EUROCODE 2: BACKGROUND & APPLICATIONS

DESIGN OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Worked examples

Authors:
F.Biasioli, G.Mancini, M.Just, M.Curbach, J.Walraven,
S.Gmainer, J.Arrieta, R.Frank, C.Morin, F.Robert

Editors:
F.Biasioli, M.Poljanšek, B.Nikolova, S.Dimova, A.Pinto

2014

Report
ReportEUR
EURxxxxx
26566EN
EN

European Commission
Joint Research Centre
Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen

Contact information
Address: Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, TP 480, 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
E-mail: eurocodes@jrc.ec.europa.eu
Tel.: +39 0332 78 9989
Fax: +39 0332 78 9049

http://ipsc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Legal Notice
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission
is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu/.

JRC89037

EUR 26566 EN

ISBN 978-92-79-36548-5

ISSN 1831-9424

doi:10.2788/35386

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

© European Union, 2014

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Italy

Contents

List of authors and editors ....................................................................................................... vii

Foreword..................................................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER 1.................................................................................................................................. 1
CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Basic data ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.1. General data and preliminary overview .................................................................... 4
1.2.2. Slab geometry .......................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Actions................................................................................................................................ 9
1.3.1. Densities, self-weight, imposed loads, partial and combination factors ................... 9
1.3.2. Wind ....................................................................................................................... 10
1.3.3. Snow load .............................................................................................................. 12

1.4 Materials ........................................................................................................................... 12
1.4.1. Concrete................................................................................................................. 12
1.4.1.1 Exposure classes and concrete strength class ...................................... 12
1.4.1.2 Exposure classes, structural classes and concrete cover ..................... 13
1.4.2. Reinforcing steel .................................................................................................... 17
1.4.2.1 Steel characteristics ............................................................................... 17
1.4.2.2 Maximum bar diameters ........................................................................ 17

1.5 Conceptual design of slabs ............................................................................................ 18
1.5.1. Slab height ............................................................................................................. 18
1.5.1.1 Slenderness ........................................................................................... 18
1.5.1.2 Slab height determination ...................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 2................................................................................................................................ 23
STRUCTURAL ANALYSES

2.1 Finite element modelling of the building ....................................................................... 25

2.2 Loads, load cases and their combinations ................................................................... 26
2.2.1. Loads ..................................................................................................................... 26

i

.............2.............................. 26 2......................... 53 ii .... Load cases for wind................2 Shear wall B1..........2 Ultimate limit state design .2.................................................3............... 51 3.............3............................................................ 32 2......................... 10121 and 10131...... 2...........1....................1 Load case 51 ......3..................................4 Frame axis B – beam ........2...................... 10021 and 10031.......................... Slab on beams ...............3.... 32 2................................... 53 3...... results for ULS.............................................. Motivation ...........2.3...... 33 2..................3................. Materials..........3..2...........3 Internal forces and moments............... 36 2..........3......... results for ULS and SLS ... 33 2...........1.....6 Load cases 10001...........7 Load cases 10101...................................... results for ULS .......2..............3...... 30 2.......... 27 2...2..........5 Load cases 1326.......................................... 27 2....1 Load case 1 – dead load of the bearing structure... 32 2......................................5 Punching for flat slab ............................................................................4............. Position of calculated internal forces and moments ....................................... 33 2.......1........ 53 3.............. 1356 and 1366.................................................. 38 2. 32 2...............................................1............................. 31 2.... 26 2...................................................... 32 2.....................3 Frame axis 2 – beam.........3. 29 2.........3......................................... 42 2.......4 Frame axis B – Beam...........................3.........2...............3 Load case 201 .... Results of structural analysis ................................................results for ULS and SLS ..1 Introduction ..3..........................2....... 32 2. 28 2...........2.................2...... snow and service loads 1 and 2 ....... 10011...............3..2................... 1336...........1.......................................2.2...... results for ULS.......................2..2..........................................2....2.................2......................2........ 49 LIMIT STATE DESIGN (ULS .............3...........1 Column B2 .................................................................... 29 2.............. 32 2. 28 2..................................................................... 28 2................................3.................................................5 Punching for flat slab....1................2........3........................... Load cases for dead loads ....1............ Rules for the combination of load cases ...............................2................3....3...................1...................................1............................2 Load case 101 ..................................SLS) 3........ 33 2.....................................................................................4 Load cases 202 to 206....1 Column B2 ....3 Frame axis 2 – beam ..................2.................2. 10111.... 51 3..........................3 Load case 3 – dead load of the facade ...........2 Load case 2 – dead load of the interior................. 47 CHAPTER 3.............................................2 Shear wall B1 .....2........................1..3........................................

......................1...................1.........................2 Detailing of structural members......3 Shear capacity .............3............... 95 3................................................................................... 92 3..................4 Flat slab ..... Slab with embedded elements ......................................................................... 94 3.....4 Column B2 .........................3.................... 101 DETAILING OF THE REINFORCEMENT 4.............2...............................................................1 Loads and internal forces for the calculation of the flat slab .......... 96 3.. 105 4....... Detailing of footing B-2 ............5 Design of slabs supported by beams .......................................1.................... 95 3.....................1.......................................................... 68 3.........................1 Static model and cross section of the slab on beams .........1........1.... 84 3..1......2.............................. Anchorage length ......... 64 3......... 107 4.......2.............2................. SLS deflection ...............................................3 Serviceability limit states .................. 87 3.........1....................2......1 Crack width control – slab with embedded elements ... 70 3................general ...2....1 Detailing ....................................... 110 iii .....1..........1 Deflection control by calculation ...............general .2....column B2 ........1................................................3................................ 94 3............................3........................................3.... 103 4......................................................5 Design of shear walls ......5 Slab with embedded elements ........2.................................2 Arrangement of the reinforcement ..... Flat slab..........4 Design of beams for shear .... 57 3....3................... 91 3...............................................1 Bending reinforcement .........beam axis B ...........2....1............2..........................2 Bending reinforcement of the slab with embedded elements .........................2.3..............2.......................................................1.2............. SLS crack width .................1........................................2...........................................................2........ 98 CHAPTER 4........3...............2.2...........2.......................................................................... 68 3........... 103 4.................................. 92 3..................1.......... 107 4.. 59 3..................... 68 3.............2 Determination of the bending reinforcement ...........2....... 107 4.......... 75 3.....2............general....... 89 3....................2.....................2............... Lap length ...........................3..............................................................2............... 53 3..................................................................... 86 3...2....................2...............2 Tabulated K values and basic ratios (l/d) . 55 3.................3.................1... 3.3.....2...............3....2 Determination of the bending reinforcement in general ..................2.....................3 Punching shear ........ 92 3..............1............3 Slab on beams ..................................1...............................................1 Design of the footing .......3 Determination of the bending reinforcement for the T-beams .

................................................................2......1 Introduction .....................................................2 Design approach 2 (DA2 and DA2*) ..................................... 118 4.......2....................................2.........................................1 Introduction .....2.....5................................. 123 4...................................................................................2......2 Data concerning building..........3.........3 Actions on the foundations ...........1........................................................................................................................................... 134 5...5.......3 Design approach 3 (DA3) ................... Bearing capacity (ULS) ...................................................................... 133 5...............2..................................... 137 5..... 133 5...2..................................3. 147 6.2 Beam B1 – B2 – B3 for the case 3...............................................2...................................... Sliding (ULS) ....................................................2............................................. 121 4...............2.......................................5 Comments on settlements (SLS) ..............................................2 Column B2 ..........5............................ 131 5.....2.2..........................2.... Compensated foundation ............................ 114 4............ 129 SOME GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF BUILDING DESIGN (EN 1997) 5.....................design of foundation ....2........................ 141 5.............case 2 ..2... Calculation based on the results of Mènard pressuremeter method ........2 Geotechnical data ........4.....................................................................1 Design approach 1 (DA1) .............3......................................... 140 5.................. 124 4........... 131 5.................................3.. Detailing of columns ...........2......................1.1 Column B2 for the case 2 .... Detailing of beams ........................ 140 5................4........ 136 5..............3.... 4.......................................3. 134 5............................................ 141 CHAPTER 6..................................... 138 5................................1 Slab AB12 for case 1 .......................................4 Summary for DA1..................................1..................2............3...........4............ Structural and geotechnical actions ...............4 Column B2 .. 139 5................................................3.................................................3.......................................... 137 5.......4..................................... 147 iv ........ 138 5.......................2..........................1 Beam A2 – B2 – C2 for the case 1 . Detailing of slabs ... DA2 and DA3 (for “fundamental” combinations) ...... 125 CHAPTER 5................. 145 FIRE RESISTANCE ACCORDING TO EN 1992-1-2 6..................................................................... General: the three design approaches of Eurocode 7 ............................................................ 115 4............................... 121 4...............4................................................ Adjusted elastic method .....

...................................................5...... 157 6............................... 154 6.................................4...4..................................... Materials’ physical and thermal properties ................................................ 170 v ...........3.................................. 153 6................ 168 6...............2......................................................................... 166 6.......................................3 Concrete thermal conductivity.................2..... 155 6..........2................ 157 6..............3...1............................................4........................................4............. 168 6.........................2.......................................2 Concrete . 150 6.................... Two-way slab .....................3...................... 156 6...................4............2............................... 160 6.....................1 Thermal strain of concrete and steel...3...........................................2.....1.................. 162 6....................................2..................... Continuous beam ............................... Actions ......... Column ....................................................................3.....1 Column B2 ......... 155 6. 154 6...3.3 Reinforcing bars ... Mechanical material properties .............................3...........................................................3........ 168 6...............................................4 Summary..............3 Tabulated data ...................................2............. 156 6.....................................................4.....................................................3.......................3........ 170 6...............4.......2 Concrete specific heat ...................... 147 6................2..........3.......2..................................................................................2 Beam in axis 2 ...................................................3...........................................................3.................4............ Description of the building ............................. Scope .2...4........3 Slab on beams ...........................4..............................................................................4 Simplified calculation methods ............3................................................. 155 6.... beam and slab) .2............... Methodology......... 151 6.................................................4..............................4...... 162 6............ 153 6... 166 6....... 166 6........................1........... 154 6....... Slab 180/36/49 ...............................2.......................................................................... 158 6............2..3................ Column 500/52 ........................................2............................................................................................................... Beam 250/44 .....................3 End support....................................... 150 6...................2............2........5.................................. 163 6........4......................................................3............................2.............................................2.................................................................4 Density of concrete and reinforcing bars ....5 Advanced calculation methods . 162 6................2..............1 Mid-span ...................4...... Reinforced members’ sections (column............................................................................................. Summary .. 150 6...........2 Internal support ....6 Conclusions ......................1 General . 159 6........2....... 6...................................................

vi .

Politecnico di Torino. France Fabienne ROBERT CERIB.Preliminary design of buildings Francesco BIASIOLI Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale.Some geotechnical aspects of building design Roger FRANK Université Paris-Est. Edile e Geotecnica (DISEG). Italy Giuseppe MANCINI Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale.. Spain CHAPTER 5 . Edile e Geotecnica (DISEG). European Commission CHAPTER 1 . European Commission Artur PINTO European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) Institute for Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC) Joint Research Center (JRC).Detailing of the reinforcement Jose ARRIETA PROES S. Laboratoire Navier Geotechnical team (CERMES).A. Institute for concrete structures. Italy CHAPTER 2 . Germany Manfred CURBACH TU Dresden. Germany CHAPTER 3 . European Commission Silvia DIMOVA European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) Institute for Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC) Joint Research Center (JRC). France vii .Limit state design (ULS-SLS) Just WALRAVEN Delft University of Technology.Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 Caroline MORIN CERIB. List of authors and editors Authors FOREWARD Martin POLJANŠEK European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) Institute for Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC) Joint Research Center (JRC). Institute for concrete structures.Structural analyses Martin JUST TU Dresden. Politecnico di Torino. France CHAPTER 6 . European Commission Borislava NIKOLOVA European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) Institute for Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC) Joint Research Center (JRC). Austria CHAPTER 4 . Ecole des Ponts ParisTech. The Netherlands Susanne GMAINER Vienna University of Technology.

Edile e Geotecnica (DISEG). European Commission viii . Italy Martin POLJANŠEK European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) Institute for Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC) Joint Research Center (JRC). European Commission Silvia DIMOVA European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) Institute for Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC) Joint Research Center (JRC). European Commission Borislava NIKOLOVA European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) Institute for Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC) Joint Research Center (JRC). Politecnico di Torino. European Commission Artur PINTO European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) Institute for Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC) Joint Research Center (JRC).Editors Francesco BIASIOLI Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale.

non-contradictory information on current Eurocode part. further harmonization and development of the Eurocodes. Technical documents – Facilitating the implementation and use of the Eurocodes and containing information and practical examples (Worked Examples) on the use of the Eurocodes and covering the design of structures or its parts (e. The sector employs directly almost 20 million people. e. to check their strength and stability against live extreme loads such as fire and earthquakes. which should be promoted both at national and international level.g. at present. The publication of these reports by the JRC serves the purpose of implementation. Construction is a key element not only for the implementation of the Single Market. sustainable and inclusive growth (EU2020). harmonization and further development of the Eurocodes’ as JRC Scientific and Policy Reports. Policy support documents – Resulting from the work of the JRC in cooperation with partners and stakeholders on ‘Support to the implementation. The EN Eurocodes are a set of European standards which provide common rules for the design of construction works. It represents more than 10% of EU GDP and more than 50% of fixed capital formation. standardization plays an important part in supporting the industrial policy for the globalization era. the implementation of the Eurocodes is extending to all European countries and there are firm steps toward their adoption internationally. The publication of the document is at the request of the relevant CEN/TC250 Sub- Committee. which may facilitate its implementation and use. Scientific/Technical information documents – Containing additional. Pre-normative documents – Resulting from the works of the CEN/TC250 and containing background information and/or first draft of proposed normative parts. The authors are various stakeholders involved in Eurocodes process and the publication of these documents is authorized by relevant CEN/TC250 Sub-Committee or Working Group. 2. the following types of reports: 1.g. In line with the EU’s strategy for smart. Environment and Energy. With the publication of all the 58 Eurocodes Parts in 2007. The Commission Recommendation of 11 December 2003 stresses the importance of training in the use of the Eurocodes. but also for other construction relevant EU Policies. In light of the Recommendation. This Report Series includes. Foreword The construction sector is of strategic importance to the EU as it delivers the buildings and infrastructure needed by the rest of the economy and society. promotion and further development of the Eurocodes and other standards for the building sector’. which may be used in future revisions and further developments of the standards. the technical reports containing the practical examples presented in the workshop on the Eurocodes with worked examples organized by the JRC). especially in engineering schools and as part of continuous professional development courses for engineers and technicians. it is noted that neither the Commission ix . The publication of the reports type 3. when appropriate. 4 and 5 is made after approval for publication from the CEN/TC250 Co-ordination Group. Editorial work for this Report Series is assured by the JRC together with partners and stakeholders. 3. 5. It is recommended to undertake research to facilitate the integration into the Eurocodes of the latest developments in scientific and technological knowledge. since 40-45% of Europe’s energy consumption stems from buildings with a further 5-10% being used in processing and transport of construction products and components. DG JRC is collaborating with DG ENTR and CEN/TC250 “Structural Eurocodes” and is publishing the Report Series ‘Support to the implementation. Sustainability. It is the largest single economic activity and it is the biggest industrial employer in Europe. The improvement of the competition in EU markets through the adoption of the Eurocodes is recognized in the "Strategy for the sustainable competitiveness of the construction sector and its enterprises" – COM (2012)433. These documents can be then converted to CEN technical specifications 4. and they are distinguished as a tool for accelerating the process of convergence of different national and regional regulatory approaches. However. or preliminary results from pre-normative work and other studies. Background documents – Providing approved background information on current Eurocode part.

Nikolova. A. The chapters presented in the report have been prepared by different authors therefore are partly reflecting the different practices in the EU Member States. B. research institutions. M. Poljanšek.eu). academia. The main objective was to facilitate training on Eurocode 2 through the transfer of knowledge and training information from the Eurocode 2 writers (CEN/TC250 Sub-Committee 2) to key trainers at national level and Eurocodes users. Belgium and was organized by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission together with CEN/TC250/Sub-Committee 2 and Politecnico di Torino. coordination of lecturers and support to the workshop.ec. We would also like to thank especially Prof. Users of information contained in this report must satisfy themselves of its suitability for the purpose for which they intend to use it. Dimova. This report is part of the so-called Technical documents (Type 2 above) and contains a comprehensive description of the practical examples presented at the workshop “Design of concrete buildings with the Eurocodes” with emphasis on worked examples.nor CEN are obliged to follow or endorse any recommendation or result included in these reports in the European legislation or standardization processes. We would like to gratefully acknowledge the workshop lecturers and the members of CEN/TC250 Sub-Committee 2 for their contribution in the organization of the workshop and development of the training material comprising the slide presentations and technical papers with the worked example. Pinto European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC) Joint Research Centre (JRC) x . industry and technical associations involved in training on the Eurocodes. with the support of CEN and the Member States. The workshop addressed representatives of public authorities. All the material prepared for the workshop (slides presentations and JRC Report) is available to download from the “Eurocodes: Building the future” website (http://eurocodes. The present JRC Report compiles all the technical papers and the worked example prepared by the workshop lecturers. The editors and authors have sought to present useful and consistent information in this report.europa. Francesco Biasioli for the contribution. However. S.jrc. The workshop was held on 20-21 October 2011 in Brussels. national standardisation bodies. The workshop was a unique occasion to compile a state-of-the-art training kit comprising the slide presentations and technical papers with the worked example of a concrete structure designed following Eurocode 2. it must be noted that the report does not present complete design example and that the reader may still identify some discrepancies between chapters.

Italy . Edile e Geotecnica (DISEG). Politecnico di Torino. CHAPTER 1 CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN Francesco BIASIOLI and Giuseppe MANCINI Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale.

Biasioli and G.Mancini 2 .Preliminary design of buildings F.

Part 1-2 Structural fire design (CEN.europa. the principles of Eurocode 2. Curbach: Structural Analysis o J.Mancini 1. aesthetical and sustainability requirements…” 2. Using a sort of “reverse engineering” of a number of EC2 equations. suitable hints and rules to be used during this design stage are proposed. the assessment of durability. Robert Fire design This document deals with the definition of actions.choosing an appropriate solution among many possible ones. 2007). EC2 allows the calculation of action effects and of resistances of concrete structures submitted to specific actions and contains all the prescriptions and good practices for properly detailing the reinforcement. the selection of materials and the “conceptual design” of the geometry of the structure. In the following. 2006). in order to solve a particular problem taking into account functional. Lausanne 2012 3 . 2002) o EN 1992-2 Design of concrete structures . part 1-1 are applied to the design of a simple design case study .eu/showpage. in the following also listed as EC2) deals with the design of reinforced concrete structures – buildings. o EN 1992-3 Design of concrete structures . structural.SLS) o J. Preliminary design of buildings F. Design team The design process has been divided between different authors. EN 1992 (Eurocode 2. Conceptual design has been defined as “…. Walraven: Limit states design 1 (ULS . Corres Peiretti . 1 Details on Eurocode 8 workshop: see http://eurocodes. Biasioli/G.Part 3: Liquid retaining and containment structures (CEN.fib bulletin 51.Part 2: Concrete Bridges – Design and detailing rules (CEN. some of whom were involved in the preparation and/or assessment of Eurocode 2. Frank Foundation Design o F. The aim of the exercise is to have two case studies referring to the same building. This is similar to the one used for the Workshop on “Eurocode 8: Seismic Design of Buildings”1.a six-storey building with two underground parking storeys. EC8: vertical loads + earthquake). Mancini: Basis of Design /Materials /Durability/ Conceptual design o M.Structural Concrete Textbook .php?id=335_2 2 H. carrying the same vertical loads but two different sets of horizontal actions (EC2: vertical loads + wind.1 Introduction The series of European standards commonly known as “Eurocodes”.jrc. The parts and the authors are: o F. EC2 consists of three parts: o EN 1992-1 Design of concrete structures . bridges and other civil engineering works.ec.Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings. Arrieta: Detailing of reinforcement and members o R. Biasioli and G.

Compared C too the EC8 example previoussly cited.1 Slab defo ormation The rea ason for this is that in thhe EC8 exam mple.2 Periphera al walls 4 . the internal stairs wall and liftft core were used as bracing elements. A As the stiffne ess of the slaab in the X-d direction is re elevant. The inneer columns are founded d on square spread foun ndations of dimensions (B·L) = (2·2 2) m.1. The ground ffloor is occupied by offic ces open to p public.2 Basic data 1.1.1).1 1. as well w as the sttiffness of the core in the same direction. Biassioli and G. but the geometrry of some vertical v elem ments (colummns and wallls) has been n changed: sshear walls from the staircase e area are substituted s by b columns a as well as twwo new walls have bee n added alo ong outer alignments no. The dimensions s in plan aree (30. heigh ht 9 m. Assuming A tha at horizontal loads (due to wind or ea arthquakes) aare uniformlyy applied to the slab (if due to the limited stiffness s of ccolumns this is idealized as a a beam ssupported by y the core only).2.2 2. Prelimina ary design off buildings F.and Y-ddirections.6 m. General data and prelimina ry overvie ew The building (6 flooors + 2 unde erground parrking levels)) is ideally lo ocated in ann urban area a (terrain categoryy IV for windd actions) noot close to tthe sea.25 x 14 4. walls w in the X-direction X mmay not be prresent. The structure conssists mainly of reinforce ed concrete e frames.25) m. Fig.2.1 and d 6 (see Figure 1.2. the plan surfacce is 431 m2 and the height iss h = 25 m (Figures 1. the e size of th he building aand the layoout of colummns remain unchanged. peripheral wa alls should b e added (seee Figure 1. Too reduce these an nd to increasse the building’s torsion al rigidity. embe edded 3 m beelow the 2 le evels of the parking p (see Chapter C 5). at 300 3 m AMSL L (Above Meean Sea Lev vel). A conventio onal working g life of 50 yyears is assu umed for design. the outer co olumns and th he shear walls are suppo orted by a peeripheral diap phragm retai ning wall of width w 0.2).3 – 1..3 and Figure 2.2. 1st to 5th floor are e for dwellinggs and the ro oof is not open to public.1.1 gives g evidennce of the sl ab deformattions in both h X.M Mancini 1.2.1.4).2. Fiigure 1.2 2.. Fig. in Chapter 2.

