Brian Uy, the Sydney-based 105th President of the Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE), who delivered his inaugural address ‘Structural engineering: past, present and future’ in January, has identified his key themes for his presidential year as structural efficiency and embodied carbon; technical competency and research; and registration and supervision

Institution of Structural Engineers president  Brian Uy. Portrait credit: Richard Gleed.

In broad terms, those themes echo IStructE’s recently released 2026–2030 strategy, Building the future together, which focuses on strengthening support for structural engineers through a “people-first” approach aimed at navigating an increasingly complex, digital and climate-conscious landscape. And they also align with Uy’s commitment to reaffirm structural engineering’s role in the community and as a community itself. “It’s really about the profession – advancing the profession, supporting professionals and enhancing professionalism,” he says.

Structural efficiency and embodied carbon

It’s no secret that as a profession, structural engineering is dealing with some sizeable challenges – not least net zero targets, which mean decarbonising infrastructure has become an urgent priority. According to Uy, it’s also one in which holistic, wide-ranging thinking should be encouraged.

“With the big push to focus on reducing embodied carbon in the sector, a lot of the emphasis has been placed on materials, looking at individual materials and material substitution, for example, with concrete, cement replacement and so on. But I want to place more of a focus on structural systems. That’s where a lot of efficiencies can be gained. It’s about looking at the system itself and trying to choose efficient solutions.”

There are examples across many building methodologies, but one of the most obvious is the widespread use of flat concrete slabs, which account for about 70% of the embodied carbon in a building, he says.

“If we look at trying to design floor systems more efficiently, going back to the way that early cathedrals were constructed for example, could be very impactful. With the vaulted, arch-supported roof structures that were used in the past, the material is in its best form because it’s being compressed. However, if we look at modern flat concrete floor systems, we tend to put the concrete into tension, which means we need to add steel reinforcement. As a result, a lot of the concrete is inefficient; it’s not being utilised.”

Uy believes new approaches that reduce carbon are essential learning for the engineers of the future – as are the skills and know-how required to efficiently calculate embodied carbon.

“Rather than becoming a box-ticking exercise, it’s critical that people understand and can quantify the decisions that are made efficiently, in terms of calculating things like embodied carbon. In fact, IStructE led the development of the embodied carbon calculator – The Structural Carbon Tool – which is now regarded as an important platform across industry.”

Thinking of decarbonisation holistically is key, but Uy – a Scientia Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of New South Wales and Honorary Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Sydney – is also an international authority on materials, in particular high-performance steel and composite structures. As such, he sees his presidency as an opportunity to amplify understanding of that arena.

One recent focus has been in high strength steels, which in Uy’s words “are double the strength of the steel that was used on the Sydney Harbour Bridge” and are now encompassed by Australian and New Zealand standards. Promising advantages such as longevity and the potential for new lighter designs, low carbon is another benefit of these materials.

“If we’re trying to reflect on embodied carbon, if you can double the steel strength, you may not always halve the embodied carbon, but it does go a long way to trying to reduce the embodied carbon in infrastructure.”

He adds that he and his team have also been looking at steels that are triple the strength of standard steel – over 1000MPa [megapascals]. “The traditional strength that we use is about 300MPa.”

Stainless steel is another area of interest. “There are some iconic projects that use it – such as the 81m flagpole at Parliament House, Australia in Canberra which uses 250t of stainless steel and is considered one of the largest stainless steel structures in the world – and we’ve had a few wins in Australia and New Zealand standards. I chair a number of those, and we’ve just introduced stainless steel, and the adjustments to designs that would enable its use. So, it allows designers to have that opportunity if they’re starting to look at reducing embodied carbon and extending the design life of structures.”

“I’m also leading a project on bi-metallic steel where we’re using a very thin layer of stainless steel or titanium on the surface, and the remainder could be a traditional steel. The reason for using that steel is that the overall cost would be lower, but you also get the high-performance properties of the stainless steel or the titanium at the extremities, which are good for corrosion resistance and fire resistance.”

With the concept of design for disassembly growing in importance, Uy is also motivated to explore the potential circularity of materials.

“There’s growing awareness that you’re not just designing the structure for its as-built stage, you have to think about how the structure can be disassembled, which lends itself to the whole concept of reuse – for example of structural steel. If you deploy reused steel on a scheme, you can end up using about 1% of the embodied carbon of a standard scheme.”

With the big push to focus on reducing embodied carbon in the sector, a lot of the emphasis has been placed on materials…but I want to place more of a focus on structural systems. That’s where a lot of efficiencies can be gained. It’s about looking at the system itself and trying to choose efficient solutions

Technical competency, registration and beyond

The evolution of materials and techniques continues to add momentum to engineering’s own development as a profession and Uy’s focus during his presidency will also be to support IStructE’s continuing professional development (CPD) requirement to ensure that technical competence is maintained.

“One vehicle for that is for professionals to engage in the latest research,” he says. “We publish the Structures research journal as part of IStructE which members have free access to, so I’m trying to encourage members to take advantage of that opportunity.”

Fostering competency underscores Uy’s focus on registration for structural engineers, which he believes has a critical role to play in benchmarking best practice. To that end, Uy is also interested in driving forward the idea of a supervision model.

“The concept aligns with registration, but more specifically it aligns with our CPD aims,” he explains. “I call it the proactive part of safety.

“We already have Cross [Collaborative Reporting for Safer Structures], co-owned by the IStructE and the Institution of Civil Engineers, which has recently expanded into fire safety reporting in the UK with support from the Institution of Fire Engineers.

“That’s the reactive part – something goes wrong, we learn from it, we react and we inform the profession about it. The concept of supervision is to have engineers one-on-one talking to each other; to bounce off ideas about difficult technical issues and to seek advice to pre-empt those issues before they come up.”

As an educator and academic operating against a backdrop of emergent machine learning and AI, Uy continues to make his own contribution in support of the profession’s technical competency. He still teaches hand methods – the traditional, analytical techniques used to calculate the forces, stresses and deformations in a structure using fundamental engineering principles.

“Some of the tech giants around the world have been talking about how important it is for the next generation to look beyond disciplines like coding and so forth, which will take care of themselves in the age of AI. But without the strong fundamentals, who understands how to check the outcomes of these digital tools?

“I’m comforted by the fact that a lot of the big minds around the world think the same way, that without strong foundations, it doesn’t really matter what digital tools you’ve got. You still have to have that understanding of the science and engineering behind solving problems.”

Like what you’ve read? To receive New Civil Engineer’s daily and weekly newsletters click here.