C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 1

EN1992-2: PD 6687-2: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE

DESIGN OF CONCRETE BRIDGES
Chris Hendy, Atkins, Epsom, UK
Paul Jackson, Gifford, Southampton, UK
Colin George, Highways Agency, Bedford, UK
Steve Denton, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Bristol UK
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to give the background to the development of the provisions of
PD 6687-2: Recommendations for the design of concrete bridges. The document was
prepared with two primary objectives in mind:
(i) Provision of information on topics not covered by EN 1992.
(ii) Provision of guidance where it was considered further explanation of the Eurocode
provisions was desirable for their correct and consistent application.
Introduction
The objective of this paper is to give the background to the development of the provisions of
PD 6687-2: Recommendations for the design of concrete bridges. The document was
prepared with two primary objectives in mind:
(i) Provision of information on topics not covered by EN 1992.
(ii) Provision of guidance where it was considered further explanation of the Eurocode
provisions was desirable for their correct and consistent application.
The first item was the subject of debate because the principal-based approach used in the
Eurocodes together with the wide range of analysis techniques permitted combine to ensure
that it is usually possible to design all elements of a bridge utilising Eurocode methodology.
It was considered to be undesirable to require an increase in the level of complexity of
analysis over and above that used in previous practice, although the flexibility to permit such
analysis was considered to be beneficial. The material included under (i) is therefore usually
in the form of design rules that can be applied by hand methods of calculation with a similar
level of complexity as required by previous practice to BS5400.

The remainder of this paper looks at each PD entry in turn and provides explanation for the
particular requirements given where they are not self-explanatory. References to clauses in
EN 1992-2 and EN 1992-1-1 have been abbreviated below. For example, 2-2/3.1(1) is a
reference to clause 3.1(1) of EN 1992-2. It should be noted that the clause numbering in the
PD does not follow that in EN 1992-2.

C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 2


PD 6687-2:2008 Recommendations for the Design of Structures to
BS EN 1992-2:2005

Actions and Environmental Influences (cl 3.1)
BS 5400 Part 4
[1]
permitted the effects of imposed deformations (such as settlement and
thermal effects) to be ignored at ULS without a check on rotation capacity. BS 5400 Part 4
however required the calculated bending resistance of over-reinforced sections to be reduced
by 15% to guard against failure where there might be inadequate rotation capacity to shed
these effects. Eurocode 2 differs and requires an explicit check of rotation capacity in all
situations, but there is no similar reduction in bending resistance required for over-reinforced
sections. In reality, rotation capacity is required even without designed moment redistribution
to allow for the differences between calculated moment distribution and real moment
distribution arising from differences in modelled and real stiffnesses. To allow for this, a
simple rule has been postulated in the PD that recommends only half the plastic rotation
capacity from 2-1-1/5.6.3(4) should be utilised in checking whether imposed deformations
can safely be ignored; the remainder allows for unintended differences between calculated
and real moments.

Partial Factors for Materials (cl 3.2)
Annex A of BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 permits the reduction of the partial material factors in the
design of a structure where the tighter limits on tolerances it identifies are met. These
tolerances are likely to be tighter than are readily achievable on most construction sites. For
new design, the PD highlights that this reduction should only be performed when agreed with
the National Authority and when the requirements are clearly identified in the Execution
Specification and a quality control system is in place which can guarantee compliance with
the stricter limits.

Design Compressive and Tensile Strengths (4.2)
o
cc
is a nationally determined parameter which is recommended to be 0.85 for bridges but this
value was based on calibration against bending and axial force tests only. For shear, it is
found that better calibration is achieved with a value of 1.0. However there are a plethora of
other situations where it is not clear whether the behaviour is closest to bending or shear, such
as in the strut and tie rules. As a result, the NA lists out its value in all situations to try to give
the greatest consistency between rules. The PD explains this with examples.

Confined Concrete (cl 4.3)
The rules given in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 clause 3.1.9(2) allow enhancement of the
characteristic compressive strength and ultimate strain limits when triaxial compressive
stresses are present due to confinement of the compression area. Such confinement can be
provided by link reinforcement or prestressing but no guidance on suitable detailing is given
in BS EN 1992-2. It was not intended that this rule be invoked for general calculations on
C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 3

bending and axial force when only the basic detailing rules of EN 1992 have been observed;
this clarification was the basis for the PD clause. It was primarily intended for use with
concentrated local forces, and loosely forms the basis of the increased resistance in partially
loaded areas, where the confinement is provided by the tensile strength of the surrounding
concrete. If benefit of confinement by links is to be taken, reference should be made to tests
demonstrating that the link geometry proposed can generate the assumed constraint without
premature failure of the concrete occurring.

