You are on page 1of 6

M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

THE UK NATIONAL ANNEX TO BS EN 1993-1-10:2005 AND PD 6695-1-10:2009

Martin Ogle, Consultant to TWI, Cambridge, United Kingdom Sibdas Chakrabarti, Consultant, formerly Highways Agency, United Kingdom

The Paper gives a brief summary of the development of the UK material toughness requirements up to and including BS EN 1993-1-10 with particular reference to the Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs) in its National Annex (NA), the background to the choice of the UK parameters in BS EN 1993-1-10 and the supporting Non-Contradictory Complementary Information (NCCI) in PD 6695-1-10.

Background to Development of Material Toughness Requirements for Bridges

The brittle fractures on the Kings Bridge in Melbourne in 1962 brought the subjects of material toughness and weldability of welded steelwork into sharp focus around the world. This resulted in an amendment to BS 153, Part 1[1] in 1966 which restricted the thicknesses of tension members in terms of the very limited Charpy grades available at the time. It was also an important factor towards the publication of the first British Standard designed specifically for readily weldable structural steels, BS 4360[2] in 1968, which provided steels with improved chemistry and a wider range of Charpy properties. The BS 153 thickness range was amended to take account of these new steels. Extensive work on fracture research for welded joints which started after World War II was continued into the 1960s and 1970s. As a result of improved understanding of the factors affecting fracture risk, including CTOD properties, residual and applied stresses, flaw size, temperature, rate of straining etc, further amendments to the bridge fracture rules were made, including those in the Merrisons' Box Girder Rules[3] in the early 1970s and eventually those in the new limit state code BS 5400-3[4] in 1982. The BS 5400-3:1982 rules, which provided comprehensive thickness limits for all steel grades in terms of different service temperature, were made on the basis of type of detail, maximum applied tensile stress and the severity of gross stress concentrations. Almost identical rules were incorporated in BS 5950-1[5] for selection of Charpy requirements for buildings at about this time. During the 1980s work progressed under the direction of the European Commission on the development of Eurocode 3. This resulted in the publication of DD ENV 1993-1-1[6] which contained a section with simplified Charpy requirements. DD ENV 1993-1-1 also contained informative Annex C which introduced parameters to take account of loading rate and consequences of failure which BS 5400 did not address. There was a two year trial period

M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

during which designers around Europe were intended to apply it. The resulting thickness limits for the various steel grades and Charpy qualities showed similar trends but some significant differences in values. DD ENV 1993-1-1, however, has never been used for designs in the UK. In the 1990s a major review of the BS 5400-3 material toughness rules was carried out by TWI and UMIST for the Highways Agency, which resulted in a more comprehensive set of rules which were included in a major revision of BS 5400-3 in 2000. During this period a project team was set up by CEN/TC250/SC3 to consider all the comments of the members, (National Standards Bodies), on ENV 1993-1-1. At this point CEN/TC250/SC3 decided to remove the section of fracture requirements from Part 1-1 and publish it in a separate Part 110. The technical development of Part 1-10 was carried out with the assistance of the materials group at Aachen University. This was taking place at the same time as the TWI/UMIST redrafting work for BS 5400-3. The results of the TWI/UMIST work were made available to the Aachen group. This ensured that the fundamental principles were harmonised between the two drafts as much as possible. There were however some major areas containing differences in assumptions which were not resolved. This included the role of residual stresses, the role of geometric stress concentrations and the size of undetected notches. The latter was somewhat uncertain as far as Part 1-10 was concerned, due to the absence of the execution standard EN 1090 which was in the early stage of preparation by CEN/TC135. The new UK Charpy requirements for bridges in BS 5400-3:2000 contained thickness limits for each steel grade and Charpy sub-grade which were varied according to five levels of detail type, four levels of applied stress, the degree of gross stress concentration and the rate of loading. These were also used as the basis, with some minor simplifications, for the new Charpy requirements for buildings in BS 5950-1:2000. EN 1993-1-10 introduced NDP options into that document which were sufficient to enable the thickness limits to be modified where a country considered it to be necessary. EN 1993-1-10 contains only one set of thickness limits varying with steel grade and charpy sub-grade, reference temperature and level of tensile stress were given. Adjustments to these thickness limits could be made by means of adjustments to the reference temperature TEd which allows for the minimum service temperature to be adjusted to cater for the effects of radiation loss Tr, crack imperfection, member shape and dimensions, T, reliability differentiation TR, strain rate T and degree of cold forming T cf . This is a major difference from the presentation in BS 5400-3 where differentiation from the basic tables has always been done on the basis of a factor on the thickness limits. Adjustment using the temperature as a sliding scale can give similar results, but greater care needs to be exercised to ensure that the signs of the temperature adjustment are correct. EN 1993-1-10 gives formulations for calculating the values of T and T cf , but not for T or TR, for which recommended values have been provided as default. In order to provide a degree of flexibility in interpretation of these undefined parameters National Annex provisions have been allowed to enable the basic thickness table values to be adjusted. The

