Practical Guide To Structural Robustness

Practical guide to
structural robustness
and disproportionate
collapse in buildings
October 2010
Robust Pages.indd 1 27/10/2010 12:13

Constitution of Task Group
Dr A P Mann FREng BSc(Eng) PhD CEng FIStructE MICE (Jacobs) Chairman
S J Alexander MA CEng FIStructE FICE MCMI (WSP Group)
J N Carpenter BSc(Eng) CEng FIStructE FICE CFIOSH (SCOSS)
J P Cartz CEng FIStructE (Capita Symonds/Capita Architecture)
Prof M Chryssanthopoulos BSc MS PhD DIC CEng FIStructE FICE (University of Surrey)
G T Harding OBE DIC CEng FIStructE MICE (Consultant)
Dr A E K Jones BEng(Hons) PhD CEng FICE (Arup)
P Kelly BSc(Eng) CEng MIStructE (Treanor Pujol Limited)
G Lewis MEng(Hons) CEng MIStructE MICE (CCB Evolution Ltd)
A Thirumoolan BSc(Hons) CEng MICE FRICS (Wandsworth Borough Council)
J N Tutt MPhil CEng FIStructE (Jenkins and Potter)
T C Cosgrove MSc DIC CEng MIStructE MIEI (SIAC Tetbury Steel)
Secretary to the Task Group

B Chan BSc(Hons) AMIMechE (The Institution of Structural Engineers)
Acknowledgements
Permission to reproduce extracts from British Standards is granted by the
British Standards Institution (BSI). British Standards can be obtained in
PDF or hard copy formats from the BSI online shop: www.bsigroup.com/
Shop or by contacting BSI Customer Services for hard copies only:
Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 9001, Email: cservices@bsigroup.com
Colin Jolly , Box 2.5

NHBC, Figure 4.1
Henry Bardsley RPR, Box 4.2
Colin Bailey , Box 4.3
David Longstreath / AP Press Association Images, Box 5.1
Corus Bi-Steel, Figure 8.1, Figure 8.2
CCB Evolution, Figure 9.2, Figure 9.3, Figure 9.10, Figure 9.11
LDSA and LABC, Appendix 1
Published by the Institution of Structural Engineers

International HQ, 11 Upper Belgrave Street, London SW1X 8BH
Telephone: +44(0)20 7235 4535 Fax: +44(0)20 7235 4294
Email: mail@istructe.org, Website: www.istructe.org
First published 2010
ISBN 978-1-906335-17-5
©2010 The Institution of Structural Engineers
The Institution of Structural Engineers and those individuals who served on the Task Group which
produced this Guide have endeavoured to ensure the accuracy of its contents. However, the
guidance and recommendations given in the Guide should always be reviewed by those using it
in the light of the facts of their particular case and any specialist advice obtained as necessary.
No liability for negligence or otherwise in relation to this Guide and its contents is accepted by
the Institution, the members of the Task Group, their servants or agents. Any person using this
Guide should pay particular attention to the provisions of this Condition.
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 Institution of Structural Engineers, who may
be contacted at 11 Upper Belgrave Street, London SW1X 8BH.

Contents
Tables v 5 Designing for robustness 21

5.1 Introduction 21
Glossary vi 5.2 Structural concept 21
5.3 Notional horizontal loads 23
Foreword vii 5.4 Detailed provisions 23
5.5 Tying 24
1 Introduction 1 5.6 Horizontal ties 24
5.7 Vertical ties 24
2 Concepts of robustness 2 5.8 Element removal 25
2.1 Introduction 2 5.9 Catenary action: horizontal and vertical 26
2.2 Hybrid structures 2 5.10 Partial collapse and debris loading 28
2.3 Structural form 3 5.11 Key elements 29
2.4 Horizontal loads 3 5.12 Transfer beams 29
2.5 Component design 4 5.13 Design load cases 30
2.6 Redundancy 5 5.14 Summary 30
2.7 Insensitivity/scale 6 5.15 References 30
2.8 Uncertainty 6
2.9 Failure modes and ductility 8 6 In situ concrete: issues and solutions 32
2.10 Fire loading and robustness 9 6.1 Introduction 32
2.11 Progressive and disproportionate collapse 9 6.2 Overall robustness strategy 32
2.12 Summary 9 6.3 Notional horizontal load 32
2.13 Strategy 10 6.4 Tying 32
2.14 References 10 6.4.1 Provision of ties 32
6.4.2 Peripheral ties 33
3 Legal and other obligations 11 6.4.3 Internal ties 33
3.1 Introduction 11 6.4.4 Horizontal ties to external walls and columns 33
3.2 Category A: Statute 11 6.4.5 Vertical ties 33
3.3 Category B: Contract 13 6.4.6 Continuity of ties 33
3.4 Categories C and D: Common law and Code of 6.4.7 Additional considerations for post tensioned
Conduct 13 concrete 34
3.5 References 13 6.5 Element removal and key element design 34
6.6 Good detailing practice 34
4 Regulations, codes of practice and supporting 6.7 References 34
documents and their interpretation 14
4.1 Introduction 14 7 Precast concrete: issues and solutions 36
4.1.1 General 14 7.1 Introduction 36
4.1.2 Approved Document A 14 7.2 Class 1 and Class 2A and 2B buildings 36
4.1.3 Eurocodes 14 7.2.1 Class 1 and 2A buildings 36
4.2 Classification of structures 14 7.2.2 Class 2B buildings 36
4.3 Number of storeys 15 7.3 Typical details 37
4.3.1 Introduction 15 7.3.1 General 37
4.3.2 Basements 15 7.3.2 Precast floor/masonry walls Class 2A
4.3.3 Part floors at roof level 17 buildings 37
4.3.4 Mezzanines and galleries 17 7.3.3 Precast floor/masonry walls Class 2B
4.4 Practical problems of interpretation 17 buildings 37
4.4.1 Introduction 17 7.3.4 Precast floors/steel framed Class 1 and 2A
4.4.2 Building or structure? 17 buildings and 2B buildings 38
4.4.3 Ill defined uses 17 7.3.5 Precast floors/concrete framed Class 2A
4.4.4 Multiple uses 17 buildings 38
4.4.5 Strong floors 17 7.3.6 Precast floors/concrete framed Class 2B
4.4.6 Acoustics 18 buildings 38
4.5 Extensions, alterations and change of use 18 7.3.7 Typical tie details: beam and column frame 40
4.5.1 Introduction 18 7.4 Class 2B buildings: notional removal of elements 41
4.5.2 Change of use 18 7.5 Key elements 42
4.5.3 Alterations 18 7.6 References 42
4.5.4 Extensions 18
4.5.5 Situation in Scotland 19 8 Steel: issues and solutions 43
4.5.6 The Camden ruling 19 8.1 Introduction 43
4.5.7 General 20 8.2 Classification of steel structures 45
4.6 References 20 8.3 Class 1 buildings 45
8.4 Class 2A buildings 45
8.5 Class 2B buildings 46
The Institution of Structural Engineers Practical guide to structural robustness and disproportionate collapse in buildings iii

Contents
8.6 General tying 46

8.6.1 General 46
8.6.2 Edge columns 46
8.6.3 Vertical tying 46
8.7 Bracing sytems 47
8.8 Floor units 48
8.9 Notional removal of members 49
8.9.1 Introduction 49
8.9.2 Notional removal of columns 49
8.9.3 Notional removal of elements of the system for
resisting horizontal forces 49
8.10 Key elements 49
8.11 Resistance to extreme events 49
8.12 Robustness of light steel frames 49
8.12.2 Tying 50
8.12.3 Notional removal 50
8.12.4 Key element design 50
8.13 References 50
9 Timber: issues and solutions 52

9.1 Introduction 52
9.2 Robustness of timber structures 52
9.2.2 Roof structures e.g. trussed rafters 52
9.2.3 Platform timber frame construction 52
9.2.4 Beam and post type frames e.g. glulam or
engineered timber structures 53
9.2.5 Timber portal frames 53
9.3 Design for the construction period 54
9.4 Design for disproportionate collapse 54
9.4.2 Framed structures e.g. post and beam 54
9.4.3 Loadbearing wall construction e.g. platform
frame 54
9.5 Notional horizontal loads and diaphragm action 54
9.5.1 Notional horizontal loads 54
9.5.2 Diaphragm action 54
9.6 Application of ties to timber buildings 55
9.7 Notional panel removal 56
9.8 Rim beam method 56
9.8.1 Assumptions for rim beam design 60
9.9 Rim beam and key element design principles 61
9.10 Other methods of designing against disproportionate
collapse 61
9.11 References 62
10 Masonry: issues and solutions 63

10.1 Introduction 63
10.2 Code requirements 64
10.3 Class 1 and Class 2A 64
10.4 Class 2B buildings: horizontal and vertical ties 65
10.5 Class 2B buildings: notional element removal 66
10.6 Key elements 66
10.7 Alterations to existing structures 67
10.8 References 68
Bibliography 69
General 69
Best practice guides 69
Textbooks/Monographs 69
Technical papers 69
Appendix 1 L ondon District Surveyors Association Risk

Assessment Process
iv The Institution of Structural Engineers Practical guide to structural robustness and disproportionate collapse in buildings

Tables Boxes
Table 3.1 Categories of obligation 11 Box 2.1 The robustness of a structure has to be looked at as a
Table 3.2 Source of statutory obligation 11 whole 2
Table 3.3 Scope of legislation 13 Box 2.2 Robust structures are generally stiff structures 3
Table 4.1 Building classes based on building type, number of Box 2.3 Robustness requires that all structures have a
storeys and occupancy 15 resistance to lateral loading and if none is readily
Table 10.1 Detailed accidental recommendations adapted defined, a notional percentage of the vertical load
from Table 11 from BS 5628-1 63 is a good starting point (however that percentage is
Table 10.2 Spacing of ties (from BS 5628-1) 65 derived) 4
Box 2.4 Robustness requires that there is always a load
resisting system for horizontal loading during all
stages of construction and this may have to be
provided via temporary works 4
Box 2.5 The ability to absorb energy is a key quality of
robustness 5
Box 2.6 Robust structures are insensitive to the precision of
design assumptions 6
Box 2.7 Robust structures are insensitive to construction
accuracy 6
Box 2.8 Designers need to consider the sensitivity of their
calculated results to variations in their design
assumptions 6
Box 2.9 Robustness is a quality influenced by detailing
quality 7
Box 2.10 For structures to be robust, they should be insensitive
to common building movements 7
Box 2.11 Robustness concepts are important for any assembly
of building components 8
Box 4.1 Copenhagen gas explosion 16
Box 4.2 Terminal at Paris Charles de Gaulle airport 17
Box 4.3 A strong floor located within a tall
building's height can contain debris from collapses
above 18
Box 5.1 Murrah building, Oklahoma City 29
Box 5.2 Load combinations 30
The Institution of Structural Engineers Practical guide to structural robustness and disproportionate collapse in buildings v

Glossary
Term / Abbreviation Definition

Accidental action Unintended action, usually of short duration but of significant magnitude, which might occur on a given
structure during the design working life.
Bridging element See transfer element.
Building class The category of building as defined in Table 11 of Approved Document A (Building Regulations: England and
Wales) for the purposes of design against disproportionate collapse. BS EN 1991-1-7 Annex A, Table A1 is
similar but refers to consequence class.
Disproportionate collapse A collapse, after an event, which is greater than expected given the magnitude of the initiating event. The
level of collapse expected for certain events may be given in regulations, but more often is related to public
and professional perception. Even the most robust structure may suffer complete collapse if the event is
severe enough, and this would not be considered disproportionate. BS EN 1991-1-7 recognises that total
collapse may sometimes be acceptable.
Ductility The ability of a structure to deform plastically under load without fracture yet still fulfil a load carrying
function. In some circumstances, e.g. when considering dynamic loads, the energy absorbed during
deformation becomes an important resistance characteristic.
Element removal An analytical procedure where structural elements are theoretically removed one at a time while the residual
structure is checked against specified limits of collapse.
Event or initiating event In the context of structural robustness, an event can be considered as the occurrence of an accidental
action, for example an explosion, an impact, an overload, a fire. Some events will be a combination of other
events; deterioration may also play a part in defining an initiating event.
Hazard A term used in Approved Document A, synonymous with accidental action, having the potential to cause
disproportionate damage or collapse.
Hybrid structures Structures whose elements are made from different materials e.g. precast units on steel or reinforced
concrete frames.
Key elements Selected elements which are designed to withstand a prescribed hazard loading, for example, an applied
pressure of 34kN/m2.
Load path The complete route via which any applied action (vertical or horizontal) is transmitted through a structure to
its foundations through a system of interconnected elements.
Malicious action Deliberate attempt to cause gross damage to a structure.
Overall responsibility The principle that for any structure there should be one guiding hand overseeing the structure’s overall
stability and provisions for robustness. Many structures are an assembly of components which might
be adequate on an individual basis but need to be assessed as a whole system as they are frequently
interdependent especially from a stability standpoint.
Progressive collapse The sequential spread of local damage from an initiating event, from element to element, resulting in the
collapse of a number of elements. Whilst undesirable, a progressive collapse may not be disproportionate.
Hence the term 'progressive collapse' is not necessarily equivalent to 'disproportionate collapse'.
Redundancy A term used to signify that there are more load paths than strictly necessary to carry the load through the
structure (or a part thereof). In structural analysis redundancy is associated with structural indeterminacy,
but in the context of robustness the term has a wider meaning and interpretation.
Robustness A quality in a structure/structural system that describes its ability to accept a certain amount of damage
without that structure failing to any great degree. Robustness implies insensitivity to local failure.
BS EN 1991-1-7 provides one definition of robustness as “the ability of a structure to withstand events
like fire, explosions, impact or the consequences of human error without being damaged to an extent
disproportionate to the original cause”.
Sensitivity The concept of a minor change in geometry, assumption, load or resistance (amplitude or direction) having a
disproportionate effect on the structure as a whole.
Solidity A term used in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 without definition. It can be
taken to be synonymous with robustness.
Stability Stability can be sub-divided into ‘global stability’, ‘member stability’ and ‘local stability’. For all of these, lack
of stability implies a gross change of state under increasing loading (e.g. by overturning or buckling). It is
necessary to consider stability in the permanent and temporary construction conditions. Many structures are
fully restrained and stable once complete, but are quite flimsy in the interim phase.
Ties Physical tying between elements with the objective of preventing separation.
Transfer element A beam or slab which carries one or more columns over an increased span where the vertical elements are
not aligned from the floor below to the floor above. Its failure will normally imply multiple column failure. A
transfer element is the more familiar term for a bridging element.
vi The Institution of Structural Engineers Practical guide to structural robustness and disproportionate collapse in buildings

Foreword
This Guide has been prepared by an Institution of This document generally adopts the guidance
Structural Engineers’ Task Group responding to a for achieving robustness as described in
perceived need for more information on structural Approved Document A (and similar documents
robustness. That need was identified by the UK for Scotland and Northern Ireland). To cater for
Standing Committee on Structural Safety (SCOSS) the code transition period, the Guide defines
who determined a lack of confidence amongst the formal requirements of the Eurocodes and
designers on the application of Building Regulation highlights where these differ from traditional UK
requirements. The Guide’s target audience is practice; thereafter, detailed advice is given on the
engineers charged with designing the bulk of application of current practice with compliance
building structures which are relatively low rise, and to British Standards. Where additional guidance
for example in the UK would be limited to Class 2 from industry is quoted, this is compatible with
in the guidance to the Regulations. The Guide does Eurocode requirements but may be based around
not cover Class 3 structures. British practice. Eventually, the Eurocodes, plus
the National Annex, will constitute a very similar
Incorporating robustness in buildings is essential
approach to British Standard practice and this will
and a stated aim of most regulations and all
be supplemented with NCCI (non contradictory
material codes worldwide. However, robustness is
complementary information) to capture any
not a commodity readily defined. Hence, as well as
guidance not transferred.
providing interpretation and practical guidance on
the regulations and material specific construction Thanks are due to the significant effort put in by all
practice, this Guide also contains some generic members of the Task Group.
background on the fundamental attributes of
robustness.
The Structural Eurocodes (BS EN 1990 –
BS EN 1999) are now available throughout the
EU. They will also be adopted in other countries
around the world. Although not yet mandatory
within the UK, their use is becoming increasingly
common, not least because maintenance of
existing British Standards ceased on 1 April
2010. Nonetheless, although over time current
BS codes will fall out of use, there may be a long
Allan Mann
period throughout which they will remain in use
Chairman
as a means of demonstrating compliance with
Building Regulations. Moreover, many aspects of
the BS approach to robustness feature within the
Eurocodes (which themselves contain a limited
amount of information on accidental damage)
largely as a result of the UK’s long standing
experience with disproportionate collapse which
has been a requirement of Building Regulation
approval for many years.
The Institution of Structural Engineers Practical guide to structural robustness and disproportionate collapse in buildings vii

viii The Institution of Structural Engineers Practical guide to structural robustness and disproportionate collapse in buildings

1 Introduction
Our infrastructure requires a great deal of investment A degree of robustness is a sound policy to adopt
though the demands placed on it over its life remain to prevent economic loss and to limit the risk of
uncertain. To help cope with such uncertainty, harm to the public. Indeed it has been argued that
engineers generally consider that attributes like given the current technical state of codes and safety
stability, solidity and robustness are ‘good things’. factors, the greatest risks to structures in reality lies
Yet because these are abstract qualities, they defy not with having inadequate safety margins but with
precise codification. The failure of the Ronan Point having inadequate robustness.
flats in London in 19681.1 highlighted the danger of
having non-robust structures and that event changed We all know more or less what is required but mostly
our attitudes forever. Subsequently, rules were by exception:
drafted to target the introduction of some measure (1) we don’t want structures to fail like a house of
of robustness into all new buildings. Despite those cards;
rules, the concepts remain hazy for many and there (2) we don’t want minor errors to have a
is much evidence that practising engineers lack disproportionate effect;
confidence and guidance on how to incorporate (3) we don’t want structures to fail to any great
robustness and how to comply with regulations. degree under accidental loading.
Since the Ronan Point failure there have been other A difficulty lies partly in defining which accidental
incidents highlighting the potential vulnerability effects should be considered and thereafter in
of structures to severe events. The failure at defining what damage can be tolerated. Because the
Oklahoma1.2 was one and in 2001, the devastating attribute of robustness is linked to stability, though
collapse of the World Trade Centre in New York remains separate from it, (an unstable structure is
rekindled international attention on building certainly not robust) the Guide makes reference to
robustness. Perhaps less discussed is the air stability throughout, during both the construction and
crash on the Pentagon building on the same day. building complete stages.
That event is of interest since it demonstrated the
survivability of a well built structure, even to extreme When considering robustness in this Guide, account
events. has been taken of the varying statutory requirements
within the UK. These are outlined in Chapter 3;
This Guide is not about complex rules for preventing however in summary form they are:
progressive collapse in complex buildings. It does ––Safety legislation applies to Great Britain and
not provide guidance on the special case of Class 3 Northern Ireland separately although the detailed
structures in the UK. Rather, the text is targeted at requirements are the same.
those charged with designing and constructing the ––Building Regulations are governed by separate
smaller, everyday structures, which make up the bulk requirements in England and Wales, Scotland, and
of our profession’s workload. Northern Ireland. There is much commonality which
is to be expected but some subtle differences do
The Guide explains statutory requirements and offers apply. These may change over time and at the time
advice on compliance but beyond that, it tries to of writing, all official guidance is being reviewed.
provide common sense advice on what constitutes
robustness; a quality that professional designers The text of the Guide is based around the regulations
ought to incorporate as a matter of prudence. It must in England and Wales; however if there are relevant
be noted that this Guide is intended as guidance variations elsewhere within the UK, these are
only and as such cannot be used as a substitute indicated.
for an Engineer’s own professional experience,
knowledge, verification and attention.
Whilst recognising the regulations, the Task Group References

believe that the main thrust of the designer’s
effort should be on achieving compliance via their
professional competence and judgement. The 1.1 Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Report of
robustness topic does not yet lend itself to academic the inquiry into the collapse of flats at Ronan Point,
precision. Indeed, the rules we have now are a Canning Town. London: HMSO, 1968
pragmatic balance between cost and perceived
risk which is nevertheless judged to be reasonably 1.2 Corley, W.G. et al. ‘The Oklahoma City bombing:
effective in restricting the extent of failure when put to summary and recommendations for multihazard
the test. Achieving robustness is partly dependent on mitigation’. ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed
a risk perception: Facilities, 12(3), August 1998, pp100-112
(1) it requires a conscious recognition of initiating
events and their likelihood;
(2) it requires a sound understanding of building/
structural performance to assess how these
might respond under overload or accident;
(3) it requires judgement about consequences.
The Institution of Structural Engineers Practical guide to structural robustness and disproportionate collapse in buildings 1

2 Concepts of robustness
2.1 Introduction In the 1955 Report on Structural Safety2.2 the

Institution committee chaired by Sir Alfred Pugsley
offered the timeless observations:
Structures should be safe. Put simply, the public ––That the structure shall retain throughout its life,
expects that the possibility of buildings or their parts the characteristics essential for fulfilling adequately
failing should be so remote as to pose no significant the purpose for which it was constructed, without
danger to life; the phrase ‘as safe as houses’ is not in abnormal maintenance cost.
common parlance for nothing. Equally, the public do ––That the structure shall retain throughout its life
not expect any significant loss of building asset from an appearance not disquieting to the user and
everyday events. To a lesser degree, that intolerance general public and shall neither have nor develop
extends to rarer events such as vehicle impacts, fire, characteristics leading to concern as to structural
gas explosions or minor structural alterations and the safety.
attribute that imparts those qualities is robustness. ––That the structure shall be so designed that
The implicit obligation to design structures for adequate warning of danger is given by visible
robustness is embodied within regulations and codes signs and that none of these signs shall be evident
though the manner of compliance is often not explicit under design working load.
and is left up to good practice and professionalism.
BS EN 19902.1 (Section 2.1 Basic requirements)

provides one definition of robustness as “A structure 2.2 Hybrid structures
shall be designed and executed in such a way that
it will not be damaged by events such as explosion,
impact, and the consequences of human errors, to Most structures are a hybrid of different structural
an extent disproportionate to the original cause” and materials and forms. For example, timber trusses
that definition will serve well enough. sitting on masonry, precast concrete units sitting
on steel or concrete, timber buildings supported
In previous times, when buildings and their on concrete podiums, or a lightweight steel-framed
components were sized by rule of thumb, a measure storey constructed on top of a traditional masonry
of robustness tended to be built in, albeit not always building. Consequently it is important to emphasise
successfully. In modern times our building methods the role of the design team in assuring not only the
have become more complex so robustness has robustness of the individual material components
ceased to be an attribute taken for granted and a but also of the structure as a whole (Reference 2.3
need has arisen to consider it more explicitly. That exemplifies the dangers).
need is still evolving as the construction industry
develops ever more sophisticated and structurally In all cases it is imperative that the designers
efficient products, and as pressures intensify to build co-operate, and co-ordinate their designs, such that
ever more quickly. The evolution of the specialist the interfaces between materials are robust. This
designer, introducing fragmentation of the design requires procedural co-ordination (e.g. timing of
process, is another issue. appointments, communication of assumptions and
clarity of responsibilities at the interface) and physical
In day-to-day work, structural engineers design co-ordination (e.g. relating to fit, structural continuity or
on the basis of component strength and stiffness physical access). Section 2.13 talks about the need for
against a set of applied loads. That process masks one designer to have overall responsibility for stability
some underlying principles of sound building and and robustness and who can take an overview; this is
tends to obscure the need to look at the whole. also emphasised in Reference 2.4. Chapter 5 of this
Attributes that might be additionally considered Guide sets out the design fundamentals.
are those such as global stability, global stiffness,
or insensitivity to settlement, moisture or thermal
movements and minor alterations or insensitivity Box 2.1 The robustness of a structure has to be
to the inevitable errors that accompany routine looked at as a whole
construction – all these attributes might be grouped A key presumption is that for any one building, there should be
under the quality of robustness or stability. Building one engineer in overall charge of both stability and robustness
components degrade throughout their life at varying and not least when multiple structural disciplines are involved
rates yet it is not accepted that such decay should as in hybrid structures. The Task Group have strongly endorsed
lead to any fundamental change in state, at least this principle.
not without warning. Rather, an underlying safety
principle of all sound building is that as far as
possible, impending collapse should be signalled by Thus when considering tying rules, as described in
gross deformation or excessive cracking indicating later chapters, the routes of vertical ties to foundation
the onset of failure. That same principle applies under or other appropriate levels should be continuous
overload i.e. that as far as possible structural failure through the various parts of the structure i.e. across
under overload should be ductile rather than brittle. the boundaries of the hybrid structure. If partial
This latter principle applies equally in fire; a hallmark collapse is considered, the capability of the structure
of fire resistance should be stable deformation before below the collapse (perhaps designed by others) to
collapse. support the debris from above must be confirmed.
2 The Institution of Structural Engineers Practical guide to structural robustness and disproportionate collapse in buildings

Concepts of robustness 2.3
2.3 Structural form
Achieving these desirable states should start with

the concept of structural form. Every structural form
should carry gravity and horizontal loads safely to Garage
ground and the route those loads take (the load entrance
path) should be clearly defined. Whilst often self
evident, there are many instances of confusion
in older structures and in conversions and even
within modern structures where diverse routes are
envisaged via floor plates (diaphragms) and bracings
or shear walls. A fundamental feature of robustness
is that such load paths should be defined.
Buses have to
Once the load path has been defined it should be manoeuvre around
used to ensure the continuity of a horizontal load central column
resistant path. Although seismic design is not a UK
requirement, earthquakes apply horizontal loads to Radial roof
structures and observation of building performance trusses
provides empirical feedback over structural form. supported off a
Time and again the vulnerability of low rise buildings central column
with inadequate lateral resistance in the lowest
storey has been demonstrated (so called soft
storey collapses). Such failures can illustrate the
consequence of wall removal in building conversions Central
which often renders the structure less stiff and less column
stable than it would have been originally.
Particular care needs to be exercised in hybrid

structures (as described in Section 2.2). The
assumptions of the various teams on ‘what is
propped off what’, ‘what the load paths are’ and
‘what the stiffness demands are (compatible as
between different materials)’, all need to be defined
very early on and conveyed to the parties involved.
There are dangers during the construction phase if Figure 2.1 Bus garage with roof supported off a central column
the construction sequencing is at odds with overall
stability and robustness demands.
It is also generally accepted that the more ductile

Box 2.2 Robust structures are generally stiff a structural form is, the more robust it is. Ductility
structures desensitises the structure overall or its individual
The concept of load path aids comprehension about lateral elements to damage from the uncertainties inherent
stiffness, the longer the load path, and the higher the stress in within the loading and service conditions and it
the members, the more flexible the structure. Stiffness requires desensitises them to variations from predicted
that horizontal loads are taken by the shortest route possible stress levels. Ductility is relevant at component level
down to ground (see Reference 2.5) (see Section 2.5) and at structural system level (see
Section 2.9). It is advantageous under static loading
but is also key to structural response under dynamic
It is not good practice to start off with a structural loading, in which case it is linked with energy
form which has obvious weaknesses to an implicit absorption.
hazard associated with the building’s function.
Figure 2.1 shows a design for a bus depot. The roof
was large spanning, but all trusses were propped
off a single column located in the middle of the 2.4 Horizontal loads
depot. Clearly all the buses had to manoeuvre past
this single column and the wisdom of adopting that
structural form without careful consideration of its The concept of applying horizontal loads underpins
protection can be questioned. many strategies for evaluating the overall robustness
of a structural form. Whilst it seems obvious that
It is generally accepted that the provision of there should be clear routes for horizontal loads
redundancy or some alternative load paths is a good down to the foundations, in many structures it is not
investment to help ensure robustness. In severe immediately obvious what the horizontal loads are in
overload (as in structures subject to earthquake the first place. The Ronan Point failure2.7 was initiated
loading or explosion) the more alternative structural by a domestic gas explosion applying a horizontal
support systems that exist the better. After the load and there have been plenty more of these since
Ramsgate collapse2.6 it became mandatory to to remind us of the ever present threat. For most
provide a catch ledge or chains to support link structures, it will generally be the case that strong
bridges in case the main support failed. As a winds provide the major horizontal destabilising
generality, caution is required whenever overall force. But horizontal forces also arise due to self
integrity is reliant on a single joint. weight, perhaps due to side sway from eccentricity

2.5 Concepts of robustness
of vertical load or perhaps due to inevitable column In the absence of buckling, beams are robust
plumb tolerance. Thus modern codes apply notional under vertical load if they have strong connections
lateral loads related to vertical loads. These notional and if they exhibit ductility; this is assured by
loads can prove more critical than wind loading when codified rules (such as controlling reinforcement
applied along the length of long narrow buildings. percentages in concrete members or the
elimination of local flange buckling in steel). Where
Some horizontal loads only apply during construction failure is by buckling, robustness requires that
(see examples in Box 2.3 and Box 2.4). lateral stability is not dependent on a few flimsy
bracings which might raise the danger of gross
failure linked to loss of minor members. The cost
Box 2.3 Robustness requires that all structures have a resistance to lateral of bracing is often trivial in comparison with the
loading and if none is readily defined, a notional percentage of the structure as a whole, so it is not good practice
vertical load is a good starting point (however that percentage is to skimp on it. Likewise, it is not good practice
derived). to skimp on beam end connection capacity;
When a structure is entirely erected within another building, it is not obvious whether there whatever the design forces, there should be
is any horizontal loading to apply at all. But if the structure has no lateral resistance, it some correlation between beam capacity and the
will sway and there have been cases of high bay warehouse racking toppling sideways. connections that support it (including the need for
Imperfections in vertical alignment or partial live loading on the span will all cause connections to act as ties).
structural sway. Such partial loading can exist during construction when floor concrete is
being poured from one side. In the permanent case that concrete may form a diaphragm, Like robustness, ductility is a sound attribute to
but during construction it may itself be the destabilising load. have and achieving it is partly a matter of design
and partly a matter of detailing. Without ductility,
The figure shows a mezzanine floor that was added within a factory and used to store structures would be vulnerable to brittle failure
heavy cable drums. Clearly a slight lean of the columns would have generated significant and we could not rely on procedures such as
lateral force. slab yield line analysis or plastic design. At a
simple level, ductility allows constant shear to be
carried as in a real hinge, and a sound objective of
steelwork detailing is to allow shear connections
to deform yet still carry normal loading even under
Wind Sway instability working conditions. At a more advanced level,
ductility allows moment to be carried at constant
magnitude when deformation under plastic hinge
conditions takes place. The objective of detailing
rules is to assure that the plastic hinge has
Sheltered sufficient capacity to permit load redistribution
internal frame while undergoing further deformation. This can
be quantified through the shape of the moment-
curvature (M-{) curve, specifically the part of the
A sheltered internal structure with heavy floor loading yet no defined explicit curve after maximum moment capacity is attained.
horizontal load to assure stability
The area under the M-{ curve can also be
considered as a measure of the component’s
Box 2.4 Robustness requires that there is always a load resisting system for ability to absorb energy. Through this concept,
horizontal loading during all stages of construction and this may have we can assess structures with respect to shock
to be provided via temporary works. dynamic loading, such as occurs in gas explosions,
During construction, many elements that are eventually sheltered within the completed blast, vehicle impact and earthquake action,
building are temporarily exposed to wind and there have been several instances of walls since all those incidents release a finite amount of
blowing over before building completion. There have also been instances of tall bridge energy. Consequently, quantifying and mobilising
girders toppling over in the period before the deck has been added. energy absorption capability is a key ingredient in
robustness strategies against accidental loading.
The practice of adopting minimum sizes and

2.5 Component design minimum slenderness ratios assures a certain
amount of construction robustness and many
material codes give some guidance over minimum
Much of modern structural engineering relies on member sizes, minimum amounts of reinforcement,
using components that are rated at maximum minimum connection capacities, minimum bearing
efficiency with such efficiency gained by all elements lengths and so on.
contributing structurally in some fashion. A good
example is the steel pitched portal frame with Self evidently a robust structure can only be
haunched eaves where the lower eaves compression achieved if the quality of detailing and construction
flange is restrained out of plane by proprietary is commensurate with the design intent.
braces back to lightweight cold rolled purlins, which
are themselves restrained by the roof covering and
in-plane sag rods. Such systems are economical
and wide spread. However, care must be taken
in use not to remove some of these apparently
minor components in case that removal has more
widespread consequences, potentially setting off a
chain reaction of collapse.

