Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EC2 and BS8110 Compared
EC2 and BS8110 Compared
\
|
=
2
'
max
2
max
x
d
d
x
K
c
cc
( ) d K K
d
z
cc
c
95 . 0 ' , min 2 1 1
2
(
+ =
( ) 0 '
2
2
= K K f bd M
ck
( )
2
2
2
d d f
M
As
sc
=
yd
sc
yd
f
f
As
z f
M M
As
2
2
+
=
In these equations x
max
is the maximum neutral axis depth permissible before
compression steel is to be provided. This in turn depends on the amount of
redistribution assumed. The effect of redistribution is dependent on the
concrete strength with one set of values up to and including C50 and a
differing set of values for higher concrete strengths. The values are subject to
a National Annex, and the UK recommended values for strengths up to C50
lead to the following equation:
x
max
= ( - 0.4)d
where for example =1.0 means no redistribution and = 0.8 means 20%
redistribution. This is basically the same equation as in BS8110. It may also
be considered advisable to set some upper limit on x
max
regardless of the
amount of negative redistribution (i.e. redistributed M being greater than
elastic M).
The effect of redistribution is also dependent on the ultimate compressive
strain of the concrete, which for strengths above C50 reduces from 0.0035.
M
2
is the additional moment to be carried by the compression steel.
f
sc
is the design stress in the compression steel, which for concrete strength
grades up to C50 may be calculated from:
f
sc
= 700((x-d
2
)/x) f
yd
Parametric studies have been carried out looking at the impact of the different
stress block on the design of rectangular beams using linear elastic analysis
with limited redistribution. In these studies
cc
was taken as 1.0 and the
redistribution formula was taken as x
max
= ( - 0.4)d with x
max
limited to 0.6d.
The conclusion from this study was that there was very little practical
difference between EC2 and BS 8110. This conclusion can also be
reasonably extended to solid slabs designed using linear elastic analysis with
limited redistribution.
Span/depth ratios
In both BS8110 and EC2 the allowable span/depth ratio depends on concrete
strength and tension and compression reinforcement ratios. The attached
flowcharts show how the permissible span/depth ratio is arrived at in each
case.
A detailed parametric study on span/depth ratios has been carried out
comparing the provisions of the two codes in relation to the minimum
permitted depth of rectangular beams for a given span. The influence of
increasing the allowable tension steel was considered by allowing a maximum
increase of 100% (i.e. double) that required for the ultimate limit state,
although there is no upper limit stated in EC2. 20% redistribution was
assumed for all continuous spans.
The study showed that EC2 tended to be more conservative at low concrete
strengths. However EC2 permits much higher span/depth ratios for cantilevers
where a low reinforcement percentage is used, even restricting the maximum
enhancement in steel area. In practice however, economic rather than
minimum permissible depths will generally be used, and these are very similar
in both codes.
Shear
When checking normal shear, EC2 is the same as BS8110 in that there is a
shear stress below which only minimum shear reinforcement need be
provided. In EC2 as in BS8110 this shear stress depends on concrete
strength, effective depth and tension steel ratio.
The recommended design shear stress of the concrete alone for comparison
with the values of v
c
given in Table 3.8 of BS8110 is:
( )
ck ck l
c
c Rd
f k f k v
2
3
3
1
,
035 . 0 100
18 . 0
=
Where k = 1 + (200/d) 2
l
= A
s
/(bd) 0.02
The value 0.18/
c
and the expression for the minimum concrete shear stress
are subject to the National Annex.
Choosing a value of 0.12 for 0.18/
c
in the above equation, and the expression
for concrete shear stress as given above, BS8110 generally allows a higher
shear stress before shear steel is required. Because of the minimum shear
stress that can be carried, EC2 can however allow higher shear stresses for
low reinforcement percentages and this effect is accentuated the higher the
strength of the concrete.
EC2 differs from BS8110 in that above the limit at which the concrete alone
has sufficient capacity, the designed shear steel to be provided is determined
ignoring the contribution from the concrete. The design method used is known
as the variable strut inclination method and is based on a truss model.
For members not subjected to axial forces the required area of shear steel
needing to be provided in the form of links at a distance d from the support
face is given by:
A
sw
/s = V
Ed
/(0.9d f
ywd
cot)
This compares with the BS8110 equation:
A
sv
/s
v
= b
v
(v-v
c
) /f
yvd
The designer should choose an appropriate angle (the angle between the
assumed concrete compression strut and the main tension chord) to use in
the model. The limits on are between 22 and 45 degrees such that cot is
greater than or equal to1 but less than or equal to 2.5.
The maximum shear capacity depends on . The lowest possible value of
(maximum cot ) should therefore be chosen within the limits above.