Second Order Effects (6.1)
Unlike in internally post-tensioned bridges, it is possible for externally post-tensioned bridges
to buckle between cable deviators under the action of the compressive load. Strictly, the
slenderness calculation given in BS EN 1991-1-1:2004 expression (5.13N) should be used to
check limiting slenderness (where lim = 20 A B C/n). This is however an inconvenient
process to follow because realistic values of A, B and C are only known after the first
iteration of design and their proposed simplified values are often very conservative leading to
potentially severe restrictions on maximum deviator spacing. The PD therefore provides a
simplification based on previous UK practice found in BD 58/94
[2]
clause 6.8.8. The BD58
approach uses a slenderness (deviator spacing/section depth) of 12 which is consistent with
the slenderness requirements in BS5400-4:1990 for stocky columns. Using a limit of 10 for
design to the Eurocodes is therefore slightly more conservative than previous UK practice. Of
course, a more accurate value can always be calculated from 2-1-1/(5.13N).

Geometrical Imperfections (6.2)

EN 1992-1-1:2004 and EN 1992-2:2005 provide information on the magnitudes of
imperfections but give little guidance on how to apply the imperfections to minimise overall
resistance. The PD clause is addressing three main points:
- Generally the disposition of imperfections should be based on the critical mode shapes
of buckling (which will typically be taken as the elastic modes)
- It may be necessary to consider several modes to determine the worst effect in a
particular element or structure; different elements may have different critical modes
- The modes of buckling considered can usually be idealised by a series of angular
deviations. For example, for the pin-ended strut in Figure 1, the sinusoidal buckling
mode shape can be approximated as a kink over the half wavelength of buckling,
based on two angular deviations,
l
u . This approach is also the basis of the additional
guidance given in EN 1992-2 for arched bridges where a deviation 2 / l a
l
u = has to
be attributed to the lowest symmetric modes as discussed below. (There is an error in
Figure 1 of the PD; e should be u
l
l/2.)
-




e
i

N
l
u
l
u
L/2
L/2

C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 4










Figure 1. Imperfection for pin-ended strut modelled as an angular deviation

Linear Elastic Analysis With Limited Redistribution (cl 6.4)
Moment redistribution calculation is permitted, indeed effectively encouraged, by Eurocode 2
since ULS rather than SLS will generally govern for flexural design, and the amount of
redistribution permitted is closely linked to the rotation capacity of the section in bending.
However, shear forces are also altered (albeit usually quite modestly) by moment
redistribution and the ability for such redistribution of shear is not explicitly checked in
Eurcode 2. As a result, and particularly as shear failure can be brittle, the PD recommends
shear to be checked before and after moment redistribution has been taken into account. Such
an approach is consistent with past UK practice.

Plastic Analysis (cl 6.5)
EN 1992-2 allows the use of plastic analysis when permitted by National Authorities (see 2-
2/5.6.1(101)). The meaning of National Authority in a UK context is explained in the
National Annex to EN1992-2 and in clause 2.1 of the PD. As noted in the PD, permission to
undertake plastic analysis will generally be established through the processes of Technical
Approval used by clients in UK.

Plastic methods of analysis implicitly assume that structures have sufficiently ductility or
deformation capacity for a complete collapse mechanism to form before any loss of section
resistance occurs in the structure. 2-2/5.6.1(2) effectively expresses this requirement.

Very often, and generally for reinforced concrete structures which are not heavily reinforced
or have low-ductility reinforcement, structures will have adequate ductility for plastic
methods of analysis to be entirely reasonable. In fact, the lower-bound theorem of plasticity
theory underpins other analysis approaches and simplifications explicitly allowed by
Eurocode 2. However, whilst EN1992-2 provides provisions that enable the rotation capacity
of elements to be determined, as explained in the PD, establishing analytically the demand on
ductility for plastic methods to be used is not always straightforward. This is particularly true
when upper-bound methods, such as yield-line analysis are used.

C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 5

The PD goes on to explain some cases where limited rotation capacity might be a concern,
such as non-solid slabs and in cases of torsional plastic hinges. The PD also references
extensive research by Denton to examine ductility requirements for plastic analysis.