Box 2.5 The ability to absorb energy is a key quality 2.6 Redundancy
of robustness
Looking at dynamic effects in terms of applied force suggests
the forces involved can be very high with corresponding When failure of any one loadbearing member leads
high stress, which is alarming yet misleading; a high force to the collapse of the entire structural system, as is
exists but it will be of very short duration. A good illustrative the case in pin-jointed trusses, the structure has no
example is to investigate the behaviour of a standard crash redundancy. Statically determinate structures can
barrier post under vehicle impact. The impacting vehicle has revert to a mechanism if just one part fails. In this
a certain amount of energy (0.5mv 2). When the vehicle hits case, the structure can be thought of as a chain
the post, it bends forming a plastic hinge at its base. The under tension – loss of one link implies loss of the
bulk of the vehicle’s energy is absorbed by Mpi. The amount ability to transfer load from one end to the other. This
of deflection at the top of the post is then height × i, and is known as a series or weakest-link system. Clearly,
the designer has some control over deflection magnitude by load transfer cannot take place in series systems
increasing or decreasing the value of M p selected: the more when failure has occurred and this is undesirable
deformation acceptable, the lower Mp can be but it cannot be from a robustness perspective.
too low otherwise the post would deform through 90º and fail
to stop the vehicle. On the other hand, in a parallel system, members
are interconnected in such a way that load is shared
Moreover, this post design is only valid if the post is capable between them, and failure of one member leads to
of significant plastic deformation. To sustain that deformation, load redistribution to other members. Such a system
the base connection capability is crucial. It has to be able to could have a degree of redundancy – consider a
resist Mp and to sustain Mp throughout the rotation i. This vessel anchored through four mooring lines and the
form of ductility is one characterised by energy absorption, consequences of one (or more) failing. The degree of
and robustness requires that at least some of the structural redundancy will depend on whether the re-distributed
system is capable of acting in this way. load can be taken up by the remaining members.
Other parts of the system may only need to exhibit rotational In turn, this will be a function of whether the failed
ability without absorbing energy (as for example in a door element has retained an ability to carry some load.
hinge), such joints only need carry shear whilst deforming Using the moored vessel analogy, the failed line could
significantly without fracturing. It will be found that the snap (brittle failure – only three lines are now carrying
concepts of ductility, energy absorption and rotational the load) or could yield (ductile failure – the failed line
capacity and how these are achieved by design and detailing still carries some load but anything in excess of yield
underlie many advanced studies of structural robustness. is distributed to the remaining three).
The example of the crash barrier post is good analogy for the
demands made on structural systems as a whole. In parallel or redundant systems, further distinctions
can be made depending on whether redundant
members pick up loads even when the structure
Applied energy = 0.5mv 2 experiences a low level of loading (active redundancy)
or whether they participate only after a certain degree
of degradation/damage has occurred (passive or
Car impact
fail-safe redundancy); back up tie cables can be
force: F
used to secure objects that might fall due to fatigue
or corrosion etc. A second important factor is the
so-called common cause failure, in other words
whether members that are expected to share loads
D are susceptible to common underlying factors that
may lead to their failure at the same time or under the
same conditions (e.g. all mooring lines suffer from the
same manufacturing defect).
One strategy of Building Regulations and codified

methods of imparting robustness is to rely on a level
i of structural continuity and redundancy. When this
is provided there may be sufficient capacity in any
Mp undamaged structure to carry loads redistributed
from the damaged elements often via alternative
load paths. In normal structural engineering terms,
Absorbed energy = FD = Mpi redundancy means the structure has more load
paths than it strictly needs. Inherently this is a ‘good
thing’ since damage or deficiency in any one part
(joint or component) does not instantly spell failure in
Energy absorption via plastic bending the accepted sense.
In any discussions on robustness there is a second

level of redundancy or spare capacity that can be
exploited: the available margin existing between what
the elements are capable of carrying and what the
demand actually is. Margins exist as the difference
between real material strength and specified
strength; and margins exist because the loads on the
structure during the initiating event will often be less
than those used for design purposes. Codes offer
reduced safety factors to allow for these facts.

Box 2.6 Robust structures are insensitive to the precision of design 2.7 Insensitivity/scale
assumptions
When designing for wind as the dominant load, care must be taken that the structure is
not too sensitive. For example, it is customary for a reduced wind load to be taken during The concept of insensitivity is an attribute of
construction, but at a low speed of say 10m/sec, a credible marginal increase of 1m/sec robustness and this can be seen in many ways.
will raise the forces by (11/10)2 = 21%. Coping with such potential variance requires The description of the variation in wind load in
robustness, not more precision in the calculations. the example in Box 2.6 is just one example of a
design being too mathematical and too sensitive
to assumptions that could prove inaccurate: as a
Box 2.7 Robust structures are insensitive to construction accuracy generality, all loading magnitude is uncertain and
engineers have to guard against that.
The figure shows a short cantilever. Nominally the applied load on the connection bolts is a
shear load P and a BM of P x 20mm. But a credible 20mm error in construction tolerance Design care is required when the absolute errors
will result in a BM of P x 40mm which is a doubling of the presumed moment. Robustness of tolerance or building movement can have a
requires that consideration be given to credible construction error. Clearly if the cantilever disproportionate effect. Refined calculations are
was 1m long and the tolerance remained at 20mm, the effects would be much less. inappropriate if they neglect this fact. The examples
in Box 2.7 and Box 2.8 illustrate the point. The
converse to the boxed examples might occur in
design when axial loads are considered concentric,
it is always sensible to assume some accidental
eccentricity.
20mm As a principle, designs should account for credible

variations in design assumptions. This applies,
say, in reinforced concrete design where minor bar
P positional errors are a fact of life, or in steelwork
where joint shimming might be required. There
have been cases of sudden failure of flat slabs in
shear around column heads where bars have been
mis-positioned or trampled down during concreting.
It is well known that a 5mm loss of cover will have
a significant deleterious effect on the durability of
reinforced concrete. Good design requires that
insensitivity is achieved by good detailing, by
recognising the difficulties of construction and by
concentrating on such matters at the expense of
Note structural efficiency expressed purely in numerical
Shear P terms of strength.
BM = P × 20mm
BM = P × (20mm + tolerance) Classic structural failures that might be cited as an
example of lack of robustness are the failure of Rock
Short cantilever Ferry School Sports Hall2.3 in 1976 and the collapse
of Camden School assembly hall roof2.8. Both failures
illustrate sensitivity to details. See Box 2.9 and
Box 2.8 Designers need to consider the sensitivity of their calculated results to Box 2.10.
variations in their design assumptions
The figure shows a thin concrete slab that was designed as a post tensioned slab with the
tendon offset by 10mm to achieve the requisite bending capacity. However, the designer 2.8 Uncertainty
had not considered that a perfectly credible tendon positioning error of 10mm would totally
undermine the assumptions made and fatally weaken the slab: the design was not robust.
As with the figure in Box 2.7, all credible variations of small dimensions should be Structural engineering should never become a totally
considered. mathematical exercise; the real strength of structures
is a function of their theoretical design, the quality of
detailing and the quality of construction. There are
Tendon 10mm uncertainties in each of those stages. References
eccentricity 2.9 and 2.10 discuss some of the fundamental
uncertainties along with the need for ductility to
overcome them. The failure in Box 2.11 illustrates one
aspect of loading uncertainty.
+ = +
Tendon Prestress Applied

stress
Note
Balance of stress is very sensitive to assumed eccentricity
Post tensioned unit with small eccentricity

Box 2.9 Robustness is a quality influenced by detailing quality

Rock Ferry School Sports Hall and Camden School Hall
The gymnasium of Rock Ferry School had loadbearing masonry walls and the roof was made of timber trusses seated on the wall.
Although the timber trusses were interconnected, there was in effect no bracing out of plane and no load path for longitudinal horizontal
(wind) loads back to ground. In the event, the trusses toppled sideways and the whole roof collapsed. The failure of the hall roof at
Camden school in 1973 was similarly catastrophic but was precipitated by the trivial bearing width provided for the roof beams and by
corrosion of the reinforcement that was supposed to keep the beams on the support.
Bar from edge beam

into topping rusted through
End of nib on beam
sheared on line of bar
Edge beam
Beam drops and,

initially, jams on nib
on edge beam.
Falls 8 hours later
Mode of failure of Camden School hall roof 2.8
Box 2.10 For structures to be robust, they should be insensitive to common building movements
Robustness requires the question being asked about what might happen if supports move, say, due to settlement or differential thermal
movement over time. The figure shows a floor in a multi-storey building consisting of precast flooring units spanning onto edge beams.
The calculations showed the vertical capacity of the units to be perfectly adequate but the designers had not considered the possibility
of the side units bowing out of plane, either increasing torsion on the edge supports or worst still, allowing them to move far enough
apart to let the units drop through. In situ ties were required at intervals simply to stop this happening. The needs of safe erection also
dictate that designers consider any out of balance loadings that might exist during flooring installation.
Potential plan bowing

of support beams
Potential plan bowing

of support beams
Ties needed at intervals

to prevent bowing
Adequate tying of precast flooring units

Box 2.11 Robustness concepts are important for any assembly of building components
The figure shows a suspended grillage ceiling which supported an air conditioning plant and services to a magnitude of about 1kN/m2.
The application of loading was indeterminate since the ducting was rigid, spanning over some supports and concentrating loads on
others. The whole grid was held up by proprietary anchors drilled into a concrete soffit. In service, one of the anchors pulled out,
subsequently overloading the adjacent ones which then also failed and a cascade was set up whereby the whole grillage came down.
This is an example of both progressive and disproportionate collapse. Robustness demands that when possibilities for failures of this
kind exist, there has to be high confidence that an initiating event cannot occur. In this case, site testing of anchor installation would
have been prudent. As the distribution of loading was fundamentally indeterminate, a good safety margin was required on notional
anchor pullout capacity to cover that uncertainty. Designers should always be conscious of the accuracy with which they can predict
loading and structural capacity.
Initial hanger failure In situ slab
Duct work
Suspended ceiling supporting ducting
Progressive ceiling failure generated

by successive hanger failures
Progressive failure of a suspended ceiling
2.9 Failure modes and ductility Ductility at structural system level is implicitly linked
with energy absorption capability. For example,
large frames under severe dynamic loading can
As mentioned in Section 2.5, ductility is a sound be designed so that certain failure modes, which
quality for a structure to have if it is to be robust. involve a particular sequence and location of plastic
Most codes assure a level of useful ductility at hinge formation, can occur in preference to others.
component level by imposition of detailing rules. In this way, the energy absorption capability of the
Structural ductility allows parts to deform yet structure can be enhanced, thus allowing more
still carry load – it allows overloaded parts of the severe dynamic events to be contained. To allow
structure to yield and redistribute stress. the formation of these preferred failure modes,
connection ductility should be properly assessed and
The Building Regulations and codified methods catered for. It is also important in this case to avoid
of imparting robustness implicitly rely on a level any inadvertent switch of failure modes by providing
of ductility within the structure. Catenary action, additional but unwanted strength to elements that
which is a fundamental assumption of some survival have been assumed to participate in the preferred
strategies, relies on the ability of connections and failure modes. This strategy is used in earthquake
joints to deform without fracture and, for example, resistant design, where a weak beam-strong
reinforcing bars to elongate without fracture. column design has to be adhered to so that sway
In routine design, such ductility is not explicitly failure modes with considerable energy absorption
evaluated, instead achievement has to be assured by capability can develop in preference to soft-storey
good detailing which means using proven detailing modes which dissipate energy in a local part only.
techniques normally as recommended by relevant
trade organisations. In general, for routine building work it is not
necessary to make any explicit calculations on
It is implicit within the concepts of ductile response ductility. Explicit calculations are used in seismic
that structures may distort significantly under design and in blast resistant design, for which
accident conditions; this is tolerable provided that specific detailing methods that assure high ductility
the structure stays intact and does not collapse in the context of system failure can be found in
completely, although limited area collapses are textbooks and codes. Although there is no need to
permissible. The presumption of significant distortion consider these in routine design, an understanding
is only justified if the structure has been appropriately of the background and an intuitive application will
detailed. certainly help in more routine structural work.

2.10 Fire loading and robustness 2.11 Progressive and disproportionate

collapse
Fire is an important accidental load case and thus
it is essential that due consideration is given to the The Ronan Point failure was the classic example
robustness of a structure in the event of a fire. Some of progressive collapse; that is the failure of one
of the objectives are: member which set off a chain reaction of other
––to design a structure such that a fire does not collapses such that the totality of damage was quite
cause a disproportionate failure disproportionate to the initiating event. No engineer
––to maintain stability for a period sufficient to allow can prevent total collapse if the event is big enough,
means of escape to occur but a robust structure should assure that the extent
––to maintain stability for a sufficient period to enable of damage is not disproportionate to the initiating
fire fighting and search and rescue. event. The regulations that will be discussed in
the following chapters aim to provide rules that
For the majority of small scale buildings, the will assure the containment of any damage to
prescriptive requirements defined in Approved prescribed amounts.
Document B2.11 and BS 99992.12 will be sufficient
and no special design features will be necessary.
However, the responsible structural designer
should maintain an awareness to confirm that there 2.12 Summary
is nothing unusual that would require additional
attention. Those responsible for the fire safety design
strategy should be able to provide this advice. Key points relating to robustness are:
The need for a robustness assessment will be greater (1) Robustness is a ‘good thing’ to protect structures
as the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the against the unforeseen.
building increase and thus there will be an increasing
need to co-ordinate the fire safety and the normal (2) Robustness is not purely a mathematical quality
structural design cases. that can be measured in terms of strength.
Where a need is identified to review the robustness in (3) Robustness of structural systems starts by having
more detail, the following considerations will impact a structural form appropriate to building function.
on the assessment: Attributes such as redundancy, alternative load
––An appropriate form of the structure and level paths and clarity of load path are all good to have
of redundancy will reduce the chances of a and in some cases essential.
disproportionate event affecting life safety.
––The details and the ductility of the structure and the (4) Robustness is achieved by making the structure
type of connections will impact on the ability of a strong yet ductile with ductility having an
building to resist collapse during both the heating importance comparable to strength. Joints are
and the cooling phases. crucial to robust performance. Where reliance is
––The presence of alternative load paths (e.g. placed on a single joint, special care is required.
catenary action under large deflection) has a
significant impact on the fire load case and the (5) Robustness requires that all structures have
ability of the structure to continue to support load adequate load paths down to the foundations for
at elevated temperatures. vertical and horizontal loads (in each orthogonal
––In many instances, the larger deflections that result direction). In some cases, horizontal loads should
during a fire are acceptable as long as collapse is be notional, related to dead and imposed loads.
not initiated.
––Consideration should be given to real fire (6) A measure of a structural system’s robustness
performance rather than the approach dictated by is its insensitivity to any change in state
tests and the use of the standard fire curve. consequent upon a credible variation of any
design assumptions. Structural capacity should
The long term performance of a structure is not be sensitive to variations in assumptions
equally important as a fire can occur many such as load positioning, construction accuracy,
years after construction so a fire safety solution tolerances or in-service degradation.
needs to be sustainable and maintainable. The
communication of this information is required (7) Designers should always be mindful of the
by Approved Document B2.11 (as specified by hazards that are relevant to building/structural
Regulation 16B of the Building Regulations). function.
For more detailed consideration see References 2.13 (8) In any structure there should be one engineer
and 2.14. who has responsibility for the provision of overall
stability and overall robustness.

2.13 Strategy 2.14 References
In all structures, and particularly in hybrid structures, 2.1 BS EN 1990: 2002: Eurocode: Basis of structural
there must be one designer who takes primary design. London: BSI, 2002
responsibility for assuring stability and robustness of
the whole structure and who defines and documents 2.2 ‘Report on structural safety’. The Structural Engineer,
the strategy. This principle does not remove the need 33 (5), May 1955, pp141-149
for other individual designers to take responsibility for
the robust design of the various elements that make 2.3 Menzies, J.B. and Grainger, G.D. Report on the collapse
up the whole. Equally the same point applies during of the sports hall at Rock Ferry Comprehensive School,
construction; the risks of failure are highest in the Birkenhead. BRE Current Paper CP 69/76. Garston:
partially completed state and one designer should BRE, 1976
have overall responsibility for assuring robustness/
stability during the construction phase. In reviews 2.4 Whittle, R. and Taylor, H. Design of hybrid concrete
for design and construction, the question over how buildings: a guide to the design of buildings combining
robustness will be tackled ought to be raised. in-situ and precast concrete. Camberley: The Concrete
Centre, 2009
The strategy for achieving robustness lies partly
in the competence of the design team, partly in 2.5 Ji, T. ‘Concepts for designing stiffer structures’.
compliance with good building practice and partly The Structural Engineer, 81(21), 4 November 2003,
in compliance with regulations and codified rules. pp36-42
There are various documents which define overall
strategies (for example BS EN 19902.1) and Figure 2.2 2.6 Chapman, J.C. ‘Collapse of the Ramsgate Walkway’.
reproduces the flow chart from BS EN 1991-1-72.15 The Structural Engineer, 76(1), 7 January 1998,
(Figure 3.1 from the source). This leads on to detailed pp1-10; Discussion, 78(4), 15 February 2000, pp22-29
strategies already incorporated in British practice as
described in later chapters of this Guide. 2.7 Ellis, B.R. and Currie, D.M. ‘Gas explosions in buildings
in the UK: regulation and risk’, The Structural Engineer,
It has to be emphasised here that although much 76(19), 6 October 1998, pp373-380
UK regulation stems from the accident at Ronan
Point, the initiating event now underpinning the UK 2.8 Department of Education and Science. Report on the
design processes is a purely notional value whereas collapse of the roof of the assembly hall of the Camden
in BS EN 1991-1-72.15 the structure may be designed School for Girls. London: HMSO, 1973
for specific actions as indicated in the figure extract
below. Notwithstanding the UK rules, designers 2.9 Beeby, A.W. ‘Safety of structures and a new approach
should always consider specific risks that might apply to robustness’. The Structural Engineer, 77(4),
to their structures alone. Proximity to heavy moving 16 February 1999, pp16-21
vehicles is a common occurrence.
2.10 Heyman, J. ‘Hambly’s paradox: why design calculations
do not reflect real behaviour’. ICE Proceedings, Civil
Engineering, 114(4), November 1996, pp161-166
2.11 Department for Communities and Local Government.

Accidental
The Building Regulations 2000. Approved Document B:
design situations
Fire Safety. Vol 1: Dwellinghouses; Vol 2: Buildings other
than dwellinghouses. 2006 ed. London: NBS, 2007
2.12 BS 9999: 2008: Code of practice for fire safety in the

design, management and use of buildings. London:
BSI, 2008
Strategies based on identified accidental Strategies based on limiting the 2.13 Institution of Structural Engineers. Introduction to the
actions e.g. explosions and impact extent of localised failure fire safety engineering of structures. London: Institution
of Structural Engineers, 2003
2.14 Institution of Structural Engineers. Guide to the

advanced fire safety engineering of structures. London:
Institution of Structural Engineers, 2007
2.15 BS EN 1991-1-7: 2006: Eurocode 1: Actions on

Design the Preventing Design Enhanced Key elements Prescriptive structures – Part 1-7: General actions – Accidental
structure to or reducing structure to redundancy designed rules actions. London: BSI, 2006 and NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:
have the action sustain the e.g. to sustain e.g. integrity 2006: UK National Annex to Eurocode1 - Actions on
sufficient e.g. action alternative notional and structures – Part 1-7: Accidental actions. London:
minimum protective load paths accidental ductility BSI, 2008
robustness measures action Ad
Figure 2.2 Strategies for Accidental Design Situations (Figure 3.1 from BS EN 1991-1-7)

3 Legal and other obligations
3.1 Introduction 3.2 Category A: Statute
Structural engineers are legally obligated to design Category A legislative requirements are shown in
structures that are safe to construct, use, maintain Table 3.2.
and de-commission/demolish. Part of this obligation
is to ensure stability/solidity/robustness and to guard The Building Regulations in the UK are promulgated
against disproportionate collapse. This chapter under three different jurisdictions: England &
outlines the background and gives guidance as to Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. However,
how the designer’s obligations may be discharged. the requirement concerning robustness and
disproportionate collapse is essentially the same
Although obligations will vary around the world, the in all three, although the limits of application and
underlying requirements and principles are likely to some definitions vary. The regulations in England
be similar to the UK requirements regardless of the and Wales3.4 are currently the responsibility of the
structure’s location hence the following commentary Department of Communities and Local Government.
only references UK practice. The generic categories The same department also publishes Approved
of obligation in the UK are shown in Table 3.1. These Document A3.5 (AD-A) which is the key reference.
are not intended to be ranked although statutory
provisions always take precedence. In the following text, reference is generally limited to
the legislation and guidance for England and Wales.
Table 3.1 Categories of obligation Regardless of the jurisdiction, the aim of the Building
Regulations is the same. Regulation 83.4 offers helpful
Category Comment clarification. Headed “Limitation on requirements”,
A Statute Legislative requirements it states “Part A [inter alia] shall not require anything
B Contract Between employer/employee and to be done except for the purpose of securing
between employer/client reasonable standards of health and safety (our
emphasis) for persons in or about buildings (and any
C Common law Based on case law creating a duty others who may be affected by buildings or matters
of care connected with buildings)”.
D Code of Conduct Institution of Structural Engineers
Code of Conduct requires members As can be seen from Table 3.2 the Workplace
to have regard to the public’s Regulations3.13 relate to stability and solidity rather
safety; designers belonging to other than robustness. However the latter is a useful
Institutions are likely to have similar general phrase to use and is applicable to all
obligations structure types.
Table 3.2 Source of statutory obligation
Statute Comment
Building Act 19843.1 Enabling legislation allowing for more detailed regulations to be
Building (Scotland) Act 20033.2 made
Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (as amended
1990 and 2009)3.3
Building Regulations 2000 (as amended 2004)3.4 Requires the design of relevant buildings to satisfy Part A
‘Structure’. Official guidance is given in Approved Document A3.5,
and item A3 in particular
Building (Scotland) Regulations 20043.6 Supported by Technical Handbook3.7 Section 1
Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 20003.8 Supported by Technical Booklet D3.9
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 19743.10 Requirement under s3 to have regard for those affected by the
designer’s work (i.e. their undertaking). Typically, ‘those affected’
will be contractors, users, and the public
Health and Safety at Work Order (Northern Ireland) 19783.11 As above (under Article 5)
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM) 3.12 Requirement to ‘eliminate hazards and reduce risks from
any remaining hazards’ and to provide relevant information
(Regulation 11)
Applies to all foreseeable risks
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (as Requirement for workplaces to have ‘stability and solidity’
amended) 3.13 (Regulation 4A)
Notes
a These regulations are amended or revoked from time to time, hence it is important to ensure current versions are being used.
b Safety regulations in Northern Ireland are identical in the detail to those elsewhere in the UK.

3.2 Legal and other obligations
Building Regulation A.33.4 requires that: “the building e.g. vehicular impact, but could also for example
shall be constructed so that in the event of an include the consequences of inadequate analysis or
accident the building will not suffer collapse to an design, or risk arising from a lack of competency of
extent disproportionate to the cause”. Approved the persons used in the design/construction process.
Document A3.5 provides one means of meeting Such risks must be managed. BS EN 19903.15
compliance with this key regulation. The specified (and reinforced elsewhere in the Eurocodes) also
measures (described elsewhere in this Guide) are emphasises this broad approach to risk.
stipulated to ensure adequate robustness and
safeguards against disproportionate collapse of The CDM Regulations3.12 reinforce the requirement
buildings arising from the effects of accidental to consider robustness during construction and
events; malicious action is not covered by the de-commissioning as well as the operational in-use
Building Regulations. phase covered by the Building Regulations3.4. It is
important that the designer’s intent and assumptions
A ‘building’ is defined in the Building Act3.1 (Section are conveyed to others as noted in the penultimate
121) as (part extract) “Any permanent or temporary paragraph of this Section below.
building, and, unless the context otherwise requires,
it includes any other structure or erection of whatever The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare)
kind or nature (whether permanent or temporary)”. Regulations3.13, as amended, require workplaces
in buildings to have ‘stability and solidity’. The
Approved Document A3.5 allows any method of regulations offer no formal guidance. However, it
structural analysis and design to be adopted providing would be reasonable to conclude that, for design
it meets the relevant requirement of the regulations3.4. purposes, this would be achieved by:
However, most submissions made under the Building ––compliance with the Building Regulations
Regulations utilise the scheduled list of approved ––any other relevant risks being accommodated
codes of practice as the means of demonstrating ––the structure being maintained to a reasonable
compliance. However, not all building types will fit structural standard
with the assumptions inherent in these codes, and ––the use of the workplace being as originally
compliance with British Standards and other codes envisaged by the designer, and
does not confer immunity from legal obligations. ––having any significant change to the structure
or its use being reviewed and assessed against
Approved Document A3.5 (Table 11) categorises robustness criteria.
buildings for the purpose of designing for robustness
and against disproportionate collapse. These The requirements of the Health and Safety at Work
classes (which do not cover all categories of Act3.10 and the CDM Regulations3.12 apply to buildings
building e.g. stations and surgeries) are described and all other types of structure. Compliance is to
in Chapter 4. Classes 1, 2A, 2B have prescriptive be achieved ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’
solutions presented, whereas the acceptable (SFARP) in respect of all foreseeable risks. Guidance
solutions for Class 3 are to be determined by the is available in Reference 3.16.
designer from an assessment of risk. Although
important, Class 3 buildings are not considered A summary of the scope of the various statutory
further in this Guide (though guidance is available in provisions is given in Table 3.3.
Reference 3.14).
The design process is required to include the
In general, the Building Regulations3.4 only require provision of adequate information to others to ensure
the effects of accidental events to be applied to the robustness and to guard against disproportionate
completed building. However, if a material alteration is collapse during the construction or subsequently
undertaken on an existing building then the inherent in the life of the structure. This information might
level of robustness is required to be maintained involve:
during the construction phase of this work as well. ––a description of the structural system, load paths
Notwithstanding this formality, Statute (the Health and stability system in the permanent state in
and Safety at Work etc. Act3.10 ) requires consideration sufficient detail that constructors and those in
of all foreseeable risk (i.e. accidental and malicious) the future who may be engaged to amend or
at all stages of the building’s life i.e. construction, de-commission the structure can appreciate issues
use, alteration and repair and decommissioning. of temporary stability
Such consideration would normally be discharged ––requirements of temporary bracing or suggested
by competent designers identifying and eliminating construction sequences and the like during the
hazards so far as is reasonably practicable, and then construction process. From these the contractor
reducing residual risks from any remaining hazards may develop a safe system of work
to which the structure is reasonably exposed. Hence ––design assumptions regarding the use and
structural engineers should prudently consider the maintenance of the structure
construction phase since that is the stage when ––adequately detailed drawings.
accidental damage or instability behaviour is most
likely to occur. Risk reduction can be achieved by: This data would normally be contained in the
––following good practice which is authoritative and pre-construction data or in the Health and Safety
accepted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) File if the project is notifiable under the Construction
as such, or (Design and Management) Regulations 20073.12
––working from first principles (and taking account (i.e. over 30 days or involving more than 500 person
of the general principles of robustness discussed days on site) or in other documents if less than
throughout this Guide). these limits. Robustness during the construction
phase is particularly important. For this to be
Risks in the context of health and safety legislation achieved, the contractor must be informed of this
include not only the consequence of physical actions key information.

