Quick Search

632 Risky new buildings?

Report ID: 632

Published: Newsletter No 48 - October 2017

Report Overview

A reporter is becoming increasingly concerned about some of the 'exciting' structures and buildings that are being produced, with particular concern about the use of cantilevers in buildings!

Report Content

A reporter says firstly may he congratulate CROSS on the work that is done for structural safety and allied subjects. Secondly, he is becoming increasingly concerned about some of the 'exciting' structures and buildings that are being produced. He is particularly concerned about the use of cantilevers in buildings! It is obvious where a cantilever exists in a stadium or similar conspicuous and simple structure and what is balancing what, is reasonably clear. But he sees them appearing in buildings, and is not sure how well the implications of the counterbalancing ties and struts are understood. For example, there is a newish building in a major UK city that has a very pronounced cantilever at the front. This must be tied down further back in the building by one or more tension members that could be of a relatively small cross-section. What is to stop someone just cutting through it in - say 30 years’ time - without realising its importance? His spur for this note was the photo on the front of a major engineering Journal which he is sure meets all necessary structural safety criteria, but looks risky, especially against lateral loads! The SCOSS invitation to engineers to use 'reflective thinking', which he does from time to time, makes him question some modern structures/buildings; particularly over their lifetime (50years plus?) and through numerous alterations. He asks if he is worrying unnecessarily.



The reporter is right to be concerned. CROSS has had reports of cantilevers where the cantilever designer has ceased ‘his design’ at the end of the cantilever and just assumed the supporting structure to be adequate. Cantilevers are often safety critical because of their lack of redundancy. On larger structures, it is to be hoped that designers have paid adequate attention to robustness and that proper records have been retained so that future engineers can adapt or demolish safely. For many buildings it will be obvious what is the primary structure and that unconsidered removal of this would be reckless. However, in certain building types this is not the case and it may be prudent to indicate in some way critical areas of the structure. Industry guidance in this regard would be welcome. A further area of risk is where the structure is distributed e.g. timber panel and metal stud type construction where it is less obvious what is working as structure and what is just a partition. This is equally true for buildings without cantilevers. In the same way that that PT tendons on the soffit of slabs are marked to stop people drilling into them perhaps there should be industry guidance on marking of principle load paths on these types of structures?


How to Report

Online submission:
Submit by post: