This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

1 Introduction

When or before Eurocode 2 is introduced in early 2003, most engineers will need to be assured that it can be used as a practical concrete design tool, as well as producing economic results. If they are not assured of this, practices will continue to use BS 8110 in preference to adopting the new code. Necessary guidance in the form of explanatory literature, process flowcharts, spreadsheets and other software etcetera is in preparation. This brief report will attempt to summarise the principal design procedures required by EC2, compare them with their BS 8110 counterparts, and demonstrate that the transition to EC2 need not be a difficult process.

**2 Comparisons with BS 8110
**

2.1 Loading Loaded spans: Unloaded spans: Loading pattern: EC2 Worst of γG = 1.35, γQ = 1.05 and γG = 1.15, γQ = 1.5 γG = as above All + adjacent + alternate spans BS 8110

γG = 1.4, γQ = 1.6 γG = 1.0 All spans + alternate spans

For the sake of simplicity, γG = 1.35 and γQ = 1. 5 may be used for loaded spans (with γG = 1.35 on unloaded spans), although this would be very conservative. Both γG and γQ are marginally lower than in BS 8110, but for unloaded spans γG is higher, reflecting a lower probability of variation in dead loads. For a typical member with Qk = 0.5 Gk, maximum ULS loading would be 13.6% lower than for BS 8110. The use of the same value for γG throughout also reduces the effect of pattern loading, thus marginally reducing span moments. The loading code, EN 1991-1-1, stipulates values of imposed loads that vary only marginally from current UK practice (e.g. 3 kN/m2 for offices). This code stipulates weights for both construction materials and stored materials, and it should be noted that the density of normal weight reinforced concrete should be taken as 25 kN/m2. 2.2 Cover Nominal covers required for durability and bond are fairly similar to BS 8110. However, nominal cover to EC2 is in two parts, Cnom= Cmin+ ∆c, where ∆c is a design tolerance varying from 0 to 10mm, depending upon quality assurance level. This can have the effect of increasing cover to slabs when larger diameter bars are used, as Cmin ≥ bar φ and ∆c must be added. 2.3 Materials Partial factor, concrete: Partial factor, steel: EC2 BS 8110

γc = 1.5 γs = 1.15

Rod Webster

γc = 1.5 γs = 1.05

Concrete Innovation & Design Page 1

0 and λ = 0.4 Stress block – flexure Eurocode 2 εc x h d As Section As2 d2 neutral axis εsc fcd = ηαcc fck /γc λx Fsc Fc z εs Strain Stress Fst fck = characteristic concrete cylinder strength (equivalent to 80% cube strength). this difference is almost exactly neutralised by the introduction of reinforcing steel with fyk = 500 N/mm2. This strain reaches a lower bound value (0.00175 for fck ≤ 50 N/mm2) when the section is in pure compression. This difference gives advantage in terms of reinforcement areas because of the resulting increase in the lever arm. starts to reduce when the neutral axis x drops outside of the section height.5 Stress block – columns In BS 8110.9x Fsc Fc z As Section εs Strain Stress Fst BS 8110 2. the higher γs factor in EC2 would appear disadvantageous. αcc = 1. this results in concrete design strengths being 19. Rod Webster Concrete Innovation & Design Page 2 . εc the limiting concrete compressive strain.The practical use of Eurocode 2 At first inspection.0035 εsc fcd = 0. In EC2 however. an identical stress block is used for both pure flexure and bending with axial load.4% higher than in BS 8110 below.8. h. z. η = 1. d’ neutral axis x h d As’ εc = 0. However. For fck ≤ 50 N/mm2. εc = 0. As γc is the same for both codes. 2.67 fck /γc 0.0035.

which can have a varying angle θ between the compressive struts and main tension chord.00175 min General relationship When x > h 0.ct ≥ VEd nominal links Rod Webster BS 8110 vc = from Table 3.7 Beam shear A strut-and-tie model is used for shear reinforcement to EC2.00175 Pure compression EC2 strain relationship at ULS (fck ≤ 50 N/mm2) 2.The practical use of Eurocode 2 The diagram below demonstrates this procedure. the strain diagram has a “hinge point”. this gradual reduction in strain. Shear resistance: EC2 ν = 0.5 k = 1 + √(200/d) ≤ 2 ρ1 = Asl /bwd ≤ 0. As few columns are very close to being in pure compression. which falls at h/2 for normal strength concretes. otherwise both codes are very similar.0 if required for high shear forces.0035 max h/2 h d x hinge point 0.6 Redistribution EC2 Neutral axis limit: x/d ≤ δ . This process is easily automated. but is not suited to hand calculation.fcd /(cotθ + tanθ) At d from support: VRd.0.4 30% generally 10% sway frames > 4 storeys 0% in columns The EC2 x/d limit reduces for concrete with fck > 50 N/mm2. For UD loading. and hence compressive stress.12k(100ρ1fck)1/3 If VRd.max = 0. nominal links Concrete Innovation & Design Page 3 .4 Redistribution limit: 30% classes B & C 20% for class A rebar 0% in columns Limitations: Adjacent spans ratio ≤ 2 BS 8110 x/d ≤ βb . 2. has less effect than one might imagine.ct = 0.bvd If Vc ct ≥ V.8 Vmax = 0.00175 x εs 0. 0. Effectively.8√fcu ≤ 5 Vc = vc.02 At support face: VRd.7 – fck/200 ≥ 0.00175x /(x-h/2) 0. so it is best accomplished by spreadsheet.9bwd.5. but may be as low as 1.0. Cot θ is normally taken as the maximum value of 2.

This effect is catered for by applying the “shift rule” when detailing (see Section 3).15 Edges: 1. and follows a locus from the column face.25 1. 2.fcdbw /fywd Asv /sv =1.15 1. However. Rod Webster Concrete Innovation & Design Page 4 .4 Corners: 1.5ν. these approaches are somewhat different although both methods are simple enough to apply.25 When links are required.42bv /fyv Understandably.The practical use of Eurocode 2 Links: Nominal links: Asw /s = VEd /(0.5d from the column face. and a radial distribution of links is assumed. 2d 1. EC2 allows a contribution of 75% of the concrete shear resistance (unlike beam shear). An outer perimeter.4 or 1. rather than 1. The much higher enhancement factor of 1. the method as a whole seems very logical and may result in fewer links and be simpler to detail than the BS8110 method.fcd cotθ) Asw /s ≥ 0.5d Rectangular 1.9d. is based upon the link arrangement rather than the basic control perimeter.ν.5 for corner columns may prove critical in some circumstances. at which no further links are required. except that the control perimeter is at 2d. when sizing flat slabs for shear.05 bv(v-vc) /fyv Asv /sv ≥ 0. rather than being rectangular in shape. The strut-and-tie method produces an additional tension in the main steel where the compression strut meets this steel.5 BS 8110 at 1. One can see from the above formulae that when more than nominal links are required. EC2 ignores any contribution from the concrete.8 Punching shear The calculation of punching shear is basically similar to BS 8110.5d EC2 Basic control perimeter: At 2d Control perimeter shape: Rounded corners Flat slab shear enhancement factors Internal: 1.