Legal and other obligations 3.3
Table 3.3 Scope of legislation
Legislation Applicable to robustness during or at: Type of structure Included risks
Structural alteration
with change of use
De-commissioning
Work associated
Structural repair
Maintenance
Construction
Completion
Use
a b c
Building Regulations3.4     Buildings All foreseeable and
unforeseeable accident risks
(excludes malicious actions)
Health and Safety at Work Act3.10         All structures All foreseeable risks
CDM Regulations3.12         All structures All foreseeable risks
d d d d
Workplace Regulations (Regulation 4A)3.13      Buildings that are workplaces All foreseeable risks
Notes
a Only in cases where the structure is judged as being dangerous do the provisions of the Building Act 19843.1 apply and allow it to be made safe.
b Only if change is material and relevant, as defined in the Building Regulations3.4.
c Only if the alterations are material as defined in the Building Regulations3.4.
d Only if workplace remains in use.
3.3 Category B: Contract Building (Amendment) Regulations 2004. [s.l.]: The

Stationery Office, 2004 (SI 2004/1465)
Contracts between the engaging party (usually the 3.5 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Building
client for the project or the contractor if a design Regulations 2000. Approved Document A: Structure.
and build procurement route) and the designer will London: NBS, 2004
require – explicitly or implicitly – that designs should
satisfy statutory provisions or some more stringent 3.6 Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004. Edinburgh: The
requirement e.g. measures to resist terrorist action Stationery Office, 2004 (SSI 2004/406)
(this should be agreed with the engaging party).
The standard of care expected in discharging this 3.7 Scottish Building Standards Agency. The Scottish
obligation should be stated in the contract, but it would building standards technical handbook: domestic; non-
normally be to undertake the design using due skill, domestic. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office, 2010
care and diligence. The designer would be expected to
be aware of contemporary good practice and industry 3.8 Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. [s.l.]: The
advice and concerns. Contract requirements are Stationery Office, 2000 (Statutory Rule 2000/389)
subordinate to statutory requirements but contractual
obligations can impose more onerous requirements 3.9 Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.
than are imposed by statute. Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009. Technical
Booklet D: Structure. London: HMSO, 2009
3.10 Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Chapter 37.
3.4 Categories C and D: Common law and London: HMSO, 1974
Code of Conduct
3.11 The Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order
1978. London: HMSO, 1978 (SI 1978/1039 (N.I. 9))
The common law duty of care (Category C), and
professional obligations (Category D) will normally be 3.12 The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations.
satisfied by compliance with Categories A and B. Norwich: The Stationery Office, 2007 (SI 2007/320)
3.13 The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations

1992. London: The Stationery Office, 1992 (SI
3.5 References 1992/3004), as amended by The Health and Safety
(Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002. [s.l.]:
The Stationery Office, 2002 (SI 2002/2174)
3.1 Building Act 1984. Chapter 55. London: HMSO, 1984
3.14 Harding, G. and Carpenter, J. ‘Disproportionate collapse
3.2 Building (Scotland) Act 2003. [s.l.]: The Stationery Office, of Class 3 buildings: the use of risk assessment’. The
2003 Structural Engineer, 87(15), 4 August 2009, pp29-34
3.3 Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. [s.l.]: 3.15 BS EN 1990: 2002: Eurocode: Basis of structural
HMSO, 1979 (SI 1979/1709 (N.I. 16)) as amended by design. London: BSI, 2002
The Planning and Building Regulations (Amendment)
(Northern Ireland) Order 1990. [s.l.]: The Stationery 3.16 Institution of Civil Engineers. A review of, and commentary
Office, 1990 (SI 1990/1510 (N.I. 14)) and the Building on, the legal requirement to exercise a duty ‘so far as is
Regulations (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009. reasonably practicable’ with specific regard to designers in
Chapter 4. [s.l.]: The Stationery Office, 2009 the construction industry. Available at: http://www.ice.org.
uk/knowledge/specialist_community_health_downloads.
3.4 The Building Regulations 2000. London: The Stationery asp [Accessed: 24 February 2010]
Office, 2000 (SI 2000/2531), as amended by The

4 Regulations, codes of practice and supporting documents
and their interpretation
4.1 Introduction 4.2 Classification of structures
4.1.1 General For practical implementation, buildings are classified

according to the perceived consequences of failure.
This chapter describes the general framework of Their allocation in AD-A4.3 according to ‘building
UK regulations covering issues of robustness and class’ (‘consequences class’ in EN, ‘Risk Group‘
disproportionate collapse. The requirements for in Scotland) is based on building type, number of
disproportionate collapse have a long history within storeys and occupancy and can conveniently be set
the Building Regulations4.1, first being introduced out in a table, see Table 4.1. (The classification in
following the partial collapse of the Ronan Point flats Scotland and Northern Ireland is very similar).
in 19684.2. Buildings under five storeys were originally
exempt, but the current regulations (as amended in Class 1
2004) now apply to all buildings. (In Northern Ireland ––Houses not exceeding 4 storeys.
and Scotland revised regulations, post 2009, bring ––Agricultural buildings.
local regulations very close to those of England and ––Buildings into which people rarely go, provided no
Wales.) part of the building is closer to another building, or
area where people do go, than a distance of 1.5
4.1.2 Approved Document A times the building height.
The regulations are promulgated by the Office of Class 2A

the Deputy Prime Minister (since transferred to ––Single occupancy houses exceeding 4 storeys.
Communities and Local Government). The same ––Hotels not exceeding 4 storeys.
organisation also publishes Approved Document A4.3 ––Flats, apartments and other residential buildings
(AD-A). This opens with the statement: not exceeding 4 storeys.
––Offices not exceeding 4 storeys.
“This document … has been approved by ––Industrial buildings not exceeding 3 storeys.
the First Secretary of State for the purpose ––Retailing premises not exceeding 3 storeys of less
of providing practical guidance with respect than 2000m2 (1000m2 in EN) floor area in each
to the requirements of … the Building storey.
Regulations …” ––Single-storey educational buildings.
––All buildings not exceeding 2 storeys to which the
and continues; public are admitted and which contain floor areas
not exceeding 2000m2 at each storey.
“approved documents are intended to provide
guidance for some of the more common Class 2B
building situations. however, there may well be ––Hotels, flats, apartments and other residential
alternative ways of achieving compliance with buildings greater than 4 storeys but not exceeding
the requirements. Thus there is no obligation 15 storeys.
to adopt any particular solution contained in ––Educational buildings greater than 1 storey but not
an approved document if you prefer to meet exceeding 15 storeys.
the relevant requirements in some other ––Retailing premises greater than 3 storeys but not
way” (bold type in the original). exceeding 15 storeys.
––Hospitals not exceeding 3 storeys.
Readers should check that they are referring to the ––Offices greater than 4 storeys but not exceeding
current edition of AD-A (www.planningportal.gov.uk). 15 storeys.
––All buildings to which the public are admitted
4.1.3 Eurocodes which contain floor areas exceeding 2000m2 but
less than 5000m2 at each storey.
From the above it can be seen that AD-A4.3 is ––Car parking not exceeding 6 storeys.
equivalent to a code of practice. The other code
which will have wide application is Eurocode Class 3
BS EN 1991-1-7 Actions on structures: General ––All buildings defined above as Class 2A and 2B
actions – accidental actions4.4; the equivalent that exceed the limits on area and/or number of
guidance is in Annex A Design for consequences storeys
of localised failure in buildings from an unspecified ––All buildings to which members of the public are
cause. The UK National Annex to BS EN 1991-1-7 admitted in significant numbers (category in EN
does not amend or supplement the EN in any only)
significant way except to identify Annex A as ––Grandstands (stadia in EN) accommodating more
informative. AD-A and EN 1991-1-7 offer very similar than 5000 spectators
guidance, so this will be explained as from AD-A but ––Buildings containing hazardous substances and/
with variations in Annex A of BS EN 1991-1-7 prefixed or processes.
with ‘EN’ (in the following text).

Regulations, codes of practice and supporting documents and their interpretatio 4.3
Table 4.1 Building classes based on building type, number of storeys and occupancy
Building type Building Class
1 2A 2B 3
Agricultural All
Buildings into which Other
people rarely go Gap building
or people
H
Gap > 1.5Ha
Houses 1–4 5 (single occupancy) 6+ b
Hotels, flats and other 1–4 5 – 15 16+
residential buildings
Offices 1–4 5 – 15 16+
Retail 1 – 3 and < 2000m2 4 – 15 and < 2000m2 16+ or > 2000m2
(1000m2 in EN) floor (no area limit in EN) floor floor area per storey
area per storey area per storey
Buildings to which public 1 – 2 and < 2000m2 < 5000m2 floor area > 5000m2 floor area
are admitted floor area per storey per storey per storey (significant
numbers in EN)
Educational 1 2 – 15 16+
Car parks 1–6 7+
Hospitals 1–3 4+
Industrial 1 – 3 and not containing 4 or containing
hazardous substances/ hazardous substances/
processes processes
Grandstands > 5000 spectators
(stadia in EN)
Notes
a H is height of building being considered. For buildings not meeting this requirement, treat as a building from the most appropriate
use, often industrial.
b Any building of 6 storeys (even if nominally single occupancy, is better assigned to Class 2B).
c This table re-arranges the listing in Table 11 of AD-A4.3
The most notable difference between AD-A4.3 and 4.3 Number of storeys
BS EN 1991-1-74.4 is the inclusion of buildings to
which the public are admitted in significant numbers
in Class 3 in the EN. No guidance is offered on what 4.3.1 Introduction
constitutes significant numbers, but this would be
expected to be considered in the risk assessment. The number of storeys a building has is fundamental
to its classification. However, no definition of storey is
There are also buildings of special purpose which given in AD-A4.3. Although there is usually no dispute
do not come into Class 3 by virtue of their size over the meaning, it has been defined elsewhere4.5 as
but still merit Class 3 treatment because of their that part of a building which is situated between either:
value, vulnerability or because the consequences ––the top surface of two vertically adjacent floors
of failure would be particularly serious. Examples ––the top surface of the uppermost floor and the
might include: surface covering of the building.
––animal research centres
––banks, bonded warehouses In the Scottish Regulations, it is 'the distance from the
––control centres (e.g. for industrial plants, underside of one floor to the underside of the floor
railways) immediately above'.
––data centres
––embassies and high commissions Part-storeys are discussed in Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4.
––government offices
––religious buildings 4.3.2 Basements
––leading museums and galleries.
Both AD-A4.3 and BS EN 1991-1-74.4 are clear that if
The same is true for innovative structures, and basements are designed to Class 2B, they do not
those designing such structures should recognise need to be included as a storey in the storey count.
that by their nature these are more vulnerable to The logic of this decision is obscure, but may derive
unknown effects. Innovative structures need to be from the greater reliability of horizontal ties anchored
sufficiently robust to tolerate behaviour which is into perimeter walls. It follows that basements should
different to that envisaged in the design. only be treated in this way if all four perimeter walls
(or equivalent structure) are present, and that part
Table 4.1 shows building classification in a basements should otherwise be treated as an above
convenient format. ground storey.

4.3 Regulations, codes of practice and supporting documents and their interpretatio
The current regulations in Scotland and Northern provides general guidance on the interpretation
Ireland include basements in the storey count but of AD-A Requirement A3 for many domestic and
both permit exclusion of a basement from the count if small buildings; it also amplifies the definition of a
it complies with the requirements of Class 2B. basement including part basements.
An example of a part-basement is shown in the A helpful illustration of arriving at the number of

Copenhagen collapse (see Box 4.1). Reference 4.7 storeys originating from NHBC has been published
by SCI4.8, and is reproduced in Figure 4.1.
Box 4.1 Copenhagen gas explosion

Before the collapse After the collapse
The collapse of flats in Copenhagen following a gas explosion is instructive. The block was one of several on the site, with solid external
masonry walls 350mm thick through the full height into which in situ reinforced concrete floor slabs were built at all levels. There were
four floors of living accommodation over a semi-basement. This was set about 1.4m into the ground, so would qualify as basement by
the NHBC guidelines 4.7. However, from the photo it is difficult to see any reason for it to be discounted in assessing the building as being
of five storeys.
The explosion occurred when gas from an external source leaked into the semi-basement and was very severe. The pressure lifted
the floors thus relieving at least some, if not all, of the vertical load on the gable wall which then blew out. This left the floors above
unsupported, resulting in the extensive collapse seen in the photo.
If horizontal and vertical ties had been provided, it is possible that enough of the structure would have remained intact to prevent
the collapse.
2B 3
2A 2B
2A
2B
3 storey over 4 storey over 5 storey over 15 storey over 16 storey over
basement basement basement basement basement
Figure 4.1 Example of building classification

4.3.3 Part floors at roof level Box 4.2 Terminal at Paris Charles de Gaulle airport
It seems pedantic to classify a five storey building

above ground wholly as Class 2B if the fifth storey
is relatively insignificant. Clearly there is an area so
small as not to increase the risk to the floors below
enough to warrant designing the whole building
as Class 2B. This amount is subjective, but
might range from 25% for a building with a large
floor plan (say H 800m2 ) to 50% of a building
containing only four flats (say G 300m2 ) per floor.
4.3.4 Mezzanines and galleries
Similarly, it would appear reasonable to discount

single level mezzanines and galleries satisfying the
same limits to area given in Section 4.3.3.
4.4 Practical problems of interpretation
Collapse of terminal building

4.4.1 Introduction
The terminal building at Paris Charles de Gaulle airport partially collapsed in May 2004. It was
Although the categories are quite precise, they 680m long and 32m wide, i.e. about 22000m2 per storey, and open throughout its length.
should be interpreted with common sense. For If considered as a building, it would have come into Class 3, although at only three storeys
example, having a floor area of 2001m2 does it would have fallen outside the pre-2004 UK regulations. However, it was divided into ten
not automatically imply upwards classification. separate structures each 68m long and with 2200m2 per storey. If this had been taken into
Conversely, having a floor area of 1999m2 implies account, it would only have come into Class 2B (regardless of whether the number of people
care in considering classification. was significant enough to take it into Class 3 in EN4.4).
It should be noted that the extent of collapse was limited by a movement joint at one end and
4.4.2 Building or structure? a joint between precast concrete units at the other.
AD-A4.3 refers to building classes, and uses

the word ‘building’ throughout. Table 11, EN4.4
also uses ‘building’ throughout, and replaces 4.4.4 Multiple uses
the AD-A term ‘grandstand’ with ‘stadium’. SCI
Publication 3414.8 includes a diagram showing that The footnote to Table 114.3 states “for buildings
a structure separated by a movement joint can be intended for more than one type of use the class
considered as two separate buildings. However, should be that pertaining to the most onerous type”.
the wording of both AD-A and EN suggests that Typical arrangements falling into this category are
this is not what is intended (i.e. for downgrading apartments over another use, such as parking, shops
classification) especially where an incident could (which include restaurants), or a nursery. Another
affect both sides of the joint, and this view is is where offices are combined with apartments or
reinforced by the example of the Paris airport hotels. However, offices, hotels, apartments and
terminal (see Box 4.2). Nevertheless, this principle other residential buildings all have the same cut-off
should not be applied too rigidly: in a hospital with levels, i.e. Class 2A up to 4 storeys and Class 2B up
a number of single storey ward blocks grouped to 15 storeys, so there is no problem. With shops, the
around a four storey block, it would be reasonable Class 2A limit comes down to 3 storeys but the Class
to treat each block as a separate building provided 2B limit remains unchanged. If a nursery is treated as
that each block was structurally independent and educational, then any building of more than 1 storey
robust in its own right. will fall into Class 2B.
4.4.3 Ill defined uses 4.4.5 Strong floors
There are many building uses which are not If a strong floor can be designed to withstand
explicitly covered by Table 11 of AD-A4.3. collapse of the structure above, it clearly protects
Nurseries and kindergartens probably have to the occupants below. So a strong floor can be
be treated as educational, if (or as) the number considered to be the foundation for the floors above
of children per unit area is consistent. But what and the number of storeys counted from this level
about doctors’ surgeries and other day surgery up. However, below the strong floor the risk is
units, care homes, hospices and other quasi unchanged, and the storey count should be that of
hospitals? The appropriate tests are probably the whole building. An example of the advantage of
‘are people sleeping on the premises – and are strong floors is the partial collapse of Torre Windsor
they bedridden?’ So doctor’s surgeries and day in Madrid (see Box 4.3).
surgery units can be treated as offices, care
homes as residential but hospices as hospitals. An application of this principle is a building
AD-A (Section 5.4) refers readers to two comprising four storeys of say residential use on a
reports which discuss the evaluation of risk and podium at ground level; timber construction for the
consequence and these could be considered in upper storeys is not unusual. Provided the podium
unusual cases. is designed to meet the Class 2B requirements and

Box 4.3 A strong floor located within a tall 4.5 Extensions, alterations and change
building's height can contain debris from of use
collapses above
4.5.1 Introduction
A significant problem faced by designers is

determination of class when a building is being
extended, altered or undergoing a change of use.
It is easiest to consider these in reverse order. The
discussion is based on the regulations4.1 applicable in
England and Wales, but the requirements in the other
parts of the UK are similar (but see Section 4.5.5 in
respect of Scotland).
4.5.2 Change of use
Change of use is covered by Regulations 5 and 64.1.

Requirement A3 only applies where the change of
use is to: a hotel or boarding house; an institution
(i.e. accommodation for elderly or disabled people or
under-fives); a public building (e.g. a theatre, public
library, hall, place of worship, school or educational
establishment); or a building previously exempt (e.g. a
temporary building). Note that changes to residential
use or to offices or shops are not included. The only
changes that appear likely to trigger the need for a
re-appraisal to A3 are: a building between two and
Partial collapse of Torre Windsor office building in Madrid four storeys converted to education; or a building of
three or more storeys, or over 2000m2 per storey,
The 30 storey Torre Windsor office building was constructed in converted to public admission. Nevertheless the
the 1970s. It consisted of a reinforced concrete core and six general caution about the unusual applies and class
reinforced concrete columns within the floor plate area, and steel upgrading should be considered whenever the use
load-bearing mullions (steel edge columns) around the perimeter. change significantly increases public risk.
At the time of design, the relevant codes did not require these
mullions to have any fire protection. The floor was of concrete 4.5.3 Alterations
waffle slab construction. There were strong transfer floors at the
3rd and 17th levels. Alterations are covered in Regulation 3(2) 4.1, where
During refurbishment work, a fire broke out on the 21st floor. an alteration has to be taken into account only if it
The fire spread downwards to the 2nd floor, and upwards to the is material. A material alteration is one that results
top of the building. In the absence of any protection, the mullions in either: a compliant building becoming non-
weakened in the heat. A sufficient number lost their required load compliant; or a non-compliant building becoming
capacity causing sections of the building above the upper strong more unsatisfactory in relation to the requirements.
floor at level 17 to collapse. It is likely that only the presence of An example of an alteration to a building without
this floor prevented total progressive collapse 4.9. extending it could be by forming a light well. Then
it might be argued that the building will be no more
unsatisfactory than before, thus that particular
alteration is not material, and that therefore no work is
not to collapse in the event of collapse of the storeys required to meet A3. Another example is converting a
above, the storeys above can be designed to meet single family house into flats. Again it could be argued
Class 2A. The floor forming the roof of the podium that the building will be no more unsatisfactory than
would need to be designed to carry the debris from before, but inserting new stairs or a lift might affect
the collapse, but it would not be unreasonable to compliance.
take this as a static load spread over an area up to
say 25% larger than the original footprint. Although 4.5.4 Extensions
the fall of debris is clearly a dynamic event, in the
notional method of design adopted, the presumed Extensions are covered by being included in ‘building
loading is simply the self weight of the debris. work’ (see Regulation 3(1) 4.1). This appears to mean
that any extension, whether sideways, upwards
4.4.6 Acoustics (see Figure 4.2) or even downwards has to meet
requirement A3. However, there is no requirement to
A particular problem arises in taller blocks of flats apply A3 to the original building retrospectively unless
which have to be designed for both sound insulation it is altered (then see above). Neither is it necessary
and robustness and the requirements for each are to separate new from old with a movement joint,
conflicting. For reasons of acoustic isolation, tying although it will often be expedient. While this makes
of units between flats is not normally permitted. This sense for sideways extensions, it is apparent that
is an area of difficulty for which little guidance is putting a penthouse floor on the roof might make
available. Until further guidance becomes available, the original building more unsatisfactory. The same
it is recommended that advice is sought from unit argument applies to forming a new basement. This
suppliers who may have specific test data available. aspect is discussed further below.

Figure 4.2 Typical extension upwards on an existing block of flats
The limited objective of being ‘no more 4.5.6 The Camden ruling
unsatisfactory than before’ is helpful, as it implies
that while new buildings should meet or even An approach to resolving this dilemma that has
exceed the regulations, it should be possible to been followed in the past in the UK is that offered by
tolerate a degree of compromise with existing the London District Surveyor’s Association internal
building stock. How this is achieved must be document Guidance on achieving compliance
argued on a case-by-case basis, but it should be on disproportionate collapse in existing buildings
remembered that while the Building Regulations4.1 for Class 2B cases in single/multiple occupancy
are mandatory, AD-A4.3 is advisory. Constructing (available to local authorities) previously known as
a lightweight fifth penthouse floor on top of a the Camden ruling. This suggests adopting a design
reasonably sound existing four storey building would that demonstrates that any damage occurring
appear to maintain the risk close to the original within a fifth storey would be contained by the floor
level, and thus to meet the ‘no more unsatisfactory’ forming the roof to the fourth storey (including its
requirement in principle even if not precisely. own supporting structure). If this can be done, the
It would also appear to ‘secure reasonable alteration appears not to change the risk to the
standards of health and safety’ (see Section 3.2 occupants of the original lower four floors and the
re: Regulation 84.1) and could perhaps be described structure could thereby be assessed as Class 2A
as ‘only marginally more unsatisfactory than before’. rather than Class 2B.
4.5.5 Situation in Scotland However, this approach usually requires the original
roof to be strengthened or even a new strong floor to
The Building (Scotland) Regulations 20044.10 be inserted above it. Therefore if a collapse were to
(Schedule 2 to Regulation 4) designates a specific occur in the lower floors, the weight of the resulting
category of changes in the use or occupation of falling debris would be considerably greater. For this
buildings as being 'Conversions'. Regulation 12 reason, the ‘only marginally more unsatisfactory than
requires that when the use change falls within the before’ argument proposed above is preferred to the
category of a conversion then the converted building Camden ruling.
must be altered or strengthened to the standard
required by current structural regulations in so far Another problem occurs when adding a storey to
"…as is reasonably practicable, and in no case be a building of 2 or 3 storeys built before 2004. The
worse than before the conversion…”. Reasonably original construction would have fallen outside
practicable is defined in this case as “…having Regulation A3 (and now equivalent to Class 1), while
regard to all the circumstances including the expense the proposed extension brings it into the definition of
involved in carrying out the work.” Class 2A. Again this must be argued on its merits,
but the presumption of encouraging sustainable
This is a stiffer test than that described above for development would suggest that the ‘only marginally
buildings in England and Wales, but the philosophy more unsatisfactory than before’ argument might be
outlined should be applicable to both jurisdictions. applied here also.

4.5.7 General 4.9 Standing Committee on Structural Safety. The Fire

at the Torre Windsor Office Building, Madrid 2005.
Total and partial collapses have occurred during SCOSS Failure Data Sheet SC/08/024. Available
refurbishment so especial care is required when at: http://www.scoss.org.uk/publications/rtf/
working on older non-framed buildings. General SC08024FireatTorrWindsorbuildingMadridMay08.doc
guidance may be obtained from Reference 4.11. [Accessed: 1 February 2010]
Generally, when contemplating any extension onto 4.10 The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004. Edinburgh:
an existing building or any alteration, engineers The Stationery Office, 2004 (SSI 2004/406)
may consider a risk assessment process to
demonstrate robustness. A holistic approach is 4.11 Institution of Structural Engineers. Appraisal of Existing
important, considering existing features such as Structures. 3rd ed. London: Institution of Structural
returns on walls, chimney breasts, and any other Engineers [due 2010]
features that enhance structural robustness.
Large openings and previous alterations may have
introduced weaknesses. An example of the process
developed by LDSA/LABC is included in Appendix 1.
The assessment process should always include
consideration of what might happen to adjacent
structures and whether the proposed alterations have
in any way degraded their robustness.
4.6 References
4.1 The Building Regulations 2000. London: The Stationery

Building (Amendment) Regulations 2004. [s.l.]: The
4.2 Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Report of

the inquiry into the collapse of flats at Ronan Point,
Canning Town. London: HMSO, 1968
4.3 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Building

Regulations 2000. Approved Document A: Structure.
London: NBS, 2004

structures – Part 1-7: General actions – Accidental
actions. London: BSI, 2006 and NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:
2006: UK National Annex to Eurocode 1 - Actions on
structures – Part 1-7: Accidental actions. London: BSI,
2008
4.5 Brick Development Association et al. Masonry design

for disproportionate collapse under Regulation A3 of the
Building Regulations (England and Wales). Available
at: http://www.brick.org.uk/_resources/Masonry%20
Design%20for%20Disproportionate%20Collapse%20
Requirements.pdf [Accessed: 1 February 2010]
4.6 Scottish Building Standards Agency. The Scottish

building standards technical handbook: non-domestic.
Edinburgh: The Stationery Office, 2010
4.7 National House Building Council. The Building

Regulations 2004 edition – England and Wales:
Requirement A3 – disproportionate collapse. Available
at: http://www.nhbc.co.uk/NHBCpublications/
LiteratureLibrary/Technical/filedownload,23676,en.pdf
[Accessed: 1 February 2010]
4.8 Way. A.J.G. Guidance on meeting the robustness

requirements in Approved Document A. SCI Publication
P341. Ascot: SCI, 2005

5 Designing for robustness
5.1 Introduction framed structures (see Chapter 9) have proven

Class 2B structures adequate provided certain detailing
rules for floor anchorage are adopted. This process is
This chapter describes approaches required to reflected in Note b of the flow chart of Figure 5.1
achieve a robust structure. The principles discussed
are applicable to all materials, though the manner Figure 5.1 provides a flow chart to guide the user
of application is often material dependent and so through the various robustness options for the
specific advice is given in the relevant material building classes defined above. Although Class 3
chapters. The importance of considering robustness buildings are not considered in this Guide, there
from the earliest stages of a project is highlighted is a widely held view that they should meet the
followed by the need for clear direction to ensure the requirements for Class 2B as a minimum standard, in
philosophy developed is implemented within the final which case the explanation of design to Class 2B in
design, detailing and construction. this Guide will be relevant.
For most structures, the standard means of achieving Although the guidance in this document is
robustness is by compliance with the rules in predominantly concerned with achieving structural
Approved Document A5.1 and BS EN 1991-1-75.2. robustness within individual buildings, opportunities to
From these documents, the design criteria for the improve overall robustness by protecting the structure
various classes of structure are as follows: from hazardous events should always be considered
––Class 1 - No additional measures (i.e. other than when these events are reasonably foreseeable, e.g.
ultimate and serviceability design). protection of columns from vehicle impact, ensuring
––Class 2A - Provide effective horizontal ties or gas supplies are separated or protected etc.
effective anchorage of suspended floors and
roofs to walls, as described in the materials Robustness of a structure itself can be considered
codes. BS EN-1991-1-7 states that for this class at two levels, the overall structural concept and then
of structure, horizontal ties should be used for detailed provisions. These are discussed below.
frame structures, and anchorage of suspended
floors and roofs should be adopted for loadbearing
wall construction. In some cases, it may also
be appropriate to adopt horizontal tying for 5.2 Structural concept
loadbearing wall construction.
––Class 2B - Provide effective horizontal ties to
floors and roofs plus effective vertical ties or apply A building’s structural form will significantly
notional column/wall removal or design as key affect its robustness (this is discussed in more
elements (explained below). detail in Chapter 2). Traditional cellular forms
with many loadbearing walls assure a sensible
Note the difference in the treatment of horizontal level of robustness because loss of any one wall
ties between 2A and 2B: compliance with Category will generally not lead to the collapse of a large
2A may be achieved by ‘effective anchorage of proportion of the structure. In contrast, having a
suspended floors to walls’ rather than ’provision of large span supported on an easily dislodged and/
effective horizontal ties’. or vulnerable single column would not be a robust
structure. At the concept stage, the layout of the
While the intentions of the categories are clear building and its basic structural action will need
enough, buildings come in a variety of forms and developing. For any structure, there should be an
interpretation is required especially in structures of assessment of the hazards and provision of clear
mixed form (hybrid structures) or where alterations paths for horizontal and vertical loads back to the
are being made. foundations. Additionally, a robust structural concept
will be one which avoids situations where damage
A particular problem arises out of possible to small areas or failure of any single element
interpretations of AD-A5.1 versions. Notwithstanding progresses to widespread collapse. Notwithstanding
this approach whereby horizontal ties are not that ideal, there are clearly occasions when reliance
specified as a requirement when elements are does have to be placed on single elements, but at
removed or designed as key elements, it is the Task least once this is recognised, their robustness can
Group’s view that provision of ties is always required be improved by making such elements substantial.
in Class 2B buildings unless there is good evidence Experience has shown certain arrangements to be
to the contrary. Good engineering requires horizontal potentially vulnerable; examples include:
linkage across the structure though there is a ––significant transfer beams, these are single beams
question of magnitude and form to be resolved which which support a number of columns or hangers
will be material specific. ––apparently minor elements that are required to
ensure the stability of more significant elements
In some industries, it has not been the practice to ––significant cantilevers
provide any additional physical ties if the structure ––long span, simply supported beams.
is proven robust enough via the element removal
approach. An example of this would be that pursued The last two forms have no redundancy but that need
in timber engineering where full scale tests on timber not imply unacceptable vulnerability.

