- Project plans
- Project activities
- Legislation and standards
- Industry context
Last edited 20 Jul 2020
Re-evaluating the design life of buildings
Civil structures can typically have an intended ‘design life’ of up to 120 years. But, asks Structural Engineer Rifat Bin Ahmed, what does ‘design life’ mean? What if you were to reduce a structure’s design life down to one year? What design criteria could be relaxed? And could this save money?
 What is design life?
It’s just like designing a phone case!
To explain my theory, I’d like to make a phone case analogy. If you were to design a phone case, you probably wouldn’t need it to be bullet-proof. But it is probably reasonable to design it to survive a drop from a height of 1.5m, which is the scenario the phone is likely to experience (slipping out of a hand when using the phone for example).
Likewise with buildings. Where your design lands on the spectrum depends on the engineer making sound discretionary decisions on a case-by-case basis. In a nutshell, ‘What is your structure designed to survive?'
 Functionality and serviceability
A one-year structure is likely to be a temporary work with a fundamentally different design requirement compared to a permanent work. The one-year structure is most likely to have no permanent, serviceability requirements such as aesthetics, cracks and water tightness.
Overall, the engineer needs to consider what scenarios the structure is likely to experience during its lifespan. What loadings is it required to resist? What environmental change is it likely to experience? What changes will the construction material experience over time?
Some loadings or risks only exist in the long term. For example, you may wish to design against the rise of sea levels for a marine structure. You may also choose to disregard a 100-years return earthquake period if you were to design a structure with a one-year design life, as it is unlikely to happen.
 The ‘behavioural problem’ over the long term
Some construction materials exhibit time-dependent behaviour, such as creep and drying shrinkage of concrete. The effects from such behaviours only start to become significant in the long term. Creep and drying shrinkage of concrete depends on several factors including the ambient temperature, humidity and concrete strength.
Natural materials such as soil exhibit time-dependent behaviour too, including consolidation, stress relaxation and creep. Consolidation of soil is the drainage of pore water when the ground is being squeezed. If the ground is relatively impermeable, then the ground behaviour is closer to an ‘undrained’ condition rather than ‘drained’, as there is not enough time for pore water to escape under the pressure.
Stress relaxation is the ‘internalisation’ of the deformation of soil particles, i.e. some elastic deformation turns into plastic deformation. Creep is the slow and gradual increase of deformation when subject to the same loads over the long term.
 Durability of different parts
For example, joint sealants may have a design life of 20 years. Bridge bearings may have a lifespan of 20 to 45 years. If the whole structure is designed to last for 120 years, the design may be required to eliminate the use of these or have a service plan to inspect and replace them. If the structure is designed for one year's use only, you may choose cheaper alternatives or simply ignore them if you can.
 End-of-life considerations
Since the structure is intended to be used for one year only, the designer ought to take into consideration the imminent de-commissioning of the structure. Reusable materials with an ease of dismantling such as metals, rather than concrete, are more likely to be used to achieve economies of scale.
 It’s all about the quality!
Answering questions such as these will give you an indication on the risk tolerance and influence how much ‘resilience’ is required on the structure, which all translates into structure quality at the end of the day.
 Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
Featured articles and news
Their decline and recent revival.
Results reveal lack of clarity amongst 30% of respondents.
CIAT winners announced in virtual event.
Projecting domestic and commercial environmental trends.
Pushing the boundaries of the creative process.
Report from CIOB and i3PT published.
Air rights for developing above existing properties.
New national seismic hazard maps for the UK.
Six technologies guiding O&M into the future.
Homes carved from sandstone cliffs in England.
A review of the HES pilot project.
Organisation alerts membership to findings of IHBC research.
Four outstanding professionals recognised.