibility to his employer
The responsibilities of the structural engineer in this
respect vary depending on whether his employer is the
building owner (the employer), the consulting engineer,
or a contractor. In the first two cases his responsibility is
generally covered by, but not necessarily based on, the
ACE Model forms of agreement,‘ which describe the
services of the structural engineer when working in the
capacity of a consulting engineer. When a structural
engineer is employed in design by a contractor, his duties
should be broadly similar, however.
At the outset of each project, the designing structural
engineer should remind himself of the need to design in
greatest safety commensurate with the cost normally to be
expected for that kind of building. In general terms, the
owner is not best served by a complicated solution;
simplicity is generally the keynote of success and is often
the most difficult to achieve.
5.4 Responsibility to the profession
The structural engineer has a responsibility to enhance the
standing of the profession and to regulate his professional
actions generally to accord with the code of professional
conduct.
5.5 Responsibility to the contractor
It is necessarily the contractor who has responsibility to
decide his own detailed method of construction and for
maintaining stability of the building while it is under his
control. However, where there are critical points of
erection, or aspects of the design, that require detailed
instructions on the method of working, these should bc:
made clear in the contract documents or the drawings.
The designing structural engineer should be prepared to
help and advise the contractor, but if he considers that a
dangerous situation could arise, then it is his duty to warn
the contractor. All members of the construction team,
including the structural engineer, whether as a consultant
or an employee of the contractor, can be held legally
responsible for lack of safety on a project. A structural
engineer who is aware of, or has reason to be aware of,
lack of safety on a project may be held responsible for it.
5.6 The contractor’s responsibility
In an age of increasing technology the contractor, who
is responsible for providing the specified materials and
the required standard of workmanship, should recognize
the need to employ properly qualified and experienced
supervisors on site. On complex structures or in circum-
stances where a full understanding of engineering
principles is required to execute the work safely, he
should employ a chartered engineer to direct and super-
vise the construction.
IStructE Structural adequacy buildings
 5.7 Communications and management
The construction industry depends on its ability to pass
ideas between owners, architects, engineers, quantity
surveyors, specialists, site inspectors, the contractor’s and
subcontractor’s site supervisory staff, down to the fore-
man, chargehands and craftsmen.
Effective management depends on good communica-
tions, but communications may be severed or distorted
through faults in procedure, organization and opposing
attitudes. With the increasing application of QA, proce-
dures for management are set down in a manual and their
effective application is monitored by a supervising body.
Such rigidly applied procedures should not mask the need
for good morale, which is conducive to good communica-
tions and effective management.
An RIBA handbook2 describes a form of management
where the project is architect led and indicates the points
where good communications are especially important.
The activities of the structural engineer and other mem-
bers of the project team are covered in the section ‘Plan
of work for design team operation’, which is arranged in
four stages: briefing, sketch plans, working drawings and
site operations. This has been developed from the
structural engineer’s point of view in an Institution
report . 3

References
1. Model forms of agreement, ACE, London
2 . RIBA plan of work, revised edit., RIBA, London 1973
3. Communication of structural design, Institution of Structural
Engineers, London 1974