4.6 Designing for robustness
Determine building class

Treat building as an entity ignoring movement joints. Take most onerous type of use
Class 1 Class 2A Class 2B Class 3
No additional No Any basements excluded Yes Undertake systematic

measures when determining risk assessment
necessary class? See Note (a)
Design basements Recommend comply

to Class 2B with robustness
requirements of
Class 2B
Provide effective
horizontal ties.
See Note (b)
Determine type Consider appropriate

of construction method for each element
or group of elements
Would failure lead to

No collapse of major parts of Yes
the structure?
Or is the provision of
vertical ties problematic?
Framed Loadbearing Method 1 Method 2 Method 3

wall Horizontal and Notional element Key elements
vertical ties removal
Provide Provide Check notional removal Meet requirements

effective effective one at a time in each identified in risk
horizontal ties anchorage of storey of assessment
floors and (a) each supporting column incorporating
roofs to walls Provide (b) each transfer beam dynamic behaviour
effective (c) any nominal length of and debris effects
vertical ties loadbearing wall
Does the building No

remain stable?
Yes
Does the area of floor
at risk of collapse Yes
exceed the smaller of
15% of floor area of a
storey or 70m2?
No
Does the same area
extend to more than Yes
the immediate
adjacent storeys?
No
Design failing elements
as key elements
Requirement satisfied
Notes
a Rules on the exclusion of basements vary in the building regulations of the various regions. When designing to EN1991-1-75.2
basements are included in the storey count. However in England and Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland, if they satisfy the
Class 2B requirement, they may be excluded from the count.
b In Class 2B, for horizontal ties, rather than using physical ties in some cases alternative methods may be demonstrated by test.
Figure 5.1 Disproportionate collapse – flow chart

Designing for robustness 5.3
Some judgement is required on whether the element 5.4 Detailed provisions

considered is significant; for example failure of a transfer
beam supporting a single storey at high level is not
as critical as one supporting a whole building façade. Detailed provisions for robustness are given in
However, functional restrictions on structural form may material specific codes of practice and described
limit a designer’s scope for avoiding arrangements in later chapters but the principles are described
that are potentially non-robust. Nonetheless, early below. There are typically three approaches:
identification will allow development of a strategy to ––Approach 1: The indirect design method:
provide the required compensatory robustness within provision of horizontal and vertical ties.
the element itself. Once highlighted, a significant ––Approach 2: Alternative load path method:
transfer beam could be designed to withstand a certain notional removal of elements.
event (see key elements below) or redundancy could ––Approach 3: Specific load resistance method:
be built into bracing systems such that the loss of a set the provision of key elements.
number of braces did not permit restrained elements to
buckle or the structure as a whole to be placed at risk. It is emphasised that these separate approaches
are largely based on judgement as providing a level
During project planning, it should be acknowledged of robustness commensurate with routine risks and
that element detailed design may be carried out by are achievable at affordable cost. It is not difficult to
someone other than the lead designer. This does identify mathematical inconsistencies in them but the
not remove the need for the lead designer to take sufficiency of the proposals has been proven over
responsibility for design compatibility of the various time. Potential accidental actions and even building
elements including responsibility for overall robustness forms change over time and their relevance to any
(see Section 2.13). As a minimum, the overall particular design should be considered.
robustness concept for the building, and therefore
the effect that this will have on the design of individual In Approach 1, applicable to Class 2A and Class 2B
elements, should be documented for later phases buildings, resistance to progressive collapse is
of the design development (which may be carried considered implicitly ‘through provision of minimum
out by others). On completion of the design, the levels of strength, continuity and ductility’ throughout
structure should be checked to confirm that the initial the whole structure (this is sometimes called the
assumptions are satisfied. This may include confirming Indirect Design Method). Adopting this method
that loads and load paths remain as envisaged and that should provide buildings with sufficient robustness to
the overall robustness concept has been achieved. survive a reasonable range of undefined accidental
actions. The tying provisions are more onerous in
Class 2B buildings than for Class 2A buildings as a
reflection of the potentially greater risks. Tie capacity
5.3 Notional horizontal loads is typically provided by the structural members
themselves but also by making sure that their
connections or anchorages are strong enough (this
All structures should be capable of carrying implies also that any walls used for anchorage are
horizontal loads applied in any direction on a strong enough. Particular care is needed say when
horizontal plane and there should be a defined load anchoring to bricks bedded in lime mortar). This
path for such loads back to the foundations. Wind is primarily achieved by design using conventional
action will generally suffice as a sufficient load to procedures to carry defined tie forces.
assess stability. However in some structures, that
loading is absent or not obvious (see Section 2.4) In Approach 2, the alternative path method presumes
and in others it may be insufficient. that through abnormal loading a critical element is
removed and the structure is thereafter required
The differing historical development of notional to redistribute its gravity loads to the remaining
horizontal loads leads to some detailed differences structural elements via alternative load paths. There is
in application. In the UK, the original concept was to no requirement in the UK to consider dynamic loads
ensure that low rise buildings which had otherwise associated with the element removal. In practice,
very low wind loads applied were, nonetheless, elements are notionally removed one by one and the
designed to have some capacity to resist accidental residual structure (members and connections) tested
horizontal loads. However, in Eurocodes such as for strength. Local collapse is not prohibited but its
BS EN 1992-1-15.3 the horizontal load is developed extent must not exceed prescribed limits.
from a notional out-of-verticality. As such, the
horizontal load is a function of vertical load and In Approach 3, certain elements are designed to
always present whenever vertical load is present. sustain a notional upper bound to the abnormal
Consequently in BS EN 1992-1-1, the horizontal loads loading (a value of 34kN/m2 imposed pressure is
due to this notional out-of-verticality are added to used derived from the Ronan Point blast) albeit on a
the wind loads in accordance with the appropriate just survive basis; the presumption then being that
load combination. Likewise in UK practice, the load such members are strong enough to cope with a
combinations considered do include a percentage of range of events.
wind loading in the accidental load case combination.
At first sight this seems improbable since accidental It should be noted that Approaches 2 and 3 are
loading is unlikely to coincide with high wind loading principally concerned with vertical structure or
but if the notional loading is related to out-of- elements supporting vertical structure. When
verticality, its inclusion becomes more rational. Whilst applying these approaches the designer must still
the codes differ in approach, the effect in all cases ensure that the horizontal structure is robust in both
is to ensure structures are robust against the effects directions. This is generally achieved by providing
of construction tolerance deviations, subsequent horizontal ties.
settlements or accidental horizontal loads.

The application of these approaches is discussed The code specified tie forces aim to ensure that
below. beams or slabs can span across a removed
support. However, there is no theoretical
justification that ties designed to the codes will
in fact enable the structure to span across a
5.5 Tying damaged area in all possible circumstances.
Indeed a number of theoretical objections can be
raised and a particular difficulty exists when trying
The provision of ties having a defined capacity and to justify the sufficiency of ties following removal of
linking components helps to constrain the elements a corner column.
from displacement during an event and can make
possible alternative load carrying systems including One further difficulty in relying on the benefits of
catenary and vierendeel action. either catenary (see Section 5.9) or membrane
action lies with justifying the significant ductility
Roofs need to be tied down even in single storey required. Rules for tie design and location are
buildings (AD-A5.1 P29 and Diagram 16) not given in the material codes but there are no direct
least because of the vulnerability of light roofs to requirements for providing a ductility magnitude,
dislodgement in wind suction; but designers need this being assumed. Comments on providing
to consider what is appropriate for the particular appropriate ductility are given in later materials
circumstances. chapters (Chapter 2 also discusses ductility and
energy absorption).
The rationale for ignoring all these objections to the

5.6 Horizontal ties nominal regulation rules is that a balance has to be
drawn between the risks of an event occurring on
the one hand against the cost of tie provisions on
The demands for horizontal ties differ between the other. The implication of the AD-A5.1 is that a
Classes 2A and 2B. In Class 2A, it is possible to notional tie provision represents a reasonable level
apply effective anchorage of suspended floors to of precautionary investment. The consensus is that
walls. In Class 2B buildings, cross ties should be horizontal ties are an important safeguard which
provided. Reference is then made to the various should always be incorporated and will safeguard
material codes of practice which generally split the most buildings for most hazards. But outside
horizontal ties into two categories. Ties around the that usage, their potential weaknesses should be
structure are called peripheral ties whilst ties across accounted for more directly, especially for more
the structure are internal ties. Along a particular load demanding structures.
path (which must be continuous) different structural
elements (say a series of beams) may be used as the
ties, providing they have adequate interconnection.
Rules for tie location and for their design forces are 5.7 Vertical ties
given in the material codes (BS and EN).
Ties can act to prevent the structure being dislodged Vertical ties have two roles. The first is to provide
which is particularly important when supports some form of minimum resistance to vertical
are narrow, or at a perimeter where the ties must elements being removed. The second is to enable
be capable of resisting any outward force on the load sharing between floors above a damaged
supporting vertical element. The need for such vertical element. By linking a number of floors
tying was demonstrated in the Ronan Point collapse together, it is possible to provide a load path back
where a gas explosion blew out a loadbearing wall, to intact structure above, perhaps by developing
causing the slabs above to collapse. Lack of tying vierendeel action.
was also a factor in the Camden School collapse5.4.
Chapter 4 suggests that tying might have limited The rule for vertical ties (see Chapters 6 to 10)
the collapse extent in the Copenhagen blast (see is that each column or wall should be able to
description in Box 4.1). support the largest dead and imposed load
reaction applied to the column or wall from any
Ties need to be continuous (i.e. lapped or one storey (above or below). The requirement for
connected) across from edge to edge or around the the largest load could be problematic to define,
structure, while at their ends, horizontal ties to edge and BS 59505.5 for example limits this so that each
columns and walls must be satisfactorily anchored column splice only has to carry the largest load
back. All tie force paths should be geometrically arising between it and the next splice down. In
straight; changes in direction to accommodate practice, if it is possible to provide vertical ties at
openings or similar discontinuities should be all, their capacity is not usually a problem.
avoided wherever possible. Where such changes
are unavoidable, the tendency of the tie to straighten When required, vertical ties must be continuous
under load should be considered and restraining from the lowest level to the highest level and this
elements provided. For buildings composed of includes anchorage into the footing or foundation.
separate structures, or incorporating joints creating The rationale for tying into foundations is that
structurally independent sections, the tie force this helps reduce the possibility of lowest column
requirements are applied to each independent removal. Where such ties into the basement are
section, each treated as a separate unit. not practical, consideration as a key element (see
below) normally provides a practicable solution.

5.8 Element removal

Corner
An alternative to the tying method of providing column Side column removal
robustness is to consider notional element removal. removal
The term ‘notional’ is used deliberately as a means of
emphasising an imaginary scenario.
In this approach, a defined element is removed (the

element might be a column or nominal wall length)
and the consequence examined. It is assumed that
the act of removal itself does not induce any forces,
static or dynamic. Equally no benefit should be taken
for enhanced material strength due to fast strain rate
effects. After each removal, the building as a whole
must remain stable and its members must not be
locally destabilised by the removal, save for acceptance Side
of localised damage within the prescribed limits. If column
removal Internal column
such removal cannot be tolerated, the member must removal
be designed as a key element. AD-A5.1 and BS EN
1991-1-75.2 give guidance on elements that ought to be
removed and on the corresponding maximum area of
collapse permitted.
What has to be hypothetically removed one at a

time in each storey is "each supporting column and
each beam supporting one or more columns (usually
called a transfer beam) or any nominal length of
loadbearing wall" (see Figures 5.2 and 5.3). Loadbearing
construction includes masonry walls and walls of close
centred timber or light steel studs. The nominal length Figure 5.2 Location of column removal for alternative path method
removed is generally 2.25H where H is the storey height
(or the clear height in the Eurocode) but in the case of
an external masonry, timber or steel stud wall, the length
removed is that between "vertical lateral supports"
Remove H in each direction (but not less than the distance between expansion
(usually wind posts or return walls). For loadbearing
or control joints)
walls at the corner, the removed length of wall should
be equal to the wall height in each direction but not less H
(Corner columns only)
than the distance between expansion or control joints.
Critical cases for wall removal often occur where the

plan geometry of the structure changes significantly
such as at abrupt decreases in bay size or at re-entrant
corners, or at locations where adjacent columns/
walls are lightly loaded, where the bays have different
tributary sizes, and where members frame in at different
orientations or elevations. Provided consideration is
given to this approach in the design phase, it is usually
possible to show that the unsupported structure can Remove Remove
survive via some alternative structural system. 2.25 H 2.25 H
A weakness of AD-A5.1 is a case where support is

provided by a number of closely-spaced columns. It
would be irrational just to remove a single column, and Internal
the recommendation here is that all columns within a load bearing
plan diameter 2.25H should be removed simultaneously. wall
External
An alternative path analysis should be examined for each load
floor, one at a time. For example, if a corner column/ bearing
wall section is specified as the removed element, one wall
analysis is performed for removal of the ground floor
corner column/wall section; another is performed for
the removal of the first floor corner column; another
alternative load path analysis is performed for the
second floor corner column and so on. If the designer
can show that a similar structural response is expected Or remove between vertical lateral supports
for column/wall removal on multiple floors, then
the analysis for these floors can be omitted but the Note
justification for not performing these analyses should be H = storey height
documented.
Figure 5.3 Location of external and internal loadbearing wall removal

Following element removal, strategies for survival on pure catenary action where the tension steel
might be: takes axial load only. But more realistically, slabs
––Spanning the floor at right angles to its normal and beams will retain some degraded moment
design case or utilising two way spanning (in timber capacity at their ends and centre which will
this might make use of the floor boarding). reduce the tie forces demanded. There is also a
––Making use of the available reinforcement in common case where the catenary receives some
reinforced concrete slabs and beams to enable the midspan support via tie forces from a surviving
element to span two bays, albeit not necessarily by column above (see Figure 5.4). Because of the
pure bending action. complexities in all this, calculations cannot be
––Using the ability of a wall to cantilever as a deep accurate; they can only be crude approximations
beam over the notional opening (and this may be to suggest survival or failure. Currently there are
required where there is loss of a corner support). In no further guidelines and designers must assess
a similar way, using the wall above as a deep beam individual cases on their structural merits.
to span over an opening.
––The provision of bridging elements such as those The theoretical benefits of catenary action can
used in timber platform frame construction (see be seen from Figure 5.5 (and Figure 5.4) which
Chapter 9). shows a member carrying a distributed load w
albeit with significant sag deformation. The anchor
When considering alternative load paths after force required R h is wl²/8h, but h is indeterminate.
element removal, all the forces required should be If calculation is required, equilibrium can be
accounted for. For example if catenary action is established fairly quickly by trial and error: the
assumed, the horizontal forces developed must be maximum credible value of R h is the ultimate
resisted by the remaining structure. strength of the member as a tie (or some lower
connection capacity) and the maximum credible
value of h can be evaluated from the plastic
strained length of the tie or a sag based on some
5.9 Catenary action: horizontal presumed joint articulation. The maximum realistic
and vertical value of h before total failure will be material
dependent. If the value of R h so determined
exceeds wl 2 /8h, there exists some lower value
After element removal, a key survival strategy is of R h which will suffice to support the structure
to rely on the ability of the remaining connected (where there is some residual moment capacity,
members to span via catenary action accepting use of wl 2 /10 or 12 might be more appropriate
that deflections may be high. The strategy may rely than wl 2 /8).
Partial support
via hanging from
column above
Partial support
via end moment
support
Partial support
via in plane
catenary action
Surrounding structure
must resist catenary
forces
Figure 5.4 Floor survival via catenary and hanger action

L/2
RAH
RBH
RAV RBV
Rh = wL2/8h
Figure 5.5 Analysis of a tension member supporting a horizontally distributed load
In two-way spanning structures, similar benefits Clearly catenary systems only work if there is enough
can be achieved via radial tensile membrane action ductility in the joints to form and sustain a mechanism
and indeed when considering the loss of an internal and if Rh can be anchored; the structure surrounding
column below a slab (or equivalent) it is possible to the tie end must also resist Rh. Where support from
develop an in-plane compression ring action to resist a column hanger is assumed, the structure around
the radial tie forces generated5.6. Figure 5.6 shows the hanger top must be capable of sustaining the
such a slab structure with new equilibrium obtained, assumed capacity. An appropriate value of w along
not reliant on bending action alone. with appropriate factors is discussed in Section 5.13.
Line of compressive
ring action
Radial slab failures
Figure 5.6 Tensile membrane action (test results from a concrete slab)

5.10 Partial collapse and debris loading

Loss of one support
Where the structure cannot support damage by
the means described at the end of Section 5.8 or Donor panel
in Section 5.9, limited collapse is permitted. This is
explained in AD-A5.1 as “the area of floor at any storey
at risk of collapse does not exceed 15% of the floor
area of that storey or 70m2, whichever is smaller,
and does not extend further than the immediate
adjacent storeys”. Figure 5.7 shows the concept.
BS EN 1991-1-75.2 increases the area to 100m2
and clarifies the limit as “two adjacent storeys’. The
permissible area of floor collapse is empirical and it
is likely that the next edition of AD-A will be changed Recipient panel
to be consistent with BS EN 1991-1-7. (The current
Scottish regulations already refer to the Eurocode
area definition.)
The limitation on storey spread implies that

the floor below must be able to support debris Donor panel
accumulation. Dependent on the characteristics
of the presumed collapse, the debris load may
be less than the full load of the collapsed part as
illustrated in Figure 5.8. However as the collapse of
two adjacent floors is allowed, the debris loading
may be that from two floors. It is not possible
to be specific, each case must be argued on its
merits. But, however this is done an allowance for
imposed load must be included, consistent with
the accidental load case (see Section 5.13) and Recipient panel
with the most likely failure mechanism (see also
Section 4.4.5).
Loss of both supports
Donor panel before collapse
Recipient panel
Donor panel
Recipient panel
Figure 5.7 Permitted localisation of damage Figure 5.8 Possible collapse modes of floors and roofs
(two adjacent floors)

5.11 Key elements 5.12 Transfer beams
A third approach, which is often easier to The consequences of any transfer beam failure (see
consider than element removal, is to consider Figure 5.9) or of its supporting structure is likely to
members as key elements, in effect making them be more serious than the failure of normal beams
strong enough to withstand a prescribed hazard or columns and this was well illustrated in the major
loading. The approach is beneficial if intuitively failures at Oklahoma City5.8, 5.9 (see Box 5.1). Not
such members are strong enough to survive. The all transfer beams support such large amounts of
key element approach offers advantages if loss structure; a worst case probably arises when the
of that single member would otherwise lead to transfer beam is on the building perimeter with
loss of a significant portion of building; examples columns above and hangers below. Where transfer
include loss of a significant transfer beam or a beams are clearly carrying significant portions
column supporting such a beam. of a building, the standard tie forces could prove
inadequate, and the recommended approach is to
The general design approach for key elements design the beams and their associated structure to:
is to consider uniform pressure acting over ––only sustain localised damage, or
their surface (in each orthogonal direction, ––be removable elements, or
one direction at a time) plus the surface of any ––be designed as key elements.
attached items such as cladding. Likewise, any
member restraining a key element should be Box 5.1 Murrah building, Oklahoma City
designed for the specified design pressure or
the restraining element benefits ignored. The
restraining element can be checked separately
to the key element however, if both would be
affected by the same event, then it is more logical
to consider both elements loaded simultaneously.
The pressure is applied in conjunction with the
accidental load case (see Section 5.13).
A pressure value of 34kN/m² (derived from

Ronan Point) is used as the test design pressure
representing the static equivalent pressure from
a notional gas explosion. The force transferred
from the attached item may be reduced to a
realistic estimate governed by an upper bound
of the fixing capacity. It would be unduly onerous
to apply the accidental design pressure over
large areas, e.g. to slabs attached to (and
stabilising) long span transfer beams. The 2.25H
limit on length for loadbearing walls usually
corresponds to no more than 6m, so applying
the pressure to an area limited to 6m × 6m would
seem reasonable, although any such relaxation
should be considered in light of the specific
circumstances.
End of transfer beam that was destroyed
The pressure of 34kN/m2 is onerous for walls and
slabs but often non-critical for isolated columns
due to their limited surface area. But structural
sense should be used; the value of lateral load
generated on an unusually narrow column may Blast damage and collapse of the Murrah Building, Oklahoma City
not be an appropriate design force. So for all The Murrah building had a reinforced concrete frame and was stabilised by concrete shear
key elements, the possibility of other accident walls. At the third floor, the nine storey building had a transfer beam on the outside with the
scenarios should always be borne in mind. column spacing above half that of below. In 1995, the building was truck bombed at the front
Alexander5.7 has proposed a static equivalent and the blast destroyed one of the lower columns, two adjacent columns failed in shear. This
impact load of 150kN for columns increasing to left the transfer beam spanning about 50m and so it failed taking with it 50% of the building
250kN for the ground storey. These values are floor area. Most of the failure was due to progressive collapse and it all occurred within about
reasonable for typical situations but again the 3 seconds.
actual load used should be justified on a case by There was no continuity steel in the transfer beam over intermediate column supports so in
case basis. For buildings adjacent to highways effect, after column removal, it was a beam without bottom reinforcement and gross failure
further guidance on vehicle impact is given in was inevitable.
BS EN 1991-1-75.2.

Usually the recommended loading and material

factors will give practicable solutions in design
calculations. But if problems arise, particularly in the
assessment of existing structures, designers should
use common sense to consider an appropriate
probability of accidental loading using best estimate
values of loading and material properties. The
emphasis on achieving robustness should always
be sound logic and structural principles, not just on
artificial numerical compliance with a code.
Transfer beam
carrying column
loading 5.14 Summary
Three principal methods of providing robustness

have been described. The use of ties is event
Figure 5.9 Transfer beams independent, and the evidence is that within limits
of applicability, ties provide adequately robust
structures preventing disproportionate collapse in
real events. Tie effectiveness is probably limited by
5.13 Design load cases element ductility or more likely joint capacity/ductility.
For this reason, extrapolation of tying rules beyond
the situations provided for in current guidance is not
Calculations are required when assessing recommended.
structures for imposed accidental loading. Two
issues arise: what the appropriate load factor Both the element removal and key element
should be; and what are the likely co-existing loads. approaches are implicitly limited to proving
Overall, in the improbable event of an accident or adequate protection against a prescribed design
explosion, the structure can be pushed close to its event (i.e. the one which removes the element) and
ultimate capacity so a low load factor is justified. they may not therefore provide protection for bigger
Moreover, for most structures, it is unlikely that event magnitudes. Indeed for element removal, it is
the event will occur when the structure is carrying reasonable to accept that failure areas larger than
its full imposed or full wind loads. It is even less the limits defined as acceptable in the guidance
likely that high imposed loading and high wind load are not actually disproportionate if the event
will coincide during the event. In the Eurocodes, causing the failure is extraordinary. Nonetheless,
the accidental load combination is given in the prescribed events restricted to single element
BS EN 19905.10 and the relevant National Annex. For removal are well established in current guidance
UK combinations see Box 5.2. and appear to provide adequate protection for the
majority of structures.
It can be seen that the approaches are broadly
compatible but that the Eurocode approach is likely Whichever approach is adopted, the robustness of
to give lower loads where wind is dominant. This is the structure will be improved by careful detailing to
sensible as it is very unlikely that even a third of the assure ductility and energy absorption and the other
wind load will be present at the same time as the attributes outlined in Chapter 2.
accidental action. However as noted in Section 5.3,
under the Eurocode system, all vertical loads have The sequence of design for robustness starts with
a horizontal component which should be added to choosing a structural layout that limits, or avoids,
any wind load in the load case. the use of any elements whose failure would lead
to collapse of a significant part of the structure.
The material codes also allow the reduction of Thereafter the design process is as summarised in
some material safety factors during an accidental Figure 5.1.
loading. The relevant material sections provide
further details.
Box 5.2 Load combinations

1.0 permanent + 1.0 accidental + 1.0 frequent value lead variable + 1.0 quasi permanent value of other variable actions.
Where a variable action has beneficial effects, it is ignored completely.
For a typical office building this would lead to the following factors:
= 1.0 permanent + 1.0 accidental + (zero or) 0.5 imposed and 0.0 wind,
with the floor load as the lead variable action, or
= 1.0 permanent + 1.0 accidental + (zero or) 0.3 imposed and 0.2 wind,
with the wind load as the lead variable action.
This can be compared to the accidental design load for an office building in BS 8110 (Part 1)5.11 of:
= 1.05 (1.0 dead + 1.0 accidental + 0.33 (or zero) imposed + 0.33 wind)

5.15 References

London: NBS, 2004

structures – Part 1-7: Accidental actions. London:
BSI, 2008
5.3 BS EN 1992-1-1: 2004: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete

structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings. London: BSI, 2004
5.4 Department of Education and Science. Report on the

collapse of the roof of the assembly hall of the Camden
School for Girls. London: HMSO, 1973
5.5 BS 5950-1: 2000: Structural use of steelwork in

buildings – Part 1: Code of practice for design – Rolled
and welded sections. London: BSI, 2001
5.6 Johansen, K.W. Yield line theory. London: C&CA, 1962
5.7 Alexander, S. ‘New approach to disproportionate

collapse’, The Structural Engineer, 82(23), 7 December
2004, pp14-18
5.8 Corley, W.G. et al. ‘The Oklahoma City bombing:

summary and recommendations for multihazard
mitigation’. ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 12(3), August 1998, pp100-112
5.9 Corley, W.G. ‘Effects of structural integrity on damage

from the Oklahoma City, USA bombing’. In Neale, B.S.
ed. Forensic Engineering: the investigation of failures.
London: Thomas Telford, 2001, pp1-11
5.10 BS EN 1990: 2002: Eurocode: Basis of structural

design. BSI, London 2002
5.11 BS 8110-1: 1997: Structural use of concrete –

Part 1: Code of practice for design and construction.
London: BSI, 1997

6 In situ concrete: issues and solutions
Key reference: How to design concrete buildings to satisfy Furthermore, whilst the values of specific parameters
disproportionate collapse requirements O Brooker, The Concrete may vary, the approach described is good practice
Centre 20086.1. BS EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 26.2 (EC2) and wherever construction takes place and should be
BS 8110-16.3 are also key references. considered a minimum requirement in the absence of
any more onerous local regulatory requirements.
The rules incorporated in BS 81106.3 are semi-

6.1 Introduction empirical. Whilst it may be useful to rationalise
mechanisms to aid understanding, such
rationalisation should not be used to reduce the
Well detailed, in situ, reinforced concrete is inherently stated requirements.
robust6.3, 6.4. In most cases, checks for compliance
with tying rules will show that tying requirements
have already been met through the normal
reinforcement provided. Therefore in a large part, this 6.2 Overall robustness strategy
chapter discusses best practice in the positioning
and detailing of tie reinforcement rather than how to
provide for minimum code compliance. At the highest level, the robustness strategy
advocated for concrete structures is similar to that
In precast, and hybrid precast and in situ for other materials as will be set out in later chapters.
construction, joints between units often form Likewise, the sequence of design for robustness is as
a reinforcement path discontinuity. Where this set out in Chapter 5.
occurs, the provision of a continuous tie will need
more explicit consideration. Industry best practice
methods of providing such continuity are presented
in Chapter 7. 6.3 Notional horizontal load
Occasionally it may be necessary to consider a
concrete member as a key element or in other cases In BS 81106.3, the notional horizontal loads are
to consider the implications of element removal on defined as a minimum of 1.5% of the characteristic
the rest of the structure. The appropriate approach to dead load. This criterion can be significant for
these situations is discussed in Chapter 5 and below. the design of low rise buildings and in the long
direction of narrow, higher rise, buildings. The
This chapter broadly follows the requirements of 1.5% effect is considered as a minimum load and
BS 81106.3. However, for the UK, the rules in EC26.2 ignored if the wind load is greater. In BS 59506.7 the
as supplemented by the UK National Annex6.5 and corresponding load is 0.5% of the factored vertical
PD 66876.6 require near identical consideration. dead and imposed loads, applied at the same level,
thus the force value is expressed differently but is
nevertheless numerically similar.
Internal ties Corner column ties
EC26.2 has a similar concept to BS 81106.3 except
(dotted lines) that the horizontal load is developed from a notional
out-of-verticality (see Section 5.3).
Horizontal tie
to external
column or wall
(solid line) 6.4 Tying
6.4.1 Provision of ties
Four types of ties (as shown in Figure 6.1) are

specified both in BS 81106.3 and EC26.2; all are
discussed below. Ties are normally assumed to act
at their characteristic strength and no other actions
are considered in conjunction with the tie force.
Peripheral This means that bars provided for other structural
tie (dashed Vertical
effects can be included in the area of reinforcement
lines) tie (solid
assumed for the tie. For design, the tie force
line)
magnitude can be derived from References 6.1, 6.2
or 6.3. The magnitude varies with the number of
storeys but will not exceed 60kN for peripheral ties
Figure 6.1 Ties required in concrete structures and perhaps double that for internal ties.