2.M Mancini Fig. Biassioli and G.1.3 EC2 E Reinforrced concre ete building – sections 5 . Prelimina ary design off buildings F.

32) m beams 3 Justification of the height for the three solutions are given later in the chapter. especially for dwellings. For a safe preliminary evaluation of the quantity of materials the slab “voids” due to stairs and lifts may be assumed as not present.4 Slab h = 0.and Y-directions (Figure 1. wherever possible.32·0. three slab alternatives have been considered. The resulting extra volume of concrete takes into accounts deformations of formworks and any loss of concrete during casting (pump filling. With some lack of optimization . which may hinder matching the internal walls sequence. as long-term deflection of the outer bays governs the depth h of the slab.1. but has the inconvenience of protruding beams. The overall quantity of concrete is (30.).2. Fig. To cover different building solutions commonly used in Europe.2. Preliminary design of buildings F.25x14.2.18+(6·14.4).25)·0.32) m protruding beams in the X. Slab geometry Slab bays have equal spans in X.the X-direction spans of the outer bays. etc.2.25 x 0.Mancini 1.25 x 0.and Y-directions: in X-direction such equality never gives the most efficient structural solution. The first (A-A) solution is a two-way concrete solid slab with depth3 h = 18 cm supported by (0. This solution reduces both depth and reinforcement of the slab.18 m on (0.25)·0. 6 .7 m3.25+3·30. Biasioli and G. Justification of the geometry of structural elements is given later.6 + 14. should be not greater than 90% of those of the adjacent inner bays.1 = 91.25 = 77.

Ignoring as before the “voids” of stairs and lifts. very common in a number of countries.Mancini The second (B-B) solution is a flat concrete solid slab with depth h = 24 cm spanning in both X.5 Flat Slab h = 0.2.24 m 7 .24=103.4 m3.25)·0. Biasioli and G.5). This solution. In recent years it has been improved by the availability of advanced scaffolding and formwork systems (lightweight elements with dropheads allowing easy scaffolding and early striking) as well as reinforcing systems (ordinary steel “carpets” tailor designed.1.25·14.2. Fig. Preliminary design of buildings F. or post-tensioned unbonded tendons in the case of longer spans and/or heavier weights).and Y-directions (Figure 1. the overall quantity of concrete (dimensions in m) is (30. The design focuses in the case of flat slabs are: 1) deflection (in this case also governed by the outer bays) 2) punching resistance (columns C7 and C10). has the advantage of the absence of protruding beams.

eembedded lighting elements could also be made of EPS (expanded polystyrene). These elements require a supporting scaffolding plan.30) m.12 m.23 m with embedded lighting clay elements4. Two beams in Y-direction (0. 4 Besides clay.23 m In Figure 1.25 x 0.Mancini The third (C-C) solution is a slab of total height h = 0. Fig. Ribs spanning in Y-direction are supported by protruding T-beams in X-direction (lateral: (0. Preliminary design of buildings F.18 m and width bw = 0. The flange depth is hf = 0.6 Slab with embedded elements h = 0.7 an example of a clay lighting element is given: it forms every 0.6).2.2. Biasioli and G.25 x 0. plastics or wood. central: (0.50 m a T-section with web height h = 0.05 m. an alternative being filigree concrete slabs with embedded EPS which have embedded temporary reinforcement therefore can be laid down on discrete supports.17) m.1.2.25 x 0. concrete. 8 .30) m are provided at both slab ends (Figure 1.

7 Clay llighting elem ment h = 0. Where a mma partial safety factorrs are taken as the sugge available. Biassioli and G. self-weight.25=3 4.23+0.0933 m3/m2.25- 2·0. evaluated a as before. The oveerall quantity of concrete. pavementt.30)+(0. this is the solutio on requiring the t least amo ount of concrrete.25·0. nor werre impact o the building and explosion actionns. Densities. impo osed loads s.4 Wind loa ads Due to tthe limited dimensions of g. embedded services.4+17. 1.75 kN/m2 Perman nent loads G2 γG = 1.3 Action ns Actions have been obtained o from m the followin ng parts of EN1991: E o E EN1991-1.60)]·0.40)·[14.0 kN/m2 Walls on n external pe erimeter (windows include ed): 8.05 0 = 0.23+ +0.. Comparred to the two o other.2 Fire actiions o E EN1991-1.3 Snow lo oads o E EN1991-1.50 ÷ 0 9 . pa Finishing artitions: 3. 1.1 18 m: 0.M Mancini Fig.25-(2·0.30)]·(14.0 kN/m Variable e loads Qi γQ = 1.50·0.35 (u unfavourablle) Reinforcced concrete: 25 kN/m3 Embedd ded clay elem ments h = 0.25·0. self-weigh ht and impos sed loads o E EN1991-1.1 17)]·30.2 23 m The unitt concrete qu uantity for 1 m element (2 2 ribs) is (2·0 0.3.25 5-2·0.1.50)+[2··(0.400·0.1.0 g.1 Densitie es.0=56.23+0.550+0. thermal actions were not considerred. Prelimina ary design off buildings F. partial and a comb bination factors Self-weight G1 γG = 1. gam ested values in EC2. and disregardin ng stairs andd lifts voids is s (30.0 093+[2·(0.18) + 0.60·0.0 m3.2.6+4.35 ÷ 1.25·00.12·0.

00 0.0 As already outlined.60 1.0 cdir = cseason = 1. Wind The combination factors considered are: Ψ0 = 0.1 Variable loads Type qk Ψ0 Ψ2 (kN/m2) Dwelling 2.05   0.70 0. Biasioli and G.232  1 ln 10  7  1 ln 10   1.00 Snow 1.19  0   0.0 vb.19    0.053  lnz  7  lnz  .0 o Turbulence intensity kl 1 kl = 1. at 300 m AMSL (Above Mean Sea Level).70 0.3.00 Parking 2.0 = 30 m/s vb = vb.07  z   10  k r  0.234 m/s  0.0 = 30 m/s o Terrain category IV z0 = 1 zmin = 10 m o Terrain factor 0.13 const.30 Stairs.50 0.50 0. Preliminary design of buildings F. the building is ideally located in an urban area (terrain category IV) not close to the sea.60. office open to public 4. The assumed values (EN 1991-1.07 0.2.05  o Orography factor co = 1.  1 1 0 0  z > 10 m z z  ce  z   kr2 co ln  7  co ln   0. Ψ2 = 0. z0  z0  o Basic velocity pressure 10 .70 0.0 lv ( z )   co ( z ) ln z z0 ln z z0 o Exposure factor ce(z) taking into account turbulence z ≤ 10 m z   c z  c z e  e m in   k 2 c ln r 0 z  7  c ln o z z   0.4) are: o Basic wind velocity vb = cdir cseason vb.3.Mancini Table 1.

2 qp (ze) kN/m2 o z > 10 m we (ze) = 1.0.1.56 = 0.563 kN/m2 z > 10 m qp (ze) = ce (zmin) qb = ce (10) 0.4 Fig.77 kN/m2 Fig.0357·ln (10) [7 + ln (10)] = 0.2·ce (ze) 0.0 (framed buildings with structural walls less than 100 m high) Wind pressure on external surfaces we = qp (ze) cpe cs cd = qp (ze) (0.563 kN/m2 o Wind pressure on external surfaces cpe = + 0.563 kN/m2 2 2 o Peak velocity pressure z ≤ 10 m qp (ze) = ce (z) qb = ce (z) 0. Preliminary design of buildings F.4))·1 = 1.3.1.Mancini 1 2 1 qb  ρv b   1.3.25  30 2  10 -3  0.8 .0. Biasioli and G.1 Wind pressure on external surfaces o Structural factor cs cd = 1.04 kN/m2 o z ≤ 10 m we (10) = 0.035·ln (ze) [7 + ln (ze)] kN/m2 we (19) = 1.(.8 cpe = .2 Wind pressure on external surfaces – example 11 .

having due regard to its environment and the anticipated level of maintenance…”.4. aria marina e gelo = sea airborne and frost.4 Materials 1.1 Exposure classes and concrete strength class EC2 requires (2.4) that “…the structure to be design such that deterioration over its design working life does not impair the performance of the structure below that intended.Mancini 1.1 Environmental exposure classes5 5 Legend : Ambiente di terra = ground environment. 1. the designer has to identify the (anticipated) conditions of the environment where the structure will be located “…in order to take adequate provision for protection of the materials used in the structure…”.1. c) “normal” inspection and maintenance during use. acqua salmastra = salty water. senza gelo = no frost. Snow load The snow load is described in Chapter 2. Preliminary design of buildings F. Environmental exposure conditions are classified by “exposure classes”.4.3. ambiente marino = seaside environment. Concrete 1.4. Fig. Quality management procedures to be adopted during execution are described in EN13670. gelo e pioggia = frost and water. b) “normal” supervision during execution. For what concerns deterioration of concrete and corrosion of reinforcing steel due to potentially aggressive environment.1.1.3. Environmental influences are therefore considered for assessing the durability of concrete structures. An example is given in Figure 1. Biasioli and G. acqua di mare = sea water 12 .1.4. EC2 basically refers to a a) a 50-years design working life.

b. walls. Preliminary design of buildings F. are taken into account by the cover reduction term cdur. chapter 4. 3.4.add. c = 0 .add). 20 mm] (1. In both EC2 and EN206 concrete strength is used as indirect measure of concrete durability. industrial wastes. (cmin.Survey of national requirements used in conjunction with EN206-1:2000 13 .1) Concrete surface protections. to design the minimum concrete cover required for all reinforcement (stirrups included) the sequence is: 1.g.Mancini ”Deemed to satisfy” rules related to the different exposure classes of the structural members are given in: EN206-1 Annex F (concrete standard) for a) minimum concrete strength class and b) concrete composition.1. Identify the exposure class(es) for the different structural elements 2. structural classes and concrete cover Exposures classes are identified by the letter X followed by the initial letter (in English) of the deterioration mechanism to which they refer: o Corrosion of reinforcement due to Carbonation (XC) or to chlorides from De-icing agents. and in EN 1992-1 for c) minimum concrete cover to reinforcement and. on the basis of the assumption: higher strength → less porous concrete → higher durability.dur .2 Nominal concrete cover cnom 6 CEN/TR 15868:2009 . columns vs.2) to be used in drawings and for reinforcement detailing cnom = max [(cmin + c). Complementary information is given in EN206 National Annexes about the maximum water/cement ratio and minimum cement content per m3 of concrete.10 mm is the «execution tolerance».2 Exposure classes. d) maximum allowed crack width. The result is a large variation of requirements in different EU countries6. 1. Annex F . Biasioli and G. cnom has also to take into account resistance to fire. slabs etc. 4. Identify the MINIMUM cover for both durability (“dur”) and bond (“b”) cmin = max [cmin. 10 mm] (1.use multiple classes only if separate casting sequences are provided (e.). foundations vs.1.2) Besides bond and steel corrosion protection. Identify the nominal reinforcement concrete cover cnom (Figure 1. or from Sea water (XS) o Deterioration of concrete due to Freeze/thaw action (XF) or chemical Attack (XA). if any. Identify the MINIMUM strength class for each exposure class(es) (EC2 Informative annex E and EN206.4. pools (XD).cdur. According to EC2.4. d'  long /2 h d staffe d' c nom d' Fig. for more critical exposure classes.

1. Biasioli and G.1. Table 1. as suggested by the Eurocode 8 “capacity design” rule: in the case of seismic structures.Mancini As it is not possible to generalise or take into account the provisions valid in all countries. the “structural class” may be chosen using Eurocode 2. NO YES Fig.4.3N. Eurocode 2 considers structural class S4 as the “default” one. the concrete class used for columns should preferably be higher than the one used for slabs and beams. in the design example the following exposure classes and related concrete strength classes have been used: XC1 for internal slabs.3 Soft-storey mechanism To identify the minimum concrete cover for durability cmin.4. to guarantee building stability and avoid the “soft storey” mechanism.4. to be modified on the basis of criteria listed in Table 1. Preliminary design of buildings F.3N) Structural Class Criterion Exposure Class according to Table 4.1 (Eurocode 2) X0 X1 XC2/XC3 XC4 XD1 XD2 / XS1 XD3 / XS2 / XS3 Design Working increase increase increase increase increase increase increase Life of 100 years class by 2 class by 2 class by 2 class by 2 class by 2 class by 2 class by 2 ≥ C30/37 ≥ C30/37 ≥ C35/45 ≥ C40/50 ≥ C40/50 ≥ C40/50 ≥ C45/55 1) 2) Strength Class reduce reduce reduce reduce reduce reduce reduce class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 Member with slab geometry reduce reduce reduce reduce reduce reduce reduce (position of reinforcement not class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 affected by construction process) Special Quality reduce reduce reduce reduce reduce reduce reduce Control of the concrete class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 class by 1 production ensured 14 . beams and foundations C25/30 XC2 for columns C30/37 > C25/30 Even when the environment is the same for slabs and columns.1 Recommended structural classification (EC2 Table 4. plastic hinges required for energy dissipation have to occur in horizontal elements only and never in vertical ones (Figure 1.3). Table 4.4.dur once the environmental class and the related concrete strength class have been identified.

beams (XC1/S4) = 15 mm o cmin. due to the difficulty of any visual inspection to detect deterioration On the basis of the EC2 nationally determined parameters and EN206 national provisions.dev = 5 mm for controlled execution.2 below is the one used in Eurocode 2.4).dur . national tables may be different): Table 1.slabs (XC1/S3) = 10 mm o cmin.dur (mm) Structural Exposure Class according to Table 4.4.dev = max(15+5. 20) = 20 mm o beams cnom = max(20+5. for this example the structural classes are o Slabs: concrete C25/30 S(4 – 1) = S3 reduction for slab geometry o Beams: concrete C25/30 S4 no reduction o Columns: concrete C30/37 S4 no reduction On the basis of the environmental and structural classes the minimum concrete cover for durability may be identified (Table 1.1 (Eurocode 2) Class X0 XC1 XC2 / XC3 XC4 XD1 / XS1 XD2 / XS2 XD3 / XS3 S1 10 10 10 15 20 25 30 S2 10 10 15 20 25 30 35 S3 10 10 20 25 30 35 40 S4 10 15 25 30 35 40 45 S5 15 20 30 35 40 45 50 S6 20 25 35 40 45 50 55 o cmin.dur + c. 15 . For earth retaining walls and foundations cnom = 40 mm is common. 20) = 25 mm o columns cnom = max(25+5. the whole procedure can be easily implemented in an Excel™ spreadsheet (Figure 1.2 Values of minimum cover (Eurocode 2 Table 4. 20) = 30 mm Resulting cover values have always to be rounded upwards to the nearest 5 mm.columns (XC2/S4) = 25 mm Assuming c.Mancini Assuming a 50 years working life and no special concrete production Quality Control.dur . Preliminary design of buildings F.4N) Environmental Requirement for cmin.4. Biasioli and G.dur .4. the calculated nominal cover to reinforcement cnom is: o slabs cnom = cmin.

5 Minimum concrete cover (Copriferro) for durability.1. Fig.1.5.add 0 0 XS2 Δctoll A) Recommended XS3 11 10 10 XD1 12 Structural class S4 13 cmin.4.dur 25 XD2 14 cmin.b 16 XD3 15 cmin 25 16 cnom 35 Fig.4.γ 0 0 XS1 10 ∆cdur. An example valid for Italy is given in Figure 1. Biasioli and G.4 Excel procedure for calculating the minimum concrete cover Alternatively. (mm) 16 XC4 8 ∆cdur.Mancini Concrete cover Cmin.4.dur Parameters Suggested User defined 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 1 Exposure class XC3 2 Freeze/thaw ‐ X0 3 Strenght class C30/37 C30/37 XC1 4 Service life 50 5 Slab or similar? NO XC2 6 Quality control? NO XC3 7 Max bar diam. national tables with all information related to the required concrete composition may be prepared. Preliminary design of buildings F. concrete strength class and concrete composition (composizione del calcestruzzo) (Italy data) 16 .st 0 0 9 ∆cdur.

15 for Ultimate Limit State (ULS .persistent and transient design situation) and γs = 1. . 17 .30 fyk . Reinforcing steel 1.2 Maximum bar diameters The design of the geometry of concrete structures.4. cracking.5% 1.1N . if any.the SLS of cracking may be verified without calculation by limiting either the diameter of reinforcing bars as a function of steel stress. Fig.4.2. or their maximum spacing. εs. Preliminary design of buildings F. For a S500 B steel and various concrete classes stress Table 1.17‰ o Ductility k = (ft / fy) k  1.2.6 Reinforcing steel – design stress-strain diagrams Assuming partial safety coefficients γs = 1.90εuk  4. the characterizing values of the diagram are: o Strength fyk  500 N/mm2.4.4. It is therefore important to identify in EC2 the limiting values for the different SLSs. especially of concrete buildings.15 = 435 N/mm2. fyk ≤ 650 N/mm2) fyd = 500 / 1.1. For crack widths up to a maximum of 0. (fy.deformation.6). In the idealised and design stress-strain diagrams the lower elasto-plastic design curve B without stress-hardening has been used (Figure 1. Table 7.0 for Serviceability Limit States (SLS).Mancini 1.max ≤ 1.4. Es = 200 kN/mm2. Biasioli and G. is increasingly governed by considerations of Serviceability Limit States (SLS . stress limitation) rather than those of Ultimate Limit States (ULS).30 mm – the upper limit for all environmental classes according to EC2.1 Steel characteristics Medium ductility S500 B (grade 500 class B) reinforcing steel has been adopted.08 εuk  5% εud = 0.2.yd = fyd / Es = 435/200 = 2.3 gives maximum bar diameters as a function of steel stress ratio σs / fyk evaluated in a cracked section under the quasi permanent (QP) load condition – bold values are EC2 ones. to be considered in design.4.

1.QP / fyk are identified.46 14 16 18 20 22 240 0.QP / fyk ≤ 0.42 o Columns: ϕ20 mm C30/37 σs.4). 25 mm for σs = 200 MPa In conceptual design commonly used bar diameters are first selected.38 20 22 26 30 32 200 0.30 mm 160 0.52 10 12 14 16 16 280 0.6 2.1 Slenderness The design of slabs has to fulfil both Serviceability Limit States (SLS) and Ultimate Limit States (ULS) requirements (in this exact order!).4.5 Conceptual design of slabs 1. Slab height 1. In general the height “h” of slabs is controlled by the deflection limits (EC2 7. punching frequently also governs.56 10 10 12 14 14 Note: EC2 values up to fyk.QP / fyk ≤ 0.48 12 14 16 18 20 260 0. In this case they are: o Slabs: ϕ14 mm C25/30 σs.3 2.5.6 σs σs / fyk Φl. Biasioli and G.max for crack width wk=0. or centre-to-centre distance of columns in the case of flat 18 .4 3.42 16 18 22 24 26 220 0. then the related maximum limiting values of σs. In EC2 the deemed-to-satisfy rule for verifying SLS deflection is based on the limitation of elements’ “slenderness” by setting maximum “slenderness ratios” (lef /d) of the “effective span” lef (axis-to-axis distance in the case of supporting beams.44 These limiting ratios will be considered in design (see forward).44 14 16 20 22 24 230 0. In the case of flat slabs.32 24 28 32 36 38 170 0.QP / fyk ≤ 0.eff 2. 1.36 22 24 28 32 34 190 0. Preliminary design of buildings F.34 22 26 30 34 36 180 0.Mancini Table 1.9 3.3 Maximum bar diameters for crack control Steel 500B Concrete class C20/25 C25/30 C30/37 C35/45 C40/50 fct.48 o Beams: ϕ16 mm C25/30 σs.40 18 20 24 26 28 210 0.1.5.