M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

recommended method of making these adjustments is given in the National Annex to BS EN 1993-1-10 which refers to PD 6695-1-10 and is discussed below. A new feature in EN 1993-1-10 was the addition of recommendations for selection of through thickness ductility requirements based on EN 10164[7]. This essentially gives protection against the risk of lamellar tearing in welded joints where weld shrinkage stresses can be generated in the through thickness direction (eg cruciform, tee and corner joints). The risk increases as the inclusion content (particularly sulphide inclusions) increases. The question was to whether some design guidance on specification of Z-quality steels should be included in BS 5400-3 has been discussed from time to time. However the view has been taken that the precautions to ensure that welded joints do not contain lamellar tears should be the responsibility of the fabricator. A survey carried out by TWI on behalf of the Highways Agency in the 1990s revealed very few reported problems of lamellar tearing at that time. One of the main reasons appeared to be that fabricators were aware that, provided steels were obtained from suppliers with modern mills and that the test certificates provided evidence of clean material, they would normally expect to get a reasonable level of Z-quality without paying a premium for the necessary ultrasonic and through thickness testing to be done at the mill. If in doubt a fabricator could always request a limit on sulphur at the time of order. The UKs concern with the guidance of Table 3.2 was that, if followed literally, the extent of specification of Z-quality testing, even at the lowest level, would be invoked on a wide scale. This could have major implications for cost, availability of components (particularly for sections) and programme for steel bridge contracts. However there is a National Annex option with regard to the specifications of Z-quality and this is addressed in the NA to BS EN 1993-1-10 and PD 6695-1-10.

National Annex Decisions and NCCI in PD 6695-1-10

The differences between the new and old design codes with respect to selection of Charpy requirements and Z-quality properties described above, have a major bearing on the decisions on the NPDs and the need for additional guidance and design data. The bases of these decisions are explained below, with reference to the NA clauses in BS EN 1993-1-10. NA.2.1.1 Safety element The safety allowance TR has been used to enable a consistent safety margin to be obtained across the full range of different applications. The basis of the selection of the values of TR has been that it should give comparable margins of safety against brittle fracture to those given in BS 5400-3:2000. This has been achieved by sub-dividing TR into five distinct safety elements, each dealing with specific parameters which can influence the overall safety margin. These have been given the following subscripts, TRD, TRg, TRT, TR and TRs which provide adjustments for detail type, gross stress concentrations, Charpy test temperature, applied stress level and strength grade respectively. The NA parameters TRD, TRg, and TR are covered in BS 5400-3 by the parameters kd, kg and k respectively (see clauses, and in BS 5400-3). The NA parameters TRT and TRs are covered in BS 5400-3 by the formulae in Clause 6.5.4.

M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

The ability to express these adjustments in terms of a temperature shift as opposed to a factor on thickness was possible by virtue of the fact that both BS 5400-3 and BS EN 1993-1-10 used the same basic formulation between fracture toughness (as measured in units of Nmm-3/2) and temperature, ie the Wallin-Sanz correlation (see BS EN 1993-1-10 2.2(5) NOTE 2). This enabled a consistent transposition of the k thickness adjustments into equivalent temperature shifts to be made. For ease of use the resulting temperature shifts have been rounded to the nearest 10oC. The values of TRD, TRs, TRT, TRg and TR are given in NA to NA2.1.1.6 respectively. It should be noted that the only thickness values in Table 2.1 which are consequently not subject to adjustments are those for steel grades S355, Ed = 0.75fy(t) and moderate welded details. For example, at a minimum service temperature of -20oC the maximum permissible thickness for grade S355J2 is 50mm according to Table 2.1 in BS EN 1993-1-10 and Table 4 in PD 6695-1-10. However for plain material and very severe welded details the maximum permitted thicknesses are 90 and 25mm respectively according to PD 6695-1-10, but unchanged from 50mm in BS EN 1993-1-10. The reason why there is adjustment according to strength grade via TRs and stress level TR is that significantly different assumptions about residual stress were made between those used for BS 5400-3 and those for BS EN 1993-1-10. In the former a value of yield stress was used (based on extensive knowledge of residual stresses in fabricated steelwork). In BS EN 1993-1-10 it is understood that a value of 100N/mm2 was assumed. If so, this would provide an explanation as to why the permissible thickness in BS 5400-3 is inversely proportional to the yield stress raised to the power of 1.4, whereas in BS EN 1993-1-10 it is raised to the power of 1.0. This also impacts on the allowable thicknesses for stress levels below 0.75fy(t). The other difference concerns the adjustment for Charpy test temperature TRT. In BS 5400-3 there has always been a cut off service temperature whereby steels are not permitted to be used beyond a certain temperature drop from the Charpy test temperature. In BS 5400-3:2000 this was a drop of 20oC. In BS EN 1993-1-10 Table 2.1 JR material is permitted to be used at 70oC below the test temperature and many other grades at drops exceeding 20oC. In developing the UK NA, it was considered that this posed an unacceptable risk for which there was very little precedence in current brittle fracture rules. The TRT adjustment is designed to mitigate against this risk. It was also considered that it would be useful for designers to have ready made look-up tables giving permitted thickness limits based on the formulations given in BS EN 1993-1-10. This would save the design industry a lot of calculation time and reduce the risk of error. PD 6695-1-10 was therefore produced for this purpose. Table 1 in PD 6695-1-10 gives the maximum thicknesses for a range of reference (note not service) temperatures and steel and Charpy grades. These contain none of the adjustments apart from TRs. Table 4 gives maximum thickness limits for bridges for a service temperature of -20oC, (which covers the majority of UK sites), in terms of different detail types and stress levels. Equivalent Tables 2 and 3 for buildings have been given, the only difference being the slightly longer ramp down cut off limit which has been the practice for buildings in BS 5950-1.