In situ concrete: issues and solutions 6.4
6.4.2 Peripheral ties 6.4.4 Horizontal ties to external walls and columns
BS 81106.3 introduced the concept of peripheral To address the possibility of walls or columns being
ties. Arguably the edge of a structure is the most pushed outwards, each external wall or column
vulnerable to damage and moreover has reduced should be tied back into the main structure. In the
opportunities for developing alternative load paths via case of a wall incorporating a peripheral tie, the
two way spanning. Hence provision of a peripheral requirement is to ensure that the internal ties are
tie ensures an alternative load system in the edge of anchored into the peripheral tie. In all other cases, it
the structure. The peripheral tie also provides a zone is recommended that the column/wall ties are lapped
in which internal ties can be anchored and ensures with the internal ties. The tie minimum capacity
that perimeter vertical elements are interconnected is given in the appropriate code; these are either
with the main tying system. Peripheral ties should notional amounts or a percentage of the column/
also be provided around any large slab openings, wall load. For corner columns, the tie force should
such as those for atria. BS 81106.3 and EC26.2, be provided in two directions approximately at right
as implemented in the UK, define the tie force angles to each other.
magnitude and partial factors that can be used in
evaluating tie capacity (cs = 1 for reinforcement and 6.4.5 Vertical ties
prestressing steel); the tie force value Ft is typically
60kN (ultimate) which is easily carried by two H10 As discussed in Chapter 5, vertical ties provide the
bars. The resistant reinforcement should be located opportunity, in the event of lower column removal,
in the outer 1.2m of the slab or within perimeter for floor loads to be supported by hanging from the
beams or walls. column above; they also provide a minimum level
of robustness to inhibit column removal. Vertical
Peripheral tie value (derived from BS 8110): ties should be provided within every column and to
Ft = (20 + 4no) G 60 (where no is the total number of each wall carrying vertical load. The tie force to be
storeys in the structure) resisted is equal to the ultimate design load carried
on any floor level by the element (calculated with the
Note the units. The Ft value has no units. The force accidental load factors, see Section 5.13).
value is 1.0Ft in kN (60kN) which is to be located in
the slab edge 1.2m. Where the vertical element is supported at its lowest
level by anything other than a foundation, the overall
6.4.3 Internal ties robustness of the support should be considered and
most likely the supporting element will be designed as
Internal ties should be provided in two orthogonal a key element or perhaps an analysis will be carried
directions. To maximise their benefit, ties should be out to demonstrate that removal of the supporting
as ductile as possible and ideally placed towards element does not lead to disproportionate collapse.
the bottom of the section as tests and experience
have shown bottom bars to be more effective. Tie 6.4.6 Continuity of ties
ductility can be improved by using higher ductility
reinforcement, e.g. Class B or C. The maximum Ties should be effectively continuous. This means
spacing of internal transverse ties is 1.5lr where lr is that where bars forming ties are lapped, the detailing
the greater spacing between columns. However, it is should be such that failure is always in the bar and
generally beneficial to adopt a lower spacing, indeed not in the lap thus ensuring a ductile performance.
the requirement for these ties to interact with column In practice, this means that laps should always be
ties (see Section 6.4.6) means that a practical designed for the bar full capacity even if the required
maximum is the column spacing. tie force is lower. Additionally, where bars forming the
tie system are notionally lapped but not adjacent, the
For internal ties (as distinct from peripheral ties), the lap length should be increased and the need for links
tie force is evaluated differently and has different considered, as described in EC2 (Clause 8.76.2). This
units. For internal ties, the force is derived in kN/m is to ensure that an effective strut and tie system can
width (of the slab) whereas at the edge it is a defined be formed between the bars in the lap zone.
force confined to a defined width. Hence:
For tying systems to work, different types of ties must
Ftie is the greater of (1/7.5) (gk+ qk) (lr/5) Ft interact and the need for column (vertical) ties, internal
or and peripheral ties to be linked has been discussed
1.0Ft defined as kN/m across the internal slab width above (Sections 6.4.1 to 6.4.5). It is essential for
(this will not exceed 60 kN/m) vertical and horizontal ties to interact if catenary
action is to be developed. Such interaction can
where: generally be presumed if some or all of the tie steel
(gk + qk) is the sum of the average permanent and in each direction passes through the column, so it is
variable floor loads (in kN/m2). Note the variable load recommended that horizontal ties are placed in the
qk is not in this case reduced (see Section 5.13) bottom of the slab or beam at the column location. It is
lr is the greater of the distances (in m) between also worth highlighting that if the vertical tie is to share
centres of the columns, frames or walls supporting load up the building, the connection to the higher
any two adjacent floor spans in the direction of the tie floors needs to be capable of taking reverse shear. In
under consideration other words, if a floor is hung from the column above,
Ft = (20 + 4 no) G 60 (where no is the total number of the column is pulling down on the floor above, i.e. the
storeys in the structure). shear is reversed from the normal situation where the
column would be pushing up on the floor. This can
complicate some hybrid type connections (Chapter 7
incorporates a number of details).

6.5 In situ concrete: issues and solutions
6.4.7 Additional considerations for post tensioned application of detailing rules. In cases where ductile
concrete energy absorbing capacity is required for extreme
robustness (as in resistance to blast or earthquakes)
The principles for post tensioned construction are advanced rules6.10, 6.11 are available.
identical to those adopted for reinforced concrete.
In bonded prestressed concrete, continuous All relevant concrete codes include requirements
tendons provide an excellent tie since there are no for minimum reinforcement. In the cases of direct
or fewer laps. For bonded construction, the principal tension and flexure, these minimum reinforcement
challenge is to ensure sufficient interaction between contents ensure that section capacities after
the horizontal and vertical ties. Research6.8 has concrete cracking are approximately equal to or
shown that a significant improvement in post failure greater than those which existed before cracking.
capacity occurs when tendons pass directly over the Whilst this is a prerequisite to controlling crack
column; however this is not always possible. In this widths, minimum reinforcement also ensures that
situation, it is recommended that ducts are placed there is a reasonable amount of post-cracking
as closely as possible (either side of the column), ductility within the element. In the event of overload,
and additional bottom steel is provided through the this ductility provides warning and facilitates load
column in each direction to lap onto the duct line. shed to other elements preventing gross failure.
The tendons support at midspan as they are in the Similarly, design codes require minimum amounts
bottom there. of reinforcement at supports; even where no
moment has been assumed. These requirements,
For unbonded tendons, a failure of tendons in again driven by the need to control cracking, also
one bay may lead to failure in adjacent bays. provide alternative (or enhanced) load paths.
For this reason, it is not appropriate to consider Such additional reinforcement provides protective
unbonded tendons as part of the tying system, and strength against the possibility of moment reversal
so tying should be provided wholly with normal which can be a feature in accidental loading 6.12.
reinforcement.
Minimum percentage of reinforcement in columns
assures a minimal tensile capacity for what are
supposedly compression members. Minimum link
6.5 Element removal and key element requirements in columns are defined to give a certain
design level of ductility at the column/floor connection.
In extreme cases, as in seismic design, greater
ductility is demanded and a greater number of links
An alternative to following the prescriptive rules for are provided and better link anchorage is specified.
tying is to consider the removal of an element and to Under overload, such links prevent column bars
investigate the subsequent collapse area following buckling and confine the concrete core, preventing
the principles of Chapter 5. There are no special disintegration, so adding to the section’s rotational
requirements for in situ concrete structures excepting capacity whilst maintaining moment resistance.
that partial factors for materials can be reduced. Nonetheless, even the non-seismic link provision will
ensure an amount of column rotation is possible prior
In EC26.2, for the accidental load case, the partial to failure.
factors are as follows:
It can be seen from above that there are a
cc for concrete = 1.2 and number of detailing requirements in current
cs for steel = 1.0. codes, related to minimum reinforcement areas
which add to the inherent robustness of concrete
In BS 81106.3 the cc for concrete under exceptional buildings. It is important that where such
loads is only reduced for flexure (= 1.3), as the partial minimum steel requirements are not provided, say
factor for shear is lower anyway. BS 8110 adopts a due to new construction techniques or systems,
partial factor cs for steel = 1.0, as does EC2. the effect on the overall structural robustness be
re-considered.
There are no special requirements for concrete key
element design and the approaches described in
Section 5.11 should be adopted.
6.7 References
6.6 Good detailing practice 6.1 Brooker, O. How to design concrete buildings to satisfy
disproportionate collapse requirements. Camberley: The
Concrete Centre, 2008
There is an implicit assumption of structural ductile
performance for the nominal Approved Document 6.2 BS EN 1992-1-1: 2004: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
A6.9 tying recommendations to work in practice, not structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
least since catenary action presumes significant buildings. London: BSI, 2004
axial and rotational ductility. To some extent, codes
recognise the demands of ductility since a modest 6.3 BS 8110-1: 1997: Structural use of concrete – Part 1:
amount of moment redistribution is permitted in Code of practice for design and construction. London:
continuous beams and since slabs designed on BSI, 1997
yield line methodology presume rotation at hinge
positions. In routine design, ductility demands are 6.4 Institution of Structural Engineers. Standard method of
not calculated explicitly, rather they are catered for detailing structural concrete: a manual for best practice.
by assuring members are under-reinforced and by 3rd ed. London: Institution of Structural Engineers, 2006

In situ concrete: issues and solutions 6.7
6.5 NA to BS EN 1992-1-1: 2004: UK National Annex to

Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings. London: BSI, 2005
6.6 PD 6687: 2006: Background paper to UK National

Annex to BS 1992-1. London: BSI, 2006
6.7 BS 5950-1: 2000: Structural use of steelwork in

buildings – Part 1: Code of practice for design – Rolled
and welded sections. London: BSI, 2001
6.8 Pinho Ramos, A. and Lucio, V.J.G. ‘Post punching

behaviour of prestressed concrete flat slabs’. Magazine
of Concrete Research, 60(4), May 2008, pp245-251

London: NBS, 2004
6.10 Park, R. and Paulay, T. Reinforced concrete structures.

New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1975
6.11 ACI 318-08: Building code requirements for structural

concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary. Farmington
Hills, MI: ACI, 2008
6.12 Beeby, A.W. ‘Safety of structures and a new approach

to robustness’. The Structural Engineer, 77(4),
16 February 1999, pp16-21

7 Precast concrete: issues and solutions
Key reference. Most widely used proprietary product reaction i.e. 1.05(1.00Gk +0.33Qk). Most designers opt
manufacturers will be able to suggest suitable details for for providing effective floor anchorage to the walls/
their own product. BS EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 27.1 (EC2) and beams rather than specifying ties. Such anchorage
BS 8110-17.2 are also key references. can be achieved in most cases simply by the friction
between the floor and the wall/beam although
consideration of parameters such as temperature and
camber may negate this approach. Where a floor unit
is prestressed, its camber prevents proper contact with
7.1 Introduction walls below running parallel to the span and so friction
can only be relied on when bedding mortar is used.
Structures formed of loadbearing precast panels 7.2.2 Class 2B buildings

will be forever associated with the Ronan Point
collapse7.3. Although that failure is historically The provision of effective horizontal and vertical ties is
interesting, it is entirely relevant to observe that the generally preferred solution. The fully tied solution
nowadays ample opportunities exist for precast is based on the assumption that precast structures
members to be interlinked and tied together, so will get sufficient robustness to withstand a moderate
as to minimise the risk of future disproportionate degree of abnormal loading through the standard
collapse; this is particularly so where precast units tie network. The ties required are those described in
are subsequently concreted in to develop composite Chapter 5 and the load path for all ties must follow
action. In the years since Ronan Point, many the requirements set out in Chapter 6.
effective tying and restraint details have evolved
and some typical details are given in this chapter in Tying can generally be accomplished by utilising
Section 7.3. the members themselves with appropriate end
connections. Beams designed to carry floor or roof
Nevertheless, precast construction lacks loading will normally be suitable as continuous ties. For
the automatic continuity inherent with in situ example, a series of beams in line will act as an internal
construction, so the provision of robustness tie provided end connections to intermediate elements
requires more direct engineering intervention. (beams or columns) have the required strength.
Particular care is required during the construction Alternatively, ties may be added as steel members or
phase, partly because the final in situ additions will as steel reinforcement embedded in concrete strips set
be absent and partly because many typical support between precast units or set within recesses purposely
systems can be torsionally unbalanced, for example left in the ends of the precast units (see details in
if precast units are added to one beam side only, Section 7.3). Crucially, reinforcement provided for other
and designers need to consider instability issues purposes may be legitimately utilised for ties; it may be
as part of their obligations under CDM20077.4 (see unnecessary to add additional steel.
Chapter 3).
Precast floor units are heavy yet could still be
The principles and strategies to be deployed for dislodged if their supports move in an explosion or
preventing collapse are those set out in previous during some other partial collapse. To prevent this,
chapters, especially Chapter 5. The relevant codes BS 81107.2 Clause 5.1.8.3 explicitly requires that units
(BS EN 1991-1-27.5 and BS EN 1991-1-77.6 and BS must be tied, either to each other over a support,
81107.2) for precast concrete provide design rules that or to the support itself. Normally this is achieved
have to be followed. through provision of an in situ concrete topping with
added mesh, or via looped reinforcement at the slab
ends (acting to form an emergency hinge or bearing)
and subsequently encased. The ability of the shear
7.2 Class 1 and Class 2A and 2B buildings interface to tie the precast to the in situ topping must
be checked. Loops should be preferably in the form
of securely anchored hairpins placed in the middle of
the floor depth to allow for maximum efficiency and
7.2.1 Class 1 and 2A buildings deformability (reinforcement encased within a top
screed is unsuitable for utilisation in catenary action).
The requirements for Class 1 and 2A buildings Typical details are shown in Section 7.3.
are fundamentally different from those required
for Class 2B (and Class 3 buildings). The Building Where in situ topping is not provided, reinforcement
Regulations7.7 (Part A3) require that Class 2A buildings can be provided within plank end pockets with bars
incorporate effective anchorage of the floors or then grouted up to link units together.
effective ties (there is no such prescription for Class
1 but lack of anchorage would lead to instability Precast stairs are referenced in BS 81107.2 Clause
in walls running parallel to floor spans). Clause 5.1.8.3: “where precast floor, stair, or roof members”
5.1.8.3 of BS 81107.2 requires that the dead weight and in PD 66877.8: “precast floor and roof units
of members is effectively anchored to that part of and stair members”. Precast stairs are the primary
the structure containing the ties. This design force means of escape: they are clearly vulnerable and
should be based upon the accidental load case should be treated as other floor units. Since stairs are

Precast concrete: issues and solutions 7.3
often added early to provide access routes, care is 7.3 Typical details
required over their temporary stability including the
effect of tolerances.
7.3.1 General
Precast units invariably span one way and shed
no load onto walls in line with their span. Thus it Typical details are available for the use of precast
is unsafe to assume that any walls below will be slabs in masonry, steel and concrete buildings for
restrained by friction against out-of-plane movement Class 2A and 2B buildings. These are shown in
unless bedding mortar/positive anchorage is Figures 7.1 to 7.10 inclusive. The principles of the
provided. details are compliant with both EC27.1 and BS 81107.2.
7.3.2 Precast floor/masonry walls Class 2A buildings
External load bearing cavity wall detail External non-load bearing cavity wall detail
Precast concrete slab unit Precast concrete slab unit
Continuous mortar
Solid block wall to take up camber
Solid block wall
Figure 7.1 Provision of effective external wall anchorage (via embedment). Class 1 and 2A
7.3.3 Precast floor/masonry walls Class 2B buildings
External load bearing cavity wall detail External non-load bearing cavity wall detail
Peripheral Peripheral tie

tie 10mm diameter high yield
In situ concrete
‘U’ bar per trough
stitch Precast concrete
slab unit
In situ
concrete
stitch
150mm wide preformed
Precast concrete slab unit pocket along the edge of slab
with preformed troughs for unit at 1200mm centres with
tying requirements 10mm diameter ‘U’ bars per pocket
Continuous mortar to take

up camber and prevent in situ
from squeezing out
Figure 7.2 Provision of horizontal tying to external walls, Class 2B

7.3 Precast concrete: issues and solutions
7.3.4 Precast floors/steel framed Class 1 and 2A 7.3.5 Precast floors/concrete framed Class 2A buildings
buildings and 2B buildings
Figure 7.3 shows effective ties from the floors to the
BS 5950-1:20007.9 requires in Clause 2.4.5.3 (e) that: walls.
"where precast concrete or other heavy floor, 7.3.6 Precast floors/concrete framed Class 2B buildings
stair, or roof units are used they should be
effectively anchored in the direction of their The cross wall system (see Figure 7.4) illustrates
span, either to each other over a support, or typical connection requirements (further details can
directly to their supports as recommended in be obtained from References 7.10 and 7.11). Vertical
BS 8110". ties are provided via vertical bars cast into the walls
which pass through the floor area. The wall units
Typical details are shown in Chapter 8. above the floor can be designed to span horizontally
in the event of a loss of wall support below.
Reference 7.10 contains these details.
Typical load bearing internal wall (Class 2A) Typical load bearing external wall (Class 2A)
20 Pack 20 Pack
– high strength – high strength
mortar grout mortar grout
SSL
Varies Varies
Varies
Figure 7.3 Ties from floors to walls, Class 2A
Typical section through internal wall (load bearing)
Vertical tie (mechanical / in situ connection)
20 pack of high
strength mortar grout
Horizontal tie
In situ concrete
infill
10mm diameter
‘U’ bar in troughs
Figure 7.4 Ties from floors to walls, Class 2B

Grout joint Vertical tie

(mechanical / in situ connection)
Horizontal tie
In situ concrete
infill
Wire loop
connections
150mm wide preformed pocket

Precast concrete along the edge of slab unit at
slab unit 1200mm centres with 10mm diameter
‘U’ bars per pocket
Continuous mortar to take up camber

and prevent in situ from squeezing out
Figure 7.5 Interconnection of flooring units to non loadbearing walls
Typical section through external wall (load bearing)
Grout joint Vertical tie

(mechanical / in situ connection)
Horizontal tie
In situ concrete
infill
Wire loop
connections
10mm diameter
‘U’ bar in troughs
Precast concrete slab unit
Figure 7.6 Interconnection of flooring units to loadbearing walls
Figure 7.7 Ties between precast units Figure 7.8 Interconnection of flooring units to walls via site
connection (side pocket in hollow core unit), wall parallel to
floor span

7.3.7 Typical tie details: beam and column frame rotates and induces an additional transverse shear
in the floor slab. The existence of effects like these
Beam and column frame solutions require careful emphasise the need for robustness in the detailing.
detailing to manage the effects of torsion and
excessive movements particularly during construction Details (shown in Figures 7.9 and 7.10) tie the
and before any permanent continuity steel is effective hollow core floors into the beam and, when fully
(see Figures 7.9 and 7.10). Torsion and movement concreted, help with the torsion and restrain the
can be induced for example when there is a lack beams from moving. This detail requires that the
of support to the beam toe during construction. beam is torsionally stable during construction.
Movement can also be induced by temperature Certain proprietary details have been tested to
on exposed slabs. Such movements can cause demonstrate their strength (see Figure 7.11 where the
spalling, loss of bearing and cracking in the topping. end connection shown has been tested up to 900kN
Shear can be critical when the slab support beam ultimate load).
Central beam detail
‘U’ bars laid in Horizontal ‘U’ bars laid in

open cores tie steel open cores
Topping
Precast concrete slab unit
Figure 7.9 Interconnection between precast units onto an internal support beam (Class 2B beam and column frame typical details)
Slab edge detail
Precast concrete
spandrel beam
‘U’ bars laid in

open cores Horizontal tie steel
Topping
Precast concrete
slab unit
Figure 7.10 Interconnection between precast units onto an edge beam (Class 2B Beam and column frame typical details)

Photograph of beam prior to installation Photograph of beam with floor installed
Figure 7.11 Proprietary beam end fixings before and after installation
7.4 Class 2B buildings: notional removal of To justify these survival systems, the assumed tensile
elements reinforcement must be end-anchored, for example
via inside projecting U bars within the top of the unit.
The anchorage of ties used in catenaries should be
Following the general guidelines of Chapter 5, Class demonstrated (to the relevant code) and not just
2B buildings may be assessed by the notional assumed.
removal of elements. A notional removal concept is
a fairly natural one in precast assemblies especially A standard support possibility is to assume bridging
where some parts may be non-loadbearing. The of damaged areas by catenary action as described
notional removal route will require increased attention in Chapter 5. Loss of a central support will typically
to detail but in compensation, many panel structures mean that beams effectively double in span but
are able to function as deep beams and so provide the consequent excess forces may still be carried,
good spanning capability. albeit with increased deformation. For precast units,
the critical engineering aspects are to assure end
Where vertical ties have been incorporated, a anchorage (which implies continuity of reinforcement)
support system is possible via the suspension of any and to prevent longitudinal top reinforcement bursting
newly unsupported elements back to intact structure upwards at the point of maximum sag. To avoid this,
above the damaged area. Alternatively, support may links are required as shown in Figure 7.12 and the
be achieved via catenary or cantilever action of the column immediately above the lost support has to be
surrounding structure; this is particularly useful in checked for interconnection and tension. The design
the case of corner column failure where horizontal objective is that stitching the various components
tie reinforcement added on top of composite floor together will make the frame behave more like an
beams can take up the cantilever tensile stresses. in situ frame.
Concentration of links required to prevent Plastic deformation

bursting of top (catenary) steel; to take ‘reversed’ of column – beam joint
shear and to attach centre beam
Figure 7.12 Catenary action in precast floor beams (with composite action)

Under similar loss of support scenarios, prestressed 7.5 Key elements

beams spanning onto corbels would probably keep
their original shape without significant cracking
and would just separate from any corbel above the The standard approach for key elements set out in
destroyed column unless anchored down. Rotations/ Chapter 5 can be adopted for precast units and that
deformations in the column joint zone would probably design approach is required wherever local collapse
be large, so the assumptions on survival are only exceeds permitted area limits.
valid if the anchorage details are sufficiently ductile.
Manufacturer’s propriety connections must take this
into account.
7.6 References
Wall frame mechanisms can provide for alternative
load paths i.e. the same survival systems used for
skeletal structures also function in preventing the 7.1 BS EN 1992-1-1: 2004: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
collapse of loadbearing wall structures. The survival structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
capability of such structures is often high because buildings. London: BSI, 2004
of the large cantilevering and bridging capability of
wall panels, effectively acting as deep beams. The 7.2 BS 8110-1: 1997: Structural use of concrete –
following support systems can operate (as illustrated Part 1: Code of practice for design and construction.
in Figure 7.13): London: BSI, 1997
––Suspension of the elements from the intact upper
structure above the damaged area. This is validated 7.3 Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Report of
by vertical ties from foundation to roof level in all the enquiry into the collapse of flats at Ronan Point,
walls. Canning Town. London: HMSO, 1968
––Cantilever action of the surrounding structure. For
example, in the case of corner wall panel failure, the 7.4 The Construction (Design and Management)
horizontal tie reinforcement on top of the wall panel Regulations. Norwich: The Stationery Office, 2007 (SI
will take up the tensile stresses of the cantilever. 2007/320)
To be effective, the tie-reinforcement must be
connected into the wall panel, for example inside 7.5 BS EN 1991-1-2: 2002: Eurocode 1: Actions on
hairpins projecting above the unit tops. structures – Part 1-2: General actions – Actions on
––Bridging of the damaged area by the intact wall structures exposed to fire. London: BSI, 2002 and
panels above. NA to BS EN 1991-1-2:2002: UK National Annex
to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 1-2:
General actions - Actions on structures exposed to fire.
London: BSI, 2007

structures – Part 1-7: Accidental actions. London:
BSI, 2008
7.7 The Building Regulations 2000. London: The Stationery

Building (Amendment) Regulations 2004. [s.l.]: The
Tie beam to
realise cantilever 7.8 PD 6687: 2006: Background paper to UK National
action of wall Annex to BS 1992-1. London: BSI, 2006
D
Wall suspended 7.9 BS 5950-1: 2000: Structural use of steelwork in
to tie beam buildings – Part 1: Code of practice for design – Rolled
C at the top and welded sections. London: BSI, 2001
7.10 Brooker, O. and Hennessy, R. Residential cellular

B concrete buildings: a guide for the design and
specification of concrete buildings using tunnel form,
crosswall or twinwall systems. Camberley: The Concrete
A Wall without Centre, 2008
Floor without support
support 7.11 Whittle, R. and Taylor, H. Design of hybrid concrete
buildings: a guide to the design of buildings combining
Notes in-situ and precast concrete. Camberley: The Concrete
A = Floor with support but possible impact from debris Centre, 2009
B = Floor displaced due to lack of support
C = Floor without support from below but tied to wall
D = Wall cantilevering to provide support to frames above
Figure 7.13 Alternative means of protection against progressive collapse in wall frame structures

8 Steel: issues and solutions
Key reference: SCI Publication P341 Guidance on meeting It is of course essential that the structural form
the robustness requirements in Approved Document A adopted provides consistent load paths to ground for
(2004 Edition) 8.1. BS EN 1993-1-1: Eurocode 38.2 (EC3) and vertical and horizontal forces.
BS 5950-18.3 are also key references.
In pin jointed frames reliant on bracing or propping
for global stability, some redundancy is required in
the stability system or a judgment made that the
8.1 Introduction overall prop (say a concrete core or a bi-steel core)
is strong enough to function as a single robust point
(see Figure 8.1).
Normal, well detailed, steel frames should be
inherently robust benefiting from being tied together Traditional steel design approaches have in the past
in a similar manner to concrete frames and this assured a measure of robustness; thus clauses
tying offers opportunities for alternative load path imposing minimum connection sizes, minimum
development. Moreover, steel members and their weld sizes matched to material thickness, minimum
connections should automatically possess a degree slenderness ratios and so on all helped considerably
of ductility enabling frames to distort and absorb to add robustness to frames. However, current codes
energy under unusual conditions. However, where (both BS 59508.3 and EC38.2) have tended to delete
connections are pinned rather than fixed there is clauses imposing minimum slenderness ratios. This
less opportunity for the redistribution of moments consequently imposes more obligations on the
and caution is required as the attributes of strength designer to consider the robustness of the system as
and ductility are dependent on the frames having a separate issue having regard to the circumstances
appropriate connections. Appropriate connections of use. Even the traditional method of sizing lateral
possess characteristics of strength and are detailed restraints based on a percentage of compression
so that they have the ability to deform whilst still force has its origins not in precise science, but as
retaining load carrying capacity. Unlike concrete a rule of thumb to assure a sensible system having
structures, stability is more of an issue for structural adequate strength and stiffness. It is not sound
steelwork and a sound grasp of what systems engineering to prejudice the stability of a steel frame
stabilise members, sub frames and whole structures by skimping on restraint when the provision of
is essential if overall robustness is to be guaranteed. substantial restraint can be gained for little cost.
Figure 8.1 Modern steel frame stabilised by a single bi-steel core