As with BS8110 there is also an upper shear stress which cannot be
exceeded. In BS8110 this limit is 0.8f
cu
5 N/mm
2
. In EC2 this corresponds
to taking = 45 degrees, which gives a recommended upper limit to the shear
stress for non-prestressed members of:
0.45 f
cd
where = 0.6(1-f
ck
/250)
f
cd
=
cc
f
ck
/
c
If the design stress of the shear reinforcement is below 80% of the
characteristic yield stress f
yk
, may be taken as:
= 0.6 up to C60
= 0.9 - f
ck
/200 > 0.5 for grades above C60
The two codes have been compared choosing values of
cc
= 0.85 and
c
=1.5
and ignoring the increase allowable for if the stress in the shear steel is
restricted. EC2 will allow a smaller maximum shear capacity at low strengths
but a higher capacity at higher strengths principally arising from the cut off of 5
N/mm
2
in BS8110.
The increase in the allowable shear stress becomes quite significant when
increased values of are permitted even ignoring the cut-off in BS8110 as
illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Comparison of maximum permissible shear stresses
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
f
ck
S
h
e
a
r
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
N
/
m
m
2
)
EC2
EC2 shear steel stress restricted
BS8110 (40N/mm2 limit removed)
For a given required shear capacity the amount of shear steel to be provided
when designing to EC2 is dependent on cot which should be maximised as
stated above. In practice the following inequality needs to be satisfied:
5 . 2
2
4
cot 1
2
+
=
where
Ed
cd w
V
f d b
9 . 0
tan cot = + =
Indirectly the concrete strength can therefore influence the amount of shear
steel provided if cot needs to be less than 2.5 to satisfy the criterion on
maximum shear capacity.
The two codes can in general be expected to give similar results in terms of
the number and spacing of links to be provided.
Design of compression elements at the ultimate limit state
EC2 does not give separate guidance on the approach to be used to
designing a column under a known combination of moment and axial force.
For practical purposes as with BS8110 the rectangular stress block used for
the design of beams may also be used for the design of columns. However
unlike with BS8110 the maximum compressive strain when designing to EC2
will be less than 0.0035 if the whole section is in compression and will fall to
half this value (f
ck
50N/mm2) if the section is subject to pure compression as
illustrated below. This will affect the steel strains and hence forces which the
steel can carry.
N-M interaction charts for a 300mmx300mm section with these assumptions
have been produced taking a value of
cc
= 0.85 and give close agreement
between EC2 and BS8110 as illustrated in Figure 2. The horizontal cut-off line
on the EC2 curve has little practical effect, as it will normally fall within the
zone of minimum applied moment.
Figure 2: N-M Interaction charts for C35/45 concrete
d/h = 0.82 (alpha cc = 0.85)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 2 4 6 8
M/bh
2
(N/mm
2
)
N
/
b
h
(
N
/
m
m
2
)
BS8110 4T32
EC2 4T32
.
Dealing with slenderness
The first step in deciding whether a column is slender is to determine the
effective lengths in both directions. The effective lengths are in turn dependent
on whether the column may be assumed to be braced or unbraced (non-
sway or sway in EC2 terminology).
BS8110 provides tables of values of with assessment of the end conditions
that are appropriate. can range from 0.75 to 2.2. EC2 appears more
complicated in that an assessment needs to be made of the relative
flexibilities of the rotational restraints at each end of the column. However this
process can be simplified by making conservative assumptions.
Having determined the effective lengths the slenderness ratios can then be
calculated. In BS8110 the limits on slenderness ratio l
ex
/h and l
ey
/b are 15
(braced) and 10 (unbraced).
In EC2 the allowable slenderness ratio is calculated from l
0
/i where i is the
radius of gyration of the uncracked cross section. For a rectangular section
ignoring the reinforcement this simplifies to =3.464 l
0
/h where l
0
is the
effective length. The slenderness should be checked in both directions.
Where the column is slender when designing to EC2 and using the nominal
curvature method which it is probably the most straightforward, the final
design moment is increased by the additional moment to account for second
order effects. Once this adjustment has been made the N-M interaction charts
may be used as before. The same approach is used for BS8110 except that
the second order moments will be calculated differently.
Biaxial bending
EC2 states that a separate design may initially be carried out in each principal
direction. Imperfections need be taken into account only in the direction where
they will have the most unfavourable effect.
No further check is necessary if:
y
/
x
2 and
x
/
y
2
and (e
y
/h)/(e
x
/b) 0.2 or (e
x
/b)/(e
y
/h) 0.2
e
x
and e
y
are the effective total eccentricities including second order effects.
If biaxial bending needs to be considered the following simplified criterion may
be used:
(M
Edx
/M
Rdx
)
a
+ (M
Edy
/M
Rdy
)
a
1.0
M
Edx,y
= Design moment of resistance in the respective direction including
second order effects
M
Rdx,y
= Moment of resistance in the respective direction
a = exponent dependent on geometry
When it is necessary to consider biaxial bending BS8110 states that
symmetrically reinforced rectangular sections may be designed to withstand
an increased moment about one axis. It is known that this approach can be
unsafe in extreme circumstances, so the introduction of the above equation in
EC2 should be welcomed.