\ IStructE Structural adequacy buildings ~ 17

6 Loading
6.1 General
Loads are the forces that a structure is required to resist
during its life. They arise from the self-weight, cladding,
finishes and other fixtures (dead loads), its use (imposed
loads) and geophysical effects (wind, snow, temperature
and seismic loads).
International work on structural safety has led to the
use of the term ‘action’ as a more general description of
load.’.* Actions include all the loads mentioned above
(direct actions) and induced loads within the structure
resulting from changes in geophysical conditions, e. .
temperature and differential settlement (indirect actions?.
Some engineers consider that prestressing should be classed
as a load or action, but since prestressing is merely a design
solution for resistance, it should be regarded as such.
Structural adequacy depends on both loading and
resistance. However, basic information on loading is less
well established than that for resistance. This is because
it is generally more difficult to estimate or control
imposed loads.
6.2 Partial safety factors for loads
The limit state concept with its use of partial safety factors
for load and resistance, together provide a rational
framework for design. The variability of both load and
resistance should be known or reasonable values assumed,
and expressed as characteristic values that have accept-
ably safe probabilities of occurrence.
However, for manmade loads such as floor loads, there
are insufficient data available for characteristic values to
be statistically derived, and thus the nominal values given
in Standards and Codes are assumed to be characteristic
values. In the case of geophysical loads such as from wind
and snow for which statistical data exist, the characteristic
value is normally set at a return period of once in 50 years.
For temporary buldings, a shorter return period for
geophysical loads may be adopted.
Table 3 Examples of yf values taken from BS 5950
load combination limit state
ultimate serviceability
dead (D)
dead (D) +
imposed (l) 1.4D+ 1.61 1 .OD+0.81
dead (D) +
imposed (I) +
wind (W) 1.2D+1.21+1.2W I.OD+0.81+0.8W
wind (W) 1.4W 0.8W
dead (D) -
wind (W opposite
direction) 1.OD-1.4W 1.OD-0.8W
The design load Fd is obtained as F d = yfF, where yf
is the partial safety factor for load, introduced to take
account of items such as:
(a) the possibility of unfavourable deviation from charac-
teristic values
(b) uncertainty in the loading model.
Some UK Codes (e.g. BS 8110) also define yf to
include ‘inaccurate assessment of effects of loading and
18
unforeseen stress redistribution within the structure’,
which belong more logically to matters concerning the
partial safety factor for resistance ym. However, what
matters finally is that the combined effect of the partial
safety factors for both loads and resistance result in
adequate but economic overall safety factors.
Typical values of yf currently adopted are given in
Table 3.
It should be emphasized that the majority of building
failures are related to serviceability rather than ultimate
strength. This often concerns the interaction of the
structure with other components and different materials
forming part of the building (see Section 8).
6.3 Dead loads
Dead loads are usually known with reasonable accuracy,
provided that account is taken of:
dimensional tolerances in construction
variation in density of materials
contingency variations for future changes in construc-
tion (e.g. relaying of flooring or reroofing).
Contingencies for future changes in construction may be
a matter for agreement between client and engineer.
Certain additional loads can be allowed for without
significant cost penalty.
6.4 Imposed floor loads
Imposed uniformly distributed and concentrated loads are
given in BS 6399: Part 1’. The weight of partitions of
unspecified position is now considered an imposed load.
The total imposed floor loads may be reduced according
to the number of storeys when considering vertical
supports, and the area of large floors when considering
the supporting beams. Such reductions, as set out in the
loading Code, reflect the reduced probability of the
maximum imposed loads occurring over the whole build-
ing or over the entire area of a large floor.
Paradoxically, although imposed loads for buildings are
of manmade origin, data on actual loads are difficult to
obtain or predict. Imposed loads may change in unfore-
seen ways according to changes in life-style or building
content (e.g. pogo dancing, computer equipment).
Generally, however, the nominal values given in BS 6399:
Part l3 have, with few known exceptions, resulted in
adequate building design.
Floor loads in modern warehouses have tended to
increase because of high-density storage, made possible
by developments in tall racking systems and automated
narrow-aisle crane^.^
There is a need to consider different yf values to take
account of variabilities in different ty es of imposed loads
K
(e.g. hydrostatic head of water wit no variability) for
each limit state. For the serviceability limit states different
yf and imposed-load values may be needed for elastic
deflection (e.g. steelwork) and for creep (based on a
lower load of longer duration).
Finally, the maximum imposed loads for which a
building has been designed should be clearly understood
by the owner and occupier; wherever possible loading
notices should be displayed in the building.
IStructE Structuraladequacy buildings
I
6.5 Effect of load duration on strength
The strength of certain materials, e.g. timber, grp and grc,
is significantly reduced by longer durations of load.
In the case of timber, the Code (BS 526S5) categorizes
loads in three durations: long term (dead and imposed
floor loads), medium term (roof imposed loads) and short
or very short term (wind or impact loads), although the
actual durations are not specified. Clearly, the assumption
that the imposed floor load is long term is conservative
except for storage structures.
In some national Codes of European countries, load
duration is classified in actual time expressed as 10Xhours,
and it is hoped that a similar classification will be adopted
in Eurocodes.
6.6 Imposed roof loads
BS 6399: Part 33deals primarily with snow loads according
to location, altitude and roof shape. Uneven distribution
of snow deposition arising from wind, and redistribution
of snow because of wind drift, are taken into account.6
Wind drift snow loads are regarded as ‘exceptional loads’
of rare occurrence and high magnitude, to be used in
checking ultimate strength.
6.7 Wind loads
Wind loading in the UK is given in CP 3: Chapter V: Part
2’, and the background to the Code is given in reference
8. Recent amendments to the Code provide improved
data for canopy roofs, the effect of topography such as
escarpments and valleys, and weighting factors on wind
speed with direction. The UK wind speed map has also
been updated from further accrued data.
Causes of variation in wind loads on buildings are
complex, ranging from geophysical factors of the site to
features of the built en~ironment.’”~ Long-term changes
in the built environment are difficult for the engineer to
predict, but conservative assumptions should be made.
For buildings or environs of unusual configurations and
exposure, wind-tunnel scale-model tests can often provide
helpful insights.
Experience of wind damage to buildings shows that it
occurs mainly on inadequately fixed non-structural com-
ponents, usually outside or on the fringes of the engineer’s
normal design responsibility.
Wind gusts result in a fluctuating load against obstruc-
tions. If the frequency of the fluctuating load is similar to
the natural frequency of the structure or its components,
the structure responds in resonance, experiencing higher
loads than the static values. Natural frequencies of
buildings are usually much lower than wind gust fre-
quencies,’ but with use of lighter materials and compo-
nents, their natural frequencies would increase. The
frequency of components may also need to be considered,
particularly in the case of tubular structures.
Wind dynamic-sensitive buildings are, however, rare.
Sensitive structures are often apparent prima facie by
inspection: they are usually very tall, slender and light-
weight, more evocative of cooling towers, metal chimneys,
towers and tension structures than of normal buildings. A
simple procedure is being developed to determine
whether or not a structure is wind sensitive and needs to
be dynamically analysed, which it is hoped may be in-
corporated in a future revision of the wind loading code.
Tornadoes, a rapidly rotating column of air, occasio-
nally occur in the UK but rarely cause loss of life or severe
damage. No special account is taken in building design
for UK conditions of the likelihood of this occurrence.
6.8 Horizontal imposed loads
(excluding wind)
BS 618013 gives horizontal loads for protective barriers
such as parapets and balustrades in building, stadia and
car parks. It should be emphasized that walls across which
IStructE Structural adequacy buildings
there is a difference in floor level of more than 600 mm
should be designed as a protective barrier.
Great loads on can be generated in places
of assembly by crowds (affected by mass excitement or
panic), or public disorder. Such places range from
balconies and parapets, which may be crowded on isolated
occasions, to theatre and sports stadia barriers which are
frequently at risk. Both barriers and barrier failures have
been factors in tragic losses of life.
6.9 Explosions
In 1968, a gas explosion on the 18th floor of the block of
flats at Ronan Point caused the collapse of 16 floors at a
corner of the block by loss of loadbearing flank walls and
shear failure of hollow core concrete floors from falling
debris.16 The extent of damage was dispro ortionate to
P
the cause. Evidence collected subsequent y confirmed
that gas explosions, including town and natural gas and
bottled gas, are the main cause of accidental damage in
buildings, especially dwellings.”
To provide a reasonable level of safety against disprop-
ortionate collapse, building regulations and Codes have
specified loading requirements such as explosion press-
ures which key elements are required to resist at ultimate
load conditions. Alternative strategies for doing this are
given in Section 7.
The build-up of pressure from explosion in a building
may be relieved to some extent by vents such as openings
and light cladding. These measures are normally adopted
for ordnance buildings.
6.10 Impact
BS 618013 and BS 6399: Part l3 give guidance on
accidental impact loads from vehicles travelling at an
arbitrary speed of 4 . 5 d s . Slender columns and walls close
to moving vehicles should be protected with bollards or
high kerbs.
Hard and soft body impact loads for the design of
external cladding are given in BS 8200.18
Aircraft crashes, often followed by explosion, can occur
at any level in a building. They are extremely rare, and it
is normally unnecessary to consider this hazard except in
special locations or for buildings of exceptional import-
ance or height.
6.11 Sonic boom
Aircraft flying supersonically produce shock waves whose
characteristics depend on the size, shape and altitude of
the aircraft.
The operating heights and speed of supersonic aircraft
are usually controlled so that normally the maximum
pressure of the shock waves at ground level does not
exceed 100 N/m2. Experience of simulated sonic booms
on greenhouses has shown that glass may be cracked near
glazing sprigs and clips and that improved methods of
fixing substantially reduce damage. There is no evidence
that structural damage would be caused.
6.12 Earthquakes
Although the UK is not entirely free from earthquakes,
the vast majority of these cause no more than slight
superficial damage to buildings. Thus earthquake effects
need not be considered in building design for UK conditions
except for structures that provide an exceptional hazard
(e.g. nuclear reactor structures and offshore oil rigs).
Design Codes are available in most earthquake-prone
countries. Where local recommendations do not exist,
earthquake records in the area concerned may be avail-
able from such sources as the Institute of Geological
Sciences, Edinburgh, and this information should then be
applied with one of the recognized Codes for structrural
design.
19
 Even with adequate provision for the most severe
earthquake in designing the building, some local damage
is unavoidable, and the aim of the design should be to
contain this to reasonable limits. Particular attention
should be paid to fixing non-structural components.
6.13 Vibration
Vibrations in buildings may arise from many causes such
as wind effects, civil engineering works, blasting, traffic
or machinery. If the vibration is continuous and is at a
frequency close to a resonance frequency of a structural
element, then a significantly increased response will be
obtained because of dynamic magnification at that fre-
quency.
Recommended limits for human exposure to vibration
are given in BS 6472,19 and in general, these limits mean
that overstressing from vibrations may be ignored when
considering structural safety. Serviceability may be
affected by vibration, but should be distinguished from
defects caused by long-term building movements.
For buildings that contain vibration-sensitive equip-
