Opinion Planning application

Climate emergency Lean design

procedures

3.Lean design

Lean design: 10 things to do now

Natasha Watson explains how structural engineers can produce designs that make e cient use of
material to reduce their environmental impact.

The June issue of The Structural Engineer 3. Maximise utilisation 4. Interrogate serviceability criteria
introduced six themes for climate guidance. One Results from the MEICON 2018 survey5 indicate If the limiting utilisation of a structural member is
of these was ‘Lean design’, calling on structural that ease of construction, a perceived risk of for a serviceability criterion (e.g. a deflection limit),
engineers to strive for designs that minimise the construction errors, and a lack of significant then it is worth pursuing the relaxation of those
demand for new material wherever viable. penalties for overdesign all have an adverse criteria in consultation with the client and wider
This article gives pragmatic advice on reducing impact on the final utilisation ratios of our project team.
the impact of your buildings on the environment structural elements. Moynihan and Allwood6 Ò| Facades – are the facade contractor’s limits
today, in order of magnitude of savings. found average utilisation ratios to be below 50% realistic and based on the actual conditions
for typical steel buildings. or generic and can be challenged? Can you
1. Don’t build! Buro Happold has produced guidance for its perceive a span/360 deflection with the naked
It might seem counterintuitive, but a structural structural engineers that focuses on increasing eye?
engineer’s job is to ensure that the underlying minimum utilisations to acceptable levels, Ò| Internal partitions – can larger deflection
objectives behind creating a space are met, and which change as a project progresses (Figure heads and vertical joints be used as standard?
not necessarily to design and create new structure 2). Working to lower utilisation ratios gives Deflection heads can have detrimental impacts
to achieve that. See Ibell et al1 in the June issue. designers leeway for late design changes and on acoustic performance; can the acoustic
flexibility, and so working to higher minimum criteria be relaxed?
2. Upgrade existing buildings utilisations requires appropriate quality controls, Ò| Long-span beams and slab defl ections
wherever viable such as: – can you pre-camber? Can you use a
There are many ways of upgrading existing Ò| contractual obligations for design refinement lower-strength element or material as SLS
buildings, from space planning to significant Ò| colour-coding utilisation ratios within BIM is governing? Can you assume additional
structural interventions. Even if the superstructure models stiffness by assuming that connections are
is demolished, the foundations may be suitable for Ò| recommendations that project managers somewhere between pinned and fixed?
reuse2. allow a certain time/cost in bids or budgets Ò| Dynamic criteria – are the limits set
Using the Brand model3, which considers a for optimisation. appropriate for the intended use; could some
building as a series of layers with varying longevity, localised exceedance be accepted?
these different layers of intervention can be It is important to communicate to the project Ò| Crack width requirements – crack widths
systematically explored (Figure 1)3,4. team the value of the time and fees spent on should only govern if water-tightness is
Alternatively, if it is not viable to reuse an existing design development and refinement, with the necessary.
building, new buildings can be designed with potential material savings leading to cost and
circular principles in mind, such as design for carbon reductions. 5. Refine loading criteria
disassembly or proportionate repair. Conservative loading assumptions can be
appropriate at early design stages where the brief
îFIGURE 1: Building layers3,4 is fluid and there are many unknowns.
For permanent and semi-permanent loads, the
different layers of the building are typically finalised
as the design progresses, and so refinement is
more straightforward. Imposed loads (Figure 3),
though more difficult to refine, can be adapted in
several ways.

$SSOHWRQ%XLOGLQJ Imposed load reduction

According to BS EN 19917, imposed loads can
6HUYLFHV² 5HPRYDORIURRISODQW
6NLQ² 1HZIDFDGH

be reduced if loaded areas are greater than 10m2

( A) and if the structure is three storeys or greater
( n).
/DNHVKRUH3KDVH
6WUXFWXUH² )ORRUSODWHVUHPRYHGWRIRUPDWULXP

5 A0
A 0 1.0
7 A
with the restriction for categories C and D:
0.6
BURO HAPPOLD

where:
+HUH(DVW
6NLQ² *OD]HG)DoDGHWROHWLQOLJKW
$QDO\WLFV
6RFLDO 3HRSOHIORZPRGHOOLQJIRULQFUHDVLQJ ψ0 is the factor according to EN 1990, Annex A1
Table A1.1
6WUXFWXUH² 0H]]DQLQHIORRUVDGGHG SHUIRUPDQFHRIH[LVWLQJEXLOGLQJ