8.1 Steel: issues and solutions
Such traditional concepts should not be discarded, (The Eurocode uses a different formula for the notional
especially in regards to connection capacity. It horizontal forces which, with all the modification
is sound engineering to design connections to factors included, tends to give a smaller force than
minimum force levels, to keep connections in those obtained from BS 59508.3. However the EC38.2
proportion to the members they join, irrespective value is used in all load combinations which makes
of calculated demand, and not to use welds that sense because the lack of column verticality is related
are too small and sensitive to minor variations in to steel erection and not the load combination).
throat size. Connection detailing should be such
that ductility is in-built so that inherent assumptions The key reference8.1 describes in detail how
about load re-distribution can be realised. When the regulations8.8 are to be interpreted for their
considering resistance against collapse, the application to steel structures of every class and
possibility of moment/shear reversal on joints has the reference gives worked examples to foster
to be borne in mind. Having noted that, industry understanding. However, Reference 8.1 only deals
standard connections will comply with robustness with hot rolled sections; SCI Advisory Note AD2808.9
objectives for normal buildings. The ability of provides guidance on achieving structural integrity
connections to carry load under conditions of for light gauge steel structures designed to BS 5950
severe distortion may need to be examined explicitly Part 58.10 and Reference 8.11 gives guidance on
in unusual structures. Slimdek members.
Once complete, steel frames ought to be inherently BS 59508.3 contains specific clauses aimed at
robust, especially when they are of composite assuring robustness plus compliance with UK
construction or can benefit from the diaphragm regulations8.8. It is a specific aim of the design
action of the floors and even cladding (acting as (Clause 2.1.1.18.3 ) that: “the structure should be
stressed skin or purlin restraints) when this is designed to behave as one three dimensional entity”
well fixed. Probably the most vulnerable stage and “the layout ….should constitute a robust and
of the steel structure’s life is the erection phase stable structure under normal loading to ensure that,
and there have been cases of progressive and in the event of misuse or accident, damage will not
disproportionate collapses simply because global be disproportionate to the cause.” Clause 2.1.1.28.3
stability was inadequately provided for during relates to overall stability and emphasises the need to
construction. It might even be argued that the identify the designer with overall responsibility.
infamous box girder bridge collapses of the 1960s
exemplified lack of robustness, since failure of a As with all other codes, the provisions for robustness
relatively minor detail was capable of precipitating are largely empirical. Reference 8.1 stresses the
a gross change in state. Codified rules are not use of informed engineering judgement rather than
intended to address robustness issues during promoting compliance by close attention to rules.
construction so the construction design teams need
to address the issue directly. Particular clauses of relevance in BS 59508.3 are:
––Clause 2.4.2.3 Resistance to horizontal forces
To assure robustness during construction and ––Clause 2.4.2.4 Notional horizontal forces
in-service, the design engineer should be clear ––Clause 2.4.5 Structural integrity (along with sub
on what provides stability and should ensure that clauses 2.4.5.1 to 2.4.5.4)
the load path for stability is continuous, back to a
robust foundation as a pre-requisite. Thereafter, BS 59508.3 Clause 2.4.2.3 along with Clause 2.4.2.4
the specific checks for robustness need to be specifies a minimum value of horizontal load
carried out. that has to be resisted. In the absence of wind
(Combination 1) this is 0.5% of the factored vertical
There are no specific requirements in EC38.2 for dead and imposed loads applied at the same
robustness so the requirements are those derived level and this is deemed to account for practical
from EN 19908.4 and Eurocode 18.5 and BS EN 1993 imperfections likely to cause sway (such as lack of
parts 18.2 to 88.6. The main differences to current UK verticality). Where there is a wind load (Combinations
practice are: 2 and 3), the horizontal component of the factored
––The horizontal ties required for Class 2A buildings wind force should exceed 1% of the factored dead
are the same as those for Class 2B buildings. load applied at the same level. Clause 2.4.2.4
––There is no reduction in horizontal tie forces for schedules situations where the horizontal forces are
buildings less than 5 storeys. to be ignored and some structures for which the
––The tie force is based on a similar expression to notional horizontal forces (NHF) have to be increased.
BS 59508.3 using the uniform load but it uses the
accidental load case instead. The coefficients used It can be shown that the notional horizontal forces
are different to BS 5950 but in general, the end (0.5%) equate to a column plumb of 1 in 200 which
values are similar though dependant on the values is greater than the verticality tolerance customarily
of permanent and imposed load. specified, thus the forces provide margins against
––There is no ‘deemed to satisfy’ rule about making other effects as well.
the tie force equal to the shear force.
––The vertical tie force required is the maximum load The approaches to building in robustness and
from any floor attached to the column, not just that avoiding disproportionate collapse for steel structures
between splices. follow the same general principles as for all other
––The vertical tie force uses the accidental load case structural materials. Section 2.4.5 of BS 59508.3 sets
so will generally be less than in BS 5950. out the means by which steel structures may be
––There are no particular requirements for designed following the three approaches:
redundancy in stability systems. ––tying
––The requirements for tying precast floor, roof and ––notional element removal
stair units are in PD 6687:20068.7. ––designing key elements.

Steel: issues and solutions 8.2
The approaches may be mixed and frequently 8.4 Class 2A buildings

columns can be proven as key elements since they
have the inherent strength to survive.
Class 2A buildings cover all buildings not
Clause 2.4.5.18.3 defines that “it may be assumed exceeding 2 storeys to which members of the
that substantial permanent deformation of members public are admitted and which contain floor areas
and their connections is acceptable”; the objective not exceeding 2000m2 at each storey (see Chapter
is to survive. Thus it may be assumed that portions 4); when the floor area increases to 5000m2, the
of the structure still standing may be yielded and building is reclassified up to 2B. Thus Classes 2A
unserviceable. (and 2B) cover a vast number of low rise traditional
portal frame sheds. In the main portal direction,
frames which have been detailed to exhibit plastic
behaviour capability under overload must be
8.2 Classification of steel structures inherently robust. Such inherent benefits should
not be squandered by ignoring the essential
stability provision required for compression flange
Generally the definitions of Categories 1, 2A and 2B stability (particularly on the underside of haunches)
follow the descriptions in Chapter 4 of this Guide. or under providing for it. Nor should the structure
Reference 8.1 provides additional guidance for steel as a whole be rendered prone to frame toppling by
structures and for example gives guidance on how to the provision of bracing panels lacking in strength
classify mezzanine floors. or stiffness. Although tension-only systems can be
used, they can lack the robustness and stiffness
offered by tension/compression systems.
8.3 Class 1 buildings In portal frames (and frames generally) the

column holding down bolts (and foundations)
play an important role in providing robustness
There will be few steel buildings that fall under during construction and providing stability against
Class 1 and the accepted norm is that provided such collapse in case of fire. Foundations for portal
structures are designed to the applicable code for frames must be robust against lateral movement
applied loading no further action is required. However, and all foundations must be big enough to
Reference 8.1 points out the words in the guidance of provide stability for single columns cantilevering
AD-A8.8 that “no additional measures are likely to be upwards on first erection (especially where multiple
necessary”, so leaving open the possibility that they storey height columns are planned). In multi
might be. This is a reminder that in designing to avoid storey construction, emergency framing action
disproportionate collapse, each structure should be may be called on (e.g. when confronted by high
considered on its own merits and informed engineering winds). Hence, to provide for this contingency, all
judgment must be used rather than blindly following columns should always be anchored down to their
set rules (as outlined in Chapter 2). In reality BS 59508.3 foundations.
treats Class 1 the same as Class 2A and requires ties
(and as described in Clause 8.1.8.5, in the Eurocode, The primary approach to avoiding disproportionate
the horizontal ties required for Class 2A buildings are collapse in steel framed buildings is to provide
the same as those for Class 2B buildings). horizontal tying of the frame elements and in
BS 59508.3, the tying requirements are the same
BS 59508.3 Clause 2.4.5.2 Minimum requirements, for Class 1 and Class 2A (see Section 8.3); Clause
controls Class 1 buildings and this recommends that: 2.4.5.2 governs.
––All buildings should be effectively tied together at
each principal floor level. There is no formal requirement in BS 59508.3 to
––Columns should be tied in two directions anchor floor units down for Class 2A (although
approximately at right angles to each other, at each bearing details have to comply with BS 81108.12)
principal floor level. but fixing decking units down provides added
––All ties (arranged as close as practical along the diaphragm action and Reference 8.1 suggests
edges of the building and along each column line) fixing guidance (see also details in Chapter 7).
and their end connections, should be capable of Steel decking can function by stressed skin action
resisting a factored tensile load of at least 75 kN. if adequately fixed and that provides an advantage
This applies to all horizontal members. under say the destabilising loads of wet concrete
––Horizontal ties should also be provided at roof level, during construction.
except where steelwork only supports cladding that
weighs not more than 0.7 kN/m2 and that carries If effective ties cannot be provided, assessment
only imposed loads and wind loads. under the options for Class 2B is possible i.e. by
––Precast floor/roof units should have bearing details using notional removal or key element design (but
conforming with BS 81108.12 (typical details have note the recommendations of the Task Group (in
been illustrated in Chapter 7, other details are given Chapter 4) that provision of ties is always required
in Reference 8.1). in Class 2B buildings unless there is good evidence
to the contrary).
For a fuller list of requirements, consult Clause
2.4.5.28.3. Clearly, although demanded by the
code, these are sound practical rules for achieving
robustness in any steel structure (and not just
Class 1). The tie value of 75kN is easy to achieve
especially if the traditional approach is followed of
using at least two M20 bolts in every connection.

8.5 Class 2B buildings be assumed to provide adequate tying. Where the

number of storeys is less than five, the tie force is
reduced and a table of reduction factors is given in
The formal robustness requirements for Class 2B Clause 2.4.5.3.
buildings are described in Chapter 4. The design
strategies are the standard ones of providing notional Tying capacities need not be provided entirely by the
horizontal and vertical tying to minimum standards, steel frame. For example, in composite construction,
with the alternatives of considering notional member a certain amount of the required horizontal tying can
removal or designing for key elements. In BS 59508.3, be provided by the concrete slab reinforcement, if it
Clause 2.4.5.2 Minimum requirements is applicable has been designed and detailed for that purpose. SCI
plus the demands of Clause 2.4.5.3 which specifically publication P2138.13 provides guidance on utilising
covers 'Limiting the effects of accidental removal of slab reinforcement within the connection design.
supports'. Clause 2.4.5.38.3 specifies five conditions
which are: The structure at the ends of the ties does not need
––general tying to be designed for the tie force (although this looks
––tying of edge columns illogical, it is just part of the empirical approach). At
––continuity of columns edge beams and columns, the connection of the tie
––resistance to horizontal forces is designed to take the force but the edge beam or
––heavy floor units. column itself is not. Nevertheless, to be effective,
the definition of connection should include the local
The code should be referenced for detail but if area of the member which is being connected.
any of the first three conditions are not met, the Some sensible care is required in proportioning
robustness check reverts to one of notional member the connections so as not to negate reasonable
removal. The acceptance criterion is the standard assumptions about pin ended performance.
one of assuring that removal of any single supporting
member will not cause an unreasonable area of 8.6.2 Edge columns
the structure to fall down. The rest of the building is
only required to remain stable and not necessarily Tying to edge columns is required to ensure that
serviceable. If the removal of any supporting member such columns remain attached to the building.
would cause disproportionate collapse then it should BS 59508.3 Clause 2.4.5.3 (b) Tying of edge columns,
be designed as a key element. states that ties connected to edge columns should
be capable of resisting the larger of the following
If design of key elements has to be invoked, then that forces: the design loads for general tying specified
is covered in BS 5950-18.3 Clause 2.4.5.4. in Clause 2.4.5.3 (a) or 1% of the factored vertical
dead and imposed load in the column at that level
(but this value will only dominate if the building is
very tall). Columns carrying transfer trusses or similar
8.6 General tying massive loads may have high axial loads, and 1% of
the factored axial load should always be considered
in such cases. For any member also acting as a
8.6.1 General restraint to a column, a force of 1% of the column
load needs to be resisted. Although the tie forces
In Class 1 and Class 2A buildings, ties are do not need to be considered with other forces, the
required to be concentrated along the column restraint force required by BS 5950 Clause 4.7.1.28.3
lines. But in Class 2B buildings, the ties should does need combining with other member forces.
be distributed over the floor width as well.
Nevertheless, this need not be done provided 8.6.3 Vertical tying
that the beams on the column lines (and their
connections) are designed for their additional During partial collapse, vertical ties can work with
share of panel tie forces which are derived from horizontal ties to share floor loads among all the
the tying formula in BS 59508.3 (which includes floors and so they generally provide an additional
a parameter for beam spacing). However, if the level of robustness. Vertical tying is a formal
total tying force is concentrated on the beam line, requirement for Class 2B buildings but can normally
it tends to be too onerous for standard beam be accommodated in steel structures because
column connections and it is then more efficient the columns are likely to be continuous. Caution is
to take benefit from the tie capability that exists on required in designing splices since it is only when
any beams lying between columns. columns have to act as emergency hangers that
any significant tensions exist and it is that potential
BS 59508.3 Clause 2.4.5.3 (a) General tying, design load that governs for satisfying robustness.
describes which horizontal members should be Fortunately, the minimum splice location details that
designed as ties and defines the tensile loads are incorporated to aid assembly and erection will
that such ties and their end connections should often equally suffice for code compliance; moreover,
be capable of resisting and this value has to be the demands of robustness ought in any case to be
at least 75kN. The expression for the load in the considered for the erection phase.
ties is based on a uniform floor load. Where there
are significant other types of load (e.g. façades) The demands of column splice tension capacity are
the advice is that these should be taken into covered in BS 59508.3 Clause 2.4.5.3. The numerical
account by adding an equivalent uniform load. demands are that all column splices should be
BS 59508.3 also allows a simplification whereby if capable of resisting an axial tension equal to the
the steel members and their end connections are largest factored vertical dead and imposed load
capable of resisting a tensile force equal to the reaction applied to the column at a single floor level
end reaction under factored loads, then they can located between that column splice and the next

column splice down (or to the base). When applying For Class 2B buildings, BS 5950-18.3 Clause
this clause, it is the largest total reaction applied 2.4.5.3 (d) requires that no substantial part of the
to the column at a floor level that should be used structure (in each of two approximately orthogonal
(i.e. the reactions from all the beams connected to directions) is connected at only one point to the
the column at that floor level). The reactions at the system resisting horizontal loading. Figure 8.2 shows
floor level are calculated using the full imposed load one example. Resistance systems can be moment
and load factors. resisting joints, cantilever columns, shear walls, stair
and lift cores, as well as triangulated bracing.
SCI publication P2128.14 has details of standard
splices, and quotes axial tension capacities to
simplify the design checks. Either bearing or non-
bearing column splices can be used to satisfy
vertical tying requirements. Non-bearing splices will
generally have higher tension capacities because
they inevitably require thicker cover plates and more
bolts for normal design. Capacities are limited by bolt
shear and adding additional bolts can easily increase
capacities.
The vertical tying rules in BS 59508.3, Clauses

2.4.5.2 and 2.4.5.3, assume that columns are
supported on foundations and continue vertically
indefinitely, thus ignoring the cases of columns
supported on transfer beams and also the column
connections at the topmost level underneath
transfer beams. To cover these cases, the top
column connections below any transfer beam
should be designed for the maximum tension that
would occur if each column supporting the transfer
beam was removed in turn. The base of columns on
top of transfer beams should be designed for the
standard vertical tying force.
Where the column is not continuous upwards

(e.g. when supporting the topmost storey, which
is probably light), the beam/column connections
should be capable of taking the design load in both
directions. Compliance with this guidance would
appear to satisfy the requirements in AD-A8.8 for
Class 2B buildings. Class 2A buildings do not require
vertical ties, so strictly would not need to comply,
although it could be thought of as good practice if
they did.
8.7 Bracing sytems

Figure 8.2 Multiple attachment points back to a bi-steel core with the remaining framing
A principle of robustness is to provide redundancy all tied in two directions
or alternative load paths to cover for the event
of unforeseen removal of part of the structure
that would precipitate gross collapse. Many steel
structures are designed as pin jointed frames and
rely on bracing panels for lateral stability. Whilst
numerically, the demands on the bracing system
can be small and satisfied with a single bay,
removal could cause considerable collapse. Such
removal may even come about inadvertently during
building conversion. Thus, it may be unwise to rely
on a single bracing system, noting particularly that
the capital costs of providing stability by bracing
are normally small in relation to the remainder of
the system. It would be reasonable to assume
that a single robust concrete core would provide
adequate resistance8.15. The purpose of the
bracing systems provided should be highlighted
on the drawings or in the Health and Safety File or
more generally, the documents should make clear
what global stability system has been presumed.

8.8 Floor units direction of the unit span as the steel beams act as
ties in the orthogonal direction.
Steel normally provides just the frame skeleton, the Tying of the floor units to the beams will often
floors being either in situ concrete on metal decking be necessary for purposes other than reducing
(which may also act as a horizontal diaphragm) or sensitivity to disproportionate collapse, such as to
precast units. There are provisions in BS 59508.3 mobilise floor diaphragm action against wind loading.
regarding anchorage of the floor units down to the
frame with the aim of preventing the floor falling The key reference 8.1 provides detailed guidance
through the frame if the steelwork is moved, or the on anchorage of precast units across a range of
floor units being uplifted as a result of accidental support configurations. Further guidance on the use
loading (e.g. explosion). and design of precast units is also provided in SCI
publication P2878.16 and P3518.17 and in Chapter 7.
BS 5950-18.3 Clause 2.4.5.3 (e) requires that stairs, For Class 2B buildings, where precast units are the
precast concrete or other heavy floor or roof units main structural support and the tying is provided
are effectively anchored in the direction of their span, by reinforcement within the topping, the units need
either to each other over a support, or directly to their to be connected to the steelwork ties i.e. rebar
supports as recommended in BS 8110-1:19978.12 and mesh can be used for tying but that must be
(see Chapter 7). The tie forces between floor units anchored or tied into the steelwork as well. Figure 8.3
may be calculated from BS 8110-1 Clause 3.12.3 shows typical details for Class 2A and Figure 8.4 for
(see Chapter 7). Anchorage is only required in the Class 2B.
Continuous wet
In situ concrete stitch mortar to
take up camber
Precast concrete Precast concrete Precast concrete

slab unit slab unit slab unit
Soft pack
Soft pack Soft pack
Figure 8.3 Anchorage of precast units to external steelwork (by friction and embedment). Class 1 and 2A
150mm wide preformed

Tie/anchorage pockets along the edge
reinforcement of slab unit at 1200mm
welded to top flange centres with 10mm
In situ concrete stitch of steel beam at diameter ‘U’ bar
trough location per pocket
Shear stud
Precast concrete Precast In situ concrete Precast concrete

slab unit concrete stitch In situ slab unit
Tie/anchorage slab unit concrete
reinforcement stitch Continuous wet
Soft pack
mortar to take up
Soft pack camber
Soft pack
Figure 8.4 Anchorage of precast units to external steelwork (by positive ties). Class 2B

8.9 Notional removal of members If the system for resisting horizontal forces is
triangulated bracing, then each element of the
bracing system should be notionally removed, one at
8.9.1 Introduction a time. This includes the beam and column members
forming part of the bracing truss.
When Clauses 2.4.5.38.3 (b), (c) or (d) are not
satisfied, BS 5950 requires that notional removal of
members or elements is considered as an alternative
check on robustness. The principles are standard 8.10 Key elements
as described in Chapter 5 (including co-incident
vertical loading) and involve notionally removing one
element at a time to see if the structure will remain The requirements for key elements are standard
semi-intact without exhibiting disproportionate failure. i.e. they should be capable of resisting 34kN/m2
If the notional removal of any element would result in under the conditions described in Chapter 5 (which
the collapse of an area greater than the prescribed includes co-incidental vertical loading).
amount, then that element should be designed
as a key element as recommended in BS 5950 BS 59508.3 Clause 2.4.5.4 recommends that any
Clause 2.4.5.4 (and below). other structural component that provides "lateral
restraint vital to the stability" of a key element should
8.9.2 Notional removal of columns also be designed as a key element and the same
clause defines the manner in which load is to be
Any element may be notionally removed. If a applied.
column is removed, the surrounding structure may
be supported in a displaced state by relying on a Although transfer beams are not specifically required
combination of beam catenary action and hanging to be key elements, the beams and their column
from the column above (just as in Chapter 5) supports should be robust. And if any beam supports
(observing the requirement for sensible column more than one column, it should probably be looked
splices and for the structure supporting the column upon as a key element.
as a hanger to be able to take the hanger load).
From experience, the system capacity will most
likely be determined by connection capacity. In
checking this scenario, if any beams fail completely 8.11 Resistance to extreme events
their debris load must be added to that of the floor
below; dynamic impact need not be considered (see
Chapter 4). Continuous steel frames have inherent robustness
via their ability to absorb energy through plastic
8.9.3 Notional removal of elements of the system for deformation and even elastically analysed
resisting horizontal forces structures (with semi compact cross sections)
may accept some redistribution. More information
The highest risk of disproportionate collapse on this property can be found in Chapter 2 and in
might be expected to occur if the lateral References 8.18. and 8.19.
stabilising system is deleted and so for that
reason, BS 59508.3 requires system redundancy
(which can be satisfied via double connection
points). Checking follows the standard process 8.12 Robustness of light steel frames
of removing one part of that system at a time
and provided there is a back up system in place,
there is a good chance that survival can be 8.12.1 Introduction
demonstrated, but there has to be a horizontal
load path back to each system for both systems BS 5950-58.10 provides detailed guidance on
to be effective. As the only requirement is survival, designing light steel frames for avoidance of
the reduced stiffness of the single remaining disproportionate collapse. Guidance is also given
bracing system should not matter so long as it is in SCI publication P3018.20. Light steel multi-storey
judged not so flexible as to permit generation of structures are generally constructed using a large
excessive de-stabilising effects. number of regularly distributed structural elements,
with a high degree of connectivity and structural
If the lateral stability system relies on frame action integrity. In most applications, the provision of
utilizing moment resisting connections, then each continuous ties between the components is
element of the frame with a moment resisting joint straightforward because of the multiple inter-
is part of that system and should be notionally connections.
removed, one element at a time.
The following general rules for robustness for light
If the system for resisting horizontal forces is a steel frames are consistent with the principles used in
concrete core, then each storey high segment of wall BS 59508.3 for hot-rolled steel frames.
forming part of the core should be considered as
an element of that system and notionally removed, Every building frame (i.e. all building classes) should
one at a time. The length of loadbearing wall to be effectively tied together at each principal floor
be considered as one element, is as described in and roof level. All wall studs should be anchored
Chapter 5. As an alternative, it may well be possible in two directions, approximately at right angles at
to show that the core wall segment will function as a each principal floor or roof which they support. This
key element thus negating the need to consider its anchorage may be provided by either joists or tie
removal. members. Members such as steel decking, provided

for other purposes, may be utilised as ties. When resistance to horizontal forces. For steel stud walls,
members are checked as ties, other loading may be the situation is considered to be similar to that of
ignored. Joists designed to carry the floor or roof masonry and requires consideration of the optional
loading will generally be suitable provided that their removal of a wall panel. The length of an external
end connections are capable of resisting tension. stud wall that is considered to be removed is the
Formulae for calculating the required tie force are length measured between vertical lateral supports.
given in BS 5950-58.10. For internal steel stud walls that length is 2.25 times
the storey height.
Class 2B should be designed to limit the effect of
accidental removal of supports; this may be achieved 8.12.4 Key element design
by the standard methods of tying, notional removal or
key element design. Members or lengths of loadbearing wall that cause
excessive areas of collapse when notionally removed
8.12.2 Tying should be designed as key elements. The design of
key elements is similar to that described for hot-rolled
The tying route is achieved by providing horizontal steel frames.
ties, vertical ties and a good distribution of vertical
bracing throughout the building. Note that volumetric/modular construction differs
from other forms of construction in that there is far
Horizontal tying should be arranged in continuous more connectivity, such that a stack of modules
lines wherever practicable throughout each floor may tolerate the notional removal of a whole module.
and roof level in two directions approximately at In this case it is better to use a scenario-based
right angles. A tying member at the periphery approach. Guidance is provided in SCI publication
of the building, for example at the head of a P3488.21 Building design using modules.
wall, should be connected back to the rest of
the structure. If the vertical loads are resisted
by a distributed assembly of closely spaced
elements, the tying members should be similarly 8.13 References
distributed to ensure that the entire assembly is
effectively tied. The forces for anchoring the vertical
elements at the periphery should be based on 8.1 Way. A.J.G. Guidance on meeting the robustness
the spacing of the elements and taken as 1% of requirements in Approved Document A. SCI Publication
the factored vertical load in the element at that P341. Ascot: SCI, 2005
level. If the main structural elements are discrete
columns, the horizontal ties anchoring the columns 8.2 BS EN 1993-1-1: 2005: Eurocode 3: Design of Steel
nearest to the edge of a floor or roof should be Structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
capable of resisting a factored tensile load, acting buildings. London: BSI, 2005
perpendicularly to the edge, equal to the greater
of the load for an internal tie, or 1% of the factored 8.3 BS 5950-1: 2000: Structural use of steelwork in
vertical dead and imposed load in the column buildings – Part 1: Code of practice for design – Rolled
acting at that level. and welded sections. London: BSI, 2001
All splices in primary vertical elements should be 8.4 BS EN 1990: 2002: Eurocode: Basis of structural
capable of resisting a tensile force of not less than design. London: BSI, 2002
two thirds of the factored design vertical dead and
imposed load applied to the vertical element from 8.5 BS EN 1991-1-7: 2006: Eurocode 1: Actions on
the floor level below the splice. Unless the steel structures – Part 1-7: General actions – Accidental
frame is fully continuous in at least one direction, actions. London: BSI, 2006 and NA to BS EN 1991-1-7:
the primary vertical loadbearing structural elements, 2006: UK National Annex to Eurocode 1 - Actions on
whether discrete columns or panel walls, should structures – Part 1-7: Accidental actions. London: BSI,
be continuous at each beam-to-column/wall 2008
connection.
8.6 BS EN 1993: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures
The system of bracing providing resistance to [Various parts]
horizontal forces, whether discrete members or
diaphragm panels, should be distributed throughout 8.7 PD 6687: 2006: Background paper to UK National
the building such that, in each of two directions Annex to BS 1992-1. London: BSI, 2006
approximately at right angles, no substantial portion
of the building is connected to a means of resisting 8.8 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Building
horizontal forces at only one point. Regulations 2000. Approved Document A: Structure.
London: NBS, 2004
8.12.3 Notional removal
8.9 Steel Construction Institute. Structural integrity of light
Where horizontal and vertical ties are not provided, gauge steel structures. Building Regulations Approved
the designer should check each storey to ensure that Document A (2000). SCI Advisory Note AD280. Ascot:
disproportionate collapse would not be precipitated SCI, undated
by the notional removal, one at a time, of vertical
loadbearing elements. If sufficient vertical bracing is 8.10 BS 5950-5: 1998: Structural use of steelwork in
not provided, a check should be made in each storey buildings – Part 5: Code of practice for design of cold
in turn to ensure that disproportionate collapse would formed thin gauge sections. London: BSI, 1998
not be precipitated by the notional removal, one at
a time, of each element of the systems providing

8.11 Steel Construction Institute. Robustness rules for

Slimdek. Document RT 1217. Version 02. Ascot: SCI,
2008
8.12 BS 8110-1: 1997: Structural use of concrete – Part 1:

Code of practice for design and construction. London:
BSI, 1997
8.13 Steel Construction Institute. Joints in steel construction:

composite connections. SCI Publication P213. Ascot:
SCI, 1998
8.14 Steel Construction Institute and British Constructional

Steelwork Association. Joints in steel construction:
simple connections. SCI Publication P212. Ascot:
SCI, 2002
8.15 Irwin, A.W. The Design of shear wall buildings. CIRIA

Report 102. London: CIRIA, 1984
8.16 Hicks, S.J. and Lawson, R.M. Design of composite

beams using precast concrete slabs. SCI publication
P287. Ascot: SCI, 2003
8.17 Way, A.G.J. et al. Precast concrete floors in steel framed

buildings. SCI Publication P351. Ascot: SCI, 2007
8.18 Hamburger, R. and Whittaker, A. ‘Design of steel

structures for blast-related progressive collapse
resistance’. Modern Steel Construction, 44(3), March
2004, pp45-51
8.19 Yandzio, E. and Gough, M. Protection of buildings

against explosions. SCI Publication P244. Ascot:
SCI, 1999
8.20 Grubb, P.J. et al. Building design using cold formed steel
sections: light steel framing in residential construction.
SCI Publication P301. Ascot: SCI, 2001
8.21 Lawson, R.M. Building design using modules.