ment or which are required to provide a particularly quiet
internal environment, special measures may be necessary
to isolate the source of vibration of the area concerned.
6.14 Induced loads
Induced loads (indirect actions) are developed in a
structure when it is wholly or partially restrained against
taking up free movement from such causes as tempera-
ture, moisture or other dimensional changes, and differ-
ential settlement.
Temperature and moisture effects on buildings are
often cyclical. The response of the building to these effects
is usually cyclical too, but may also be incremental and
irreversible (the ratcheting effect), usually affecting servi-
ceability rather than ultimate strength.
6.15 Notional horizontal loads
So that there is adequate lateral stability and rigidity, and
to take account of horizontal loads that may be induced
by out-of-plumb walls and columns, it is now common
practice in Standards and Codes to specify a notional
minimum horizontal load of about 0.5 to 1.5% of the dead
+ imposed loads or dead load, respectively, to be applied
to the structural frame if this load is greater than the wind
and/or other imposed horizontal loads.
6.16 Construction loads
Care should be taken to avoid structural damage or
instability by overloading, for instance by excessive
stacking of materials on roofs and floors beyond the
design loads, or on a partially completed structure with
reduced resistance.
Vertical- and horizontal-load (particularly wind-load)
combinations at various critical stages of construction
should be checked to avoid instability, overturning, uplift
and sliding, for instance prior to the full application of
permanent dead loads, and on partially completed and
backfilled retaining walls and basements.
Because responsibility between design and construction
is often divided, it is important for the designer to
communicate clearly to the constructor the design loads
and load-combinations involved.
Similar considerations apply to construction loads for
temporary works.
20
References
1. Eurocode no. 1, Common unified rules f o r different types
of construction and material
2. IS0/2394: 1986 General principles on reliability f o r
structures, ISO, Geneva
3. BS 6399: Loading f o r buildings, Part 1: 1984: Dead and
imposed loads, Part 3: 1988: Imposed roof loads, British
Standards Institution, London
4. Neal, F. R . , & Judge, C. J.: Classes of imposedfloor loads
f o r warehouses, IP19/87, Building Research Establish-
ment, Garston 1987
5. BS 5268: Structural use of timber, Part 2: 1988: Permissible
stress design, materials and workmanship, British Stan-
dards Institution, London
6. Loads on roofs f r o m snow drifting against vertical obstruc-
tions and in valleys, Digest 332, Building Research
Establishment, Garston 1988
7. CP 3: Code of basic data f o r design of buildings, Chapter
V: Loading, Part 2: 1972: Wind loads, British Standards
Institution, London
8. Newberry, C. W . , & Eaton, K. J.: Wind loading hand-
book, B R E report, HMSO, London 1974
9. Cook, N. J.: Designer’s guide to wind loading of building
structures, Butterworth, London 1985
10. Assessment of wind speed over topography, Digest 283,
Building Research Establishment, Garston 1984
11. Lacey, R . E.: ‘Tornadoes in Britain during 1963-66’,
Weather, 23, no. 3 , 1968, p.
12. Eaton, K . J . : Damage due to tornadoes in the SE, January
1971, C P 27/71, Building Research Establishment, Garston
1971
13. BS 6180: 1982: Protective barriers in and about buildings,
British Standards Institution, London
14. Safety considerations f o r the design and erection of de-
mountable grandstands, Institution of Structural En-
gineers, London 1989
15. Appraisal of sports grounds, Institution of Structural
Engineers, London 1990
16. Report of the inquiry into the collapse of flats at Ronan
Point, Canning Town, HMSO, London 1968
17. Taylor, & Alexander, S. J.: Structural damage in buildings
caused b y gaseous explosions and other accidental loadings,
C P 45/74, Building Research Establishment, Garston 1974
18. BS 8200: 1985: Design of non-loadbearing external vertical
enclosures of buildings, British Standards Institution,
London
19. BS 6472: 1984: Guide to evaluation of human exposure to
vibration in buildings, British Standards Institution,
London
IStructE Structural adequacy buildings
 7 Strength, stability and robustness
7.1 Aims
The essential aim of structural design for strength and
stability is that the structure should remain secure (safe)
for its design life in normal service conditions, given
appropriate maintenance. It is important to distinguish
between strength and stability in this regard;’ stability
may be largely independent of strength, but is dependent
on the stiffness of structural elements, on the way that
these elements are connected together, and on the
response of the overall structural system to small changes
in its environment.
Additionally, buildings should have an acceptable
general structural integrity that ermits them to tolerate
P
or avoid damage in the event o abnormal or accidental
conditions. Structural form, type of structure and con-
struction are all important in this context, as are provi-
sions for continuity, ductility, toughness and redundancy.
This desirable characteristic of structural systems has
come to be known as robustness.
In considering structural safety, therefore, it is neces-
sary to:
( U ) provide adequate strength for individual elements and
the overall structural system in normal service condi-
tions
(b) maintain the stability of the system, both in whole and
in part, caused by small changes in the environment
(c) consciously check the robustness of the system, which
results from (a) and (b) above.
7.2 Definitions
Strength implies that the resistance of the structure as a
whole, of individual elements, and of critical sections of
these elements should exceed the applied loads by a
prescribed margin.
A stable building has been defined as:’
‘Provided that the displacements induced by normal loads
are acceptable, then a building may be said to be stable if:
1. a minor change in its form, condition, normal loading
or equipment would not cause partial or complete
collapse
and
2. it is not unduly sensitive to change resulting from
accidental or other actions.
Normal loads comprise the permanent and variable
actions for which the building has been designed.
The phrase “is not unduly sensitive to change” should
be broadly interpreted to mean that the building should
be so designed that it will not be damaged by accidental
or other actions to an extent disproportionate to the
magnitudes of the original causes of damage’.
In effect, the two components of this definition disting-
uish between stability and robustness, as discussed in
subsection 7.1.
7.3 Design process for strength, stability
and robustness
Broadly the process of structural design for a building
normally consists of a series of steps that iterate towards
\ the final design. First tentative decisions are made on the
form of the structure needed to meet the requirements of
, IStructE Structural adequacy buildings
the client and the material in which it is to be constructed.
The tentative form chosen should be one that is stable and
robust, i.e. it will not change into a mechanism under
normal loads nor is it likely to’in the event of an accident.
Trial sizing of the structural elements based on the
engineer’s experience follows. Further steps in the design
process then consist of iterations between checks of the
strength and stability of the trial structure to resist normal
loads and assessments of provisions for robustness.
7.3.1 Checking strength and stability
The first step is to analyse the forces induced by normal
loads on the trial structure. The resistances (R) of the trial
structure and its elements are then compared in turn with
the effects of the appropriate characteristic forces (F)
estimated by the analyses to determine whether the struc-
ture and its elements are ‘safe’; i.e. stable, sufficiently
strong and stiff:
RlYrn>YfF
These comparisons indicate whether the trial structure has
an adequate margin against overturning or movement and
whether its elements also have adequate strength (in
bending, shear, tension or compression) and stiffness
(deflection, displacement, distortion) against the limit
states. Where inadequacy is indicated, adjustments to the
trial structure are made, and the calculation is repeated.
Further iterations follow as necessary until’ the structure
and all its elements meet the performance requirements.
7.3.2 Assessment of robustness
At the same time that the structure is being designed for
strength and stiffness to resist normal loads, its robustness
and resistance to damage should be checked. The choice
of the form of structure is of major importance in
providing robustness and resistance to damage.
The four main causes of structural instability* are:
(U) overload, i.e. loading greater than that assumed in design
(b) accidental loads, e.g. impact or explosion
(c) weak structure, i.e. construction does not conform to
design assumptions
(d) deterioration, i.e. decrease in material and structural
strength so that failure occurs under normal loads.
The structure should have a degree of robustness
against such events, (i.e. it should resist to a reasonable
extent damage caused by misuse, accidental loads, imper-
fections or deterioration) even though building manage-
ment in use, supervision and control during construction,
design and specification of materials and structure, and
building regulations aim to avoid adverse happenings of
these types. The many factors and circumstances affecting
the design, construction and use of a building structure
may conspire to produce an abnormal condition (acci-
dent) and hence threaten the stability of the building even
though good standards have been adopted throughout. It
is for this reason that the engineer should consider at the
design stage defence strategies against instability follow-
ing an accident.
Since instability is a characteristic of the structure-
environment system of the building, a defence strategy
adopted during checking resistance to damage may be
chosen from one or more of the following measures:
Ll
 The provision of multiple independent loadpaths by References
adopting a form of structure such that load may be I. Stability of buildings, Institution of Structural Engineers,
shed into other paths of resistance elsewhere in the London 1988
structure in the event of an accident reducing the 2. Armer, G. S. T.: ‘The stability of large structures’, Journal
strength at a particular location to less than the of CIB, JulylAugust 1983, p. 216
applied load. A pragmatic method of checking
whether multiple independent loadpaths are present 3. The structural condition of prefabricated reinforced concrete
is to assess whether the structure will remain stable houses designed before 1960, IP 10184, Building Research
following the notional removal of individual elements Establishment, Garston 1984
in turn. Generally, structures should not be wholly 4. The structure of Ronan Point and other Tuylor Woodrow-
dependent for their stability on the structural integrity Anglian buildings, Building Research Establishment report,
of a single connection or element. Where this situa- Garston 1985
tion is found during design, the structural form should 5. The structural adequacy and durability of large panel system
be re-examined. If the situation cannot be avoided dwellings, Building Research Establishment report,
then particular consideration should be given to the Garston 1987
design and the construction of the crucial connection
or element to make it such that it has ample strength
and toughness to withstand misfortune. The checking
of design and inspection during and after construction
are especially important for such components
The inclusion of devices to allow the building to avoid
carrying load. The introduction of load-shedding
devices (such as venting for explosions) and of weak
joints to prevent horizontal transmission of load are
examples of this approach
The provision of local or general increase in resistance
to enhance the overall resistance against damage.
Such provisions act to increase the size of trigger
accident needed to precipitate failure, thereby reduc-
ing the likelihood of instability occurring
The installation of systems for monitoring the struc-
ture’s performance or for control of its environment.
Monitoring can help to see that the building is used
as intended. It can provide feedback of information
to signal misuse or damage that may require repair or
maintenance. Control of the environment can avoid
unplanned loads, e.g. protection against vehicle im-
pact by the installation of bollards.
These measures are a part, often implicit, of current
practice. It is recommended that more explicit considera-
tion should be given to them in the design of building
structures. Their application to control the stability of any
structure-environment system must be judged by the
engineer according to the particular circumstances. The
aim is to control the system so that the likelihood of
instability occurring during the life of the structure is
negligible, i.e. in the increasingly used terminology of
structural safety, there is a very low probability of
instability occurring, o r the structure has a high reliability.