&23<5,*+7Œ%852 +$332/'$//5,*+765(6(59('
A0 = 10.0m2

12
August 2020 | thestructuralengineer.org

Climate Lean design_TSE August 2020_The Structural Engineer 12 16/07/2020 08:08

 Lean design Climate emergency

íFIGURE 2: Target
utilisation rates for
each design stage

BURO HAPPOLD
A is the loaded area. 7. Concentrate on reducing grids
and fl oor slabs
2 ( n 2) 0 Various studies indicate that floors typically
account for 40–50% of the embodied carbon of a
WE SHOULD NOT
BE DESIGNING
n
n building. Structural sensitivity studies9 show that
where: an infallible way of reducing the material required BUILDINGS
n is the number of storeys (>2) above the loaded
structural elements from the same category
for floors is to reduce the size of the structural grid
(Figure 5)10. WITH INITIAL
ψ0 is in accordance with EN 1990, Annex A1 If time and/or the fee is tight on a project, REDUNDANCIES
Table A1.1. concentrating your efforts on refining the floor
slabs of the structures can make significant
WHICH MAY
Minimum appropriate imposed loading embodied carbon savings. NEVER BE NEEDED
BS EN 1991 gives loading categories to cover
most building uses, and the minimum appropriate 8. Don’t forget substructure movements.
value should be used (e.g. refining a plant room Substructure typically forms 20% of the total Ò| If designing driven steel piles, use
loading of 7.5kN/m2 for the weight of actual embodied carbon that a structural engineer reclaimed steel tubing from the oil and gas
plant proposed for the space). Furthermore, the has direct control over (Fig. 5). Below are a few industry where possible.
appropriate partial factors should be applied substructure-specific considerations: Ò| Specify a low-cement-content concrete
when more than one load value is present. Ò| Avoid basements and suspended fl oor with the lowest strength appropriate, especially
slabs where possible. if a GEO load case is limiting.
Clear brief Ò| Use the superstructure and the site Ò| Design for 56-day strength. Typically,
When preparing options at concept stage, create to minimise foundations. To minimise foundations will not be subject to their full
an option with the minimum appropriate loading foundation sizes, the proposed superstructure design load until later in the construction
available, and the subsequent cost and carbon must work with the ground that it sits on. programme.
savings. These should be discussed with the If the ground is poor, the superstructure Ò| Refine settlement criteria. Settlement
client so that they understand the importance of should be light or designed to accept greater criteria for foundations are often chosen as a
clarifying the uses of the spaces.

6. Design for use now, and

strengthen if use changes
The urgency of climate breakdown means that we
must prioritise today’s emissions8. We should not
be designing buildings with initial redundancies
which may never be needed, but instead
designing for the current use of a building, with
a strategy for how strengthening of the building
MICHAL DREWNIOK / MEICON

could be achieved in the future.

Buro Happold conducted a study on a simple
concrete frame with initial redundancy versus
a design without redundancy in the floor slabs
only. The latter had 12% less material compared
with the design with initial redundancy, and
strengthening only added 3% of this back in
(Figure 4).
ìFIGURE 3: Various load scenarios

13
thestructuralengineer.org | August 2020

Climate Lean design_TSE August 2020_The Structural Engineer 13 16/07/2020 08:08

 Opinion Planning application
Climate emergency Lean design
procedures

REFERENCES
íFIGURE 4: Comparison
of material use in two
alternative designs 1) Ibell T., Norman J. and Broadbent O.
(2020) ‘Nothing is better than something’,
The Structural Engineer, 98 (6), p. 12
BURO HAPPOLD

2) Chapman T., Anderson S. and Windle J.