The actual calculation of crack widths to clause 7.7L Internal span.3mm in BS 8110. However.4mm compared to 0.5 /L ≤ 1 Otherwise: 7 /L ≤ 1 310 /σs (steel service stress) These two methods are very similar. Eurocode 2 effectively allows marginally shallower members than BS 8110. Effective span.4 used in equations 7.15L either side of support.14a & b In equations In equations 1 ≥ 1 – 0.85L End span. 0. 2. EC2 recommends a maximum crack width of 0. 0. L-beam: bw+{[b1/5+Leff /10]≤Leff /5} ≤ bw+b1 bw+Leff /10 ≤ bw+b1 b1 and b2 are the actual flange outstands on either side of the web Rod Webster Concrete Innovation & Design Page 5 .3. L. the maximum bar spacings in Table 7. [b1/5+Leff /10]≤Leff /5 bw+Leff /5 ≤ bw+b1+b2 Effective bf. 0. T-beam: plus [b2/5+Leff /10]≤Leff /5 ≤ bw+b1+b2 Effective bf.2bw/bf /3 ≥ 0.10 From Table 3. effective flange widths may be calculated directly from the distances between points of contraflexure.3 are somewhat less than those now commonly used in the UK.7L Cantilever. particularly in slabs.The practical use of Eurocode 2 2. but the default values below give an indication of comparative values.11 Beam flange widths To both codes. This will tend towards the use of slightly smaller diameter bars in slabs. which can increase the degree of cracking.8 Only used if there are brittle partitions BS 8110 From Table 3.9 Span to depth ratios Basic L/d ratios: Tension steel modifier: Compression steel modifier: Flanged sections: Long span modifier: Service stress modifier: EC2 K factors from Table 7. 0. L Effective span. EC2 BS 8110 Simple supports.10 Maximum bar spacing For normal internal exposure. but in practice. 0. 2.85L Internal span.9 values 10 /L ≤ 1 Formulae included in Table 3. This is likely to be because the EC2 ratios have made no allowance for early age overloading during construction.9 From Table 3.11 Interpolated between Table 3. supports: Not applicable Others. spans: End span.4 allows more flexibility. L Simple supports.10 Flat slabs: 8.

Mt.The practical use of Eurocode 2 It should be noted that EC2 requires a portion of beam support steel to be spread across the width of flange. 2. the column design process is quite tedious to perform manually. and is simple to apply. Slightly more latitude is suggested however. A comparison between the EC2 and BS column design processes is shown in the flowcharts below. for the apportioning of moments between column strips and middle strips. Alternative design methods are given. the relevant EC2 clauses having been drafted in Britain. The simplified method given for carrying out biaxial bending checks is more logical than in BS 8110. Rod Webster Concrete Innovation & Design Page 6 . but is relatively easy to automate.13 Columns Some of the terminology in Eurocode 2 relating to column design may be slightly unfamiliar. but the “curvature” method is similar in approach to current practice. is approximately 10% lower than for BS 8110. the limit on moment transfer into edge/corner columns.max. 2. As with BS 8110. the two codes are almost identical. This is why a method is also provided for assessing the widths of tension flanges.12 Flat slabs For flat slabs. with minimum eccentricities being described under “imperfections” and buckling etcetera falling within “second order effects”.

and new rules regarding the staggering of laps.7 and 2. 4 Unfamiliar processes 4. and technicians will need to learn the necessary skills.1 General EC2detailing rules are slightly more complex than for BS 8110. It will no longer be possible to make simple assumptions.7. ac FEd HEd aH Ftd θ HEd 2 z0 d hc Typical node model for a corbel 1 Fwd σRd.8 above.2 The shift rule This is the recommended method for working out curtailment points for beam reinforcement. such as the detailing of beam support steel within flanges. which at the same time ensures the provision of sufficient steel near to supports. as there are differing anchorage rules for different types of member. Some such discontinuities are frame corners. Basically. minimum reinforcement percentages.1 Strut-and-tie models The strut-and-tie method should be used for the design of D-regions. There are also many small changes to be learned. the bending moment envelope is “shifted” a distance between 0. 3. corbels. such 35 or 40 diameters for an anchorage length. or abrupt changes in section. to accommodate the additional tensile forces generated by the strut-and-tie shear action described in 2. It is also important to note that this method is implied within the shear design process described in 2.125d and bars should have an anchorage length beyond their relevant “shifted” point of being no longer required.45d and 1.max FEd Rod Webster Concrete Innovation & Design Page 7 . which are described as “discontinuities in geometry or action”.The practical use of Eurocode 2 3 Detailing 3.