SCI publication P348. Ascot: SCI, 2007

9 Timber: issues and solutions
Key reference: Multi-storey timber frame buildings – a design 9.2.2 Roof structures e.g. trussed rafters
guide – BRE 20039.1.
BS EN 1995 -1-1: Eurocode 59.2 and BS 52689.3 – 9.6 are also Tests9.8 undertaken on a 10m span roof comprising
key references. 25º fink trusses have shown that trussed rafter
roofs have inherent robustness. This was found to
be the case both for suspended and plasterboard
ceiling arrangements and also under unfavourable
arrangements of wall plate end joints occurring
9.1 Introduction above removed supporting walls. The four
secondary components found to contribute most
substantially to resisting collapse following wall
Reference should be made to Chapter 2 of this Guide removal were the wall plate, chevron bracing, top
for general guidance which is also applicable to chord nodal bracing and even the tile battens with
buildings designed of timber. their interlocking tiling (full details can be found
in Reference 9.8). (Although the reference tested
BS 52689.3 – 9.6 and BS EN 19909.7 (EC0) both trussed rafters, it is considered that bolted trusses
require that timber structures should be robustly would behave in a similar manner.)
constructed and various rules are provided to
promote this objective. Essentially the same Experience from the USA9.9 indicates that most
principles apply as for any other material. The first failures in timber trusses occur in individual members
of these is that the inherent structural form should as a result of member shrinkage and connector slip
lend itself to assuring robustness; the second is that yet do not result in the failure or collapse of the truss
buildings should be designed for derived horizontal structure overall. Usually there is some readjustment
loads and thirdly all components need to be properly among other framing members so that stresses are
interconnected. The most common structural forms redistributed.
available for timber buildings are:
–– trussed rafter roofs Part A3 requirements9.10 make no direct reference
–– platform timber frame construction comprising to roofs but the British Standards for steelwork
loadbearing wall elements (e.g. studwork, structural (BS 59509.11) and masonry (BS 56289.12) both
insulated panels, cross laminated timber panels etc) incorporate a clause permitting the exclusion of
–– post and beam frames horizontal ties in roofs of lightweight construction.
–– portalised frames Hence it may be argued that collapse of light timber
and there are specific considerations for each type. roofs onto the floor below is unlikely to lead to floor
failure and thence progressive collapse. On the other
In the UK, trussed rafters are commonly used within hand, in all timber construction, the ability of floors to
hybrid structures; some longer span structures sustain falling trusses may be less likely than in other
utilise glulam beams and platform timber frame materials and for this reason the design of timber floors
construction is used for residential building up to below roofs should consider the possibilities of debris
seven storeys. Beam and post construction and loading (see Section 5.10). Moreover, because timber
glulam portal frames have been used for large span elements are so light, they are more easily dislodged
structures. Timber buildings commonly fall within (for example roof trusses under wind suction), so
Classes 2A and 2B. fixings and restraint are especially important for
assuring robustness, and caution is required in
Detailing of timber buildings requires attention to assessing the consequences of a roof failure.
robustness at all stages of construction and at
all material interfaces since the way many timber 9.2.3 Platform timber frame construction
structures are constructed relies on considerable
interaction between primary and secondary Structures comprising loadbearing walls such as
members. Although this potentially renders the platform timber frames typically use materials easily
structures vulnerable during assembly, once fastened together and the benefits to robustness have
completed, the interconnection provides many been demonstrated by full scale testing as reported
opportunities for survival. in Reference 9.13. However, despite the potential
contribution of secondary items such as claddings
and linings to the overall robustness of a structure,
engineers should be relying on properly engineered
9.2 Robustness of timber structures load paths not potential load paths through finishes
which may or may not be there depending on how
they are fixed. Reliance on connections is only justified
9.2.1 Introduction if the connection detailing rules of the relevant codes of
practice are complied with.
Reference should be made to Chapters 4 and 5
of this Guide for general guidance which is also Platform timber frame construction relies on a cellular
applicable to buildings designed of timber. plan form with all wall and floor components fixed
to each other. Reliance is placed on the diaphragm
action of the floors to transfer horizontal forces to a

Timber: issues and solutions 9.2
distributed layout of loadbearing walls. In turn, these Since BS 5268-6.19.5 is limited to 2.7m height panels,
walls combine vertical support with horizontal racking BS 5268-6.29.6 guidance should be used for panels
resistance. The format is inherently robust proven above 2.7m (but limited to 4.8m) on all forms of
by many years of experience and through full-scale building. The current limits suggested by BS 5268
tests9.13. Robustness of the structural form exists as parts 6.1 and 6.2 take a stiffness limit of the panel
long as the following general principles are adopted: height divided by 300 as being acceptable to achieve
–– Provision of structural units that can be tied deflection limits. The TF2000 tests9.13 demonstrated
together. In particular, the fixing together of all that the actual stiffness of a timber frame building is
intersecting walls should be in accordance with significantly higher than the code limitations. Based
the minimum requirements given in Clause 4.9.2 of on TF2000, there is evidence that the BS 5268
Reference 9.5. racking design principles are adequate for strength
–– Ensuring that layouts and plan arrangements and stiffness for buildings up to eight storeys and that
provide returns and intersecting walls and floors. there is no reason for normal cellular platform frames
Return walls should be provided at the ends of all to have additional deflection limits imposed.
loadbearing walls.
9.2.4 Beam and post type frames e.g. glulam or
Consideration should be given to the layout of the engineered timber structures
loadbearing walls early in the design process to
assist with providing a robust structure. Cellular Open-plan structures such as assembly halls,
layouts are best suited to multi-storey platform schools, retailing premises and hospitals may
timber frames. Internal loadbearing walls may be constructed as beam-and-post timber frame
need to be strengthened to carry horizontal forces structures. Provision of stability in the two orthogonal
and where party walls separate the structure directions, temporary stability during construction
into separate units, the design has to ensure and adequate loading allowances should be sufficient
that horizontal forces can be taken by each unit. to ensure buildings are robust in both the permanent
The opportunities for load transfer across party and temporary conditions.
walls via structural ties are limited for reasons of
maintaining acoustic performance9.1. For buildings where the failure of a single member
(e.g. a column or principal truss) could cause a
Open plan layouts with no transverse structure catastrophic collapse out of proportion to the
are inappropriate for platform timber frames and element size, a relatively high degree of robustness
additional structure is required for stability. The should be provided. This can be achieved by
introduction of portal frame elements can provide designing the connections for the horizontal tie
solutions to open plan layouts, but attention is forces required by Annex A5 of EN 1991-1-79.15 (see
needed to maintain stiffness limits and connectivity Section 9.4.3). In addition, timber columns should
of the framing types as well as controlling differential be provided with fixed bases that are able to carry a
movement of different materials. moment and shear force equivalent to that resulting
from the notional horizontal loads (see Section 9.5.1).
The timber codes BS 52689.3–9.6 and EC59.2 provide
appropriate guidance for achieving strength and Single storey beam and post frames should have
stiffness of the components that make up multi- their roof structures adequately tied to the supporting
storey timber frames and meeting their minimum structures in accordance with the guidance given in
standards is a pre-requisite for robustness. The Section 9.4.2.
approach for checking building stability is covered
in BS 5268-6.19.5 for dwellings not exceeding seven 9.2.5 Timber portal frames
storeys and a worked example can be found in
Reference 9.14 (p39, topic: stability of platform timber As for steel buildings, a special case arises for large
frame). In particular, racking resistance, overturning span portals since failure of a single frame can
and resistance to sliding should be checked. results in a considerable collapsed area so potentially
putting the structures into Class 2A or 2B.
In addition to designing a structure for stability
by considering the equilibrium of forces and the There are similarities and differences between timber
strength and stiffness of elements, the stability or and steel portal frames. Steel portals have joints
robustness of a building is also achieved through capable of plastic action which will differ from timber
good practice detailing to ensure connectivity of frame behaviour which should be assumed to behave
items providing stiffness to the building. Examples elastically. The eaves joint on a timber portal frame
of robust connections for timber frame floor and wall must also be checked for combined bending and
connections can be found in Reference 9.14 (p26, compression to ensure that lateral torsional instability
topic: robustness and floor to wall connectivity of of the timber sections does not occur. This is similar
platform timber frame). to the checks that would be undertaken for steel
portal frames and is especially important where
Consideration must also be given to the deep, slender sections are proposed. This design
asymmetric layout of elements intended to provide check should be carried out in accordance with
resistance to horizontal forces (e.g. racking Clause 6.3.3 of EC59.2.
walls). For structures or layouts that are unable to
provide sufficient racking resistance, or have an Robustness should also be checked by assuring
unbalanced arrangement of racking resistance on that there is no risk from longitudinal instability (by
plan, the use of discrete stiffening elements such as failure of wall bracing systems for example) and by
rigid frames, should be considered. The deflection assuring that the horizontal restraint to the portal
limits for rigid frames should be appropriate for base is adequate to resist both the forces from
the structure and finishes but a limit of at least the permanent design load cases and the notional
height/500 should be adopted. horizontal load case (see Section 9.5.1).

9.3 Timber: issues and solutions
9.3 Design for the construction period construction designed to facilitate interaction of
all components including the provision of effective
anchorage of suspended floors to loadbearing
Caution is required in multi-storey construction walls. This will generally be achieved in accordance
where racking resistance and overall building stability with Clause 1.6.3.2 of BS 5268-2 and is satisfied
depend on lining materials or vertical loads from the by adopting industry-standard connection details
roof to contribute to stability. During construction, the between the floor edge and adjacent members.
building can be exposed to wind before such vertical Further details of how to achieve effective anchorage
loads are applied or before any plasterboard is fixed. are given in Section 9.6. Distinct horizontal and
Hence it is good practice to ensure that at least vertical ties are not required to be provided.
the lower half of the framing has adequate racking
resistance from permanent bracing or sheathing 9.4.3.2 Class 2B buildings
materials alone (i.e. without contributions from For Class 2B buildings, robustness will be achieved
plasterboard), since reliance on temporary bracing by complying with the standard tying demands or
in large multi-storey construction has proven more by checking for notional removal of a loadbearing
complex than on low-rise projects. wall or by use of key elements (refer to Figure 5.1
and Note b). Because of the difficulty in providing
For multi-storey frames, the construction period can horizontal and vertical ties in platform frame
be prolonged and so construction loading should buildings, notional removal of loadbearing elements,
be considered as a potentially destabilising effect. one at a time in each storey of the building, in
Significant vertical loads can be applied through accordance with EN 1991-1-7 Clause A7 or Clause
storage of materials such as plasterboard packs and 1.6.3.5 of BS 5268-29.3 is the preferred approach.
if stacked to one side these cause sway. Hence it Further guidance on the design of timber platform
is prudent to consider this sway possibility before frame buildings for Class 2B is given in Section 9.7.
plasterboard is fixed to stud walls, adding temporary
restraints or additional members as appropriate to limit 9.4.3.3 Lightweight structures
wall stud slenderness in the temporary condition. Note that for both Class 2A and 2B structures,
the UK National Annex to EN 1991-1-79.15 allows
the minimum horizontal tie force to be limited
in magnitude for lightweight building structures
9.4 Design for disproportionate collapse (whose primary structure is timber or cold formed
thin gauge steel) to 15kN (Expression A1) and
7.5kN (Expression A2) for internal and peripheral
9.4.1 Introduction building ties respectively in recognition of the
reduced theoretical catenary tie force from a
Reference should be made to Chapter 5 of this Guide lightweight structure.
for general guidance which is also applicable to
buildings designed of timber.
9.5 Notional horizontal loads and

The formal requirements of EN 1991-1-79.15 and diaphragm action
BS 5268-29.3 are as follows in sections 9.4.2 and
9.4.3.
9.5.1 Notional horizontal loads
9.4.2 Framed structures e.g. post and beam
Although not directly mentioned in EC59.2, clearly the
9.4.2.1 Class 2A buildings general Eurocode approach of accounting for column
For framed structures such as beam and post timber out-of-verticality would also result in the generation
frames Clause A5.1 of EN 1991-1-79.15 (and Clause of horizontal loads. Wind remains likely to be the
1.6.3.3 of BS 5268-29.3 ) require that horizontal ties source of dominant horizontal load, nevertheless,
should be provided and formulae (Expressions A1 each storey should also have sufficient strength and
and A2) enable the designer to calculate the required stiffness in its own right to resist a horizontal, long-
tie force for internal and peripheral ties. term force of 2.5% of the vertical load (defined as that
percentage of the dead + imposed loads) 9.1.
9.4.2.2 Class 2B buildings
For framed structures such as beam and post 9.5.2 Diaphragm action
timber frames, or structures which comprise a mix
of beam and post and loadbearing walls, robustness BS 5268-29.3 requires that suitable bracing or
should be provided by the provision of horizontal and diaphragm effect should be provided in planes
vertical ties in accordance with Clause A5.1 and A6 parallel to the direction of the lateral forces acting
of EN 1991-1-79.15 and Clause 1.6.3.3 and Clause on the whole structure. For all timber structures, but
1.6.3.4 of BS 5268-29.3. especially for multi-storey platform frames where
robustness is provided by effective anchorage of
9.4.3 Loadbearing wall construction e.g. platform frame suspended floors to loadbearing walls, it is necessary
to check assumptions of diaphragm action to ensure
9.4.3.1 Class 2A buildings the design is appropriate and specific checking is
Because of the difficulty in providing horizontal ties required at each level to assure that the transfer of
in platform frame buildings, effective anchorage horizontal forces is adequate. This should include
is normally the chosen approach. Clause A5.2 of the checking of all nailed interfaces to verify that
EN 1991-1-79.15 and Option 1 of Clause 1.6.3.1 of appropriate in-plane and lateral shear forces can be
BS 5268-29.3 states that appropriate robustness transferred at each platform level. Reference 9.14
should be provided by adopting a cellular form of (P26, topic: robustness and floor to wall connectivity

of platform timber frame) provides recommendations effective anchorage, the approach for platform timber
for good practice in fixings from platform floors frame structures is to adopt good building practice
to walls and for adequate mechanical capacity to by providing lateral restraint to walls and industry-
transfer horizontal and vertical loads through the approved anchorage details of suspended floors to
structure. walls. Additionally, the design process should involve
checking the capacity of the component interfaces
Special care should be taken where wall panels along the load path (e.g. panel rail to soleplate,
are not braced by horizontal diaphragms at regular soleplate to floor deck, floor joists to head binder and
intervals (e.g. full height external panels in stair cores) head binder to panel rail and so on) against horizontal
in which case wind posts may be required. forces. The designer should be providing robust
connections at each and every junction as part of the
Where the action of an efficient ceiling diaphragm normal design process (see Section 9.5.2).
cannot be guaranteed (for example where a
decoupled resilient bar type ceiling is provided), A suspended floor can be considered effectively
Figure M3 of BS 5268-29.3 indicates that additional anchored if the connection between the floor and
edge blockings should be provided at floor loadbearing walls has a minimum mechanical fixing
perimeters where joists run parallel to the wall to specification in accordance with the details shown
ensure the lateral stability of the floor edge members in either Figure M3 of BS 5268-29.3 (see Figure 9.1),
(see Figure 9.1). UKTFA recommendations9.14 (p 26, topic: robustness
and floor to wall connectivity of platform timber
frame) or BS 5628-19.12 Annex D for timber floors
supported by loadbearing masonry. The UKTFA have
9.6 Application of ties to timber buildings also recommended minimum nailing densities in their
Technical Bulletin 39.16 which will assure adequate
anchorage of floors to walls.
The tests on the TF2000 building at Cardington9.13
demonstrated that correctly detailed timber frame In other building forms such as beam and post
structures should possess a degree of horizontal frames, where adoption of ties is possible, the tie
tying by the fixing densities provided between forces can generally be accommodated by existing
elements for overall building stability without the bolted connections in accordance with BS 5268-29.3
requirement for distinct horizontal ties. or EC59.2 as the partial safety factors for duration of
loading and material strength for accidental actions
Effective anchorage of suspended floors to generally make this load case less onerous than
loadbearing walls: to achieve the requirements of those for wind and vertical load.
(a) Floor joists perpendicular to wall (b) Floor joists parallel to wall
Minimum fixing specification for all Minimum fixing specification for all
Wall panel horizontal interfaces is 3.1mm diameter horizontal interfaces is 3.1mm diameter Wall panel
nails (minimum pointside penetration of nails (minimum pointside penetration of
37mm) at 300mm centres. For wider 37mm) at 300mm centres. For wider
interfaces nailing may be staggered. interfaces nailing may be staggered.
Bottom rail Structural deck to be mimimum 15mm Structural deck to be mimimum 15mm Bottom rail
thickness, unless particleboard in which thickness, unless particleboard in which
Soleplate case minimum thickness to be 18mm, case minimum thickness to be 18mm, Soleplate
and to extend to far side of rim beam. and to extend to far side of rim beam.
Rim beam Rim beam
Head binder Floor joists at maximum Floor ceilings supported via resilient Head binder
600mm centres bars, blockings (of depth >0.75 joist
Top rail depth) are required at a maximum of Top rail
2000mm centres. Blocking to be fixed
at each end by a minimum of 2 no
75mm long x 3.1mm diameter nails.
Wall panel Wall panel
Figure 9.1 Extract from BS 5268-2:2002 Figure M3

9.7 Notional panel removal 9.8 Rim beam method
In checking the robustness of timber framed A separate engineered timber rim beam, usually
buildings, engineers need to apply judgment based installed loose on site, can be used to span
on the frame’s likely 3-dimensional structural between points of vertical lateral restraint (say
behaviour, backed, where appropriate, with a return walls) or key elements and act as a bridging
2-dimensional structural assessment of discrete member if loadbearing walls below are notionally
elements. The TF2000 full size test building9.13 has removed.
shown this approach conservative yet appropriate
for platform frame construction. The reference Using rim beams allows joisted floor structures
also provides guidance on the design process to be factory assembled as cassettes with a rim
for Class 2B buildings where notional removal of board used to connect the joist ends together for
loadbearing walls is part of the check. transportation. The rim beam can later function as
a vertical load transfer element in the completed
The TF2000 test building9.13 provided reassurance of structure. The provision of a continuous rim beam
the inherent robustness and availability of secondary ensures that structural continuity is achieved by
load paths within platform frames. For example, providing vertical load transfer as a bridging element
sheathed walls with no openings can be regarded and horizontal continuity by providing a nailing
as deep beams with vertical shear taken in the density in accordance with the recommendations of
panel to panel connections and tension taken out Figure M3 of BS 5268-2 (see Figure 9.1) and UKTFA
through the sheathing material in continuation with Technical Bulletin 39.16.
any timber framework across the panel junction e.g.
via rim boards. Furthermore, the TF2000 tests9.13 An example of the rim beam structural methodology
demonstrated that floors have reserve strength is shown in Figures 9.2 and 9.3 and generic guidance
through the transverse spanning capacity of the can be found in Reference 9.13.
floor sub deck and blockings when supported on
walls parallel to the span or via upper walls acting as The rim beams need to react onto wall intersections
deep beams. and the wall returns must be of 1200mm minimum
length (excluding framed openings). Such walls
Unfortunately, the TF2000 tests9.13 were specific can be non-loadbearing in the conventional sense,
to one building floor and panel shape and size. but must still be capable of transferring loads
So the findings cannot be used to show universal down through the structure; the use of lightweight
compliance with the regulations and independent partitions built off floating floors is not acceptable.
structural checks are required. It is possible to Any rim beams used are supported at the wall
undertake such calculations to prove that wall intersections by corner stud groups and to provide
panels can act as deep beams but often large or proper support, the beams must have full bearing
numerous openings exist, leading to a requirement onto the studs. To achieve this, the wall panels
for additional bridging members such as rim beams. should be lapped in the opposite manner to the
Floor joists continuous over internal

supports with blocking pieces between
joists for vertical load transfer
x
Cassette
rim board
Loose rim
beam
x
For 89mm wall studs,
joists may need
joist hangers
Section x-x
Figure 9.2 Indicative rim beam arrangement

rim beams. If no stud clusters are present below Where the rim beams cannot be designed to
the rim beam bearing, hangers or fixings are to be span the required distance between return walls
provided off adjacent rim beams. Figures 9.4 – 9.10 one, or more, intermediate posts will need to be
indicate typical arrangements of rim beams and provided and treated as a key element and designed
their supports. accordingly (refer to Figure 9.9 and Section 9.9).
R5
R4
Following notional removal of a wall providing joist end support,
unless the joists are ‘top hung’ from the rim beam, they are
assumed to collapse and a check made that the collapsed area
D.C. Event 2
is within acceptable limits. The rim beam is designed to support
R3 the wall and floor joist above by bridging over the notionally
removed wall. Remaining rim beams above support joists and
walls above.
R2
Following notional removal of an intermediate load bearing

wall, the joists in double span at each level are checked for the
R1 accidental load case of the weight of a single storey of wall
supported off each floor level.
D.C. Event 1
External wall / party wall Internal wall External wall / party wall
Figure 9.3 Disproportionate collapse philosophy – rim beam method
Intersecting return wall
Corner studs and junction studs to

take rim beam reactions
H1200
See
Figure 9.9
2.25 H Key element

(if required)
2.25 H
H1200
Note Design span for internal rim beams Design span for external rim beams
See also Figure 9.5 (between return walls but $ 2.25 H) (between intersecting return walls)
Figure 9.4 Typical plan rim beam layout

Rim beams supporting wall load only (including any

supported cladding type) following notional panel removal
See Figure 9.10

Where adequate bearing for rim beams Separating
cannot be achieved, a suitable beam wall
hanger is required
See Figure 9.10

See Figure 9.9
Floor span
direction
Transfer
See beam
Figure 9.6
See Figures
9.7 and 9.8
No rim beam is required at Rim beams supporting wall and floor loads
intermediate support following notional panel removal
Figure 9.5 Plan view on a typical rim beam layout indicating the recommended arrangement of rim beam laps at wall sections
Width × depth of rim beam to suit design

span / joist depth. Joists may need to be
supported in joist hangers
If bearing for both rim beams cannot be

achieved on corner stud group, a beam
hanger should be provided
Figure 9.6 Rim beam junction

Steel beam with ‘Top-Hung’ bearing plate to enable

continuous rim beam between intersecting return walls
x x
Timber nailer for

joist support
Beam
Rim beam designed to span across

notionally removed supporting wall
on to points of wall intersection Beam end
tolerance Allowance for
shrinkage + beam
deflection
x-x
Figure 9.7 Transfer beam/rim beam junction option 1 – no key element post
Level 3
Level 2
Floorspans For Class 2B structures where

Level 1 notional removal of a transfer
beam would cause collapse of
more than 2 levels of floor,
the transfer beam and its
supports must be treated as
key elements
Rim beam to take
reaction of transfer Floorspan
beam (see Figure 9.7) See Figure 9.10
Transfer
beam
Notionally removed
wall panel
Figure 9.8 Key element posts and beams

Rim beam at
floor level
Key element posts may be
required to reduce the span of
long rim beams on external
walls to within design limits.
Posts may be continuous over
a number of storeys
Rim beam at
floor level
Reaction
forces taken
by floor
diaphragm
Post
Steel H - brackets
to take post
reactions at top
and bottom into
floor diaphragm
Post 34kN/m2
on post
34kN/m2
F on post F 34kN/m2 on adjacent wall
or capacity of fixings,
whichever is the least
Plan on post
Figure 9.9 Key element posts acting in conjunction with rim beams
9.8.1 Assumptions for rim beam design should be made to Clause 1.6.3.5 and Figure M2
of BS 5268-29.3 and Reference 9.1 which defines
In designing rim beams, the standard assumptions these lateral restraints in more detail.
about sequential removal (see Chapter 5) are ––Rim beams and key element posts and their
applicable and the standard notional length of wall connections are designed to support the dead
removed remains as: weight of the supported structure, one third of the
––For external panels, the minimum length imposed loads plus a single storey of wall panel
considered is 2.4m, with no maximum length. with any supported claddings or linings.
For internal walls, the maximum length of wall ––Rim beams must also provide horizontal tying
considered is 2.25H where H is the clear height action at all levels through the structure. The fixings
of the panel between lateral supports (the top of presented for Class 2A buildings in Figure M3
the structural deck level below to the underside of BS 5268-2 (see Figure 9.1) are the minimum
of the structural joist level above). Reference required for robustness.

9.9 Rim beam and key element design ––Where joist span lengths are repetitive, using
principles alternate double-spanning joists with selected
walls designed as deep beams (a check should be
made that overall building instability does not occur
Key elements in timber buildings are designed as due to a lack of restraint at the back span of any
for other materials, for the notional 34kN/m2. cantilevered joists).
––Cantilevered joists supporting walls where the
The additional loads transferred by wall frame floor joists are designed to support the point load
connections to a key element post (KEP) should reaction from a single storey of wall panel plus
be included in the loads applied to the KEP when any supported claddings following notional panel
checking its capacity and restraint at floor levels. removal.
For design load cases appropriate for rim beam

and KEP design EN 19909.7 Clause A1.3.2 and
Table A1.3 and the supporting UK National Steel beam with ‘Top-Hung’ bearing
Annex 9.7 (Clause NA 2.2.5) gives guidance on the plate to enable continuous rim beam
accidental load combinations and psi (}) values between intersecting return walls
to be used for the design of elements subject to Continuous rim beam
accidental design situations (refer to Section 5.13).
In addition, EC59.2 Table 3.1 gives k mod for timber-
based materials applicable to accidental actions.
Values for short term action are appropriate for
the residual loading effects following an accidental
action.
BS 5268-29.3 Clause 1.6.3.7 gives equivalent

guidance to that provided in EN 19909.7 for the
residual structure design loads to be used in the
design of key elements and rim beams. BS 5268
recognises the improbability of accident cases
and the short term nature of the loading. Hence
it allows a reduction of the co-existing load being
carried (Clause 1.6.3.79.3 ), and computation
of residual capacity via enhanced factors for
members (Clause 1.6.3.89.3 ), and for fasteners Timber key element
(Clause 1.6.3.99.3 ). A deflection limit of L/30 is post designed for permanent
applicable for timber elements supporting residual and O, L loadcases
loads following an accidental event.
Transfer beams occur in timber structures supporting Timber nailer for

large floor areas. For general guidance on the design joist support
of these elements, reference should be made to
Chapter 5. Prudence suggests checking these as
key elements and this can be done by checking
supporting members and by providing robust Beam
connections at their top and bottom (capable of
resisting the stipulated 34kN/m2). Figure 9.8 indicates
typical arrangements of key element posts and
beams within loadbearing wall structures. Allowance for shrinkage
and beam deflection
9.10 Other methods of designing against

disproportionate collapse H-bracket detail Dowel detail
Other possible methods of achieving support for

walls and floors following the notional removal of wall
panels exist, such as:
––The use of room-size floor cassettes with cassette
edge boards acting as rim beams, bridging over
removed wall panels. This is possible where small
repeatable room sizes are present (e.g. hotel type
accommodation).
––Loose floor construction with top-hung joists or
joists supported in joist hangers from loose rim
beams which bridge over removed wall panels.
––The use of wall panels designed as deep beams Transfer beam supported by key element post
in lieu of rim beams – applicable where there are
no openings in wall panels such as hotel bedroom Figure 9.10 Key element posts – typical connection details
dividing walls.

See Figure 9.11 for the structural methodology 9.11 References

applicable to the cantilevered joist approach for
satisfying disproportionate collapse.
9.1 Grantham, R. and Enjily, V. Multi-storey timber frame
buildings: a design guide. BRE Report BR454. London:
BRE Bookshop, 2003
9.2 BS EN 1995-1-1: 2004+A1: 2008: Eurocode 5: Design of

timber structures – Part 1-1: General - Common rules and
rules for buildings. London: BSI, 2009
9.3 BS 5268-2: 2002: Structural use of timber – Part 2: Code

of practice for permissible stress design, materials and
workmanship. London: BSI, 2002
9.4 BS 5268-3: 2006: Structural use of timber – Part 3: Code

of practice for trussed rafter roofs. London: BSI, 2006
EC 2 9.5 BS 5268-6.1: 1996: Structural use of timber - Part 6 –

D.C. Event 2 Code of practice for timber frame walls – Section 6.1:
Dwellings not exceeding seven storeys. London: BSI, 1996
9.6 BS 5268-6.2: 2001: Structural use of timber - Part

6 – Code of practice for timber frame walls – Section
6.2: Buildings other than dwellings not exceeding seven
storeys. London: BSI, 2001
9.7 BS EN 1990: 2002: Eurocode: Basis of structural design.