In BS5400-4 the value of
f3
is increased from 1.1 to 1.15 when plastic methods of analysis
are used. No equivalent factor is included in EN 1992.

Rotation Capacity (cl 6.6)
The PD provides a brief explanation of the background to the rotation capacity provision of 2-
2/5.6.3. It was considered important to highlight two related issues that are not dealt with
explicitly in EN1992.

The first is that there is evidence that rotation capacity exhibits a size effect. This possibility
is dealt with cautiously in BS5400-4 with a limit on sections depth for which moment
redistribution is permitted. No such restriction is provided in the Eurocode, but the PD
highlights that it will be advisable to consider rotation capacity requirements carefully for
members deeper than the BS5400-4 limit of 1.2m.

The second issue is that the rotation capacity of non-solid sections can be rather less than a
solid section of similar size and quantity of reinforcement. This is because an isolated region
of concrete in compression tends to crush at a lower compressive strain than the compression
zone of a solid section in bending (see also comments on clause 7.1.1 below). Again,
BS5400-4 previously dealt with this issue in quite a cautious manner, and the PD explains
that, in the absence of more detailed considerations, such a conservative method could still
safely be used.

Although the PD highlights cases of potential concern, it was felt important that the PD
should not cause undue concern and lead designers to unnecessarily complex analyses.
Concrete structures do typically exhibit good ductility and deformation capacity. The PD
therefore explains that it will generally be reasonable to assume that the rotation capacity of
large or non-solid sections will be sufficient for thermal effects, settlements, and creep and
shrinkage to be neglected at the ultimate limit state provided moment redistribution is not
used in the analysis.

Analysis of Second Order Effects With Axial Load (cl 6.7)
The effective length provisions given in figure 5.7 of EN 1992-1-1 are somewhat limited in
their application to real typical bridge cases. In addition, those cases relating to non-rigid end-
conditions require the actual rigidity to be known. This information will not always be
available at the time when the compression elements are first being sized. As a result, the
effective length provisions from BS5400-4:1990 were imported in this section. They cover
real practical boundary conditions and make realistic (and stated) assumptions for end
restraint stiffnesses.

C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 6


Strain Distributions (cl 7.1.1)
A reduced strain limit has to be used either when a section is wholly in compression or when
there is a wide flange forming part of a cross section wholly in compression. The need for
this in Eurocode 2 stems from the idealisation in Figure 2. The reduction in limiting strain for
pure compression arises because the real concrete behaviour is such that the peak stress is
reached at a strain approximating to
2 c
c (or
3 c
c ) and then drops off before the final failure
strain is obtained. For pure flexure however, the resistance continues to increase beyond the
attainment of this strain because the total force in the compression zone continues to increase.
For intermediate cases of strain diagram, the limiting strain needs to be obtained by
interpolation between these limiting cases.

The PD considered two aspects of this needed explanation. Firstly, the application of the
variable strain limit diagram itself was considered to need some clarification and a figure was
provided to do this. Secondly, the definition of a wide flange was considered to need
clarification to prevent the rule being applied to every small outstand of a cross section which
might be wholly in compression. In essence, the variable strain limit should be applied to
outstands which make a significant contribution to the overall compressive force. Since trial
calculations show that application of this reduced strain limit gives relatively little reduction
in bending resistance, a limit of attached flange width of 3 times the flange depth has been
provided as a pragmatic limit below which flanges are not wide, which ensures it should not
be necessary to consider the reduction for the majority of standard precast beam and slab
designs.


o
c

c
c
c
c2
c
cu2

f
cd

0
Figure 2. Idealised parabolic-rectangular concrete stress-strain curve and
real variation
idealised
real
C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 7

External Prestressing Strain Between Fixed Points (cl 7.1.2)
This PD clause highlights the differences in requirements between BS EN 1992-2:2005 and
BS EN 1991-1-1:2004 for external post-tensioning cables; specifically that deviators cannot
be assumed to act as fixed points for the cables. The significance of this only really
materialises if non-linear analysis is undertaken of an externally post-tensioned bridge to
determine its bending resistance. This is because the strain increase in the tendons is
dependent on the overall deformation of the bridge between points at which the cable is fixed
to it. Shorter distances between fixed points will increase the strain increase of the cable in
the tension zones such that as the distance between fixed points tends to zero, the behaviour of
the bridge tends towards that for fully bonded prestress. In general, the only points that can
be considered as fixed points are the cable end anchorage points.