7.4 Populations of structures

Modern methods of construction have relied increasingly
on prefabricated structural components for some types of
building.* As a result, populations of buildings with
similar characteristics can be created from common
components, based on common designs and construction
methods. While the structural adequacy of each individual
building so constructed should be checked, designers
should also be aware of potentially wider consequences,
associated with substantial populations of similar
structure^.^'^'^ Such populations require particular care,
especially with regard to the design, detailing and con-
struction of connections and to the quality of components.

22 IStructE Structural adequacy buildings

1
8 Serviceability

8.1 General chemical or mechanical change in properties or

A building is serviceable provided that movements,
deformations, lack of watertightness, or any other factor
from whatever cause, do not make the building unusable
or do not significantly impair its function. There is a time
factor associated with this requirement, and hence a need
to consider it alongside the need for durability and
maintenance (see subsection 4.2 and Section 11).
8.2 Principal serviceability factors
Those aspects of serviceability, normally considered in
design, are given in Table 4, which also gives ‘actions’
relative to each. The various items in Table 4 are treated
in turn in subsection 8.3. Table 4 is not exhaustive, but
attempts to provide performance requirements for those
aspects of design that are under the control of the
designer.
The categories in Table 4 should not be considered in
isolation. They are linked by certain types of action or
action effect. Two examples are worthy of special men-
tion:
0 Water/moisture. Water is important in the form of
driving rain, spray, run off, condensation, standing
water, etc. Its effects can be as: moisture move-
ment, wetting and drying, erosion and abrasion, or
as a trans orting medium for aggressive actions. It
P
can there ore affect a number of sub-groups in each
of the principal categories in Table 4; its potential
influence on performance may require considera-
tion in design
0 Movement. Movement may occur because of exter-
nal actions such as loading, temperature, and the
environment generally. It may also arise from
intrinsic material factors such as a physical,
because of moisture movement. The effects may be
.immediate, progressive, cyclic, recoverable or
irreversible. For example, deflections are produced
by various actions combining to generate movement;
these may lead to loss of performance in terms of
durability, appearance and function. The subject of
movement in buildings will therefore be considered
in detail in subsection 8.4, because of its implica-
tions throughout the design process.
8.3 Serviceability performance criteria
The setting of generally applicable limits is often subjec-
tive because of the lack of reliable data to decide whether
the performance of existing buildings is, or is not,
acceptable with regard to functional, aesthetic or other
criteria. Additionally, performance requirements will
depend on the occupancy or use of the building, and on
the client’s requirements.
It is important therefore to establish performance
requirements between the client and the design team in
formulating the design brief. General guidance may be
obtained from references 1 to 11.
Deterioration, corrosion, abrasion and fatigue may
loosely be classified as ‘durability factors’; similarly,
weathering, deflection and cracking are mainly related to
appearance, while integrity, condensation, transmission
and vibration are all behavioural issues, in terms of how
the building responds to various environmental effects.
Each of the categories in Table 4 is considered below.
Deterioration. Materials have a finite life that may be
extended by good design and maintenance. It is tacitly
assumed within the Codes of Practice that the materials
specification, and the structural design and workmanship

Table 4 Examples of principal serviceability criteria

Category Relevant actions Relevant aspects of design
deterioration solar (UV) radiation, frost, surface protection
moisture, biological attack materials specification
and chemical changes consider environment
corrosion electrolytic action, as above
contaminants (e.g. chlorides),
loss of passivitiy and protection
abrasion traffic, chemicals surface hardness
fatigue stress cycles reduce stress ranges
weathering atmospheric pollution, minimize staining by detailing and
driving rain, surface deterioration choice of materials
deflection loads, differential settlement, limit deflection
temperature
cracking restrained movements, crack control
brittle materials movement joints
integrity leakage of groundwater or crack control
retained liquids or rain weather-resistant materials
penetration consider design of joints
condensation humidity of atmosphere vapour barrier and insulation,
humidity control
transmission excessive noise, heat or cold insulation
vibration wind gusts, building use limit amplitude or acceleration;
(e.g. machinery) isolate source