Preliminary design of buildings F. structural systems As already mentioned K values demonstrate that continuous slabs or beams with spans all equal. For a number of selected concrete classes (l/d)o and ρ0 values calculated with the formulae above are given in Table 1. d.3/1.4. For a slab of constant height h subjected to the same permanent G2 and variable Q loads. or compact T-sections with b/bw ≤ 3. 19 . s = 0.1. Fig.4) of an ideal simply supported (SS) element which has the same deflection as the actual element. EC2 assumes s = 1. the one with the maximum “normalized span”.8 > 3. never represent a good structural solution: the span of the external slab (or beam) should never be longer than (1.5)  0 0  0  ρ = As / (bd) is the geometrical reinforcement ratio of the steel area As in tension. Biasioli and G. takes into account the geometry of the slab transverse section.0 for R(rectangular) sections.7) where b / bw = 500 / 120 = 4. For flat slabs with spans ≤ 8.prov  l   Ks    Ks (1.2. It transforms the “effective span” into the so-called “normalized span” ln = lef / K (1. as is the case of slabs with embedded elements (Figure 1. as in this example. in particular the variation of its section moment of inertia.5)·100 = 87% of the adjacent internal slab span.1 K values vs.5. In the case of slabs with ρ ≤ ρ0 EC2 gives: 3 l  ρ  ρ   d   11  1. can be easily identified as the one having the greatest normalized span ln.5 fck ρ  3.80 for T-sections with b/bw > 3. EC2.5. as in this example. the bay governing the whole slab height.2 gives the formula l ef 310  l  500 As. as solid slabs. The “shape” factor s.3) d σ s  d 0 fyk As. paragraph 7. (l/d)o is the “reference span to depth ratio”. (distance of the centroid of the tensile forces from the most compressed concrete fibre).Mancini slabs) to the “effective depth”.req  d 0 K takes into account the type.5 m and slab and beams with spans ≤ 7 m.2 fck  ρ  1 ρ0  10 3 fck (1. restraints and relative position of each element in the structural system.1.

5.2 Slab heigh ht determina ation Identificaation of the slab s height is s an iterative e process baased on the successively s better estim mations of the (initially unknown n) self-weighht G1 of the sslab. Assuming ln = lef /k.M Mancini Table 1.5. could lead to excessiv vely slender slabs.1 (l/ l/d)o and ρ0 v values for selected con ncrete classees C20//25 C25 5/30 C30/37 C3 32/40 C C35/45 ρ0 (% %) 0. For the tthree differen s the first triall minimum efffective depths dmin for deeflection control are: nt slab types 20 . iff not properlly assessed. 1.6) d fyk As.req  0  0  0 As state ed before.5.59 (l/d))o 19 9 20 2 20 2 21 18 In Figurre 1.50% the en (l/d)o = 20. For concrete classs C25/30 Ta able 1.5.55 0.1 gives ρ0 = 0. F Fig.2 the (l/d)o hyperrbolic formu la above is represented d on the lefft side: bulleet points calculate ed for ρ = ρ0 divide (lighttly-reinforced d) slabs from m (medium. Biassioli and G.5 50 0. A (safe)) preliminary evaluation oof slab self-w weight G1 may be based on the e height calcculated for thhe ρ = ρ0 con ndition. Prelimina ary design off buildings F. 0 N/mm2 and As.4 45 0. Eqn E (1.prov = As..6) confirms c thatt the governing bay in a continuoous slab is the one characte erized by the e maximum normalized n le ength.max = 366.req the minim fyk = 500 mum effective e depth dmin is s: lef 500 0 As.to o heavily-reinnforced) bea ams.2 (l/d) d)o function o of geometric cal reinforce ement ratio ρ In the caase of low reinforcemen r nt ρ ratios th he EC2 formula gives very high (l/d)oo slendernes ss values which.1.5.57 0 00. The mmaximum (l//d)o value should ttherefore be limited – in the t diagram and for this example (l/d d)o.1. ln.prov l  ln l  ln  Ks  d   d  s  d   dmin  l d s (1.

x lef. λs depends on the concrete class and the shape factor s only.54·0. if h = 0.y lef K ln (l/d)0 s dmin m m m m m Slab on beams 6.08 0.and Y-direction h = dmin + cnom + ϕl = dmin + 20 + 14 = (dmin + 34) mm o for slabs with embedded lighting elements h = dmin + cnom + 1/2ϕl = (dmin + 27) mm As the sustained permanent load G2 is known.Mancini Table 1.27 Due to the high reinforcement ratios ρ0.05 G1 heq = G1/25 heq / htot 2 [m] [m] [kN/m ] [m] 0.125 6.94 20 1. 21 .51 0.30 Slab with emb. and cnom = 20 mm: o for flat slabs with bars in X.138 0.0 0.116 0.16 0.27 3.0 7.0 7.27 0.22 0.29 3.48 20 0. .55 0.125 7. If the variable load Q and the related factor for the quasi-permanent (QP) load condition ψ2 are known.89 0. On the basis of the conventional reinforced concrete unit weight (25 kN/m3) and the actual or “equivalent” (for ribbed or slabs with embedded lighting elements – see below) solid slab depth h (m): G1 = 25h (kN/m2) For slabs with lighting embedded clay elements of width (38+12) cm with 5 cm concrete topping.2 5.5.46 0. and the ULS design of simply supported slabs of “normalized span” ln subjected to uniform loads G and Q. the total permanent load G is: G = G1 + G2. el.125 1.3) . Biasioli and G.25 3.125 1.10 kN/m2 Table 1.3 4.54 0.3 5.7)   G  ψ2Q The formula is based on SLS deformation.20 0.62 20 1.131 0.23) = 3.69 0.125 7.123 0.2 Minimum effective depth for deflection control lef.4.23 m G1 = 25h = 25·(0.5.148 0.3 Equivalent height for slabs with lighting embedded elements hle h=hle + 0.5.8 0. Values for slabs are given in Table 1.52 0.0 1. an improved normalized slenderness ratio may be calculated with the formula:  ln  λs d  3 (1.24 0. these effective depths dmin are no doubt conservative. the equivalent height results to be 51 ÷ 55% of the height of a solid slab (see Table 1.23 3.0 0.18 0.23 Flat slab 6.5. As an example.51 On the basis of the already determined ϕl = 14 mm (SLS cracking). 7.21 2. Preliminary design of buildings F.

00 0.0 2.23 -4% Slab with l.30 11.74 53 27 5. The reduction of the initial height is evident.0 53 57 60 63 65 s for s =0.0 2. 22 .18 0.16 57 26 5.42 57 26 5. two or three iterations are enough to identify the final height.33 1.56 3.17 -5% Flat slab 0.30 6. 0.5.21 5.23 0.30 8.27 3.0 2.14 3.87 57 25 5.20 5. 0.20 0.00 0.26 6.0 0.21 -25% nd 2 iteration Slab on beams 0. 0.23 0.24 0.0 0.94 0.8 49 53 56 59 61 The iterative process can be easily implemented in an Excel™ spreadsheet.94 0.26 1.30 0.00 0.0 0.30 10.48 0.00 0. Table 1.18 -23% Flat slab 0.66 57 28 4.20 1.00 0. Preliminary design of buildings F.12 3.0 2.55 0.0 0.0 0.30 6.0 2.17 4.0 2.06 3.17 -1% Flat slab 0.08 3.17 0.20 -4% rd 3 iteration Slab on beams 0.48 0.13 3.5 Iterative reduction of the height dmin dmin+d’ coeff heq G1 G2 Qk W2 tot ls Ln/d ln dmin 2 2 m m m kN/m kN/m kN/m m st 1 iteration Slab on beams 0.23 0.62 0.24 -20% Slab with l.0 2.62 0.30 7.20 3.33 8.23 -1% Slab with l.20 -1% The height values so obtained.68 53 28 5.62 0. Biasioli and G.62 3.26 1.86 57 27 4.26 6.27 6.4 λs for selected concrete classes C20/25 C25/30 C30/37 C35/45 C40/50 s for s = 1.55 0.0 2.Mancini Table 1.30 0.48 0.0 0.27 1.5.0 0.0 0.0 2.21 1.80 53 28 5.0 0.82 3.55 0.94 0.30 10.30 8. as outlined below.22 57 26 4.26 3.21 0.27 0. automatically guarantee the respect of SLS deformation and have not to be further checked. based as they are on the Eurocode 2 equations.22 0.00 0.el.30 10.el.el.

CHAPTER 2 STRUCTURAL ANALYSES Martin JUST and Manfred CURBACH TU Dresden. Institute for concrete structures. Germany .

Just and M.Curbach 24 . Structural analyses M.

2.1. described in 1.1. Three different slab types (see Chapter 1) have been considered regarding the slabs: a) Flat slab with height h = 21 cm.2. 2 spans. loads flow through the coffered ceiling beams into supporting beams. These columns support the slabs. At the broad side there are three rows of columns (axes A.Curbach 2.1 shows the finite element model of the building. C (and D in levels -1 and -2)).1. modelled with SoFiSTiK® software: Fig.1 Finite element modelling of the building The example building is a six-storey building with two underground parking levels.Just and M. directly supported by the columns b) Slab on beams. which lead into the columns Figure 2.1 Finite element model of the building (type flat slab) 25 . in length there are six rows (axes 1 to 6). Structural analyses M. loads flow through beams into columns c) Slabs with embedded lighting elements h = 23 cm. h = 18 cm. B. Chapter 1.

2.2.77 kN/m² below 10 m wind (below 1000m above 1. Figure 2.2.1 shows the dead load for one storey. load cases and their combinations 2. Structural analyses M.2. Loads Several multiple loads are present: the dead load of the construction. etc.0 kN/m² - dead load of facade 8.Just and M. Service Load 2 2.1 Load case 1 – dead load of the bearing structure Dead loads of the structure are automatically calculated by FEM-Software on the basis of the geometry and unit weight of materials.1 Calculated dead load (values in kN/m and KN/m²) 26 .6 external area) 2. the interior (finishing.50 kN/m² 0.Curbach 2.2.2. -2. Load cases for dead loads 2.7 0.7 0.00 kN/m² Service Load 1 0.1 Loads Class Load name Value of load Ψ0 Ψ2 dead load of construction Variable values Dead load dead load of interior 3. pavement.5 0 area dwelling (level 1-6) 2. Fig.2 Loads.6 0 sea level) between 10 m and 19 m linear rising snow on roof or external Environmental Load 2 1.0 kN/m 0. their classes and the factors for combination: Table 2.70 kN/m² 0.) and the facade. The following tables list the loads.00 kN/m² parking (level -1. office (level 0) 4. service loads and two environmental loads – wind and snow.1.2.09 kN/m² at 19 m Environmental Load 1 0.2.2.3 stairs.

Therefore an area load is set on all plate elements. which have a size of (0.2.2. In this case.Just and M. Figure 2. In slab types a) and b) the loads are area set on the outer row of finite elements of the slabs.2. Fig. Structural analyses M.1. Fig 2.2.2 Dead load of the interior (values in KN/m²) 2.2.2 shows the dead load for one storey.3 Dead load of the facade (values in KN/m²) 27 .2. and a load value of 16 kN/m². the load value is as given in Table 2.5) m.3 shows the dead load for one storey for type a).2.2.2.2. Figure 2.3 Load case 3 – dead load of the facade In load case 3 the dead loads from the facade are modelled.Curbach 2.2 Load case 2 – dead load of the interior The dead load of the interior is modelled in load case 2.5 x 0. In slab type c) they are set on the outer beams as line loads.

2.2 Load case 101 Load case 101 contains the loads from wind in global Y-direction of the building (perpendicular to the longer side). The facade is assumed to carry the loads as a six-span girder to the columns.2. snow and service loads 1 and 2 2. Fig.2.3.2. Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2.3.Just and M. therefore the area loads have been converted to line loads. Structural analyses M.5 shows the resulting loads.2. The loads are set on the columns.2.2.4 Arrangement of the loads for load case 51 (values in kN/m) 2.1 Load case 51 Load case 51 contains the loads from wind in global X-direction of the building (parallel to the longer side). Fig. As in load case 51 loads are set on the columns and therefore the surface loads are converted to line loads.5 Arrangement of the loads for load case 101 (values in kN/m) 28 .Curbach 2.3.4 shows the resulting loads. Load cases for wind. The facade is assumed to carry the loads as a two-span girder to the columns.

2.2.2.3.7 Arrangement of the loads for load case 202 (values in kN/m²) 29 .2.6 – Arrangement of the loads for load case 201 (values in kN/m²) 2.2. The arrangement of the snow loads for load case 202 is shown in Figure 2.7.3 Load case 201 In load case 201 the snow on the roof is modelled as an area load on all plate elements of the roof slab as shown in Figure 2.2. Fig.2.2. Structural analyses M.Just and M.3. in 203 between 2 and 3 and so on.Curbach 2.4 Load cases 202 to 206 Load cases 202 to 206 contain the field by field snow loads on the external area. Fig. In load case 202 the load is set on the field between axes 1 and 2.6.

1356 and 1366 contain the service load 1 on the roof in variable arrangements.9 .3. Structural analyses M.8 Arrangement of the loads for load case 1326 (values in kN/m) Fig. as in the following figures.a combination where all fields are loaded and Figure 2.9 Arrangement of the loads for load case 1336 (values in kN/m) 30 .2.2.2.2.10 shows a combination to maximize bi-axial moments in the columns. Figure 2.2.8 shows a combination chosen to maximize moment and shear action effects in the beam along axis 2. Figure 2.2.2.2.Curbach 2. 1356 and 1366 Load cases 1326.Just and M. 1336. Fig.5 Load cases 1326. 1336.

6).10 – Arrangement of the loads for load case 1356 (values in kN/m) Figure 2. Fig. 3 . Load case 10021 is similar to load case 1326. 2.2.10. Levels 0. 31 .11).2.Just and M.2. Structural analyses M. Load case 10031 equals load case 1336 – the load acts on all fields in all levels. Levels 0.Curbach Fig.2.3.11 – Arrangement of the loads for load case 1366 (values in kN/m) More combinations have been examined. All levels from 0 to 5 have the same arrangement. which is shown in Figure 2.2. 2 and 4 have the arrangement as in Figure 2.2. 2 and 4 have the same arrangement (Figure 2. 10011.2.6 Load cases 10001. levels 3 and 5 have the contrary arrangement.4 and 5 .2. 10021 and 10031 These load cases contain the service load 1 for the levels 0 to 5 in variable arrangements. Load case 10011 is similar to load case 1366. but these were not governing the design. The Levels 3 and 5 have the opposite arrangement (load on fields between axis 1 . Load case 10001 is similar to load case 1356.2.8.2.11 shows a combination chosen to maximize moment in field 2 of the beam in axis B.

i Qi ) (2. because they are in the same class. 1356 and 1366 only one can act at a time. 10021 and 10031. For the design of the foundation data are calculated at the sole of the foundation.1.3.35 and γQ. For example load case 10101 belongs to load case 10001.1. also for 10101.3.1Q1  γ Q .2 Shear wall B1 The internal forces for shear wall B1 are calculated at the bottom end of the wall (ground level).2. 2. 10111. The parking loads were set in their own load cases.” 32 .7 Load cases 10101. if authoritative.Curbach 2. For the ultimate limit state (ULS) only one combination is calculated (general combination): γ G G  γ Q . 1336. 10121 and 10131.3. 10011.1 Column B2 The internal forces for column B2 are calculated right above the foundation at the bottom end of the column.i Qi ) (2. 1336. which are the logical continuation of the arrangements from levels 0 ÷ 6. 10121 and 10131 These load cases contain the service load 2 for the levels -1 and -2 and for the external area in variable arrangements. Structural analyses M. 10011. Position of calculated internal forces and moments 2.3.4.i Q i ) (2.Just and M.1.i (ψ 0.3) 2.1) with γG = 1. The snow load cases 201 to 206 can act at the same time. For the serviceability limit states (SLS) the two following combinations are calculated: o characteristic combination: G  Q1  (ψ 0. 1356 and 1366 and one load case from 10001. as shown in 2. because they have another exposure class then the loads from dwelling and offices. From load cases 1326.5. Furthermore one load case from 1326.1 = γQ.2) o quasi permanent combination: G   (ψ 2.2. this applies for 10001.i = 1. Rules for the combination of load cases All dead load cases are assumed to act at every time.3 Internal forces and moments 2. The load cases 51 and 101 are assumed to never act at the same time.2. 2. Also the values at the top of the column (in the parking level “-2”) that are linked to the values at the bottom end are calculated.1.3 Frame axis 2 – beam The calculated internal forces and moments represent the beam in axis 2 on the 2nd floor for the slab type “Slab on beams.1. 10111. 10021 and 10031 together have the predominant influence. 2.3.

3.3. The values represent a flat slab situated in level 2. This superposition is called “max Vy”.3. Vy and Vz and for the internal moment My are calculated.2. different superpositions have been calculated: Data units are [kN] and [m]. 2.1. This superposition is called “max Vz”. o The maximum internal moment My and the according values for internal forces N. This superposition is called “max N”. Vy and Vz and for the internal moment Mz are calculated. Results of structural analysis With the exception of punching (see 2.4 to 2.3 show the combined values for the bottom end of the column. o The maximum internal force Vy and the according values for internal forces N and Vz and for the internal moments My and Mz are calculated.3. only the maximum shear force VEd at two columns has been calculated.5) all internal forces and moments are calculated as characteristic values then combined in varying combinations as shown in 2. This superposition is called “min N”.1.5 Punching for flat slab The given forces Vd are the design values that represent the shear forces which flow into the columns as normal forces at the columns A1 and B2. Vy and Vz and for the internal moment My are calculated. In case of the flat slab. o The maximum internal force N and the according values for internal forces Vy and Vz and for the internal moments My and Mz are calculated.3.1 to 2.1.2.6 the related values for the top of the column in parking level “-2”. Vy and Vz and for the internal moment Mz are calculated. o The minimum internal moment Vy and the according values for internal forces N and Vy and for the internal moments My and Mz are calculated. For each of these combinations.3.3. Structural analyses M. o The maximum internal moment Mz and the according values for internal forces N. the local Z-axis equals the (negative) global Y-axis perpendicular to the same side. This superposition is called “max My”.Just and M. 2. o The minimum internal moment N and the according values for internal forces Vy and Vz and for the internal moments My and Mz are calculated. 2. Tables 2.Curbach 2. This superposition is called “min Vy”. The combination is given in Eq. This superposition is called “max Mz”.2.1. o The minimum internal moment Vy and the according values for internal forces N and Vz and for the internal moments My and Mz are calculated.4. 33 . o The minimum internal moment Mz and the according values for internal forces N. tables 2.1).1 Column B2 . This superposition is called “min Vz”. This superposition is called “min My”.3.3.results for ULS and SLS Results from the superposition in the ultimate limit state for the design of the column are in table 2. The column local Y-axis equals the global X-axis parallel to the longer side of the building. o The maximum internal force Vz and the according values for internal forces N and Vy and for the internal moments My and Mz are calculated. (2.” The results are only shown for the fields 1 to 3 (while 4 and 5 are mirrored results of 1 and 2). o The minimum internal moment My and the according values for internal forces N. This superposition is called “min Mz”.4 Frame axis B – beam The calculated internal forces and moments represent the beam in axis B on the 2nd floor for the slab type “slab with embedded elements.3.

31 -1.2).53 -1.54 -2.46 1. 201.38 51 202 – 205 min My -5300. 202.00 2.75 -1.49 10031 & 201. 203.63 2.72 1.82 4.09 -1.72 10111 51.d Vz.67 -3.49 -4.31 101 203 .44 101 202.94 -1. 10031.d Mz. 10101 min Mz -3932.206.64 -3. 10111 max Mz -3546. 10011 max Vz -3753. 10011 max Vy -4827.08 51 10031.89 0. (2.12 51 201.206.d Mz.73 2. 1356.3.93 -1.82 4.2 Results for column B2 (bottom end) for SLS – characteristic combination Superposition Nd Vy. 10121 & 1336 The second combination is given in Eqn.45 101 203 .72 10111 51.1 Results for column B2 (bottom end) .53 1.48 10121 101. The first combination is given in Eqn.46 2.34 -0. 1326.29 0.17 51 202 – 205 min My -3861.81 -1.96 -3.89 2.23 -4.10 -2.85 10121 101.20 -0. 10021 min Vz -4467. 1356.25 -4.65 -0.3. 1356.46 1.62 -2.82 0.2 gives results from Superposition for serviceability limit states SLS.04 -2.52 -1.63 2.04 -1. Table 2.68 -1. 10111 max Mz -4827.d Considered load cases [kN] [kN] [kN] [kNm] [kNm] Q1 Qi max My -4517.206.05 4. 10011 max Vz -5139. 10021 min Vy -5358.31 -1.206.69 -0.d Considered load cases [kN] [kN] [kN] [kNm] [kNm] Q1 Qi max My -3339.45 10111 51.73 2.27 -4.43 1.38 10121 201.ULS Superposition Nd Vy.27 -2.50 -3.63 51 10031.04 -2. (2.83 2.46 -2.66 51 201. 10101 max N -3266. 202.09 -4.47 1. 1356. 1326.206.d My.70 10121 201.17 -4. 34 . 10021 min Vy -3899. 202.d My.62 -2.58 -1. 203. 10021 min Vz -3305.46 1.33 -2.43 4. 10031.96 -3.3.73 -1. 203. 202. 10111 min N -5697.29 101 202.83 -4.Curbach Table 2.45 10111 51. 1326.78 -3. 10101 min Mz -5407.43 4.68 -3.3).d Vz. 10011 max Vy -3546.72 1.206.68 -3.64 -2.35 -0.00 2.206.23 10031 201.Just and M. 10101 max N -4408. 201. 203.27 1.48 2.70 -0.05 4.91 2.88 -2.206.36 -4. 10111 min N -4125.08 -2.65 -1. Structural analyses M.20 -1. 10121 1336 Table 2. 1326.88 -2.21 -0.