Robustness of Prestressed Elements (cl 7.1.3)
EN 1992-2 requires that prestressed beams should not fail in a brittle manner due to corrosion
or failure of individual tendons. It is desirable for a beam to first exhibit cracking as a
warning that there is corrosion occurring. A potential problem arises where tendons are
corroding but the concrete remains uncracked. No sign of distress may be apparent if the
concrete compensates for the loss of prestress through acting in tension. However, if the
concrete suddenly cracks, this tensile strength is permanently lost and the structure may fail
suddenly if there is insufficient bending reserve in the remaining tendons and reinforcement.

Brittle fracture can be avoided by ensuring that there is sufficient longitudinal reinforcement
provided to compensate for the loss of resistance when the tensile strength of the concrete is
lost. This can be achieved by providing a minimum area of reinforcement according to
2-2/(6.101a). This reinforcement is not additional to requirements for other effects and may
be used in ultimate bending checks. The disadvantage of this method is that it will always
produce a requirement for some reinforcement, even if it ends up being less than that required
for other effects. The alternative calculation method (a) (given within the same clause) will
usually not give a requirement for any additional reinforcement unless the cross section is
unusually lightly prestressed.

Evaluation of Chord Forces for Shear (cl 7.2.1)
Clause 6.2.1 in EN 1992-1-1:2004 allows the designer to take account of the vertical
components of the inclined tension and compression chord forces in the shear design of a
member with shear reinforcement. These components, V
ccd
and V
td
, are added to the shear
resistance based on the links. They should, in theory, be determined from the actual chord
forces obtained from the truss model and not the value of z M
Ed
from beam theory since the
latter would overestimate V
ccd
and underestimate V
td
, potentially leading to unsafe design in
some situations.

Shear Design for Segmental Construction (cl 7.2.4.5)
When joints can open in tension in segmental construction, the PD recommends that h
red

(Figure 3) be taken as the depth of concrete in compression under the actual applied ultimate
C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 8


loading. This is highlighting the need for considering only co-existent bending and shear
effects. If a non co-existent set of effects is considered (ie maximum bending moment with
maximum shear force), the depth h
red
can be significantly smaller than the true depth for co-
existing effects and a very conservative design may result.











Figure 3. Joint opening in precast segmental construction

Shear Between Web and Flange (cl 7.2.5)
Previous practice for shear flow calculation in BS5400 Part 4 was to use beam theory based
on uncracked elastic cross sections. In EN 1992-1-1:2004, the intention is that, for
compatibility with the web shear design and the design of additional longitudinal
reinforcement for shear, the flange forces and hence shear flow should be determined
considering the same truss model. This is a more logical approach and may give rise to larger
flange shear flows than from elastic calculation as the latter often implies more of the
compression force is in the web and hence that there is less in the flange. The PD therefore
provides both confirmation of the need to calculate flange forces from the truss model and
clarification of how the flange shear flow can be obtained. More detail on this calculation and
the location of the resulting reinforcement is given in reference 3.

Shear at the Interface Between Concrete Cast at Different Times (cl
7.2.6)
For interface shear, a stepped distribution of transverse reinforcement is allowed by BS EN
1992-1-1:2004 but no guidance on the maximum size of these steps is given. The PD
recommends that the total resistance within any band of reinforcement should be not less than
the total longitudinal shear in the same length and the longitudinal shear stress evaluated at
any point should not exceed the resistance evaluated locally by more than 10%. The 10% is
the same as that allowed for the provision of shear connectors in EN 1994.

Distribution of Shear Reinforcement for Punching Shear (cl 7.3.2)
Expression 6.52 in EN 1991-1-1:2004 assumes a constant area of shear reinforcement on each
perimeter moving away from the loaded area. In bridges, reinforcement is not usually placed
h
red

h
red
cot

Flexural stress
C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 9

like this, but rather on an orthogonal rectangular grid, coinciding with horizontal
reinforcement arrangements. Therefore, the area of reinforcement usually increases on
successive perimeters away from the loaded area. The PD therefore proposes an alternative
approach which allows successive control perimeters to be checked if necessary. In general,
shear failure is deemed to occur over a radial distance of 2d. Consequently, to enhance
resistance, shear reinforcement of area
sw
A should be placed within an area enclosed
between the control perimeter chosen and one 2d inside it. To correspond to the 1.5d in 2-1-
1/(6.52), it is desirable to consider only the reinforcement within a radial band of 1.5d. To
comply with the need to consider only reinforcement further than 0.3d from the loaded
perimeter as in 2-1-1/Figure 9.10, only reinforcement further than 0.3d from the inner
perimeter should be considered. Consequently, only reinforcement further than 0.2d inside
the control perimeter should be included. These two limits are consistent with the fact that
reinforcement at each end of a failure plane is unlikely to be fully effective. This
reinforcement zone is shown in Figure 4 of the PD.