IStructE Structural adequacy buildings 23

rules enable the building to achieve a certain ‘design-
life’. This timescale is generally unspecified, but with
routine maintenance 50 years is normally considered
attainable. Beyond this time more major repairs may be
expected.
Examples of deterioration of materials are corrosion in
structural steel, alkali-aggregate reaction, or high-
alumina-cement problems in concrete, the effect of
freeze-thawing on masonry and concrete, and fungal or
insect attack in timber. All these can be overcome by
careful choice of materials or preservative treatments.
Corrosion. Corrosion is important both for structural
steelwork (whether painted or galvanized) and for embed-
ded metal in concrete. The mechanism of corrosion is
complex. Painting reduces the ingress of water and oxygen
to the steel, but once the paint surface has broken down,
there is little subsequent protection. Galvanizing offers
further protection by sacrificial loss of the zinc (cathodic
protection).
The high pH or alkali level of concrete offers passive
protection to the embedded reinforcement by inhibiting
the corrosion potential. This passivity may be reduced by
‘carbonation’ of the concrete or by chlorides within the
concrete. Beeby’ suggests that crack widths have little
influence on corrosion in concrete and that the dominant
effects are concrete quality and thickness of cover to the
reinforcing bars. General corrosion over a large area is
usually a serviceability problem, but local pitting corro-
sion without significant sign of distress can be very
serious.
Abrasion. Abrasion resistance is related to repeated
impact and is most important in floors that may be subject
to travelling loads or vehicles.
Fatigue. Fatigue is a particular form of deterioration of
steel and other metals subject to a large number of
relatively high stress cycles. It is more likely in welded
steel elements or where there is local corrosion or stress-
concentrations. Fatigue in concrete or steel is not usually
significant in buildings.
Weathering. Weathering is an often neglected factor in the
UK climate. Staining from water running down the
facades of buildings was apparently well understood in
Victorian times because ledges, cornices and other fea-
tures were detailed to ‘throw’ the water from the face.
Detailing of the facade is therefore still important in
modern buildings for good weathering.
Deflection. Deflections are usually important only if they
contribute to some other effect such as cracking of
partitions or perception of floor movement. It is unlikely
that deflections of an industrial steel shed, for example,
would cause much anxiety to the occupants, unless there
was some other secondary effect, such as tearing of the
sheet fasteners or inefficient operation of a crane etc.
Deflection limits are usually specified in the Codes of
Practice for the various structural materials.
Cracking. Cracking is deliberately included at this point,
dealing with appearance issues, since in reinforced con-
crete, controlled cracks rarely lead to corrosion. The size
of crack width that is visually acceptable is somewhat
subjective and depends to some extent on the use or
importance of the building. In concrete, crack widths of
0.3 to 0.4 mm are probably acceptable, provided that
there is no excessive leakage or discoloration. In masonr
permissible crack widths are defined in BRE Digest 2513,.
Integrity. Integrity is a property of the building envelope
that prevents leakage of moisture. This might be from the
ground in the case of basements, or rain in the case of
roofs and walls. Where joints between elements are to be
formed, the prevention of ingress of moisture is clearly
important. The specification of sealants to be both
impermeable and to allow movement is covered by BS
60933. Joints in concrete cladding are covered by a
Concrete Society report4.
24
The design for reinforced concrete water-retaining
structures is presented in BS 8007’. It is usually consi-
dered that cracks narrower than 0.2 mm heal auto-
geneously and prevent any further passage of moisture.
Crack widths are controlled by provision of a certain
amount of reinforcement or movement joints.
Condensation. Condensation is a problem that has
developed because of a lack of understanding about the
flow of relatively hot and humid air from buildings.
Insulation should be positioned ‘outside’ any vapoiir
barrier, and the internal air ventilated to prevent conden-
sation.
Transmission. Transmission of noise and heat or cold falls
into the domain of sound and thermal insulation, which
are covered by the building regulations.
Vibration. Buildings may be exposed to vibrations from
many sources, and these may require two aspects of
serviceability to be considered.
The first consideration is that the vibrations may be
annoying to the building occupants. In this case recom-
mended limits for human exposure to vibration are given
in BS 64726.
Less common is the case when vibrations lead to
cosmetic damage (cracking) or even structural damage in
extreme cases. There is no guidance available in British
or international Standards about vibration limits relating
to damage. Some guidance is available in reference 7.
For lightweight structures the possibility of vibrations
annoying or causing discomfort to the building occupants
should be considered. The vibration of tall slender towers
caused by wind loads or the vibration of long-span
light-weight floors produced by human excitation are just
two examples. For these examples it may be difficult and
expensive to correct a propensity to unacceptable
vibrations after construction is completed; hence the
possibility of unacceptable vibrations should be con-
sidered at the design stage. Further guidance is given in
references 8 and 9.
8.4 Movement, deflections and vibration
in buildings
Much information on movement of materials and struc-
tures and data on the environment are available but are
scattered rather sparsely through texts on other subjects.
The separation of the subject by material (concrete, stee,l,
timber, masonry, etc.) adopted by Codes of Practice does
not simplify the problem.
8.4.1 Design for movement
Most movement problems arise not because calculations
are not accurate enough but because provision for
movement is omitted or is not compatible with the actual
behaviour. It follows that greater accuracy is not impor-
tant but that a correct understanding of the nature of
movements is.
The general philosphy of designing for movement can
be set down as follows:
assess the potential (or unrestrained) movements,
combining different types and timescales of move-
ment as appropriate
evaluate the restraints to movement and determine
the final balance between restraint forces and move-
ment
decide whether both the restraint forces and net
movements are acceptable
if not, come to an acceptable solution by considering
one or more of the following options:
reducing movement, e.g. increasing stiffness, make
provision to reduce temperature ranges, etc.
modifying the elements to accept greater move-
ments, e.g. if appropriate, making columns more
slender in a large plan building
IStructE Structural adequacy buildings
 0 introducing movement joints
0 designing the’ structure to accept the secondary
effects caused,by movement.
Restraint forces depend on the potential movement and
on the relative stiffness of the elements. In structural
concrete, distress in the form of cracking often occurs
when stiff but weak elements attract considerable force.
Although stiff initially, they may be ineffective at higher
loads.
8.4.2 Sources of movement
The main ‘actions’ that affect the movement of buildings
may be subdivided into the following groups:
0 temperature and radiation effects
0 environment and material changes (e.g.
- creep and
- detailing of a sliding joint. The overall structural action
shrinkage)
0 deflections resulting from applied loads
0 ground movementsand set&ment
0 vibration effects.
Thermal and shrinkage effects usually result in in-plane
movement but, when restrained, often cause bowing,
particularly of thin panels. Bowing is exascerbated by
differential movements, e.g. the outer exposed layer
relative to the inner protected layer of a cladding panel.
In building structures there are several types of move-
ment that need to be considered:
0 absolute member deflections
0 movement between buildings or definable parts of
a building
0 relative movement between structural elements
0 relative movement between the structure and build-
ing (non-structural) elements
0 ground-structure interaction.
For example, walls may deflect under the action of
applied loads, movement of the floors above, and mois-
ture or other strains within the wall itself. The high in-
plane stiffness of walls in relation to the supporting frame
means that they may attract considerable load. This is
particularly true for infill panels of brick or blockwork,
and partitions must often be separated from frame
sidesway by suitable movement joints. Glazing details
should also allow for sufficient relative movement.
The absolute deflection of members is normally control-
led by human or operating criteria. It is generally
considered that a relative vertical deflection of the order
of span/200 along a beam is noticeable, but this would be
totally unacceptable for the smooth motion of a gantry
crane. Where heavy brick or block partitions are used, a
deflection limit of span/500 under imposed load is consi-
dered to be a reasonable criterion to avoid unsightly
cracking. Greater limiting deflections might be appropri-
ate where lightweight partitions are used. A commonly
specified limit in Codes is span/360.
8.4.3 Criteria for movement control joints
The positioning and spacing of movement cmtrol joints