55 -2. 10021.75 10121 201.23 -4. 10121 min Vy -3582. 1326.54 2.46 2.43 -0.206.59 0.3. Not applicable min My -3526.71 0.31 -2. 10121 min Vz -3301.06 1.24 51 10031. Table 2.04 -0.31 -2.10 10.13 10031 201.28 5.35 -3.18 10011.82 -1.60 1356.63 -1.53 1.51 0.206. 10021. 10031.95 10111 51.11 1. 10111 max Vz -3482.88 3.28 5. 10011 max Vy -4802. 1356.2). 10101 min Mz -5382. 10011 max Vz -5114.92 0.95 -1.d Vz. 10101 min Mz -3596.d My. .95 -1.99 -0.18 -8.95 10111 51.11 1.93 0. 1326. (2.Curbach Table 2. 10031.90 -2.d My.51 4. . 202.56 101 202.68 -1. 10111 min N -5672. 203.02 -2. 203.97 0.18 -4.27 4.96 5.18 -8. The following tables give the values for the top of the column (in the parking level “-2”) corresponding to the superposition uses for the bottom end.16 1326.88 3.28 0.206.47 -3.04 -0.15 1356.46 2.d Considered load cases [kN] [kN] [kN] [kNm] [kNm] Qi max My -3316.51 4.206.3 Results for column B2 (bottom end) for SLS – quasi permanent combination Superposition Nd Vy.05 -7. 10021 min Vy -5332.96 -4.68 -1.83 0. 201. 10101 max N . The first combination is given in Eqn.3.32 0. 1356. Structural analyses M.92 -1.d Considered load cases [kN] [kN] [kN] [kNm] [kNm] Q1 Qi max My -4492.96 5.d Mz.67 -3.81 1. .10 4.65 -1.32 9.66 -3.09 10121 101.73 1326.60 10111 min N -4075.4 Results for column B2 (top end) for ULS Superposition Nd Vy.05 51 202 – 205 min My -5275.d Mz. 10031.62 -1. 10111 max Mz -3419. 10021 min Vz -4441.05 -7.03 -3. 10121 The values for the design of the foundation equal those given above.d Vz.39 -2. 35 . 10111 max Mz -4802.43 -3.18 10011.06 1.28 51 201.83 2.28 0.60 101 203 .17 1336.46 1.64 10031.07 -1.46 1.30 9. 10101 max N -4383.63 -1.52 -4. 202. but dead load of the foundation has been included. 10111 max Vy -3419.60 0.48 2.32 0.20 1.Just and M. 10121 & 1336 Results from Superposition for serviceability limit state. .25 -4.35 -3.

1356. 10011 max Vy -3527.63 0.32 0.25 2.28 0.28 0.3.83 1356.91 2.92 1.Just and M.58 2.Curbach Table 2. 10021 min Vy -3880.01 10121 201. 202.1 shows as an example the superposition for the shear wall for “max Mz“. Table 2. 10111 max Vz -3464.07 1.d Vz.72 1.45 -1.3.20 0. 10031.2.45 10111 51.63 -5.68 -0.04 3. 203. Figure 2.10 -2.35 -0.80 -2.74 1326.20 1.28 -3.56 6.3. 10021.15 -2.d Considered load cases [kN] [kN] [kN] [kNm] [kNm] Q1 Qi max My -3320. 10121 2. 10121 & 1336 The second combination is given in Eqn. 10121 min Vy -3563.d Mz. 10111 min N -4107.00 -1.206.68 0.22 51 202 – 205 min My -3842. 1356. 10031.93 -1.31 2.83 0. 10011 max Vz -3734. Not applicable min My -3507.03 -3.6 Results for column B2 (top end) for SLS – quasi permanent combination Superposition Nd Vy. 203.93 -3.60 0.89 2.08 -2.20 -5.25 2. 10021.93 -2.89 -3.04 1. 1326. 10101 min Mz -3577. 10101 min Mz -3913. 10111 max Vy -3400. .31 2.20 0.61 4.89 -1.206. 10101 max N .60 10031 201.24 10121 101.09 1.d Mz.01 51 10031.82 3.32 0. (2.d Considered load cases [kN] [kN] [kN] [kNm] [kNm] Qi max My -3297.20 -5. 10031.95 1.85 1. results for ULS and SLS Results from the ULS superposition for the design of the column.63 7.1).43 1336.38 5.93 -2. 10121 min Vz -3283.27 1.04 51 201. The combination is given in Eqn. 202.66 10011. 10111 max Mz -3400. 1326.59 0.5 Results for column B2 (top end) for SLS – characteristic combination Superposition Nd Vy.3. .68 0.62 6.49 6.84 1.66 10011.90 -0. (2.95 1.49 10031.46 1.45 10111 51.d My.59 -0.47 1. .d My.98 7.91 101 203 . .82 1.63 -5. 10021 min Vz -3286.31 1.72 -3.19 1356.89 101 202.206.61 4. 10111 max Mz -3527.04 3.18 10111 min N -4065.3).206.2 Shear wall B1. 36 .92 -3. Structural analyses M. 10101 max N -3248.72 1.17 5.71 0.24 -0.d Vz.63 0.50 6.83 1326. 201.31 1.

78 51 - min n My - -2338.24 4 -11. The local Z-axis Z of the column c equa als the (nega ative) global Y-axis. 5.59 . 205 .90 .. Stru uctural analy yses M..17 66.44 -29.3..Ju st and M.88 ..99 3. 10111 ma ax Vy - -2143.6 64 38.1 – Supe erposition “max Mz” in ULS Note: The local Y-a axis of the column c als the global X-axis.7 Results R for S Shear Wall B1 B (Bottom End) for UL LS position Superp Nd Vy. Y perpeendicular to the t same side. 12.3.71 1 -15.68 -18.13 .54 .66 3.94 1366 & - 10001 min N - -2591.61 -39.22 -39.73 10.39 -30.32 1326 & 121 201.28 -24. 10001.73 -25. The firstt combination 37 .206 6.21 11.46 0. 100131 min n Mz - -2493. 7..4 40 -3..59 9 -10. T Table 2.73 51 111 203.9 94 -5.01 65.57 -29.57 -24.d Vzz.11 -21.75 51 1336.31 1366 & 101 10031 min n Vy - -2523.53 101 10021 1 max Mz - -2190. 7.93 101 205.55 -38..27 -32.85 .2).70 2. 1356 . 101 10021 Results s from the su uperposition n for the SL LS.d Consid ered load ca ases [kN] [kN] [kN N] [kNm]] [kNm] Q1 Qi max My - -2392. n is given in Eqn. parallel to thee longer sid equa de of the building. 1336. 101 ma ax Vz - -2178.Curbach Fig. 20 10021 min n Vz - -2353.2 2.34 1366 & 01 101.d My. 10.60 -22.d Mz. 3.6 69 38.16 11.59 -35.85 10.60 51 2201.10131 ma ax N - -2143.47 -24.91 -29.44 4 -10. (2.

22 -14.69 -16. 10001 min N -1677.31 -20.54 -19.83 -22.d My.91 -9.31 -2. 10111 max Vy -1588.96 -14.d Vz.45 -28.02 -14.86 7.63 1326.23 101 205. Table 2.3.8 Results for shear wall B1 (bottom end) for SLS – characteristic combination Superposition Nd Vy.80 51 - min My -1718.80 -23.29 4.16 -13.27 -2. 10131 min Mz -1822.Curbach Table 2.81 -13.80 4.02 4.d Mz.27 -2.73 -19.78 -9. results for ULS Figures 2.2 and 2.3 show the results for the superposition of “max My”: 38 .3 Frame axis 2 – beam.76 0.3.72 -22.d Considered load cases [kN] [kN] [kN] [kNm] [kNm] Qi max My -1664.46 43.65 -27.36 5.16 4.06 -2.58 25.06 1336.39 1336.71 4.03 -19.02 -14. 201 10021 min Vz -1728.11 25.23 44.d Mz.2.05 -3. 10021.30 -13. 10121 10021 The second combination is given in Eqn.01 -18.17 -14.64 101 10021 max Mz -1620. 10121 2.29 -13.89 -2.12 -3.43 8.d Vz.93 5.50 1326 & 201.66 4.19 -28. 10131 max N -1596.60 -2.9 Results for shear wall B1 (bottom end) for SLS – quasi permanent combination Superposition Nd Vy.206.80 -14.74 -22.96 -18.76 -12.92 1336. (2.3.12 -20. 205 .27 -17.50 - min My -1643.62 7.3.82 -17.63 -3.18 1366 & 101. 10111 max Vz -1612. 10021 min Vz -1630.01 -17.07 1366.10 51 203.55 7.79 4.04 10021 max Mz -1609. 10001.08 -20.29 0. 1336.35 51 201.41 -9.82 1366.92 10011 max Vz -1603.80 4. 10111 max Vy -1596.85 -19. 10131 min Mz -1664.87 -3.17 -19.79 8.3.Just and M.55 -2.11 51 1336.55 25.38 -20.16 1366 & 101 10031 min Vy -1841.49 4.3). 10031 min Vy -1664.85 -21.74 0.74 3.08 -13.76 8.30 4.10131 max N -1588.91 5.09 1356.d My.08 -3. 1356 .61 -0. 10001.91 1366 & - 10001 min N -1887.d Considered load cases [kN] [kN] [kN] [kNm] [kNm] Q1 Qi max My -1754. Structural analyses M.37 -15.

56 2. Structural analyses M.80 75.3 My values for the superposition of “max My” For the superposition of “min My”.67 -77.4 Vz values for superposition “min My” 39 .21 7.19 42.00 19.2.12 102.46 12.79 -56.32 75.11 -1.39 50.2.2.88 -37.90 -8.49 -98.3.Just and M.37 42. Figures 2.62 88.99 54.Curbach 97.46 54.19 66.3. The first one is the minimum internal moment at the end support. because the file size of FEM-results grew too big otherwise.30 -81.58 -69.10 -145.34 -31.70 -9.3.92 Fig.37 31.50 -6.60 -66.45 11.12 -57.82 -15.28 -112. two cases have been considered.67 89.19 -124.36 65. This was necessary to reduce the data output. the second is the minimum internal moment at the middle support.16 58.5 show the results for the superposition of “min My” for end support: Fig.4 and 2.3.11 21.3.2 Vz values for the superposition of “max My” -132.15 Fig.32 66.52 68.77 -101.

80 75.82 -15.3.39 50.7 Values for My for the superposition of “min My” Figures 2.37 42.62 88.70 -9.2.11 21.3.11 -1.99 54.34 -31.88 -37.52 68.Just and M.Curbach Fig.46 54. Structural analyses M.28 -112.12 102.58 -69.6 Vz values for the superposition of “min My” -132.2.46 12.79 -56.3.16 58.8 and 2.15 Fig.21 7.67 -77.10 -145.12 -57.2.3.37 31.36 65.19 66.19 42.7 show the results for the superposition of “min My” for the middle support: 97.45 11.92 Fig.56 2.9 show the results for the superposition of “max Vz” for shear forces at the end support: 40 .49 -98.3.3.32 66.19 -124.50 -6.6 and 2.30 -81.00 19.5 My values for the superposition of “min My” Figures 2.3.67 89.90 -8.60 -66.32 75.77 -101.

2.10 Values for Vz for the superposition of “min Vz” 41 .88 -37.8 Values for Vz for the superposition of “max Vz” Fig.56 2.11 21.50 -6.19 -124.12 -57.77 -101.82 -15.2.3. Structural analyses M.30 -81.34 -31.99 54.3.67 -77.9 Values for My for the superposition of “max Vz” Figures 2.3.2.45 11.10 and 2.37 31.28 -112.67 89.11 show the results for the superposition of “min Vz” for shear forces at the middle support: 97.Curbach Fig.80 75.15 Fig.3.10 -145.37 42.32 75.3.Just and M.12 102.

83 36.61 19.Curbach -132.4 Frame axis B – Beam.67 -198.58 5.3.3.19 42.78 78.44 -19.30 -6.13 show the results for the superposition of “max My” for the first field: 185.35 Fig.2.31 -27.58 -69.92 98. Figures 2.56 2.56 193.19 66.37 -28.46 54. Structural analyses M.58 -67.3.70 -9.00 19.12 and 2. results for ULS For the superposition of “max My”.3. because the file size of FEM-results grew too big otherwise.87 -97.2.23 165.32 66.09 40.28 189.12 Values for Vz for the superposition of “max My” -170. two cases have been considered.25 Fig.68 -46.15 -5.46 -59.62 88.39 50.06 -28.17 -162.49 -98.79 -56.79 -46.81 26.82 -196.3.66 166. This was necessary to reduce the data output.38 202.2.13 Values for My for the superposition of “max My” Figures 2.01 -36. the second is the maximum internal moment in the second field.Just and M.3.35 111.15 -116.78 -227.32 78.11 Values for My for the superposition of “min Vz” 2.46 12.76 12.37 -16.33 87.23 -208.3.60 -66.2.16 58.50 -231.28 -81.21 7.24 111.39 21.11 -1.36 65.46 131.37 14.06 148.57 -5.92 Fig.15 show the results for the superposition of “max My” for the second field: 42 .67 177.62 -182.95 19. The first case is the maximum internal moment in field one.90 -8.52 68.3.14 and 2.00 63.

84 15.35 14.45 56.62 -173.65 -198.74 -13.28 1.77 -12.38 -67.16 -49.21 27.27 -189.29 -18.Just and M.74 143.36 -8.10 -3.3.03 -34.49 139.51 34.99 -158.21 162.15 Values for My for the superposition of “max My” For the superposition of “min My”.33 10.24 -27.63 Fig.44 -14.11 90.70 -198.82 -33.89 106.16 and 2.17 show the results for the superposition of “min My” for the end support: 182.00 199.23 -38.52 121.47 46.84 -29.38 -82.90 35.2. Structural analyses M.49 21.92 -17.98 151.55 198.83 23.Curbach 183.39 185.25 Fig.75 -223.3.07 -197.52 190.74 124.98 -227.76 -8. the second is the minimum internal moment at the first internal support and the third is the minimum internal moment at the second internal support.00 -24. because the file size of FEM-results grew too big otherwise.36 156. This was necessary to reduce the data output.2.92 82.63 54.72 -43.09 -172.92 4.71 22.01 67.19 -21.62 35.14 Values for Vz for the superposition of “max My” -167.07 Fig.30 147.69 9.63 52.30 164.75 -85.3.25 -29.2.3.70 -34. The first case is the minimum internal moment at the end support.95 -195.40 -44. three cases have been considered.29 117.51 -84.28 200.16 Values for Vz for the superposition of “min My” 43 .52 15.16 -87.3.77 -156. Figures 2.

90 83.24 110.3.35 -62.19 show the results for the superposition of “min My” for the first internal Figures 2.58 M.23 26.71 47.83 -40.2.3.43 132.58 -54.65 80.26 170.16 -270.37 245.50 18.38 -19.84 25.86 -221.74 -6.Just and M.67 8.34 -227.65 202.43 -91.3.27 116.17 Values for My for the superposition of “min My” Fig.68 -10.3.64 -298.82 -53.62 128.46 -222.97 -100.78 159.86 13.94 -1.99 96.39 8.88 257.73 -180.18 Values for Vz for the superposition of “min My” Fig.86 -163.86 -66.19 and 2.29 0.91 218. support: support: -230.06 -23.50 -6.14 -51.35 121.34 86.00 -26.58 -266.Curbach -38.74 71.03 Fig.98 84.19 Values for My for the Superposition of “min My” -42.11 265.31 -215.24 -46.06 -312.2.39 194.3.3.28 Structural analyses 42.45 -26.84 -15.65 42.86 -117.3.22 -32.18 and 2.69 44 14.10 50.20 show the results for the superposition of “min My” for the second internal .82 -0.93 150.21 -267.72 -6.19 -72.94 2.41 -15.22 8.2.45 -17.67 -10.13 124.91 Figures 2.

63 25.3.44 -85.83 220.53 -51.44 -57.31 86.84 41.3.00 17.19 266.19 Values for Vz for the superposition of “min My” Fig.19 -154.17 -31.2.83 -302.19 25.56 -268.28 -26.3.11 8.09 6.30 -101. -235.2.24 -8.2.93 10.28 117.62 -257.76 -89.43 256.26 -213.Just and M.12 -18.97 -16.57 96.20 Values for My for the superposition of “min My” -41.46 220.80 -47.66 -70.65 68.40 256.24 -63.53 49.68 -18.82 -162.69 -12.3.81 M.69 115.53 125.53 49.21 and 2.02 Fig.08 -15.43 -112.22 show the results for the superposition of “max Vz” for the end support: .36 -269.12 36.85 197.56 201.07 Structural analyses 42.56 106.34 79.Curbach -37.96 45 -97.79 248.13 -223.74 89.03 18.33 -195.79 -46.21 Values for Vz for the superposition of “max Vz” Fig.30 55.25 -317.3.12 -17.98 201.36 13.58 -13.44 Figures 2.48 -59.95 197.87 -19.81 -0.85 248.85 85.18 -198.84 -23.34 266.13 111.

63 -16.45 Fig.69 76.64 38.28 35.25 and 2.07 170.54 -33.23 -215.17 119.43 22.80 140.15 79.15 7.66 -16.33 51.24 show the results for the superposition of “min Vz” for the first internal .34 -227.73 -11.99 -266.3.3.37 98.79 0.01 -23.60 197.65 -302.48 119.95 65.66 22.98 19.76 56.25 Fig.07 15.90 -11.99 -33.48 -66.73 186.23 and 2.50 53.3.88 -0.72 -235.23 Values for Vz for the superposition of “min Vz” -31.21 -267.02 150. support: support: -159.67 117.24 Values for My for the superposition of “min Vz” Fig.24 -120.76 -51.78 123.19 -38.Curbach -30.18 46 -132.23 88.Just and M.76 150.3.06 -312.26 show the results for the superposition of “min Vz” for the second internal Figures 2.42 145.2.45 -23.16 -270.24 -46.68 167.41 161.03 117.94 43.22 9.46 Figures 2.34 8.66 180.58 -83.2.53 -5.54 -7.29 -57.92 -12.89 -70.64 Structural analyses M.2.74 15.60 -17.3.50 -240.06 108.86 -221.3.3.23 -76.22 Values for My for the superposition of “max Vz” -40.64 -218.52 -83.

results for ULS Results from the superposition for the ultimate limit state are in Table 2.5 Punching for flat slab.06 -7.35 -118.3.91 -2.26 169.30 81.61 22.3. Table 2.74 150.26 8.30 -85.19 -70.3.51 87.Curbach 182.40 -46.2.82 29.68 -257.98 142.54 -13.45 74.34 118.34 -268.26 Values for My for the superposition of “min Vz” 2. The combination is given in Eqn.42 144.10.47 123.3.shear forces at columns A1 and B2 Position Vd Considered load cases [kN] Q1 Qi A1 176.94 7.01 36.02 10021 202.40 -223.78 199.07 -68.65 -1.33 13.26 -134.12 -43. (2. 47 .3.31 -16.2. Structural analyses M.19 -39.10 Flat Slab .10 -222.72 162.58 -17.52 -24.25 Values for Vz for the superposition of “min Vz” -163.19 -269.99 -27.93 Fig.07 -40.45 15.Just and M.36 -72.07 Fig.07 -213.1).68 54.13 45.75 55.96 185.56 -317.48 10021 1356.38 20. 101 The serviceability limit states action effects have not been considered for the flat slab.2.33 -23.92 109. 201 B2 693.

Just and M.Curbach 48 . Structural analyses M.

The Netherlands 2 Vienna University of Technology. Austria .SLS) Just WALRAVEN1 and Sausanne GMAINER2 1 Delft University of Technology. CHAPTER 3 LIMIT STATE DESIGN (ULS .

Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. Walraven and S. Gmainer 50 .

The building is described in details in 1.1 Introduction 3. shear.1. T-beams: h = 0. 51 . Motivation The aim of this paper is the design of a six-storey building with two underground parking levels according to Eurocode 2.40 m) Furthermore the verification for the columns and walls is carried out. Chapter 1. To satisfy also the serviceability limit state criteria the calculation for limiting the crack width and the deflection for the critical members are presented.23 m. the following consider the ultimate limit state for typical bending.1.1. hbeam = 0. The view of the ground floor and the main sections of the building are given and shown in Figure 3. Walraven and S. axial and punching cases in design procedures.1 and Figure 3. Fig.1.2. 3.40 m) o Flat slab (h = 0.21 m) o Slabs with embedded lighting elements (h = 0.18 m.2.1. Three different types of horizontal slabs are considered: o Slabs on beams (hslab = 0. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.1. Gmainer 3.1 View of the building in plan On the basis of the effects of the actions from the structural analysis (Chapter 2).

2 Section S1 and S2 of the building 52 .1. Walraven and S. 3. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. Gmainer Fig.

2.2.5 γs = 1.1.1 Plan view of the slab on beams in axis 2 3.1 Materials data Concrete class Steel class o Beams and slabs: C25/30 o Grade 500 class B o Columns: C30/37 Environmental class XC2-XC3 cnom = 30 mm γc = 1.2.2: a continuous beam with a T-cross section where the effective width has to be defined. 3.1.2 Ultimate limit state design 3. Materials In Table 3. Fig. 53 . Gmainer 3.15 3.1 Static model and cross section of the slab on beams The static model for the main bearing beam and the cross section S2’ are in Figure 3.1. Table 3. Slab on beams Figure 3. Walraven and S.2. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.2.1 shows the considered beam (axis 2).1.1 the assumed materials data and ULS safety factors are shown.1.2.