If the above method is followed, successive perimeters, u
i
, between the basic control
perimeter at 2d and the perimeter u
out
are checked to ensure that the reinforcement in each 2d
zone above satisfies:
( )
o sin
75 0
ef , ywd
i c , Rd Ed
sw
f
d u v . v
A

=

It will be noted that if the above is applied to the control perimeter at 2d, the same total
reinforcement requirement as in 2-1-1/(6.52) is produced. If it is applied at the perimeter u
out
,
some reinforcement requirement will still be predicted because of the 0.75 factor on v
Rd,c
in
the expression. This is unfortunate, but as long as reinforcement is detailed so that it is
stopped no further than 1.5d inside the perimeter u
out
as required by 2-1-1/6.4.5(4), some
reinforcement will be available for this check.

Fatigue in Reinforcement (cl 7.6)
At ENV stage, fatigue was only covered in the bridge part of EC2. However, it was decided
that, because fatigue is an issue in other types of structures, coverage should be moved to EN
1992-1-1. One consequence of this was that the service stress range below which fatigue does
not have to be checked had to be based on a true non-propagating stress range which is
independent of load type. It is possible to derive less conservative rules for specific load types
where the number of cycles is limited. The PD introduces rules for highway bridges based
on the same work as those used to derive figures in BD 24. However, it was decided
considering only the worst span case made them unduly conservative so variation with span is
incorporated.

The rules only cover straight bars. However, it seems reasonable to assume the allowable
stress range in bent bars reduces proportionately to the stress range given in Table 6.3N of EN
1992-1-1. They also make a distinction according to bar size. This reflects fatigue
requirements in BS 4449 and the higher stresses for smaller bars are only allowed for bars
complying with BS 4449. This does, however, introduce an anomaly since the full
calculations to EN 1992 do not acknowledge an effect of bar size and appear to be
conservative for smaller bars to BS 4449.
C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 10



Checks for specific cases show the rules can be quite conservative compared with the full
calculations. Nevertheless the rules are useful as they reduce the number of times full
calculations will be required.

Shell Elements (cl 7.7)
It is noted that Annex LL would apply to the design of slabs subjected principally to
transverse loading. In previous UK practice, such cases would have been designed using the
Wood-Armer equations
[4]
or the more general capacity field equations
[5]
. The combined
used of 2-2/Annex F, 2-2/6.109 and 2-2/Annex LL to design slab reinforcement does not
necessarily lead to conflict with these approaches. The reinforcement produced is usually the
same, other than minor differences due to assumptions for lever arms. However, 2-2/6.109
sometimes limits the use of solutions from the Wood-Armer equations or the more general
capacity field equations through its limitation of
el
u u = 15. It also requires an additional
check of the plastic compression field, which references 4 and 5 do not require. Despite
neglect of these requirements, the Wood-Armer equations have been used without difficulty
in the past and the PD reflects this experience by permitting their use together with capacity
field equations.


Laps (cl 9.1)
There are a number of areas where following the requirements of Eurocode 2 are either
impractical or impossible. Transverse reinforcement cannot always be provided at laps in an
outer layer for example. The guidance provided in the PD addresses these.

Anchorage Zones of Post-tensioned Members (cl 9.3)
The recommendations given under clause 9.3 have been added since, unlike BS 5400 Part 4,
EN 1992 gives few specific requirements for the design of post-tensioned anchorage zones.
This is again a function of covering behaviour rather than elements and thus the design must
be carried out using the strut and tie rules and rules for partially loaded areas. The reference
to the use of CIRIA Guide 1
[6]
for calculation of reinforcement requirements is legitimate and
non-contradictory; although it does not obviously utilise strut and tie analysis, the methods it
proposes are based on strut and tie idealisations and the resulting lever arms between tension
and compression zones.