(2007) C653: Reuse of foundations, London:
CIRIA

USEFUL RESOURCES 3) Brand S. (1995) How buildings learn:

What happens after they’re built, s.l.:
LETI Penguin
www.leti.london/ 4) Adaptable Futures (s.d.) Toolkit [Online]
‘typical’ differential settlement and maximum A number of useful guides on low-carbon design. Available at: http://adaptablefutures.com/
settlement value, rather than as a value that is
our-work/toolkit/ (Accessed: June 2020)
appropriate to the individual structure. This ‘one- RICS BUILDING CARBON DATABASE
size-fits-all’ approach can lead to an increased https://wlcarbon.rics.org/Default.aspx 5) Orr J., Copping A., Drewniok M., Emmitt
quantity of foundations and substructure. The recommended place to share embodied carbon S. and Ibell T. (2018) Minimising Energy
calculations in the UK. in Construction: Survey of Structural
Ò| Ensure a timely and appropriately detailed
Engineering Practice – Report [Online]
investigation. Appropriate ground and site ISTRUCTE CLIMATE Available at: https://doi.org/10.17863/
investigations can increase confidence in the EMERGENCY HUB CAM.35178 (Accessed: June 2020)
soil assumptions used for substructure design, www.istructe.org/climate-emergency
6) Moynihan M.C. and Allwood JM. (2014)
minimising the chance of having a conservative Resources to help structural engineers respond to the
climate emergency. ‘Utilization of structural steel in buildings’,
design born from uncertainty.
Proc. R. Soc. A., 470, 20140170

9. Avoid CEM 1 designations 7) British Standards Institution (2002–06)

The embodied carbon of concrete is dominated BS EN 1991 Eurocode 1: Actions on
structures, London: BSI
by the production of Portland cement, and the Acknowledgements
designation of CEM 1 mixes should therefore be Thanks go to Matthew Jackson-Jones, Rachel 8) Carbon Leadership Forum (2017) The
avoided wherever possible. As a minimum, use Monteith, Jonathan Roynon and Maria Smith for Time Value of Carbon [Online] Available at:
20% cement replacement within the superstructure, helping with the writing of this article. Thanks also http://carbonleadershipforum.org/projects/
the-time-value-of-carbon/ (Accessed: June
substructure and blinding. go to Will Arnold, Robin Jones and the IStructE for
2020)
During the construction of a project, running this series of articles and guidance to tackle
subcontractors may request a change of mix to the #ClimateEmergency. 9) Roynon J. (2020) Embodied carbon:
CEM 1 in order to have higher early-day strengths structural sensitivity study [Online] Available
at: www.istructe.org/resources/case-study/
to make up for lost programme. However, by
embodied-carbon-structural-sensitivity-
working with the subcontractor, you can determine Natasha Watson study/ (Accessed: June 2020)
the required strengths at the required times and EngD, CEng, MICE
compare these against the typical strength gain 10) Thornton Thomasetti (2019) Thornton
Natasha Watson is a Senior Structural Engineer at Tomasetti shares results of comprehensive
curves for your initial design mix; mitigating the need
embodied carbon measurement
for a CEM 1 mix. Buro Happold. She completed her EngD with the
study [Online] Available at: www.
University of Bristol, University of Bath and Buro
thorntontomasetti.com/news/embodied-
10. Keep learning, talking and sharing Happold on improving the environmental assessment carbon-measurement-study (Accessed:
We need to work together and share our knowledge of structural options at scheme and concept stage. June 2020)
so that we can learn from our mistakes and Alongside design, she consults on embodied carbon
progress faster to mitigate climate change and lead and other embodied impacts of building materials
ourselves into a more sustainable future. and structural designs. FURTHER READING

íFIGURE 5: Distribution of embodied carbon within structure10

Adams K.A. and Hobbs G. (2017) Material
resource efficiency in construction:
Supporting a circular economy, Watford;
BRE Press

MPA The Concrete Centre (2018) Material

efficiency [Online] Available at: www.
concretecentre.com/Publications-Software/
Publications/Material-E ciency.aspx
ADAPTED FROM THORNTON THOMASETTI

(Accessed: June 2020)

MPA The Concrete Centre (2020)

Specifying sustainable concrete [Online]
Available at: www.concretecentre.com/
Publications-Software/Publications/
Specifying-Sustainable-Concrete.aspx
(Accessed: June 2020)

SCI (2019) Structural steel reuse:

assessment, testing and design principles
[Online] Available at: https://steel-sci.com/
assets/downloads/steel-reuse-event-8th-
october-2019/SCI_P427.pdf (Accessed:
June 2020)

14
August 2020 | thestructuralengineer.org

Climate Lean design_TSE August 2020_The Structural Engineer 14 16/07/2020 08:09