2.2.2  1181 mm beff  2·1181  250  2611 mm Cross section of the T-beam at intermediate support beff .1·(0.1  0.2.1 (EC 2) the effective width beff is beff   beff . Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.1) where beff .3.2  789 mm beff  2·788. 54 .1  beff .1  0.3 Zero points of bending moments Cross section of the T-beam at mid-span beff . These maximum design moments MEd and shear forces VEd are the maximum values from different load cases in Chapter 2.5.8  250  1828 mm The internal forces for the beam axis 2 are presented in Figure 3.2·2875  0.85 l )  0.i  bw  b .i  0.85·7125)  1181 mm  b1  2875 mm beff . 3.1l 0  0.2l 0 and beff .1) and (3.1·(0.2b1  0.1  beff .2) Fig.30·l )  0.1(0.i  bi .3) into Eqn.2.2bi  0.2·b1  0.1·(0.30·7125)  789 mm  b1  2875 mm beff . 3.(3.2 Static system in axis 2 and cross section Inserting zero points of bending moments (see Figure 3. (3. Walraven and S.2) leads to: Fig.2. Gmainer According to chapter 5. (3.2·2875  0.

8 η  1. Gmainer Fig. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.6 assuming λ  0.2.4 Slab on beams with their effective width Fig.2.6 Stress block according to EC 2 55 . 3.2.0 as fck  50MPa Fig.7 – EC 2) is illustrated in Figure 3. Walraven and S.5 Internal forces MEd and VEd of the axis 2 (combination of maximum values from various load cases) 3.1.2.2 Determination of the bending reinforcement in general The determination of the bending reinforcement based on the method with the simplified concrete design stress block (chapter 3. 3.2.1. 3.

(3.2.45d.10) d or written in another way: z  0.9 it follows that z  0.3) where z is the lever arm between the resultant forces Fc and Fs. It is mostly assumed that the balanced situation is reached for a depth of the compressed area equal to x = 0. (3.3): z z MEd  fcd bd ²(1  )  2 (3.6) d d or MEd z z  (1  )  2 (3. which can generally be used for a rectangular compression zone.7) bd ²fcd d d This can be written as MEd K (3.5) in Eqn. (3. the ULS design moment MEd has to be balanced by the resisting moment MRd so that: MEd  Fc z  Fs z (3. Gmainer For the calculation of the bending reinforcement a design diagram can be derived (see Figure 3.3) the following expressions apply: Fc  fcd bx (3. (3. Bending of the section (according to Figure 3. 56 . For equilibrium.7).5) 2 Substituting Eqn.25  0. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. Walraven and S.6) will induce a resultant tensile force Fs in the reinforcing steel.4) x zd (3. and a resultant compressive force in the concrete Fc which acts through the centroid of the effective compressed area . (3.5  0.4) and Eqn. In order to define the limit of validity the “balanced” section is considered.9) d d From equation 3.2. (3.11) d These equations are valid under the assumption that the reinforcing steel yields before the concrete crushes.5K .5(1  1  2K ). In Eqn.8) bd ²fcd where z z K  (1  )  2 (3.

82 (3. 3.15) bd 2 fcd From Eqn.11) and (3.45d zbal  d   0.14) then Mbal  0. Fig.8).3 kNm.16) d Taking this as a limit the resulting design diagram is in Figure 3.3 Determination of the bending reinforcement for the T-beams Cross section at mid-span The calculation for the bending reinforcement is done first for the cross section at mid-span (see Figure 3.295 bd 2 fcd (3.bal  fcd bx  fcd  b  0. The maximum ULS bending moment in span AB is MEd = 89.1.295 3.7 Ratio z/d as a function of K up to limit value K’ = 0. Walraven and S.2. The effective depth d is 372 mm (see Chapter 2).2.36 bdfcd (3.12) whereas the inner lever arm is: 0.10) for this value of K’: z  0.8  0.2.13) 2 Combining Eqn. (3. 57 .2.(3.12) gives: M bal  0.82d (3. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. Gmainer The corresponding compression force is Fc .8  0.7. 45  d  0.295  K ' (3.

295  0.5(1  1  2K )  0.9925 This means 4ϕ14 = 616 6 mm² or 5ϕ12 5 = 565 m mm²..3  106 Asl  ( )  556 mm²² 435 372  0.295  bd 2 fcd 250  3722  25 1.9  106 Asl  ( )  947 mm² 435 372  0. Walrraven and S.5 5  (1  1  2  0. 3.8 867 d 1 132. Gmainer MEd 89.5 z  0.0  bd 2 fcd 25 2611.230)  0.2.9 1 kNm.8 T-bea am cross-se ection at mid d-span section at intermediate support Cross s The crosss section att intermediate e support B iis in Figure 3. 3.2.17) fyd z 1 89.9 Cross-sectio C on of T-beam m .2  372 22  1.3  10 6 K   0148  0. MEd 132.9925  0.5 z  1  1  2K )  0.867 So 7ϕ14 4 = 1078 mm m² or 9ϕ12 = 1018 mm² ca an be spread d over the efffective width EC2 sugges sts that part of th he reinforcem ment is concentrated aro und the web b zone F Fig.9  10 06 K   0.0148)  0. 3 The ma aximum ULS S bending mo oment at the face of the suppoort is MEd = 132.2.5(1 d 1 M EEd Asl  (  N Ed ) (3.9. Fig.230  0.5  (1  1  2  0. Limit sttate design (U ULS-SLS) J.intermed diate supporrt B 58 .

11 shows the t shear cappacity at stirrrup e model for the yielding (VRd.73  2. where w VEd.prov 565 ρl   0.12) where 0.c  [0.10 Red duced shearr force .. 1 VRd .90kN 4 VRd .11 Sh hear capacitty at stirrup p yielding an nd web crus hing 59 .2.61% 0 bw d 250  372 1 VRd .12  1.18 0.0061  0.c asssuming a sec ction without sshear reinforrcement.73  (100  0.12 γc 1.5 2000 200 k  1  2.02 ρl   0. Gmainer 3. If th his inequalityy does not ho old. Walrraven and S.52kN  Shear reeinforcementt is required. Limit sttate design (U ULS-SLS) J.red  VEd .3 Fig.red  115 5.2 (E EC 2) is the verification v VEd ≤ VRd.18 CRd .0 k  1  1.36 (3.max).c  47.90 0 kN  VEd .2.1.10) is : 129.2. shear reinforcement is required.9 VEd .372) 3. Figure 3.52kN. 36  0.2.s) and web w crushing g (VRd. 3.red  115.2. 3.support A The firstt check according to Chapter 6.2.red ((see Figure 3.0 d 372 Asl .c    0.0061 0  25) 3 ]  250  372  47902N  47.c k (100 ρl fck )3 ]bw d (3.c  [CRd . Fig.4 Design of beams for shear s Control of shear ca apacity of th he beams The she ear force mayy be determin ned at distan nce d from th he support.

s  VEd   s zfywd cot  Asw 115.max  0. the minimum shear reinforcement for the T-beam at support A is determined as follows: Asw VEd VRd .2.5 2. 60 .002m²  200mm² fyk 500 Maximum longitudinal distance of the stirrups (chapter 9.2.min  0.12 marks the stirrups layout at the area near support A. for shear the opposite applies.5  0. Figure 3.11 right.5).max  0.2.9  0. Walraven and S.8° (1 ≤ cot  ≤ 2.08 bw  0.max  0. As the geometry of the concrete section is given.75d (1  cot α ) for α  90  s l . As shown in Figure 3. Opposite to the design of bending reinforcement.54    0. Gmainer The formulas for yielding shear reinforcement and web crushing are: Asw VRd .(5) – EC 2): fck 25 asw .18) s 1 VRd .2. to be chosen between 45° and 21.25976MN  259.red  115.2.54 250 250 It results that 25 1 VRd .372  435  2. A practical approach is to move the VEd -line over a distance zcotΘ in the “favourable” direction (towards the support) and “cover” it with the resisting shear due to the reinforcement. ν is a reduction factor for the concrete compressive strength of the struts in the stress field.5 Assuming double shear stirrups: ϕ6/175 mm = 339 > 317 mm²/m Minimum shear reinforcement (Chapter 9.s  zfywd cot  (3. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.52  1000 asw    317 mm²/m s 0.6  (1  )  0.3. where the “shift rule” requires a movement of the MEd -line in the unfavourable direction.  is the compression strut angle.25  0.5 kN 1.9  0.19) cot   tan where fywd is the design value for the stirrup steel yielding. is carried by the stirrups over a distance zcotΘ at the left side of x.(4) – EC 2): s l .2.4 Figure 3.75  372  279  175 mm The web crushing criterion checks the upper value of the shear capacity with: fck 25 ν  0.8 kN > VEd .11 the shear force at a distance x from the support.08   0.372  0.6(1  )  0.max  bw zνfcd (3.25  0.

25 for tension flanges (45° ≥ Θf ≥ 38. Walraven and S.6°).0 ≤ cot Θf ≤ 1.12 Stirrup configuration .support A Shear between web and flanges of the T-section In the T-beam a check of interface shear should be done according to Chapter 6.2. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. see Figure 3. Gmainer Fig.2. The strut angle Θf is defined by: o 1.2.2.20) (hf x ) where ∆Fd is the increment of the longitudinal force in the flange and fctd is the design value of the concrete tensile strength.0 for compression flanges (45° ≥ Θf ≥ 26.4 (EC 2).5°) o 1. 61 . 3.13 Shear between web and flanges of T-sections according to EC 2 The recommended value is k = 0. No transverse tension ties are required if the shear stress at the interface meets the condition: Fd ν Ed   kfctd (3. 3. Fig.4.13.0 ≤ cot Θf ≤ 2.

2.5 If ν Ed  0. The cross-sections considered are in Figures 3.C 2 89830 ν Ed .2  250) 2 Ed .05 fctd  (3.67N/mm² beff zhf 2611.0.2 0. 1 1 (beff  bw ) V  (2611.0.9  372  180 ν Ed . Gmainer α ct fctk .15.67 kN/cm²  0.2 0. 4fctd  0.8N/mm²  fctd   1.2  0. It is recommended to assume αct = 1.0.2. 4fctd  0.A     0. For C25/30: 1. A  0.C  0. 4  1.supports A and C 1 1 (beff  bw ) V  (2611. Fig.9  372  180 ν Ed .4fctd  no transverse reinforcement is required.2.21) γc where αct is a factor that considers sustained loading influences on the concrete tensile strength and unfavourable influences due to the type of loading.14 T-beam for check of transverse shear reinforcement .2. A check for interface shear at the T-beam in axis 2 (see Figure 3. Walraven and S. Fig.red .8 fctk .87 N/mm²  0.red 2 115520 ν Ed . 3.C     0.1) for support A and C and at the intermediate support B is necessary.2  0.15 T-beam for check of transverse shear reinforcement . The reduced shear forces at distance d of the supports are determined and assembled in the following equations.0  1. 3.2  250) 2 Ed .support B 62 .14 and 3. 4  1.2N/mm² 1. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. 48 N/mm²  Transverse shear reinforcement at support C is required.2. 48 N/mm²  Transverse shear reinforcement at support A is required! Furthermore it has to be checked if transverse shear reinforcement at support C and the intermediate support are necessary.05  1.87N/mm² beff zhf 2611.

2  0.16 Zones of beam axis 2 where transverse reinforcement is required Transverse reinforcement Near support A: 1 Ast ( beff  bw ) V 2 1  Ed .14 mm²/mm s 2611. Fig.0 63 . 4fctd  0.left     0.2  250) 115520 1  2    0.6 0.B. 48 N/mm²  Transverse shear reinforcement at support Bleft is required.2.2.6  250) 2 Ed .right 2 131410 ν Ed .left 2 101830 ν Ed .16 and 3.6  250) 2 101830 1     0. 48 N/mm²  Transverse shear reinforcement at support Bright is required.B.73N/mm² beff zhf 1827.20 mm²/mm Near support B: 1 Ast  (1827.2 0.2  0.left  0. bars: ϕ8/250 mm = 0. 4fctd  0. 4  1.6 0.red (3.9  372  180 ν Ed .B .B . Figures 3.2. 4  1. 1 1 ( beff  bw ) V  (1827. Gmainer 1 1 ( beff  bw ) V  (1827. 3.6 0.0 → e. Walraven and S.9  372  435 2.6  250) 2 Ed .15 mm²/mm s 1827.left  0. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. bars: ϕ8/250 mm = 0.9  372  180 ν Ed .g.g.18 mm²/mm s 2611.2  250) 2 89830 1     0.94 N/mm²  0.20 mm²/mm Near support C: 1 Ast  (2611.red .94N/mm² beff zhf 1827.22) s beff zfyd cot  f 1 Ast  (2611.0 → e.B .2 0.9  372  435 2.right     0.9  372  435 2.red .B .73 N/mm²  0.17 show the zones of beam axis 2 where transverse reinforcement is required.

5 kN/m².75 kN/m² QEd  1.75  3.g.17 Beam axis 2 – zones where transverse reinforcement is required 3. Gmainer 1 Ast  (1827.5  2. Assuming the suggested safety factors for G and Q GEd  1. The loads G2 = 3. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.0 kN/m² and Q = 2.2. It depends on the supporting conditions of the slab boundaries by which angle the loads are carried to the beams and bearing walls. Walraven and S.2.19 mm²/mm s 1827.26 (3.3  (4.6 0. o 60° for disparate edgings (fixed connection) and o 45° for disparate edgings (freely supported).2.0 kN/m² were discussed in Chapter 1.18 shows a design assumption for the load transmission from slabs to beams.20 mm²/mm Fig.0  3.1.0 → e.5 Design of slabs supported by beams Figure 3.0  12.0 k N/m² LEd  9. Furthermore the static systems for a strip of the slab in both directions are depicted.75 kN/m² Longitudinal reinforcement in slabs The minimum reinforcement ratio follows from: fctm ρl .9  372  435 2.min  0.23) fyk 64 . 3. The loads on the slab will be distributed into areas. The assumed angles are o 45° for consistent edgings.6  250) 2 131410 1     0.5  3.0)  9. The dead load G1 for the 180 mm thick slab amounts to 4. bars: ϕ8/250 mm = 0.

min  0.295  bd 2 fcd 25 103  1432  1. 3. Gmainer 2.5 65 .6 For a C25/3 concrete and a B500 steel ρl .2. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. 500 The effective depth d of the slab on beams has been determined (Chapter 1) as d = 143 mm.axis 2: MEd 49. Walraven and S.18 Load transfer from slabs to beams and static systems Longitudinal reinforcement in X-direction at intermediate support .26   0. Fig.18  106 K   0.14%.144  0.

922 So the reinforcement ratio ρ can be determined (Eqn.295  bd 2 fcd 25 103  143 2  1.972 As 303 ρ   0.60% bd 1000  1.922 d 1 49.43 Longitudinal reinforcement in Y-direction at intermediate support in axis B: MEd 68.95  106 K   0.295  bd 2 fcd 25 103  1432  1. As ρ (3.95  106 Asl  ( )  630 mm² 435 143  0.5 66 .32  106 Asl  ( )  303 mm² 435 143  0.942 d 1 36.5  (1  1  2  0.200  0.295  bd 2fcd 25 103  1432  1.32  106 K   0.5 z   0.0538)  0.44% b  d 1000  1.43 Longitudinal reinforcement in X-direction at mid span 1-2: MEd 18.36 ρ   0.5  (1  1  2  0.5 z   0. Walraven and S.15  106 K   0.24) bd As 856.5(1  1  2K )  0.108)  0. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.942 As 630 ρ   0.21% bd 1000  1.43 Longitudinal reinforcement in X-direction at mid span 2-3 and at support in axis 3: MEd 36.972 d 1 18.24). 3.1 106 Asl  ( )  856 mm² 435 143  0.0538  0.144)  0. Gmainer z   0.5  (1  1  2  K )  0.5  (1  1  2  0.108  0.5(1  1  2K )  0.

43 In Figure 3. Gmainer z   0.5(1  1  2K )  0.43 Longitudinal reinforcement in Y-direction at mid span: MEd 52. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. Fig.64 % bd 1000  1.295  bd 2fcd 2 25 10  143  3 1.15  106 Asl  ( )  1235 mm² 435 143  0.917 As 914 ρ   0.19 the theoretical reinforcement ratios of the slab are represented. Walraven and S.917 d 1 52. 3.5  (1  1  2  0.19 Ground view of a symmetric part of the slab with reinforcement ratios 67 .14  106 K   0.2.887 As 1235 ρ   0.153)  0.200)  0.14  106 Asl  ( )  915 mm² 435 143  0.887 d 1 68. all greater than the minimum.5 z   0.86% bd 1000  1.5(1  1  2K )  0.2.153  0.5  (1  1  2  0.

Fig.2. 3. Walraven and S.2.0)  10.75 = 1. Gmainer 3.5  2. It is favourable to choose an ideal small width for the strips passing over the supporting column. 3.2.2. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.2.20 Flat slab with hidden strong strips 3.2.2.077 the moments calculated for the slab on beams in the previous analysis.2 Determination of the bending reinforcement Longitudinal reinforcement in the flat slab The effective depth d of the flat slab was assumed (chapter 1) as d = 172 mm.21 Maximum moments for the calculation of the flat slab 3.0kN/m² LEd  GEd  QEd  13.2. The moments in beam axis B and 2 are shown in Figure 3.73kN/m² QEd  1.2. Longitudinal reinforcement in X-direction at intermediate support in axis 2: 68 .2.3  (5.21.1 Loads and internal forces for the calculation of the flat slab GEd  1.20 presents the flat slab with a height of 210 mm.0  3.73/12. Flat slab Figure 3.25  3.73kN/m² The moments for the flat slab may be obtained simply upgrading with the factor 13. so that locally higher longitudinal reinforcement ratios apply. Fig.

89.5  (1  1  2  K )  0.56% 286 Longitudinal reinforcement in X-direction at mid-span 2-3: 169  0. Walraven and S. Gmainer MEd 286.194  0. ρ  0.89  0.19  0. ρ  0.99% 286 Longitudinal reinforcement in X-direction at support in axis 1: 254  0. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. ρ  1.194  0.59  0.59.5  (1  1  2  0.5 z   0.12  10  0.295  bd 2f 1500  1722  25 cd 1.83%  0.19.83% bd 1500  1.72 Longitudinal reinforcement in X-direction at support in axis 3: 342  1.194)  0.67.12  106 A  ( )  2147 mm² sl 435 172  0. ρ  0.83 % bd 3000  1.83%  0.891 A 2147 ρ s   0.67  0.295  bd 2 fcd 3000  1722  25 1.45  106 Asl  ( )  4295 mm² 435 172  0.72 Longitudinal reinforcement in Y-direction at support in axis A and C: 69 .891 d 1 286.83%  0.5(1  1  2K )  0.5  (1  1  2  0.49% 286 Longitudinal reinforcement in Y-direction at intermediate support in axis B: M 6 K Ed  143.5 z   0.74% 286 Longitudinal reinforcement in X-direction at mid-span 1-2: 191  0.194)  0.891 As 4295 ρ   0.891 d 1 143.83%  0.45  106 K   0.

83%  0.3 Punching shear .53% 143 Longitudinal reinforcement in Y-direction at mid-span A-B: 96  0.64  0.3.38% 143 In Figure 3.22 Symmetric part of the flat slab with reinforcement ratios of flat slab “hidden beams” 3. Walraven and S.22 the reinforcement ratios of the hidden beams in the flat slab are shown.64. 3.2.83%  0.23 Punching shear cylinder 70 .2.83%  0.2.56% 143 Longitudinal reinforcement in Y-direction at mid-span B-C: 65  0. ρ  0. ρ  0.2. Gmainer 91  0.67  0.2. Fig.23 shows the punching shear phenomena in general.46  0. ρ  0.46.column B2 Figure 3.2.67. Fig. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.

4. chapter 6. The approximate values for β can be taken from Figure 3.max  0. The simplified case may be used only for structures where lateral stability does not depend on frame action and where adjacent spans do not differ by more than 25 %. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. Fig.2.2. Gmainer At the junction column to slab the ULS vertical load from the slab to the column is calculated as VEd =705 kN.24 Recommended values for β according to EC 2 First. For the current example β = 1.4νfcd (3.15 (interior column) applies.25) u0 d where u0 is the perimeter of the loaded area. Walraven and S. To take the eccentricity into account. Upper limit value for design punching shear stress in design At the perimeter of the loaded area the maximum punching shear stress has to satisfy the following criterion (EC 2.4. a factor β can be determined with simplified assumptions according to Chapter 6. 3.24. a check of the upper limit value of punching shear capacity is required. Further data Dimensions of column B2: 500/500 mm Effective depths for two-way reinforcement layers 16 d y  210  30   172mm 2 16 d z  210  30  16   156 mm 2 Mean effective depth: (172  156) d  164mm 2 71 .5): βVEd ν Ed   ν Rd .3 (EC 2).