Compression Reinforcement of Beams and Columns (cl 10.2)
The rules of EN 1992 were not considered to be completely clear with respect to the detailing
of confinement to compression bars designed to contribute to the resistance of the section.
The recommendations given in the PD amalgamate the requirements of Eurocode 2 and those
in BS 5400 Part 4, which are compatible and more precise.

C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 11

Pile Caps (cl 10.4)
BS EN 1992-2:2005 does not provide specific guidance for checking shear in pile caps. BS
5400 Part 4 and BS 8110 did. In particular, they provided guidance on the width over which
short shear span enhancement could be considered when checking flexural shear across the
pile cap (d in Figure 4). This guidance was markedly different; BS 8110 allowing it to be
considered over full width provided pile spacing did not exceed 3 diameters and BS 5400 only
allowing it to be considered over pile width. This could lead to very large differences
between the two codes but there was a lack of test data to resolve this. If you apply the BS
8110 rule to the tests from the paper on which the BS 5400 rules were based
7
, punching shear
around the loaded column becomes critical and it is therefore not possible to tell if the BS
8110 approach is safe. Recent work
[8],[9]
has addressed this issue and enabled the PD to
incorporate guidance which is much closer to that in BS 8110. This work also confirmed that
it was not necessary to consider the diagonal plane for corner piles as found in BS5400 Part
4. Figure 4 shows this as plane (c). The provisions should result in significant economy
compared with past UK practice.














Figure 4. planes to consider for pile cap shear design

Requirements for Voided Slabs (cl 10.5)
Voided slabs are not explicitly covered by EN 1992-2, which is a function of the philosophy
of providing rules covering behaviour and not element type. There are sufficient rules in the
Eurocodes to cover the design of a voided slab but there was concern that the distortional
behaviour of such a slab might not be considered properly by designers due to a lack of
direction. As a result, the PD provides additional guidance setting out the recommended
analysis to use and the verifications to be performed. The material is mainly imported from
BS5400 Part 4. Further guidance on this is provided by work carried out recently by
Walker
[10]
.

(a) 2d perimeter
(c) Flexural shear plane
for corner pile
(b) Reduced
perimeter
(d) Flexural shear plane
across cap
C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 12


Additional Rules for External Prestressing (cl 12)
Requirements for replaceability and robustness of external prestressing are not provided in
EN 1992-2; the requirements in 2-2/6.1(109) for guarding against brittle fracture need not be
applied where tendons are inspectable. In the UK, a more cautious approach has been
traditionally adopted to allow for loss of pretress in externally prestressed bridges due to
either undetected corrosion or accidental damage. The requirement of BD58/94 to ensure that
the bridge can carry dead load with the lesser of two tendons or 25% of the tendons at any
section removed has therefore been imported into the PD. In addition, identification of the
need to consider the possibility of cable vibration caused by matching natural frequencies of
deck and tendons has been introduced.
References

[1] BS 5400-4:1990, Steel, concrete and composite bridges Part 4: Code of practice for the
design of concrete bridges. (1990) British Standards Institution, London.
[2] BD 58/94 (1994) The Design of Concrete Highway Bridge and Structures with External
and Unbonded Prestressing, Highways Agency, UK
[3] Hendy C.R. and Smith D.A (2007), Designers Guide to EN1992-2, Eurocode 2: Design
of concrete structures. Part 2: Concrete bridges. London, Thomas Telford. ISBN:
0727731599
[4] Wood, R.H. The reinforcement of slabs in accordance with a pre-determined field of
moments. Concrete. 1968, 2, 6976.
[5] Denton, S.R., and Burgoyne C.J. The assessment of reinforced concrete slabs. The
Structural Engineer. 1996, 74 (9), 147152.
[6] CIRIA Guide 1, A guide to the design of anchor blocks for post-tensioned prestressed
concrete members. London: CIRIA, 1976.
[7]Clarke, J. L, Behaviour and Design of Pile Caps with Four Piles, Cement and Concrete
Association, 1973 Report 42.489.
[8] Cao, J. (2009). The shear behaviour of the reinforced concrete four-pile caps, PhD Thesis,
University of Southampton, UK.
[9[ Cao, J. and Bloodworth, A.G. (2010), Shear behaviour of reinforced concrete pile caps
under full-width wall loading Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures and
Buildings (to be published).
[10] Walker, G.M. Strength assessment of reinforced concrete voided slab bridges. PhD
thesis, Cambridge University, 2006.