Strut and Tie models
These are beyond the scope of this paper. However it is hoped to include
some guidance on this in a future paper underpinning the provisions within the
National Annex for the code.
Robustness and tying requirements
This is currently covered in the section dealing with detailing requirements.
The UK has pushed for and has had accepted National Annex provisions for
all forms of ties except vertical ties, allowing the requirements to be brought
into line with BS8110. This issue will need to be revisited in the light of the
current proposed revisions to Approved Document A of the Building
Regulations.
Flat slabs
EC2 Part 1 now has an Informative Annex dealing with flat slabs which was
noticeably absent from the ENV version. The widths of column and middle
strips are the same as in BS8110. The percentages of moments carried by
these strips are given as ranges but the BS8110 values fall within these
ranges and hence may still be used.
The other major issue when designing flat slabs is dealing with punching
shear. The code provisions in EC2 dealing with this topic have recently been
revised and it is believed worthwhile to revisit the implications of these. Initial
indications are that EC2 is marginally more economic, mainly because the link
arrangements are more efficient. Detailing of links should also be easier.
Simplified load combinations and load cases
The complete set of possible load combinations and load cases is obtained
from EN1990 Basis of Structural Design. In practice these can be simplified
greatly for the design of everyday building structures.
For practical purposes the UK National Annex is currently permitting the
simplified load combinations of all spans and alternate spans loaded as per
BS8110 to be considered sufficient in the majority of cases.
For slabs the UK National Annex is currently permitting the all spans loaded
condition to be considered sufficient subject to the restrictions as currently
imposed in BS8110.
A major difference between the two codes is the partial safety factor
appropriate to the dead load for unloaded spans.
Three load combination equations are permitted in EN1990 dubbed 6.10,
6.10a and 6.10b. Which equation is used has a bearing on the load factors
and the more complicated expressions 6.10a and 6.10b can offer some
additional potential economies to the designer.
In the simplest case using the basic equation 6.10 the values may be
summarised as below. In the table
G
is the partial load factor appropriate to
dead loads and
Q
that appropriate to imposed (live) loads.
EC2 BS 8110
Loaded spans:
G
= 1.35,
Q
= 1.5
G
= 1.4,
Q
= 1.6
Unloaded spans:
G
= 1.35
G
= 1.0
Strictly speaking the above table relates only to the design of loaded spans.
The design of unloaded spans should theoretically be considered separately
taking
G
= 1.0 on all spans, but in practice this is very rarely likely to prove
the governing load case.
Detailing issues
It is believed that spacing rules may lead to more and smaller bars, unless
crack widths are checked.
There is a requirement that beam top steel should be distributed across
flanges (both tension and compression).
Availability of design aids
A suite of practical design aids to assist practising engineers to become
familiar with and apply the code is currently in course of preparation. These
include:
1. A set of Excel based spreadsheets, to complement the existing highly
popular set of spreadsheets to BS8110 produced by the Reinforced
Concrete Council (RCC)
2. A series of How to Design Leaflets explaining the basic design concepts
for primary structural elements available on-line and to be freely
distributed.
3. A concise code summarising the key information within the code required
for everyday use and appropriate values from and references to other
supporting codes
4. Worked Examples for the Design of Concrete Buildings
A helpline facility is planned to be set up so that frequently asked questions
can be answered and a dedicated website www.eurocode2.info is now on-line
and will be expanded to provide links to available sources of information. This
will complement other activities such as the RCCs Calcrete Computer Aided
Learning package.
Concluding remarks
1. The advent of EC2 as for the other Eurocodes will have a big impact on
the design of all types of structures. There will be a learning curve
associated with gaining familiarity and using the new code.
2. To make this as painless an exercise is possible, the concrete industry in
conjunction with BRE, are producing design aids and information to assist
the profession, and can answer detailed queries, by way of answers to
frequently asked questions posted on the above website.
3. In general EC2, used in conjunction with the National Annex, is not wildly
different from BS8110 in terms of the design approach. It gives similar
answers and offers scope for more economic structures.
4. There will be an opportunity for comment on the values proposed for the
Nationally Determined Parameters to be included within the National
Annex, before it is published.
5. Overall EC2 is less prescriptive and its scope is more extensive than
BS8110 for example in permitting higher concrete strengths. In this sense
the new code will permit designs not currently permitted in the UK, and
thus give designers the opportunity to derive benefit from the considerable
advances in concrete technology over recent years. The authors believe
that, after an initial acclimatisation period, EC2 will be generally regarded
as a very good code and a step in the right direction.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the funding for this work provided by
the ODPM and the BCA. The paper is endorsed by the Concrete Industry
Eurocode 2 Group (CIEG) referred to in Reference 4.
References
1. DD ENV 1992-1-1:1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1.
General rules and rules for buildings, BSI 1992.
2. National Structural Concrete Specification for Building Construction,
Second Edition, BCA Publication 97.378, July 2000.
3. EUROCODES, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Civil
Engineering Special issue Two, November 2001, Volume 144.
4. Pal please provide final reference for your paper