Professional guidance CROSS report

CROSS: Concern over

modelling of concrete-frame
building for construction stage
This month we summarise a CROSS Safety Report highlighting concerns around modelling and
design checks. This report was submitted to, and processed by, CROSS-UK, but the contents
will also be of interest to readers internationally.

Overview been constructed, or would not have through all stages of its life, including
A reinforced concrete-framed building sufficiently cured, to provide the stiffness those temporary conditions which
was several storeys in height and required for such an effect to occur. This would exist during construction. The
supported by a critical transfer slab at is clearly significant when considering reporter believes it is a case of ‘rubbish
first floor. It became apparent that the a concrete-framed structure, where in, rubbish out’ as far as the modelling
design had not appropriately considered about 80% of the load was as a result is concerned. Finally, checks should
the construction sequence of the frame. of self-weight. have been undertaken to ensure that
The peer review indicated several software outputs mirror those which can
Report areas of the critical transfer slab which be derived through conventional and
A reporter’s firm had recently been were considerably under-reinforced. This empirical ‘hand calculations’.
involved in undertaking a peer review could have led to structural failure of an As part of the review, enquiries were
of another consulting engineer’s design element and a possible disproportionate made with leading bodies who are
for a reinforced concrete flat-slab collapse. Even in areas where authorities on concrete construction and
frame. The frame was several storeys reinforcement was within strength limits, there seemed to be a lack of technical
in height and supported by a critical there was concern that the designed guidance on this subject. The current
transfer slab at first floor. structure lacked sufficient redundancy design codes (EC2, etc.) did not appear
In undertaking the review, it became and was therefore not robust enough to to cover the temporary modelling
apparent that the original design had withstand catastrophic disproportionate aspect in any significant detail aside
not appropriately considered the collapse. In such events, it is this from general statements to consider all
construction sequence of the frame. ‘redundancy’ which will be relied upon stages of construction.
The designer had undertaken their to ensure the structure remains stable Additionally, the reporter is concerned
reinforcement design for the critical (even if only temporarily) to allow the safe that the published guidance is now
first-floor transfer slab using a ‘global’ evacuation of occupants. around 15 years old and becoming
or ‘whole building’ 3D design model. The reporter understands that the increasingly outdated as more rigorous
The design model assumed that issues were acknowledged by the and detailed finite element-type analysis
the complete building structure was original designer and amendments to is undertaken. The reporter was also
in situ and fully cured. As such, the the design were made. surprised to find that the IStructE’s
analysis gave loads on the transfer slab In the opinion of the reporter, the latest technical guidance on this
much reduced compared to that of a issues stem from the inexperience of the subject, Computational engineering,
conventional ‘hand’ load takedown, designers in tackling such a structure, does not even appear to consider the
or indeed what would be replicated lack of competent internal checking importance of this subject in modelling
by undertaking individual slab design and over-reliance on software. The lack structures of this type.
models. of experience allowed the designers to In conclusion, the reporter considers
The analysis showed loads in proceed with the design not recognising that further technical guidance should
columns supported by the transfer slab the need to design the structure be provided on the subject and perhaps
were only about one third of those that even revisions to the aforementioned
would be obtained from a conventional documents considered. Additionally,
load takedown. It was clear that the Key learning outcomes engineers should remain vigilant in
global model had generated alternative For civil and structural design engineers: undertaking simplified ‘hand check’
load paths within the structure by Ò| During design and checking consider the loads assessments and more should be done
‘hanging’ of columns above the at each stage of construction to reinforce this to more junior (and
transfer structure; the columns being Ò| It is good practice to carry out sense checks and therefore inexperienced) engineers.
hung from frames above, proportionate validate all analysis and design outputs
to the frame stiffness, through a Ò| Ensure assumed construction methodology is Expert Panel comments
catenary or other action. communicated to contractors and is verified as Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for
It is the opinion of the reporter’s constructible by the contractor, with any changes lack of experience to lead to analysis
firm that generation of alleviating load agreed with the designer models missing key construction
paths was not possible at least when Ò| Consider the need for robustness at all stages of stages, or those using the model
considering the self-weight of the construction failing to appreciate the presence of
structure. The structure above the Ò| Independent checking is good practice secondary load paths. In this case,
transfer slab would either not have the upper frames in the model were

22
April 2022 | thestructuralengineer.org

CROSS_TSE April 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 22 22/03/2022 17:18

 CROSS report Professional guidance

effectively acting as a Vierendeel truss. Assumed construction engineering’.