Inevitably there will be those who wish to resist any change. after an initial learning period. which are most helpful when attempting to automate the design process. variables such as partial factors for materials are shown within formulae. 5. will be unfamiliar to many designers in the UK. Eurocode 2 is a very comprehensive code and also includes rules for precast concrete. this approach. as moments generated by programs written to the ENV version of EC2 will not be correct. 5. so both engineers and technicians are likely to require guidance. In my view. The Eurocode is less empirical and more logical in its approach. it is a code giving general rules. only what are considered to be the more important and commonly used procedures have been discussed. If one wishes to go into greater detail. Rod Webster Concrete Innovation & Design Page 8 . Of prime importance will be the availability of updated finite element software. while not being particularly complex. the superiority and economic advantages of EC2 will universally recognised. rather than being “built in” as part of an obscure number. post-tensioned members etcetera.1 General The areas covered by this document are not exhaustive.3 What is needed? To smooth the transition to EC2.The practical use of Eurocode 2 Although widely used in other European countries. as one would be expected to look for these in separate design guides or standard textbooks. For example. but I am sure that. there are appendices to the code that give derivation formulae for items such as creep coefficients and shrinkage strains.2 Code philosophy The general philosophy of EC2 is quite different from that found in BS 8110. • • • • • • General design guides Worked examples A “Concise EC2” A full set of design spreadsheets Comparative and calibration studies An EC2 version of “Economic Frame Elements” Hopefully. preferably to be available before the predicted formal release of the new code in early 2003. There are no simplified tables of moment or shear factors for example. but the focus here has been on everyday insitu reinforced concrete design. EC2 has great potential of being accepted as a very good replacement for BS 8110. 5 EC2 overview 5. specialist software houses can also be encouraged to update their programs in due time. EC2 makes no attempt to be a design “guide”. the following tools will be required.

Rod Webster Concrete Innovation & Design Page 9 . Shear and column design do not appear to have been trimmed in the same way. More generous span-to-depth ratios can lead to shallower members. The difference in pattern loading may marginally increase support moments but reduce span moments.The practical use of Eurocode 2 5. and here there is advantage. ULS loading can be 10% to 15% less. Rebar design stresses are almost identical. The economic advantages of EC2 for flexural design are far greater than can be assessed by looking at the partial factors for loading and materials alone. EC2 gives a concrete stress 19. • • • • • For similar characteristic loading.4 “Factors of safety” There has been recent discussion regarding comparative “factors of safety” between BS 8110 and EC2 (also CP49!). Slabs are by far the most economically critical elements. which shows a massive misunderstanding of the basic principles of limit state design. Partial factors for materials and loading are not safety factors. • • • A true factor of safety can only be determined by comparing design loading with that at collapse. These economies would seem very significant. which in turn increases the lever arm z. For the same concrete mix. in spite of the differing γ factor. but this must reflect our increasing understanding of concrete design.4% higher than BS 8110. Any basic understanding of statistics proves that to simply multiply together sets of factors or probabilities is completely meaningless. they only reflect degrees of confidence.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulPractice Use EC2

Practice Use EC2

- Konstantinidis Ghid Armare
- EC2 23rd April 2010
- How Slabs June05
- πλάκες με τον EC2
- Slabs_EC2
- CivilFEM Theory Manual
- Microsoft Word - 9 a Comparative Study of Bs8110 and Eurocode 2 Standards for Design of a Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beam
- Shear Wall
- 17459_SPA_Winter2008
- Eurocode Advice
- Publications from the concrete centre
- How 2 Deflections
- How2 Deflection Calculations v05.07
- How to Disproportionate Collapse
- Specifying Durability by Performance Concrete December 2014
- Eurocode-4-1-1-1994-EN
- 13_1047
- Doubly Reinforced Beam Design _ Ilmusipil
- EN1992_1_Walraven
- 199ies Q
- Wg 4 n773 Pren 13369 2012 Draft for Meeting Feb 2012 Clean
- Approvedl Syllabus III-IV
- Section Design v1.2
- Table 1
- 01-1024.PDF
- 20140718124333PM_Lecturer in Civil Enginnering, Govt. Polytechnic, Gr-B Screening Test-2014
- The Micro Truss Model
- 103
- Fundamentals of Post-Tensioned Concrete Design for Buildings
- AEFAC-TN06-Concrete_Cracked Non Cracked Concrete in Anchor Selection
- PracUse_EC2