and even the decision as to whether they are necessary at
all is a matter judgment. Proper consideration should be
given by the designer to all the relevant factors.
In the past, a common source of distress in walls was
that of relative vertical movement between an expansive
outer brick skin and a concrete frame which tends to
contract. It is now common practice to detail a compress-
ible joint at the top of the wall in each storey height in
such cases. The horizontal in-plane movement of masonry
walls is much more open to question. There is consider-
able evidence that long walls can be safely detailed
without movement control joints, although short-returns
and large openings can introduce local cracking.”
a
Overall movement joints in large lan structures are
normally placed at between 60 and 8 m. In some cases,
such as a concrete slab on brick crosswalls, it may be
necessary to reduce this spacing. In water-retaining
IStructE Structural adequacy buildings
structures, the joint spacing is directly related to the
amount of reinforcement used, and the permissible crack
widths.’
If movement joints are introduced, it is essential that
the joints are sealed and that they can withstand the
expected range of movement without deterioration. The
safe free movement of sealed joints is related to the
elasticity of the filler material, and free movement
percentages between 30% and 50% are typical.
It should be borne in mind that free movement may be
restained by inappropriate details, ingress of detritus or
even the finishes to the structure will ultimately lead to
serviceability problems. Joints in roofs are particularly
prone to leakage, and flashings may be necessary. In
many cases, forces are required to be transferred orthogo-
nally to the direction of movement, which may require
and integrity should therefore be considered at an early
stage in the design process.
Supports designed to accommodate movement should
be detailed to avoid ‘racheting’ action, i.e. one-directional
accummulation of movement from cycling actions. Tradi-
tional bridge bearings in which one bearing is pinned and
resists movement, while the other bearing is on rollers
designed to accept all the horizontal movement in either
direction, avoid this problem. Bearings of building struc-
tural elements are not generally so equipped. However,
the principle is the same: all the movement must be
accommodated at the movement end, while the other end
must be strong enough to resist any movement.
8.4.4 Floor vibrations
As structural members and floors, in particular, become
lighter and shallower they may satisfy normal serviceabil-
ity criteria, but be unacceptable from the point of view of
perception by the users of the building to vibrations
induced by activities within the building. The current
evidence is that floors with a natural frequency exceeding
4 Hz do not respond excessively to ‘foot-fall’ induced
excitation, provided that the floors are able to develop
reasonably high effective mass.7 In situ concrete or
composite floors are generally acceptable, but light timber
floors or segmented floor panels may not be. Precise
calculations can be made, but the designer normally relies
on experience. For long-span beams, it is often control of
natural frequency that determines the proportion of the
beams. Externally induced vibrations produced by
machinery require more detailed examination.
References
1. Beeby, A. W.: ‘Corrosion reinforcing steel in concrete and
its relationship to cracking’, Struct. Engr., 56A, no. 3 ,
March 1978, p. 77
2. Assessment of damages in low rise buildings, Digest 251,
Building Research Establishment, Garston 1983
3. BS 6093: 1981: Code of practice for the design of joints and
jointing in building construction, BSI, London
4. Design of precast concrete cladding, Concrete Society,
London, 1977
5. BS 8007: 1988: Code of practice for the design of concrete
structures for retaining aqueous liquids, BSI, London
6. BS 6472: 1984: Guide to evaluation of human exposure to
vibration in buildings, BSI, London
7. Walton, C., & Ellis, B. R.: Damage to structures from
ground borne vibration, Information paper, Building
Research Establishment, Garston (to be published)
8. Irwin, A. W.: Design of shear wall buildings, Report 102,
CIRA, London 1984
9. Design guide on the vibration of floors, Steel Construction
Institute, Ascot, 1989
10. Alexander, S. J., & Lawson, R. M.: Design for movement
in building, Technical note 107, CIRIA, London 1981
11. Movement and cracking in long masonry walls, Special
publication 42, CIRIA, London 1986
25
9 Fire
9.1 General
Fire is an ever-present risk, and outbreaks cause loss of
life and immense material loss. With this in mind, the
structural engineer should, when embarking on each
design, remind himself and his professional colleagues of
the importance of controlling the spread of fire.
Building fires normally produce gas temperatures of the
order of lOOO"C, and most building materials when
exposed to such fires will lose a considerable proportion
of their strength as their temperatures increase. For
example, at 550°C the yield stress of mild steel is halved,
normal weight concrete loses compressive strength signifi-
0
cantly above 300°C and continues to lose it during the
cooling-down process , while timber chars and aluminium
softens. Any structure that is designed to support load or
act as a barrier to the passage of fire and smoke may need
to be protected, the amount and nature of the protection
depending on the estimated temperature and duration of the
fire to which it may be exposed and the loading to which
the structure may be subjected. While more information is
becoming available on the factors that determine the
tem erature and duration of a fire, and on the properties
R
of t e main structural materials at high temperatures,
little is known about distortions and forces to which
structural members will be subjected in fire conditions.
It must be recognized that it is rare for a major
structural failure to occur because of fire in a modern
building that is protected to the standard required by
present regulations. An analysis of a few major fire
disasters has shown that while there was extremely rapid
fire spread and subsequent loss of life - mainly because
of the use of highly flammable fittings and furnishings, un-
protected openings and inadequate means of escape - the
structure did not collapse. It could therefore be deduced
that in such cases the present method of design of fire
resistance for buildings has been adequate, although the
margin of adequacy will not have been established precisely.
Probability-based design of structural fire protection is
likely to be introduced in the near future.'
It should be remembered that on its own a fire-resistant
structure may not protect the people or the property
within the 'building; automatic detection systems and
automatic extinction systems may therefore be intro-
duced. Since these measures reduce the chance of a fire
becoming large, they offer protection to the structure, and
this beneficial effect can be recognized in a probability-
based design.
9.2 Purpose of providing fire resistance
The object of fire protection, using the term in a general
sense, is to reduce the risk of outbreak of fire and to
reduce the hazard to people (the life hazard), to structure
and contents (the damage hazard) and to nearby property
(the exposure hazard). 'Structural fire protection' is a
term often used to describe materials added to a structural
member to improve its fire resistance. The basic aims of
providing fire resistance are:
0 to contain the fully developed fire, so that it does
not spread either within the building or to adjacent
buildings and is restricted to a size that can be
tackled by firefighters
26
0 to resist structural collapse, which could endanger
firefighters and nearby property and, especially in
tall buildings, those people outside the immediate
vicinity of the fire who have not yet escaped.
To provide fire containment, a building is normally
divided into fire compartments enclosed by fire-resistance
walls and floors. Supplementary fire-resistant enclosures
may be needed to assist escape within the compartment
on fire.
These are normally non-loadbearing and may need less
fire resistance than the enclosing structure since they will
be used only during the early stages of the fire.
9.3 Fire-resistance test
The fire resistance of a structural element is measured by
exposing it, while supporting the appropriate load, to a
furnace controlled to follow a standard temperaturehime
curve. (This curve is virtually the same throughout the
world.) The fire resistance is measured as the period of
time from the beginning of the test until the element fails
to sup ort its load or, in the case of walls and floors, the
fl
time t at it either cracks so that it can be penetrated by
flames or becomes overheated on the unexposed face, if
this be the shorter period. It is not possible to define the
fire resistance of a material as such, but only of the
structural element in which the material is used, and it is
always important to pay close attention to the fixing and
jointing methods by which the element is formed and by
which it is connected to other elements.
Information on the fire resistance of structural elements
may be obtained from schedules to regulations, approved
documents, Codes of Practice and from the results of
sponsored tests carried out by research and trade organi-
zations and manufacturers of proprietary
Normally, the results of these tests are for elements carrying
a load equal to their maximum 'safe load' in accordance
with the appropriate British Standard or Code of Practice.
When a structure can be guaranteed to be more lightly