15  705000 ν Ed    2.2.26) u1d The basic control perimeter u1 is taken at a distance 2.6(1  )  0. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.54   3.26 Definition of control perimeters according to EC 2 The length of the control perimeter of the column with 500/500 mm sides is: u1  4  500  2  π  2  164  4061 mm 1.2.5 βVEd 1.0d from the loaded area and should be constructed as to minimise its length (see Figure 3.25).max  3. The definition of control perimeters of different cross sections is in Figure 3. Gmainer fck 25 ν  0. Fig.6  (1  )  0.25 Punching shear stress at perimeter Fig. 3.c 72 . Walraven and S.4.15  705000 ν Ed   1.6N/mm² 1.2 – EC 2).22 N/mm² 4061 164 There is no punching shear reinforcement required if: ν Ed  ν Rd .6N/mm² u0 d 4  500  164 βVEd The second verification is at perimeter u1 where ν Ed  (3.54 250 250 Maximum allowable punching shear stress 25 ν Rd .2.26 (Chapter 6.4νfcd  0.4  0. 3.max  0.2.47N/mm²  ν Rd .

c k (100ρl fck )3  νmin (3.ef ( )sin α (3.c  CRd . to ensure some anchorage at the upper end.83% l x y l 1 ν Rd .02 ρ  0.ef  250  0. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.75ν Rd .0 k  1  2.25d  250  0.27) where 0.25  164  291 N/mm² Fig.66N/mm²  Punching shear reinforcement is required.10  2.27 Punching shear reinforcement The steel contribution comes from the shear reinforcement inside a distance 1.83  0.035k 2 fck 2  0.0 2  25 2  0.18 CRd .5 200 200 k  1  2.0 d 164 ρ  ρ ρ  0.5d from the column (see Figure 3.035  2.c  1.12 γc 1.18 0.c    0.83  0.c  0.12  2.0  k  2. Capacity with punching shear reinforcement d 1 ν Rd .5( )Asw fywd . 3.2.0  (100  0. fywd .2.28) sr u1d Shear reinforcement within a distance of 1.27) is computed as follows. Walraven and S.5d from the edge of the loaded area.ef  250  0.66N/mm² 3 1 3 1 ν Rd .c  ν min  0. 73 .c  0.49N/mm²  ok! ν Ed  1. Gmainer 1 ν Rd . The concrete contribution to resistance is assumed to be 75% of the design strength of a slab without shear reinforcement.25d  fywd fywd .s  0.0083  25) 3  0.22 N/mm²  ν Rd .

75  0.5  291 in each reinforcement perimeter.15  705000 uout   7490 mm 0.66)  4060.28 Punching shear reinforcement perimeters according to EC 2 The distance between the punching shear reinforcement perimeters should not be larger than 0.2. is: βVEd uout  (3.75d as shown in Figure 3.75d  0. marked as section B in Figure 3.88  123 Asw   830 mm² 1.2. the outer punching shear reinforcement is at a distance of: 5. Fig.28.75ν Rd .s  ν Ed  Asw  1.5fywd . s  0.29) ν Rd .5. Walraven and S.33d 2π 2π The outer punching shear reinforcement.28.75  164  123mm r (ν Ed  0.75·164 =123 mm.28.2. has to be at a distance of no more than kd from the outer perimeter.66  164 The distance from this perimeter to the edge of the column follows from: (uout  4h ) 7490.75d = 0.30  4  500 a   874 mm  5.ef (1.33d -1.c )u1sr ν Rd . 3. The length of the outer perimeter. The recommended factor k being k =1. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.22  0.c d 1. Gmainer The distance sr between the punching shear reinforcement perimeters should not be larger than 0. marked as section A in Figure 3.5d = 3.83d. 74 .2.

2.29 Punching shear design of slab at column B2 3.46 h and for circular cross sections is l0 λ4 . Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. 5. Walraven and S.2.4 Column B2 Second order effects under axial loading General background according to chapter 5.30) i I ( ) A where l0 is the effective height of the column.3.8.30 shows the basic cases for l0 according to EC 2. I is the moment of inertia around the axis considered and A is the cross sectional area of the column. Gmainer Fig. 75 .8.8. 5. For rectangular cross sections the λ value is l0 λ  3.2 and 5. h Figure 3.3.2.3 (EC 2) o Second order effects may be ignored if they are smaller than 10 % of the corresponding 1st order effects. o “Slenderness” is defined as l0 l0 λ  (3.2.3. 3. i is the radius of gyration of the uncracked concrete section.2.8.1.

3.2. The effective column height in a frame (see Figure 3.30 Examples of different effective heights of columns according to EC 2 The relative flexibilities of rotation “springs” at the column ends (as in Figure 3.30. Walraven and S. case f) and g)) may be calculated as θ EI k (3.3.2. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. Gmainer Fig. Fig.31 Determination of the effective column height For braced frames: k1 k2 l0  0.5l (1 )(1 ) (3. EI is the bending stiffness of a compression member and l is the height of the column between two rotation-springs.2. the largest of: 76 .31) M l where θ is the rotation of restraining members for a bending moment M.31) is different for braced and unbraced frames.2.32) 0.45  k2 For unbraced frames.45  k1 0.

Walraven and S. o Second order effects may be ignored if the slenderness is smaller than the limit value λlim. Gmainer k1  k2 k1 k l0  l (1 10 ) and l0  l (1  )(1  2 ) (3. A simplifying assumption according to Chapter 5.1 Effective heights of columns according to EC 2 χ 0 (fixed 0.50 l 0. the following relations are found: EI EI ( )column ( )column k1  k 2  l  l  0.e.13 l 1.78 l ∞ A column is qualified as “slender”.68 l 0. Assuming the beams are symmetric with regard to the column and their dimensions are the same for the two stories. i.00 l0 for braced 0.76 l 1.27 l 1. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.8 and 5. increases the restraint). o In case of biaxial bending the slenderness should be calculated for an Y-direction. EI ( )beams l The effective column length l0 can for this situation is given in Table 3.00 l 1.125 0.12 l 1.00 ∞ (pinned or end) end) k 1 = k2 0 0.2 (EC 2) is that the contribution of the adjacent “non failing” columns to the spring stiffness is ignored (if this contributes is positive to. I is the clear height of the column between the end restraints.25 0.1 as a function of χ .00 l column l0 for unbraced 1.44 l 1.33) k1  k2 1 k1 1  k2 Values k1 and k2 are the relative spring stiffness at the ends of columns. which implies that second order effects have to be taken into account. Second order effects need only to be considered in the direction(s) in which λlim is exceeded.00 l 1. Table 3. if λ ≥ λlim.25 0.61 l 0.00 2.34) n where 77 .14 l 1.50 1.0625 0.3.25 χ EI 2  2  EI (  )beams ( )beams l l where EI ( )column χ l .8.50 l 1.87 l ∞ column: (the larger of the values in the two rows) 1.3. Furthermore for beams for ( / M) the value (l/2EI) may be assumed taking account of the loss of beam stiffness due to cracking. The limit value according to chapter 5.2.50 1.1 (EC 2) is : 20ABC λlim  (3.56 l 0.2.8.

0052 Column:   43. Ac fcd M01 rm  is the ratio between end-moments in the column considered with IM02I ≥ IM01I (see M02 Figure 3.B 2   0.32 Ratio between end-moments in column Determination of the slenderness λ .7. reinforcement ratio. The elasticity moduli Ecm are: for columns .7  rm . Gmainer 1 A .0.column B2 For the current example (see Figure 3. 3.concrete class C30/37 Ecm = 33000 MN/m².2.2. Then C = 0. If it is unknown B = 1. NEd n .32).2.5 4  0.2φef ) B  1  2ω . for beams - concrete class C25/30 Ecm = 31000 MN/m².0052m 4 12 The spring stiffnesses are: EI 33000  0. The moment of inertia for the 4 m high column B2 is: 1 l column. Walraven and S. As fyd ω is the mech.7. Ac fcd φef is the effective creep factor. In particular cases it can be supposed that rm is 1.0MNm l 4 78 . Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. C  1.1 can be adopted. If it is unknown it can be assumed that A = 0.33) the first step is the determination of the rotational spring stiffness at the end of the column. Fig. (1  0.

45  k2 0.125 EI ( )column l 43.88 Ac fcd 30 500 2  1. B = 1. N Ed 4384000 n   0.7 λlim   11.5 0.53 2  2  EI 2  2  20. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.5 Therefore: 20  0.7  1.5 h 0. The normal force NEd is (Chapter 2) NEd = 4384 kN and MEd = 42 kNm.5  λ  22. 3.46l 0 3.98 Actual slenderness of the column 3.5  4  (1  )  3.15MNm l 7.5  λlim  11. 79 .15 ( )beams l k1 k2 0.46  3.45  k1 0.1 m 0.1 and C = 0.2.33 Configuration of variable load on slab Limit slenderness of the column In Eqn.53 2 l0  0.7. (3.88 As the actual slenderness of the column is larger than the limit slenderness.5l (1  )(1  )  0.5 Fig.7 are used. Gmainer 1 31000   6  0. second order effects have to be taken into account.213 EI 12 Beam:   20.1  0. Walraven and S.1 λ   22.0 k1  k 2    0.35) the default values A = 0.

The second order eccentricity e2 follows from l 0 2 εyd e2  K φ K r (3.35) First order eccentricities (Figure 3. Moreover it is assumed that Ie02I ≥ Ie01I.38) π 2 0.4e01  0.34) e01 and e02 are different.2. θi  θ0 α h α m according to Chapter 5.34 Effects of the first order eccentricities e01 and e02 The eccentricity ei by imperfection follows from Chapter 5. the curvature is increased.37) 2 where l0 is the effective column height around the axis regarded.6e02  0. 3.36) If e01 and e02 have the same sign (Figure 3.2 (5) – EC 2. 1 θ0  [rad] is the basic value. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.45d 80 .2.2 (7) – EC 2. At the end of the column an equivalent eccentricity e0 may be used. Fig. (3.  α h  1 is the reduction value for the height. l0 ei  θi (3. l 3 1 αm  0. defined as: e0  0.2. 200 2 2 αh  .34 left). Otherwise they would have different signs. Gmainer General: Method based on nominal curvature Mtot  NEd (e0  ei  e2 ) (3.5(1  ) is the reduction value for the number of building elements and m m is the number of the vertical elements which are required for the total impact. Walraven and S.4e02 .

35   )φef  1.4 for concrete classes up to C50/60 1.010m  10mm NEd 4384 At least the maximum of {l0 / 20. So the maximum e0 value is: b 500 e0    25mm.65 fcd 20 The reinforcing ratio estimated value is ρ = 0.03  435 nud  1   1  1.65  0.1 K φ  1  (0.5  2 30 22. M 0 Ed Bending moment including second order effects MEd 42 e0    0.005 200 4 1 200 4000 ei  0. Gmainer where fck λ nud  nEd Kφ  1  (0.35   )  0.4  1. 200 150 nud  nbal and M 0 Eqp φef  ( )φ.5  (1  )  1  θ0   1  1  0.88 Kr   0.14 200 150 ρfyd 0. α m  0. NEd 4384000 nEd    0.0 and Kr   1.0. b / 20 or 20 mm} should be taken for e0.03.4 1.62 1. M 0 Ed where φ . αh   1.4 81 .t  2 or 3 final creep ratio M 0 Eqp is the ratio between permanent load to design load. Walraven and S. 20 20 1 2 1 1 θ0  .65  0. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.88 Ac fcd 5002  20 nbal = 0.005   10mm 2 0.t .3  2 φef   2  0.

Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.min    1008 mm² As.62    14mm π2 0.15 εyd    2.20 h 500 So the diagram (Figure 3. in the other direction 8ϕ20 are also used.2. 5002 As.35) with the ratio d1 / h = 0.10 can be used.04  5002  10000mm² fyd 500 1.092  0.41) fyd fcd 214. without further calculation.max  0.2.82  106 4384  103 μEd   0.086.5 The "-" is conventionally used for the compression force NEd.2.10  4384000 As .5 1.877 30 30 5003  5002  1. Therefore.tot  As1  As 2  ωtot (3. the interaction diagram for a symmetric reinforced rectangular cross section is used. The bending moment in the other direction is only slightly smaller (Figure 3.g. 82 .40) bhfcd bh μEd .17  103 e2  1.39) bh2fcd NEd ν Ed  (3. d1 46   0.20   2299 mm² → e.10NEd 0.tot  As1  As 2  0. ν Ed   0.10  ωtot  0.32). leading to the reinforcement configuration in Figure 3.25  454 M tot  4384  (25  10  14)  10 3  214.36. The diagram is valid for reinforcing steel with fck = 500 N/mm².82 kNm Column reinforcement For the reinforcement of the column.17  103 Es 200000 32002 2. Gmainer 500 fyd1. MEd μEd  (3. Walraven and S.14  0. 8ϕ20 = 2513 mm² 435 20 The maximum and minimum areas are: 0.15 The calculation of the column reinforcement has been carried out for the most unfavourable direction. ν Ed  ωtot  As.04 Ac  0.

36 shows the cross section of the column with the reinforcement. 83 .2. 3. 2010) Figure 3.35 Interaction diagram – double symmetric reinforced rectangular cross section (Zilch and Zehetmaier. Gmainer Fig. Walraven and S.2. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.

2. Walraven and S.2(6) EC2).25·2. Alternatively. Gmainer Fig. for bracing systems without significant shear deformations second order effects may be ignored if: 84 .497) Second order effects If second order effects are smaller than 10% of the first order moments. they can be neglected.5 Design of shear walls The stability of the building is ensured by two shear walls (one at each end of the building in axis B1 and B6) and a central core between the axis B7 and B8 (see Figure 3.37 Dimensions of the shear walls and the core The moments of inertia around a centroid axis parallel to the X-global axis are: Ix = (0. 3.2. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.20 (20%) (2  0.2.497 m for the central core The contribution of shear wall 1 to the total is: 0.1).3.167  0.2. according to Chapter 5.3.2.8.167  0.03)/12=0.36 Layout of the reinforced column B2 3.8. 3.2.167 m4 for shear walls 1 and 2 4 I = 0.37. (Chapter 5. The dimensions of the shear walls are in Figure 3. Fig.

8.25·2.25) M 0.3 – EC 2 33  10 6  0. λcE = 1.83)=0.8·3.6 19 2 Assuming that 30% of the variable load is permanent..51: the condition is fulfilled in the X-direction also.3.3 EC 2). Walraven and S.75+0. the unit load per story is qEd = 9.103)/12 = 3. the double if uncracked.65 kN/m². L is the total height of the building above its fixed foundation.42) ns  1.78 MN/m² W 0.8.62·0.40  4.Ed  6553  6  27318 kN  30961 kN The condition being fulfilled second order effects may be ignored. The shear wall remains indeed uncracked therefore factor k1 may be taken k1 = 2·0.392 σN    4.15)=0. The total area for the load per story is 30·14.83 m4. ns is the number of storeys.30) formula can be written as: 85 . For the shear wall the following actions are applied (see Chapter 2): the maximum moment My = 66.31 if the section is cracked.Ed  k1 (3.Ed can be roughly calculated as: FV .3·2·1. For a six-storey building FV. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.Ed  0.Ed is the total vertical load (both on braced and unbraced elements).1667 m3.31 the result is (0.02)/6=0.497)=0. Whole building global second order effects Assuming a six-storey building the shear walls’ total inertia is Ic=(2·0. Applying clause 5. N 2. The simplified (5.83 6 1. Gmainer ns  Ecd Ic FV . Ecd is the design E-modulus of the concrete.5 m² so the total load per story can be estimated as 10.1667 where W=bh2/6=(0. For overall buckling in the X-direction the external shear walls contribution may be neglected and the central C core is considered.2 FV .5=4553 kN.59 kNm with the corresponding normal force N = -2392.78MN/m² A (2  0.8.6 kN.167+0.7.5=10.31·3.65·427. Verification by the moment magnification factor Another possibility to check if second order effects should be considered is to determine the moment magnification factor (clause 5.25=427.6 L2 where FV.98 > (0.3 (2) – EC 2. Ecd = Ecm / λcE.62 according to clause 5.31=0.2 and Ic is the moment of inertia of stabilizing elements.06659 σM    0.63 .55·3.1.15 m4. The suggested value of the factor k1 is k1 =0. Assuming the most severe value k1 = 0.3. The C section of the central core has a moment of inertia around the Y- axis Iy =(1.62    30961 kN 6  1.

Walraven and S.39.2. The clay elements are used as permanent formwork . 3. The upper concrete slab in the cross-section is 50 mm thick. On top of the concrete slab mostly foamed or polystyrene concrete is applied.45) EI 103 33  0. in which heating and electricity pipes and tubes are embedded.43) NEd 1 NB where 1 f  is the moment magnification factor NEd 1 NB π 2 EI NB  is the Euler’s buckling axial force (1. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.12l )2 NEd is the total axial force FV.2. 86 .39) is projected. B and C. The bearing beams lie on axis A. the slab spans in transverse direction in between.091 (3. A section of the lighting clay elements is in Figure 3.Ed 19 27318 l  0.3.83 1.1 it results NEd  0.min should be provided. and at the bottom a clay finishing layer (see also Figure 3.66  0.38. do not apply.85 (3. Slab with embedded elements The top view of the slab with embedded lighting elements is represented in Figure 3. (3.2 The assumption that the cross section is uncracked is correct because the condition in Eqn.44) is fulfilled. Because of those protecting layers the concrete cover can be small (mostly governed by the bond criteria) and environmental classes X2-X3.Ed = 27318 kN.v. Minimum reinforcement AS.2. Light reinforcement is applied in transverse direction at mid-depth. elsewhere used as a general basis for the design.85   0.44) NB Substituting in the relations above it results: FV .2. In order f ≤ 1. Gmainer M0Ed MEd   f M0Ed (3.

2.2  106   0.7 From the diagram in Figure 3.1 Bending reinforcement .1l0 With l0=0.2 kNm M Ed 177.2.beam axis B Mid-span The design bending moments at mid-span and at the internal support (intersection point of axes B and 2) are MEd = 177.3. 3.1 EC2): beff = beff. Walraven and S.2bi + 0.38 Ground view of the slab with the embedded elements Fig.98d = 367 mm. Gmainer Fig. 3.2.3. bw=250 mm and bi =7125/2=3562 mm it results beff = 2695 mm. At mid-span the effective width beff is (clause 5.i + bw where beff.2.i = 0.856000=5100 mm.85l1=0.39 Cross section of the slab with lighting elements 3.7 z = 0.2.0287 bd 2 fcd 2695  375 2  16.2 kNm and MEd = 266 kNm respectively. The area of the tensile reinforcement is 87 . Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. For the maximum bending moment at mid-span MEd = 177.

10 bars ϕ16 = 10·201 = 2010 mm² are adequate.2.45  0. The reinforcement Asc follows from: (K  Kbal )fcd bd 2 Asc  (3.82  375 This reinforcement can be spread over the effective width beff = 2035 mm.46) fyd (d  d ' )  0. This results in an effective width beff = 2892 + 250 = 2035 mm.2bi + 0.98  375  435 4 bars ϕ20 = 1256 > 1108 mm² are adequate.23562 + 0.7 So compression reinforcement is indeed necessary.11800 = 892 mm. The parameter (d-d’) is the distance between the compression reinforcement and the tension reinforcement. Here l0 = 0. Walraven and S. Gmainer M 177.15(l1 + l2) = 0.i = 0.45  0. At first it is verified whether compressive reinforcement is required.i + bw with beff. The value K is M Ed 266  10 6 K    0.15(6000 + 6000) = 1800 mm so that beff = 0.295 bd 2 fcd 250  375 2  16.2  106 Asl  Ed   1108mm² zfyd 0.40. 88 . Internal support At the intermediate support B-2 the effective width is again calculated with beff = beff. A mid-span cross-section showing the ribbed slab with embedded elements is in Figure 3.47) fyd zbal 0.7  250  375 2 Asc   605 mm² 435  (375  30) The tensile reinforcement is then: Kbal fcd bd 2 Ast   Acs (3.295   16. The bars can be spread over the effective width.1l0.295  16.7  250  3752 Ast   605  1899mm2 435  0. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. So.

2. (A 4% lower value is acceptable since no moment redistribution was applied). The uniformly distributed load on the slab consists of the dead load components G1 = 2. Mid-span M Ed 39.41 Design bending moment at internal support and mid-span . at mid-span 2 (left) and of slab with embedded elements adjacent to bearing beam B ( right) 3.97197=191 mm.2.0 kNm/m and at mid-span MEd = 39. Walraven and S. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.93 kN/m².39.97d = 0.3. 3. The variable load is 2.0 kN/m².3. For a unit slab width the bending moments at the intermediate support (B) is MEd = 63.2  10 6 K    0.7 2 The inner lever arm is 0.33 kN/m² and G2 = 3.41). the area of the bending tensile reinforcement is: MEd 39. axis B.065  0.33 + 3. Gmainer Fig.0 kN/m². The design load is: QEd = 1.0) + 1.2.40 Cross sections of bearing beam.295 bd fcd 1000  197 2  16.2  106 Asl    472mm2 / m zfyd 191 435 Per rib this means 472/2= 235 mm² or 2 bars ϕ12 mm = 226 mm².beam with embedded lighting elements uniformly distributed loaded 89 . Fig.2 Bending reinforcement of the slab with embedded elements A cross section of the floor is in Figure 3.5·2.2.0 = 9.3·(2.2.2 kNm/m (Figure 3.

is by far sufficient.99d = 0.5·0.01 bd fcd 1000  25 2  16.125 = 88.9925 = 24.7  240  1902 Asc    253 mm2 fyd (d  d ') 435  (190  30) Per rib this is 253/2 = 127 mm² or 2 bars ϕ10mm = 156 mm².3·(1.7 So compression reinforcement is required: (K  K bal )fcd bd 2 (0.7  435 A practical reinforcement made of an orthogonal mesh bars ϕ6-200 mm applied at mid-height of the slab.7 mm and the required longitudinal reinforcement is MEd 0.2 kNm/m. 90 .7  240  1902 Ast   Asc   253  882 mm2 fyd zbal 435  0. The design bending moment at the fixed-end supports is M Ed  (1 / 12)l 2QEd  (1 / 12)  0.7 2 So the inner lever arm is z = 0.5  0.39 the net span of the top 50 mm slab between the ribs is 380 mm.38 2  8. The application of this reinforcement is limited to the width of the rib.25x9.295 bd 2 fcd 240  190 2  16.76 = 60.2.1 106 Asl    9mm2 /m zfyd 24.10 kNm/m M Ed 0.5 kN/m².417  0.417  0.82  190 Per rib this is 882/2 = 441 mm² or 2 bars ϕ18 = 508 mm².supt /8 = 88. The design load per square metre is QEd = 1. Tensile reinforcement is then K bal fcd bd 2 0. The design support reaction is FEd.5 kN/m The moment reduction is MEd = FEd. Bending reinforcement of slab with embedded elements In Figure 3.2.25/8 = 2. First it is controlled whether compression reinforcement is necessary: M Ed 60.10  10 6 K    0. as it cannot be placed in the thin upper slab (50 mm) because of the presence of the transverse reinforcement (see below). Gmainer Internal support As the support may be considered to provide limited restraint to rotation according to clause 5.sup = 1.0 – 2.76 kN/m therefore the moment is MEd = 63. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.2(4) – EC2 the theoretical moment may be reduced to take into account the reaction distribution over the width of the support.295  16.2 + 3) + 1.2  10 6 K    0. Walraven and S.52=8.93x7.295)  16.3.