As suggested in the report, it is unlikely methodology Previous CROSS reports of interest
this was the intention, and very unlikely Under the Construction (Design and include Unconservative design of flat slab
that the elements above had been, or Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM due to software modelling issues.
could be, designed for the additional 2015), it is normally the case that the It is to the credit of the checking engineer
Vierendeel forces. structural designer should confirm in that the peer review considered the
Other common mistakes include the pre-construction information how design more widely than simply assessing
modelling one-way floor elements they have assumed the structural frame the information provided. This example
as a diaphragm such that the model is to be built. Clearly, this information is highlights the value of independent third-
assumes transverse bending in the essential in that the design is possibly party checks. The value of independent
floor, including torsional stiffness in only correct if the designer’s assumed checks should not be underestimated since
elements but not checking the torsional construction method and sequence are not only are errors found, but learning and
resistance, column shortening reducing followed. development across teams are facilitated.
hogging moments for internal columns Where the contractor chooses a
when the shortening is not present different construction methodology, The full report, including links to guidance
during construction and will depend on then all parties should be aware that the mentioned, is available on the CROSS
construction sequence. design may no longer be correct. Indeed, website (report ID: 1073) at www.cross-
While updated guidance, as the intended change in construction safety.org/uk/safety-information/cross-
suggested by the reporter, would be methodology may lead to the structure safety-report/concern-over-modelling-
helpful, it can only ever give examples. It being unsafe or overly conservative. concrete-frame-building-1073.
would not be a substitute for checking Where a change is proposed, the design
of the output by an experienced must be re-assessed using the criteria
engineer who has an understanding appropriate to the new construction
of the expected behaviours. Here, the methodology. Failure to ensure that What is CROSS?
review engineer undertook a very simple the design and proposed construction Collaborative Reporting for Safer Structures (CROSS)
load takedown and discovered that the methodology are compatible may lead helps professionals to make structures safer by
much more complicated analysis was to a structure which is unsafe to build or publishing safety information based on the reports it
indeed incorrect. indeed unsafe in use. receives and information in the public domain.
It is essential that the temporary Designers may choose to state the CROSS operates internationally in the UK, US,
condition of the permanent works is assumed construction methodology as and Australasia. All regions cover structural safety,
considered at all times, as often the a condition of their design just as they while CROSS-UK also covers fire safety.
temporary condition of the permanent would state the strength of steel and
works can be more onerous than in the concrete.
permanent condition. This must include The Health and Safety File should be
giving full consideration by the designer updated after construction with whatever
of at least one buildable construction information is required to facilitate safe
sequence. Early contractor involvement inspection, maintenance and eventual
may be beneficial such that construction demolition of the structure.
sequences can be modelled at the
design stage. This will allow adequate Checking and validation
consideration of temporary stages and Computer-aided analysis and design
their impact on the structure. is an essential part of much structural
The Temporary Works forum provides design, but it must be remembered
significant guidance on constructability that the software is only an aid to the
reviews. Had such a review been designer. The design organisation must
undertaken during design of this project, fully understand and validate all outputs.
the errors would likely not have been In this case, the supervising senior
made. Furthermore, the engineers design engineer should have identified
involved would have benefited from all shortcomings.
a much broader appreciation of how Safety demands that all computer
design and construction are intertwined. outputs are subjected to a simplified How reporting to CROSS works
sanity check, which appears not to have The secure and confidential safety reporting system
Structural robustness happened. The design firm’s checking allows professionals to share their experiences to
The reporter is also right to highlight the and validation protocols should have help others.
robustness issues associated with transfer been appropriate to the complexity of Professionals can submit reports on safety issues
structures and particularly transfer slabs. the work in hand and considered the related to buildings and other structures in the built
The consequences of a failure in a transfer experience of the engineers involved. environment. Reports typically relate to concerns,
structure are potentially disproportionate Checking should be carried out at near misses or incidents. Find
and could lead to collapse. Guidance key stages in the design process before out more, including how to
is provided in the IStructE document, progressing to the next stage; consider submit a safety report, at https://
Practical guide to structural robustness checking ‘basis of design’, computer bit.ly/cross-safety. Your report
and disproportionate collapse in inputs/outputs, detailed calculations will make a difference.
buildings, with further guidance for before checking drawings.
high-risk buildings. It is important to The importance of validating software
note that for transfer elements, simply is noted in Proc. ICE – Civil Engineering,
providing normal building ties may not be August 2013: ‘The importance of
adequate. understanding computer analysis in civil

23
thestructuralengineer.org | April 2022

CROSS_TSE April 2022_The Structural Engineer.indd 23 22/03/2022 17:18