M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

NA.2.1.2 Charpy test and reference temperatures and applied stress This clause effectively confirms that the options for adjusting thickness limits to allow for differences in Charpy test and reference temperatures is covered by the safety adjustments in Section NA2.1.1. NA.2.1.3 Limitation of steel grade This clause effectively confirms that the options for adjusting thickness limits according to stress level are covered by the safety adjustments in NA2.1.1. Workmanship requirements A final point that should be borne in mind is that BS EN 1993-1-10:2005 was published three years before BS EN 1090-2:2008. There was therefore some uncertainty about the level of workmanship which could be relied upon, particularly in respect of unspecified notches remaining in the work and the risk of their growth in service. PD 6705-2[7], which is in draft and scheduled to be published this year, addresses this particular issue and provides specific guidance on selection of appropriate choices and the supply of additional information to ensure that this matter is kept under sufficient control during execution that the Charpy selection criteria in BS EN 1993-1-10 will be valid. NA.2.2 Quality class for through thickness properties This option to adopt Class 2 in BS EN 1993-1-10. Table 3.1 effectively removes the requirement to specify Z-quality in accordance with Table 3.2. The designer instead is referred to PD 6695-1-10 Clause 3, which gives practical advice on what approach to take. This takes on board the comments above that the fabricator should be primarily responsible for taking precautions against lamellar tearing. However where high risk design situations arise in welded tee, cruciform and corner joints it does recommend to the designer that Z-quality testing should be specified above certain thicknesses.

BS EN 1993-1-10 contains some similarities but also some significant differences as far as the selection of Charpy requirements for bridges are concerned, when compared to those in BS 5400. In view of the significant differences in the thickness limits between the UK NA Annex and the recommended values in EN 1993-1-10 for certain conditions, it is considered that opportunities should be taken in the future to reconcile the differences at the CEN level to ensure that structures designed to Eurocode will have a consistent level of safety across Europe. EN 1993-1-10 is one of the few documents which have shown major divergence of views between the UK and other experts in Europe despite various attempts to reach a stronger consensus. It is clear that there is a need for improved understanding of the behaviour of structures susceptible to brittle fracture. Due consideration should be given to initiate further research at the European level to aid the development of consensus, particularly given the potentially dire consequences of sudden failure due to brittle fracture. Doing so should enable the current divergence in the NDPs used across Europe to be reduced. The UK National Annex and its accompanying PD 6695-1-10 has brought design to Eurocodes in closer alignment with previous British practice, based on research carried out in the UK and abroad, than the recommended values of NDPs in EN1993-1-10.

M Ogle, S Chakrabarti

Acknowledgements are made to the members of the Working Group WG3 for their contributions to the developments of the NA and the Highways Agency for releasing the background materials to the Working Group.

[1] BS153:1958: Specification for steel girder bridges, Part 1: Materials and workmanship (including Amendment No. 5 [PD 5786] March 1966, British Standards Institution, London. BS 4360, 1968: Specification weldable structural steels, British Standards Institution, London. Inquiry into the basis of design of design and method of erection of steel box girder bridges. Report of the committee. Appendix 1. Interim Design and Workmanship rules, HMSO. BS 5400-3, 2000 (incorporating Corrigendum No.1): Steel, concrete and composite bridges: Part 3: Code of practice for design of steel bridges, British Standards Institution, London. BS 5950-1, 2000: Structural use of steelwork in building: Part 1: Code of practice for design. Rolled and welded sections, British Standards Institution, London. DD ENV 1993-1-1, 1992: Eurocode 3: Design of structures, Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings (together with United Kingdom National Application Documents), British Standards Institution, London. PD 6705-2: Structural use of steel and aluminium. Part 2. Recommendations for the execution of steel bridges to BS 1090-2, (due for publication 2010), British Standards Institution, London..