89 mm² / mm) are adequate.2.45  0. Assuming an inclination angle with cot = 2.82  375  435  2. 3.02 bd 250  360 VRd .72mm²/mm s 0.5 the required shear reinforcement follows from Eqn. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.3.5 Stirrups ϕ10/175 mm (0.c  0. 3.2.022  0.45 (4. 4.3 Shear capacity Bearing beam in axis B In the bearing beam axis.1 kN. In the governing section at distance d from the support this value is reduced to VEd.18) calculated shear reinforcement is required.red at a distance d (=190 mm) from the edge of the supporting beam (see also Figure 3.19  0. Asw VEd VRd .red = 240 kN.red  VEd .c (see Eqn.7)1/3 250  360  10 3  69kN is smaller than the design shear force of 270. adjacent to the intermediate support (axis 2) the maximum shear force is VEd = 270.s  VEd   s zfywd cot  Asw 240  1000 asw    0. Bearing ribs with embedded elements The maximum shear force in the ribs follows from Figure 3. VEd.red  41.74 d 360 Asl 2010 ρl    0.42. Here 200 200 k  1  1  1.42) is 44.2.73 kN: shear reinforcement has to be provided. If this is larger than VRd. Walraven and S.02  16.74  (100  0.19.125) Fig.12  1.42 Distribution of shear force along rib of slab with embedded lighting elements 91 . 3.2 VEd .73 kN (see Chapter 2).2. Gmainer 3.

5 fck  3.c  40. Gmainer 1 VRd . the rule in clause 5.2 (EC 2) no further checks are needed.c  [0.0 d 190 1 VRd .5 200 200 k  1  2. be ignored.2kN VRd . In order that that the slab with embedded lighting elements is formally regarded as a slab. Walraven and S.0 k  1  2.1.2 fck   1  if ρ  ρ0 (3.48) d  ρ  ρ   l  ρ0 1 ρ   K 11  1.0  (100  0.1(6) (“Transverse ribs are provided at a clear spacing not exceeding 10 times the overall depth of the slab”) gives a distance of 10230 = 2300 mm.18 0.06 N/mm². 92 .5 m the following limits according to chapter 7. Slab with embedded elements The design shear stress at the fixed ends is vEd = (0. 3.red  41.3.general The control of deflection can be done o by calculation or o by tabulated values 3.3.56 > 2.38  2.125/3 = 2.c.c  [CRd . l  ρ0  ρ0   3/2  K 11  1. K is the factor to take into account the different structural systems.125/2 = 3. One transverse rib is actually provided at distance 7.1kN  This 2% lower than the design shear value can.2 kN  VEd .3 Serviceability limit states 3.5 fck  fck  if ρ  ρ0 (3.1908460)/(100025)=0.12  2.30 m so two ribs at a distance 7. far below vRd. SLS deflection .30 m should preferably be provided.1 Deflection control by calculation For span-depth ratios below 7. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.c k (100 ρl fck ) 3 ]bw d where 0.1.c    0.12 γc 1.49) d  ρ  ρ 12 ρ0  where l/d is the limit span/depth.3.02  25)3 ]  240  190  103  40.4. reasonably.02  2.0  k  2.18 CRd .

5 m in Chapter 7. 3. Fig. If another stress level is applied or if more reinforcement than minimum required is provided. Fig. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. the values obtained by Eqn.req As. Figure 3.2 shows the previous expressions in a graphical form assuming K = 1. ρ is the required tension reinforcement ratio at mid span to resist the moment due to the design loads (at support for cantilevers) and ρ’ is the required compression reinforcement ratio at mid span to resist the moment due to design loads (at support for cantilevers). Walraven and S.3.1.49) and (3.50) are based on many different assumptions (age of loading. The coefficient K depends on the static system of the structure .3. creep effects) and represent a conservative approach.(3. σs has to be evaluated under the quasi permanent load combination.2 (EC 2): 93 . Gmainer 3 ρ0 is the reference reinforcement ratio  fck  10 .50) can be multiplied with the factor 310 500  (3.(3.3. temperature.3.4.prov There are rules for spans larger than 7.2 Coefficient K depending on the static system The expressions have been derived for an assumed stress in the reinforcing steel at mid span stress σs = 310 N/mm².(3.49) and Eqn.50) σs fyk As. 3.16a/b EC 2 Eqn. 7.Figure 3. time or formwork removal. humidity.1 Eqn.

3 18 26 Interior span 1.0 14 20 End span 1.2.5 % Simply supported slab/beam 1. the steel stress under the quasi-permanent load) may be assumed as: MEk 20.5 m. Differently from ULS. Chapter 7.3  [11  8.5/leff.1 Tabulated values for l / d l/d Structural system Factor K ρ = 1.2 17 24 Cantilever 0. corresponding to the different structural system and the slenderness’ limits (l/d) values for relatively high (ρ=1. These values.0 + 0.3·2 = 8. Walraven and S.1·6.80]  26.5 0. fck = 25 MPa. ρ = 0. According to EC 2.5%) longitudinal reinforcement ratios at mid-span.2  25  (  1)3/ 2 ]  1.prov. Gmainer o For beams and slabs (no flat slabs) with spans larger than 7 m.44 0.1. 3. As the depth of the neutral axis does not differ that much in ULS and SLS conditions. and satisfy the deflection limits given in chapter 7.5 kN/m while MEd = 36.16) in the EC 2 should be multiplied by 8.3  [11  1.16) in the EC 2 should be multiplied by 7/leff (leff in meters).16 – EC 2).4.1.005 .00 m) and the related reinforcement.95 kNm.19 spanning from left to right). ρ0  10 fck  0.2. Deflection control is made for the quasi- permanent load condition when the total load is (G1 + G2 + ψ2Qk ) = 4. 7.1 kN/m2.1 (4) and (5) in EC 2.3. in SLS conditions the variable load is present on both spans.49 in this report). the check has to be carried on the basis of the shorter span (l = 6.44% (in the left of Figure 3.3.2 Tabulated K values and basic ratios (l/d) Table 3.5 + 3. so the bending moment MEk = 8.4 d 0.18.3. the values l/d given by Eqn.5 20 30 Flat slab 1.5  25   3.2.16a (see also Eqn. calculated for concrete quality C30/37 and σs = 310 N/mm².2. the values l/d given by expression (7.7. 3 Assuming As. (7.3. This leads to a distribution of the bending reinforcement as in Figure 3. with a required reinforcement of 0.5 % ρ = 0.4 6 8 3.3.1 gives the K values (Eqn.4.5%) and low (ρ=0.5 σs  fyd   435  241 MPa MEd 36. In the case of a two-way spanning slab.19.44 This relation is valid for a default steel stress σs = 310 MPa.req = As.5  1. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J. which support partitions liable to damage by excessive deflections. For the control of the deflection the strip is considered spanning between the mean beams at axes 1 and 2.5  0. Table 3.3 Slab on beams For the ULS design the transmission of loads to the bearing beams has been assumed in the approximate way shown in Figure 3.0044 and K = 1. the span to depth ratio l/d should satisfy Eqn. and which support partitions to be damaged by excessive deflections.95 Therefore the allowable l/d ratio may be increased to: 94 .02/14.3 (end-span): l 0.2 = 20. o For flat slabs where the greater span exceeds 8.

1.23  0.3 EC2).2. According to chapter 7.3.9 d 241 The actual span-depth ratio is l 6000  100  125   40.2 (2) – EC 2 no detailed calculation is necessary if the l /d ratio of the slab is smaller than the limit value: l  0.6 d  0.65 > 0. 3.3  20.i. Increasing the quantity of steel in turns reduces the steel stress and guarantees the deflection control is satisfied.4. the refined calculation method could be used (Chapter 7.9) -1=18% higher than the theoretical 0. 44·1.23  10 2 bd 500  197 The ribbed slab has a T section with b = 500 mm and bw = 120 mm then b/bw = 4.9 d 241 For flat slab the longer span ly = 7125 – 125 – 100 = 6900 mm has to be considered.56%. a refined calculation could to be considered.52% and the coefficient As.80 in the formulae. even if the models are different (slabs on beams vs flat slab).prov =1. a (40.80  1. .3  11  1.req /As.16 > 3 which introduces a reduction factor 0. as in the previous case. As an alternative.e.4 Flat slab For the ULS the reinforcement has been calculated assuming a total slab thickness of 210 mm.1/33.1/30.9. so the actual ratio of l/d is: l 6900   40.18 = 0.4  33.5 Slab with embedded elements The reinforcement ratio at mid-span is Asl 226 ρ   0.23   95 .4. 30 mm higher than in the previous case.30 = 0.3  11  16.5%) Table 3. It may be assumed that. For a flat slab with a relatively low reinforcement ratio (ρ = 0.e. i. the steel stress ration under the quasi-permanent load condition does not differ from the previous one. d 144 The effective reinforcement area should therefore be at least (40.44%.1 d 172 That means that. 3.80  1.2 the ULS calculated bending reinforcement in the Y-direction at mid-span A-B was 0.4   49.18 should be considered. 5   3/ 2  0. As an alternative.1  33.9) -1=30% increase of the longitudinal reinforcement is required. one. the effective reinforcement should be 0.3.2· 25·  1   0. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.1. This means that the mentioned value l/d = 24 should be almost OK.56%. Gmainer l 310   26. Walraven and S.5·1.5· 25·  3.1 gives a span-depth ratio l/d = 24.5  0. so the allowable l/d ratio can be assumed to be l 310   24  30.3. In Chapter 3.

3): the maximum distance between two cracks has to be 2lt otherwise a new crack could occur in-between (see Figure 3. The formula for crack width control according to clause 7.max and (εsm  εcm ) are given in the formula in clause 7.max = 2lt.3.max is the maximum crack distance (εsm  εcm ) is the difference in deformation between steel and concrete over the maximum crack distance. (7.9) – EC 2: 96 .52) where sr. where lt is the “transmission length” necessary to increase the concrete strength from 0 to the tensile strength fctm (Figure 3.4 Eqn.2  49.req /As.3.6 d 197 3. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.general The crack width is the difference between the steel and concrete elongations over the length (2lt).2.3.prov coefficients as the actual value of l/d is : l 7125   36. Walraven and S.3.4 Eqn.3 Definition of the crack width For the calculation of the maximum (or characteristic) crack width.8) – EC 2 is: w k  s r .3. Formulations for sr. (7. SLS crack width .51) 4 τ bm ρ Fig.3) It can be demonstrated that the transmission length lt is equal to: 1 fctm  lt  (3. the difference between steel and concrete elongations has to be calculated for the largest crack distance sr. Gmainer In this case it not necessary to consider neither the steel stress/310 nor the As. 3.3.max ( ε sm  ε cm ) (3.

Gmainer fct .4 Measured crack width w The maximum final crack spacing sr. e. αe is the moduli ratio Es / Ecm.0 for tension and 0. ϕ is the bar diameter. prestressing tendons). including the concrete cover. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.eff where c is the concrete cover.g.5 (h-d) or (h-x)/3 or h/2. 1. basically established for a concrete bar in tension. Walraven and S.3.8 for high bars. From experimental observations the crack at the outer concrete surface is wider than at the reinforcing steel level.4 and k4 is recommended to be 0.ef is the minimum of: 2.max according to clause 7.eff σs (εsm  εcm )   0. For the crack spacing sr.5 for bending: intermediate values can be used).4 Eqn.6 for bars with an effectively plain surface.54)  p.6 for short and 0. This effective height hc. In order to apply the crack width formulae. a definition of the “effective tensile bar height” is necessary.3.eff  is the effective reinforcement ratio (including eventual prestressing steel Ap) Ap ξ is the moduli ratio Es / Ecm kt is a factor depending on the duration of load (0.4). cracks are always measured at the surface of the structure (see Figure 3.11) – EC 2 is given by:  sr .425.4 for long term loads). 97 .eff ) ρp. ( As  ξAp ) ρp.max  k 3c  k1k 2 k 4 (3. 3.max a modified expression has been derived. to a structure under bending. Moreover.53) Es Es where σs is the stress in the steel assuming a cracked section. (7. k2 is the strain distribution coefficient (1. k3 is recommended to be 3.3.6 (3. Fig. k1 is the bond factor (0.eff σ s  kt (1  α e ρp.

XS3 Decompression 3.3.XC1 0.3. Limit state design (ULS-SLS) J.5 Effective tensile bar height according to EC 2 Table 3.7 Geometry and bending moments 98 . XC3.2. XS1.1 Crack width control – slab with embedded elements Internal support Assuming concentric tension in the upper slab of 50 mm depth (see Figure 3. Table 3. Gmainer Fig.3 XD1.2 Recommended values for crack width control Prestressed members with Exposure class bonded tendons Quasi-permanent load Frequent load X0.3. 3.3.2 shows the EC 2 requirements for the crack width control (recommended values).3 0. XS2. XD2. XC4 0. Fig. 3. Walraven and S.2 XC2.3.3.7) leads to the following calculation.

Limit state design (ULS-SLS)
J. Walraven and S. Gmainer

The steel stress σs,qp under the quasi-permanent load and the reinforcement ratio are: :

Qqp As,req
σ s,qp  fyd  0,597  0,73  435  190,2N/mm²
QEd As,prov

Asl 1256
ρs,eff    2,51%
bd 1000  50

The crack distance (according to Eqn.(3.55)) is

20
sr ,max  3,4  19  0,8  1,0  0,425   335,3mm
0,0251

The average strain (according to Eqn.(3.54)) amounts to

2,6
190,2  0,4   (1  7  0,0251)
0,0251
εsm  εcm   0,71 10 3  0,57  10 3
200000

The characteristic crack width (according to Eqn. (3.53)) is

w k  sr ,max  εsm  εcm   335,3  0,71 10 3  0,24  0,30 mm

Mid-span
The steel stress σs,qp under the quasi-permanent load and the reinforcement ratio are:

Qqp As,req
σ s,qp  fyd  0,597  1,04  435  270N/mm²
QEd As,prov

Asl
s,eff  .
bheff

For heff, the smallest of 2,5(h-d), (h-x) / 3 or h / 2 should be chosen. The critical value for heff is:
2,5(h-d)=2,5·33=82,5 mm.

226
ρs ,eff   2,28%
120  82,5

The crack distance according to Eqn.(3.55) is

12
sr ,max  3,4  29  0,8  0,5  0,425   188,1 mm
0,0228

The average strain (according to Eqn.(3.54)) amounts to

2,6
270  0,4   (1  7  0,0228)
0,0228
εsm  εcm   1,09  10 3  0,81 10 3  ok!
200000

The characteristic crack width according to Eqn. (3.53) is

99

Limit state design (ULS-SLS)
J. Walraven and S. Gmainer

w k  sr ,max  εsm  εcm   188,1 1,09  10 3  0,20mm  0,30mm.

References

Zilch, K., and G. Zehetmaier. 2010. Bemessung im konstruktiven Betonbau, nach DIN 1045-1 (Fassung
2008) und EN 1992-1-1 (Eurocode 2). Springer Verlag.

100

CHAPTER 4

DETAILING OF THE REINFORCEMENT

Jose ARRIETA

PROES S.A., Spain

Detailing of reinforcement J. Arrieta 102 .

for standard bends. Different rules than those in Eurocode 2 apply to reinforcement of buildings in seismic zones.3 (3) are fulfilled. meshes and prestressing tendons subjected predominantly to static loading. Section 8.1.1.1.min (mm) (mm) (mm) 8 25 32 10 25 40 12 25 48 14 25 56 16 25 64 20 25 140 25 25 175 4.min is given.1. 103 . For each bar diameter in Table 4.2.3 and Table 4. To bend a bar avoiding cracks in the bar and/or failure of the concrete inside the bend a minimum diameter of the mandrel ϕm.4.1.eq has been used. the simplified procedure described in clause 8. Anchorage length To avoid longitudinal cracks and spalling of concrete the anchorage of longitudinal reinforcement has to satisfy the conditions given in Section 8. assuming the maximum aggregate size dg = 20 mm.1. Minimum spacing and mandrel diameter ϕ smin ϕmand. Table 4. Table 4. hooks or loops. Confinement by transverse reinforcement or transverse pressure was neglected.4. Detailing of reinforcement J. Table reports the minimum spacing smin = (dg + 5) mm for each bar diameter.1.1 Detailing . Arrieta 4. table data are based on the assumption smin  2cnom.3.4 for structural elements of the building subjected to several conditions: o Tension or compression o Good or poor bond conditions (related to concreting) o Straight anchorage or standard bend.1 the mandrel diameter ϕm. assuming that provisions in Section 8.min is required in Section 8. Applying these provisions are obtained the anchorage lengths in Table 4.4 (2). to grant adequate bond. hook or loop The design anchorage length lbd has been calculated for straight bars.2 defines the minimum bar spacing required to guarantee a good placing and compaction of concrete.1. based on the equivalent anchorage length lb. For standard bends or hooks.general EN 1992-1-1 Section 8 is dedicated to detailing rules for ribbed reinforcement.

1.1.eq standard bend.d straight anchorage (mm) lb. Arrieta Table 4. hook or loop (mm) Tension Compression Tension Compression (mm) Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor 8 200 286 286 408 200 286 200 286 10 250 357 357 511 357 511 357 511 12 332 475 429 613 429 613 429 613 14 415 592 500 715 500 715 500 715 16 497 710 572 817 572 817 572 817 20 661 945 715 1021 715 1021 715 1021 25 867 1238 893 1276 893 1276 893 1276 Regarding the anchorage of links and of shear reinforcement using bends and hooks.d straight anchorage (mm) lb. hook or loop (mm) Tension Compression Tension Compression (mm) Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor 8 226 323 323 461 226 323 226 323 10 283 404 404 577 283 404 283 404 12 339 484 484 692 339 484 339 484 14 408 582 565 807 565 807 565 807 16 500 715 646 922 646 922 646 922 20 686 980 807 1153 807 1153 807 1153 25 918 1312 1009 1441 1009 1441 1009 1441 Table 4.1. Anchorage lengths for COLUMNS (C30/37 cnom = 30 mm) ϕ lb.5.5 result in the length after the curved part llink in Table 4. Detailing of reinforcement J. 104 .1. hook or loop (mm) Tension Compression Tension Compression (mm) Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor 8 226 323 323 461 226 323 226 323 10 283 404 404 577 404 577 404 577 12 375 536 484 692 484 692 484 692 14 468 669 565 807 565 807 565 807 16 561 801 646 922 646 922 646 922 20 747 1067 807 1153 807 1153 807 1153 25 979 1398 1009 1441 1009 1441 1009 1441 Table 4.d straight anchorage (mm) lb.eq standard bend.4. Anchorage lengths for BEAMS AND SLABS (C25/30 cnom = 30 mm) ϕ lb.2.3.eq standard bend. Anchorage lengths for FOOTINGS (C25/30 cnom = 40 mm) ϕ lb. the provisions in clause 8.