loaded, a reduced amount of protection may be calculated.
9.4 Calculation methods
The fire resistance of many types of structural element can
be calculated, taking into account the benefits, for
example, of continuity and additional reinforcements.'G"
Simple methods have been developed for assessing the
behaviour of composite steel deck and concrete floors iind
com osite columns, and computer programs are also
f
avai able for both heat-transfer and structural-behaviour
models. These methods are mainly related to the standard
fire-resistance test, but it is often possible to find some
equivalence between their results and those for so-called
natural fires, as described in subsection 9.6. When a new
method of protection is used, however, it is necessary to
carry out at least one full-scale test, because of the
variation of thermal properties with temperature, the
possibility of cracking, distortion and failure of fixings.
9.5 Methods of structural fire protection
Protection from high temperature can be obtained using
a variety of insulating materials, and frequently the mass
IStructE Structural adequacy buildings
of the element itself can provide a heat sink that gives a
significant delay in temperature rise. Structural protection
is normally provided by application of materials such as
plaster, concrete, rigid casings, sprayed products and
intumescent paints. Occasionally water cooling is used for
steel structures. For some materials there can be problems
of vulnerability to damage and, in the long term, problems
arising from the effects of weathering or other deleterious
atmospheres. In general the choice of protection will be
affected by the expected service conditions.
Heating structural material causes considerable exten-
sions: a steel column 3m long increases 40 mm in length
during a standard fire test when it is free to do so under
constant load. In a statically determinate structure,
expansion may be possible without significantly changing
the forces in the members, but few structures are of this
nature. For example, the load in one column in a line of
columns supporting a stiff shear wall in the building above
could increase considerably if that column alone was
heated. Also the ex ansion of floor slabs can cause lateral
P
movement of, or orces on, columns that they cannot
absorb without distress. The greater the relative stiffness
of the columns, the greater the distress.
Increasing the fire resistance of the structure reduces
the temperature rise and therefore the amount of expan-
sion of the structure. However, by increasing the size of
a reinforced-concrete member its stiffness is also in-
creased, and hence the resistance force necessary to
prevent its expansion is greater. These effects should be
carefully considered where structural members cannot
distribute load to other members so that a remature
f
failure in the member would cause a major col apse. The
degree of importance of the structural member in terms
of the magnitude of the risk of its failure should influence
the degree of fire resistance provided, especially when the
disadvantageous effects of restraint to expansion are not
fully calculable. In practice, however, such effects are
usually likely to be significant only when there is pro-
longed heating such as might occur in a deep-seated base-
ment fire or a fully-loaded warehouse fire.
While a fire-resistant structure does not need to be
completely non-combustible - timber is an obvious
example - care should be taken to use an assembly of
materials that will not increase the chance of ignition or
spread flame and smoke during the early stages of a fire
while people are trying to escape. Tests for these
properties are also available, but their purposes are quite
different from those of the fire-resistance test.
9.6 Natural fire conditions
Although the standard temperaturehime curve is used
to test fire resistance, it is recognized that in practice
fires will produce different curves. Accordingly there
has been considerable study of the behaviour of fully
developed natural fires in compartments from which it is
possible to estimate their temperature and duration for
a range of compartment sizes, fire loads and amounts
of ventilation.
Relationships between the effects of natural fires and
the standard fire on, for example, the attainment of a
critical temperature in a structure have been derived so
tht some equivalence between the standard fire and
natural fires can be obtained.’* For fires involving
cellulosic materials these relationships are likely to be
reasonable, but in industry for example where there may
be large amounts of plastics or flammable liquids, the
rates of heating and temperatures attained may be so
much higher than in the standard test that supplementary
test data may be needed to establish the suitability of the
materials and assemblies employed. l3 For domestic and
similar types of furnishing, however, the amount of
plastics involved is unlikely to affect significantly the
degree of fire resistance needed, although of course they
can affect the risk of outbreak of fire, the spread of flame
and the generation of smoke and toxic products.
IStructE Structural adequacy buildings
Fire modelling can take into account the amount and
type of fuel (fire load), the ventilation, the heat losses to
the surroundings, including those to the structure itself,
and the effects of the geometry of the enclosure contain-
ing the fire. Usually, a complete burn-out is assumed,
although in future, the beneficial effects of fire- rotection
systems may be recognized. Most experiments ave been K
carried out in small enclosures, and some care is needed
in interpreting the results of the modelling for large
structures. However, the structural models are robably
of similar uncertainty, so the approach ten c sr to be
conservative; usually the uncertainty is taken into account
by increasing the value of the design fire load.
9.7 Required periods of resistance
The Building Regulations, in making fire-resistance re-
quirements, are concerned primarily with the protection
of people rather than property. They deal with fire spread
between buildings and the provision of basic compartmen-
tation in addition to safeguarding escape routes. Except
for small domestic or single-storey buildings, these regula-
tions are likely however to contribute to the saving of
property as well as life. The principles that form the basis
for the current fire grading of buildings are contained in
reference 14. The current requirements of regulations
depend on the type of occupancy that is assumed to have
a fire load within a certain range, the size of the
compartment, the height of the building and the estimated
life and exposure hazards.
Thus, large compartments are required to have more
fire resistance than small ones, a requirement supported
by research on natural fires, while tall buildings are
required, as a form of increased safety factor, to have
more fire resistance than low-rise buildings. More fire
resistance is generally called for in buildings where people
sleep - a recognition of the extra life hazard. O n the other
hand, for single-storey buildings where there is adequate
provision for escape and no exposure hazard is expected,
the fire-resistance requirement may be nil. In shops, the
compartment size may be doubled if an approved sprink-
ler system is installed.
Although the first essential of fire resistance is to fulfil
regulation requirements to protect life, it should be
remembered that there may be additional insurance
requirements.
References
1. A conceptual approach towards a probability based design
guide on structural fire safety, Workshop report, CIB W14
Workshop ‘Structural fire safety’, January 1983
2 . Read, R. E. H., Morris, W. A., & Cooke, G. M. E.:
Guidelines for the construction of fire-resisting structural
elements, Department of the Environment, Building
Research Establishment report, HMSO, London 1988
3. Fire and structural use of timber in buildings, Proceedings of
symposium held at Fire Research Station, Borehamwood,
October 1967, (symposium no. 3), HMSO, London 1970
4. Design and detailing of concrete structures for fire resist-
ance: interim guidance, Joint Committee of the Institution
of Structural Engineers & the Concrete Society, Institution
of Structural Engineers, London 1978
5. Lawson, R. M.: Fire resistance of ribbed concrete floors,
Report 107, CIRIA, London 1985
6. Newman, G. M.: Fire resistance of composite floors with
steel decking, Steel Construction Institute, Ascot 1988
7. Calculation of the fire resistance of composite concrete slabs
with profiled steel sheet exposed to the standard fire,
Publication no. 32, ECCS, Rotterdam 1984
8. European recommendations for the fire safety of steel
structures: Calculation of the fire resistance of loadbearing
elements and structural assemblies exposed to the standard
fire, ECCS, Elsevier, Amsterdam 1983
27
 9. Law, Margaret, & O’Brien, T.: Fire safety of bare external
structural steel, Constrado, Croydon 1981
10. Bond, G. V. L.: Water cooled hollow columns, Constrado,
Croydon 1975
11. Fisher, K.: ‘The performance of brickwork in fire resist-
ance tests’, Jubilee conference: Structural design for fire
resistance, 9-11 September 1975, Midlands Branch, Insti-
tution of Structural Engineers
12. Law, Margaret: ‘Prediction of fire resistance’, Symposium
no. 5: Fire resistance requirements for buildings - a new
approach, Department of the Environment and Fire
Offices’ Committee Joint Fire Research Organization,
London 1973
13. A hydrocarbon fire standard - an assessment of existing
information, Fire Research Station report OTIW8294 to
Department of Energy, January 1983
14. Fire grading of buildings, Post War Building Studies no.
20, Part 1, Ministry of Works, HMSO, London 1946