London: BSI, 2002
H
9.8 Marcroft, J.P. Disproportionate collapse of timber
structures. Part 1: Literature review; Part 2: Permissible
stresses in fasteners and behaviour of timber connections
External wall / party wall Internal wall External wall / party wall under short duration loading; Part 3: Full-scale testing
programme simulating accidental events on a trussed
rafter roofed building. TRADA Technology Research Report
RR 3/93. High Wycombe: TRADA, 1993
Following notional removal of a wall providing joist end
span support, the joists are designed to cantilever and 9.9 Salgo, M.N. ‘Examples of timber structure failures’. ASCE
support a storey height of wall panel at the cantilever tip. Transactions, 121, 1956, pp588-600
Sufficient holding down resistance is required to prevent
back span uplift (which can be reduced by staggering 9.10 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Building
joist layouts) Regulations 2000. Approved Document A: Structure.
London: NBS, 2004
9.11 BS 5950-1: 2000: Structural use of steelwork in buildings

– Part 1: Code of practice for design – Rolled and welded
Note sections. London: BSI, 2001
For the case of the removal of an internal loadbearing wall, the accidental load
case for the joists is the same as for the rimbeam method (see Figure 9.3) with 9.12 BS 5628-1: 2005: Code of Practice for the use of
joists designed for an increased span length supporting the weight of the masonry – Part 1: Structural use of unreinforced masonry.
non-loadbearing partition at mid span. London: BSI, 2005
9.13 Milner, M.W. et al. ‘Verification of the robustness of a

Figure 9.11 Disproportionate collapse philosophy: Cantilevered joists method (notional six-storey timber frame building’. The Structural Engineer,
removal of an external or compartment wall) 76(16), 18 August 1998, pp307-312
9.14 UK Timber Frame Association. Structural guidance for

platform timber frame. Available at: http://www.timber-frame.
org/downloads/Structural_Guidance_for_Platform_Timber_
Frame.pdf [Accessed: 1 February 2010]
9.15 BS EN 1991-1-7: 2006: Eurocode 1: Actions on structures

– Part 1-7: General actions – Accidental actions. London:
BSI, 2006 and NA to BS EN 1991-1-7: 2006: UK National
Annex to Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures – Part 1-7:
Accidental actions. London: BSI, 2008
9.16 Milner, M. Design guidance for disproportionate collapse. UK

Timber Frame Association Technical Bulletin 3. Available at:
http://www.timber-frame.org/downloads/Disp_Collapse_
Bulletin_Final.pdf [Accessed: 1 February 2010]

10 Masonry: issues and solutions
Key reference: Masonry design for disproportionate collapse EN 1991-1-710.5 is the Eurocode which addresses
requirements under Regulation A3 of the Building Regulations robustness issues (see Chapters 4 and 5). It gives
(England and Wales)10.1. The Structural Masonry Designer’s guidance for design for accidental damage using
Manual10.2 provides useful advice and Eurocode 610.3 (EC6) and similar terminology and principles to those used in
BS 5628-110.4 are key references. Building Regulations Approved Document A10.6 (AD-A).
The Eurocode for masonry design, EC610.3 refers to
EN 1991-1-7 but does not give any guidance on how
the requirements of AD-A and EN 1991-1-7 are to be
achieved. Such guidance is given in BS 562810.4. With
10.1 Introduction the replacement of British Standards by Eurocodes, this
guidance will be transferred into a non-contradictory,
complementary information (NCCI) document, so that it
Loadbearing masonry structures in brick or block will not be lost. Unfortunately, there is some confusion in
are widely used for low rise structures and to some the published versions of the AD-A about the provision
extent for higher rise structures such that any Class of horizontal ties in Class 2B buildings (see Section 5.1).
up to Class 2B might be relevant. Masonry supports It is understood that the need for horizontal ties in all
are widely used within hybrid structures where the Class 2B buildings, except in timber frame buildings,
horizontal elements are timber or precast concrete will be reinstated in the AD-A. In BS 5628 and other
floors. Dislodgement of the walls increases the masonry industry publications, only one of the options
risk of precipitating collapse, so the floor survival for Class 2B buildings requires horizontal ties. Table 10.1
strategies discussed in Chapter 5 can be considered. gives the BS 5628 recommendations. The NCCI will
Most traditional masonry receives its stability by provide the finalised guidance.
being buttressed and by being loadbearing. High
compression provides for transverse shear/friction Practical masonry buildings can have varying numbers
resistance and high compression permits walls of storeys or basements though the latter can be partly
to carry lateral bending utilising pre-compression excluded from the number of storeys considered for
as a substitute for tensile strength or by facilitating classification (see Chapter 4 and Reference 10.7). There
resistance by arching to a degree which can be are risks of inadvertently reducing inbuilt robustness
surprisingly high (always providing the arch lateral with change of use and with the modern trend of
forces can be resisted). Lateral bending resistance adding storeys or basements to existing buildings. Such
in the transverse direction can be boosted by changes potentially change the building classification
incorporating bed joint reinforcement and this might so requiring a change of detailing which can be hard to
be used as an emergency span system to justify wall implement.
survival.
New build loadbearing masonry buildings falling within
Needless to say, non-loadbearing masonry is Classes 2A or 2B can be dealt with using the codified
potentially vulnerable to imposed lateral loads. Even prescriptive rules and the standard rules about tying in
loadbearing masonry may be sensitive if eccentric horizontal and vertical directions apply as with all other
vertical loads are added as a result of poor bearing materials. But for Class 2B buildings, the alternative
details. A robustness strategy should render all walls of accepting localised damage or considering local
resistant to lateral loading for general reasons of safety element removal may be found more useful since
and to avoid the need to consider taking their weight the incorporation of vertical ties is often difficult (see
into account as debris should they be assumed to Section 10.4). Theoretically, the route of designing key
fail. As many non-loadbearing walls are internal with elements is available but is often impractical.
no defined horizontal wind loading, care should be
taken to comply with code rules about height to wall
thickness and to justify any structural assumptions
about end restraint and anchorage. Particular care is Table 10.1 Detailed accidental recommendations adapted
required in the construction phase when all walls are from Table 11 from BS 5628-1
vulnerable to any lateral loading. Building class Recommendations
The traditional cellular plan form of masonry structures Class 1 Provide robustness, interaction of components and containment of spread of
offers inherent robustness if all the vertical and damage in accordance with the guidance in BS 562810.4 Clause 16
horizontal elements are interconnected and if sensible Class 2A As for Class 1, and additionally provide effective anchorage of all
traditional practice with regard to wall end returns suspended floors to walls or effective horizontal ties in accordance with
is deployed. Hence, as with all materials, achieving 33.4 and Table 12 of BS 5628
robustness starts with provision of a robust layout.
But modern demands for open space or for making Class 2B As for Class 1, and additionally:
openings can inadvertently erode that traditional Option (1) Provide (other than key Option (2) Provide effective
benefit. Additionally, masonry structures generally elements), supporting columns, beams horizontal ties in accordance
lack inherent tensile capacity (and ductility), and or slabs supporting one or more with 33.3 and Table 13, and
so become vulnerable to significant collapse in the columns or prove a loadbearing wall, or vertical ties in accordance with
event of accidental wall removal (see Box 4.1 of the loadbearing walls removable, one at a 33.5 and Table 12 of BS 5628
Copenhagen gas explosion in Section 4.3.2). time, without causing collapse

10.2 Masonry: issues and solutions
10.2 Code requirements 10.3 Class 1 and Class 2A
As a generality, and noting that many masonry The majority of loadbearing masonry buildings
elements occur within hybrid structures, the advice built in the UK are houses and hence at low risk
that one engineer should be responsible for overall of disproportionate collapse. Houses fall within
stability and robustness should be heeded. The consequence Class 1 of Eurocode 110.5 and Class
defining code, BS 5628-110.4, reminds designers of 1 of AD-A10.6. Hence, provided they are designed
this in Clause 16.1. and constructed in accordance with good practice
(including carrying wind loads) and with basic stability
BS 562810.4 considers the sensitivity of masonry rules, no further consideration over accidental actions
structures to overall instability. It prohibits using need be given. Nevertheless, it may well be the case
unbraced structural forms to resist lateral loading, that walls not carrying vertical loads (such as flank
e.g. pure cross wall structures that rely only upon wall walls in houses) require tying into the house floors or
flexural strength. The code states: roof plane to give them stability and robustness as
part of normal good practice.
“The design recommendations … assume
that all the lateral forces acting on the whole The main point for Class 2A buildings is that all floor
structure are resisted by walls in planes parallel elements must be anchored to masonry walls so as
to these forces, or by suitable bracing.” to form effective horizontal ties in a similar manner to
reinforced concrete structures and this can normally
and be achieved using routinely incorporated details.
Appendix C of BS 562810.4 shows suitable anchorage
“To ensure a robust and stable design it will be details for various connections between masonry,
necessary to consider the layout of structure timber and concrete elements: these are considered
on plan, returns at the ends of walls, interaction to have withstood the test of time in providing
between intersection walls and the interaction adequate robustness for masonry structures
between masonry walls and the other parts of the which fall within Class 2A. See also Chapter 7 and
structure.” Figures 10.1 and 10.2 noting the difference between
precast units spanning onto walls and units spanning
Within BS 562810.4 (Clause 16.1), overall robustness parallel to walls.
is addressed by requiring that the whole masonry
structure (or any part of it up to roof level) is designed Peripheral ties within the floor slab are primarily
for a minimum overturning force whose notional intended to deal with the loss of external walls,
minimum horizontal force value is 1.5% of the total but may also be used to anchor the internal ties.
characteristic dead (permanent) load above the level Although in principle internal ties can be anchored
being considered. to external masonry walls, it is doubtful if effective
Hanger to be tight against wall
75mm
min.
Figure 10.1 Floor anchorage to masonry walls: timber floor using nailed or bolted joints hangers acting as a tie

Masonry: issues and solutions 10.4
Precast units abutting external cavity wall Timber floor abutting external cavity wall
May be constructed in concrete

Packing to be provided at straps
Floor screed and to be secured to joist
100mm 100mm
min. min.
Blocking or strutting between

800mm min. joists at strap position. Straps
to be carried over at least two joists.
Figure 10.2 Floor anchorage to masonry walls: precast units and timber
anchorage can be achieved in practice without the 10.4 Class 2B buildings: horizontal and
concurrent use of vertical ties. Thus in masonry, it vertical ties
is usual to require the external walls and piers to
be adequately connected to the floor construction
to prevent their premature failure under outward For Class 2B buildings, the requirements are as
pressure. This can be achieved by relying upon the set out in Table 10.1. Design will be based on the
shear strength of the connection, based on the type provision of effective horizontal and vertical ties or
of masonry unit, mortar strength class and design notional wall removal or use of key elements (though
vertical loading, or on its frictional resistance based proving the adequacy of key elements is difficult in
on design vertical loading and appropriate coefficient masonry, see Section 10.6).
of friction if the wall is loadbearing (but friction and
shear capacity cannot be additive), or by utilising an Where sufficient vertical loading is available, shear
in situ strip (see Chapter 7). Special joist hangers/ or frictional resistance can be relied upon to provide
straps are available where timber floors are used. the horizontal tie force. But the provision of the
complementary vertical ties can be practically difficult
Where ties are added, there are rules about their and can only be achieved within masonry voids if
spacing and these are given in Table 10.2. Typically, the walling unit has a minimum thickness of 140mm,
horizontal ties are 30mm x 5mm section when though other documents (e.g. EC610.3 ) give 150mm
designed to BS 562810.4 or BS 8103-210.8. Ties should (the minimum thickness allows room for ties and
not be less than 600mm long and should cross grouting). Special blocks are available which allow
over 2 joists (for example see Figure 10.2). However, concreting or grouting up of the tie. Alternatively,
AD-A10.6 Section 2C, requires that ties are not less discrete concrete columns (ties) can be formed in
than 1.2m long and cross over 3 joists. For ties to be the wall space. The use of full storey height steel
effective, the full load path has to be observed e.g. straps or steel sections (e.g. wind posts) as vertical
beam adequately connected to pad stone and pad ties is also possible, but the need to anchor these
stone adequately connected to wall. at floor levels can present difficulties. BS 562810.4
(Clause 33.5) has requirements for the minimum
Table 10.2 Spacing of ties (from BS 5628-1) thickness and strength of walls incorporating ties
and for their strength. Though, it is understood
Construction Spacing of horizontal restraint ties those minimum widths need not apply when using
Up to 3 4 storeys 5 storeys vertical steel straps or steel sections as ties since
storeys accommodation of internal bars is not a requirement.
Houses of Class 1 2.00m 1.25m 1.25m
and 2A Where provided, vertical ties should be distributed
around the building. BS 562810.4 (Table 12) specifies
Other Buildings of 1.25m 1.25m Not maximum spacings and minimum forces to be
Class 2A applicable resisted; as with horizontal ties, the forces to be

10.5 Masonry: issues and solutions
resisted are related to the 34kN/m2 accidental 10.6 Key elements

pressure. Where vertical ties are closely spaced, a
minimum tie force is specified (BS 5628 Table 13)
which corresponds approximately to the minimum Within loadbearing masonry, only elements
percentage steel reinforcement required in plain with substantial vertical loads will be capable of
concrete walls. performing as key elements (i.e. taking the standard
34 kN/m2) because substantial pre-compression is
Whatever the form of vertical ties used, they must required to generate vertical arching resistance. As
be taken down to the foundations and securely a consequence, key elements will rarely be available
fixed there, or alternatively taken down to a level as a practical design option (and normally only in
below which the vertical elements can be shown to tall buildings which will fall into Class 2B). Horizontal
function as key (protected) elements. Vertical ties arching is also possible but often precluded where
must be effectively restrained horizontally at each there are periodic vertical movement joints. Where
floor level. BS 562810.4 Clause 33.5 also requires that walls or columns are investigated, a suitable design
walls containing ties must be constrained laterally to method is that using a failure model based on a
prevent movement and rotation. Timber floors are three pin arch. To realise the arch model, adequate
excluded from providing this function. abutments must be present and the lateral thrust is
as shown in Figure 10.3. (From simple equilibrium
the value of q to fail the panel is 8nt/h2. Introducing a
load factor of 1.05 reduces this to 7.6nt/h2 where n is
10.5 Class 2B buildings: notional element the credible vertical reaction based on dead load and
removal reduced live load.)
Within the arch, resistance to the horizontal reactions

In addition to their standard functions, vertical ties generated at the top and bottom can be provided
can also benefit masonry construction by providing either by the shear capacity between the masonry
a reaction to the vertical forces generated by the and concrete slabs or by friction. In either case, if it
arching action of masonry walls, so enhancing the is assumed that both wall leaves form the contact
interaction between walls and floors when bridging surfaces, then that can only be justified if the outer leaf
an area of local damage, i.e. by enabling the wall/ is adequately tied to the inner leaf.
floor construction to act as a deep beam effectively
with the slabs acting as flanges and the masonry When carrying out calculations, the vertical load is
between acting as a web. considered as the load available to resist the arch
thrust and logic suggests that only permanent actions
If the notional element removal route is adopted, the should be accounted for in generating the resistance
approach is as set out in Chapter 5. The co-existing to wall arching under accidental action. Chapter 5
loads are to be taken as the design dead, imposed discusses the load cases given in EN 199010.9 for the
and, where appropriate, wind loads, using the accidental damage case. Clause 18(d) of BS 562810.4
reduced partial safety factors which are defined in implies that the combination 0.95Gk + 0.35Qk should
BS 562810.4 (Clauses 18(d) and 3.3) or the accidental be used for vertical arching calculations. In other
load case in the Eurocode10.5. situations, other combinations of partial safety factors
on loads will provide the most severe condition. When
considering accidental damage, material safety factors
are halved.
Idealised 3-pin arch model

n
hq lateral
2
t
8nt h
q lateral =
1.05h 2
hq lateral
2
n
Figure 10.3 Idealised 3 pin arch model

Masonry: issues and solutions 10.7
10.7 Alterations to existing structures Common alterations are the excavation of a

basement beneath an existing structure, the
removal of internal walls and the introduction of
Whilst the prescriptive rules applicable to buildings mezzanine floors. Where openings are created
of Class 1, Class 2A and Class 2B may be suitable in existing cross walls or such walls are removed
for some alterations, the difficulties associated entirely to be replaced with beams, or when
with retrofitting ties, both vertical and horizontal chimney breasts are removed, care must be taken
can be formidable (Chapter 4 discusses rule not to endanger overall structural stability (degrade
implementation). In taller buildings, there may be robustness). It is essential to consider the role of
a need to provide vertical tying below the level vertical loads in stabilising walls and great care is
being altered. As an alternative, it may be possible required during alterations if such load is removed
to prove the section of wall or pier below is (see Figure 10.4). The application of robustness
removable and then show that the masonry above requirements to altered buildings is discussed in
(if sufficiently thick external walls or spandrel Chapter 4.
panels) can arch in-plane or be hung from the
structure above.
Figure 10.4 Masonry collapse

Masonry: issues and solutions
10.8 References
10.1 Brick Development Association et al. Masonry design for

disproportionate collapse requirements under Regulation
A3 of the Building Regulations (England and Wales).
Available at: http://www.brick.org.uk/_resources/
Masonry%20Design%20for%20Disproportionate%20
Collapse%20Requirements.pdf [Accessed: 1 February
2010]
10.2 Curtin, W.G. et al. Structural masonry designers’

manual. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006
10.3 BS EN 1996-1-1: 2005: Eurocode 6: Design of masonry

structures – Part 1-1: General rules for reinforced and
unreinforced masonry structures. London: BSI, 2005
10.4 BS 5628-1: 2005: Code of practice for the use of

masonry – Part 1: Structural use of unreinforced
masonry. London: BSI, 2005
10.5 BS EN 1991-1-7: 2006: Eurocode 1: Actions

on structures – Part 1-7: General actions –
Accidental actions. London: BSI, 2006 and NA
to BS EN 1991-1-7: 2006: UK National Annex to
Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures – Part 1-7:
Accidental actions. London: BSI, 2008

London: NBS, 2004
10.7 National House Building Council. The Building

Regulations 2004 edition – England and Wales:
Requirement A3 – disproportionate collapse. Available
at: http://www.nhbc.co.uk/NHBCpublications/
LiteratureLibrary/Technical/filedownload,23676,en.pd
[Accessed: 1 February 2010]
10.8 BS 8103-2: 2005: Structural design of low-rise

buildings – Part 2: Code of practice for masonry walls
for housing. London: BSI, 2005
10.9 BS EN 1990: 2002: Eurocode: Basis of structural

design. London: BSI, 2002

Bibliography
The topic of robustness and disproportionate Textbooks/Monographs

collapse has occupied the international structural
engineering community for many years with a
noticeable first peak around forty years ago, as the Knoll, F. and Vogel, T. Design for robustness.
implications of the Ronan Point collapse became IABSE Structural Engineering Documents 11.
evident. Since then, the technical literature has Zurich: IABSE, 2009
increased substantially, particularly so in the present
decade in the wake of the World Trade Centre Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N. Seismic design of
events. The following is a selective list – the 2010 reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. New
Arup Security Report contains an extensive and York: Wiley, 1992
up-to-date reference list – to help those interested in
studying further this topic. Starossek, U. Progressive collapse of structures.
London: Thomas Telford, 2009
General
Technical papers
Arup Security Consulting. Review of International
Research on Structural Robustness and Alexander, S. ‘New approach to disproportionate
Disproportionate Collapse - Final Report. Document collapse’. The Structural Engineer, 82(23/24),
Reference 125394-00/3.01/REP-001. Prepared on 7 December 2004, pp14-18
behalf of DCLG and CPNI, March 2010
Baker, J.W. et al. ‘On the assessment of robustness’.
Institution of Structural Engineers. Safety in tall Structural Safety, 30(3), 2008, pp253-267
buildings and other buildings of large occupancy.
London: Institution of Structural Engineers, 2002 Burland, J. ‘Interaction between structural and
geotechnical engineers’. The Structural Engineer,
Institution of Structural Engineers. Stability 84(8), 18 April 2006, pp29-37; Discussion, The
of buildings. London: Institution of Structural Structural Engineer Online, 85(3), 6 February 2007,
Engineers, 1988 pp19-20
Byfield, M.P. and Paramasivam, S. ‘Catenary action in

steel-framed buildings’. ICE Proceedings, Structures
Best practice guides and Buildings, 160(SB5), October 2007, pp247-257
Corley, G. ‘Learning from disaster to prevent

Ellingwood, B.R. et al. Best practices for reducing progressive collapse’. ICE Proceedings, Civil
the potential for progressive collapse in buildings. Engineering, 161(Special Issue 2), November 2008,
NISTIR 7396. Washington, DC: NIST, 2006. Available pp41-48
at: http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build07/PDF/
b07008.pdf [Accessed: 2 February 2010] Dusenberry, D.O. and Hamburger, R.O. ‘Practical
means for energy-based analyses of disproportionate
Institution of Structural Engineers. Appraisal of collapse potential’, ASCE Journal of Performance
existing structures. 3rd ed. London: Institution of of Constructed Facilities, 20(4), November 2006,
Structural Engineers [Due 2010] pp336-348
Institution of Structural Engineers. Manual for the Ellingwood, B.R. and Leyendecker, E.V. ‘Approaches
design of steelwork building structures. 3rd ed. for design against progressive collapse’. ASCE
London: Institution of Structural Engineers, 2008 Journal of the Structural Division, 104(3),
March 1978, pp413-423
Institution of Structural Engineers. Standard method
of detailing structural concrete: a manual for best Ellingwood, B.R. and Dusenberry, D.O. ‘Building
practice. 3rd ed. London: Institution of Structural design for abnormal loads and progressive collapse’.
Engineers, 2006 Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
20(3), May 2005, pp194-205
Ellingwood, B.R. ‘Mitigating risk from abnormal

loads and progressive collapse’. ASCE Journal
of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20(4),
November 2006, pp315-323
Gulvanessian, H. and Vrouwenvelder, T. ‘Robustness

and the eurocodes’. Structural Engineering
International, 16(2), May 2006, pp167-171

Bibliography
Harding, G. ‘Background paper on consequences

of localised failure from an undefined cause’. JCSS/
IABSE Workshop on Robustness of Structures,
BRE, Garston, 28-29 November 2005. Available at:
http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/events/WS_2005-11/Paper/
Harding_Paper.pdf [Accessed: 2 February 2010]
Harding, G. and Carpenter, J. ‘Disproportionate

collapse of Class 3 buildings: the use of risk
assessment’. The Structural Engineer, 87(15/16), 4
August 2009, pp29-34
Izzuddin, B.A. et al. ‘Assessment of progressive

collapse in multi-storey buildings’. ICE Proceedings,
Structures and Buildings, 160(SB4), August 2007,
pp197-205
Lawson, P.M. et al. ‘Robustness of light steel frames

and modular construction’. ICE Proceedings,
Structures and Buildings, 161(SB1), February 2008,
pp3-16
Maes, M.A. et al. ‘Structural robustness in the

light of risk and consequence analysis’, Structural
Engineering International, 16(2), May 2006,
pp101-107
Marjanishvili, S.M. and Agnew, E. ‘Comparison of

various procedures for progressive collapse analysis’.
ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 20(4), November 2006, pp365-374
Menzies, J. ‘Use of robustness concepts in practice’.

JCSS/IABSE Workshop on Robustness of Structures,
BRE, Garston, 28-29 November 2005. Available at
http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/events/WS_2005-11/Paper/
Menzies_Paper.pdf [Accessed: 2 February 2010]
Sasani, M. and Sagiroglu, S. ‘Progressive collapse

of reinforced concrete structures: a multi-hazard
perspective’. ACI Structural Journal, 105(1), January-
February 2008, pp96-103
Starossek, U. ‘Disproportionate collapse: a

pragmatic approach’. ICE Proceedings, Structures
and Buildings, 160(SB6), December 2007, pp317-325
Sucuoglu, H. ‘Resistance mechanisms in reinforced

concrete frames subjected to column failure’. ASCE
Journal of Structural Engineering, 120(3), March
1994, pp765-782

Appendix 1 London District Surveyors Association Risk Assessment Process
A method of assessing single storey vertical extensions for compliance with Requirement A3, Disproportionate Collapse
– Carry out a full survey of the building, noting any previous alterations and signs of distress
– Check lintels and bay windows to ensure they are capable of load transfer in the event of partial failure of the structure
– View and assess the position of the building in relation to robustness features and susceptibility to vehicular impact or
other risks that could be associated with the location and use of building.
– Ensure that the building has not been altered to

Is the building Was the building change the load paths.
Check a framed structure Yes designed to resist Yes – Ensure that the building does not show any
1 with composite disproportionate signs of distress.
floors? collapse? – Continue the ties to the new extension or provide
full risk assessment as per Class 3 structures.
No
Creating a No Creating a No Go to
Check
multi-storey single-storey
2 A
basement? basement?
A Is the Yes Yes

Full Risk Assessment as per
building fomed No
Check Class 3 structures or follow
with masonry walls with
3 recommendations in Table 11
timber/pre-cast
of AD A. – Provide ties to meet the appropriate class
floors?
of the structure as set out in Table 11 of AD A.
– As a minimum, provide horizontal ties
Yes using straps at 1m centres in all directions.
– Positively anchor all new beams to load bearing walls.
Are the chimney No Are the remaining Yes – Replace with beams and anchor the
B ends of the beam to supporting walls. Go to
breasts in parts supported on
C
place? gallows brackets? – Or assess robustness of the structure.
Yes No
Has the spine wall Yes Has the wall been Yes – Replace with box frame.** Go to
C been removed at removed flush with
– Or assess robustness of the structure. D
any level? return walls?
No No
Has the
rear wall been Are the
altered or contain large Yes load bearing elements No – Replace with box frame.**
D door/window openings with connected to the return
– Or assess robustness of the structure.
small sections of walls and sufficient to
load bearing have buttressing
elements? effect?
No Yes
– Building may be extended by Are there

one storey within the ridge. No large openings without Yes Full Risk Assessment as per Class 3
– Horizontal ties to be introduced buttressing walls on structures or follow recommendations
in all directions at 1m centres more than one in Table 11 of AD A.
at the new floor level. level?
Note Requirement A3, Disproportionate Collapse

** Where box frame is used, it should be designed for (1) vertical load, (2) sway forces as stated in “The building shall be constructed so that in the event
BS5950 or Eurocodes, (3) wind load as appropriate, and effectively tied to the existing structure in of an accident the building will not suffer collapse to
order to ptovide lateral restraint in both directions and able to transfer loads safely to the ground. an extent disproportionate to the cause.”

Practical Guide To Structural Robustness

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Practical Guide To Structural Robustness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Practical Guide To Structural Robustness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Practical guide to

Robust Pages.indd 1 27/10/2010 12:13

Secretary to the Task Group

Colin Jolly , Box 2.5

Published by the Institution of Structural Engineers

©2010 The Institution of Structural Engineers

Robust Pages.indd 2 27/10/2010 12:13

Tables v 5 Designing for robustness 21

Robust Pages.indd 3 27/10/2010 12:13

8.6 General tying 46

9 Timber: issues and solutions 52

10 Masonry: issues and solutions 63

Appendix 1 L ondon District Surveyors Association Risk

Robust Pages.indd 4 27/10/2010 12:13

Robust Pages.indd 5 27/10/2010 12:13

Term / Abbreviation Definition

Robust Pages.indd 6 27/10/2010 12:13

Robust Pages.indd 7 27/10/2010 12:13

Robust Pages.indd 8 27/10/2010 12:13

Whilst recognising the regulations, the Task Group References

Robust Pages.indd 1 27/10/2010 12:13

2.1 Introduction In the 1955 Report on Structural Safety2.2 the

BS EN 19902.1 (Section 2.1 Basic requirements)

Robust Pages.indd 2 27/10/2010 12:13

2.3 Structural form

Achieving these desirable states should start with

Particular care needs to be exercised in hybrid

It is also generally accepted that the more ductile

Robust Pages.indd 3 27/10/2010 12:13

The practice of adopting minimum sizes and

Robust Pages.indd 4 27/10/2010 12:13

One strategy of Building Regulations and codified

In any discussions on robustness there is a second

Robust Pages.indd 5 27/10/2010 12:13

20mm As a principle, designs should account for credible

Tendon Prestress Applied

Post tensioned unit with small eccentricity

Robust Pages.indd 6 27/10/2010 12:13

Box 2.9 Robustness is a quality influenced by detailing quality

Bar from edge beam

Beam drops and,

Mode of failure of Camden School hall roof 2.8

Potential plan bowing

Potential plan bowing

Ties needed at intervals

Adequate tying of precast flooring units

Robust Pages.indd 7 27/10/2010 12:13

Initial hanger failure In situ slab

Suspended ceiling supporting ducting

Progressive ceiling failure generated

Progressive failure of a suspended ceiling

Robust Pages.indd 8 27/10/2010 12:13

2.10 Fire loading and robustness 2.11 Progressive and disproportionate

Robust Pages.indd 9 27/10/2010 12:13

2.13 Strategy 2.14 References

2.11 Department for Communities and Local Government.

2.12 BS 9999: 2008: Code of practice for fire safety in the

8.6 General tying 46

9 Timber: issues and solutions 52

10 Masonry: issues and solutions 63

Appendix 1 L ondon District Surveyors Association Risk

2.1 Introduction In the 1955 Report on Structural Safety2.2 the

2.3 Structural form

2.10 Fire loading and robustness 2.11 Progressive and disproportionate

2.13 Strategy 2.14 References

3.1 Introduction 3.2 Category A: Statute

3.3 Category B: Contract Building (Amendment) Regulations 2004. [s.l.]: The

4.1 Introduction 4.2 Classification of structures

4.3.4 Mezzanines and galleries

4.4 Practical problems of interpretation

4.4.3 Ill defined uses 4.4.5 Strong floors

4.5.2 Change of use

4.5.7 General 4.9 Standing Committee on Structural Safety. The Fire

5.1 Introduction framed structures (see Chapter 9) have proven

Some judgement is required on whether the element 5.4 Detailed provisions

5.8 Element removal