28 IStructE Structural adequacy buildings

10 Process of construction

To quote from another Institution report:’ ‘the construc-

tion of a building is the end product of a sequential and
often fragmented process involving design, specification
of construction materials, management of the works, and
supervision as well as detailed inspection. Responsibilities
for these different aspects fall on different people and are
dealt with at different points in time. A safe and
serviceable building structure will be obtained only if all
parts of the process are compatible in practice’. Design
and construction are seen as one complete entity. As
implied in Table 2, it is necessary not only to have
adequate material specifications and to set minimum
standards for workmanship and construction practices,
but also to have procedures to see that these are met. This
requires a proper system for inspection and supervision by
appropriate parties at each stage,’ and the importance of
that should be recognized by all the parties involved at the
design stage.
Having made that key point, attention is also drawn to
the issues raised in subsections 3.4 to 3.6, relating to how
the designer should set about his task with a method of
construction firmly in mind. Additionally, experience,
including the evidence of building defects over the past
few decades, has highlighted certain factors that require
closer attention if the client’s reasonable expectations of
a well built structure are to be satisfied. These include:
a greater need to take realistic account of the
rigours and practicalities of work on site, which
often has to be undertaken in adverse weather
conditions, involving physical discomfort and
stress, dirty situations and difficulties of access for
the various trades. This is of particular importance
where the satisfactory outcome of the work is
dependent on the achievement of close tolerances
or a high quality of craftsmanship (workmanship)
the need to make rovision in the design for
P
handling and assemb y of prefabricated construc-
tion, with the capability to adjust the setting of
elements to cope with tolerances and permit the
construction of satisfactory joints
the special need in ‘fast-track’ projects to select
types of structure and materials that facilitate
speedy construction, while retaining the necessary
standards of quality and performance
the special importance of supervison for work
involving innovation in materials and techniques of
building, and the need to commission test work
where this is required to establish suitability for the
application concerned
the increasing need to provide a contractual frame-
work that encourages positive attitudes and speedy
action in the resolution of technical and financial
difficulties, so minimizing the need for recourse to
legal remedies with their accompanying costs and
delays. In this context, there are now encouraging
moves in the building field to establish forms of con-
tract, framed to help the client, architect, engineer
and contractor operate as a collaborative team.

Reference
1. Inspection of building structures during construction,
Institution of Structural Engineers, London 1983

IStructE Structural adequacy buildings 29

11 Inspection and maintenance

It should be recognized that, no matter how good the e Provision for inspection
quality of the original design and construction, every Adequate inspections should be carried out -
building will require certain maintenance, and therefore internally and externally - at regular intervals by
regular inspection, if it is to remain serviceable for the competent people, who know what they are looking
purpose for which it was intended throughout its useful for, in order to identify the need for maintenance
life. In Table 2, maintenance is seen as an essential part and repair. It is therefore necessary, at the design
of the overall package, which requires consideration at the stage, to recognize this need to make provision for
design stage. Planned maintenance is generally more access. The basic structure is commonly concealed
sensible and economic than crisis management; ‘preven- by the building fabric. A reliable external survey
tion is better than cure’. can often be undertaken only from hydraulic
It is important therefore that a maintenance strategy be platforms, bosuns chairs or ladders, since faults are
developed in preliminary discussions between the client not apparent from visual surveys at ground level. In
and the design team, in establishing the design brief. This some cases, it may be necessary to carry out
requires consideration of such matters as: physical or chemical tests. In cases of doubt, a more
thorough appraisal may be necessary.’
the functional requirements of the building Detailed records of systematic inspections should
any anticipated requirements regarding future be kept, together with information on any resulting
change of use or alterations maintenance, repair, renovation or alterations.
the practicalities of inspection and maintenance Alterations, or a change in use, are especially
the preferred option in terms of financial commit- important, since they can alter the design loadings
ment (e.g. a higher initial spend to minimize or the way in which the structure behaves.
maintenance or vice versa; either way, there should
be a recognition of the need for maintenance, and
financial provision made). Reference
These considerations can influence the choice of 1. Appraisal of existing structures, Institution of Structural
materials, the design concept and the detailing of both the Engineers, London 1980
primary structure and the building fabric. The need for
maintenance, a n d o r planned replacement, is commonly
accepted for building services and for certain elements in
the building fabric such as windows and gutters. Such
concepts are becoming increasingly relevant in the struc-
tural design of buildings.
It is not the purpose of this Section to provide a
comprehensive treatment of the subject, but to emphasize
the importance and benefits of a proper system. Neverthe-
less, it is worth listing some of the issues to be taken into
account:
e Maintenance of records
It is of considerable help if basic data are available
on the original design and on the structure ‘as built’.
Ideally, this should form initial input into a logbook
for the building, which would also keep records of
inspections, routine maintenance, alterations, etc.
e Deterioration of materials
Nothing lasts for ever: all materials are subject to
gradual deterioration, which proceeds at different
rates depending on the circumstances. Hence the
life of some materials and components will be less
than that for the building as a whole. In design, it
is necessary to identify the aggressive media that
can cause deterioration, to assess their likely
influence on performance, and to make provision
for maintenance, renovation or replacement, as
appropriate. In designing for the integrity of the
primary structure, it is also necessary to consider
the building fabric as a whole (see Table 1). The
choice of cladding, and the detailing of the external
envelope, can make a major contribution to the
protection of the structure. The performance of
non-structural cladding and other components is
also important in itself. The design should aim to
achieve adequate durability and integrity.

30 IStructE Structural adequacy buildings

12 Concluding remarks

This report has provided an overview of the basic factors

to be considered in achieving structural adequacy and
established a framework and principles to be followed in
design. The framework also provides the context for the
more detailed reports on specific aspects of design, e.g.
the Institution’s report Stability of buildings.
Compared with its predecessor, published in 1976, the
emphasis in this report has changed, with more considera-
tion being given to serviceability, durability and mainte-
nance; this reflects experience in the intervening years.
The 1976 report concluded with a list of 12 areas where
more information was required. Many of these are still
valid, e.g.
0 data on actual loads and action effects
0 movement
0 records of failures
0 information on deterioration of structures
0 the development of inspection, maintenance and
management systems.
However, the lessons since 1976 have conveyed one
other dominant message. There is a need to consider
adequacy in a broad context, which goes beyond structu-
ral considerations, to embrace the performance of the
building as a whole - while making judgments on issues
raised by the time-factor (possible changes in function,
deterioration, maintenance and so on). There is not yet
universal agreement on how that should best be done, but
hopefully, this report will provide a sensible canvas on
which the detail can be filled in - not only by structural
engineers, but by every member of the design team
together with the client.

IStructE Structural adequacy buildings 31