Detailing of reinforcement
J. Arrieta

Table 4.1.5. Length after the curved part for links

ϕ llink (mm)
(mm) Bend Hook
6 70 50
8 80 50
10 100 50
12 120 60

4.1.2. Lap length

The transmission of forces between the bars may be obtained using laps. To avoid the spalling of
concrete and/or large cracks, the laps should be staggered far from high moments/forces zones and
symmetrically arranged in any section. Using provisions in clause 8.7 the lap lengths l0 for beams,
slabs and columns (Tables 4.1.6, 4.1.7, 4.1.8 and 4.1.9) have been determined for the following
conditions:
o Tension or compression
o Good or poor bond conditions related to concreting
o Different percentages 1 of lapped bars in a zone around the selected bar lap

Table 4.1.6 Lap lengths for BEAMS AND SLABS (C25/30 cnom = 30 mm) - TENSION

ϕ Lap length lo (mm)
(mm) Good bond conditions Poor bond conditions
ρ1<25 ρ1=33 ρ1=50 ρ1>50 ρ1<25 ρ1=33 ρ1=50 ρ1>50
8 226 260 316 339 323 371 452 484
10 283 325 396 424 404 464 565 605
12 375 432 525 563 536 617 751 804
14 468 538 655 702 669 769 936 1003
16 561 645 785 841 801 922 1122 1202
20 747 859 1045 1120 1067 1227 1493 1600
25 979 1126 1370 1468 1398 1608 1957 2097

105

Detailing of reinforcement
J. Arrieta

Table 4.1.7 Lap lengths for BEAMS AND SLABS (C25/30 cnom = 30mm) - COMPRESSION

ϕ Lap length lo (mm)
(mm) Good bond conditions Poor bond conditions
ρ1<25 ρ1=33 ρ1=50 ρ1>50 ρ1<25 ρ1=33 ρ1=50 ρ1>50
8 323 371 452 484 461 530 646 692
10 404 464 565 605 577 663 807 865
12 484 557 678 726 692 796 969 1038
14 565 650 791 848 807 928 1130 1211
16 646 743 904 969 922 1061 1291 1384
20 807 928 1130 1211 1153 1326 1614 1730
25 1009 1160 1413 1513 1441 1658 2018 2162

Table 4.1.8 Lap lengths for COLUMNS (C30/37 cnom = 30mm) – TENSION

ϕ Lap length lo (mm)
(mm) Good bond conditions Poor bond conditions
ρ1<25 ρ1=33 ρ1=50 ρ1>50 ρ1<25 ρ1=33 ρ1=50 ρ1>50
8 200 230 280 300 286 329 400 429
10 250 288 350 375 357 411 500 536
12 332 382 465 499 475 546 665 712
14 415 477 580 622 592 681 829 888
16 497 571 695 745 710 816 994 1065
20 661 760 926 992 945 1086 1322 1417
25 867 997 1213 1300 1238 1424 1733 1857

Table 4.1.9 Lap lengths for COLUMNS (C30/37 cnom = 30mm) – COMPRESSION

ϕ Lap length lo (mm)
(mm) Good bond conditions Poor bond conditions
ρ1<25 ρ1=33 ρ1=50 ρ1>50 ρ1<25 ρ1=33 ρ1=50 ρ1>50
8 286 329 400 429 408 470 572 613
10 357 411 500 536 511 587 715 766
12 429 493 600 643 613 705 858 919
14 500 575 701 751 715 822 1001 1072
16 572 658 801 858 817 939 1144 1225
20 715 822 1001 1072 1021 1174 1430 1532
25 893 1028 1251 1340 1276 1468 1787 1915

If the diameter of the lapped bars is  20 mm and the percentage ρ1 of lapped bars is  25%,
transverse reinforcement is required (clause 8.7.4). Otherwise, any transverse reinforcement or links
necessary for other reasons may be considered sufficient for the transverse tensile forces without
further justification.

106

Detailing of reinforcement
J. Arrieta

4.2 Detailing of structural members
Section 9 of EN 1992-1-1 establishes rules to satisfy the safety, serviceability and durability
requirements. Minimum and maximum reinforcement areas are defined to avoid concrete brittle failure
and/or formation of wide cracks, and to resist forces coming for restrained actions.

4.2.1. Detailing of footing B-2

The columns of the building have direct concrete footings with total depth 800 mm which geometry is
shown on Figure 4.2.1.

Fig.4.2.1 Definition of the footing

4.2.1.1 Design of the footing

To design and verify footing B-2, the soil pressures for ULS determined in the geotechnical part for
the verification of the bearing capacity of the soil, was used. These pressures were obtained from the
analytical method described in EN 1997-2 Annex 1.
Figure 4.2.2 and the following equations summarize the mentioned model and allow to evaluate the
soil pressure at the base of the foundation for the ULS action effects NEd, MEd,y and MEd,z.

 MEd ,z
L '  L  2eL and eL  
NEd  NEd
σ Ed  
B' L' B '  L  2e and e  MEd ,y
 B B
NEd

107

38 0.y MEd.54 -2.8 2 -4837.36 -4.2.z eL eB (kN) (kNm) (kNm) (mm) (mm) 1 -4554.2.44 0.71 -0.8 0.6 -0. Detailing of reinforcement J.1 -0.31 0.60 -0.78 4. Arrieta Fig.46 0.6 3 -4990.18 -2.82 -3.73 -1.98 -3.3 9 -4502.1 -0.71 0.2 Model for the bearing resistance calculation Table 4.1 includes the mentioned internal forces and the eccentricities in each direction.50 0.1 0.11 0.9 10 -5780.5 4 -4985.4.80 3.8 -0.6 6 -5435.78 0.70 1.26 -2.66 -0.44 0. Table 4.62 -2.49 0.1 Internal forces and eccentricities at ULS Combination NEd MEd.08 -3.8 0.70 1. As it can be seen the eccentricities are very low (less than 1 mm) and we will consider them as zero.3 -0.3 8 -5359.1 0.5 -0.2.5 7 -5359.96 -3.4 108 .71 -0.7 5 -4491.35 -2.91 -3.

2. the approach in clause 9.35a  2  Fig.d  1445  1.35  25  0.2 of EN 1992-1-1 for the anchorage of the bars provides the maximum force in the reinforcement.4.2.2.4 Model for tensile forces in cracks 109 .2.18 σ Ed    1445 kN/m2 B ' L ' 2. σ 'Ed  σ Ed  qsw .35a the maximum tensile force on the reinforcement is obtained. The effective pressure ’Ed has to be considered to calculate the reinforcement of the footing subjected to the soil pressure and to its self-weight (Figure 4.3).00 In order to design the bottom reinforcement area in the footing.4.3 Effective pressure Figure 4.80  1418 kN/m2 Fig.max  Fs   0.  b x ze  x   ze  x    0. Detailing of reinforcement J. Arrieta The highest soil pressure is: NEd 5780.4 and the following equations describe how to define the anchorage of the bars: assuming x = b/2 – 0.35a  Fs  x   Rd  x  being  2 2 zi Rd  x   σ 'Ed b ' x  b  Fs .00  2.8.2.

2.8.2 (3)] Substituting the footing characteristics.40   1071.825   1457. the expression for the tensile force in the reinforcement 0.90d = 662 mm (assuming ϕ = 16 mm) [9.2.1.7 l b  cnom  400 mm  xmin  400 mm 110 .max  Fs  0. The clear distance between bars is 98 mm (Figure 4.825  0.2.2. Arrieta The main characteristics of the footing are: Concrete: C25/30 Steel: B500 a = 500 mm e = 0. it has to be verified that lb + cnom < xmin where xmin is the distance of the first crack located [9.8.2 the design anchorage length in case of tensile force and good bond conditions is lbd = 500 mm.max and the needed area of the reinforcement As are: Fs.8.15a = 75 mm [9.1 (1)].5 x Fs  x   2836  x  0.1).5ϕ = 736 mm (assuming ϕ = 16 mm) zi = 0.662 The maximum value of the tensile force Fs.8. so the provided reinforcement is correct. Detailing of reinforcement J.9 mm2  Fs.2 (5)] at distance xmin = h/2. To verify the conditions of the bar straight anchorage.2 (3)] b = b’ = 2000 mm h = 800 mm cnom = 40 mm d = h – cnom – 1.5) greater than smin = 25 mm (see Table 4.2.0 kN  Fs  xmin  1071.0 lb  l bd   500  360 mm As fyd 1485.2 Arrangement of the reinforcement The minimum bar diameter to be used in a footing is 8 mm [9. From Table 4.2.max As   3353 mm2  1716 fyk γ s 4.1. Fs  xmin   Fs  0.1.

2.4.5 Reinforcement of the footing 111 . Arrieta Fig. Detailing of reinforcement J.

2.6 shows the actual force in the reinforcement Fs.Ed 800. 1600.2.60 0.max  Fs  0.Ed (action) as a function of x and the capacity of the reinforcement Fs.90 x Fig. From the distance xmin of the first crack is always Fs. 112 .0 Fs Fs.80 0.7 l b  cnom  533 mm  xmin  400 mm In this case a straight anchorage cannot be used. For the straight anchorage of the bars.11).2.2): Fs  xmin   Fs  0.79 cm2  1120 fyk γ s In this case the clear distance between bars should be 162 mm > smin = 25 mm (see Table 4.Rd > Fs.5·20 = 730 mm zi = 0.max As   33.0 400.1 lb  l bd   686  493 mm As fyd 1501.Ed.8.0 1200.825   1469.50 0. Detailing of reinforcement J.0 1000.2.0 1400.Rd 600.40 0. and a bend as in Figure 4. taking into account that for a ϕ=20mm bar lbd = 686 mm (Table 4.40   1079.7.6 Forces in the reinforcement ϕ16 For bars with diameter ϕ = 20 mm: d = h – cnom – 1.5ϕ = 800 – 40 – 1.0 0. Arrieta Figure 4. with la = 195 mm is needed.0 kN  Fs.90d = 657 mm [9.4.2.1kN  Fs  xmin  1079.70 0.0 Fs.Rd (resistance) taking into account the anchorage.2.2 (3)] Fs.0 0.0 200.

4. 113 . which may be ontrol perim assumedd at a distance 2.4].Rd1 and Fs.8 Force nforcement ϕ20 es in the rein Figure 4 4. Detaili ng of reinforc cement J.4. For pun nching verificcation [6. Arrieta Fig g.Rd1 corres sponding respectivvely to straig ght and bend d anchoragess.. in this spe ecific case the t basic co meter.0d from m the loaded area.2.8 shows the actual force f Fs.7 Ben nd anchorag ge for bars ϕ20 ϕ Fig.2.Ed a nd the resis stance forces s Fs.2. is outs side the footing.

1 (1)] is: fctm As . the shift length is: al  0.min  0.min of longitudinal tension reinforcement [9.2.min    ρw .30fck2/3 = 2.2. fctm=0. Detailing of reinforcement J.2.04 Ac For the curtailment of the longitudinal tension reinforcement the “shift rule” [9.max is defined by: st .2 (5)]: Asw 0.1 (3)] is: As . The maximum area As.9d and vertical links as shear reinforcement (α = 90º).56 N/mm2 o Steel: fyk = 500 N/mm2. Detailing of beams Clause 9.15 The minimum area As.0013bt d  As.max is given by: sl . The material properties for the beams of the building are the following: o Concrete: fck = 25 N/mm2.75d  600 mm 114 .max  0.min  0.1.max  0.26 bt d  0.0008 sbw sin α fyk As α = 90º  Asw     0.3 (2)].2.08 fck ρw . the minimum ratio is [9. γs = 1.max of longitudinal tension or compression reinforcement [9.50.max  0. gives the following shift length al:  cot θ  cot α  al  z 2 Assuming z = 0. Arrieta 4. γc = 1.2 contains the detailing rules for the beams.0008bw  s min The maximum longitudinal spacing between links sl.45d cot θ cotθ has the same value as for the design of shear reinforcement.2.1.min  0.2.75d The maximum value for the transverse spacing of the legs of shear links st. For shear reinforcement.1.75d 1  cot α   0.00133bt d fyk bt being the mean width of the tension zone.

0008 bw  0.2. we obtain: Fig.min  0.5  Asw  mm2    0.20  s min mm sl . The geometry is defined in Figure 4. Detailing of reinforcement J.04 Ac  6520 mm2 al  0.2.max  0.4.1 Beam A2 – B2 – C2 for the case 1 This beam corresponds to case 1: two way slab on beams.00133bt d   2 518 mm for negative moments As.45d cot θ  400 mm for cot θ  2.2.9 Geometric definition of beam A2 – B2 – C2  d  h  c nom  w   400  30  8  8  354 mm 2 250 mm for positive moments bt   1100 mm for negative moments bw  250 mm Substituting these values in the previous expressions we obtain: 118 mm2 for positive moments As.75d  266 mm st .max  0.9: Assuming ϕw = 8 mm for links and ϕ = 16 mm for longitudinal reinforcement.max  0. Arrieta 4.75d  266 mm 115 .2.

Detaili ng of reinforc
cement
J. Arrieta

From caalculations we
w obtain the
e envelope o
of the interna
al forces: pos
sitive and neegative moments and
shear, aand then the e envelope of
o the requirred longitudinal and tran
nsverse reinnforcement forces. In
Figure 4
4.2.10 we ca an see the envelope oof the requirred force Fs,Ed
s for the top and thee bottom
longitudinal reinforce
ement.
Due to inclined craccks these en nvelopes are btaining F*s,Edd that repres
e shifted of length al ob sents the
capacityy of the reinfo
orcement req
quired. For th
he selected number of loongitudinal baars the resissted force
Fs,Rd takking into acco
ount the anc
chorage lenggths are calcuulated and drawn.
d At anyy section it must
m be :
Fs,Rd ≥ F*s,Ed.

Fig.4.2.1
10 Curtailment of longiitudinal rein
nforcement - Beam A2 – B2 – C2

For the sshear reinforrcement, we obtain the rrequired force in the transverse reinfoorcement Fsww,Ed from
the envelope of the e shear andd we dispose e links with a capacity of Fsw,Rd soo that: Fsw,RRd ≥ Fsw,Ed.
(Figure 4
4.2.11).

Fig.4.2.11 Trans
sverse reinfo
orcement en
nvelope - Be
eam A2 – B22 – C2

Figure 4 dinal and the transverse rreinforcemen
4.2.12 showss the final arrangement off the longitud nt for this
beam.

116

Detailing of reinforcement
J. Arrieta

Fig.4.2.12 Reinforcement - Beam A2 – B2 – C2

117

Detailing of reinforcement
J. Arrieta

4.2.2.2 Beam B1 – B2 – B3 for the case 3

This is the case of monodirectional slab with embedded lighting elements. The geometric dimensions
of this beam are in Figure 4.2.13.

Fig.4.2.13 Geometric definition of beam B1 – B2 – B3

Assuming as in the precious case ϕw = 8 mm for the links and ϕ = 16 mm for the longitudinal
reinforcement, we obtain:


d  h  c nom  w   400  30  8  8  354 mm
2

250 mm for positive moments
bt  
600 mm for negative moments

bw  250 mm

118 mm2 for positive moments
As,min  0,00133bt d   2
282 mm for negative moments

As,max  0,04 Ac  722 mm2

al  0,45d cot θ  400 mm for cot θ  2,5

 Asw  mm2
   0,0008 bw
 0,20
 s min mm

sl ,max  0,75d  266 mm

118

119 . Detaili ng of reinforc cement J.Rd.15).75d  266 mm As for b beam 2. d the resisted Fig.4.Rd ≥ Fsww. Arrieta st . the sh ope F*s. Figure 44.2.4 4.2.14 showss the envelop pe of the reqquired force Fs.Rd so tha at: Fsw. At any sectiion Fs.16 is th In Figure ngement of tthe longitudiinal and the transverse rreinforcemen he final arran nt for this beam. wee obtain the envelopes of the interrnal forces and the reqquired reinfo orcement.2.2.max  0. Fig.Rd ≥ F*s.14 Curtailmen nt of the long gitudinal reiinforcementt of beam B11 – B2 – B3 For the shear reinfo orcement.Ed and hifted envelo d force Fs.2.Beam B1 – B22 – B3 e 4.Ed.Ed (Figure 4.15 Trans sverse reinfforcement envelop e .Ed for thee top and thee bottom lon ngitudinal reinforce ement. we e obtain the required forrce in the tra ansverse reiinforcement from the envelop of shear and d we dispose e links with a capacity of Fsw.

16 Rein nforcement .Bea am B1 – B2 – B3 120 . Arrieta Fig.4.2. Dettailing of reinforce ement J.

As. Detailing g of slabs The matterial propertties of slabs are the same e as those off the beams.2.1 Slab AB12 2 for case 1 In this ccase (two wa ay slab on be ab has a tottal height of 18 cm. The of slabs minimumm and maxim mum values for the reinfo forcement arrea.1 (1)].2.min and As. In Figgure 4.2. Arrieta 4. Fig.4. 4.1. For a slab unit width (b = 1 mm):  d  h  cnom     180 0  30  12  6  132 mm (  12 mm m) 2 bt  1mm 121 .3.3.3. Detaili ng of reinforc cement J.3.17 Geometric definition of o slab AB12 2 for case 1 Provisions for the deetailing of the e reinforcem ment for this type t s are exposeed in Clause 9.17 is shown eams) the sla the geom metry of the slab. aree the same as a for the beams [[9.max.2.

slabs  2.4.176 mm mm2 As.200 mm The maximum spacing of the bars smax.0  h  250 mm  smax.18 Required reinforcement of slab AB12 for case 1 122 .slabs is [9.1 (4)] is: al  d  132 mm The design of the slab gives the required reinforcement in each (X. for each strip (Figure 4.max  0. Fig.3.slabs  250 mm And the shift length for the curtailment of the reinforcement [9.Y) direction. Detailing of reinforcement J.1.3. Arrieta mm2 As.18).2.04 Ac  7.1.00133bt d  0.2.1 (3)]: smax.min  0.

min  maxx  .10NEd  As.04 4 Ac where Ac is the sectiional area of the column.2).max  0. dia ameters and distances (F Figure 4.5..4.2. th he minimumm diameter of o the bars iss ϕmin=8 mm m and the total amount of its arrea is limited by a minimu um and a ma aximum valuee:  0.0. Detaili ng of reinforc cement J.1 annd the detailing rules are in se ection 9.2. are defined d in §5.3. Arrieta Finally w we dispose the real reinnforcement.5. Detailing g of colum mns The cha aracteristics of o a column. For the longitudinal reinforceme ent (9.2.19).19 Arra angement off reinforcem ment of slab AB12 for caase 1 4.4. taking into account the e previous pprovisions ab bout limit values fo or areas.002Ac   fyd  As . as a structu ural member. Fig. 123 .

1 Column B2 for the case 2 The column analysed corresponds to case 2: flat solid slab.5.5.20.3. When there is a change of direction in a longitudinal bar. Arrieta For transverse reinforcement (9.4. γs = 1.2). Detailing of reinforcement J.23NEd . The geometrical data are in Figure 4.1 and the detailing rules in Section 9.  long   4  st . No longitudinal compression bar can be at a clear distance greater than 150 mm from a restrained bar. as a structural member.15 Applying the actual values of the column to the previous expressions we obtain: o Longitudinal reinforcement min  8 mm As.2. fctm  0. In this case.90 N/mm 2 o Steel: fyk = 500 N/mm2.5.400 mm The characteristics of a column.30fck 2 / 3  2.min  max  .max  min 20long .min is defined and the maximum spacing st. a minimum of 3 bars must be present. the lateral forces may be ignored if the slope of the change is less or equal to 1 in 12.max are :  1  t . in zones near a beam or a slab.min  max 6 mm .500 mm2  As. and in lapped joints if the diameter of the bars is greater than 14 mm.002 Ac   fyd  124 .60. otherwise pushing forces have to be considered.2. the bar’s minimum diameter is ϕmin=8 mm and the total amount is limited by a minimum and a maximum value:  0.max  min 20 long .3) the minimum diameter ϕt.0.400 mm This maximum spacing is reduced by a factor 0.max  10000 mm2 o Transverse reinforcement  6 m m if long  24 m m  t .min  max 0. The materials used to make the columns have the following properties: o Concrete: fck = 30 N/mm2. 4. For the longitudinal reinforcement (9. bmin . restraining is done through transverse reinforcement or splices. γc = 1. are defined in Cause 5.50.10  NEd  As.min   long  if long  24 mm  4 st .

Geometrical data are in figure 20. otherwise pushing forces have to be considered. long   4  st . In this case a minimum of 3 bars must be present.case 2 The column considered corresponds to case 2 .3) the minimum diameter ϕt. 400 mm  The maximum spacing is reduced by a factor 0.2. the lateral forces may be ignored if the slope of the change is less or equal to 1:12. γc = 1.2 Column B2 .max  min 20long .60 in zones near a beam or a slab.400 mm 125 . 4. γs = 1. restraining is obtained using transverse reinforcement or splices When there is a change of direction in a longitudinal bar.min  max  6 mm .15 Applying the actual values of the column to the previous expressions we obtain: o Longitudinal reinforcement min  8 mm As.max  0. No longitudinal compression bar can be at a clear distance greater than 150 mm from a restrained bar. Detailing of reinforcement J.23NEd . The materials used have the following properties: o Concrete: fck = 30 N/mm2.max are:  1  t .4.50. Arrieta As .min and the maximum spacing st. bmin .30fck 2 / 3  2. fctm  0.max  min  20 long .5.500 mm2  As. For transverse reinforcement (9.min   long  if long  24 mm  4 st .max  10000 mm2 o Transverse reinforcement 6 mm if long  24 mm  t .04 Ac where Ac is the transverse area of the column.90 N/mm 2 o Steel: fyk = 500 N/mm2.min  max 0.flat solid slab. and in lapped joints if the diameter of bars is greater than 14 mm.

21 Transversee reinforcem ment mn B2 – Cas colum se 2 olumn B2 .C co Case 2 126 . Detaili ng of reinforc cement J.20 Geometric definition Fig. Arrieta Fig.4.4.2.2.

400 L-1/L0 6 400 1340 ϕ6 .2.400 L0/L1 6 280 1072 2ϕ6 . the area of reinforcement really disposed is As.disp 2 2 2 [mm ] [mm ] [mm ] [mm2] L-2/L-1 5581 1305 500 5892 12ϕ25 L-1/L0 3551 1177 500 3768 12ϕ20 L0/L1 1082 1012 500 1232 8ϕ14 L1/L2 0 838 500 904 8ϕ12 L2/L3 0 670 500 904 8ϕ12 L3/L4 0 504 500 628 8ϕ10 L4/L5 0 344 500 628 8ϕ10 L5/Roof 0 216 500 628 8ϕ10 Closed links are used for transverse reinforcement as in Figure 4. Table 4.2.240 ϕ8 .2.rqd As. Following the prescriptions of the code the links spacing of the links is reduced in the zones close to the slab and in the laps. applying the mentioned rules.12 Transverse reinforcement for column B2 – Case 2 Floor ϕt.12 shows the extension of the zones and the links’ diameter and spacing in each zone.200 Finally in Figure 4.140 2ϕ6 .21. If the total area of reinforcement required is As.2.120 2ϕ6 .240 L2/L3 6 240 643 2ϕ6 .280 L1/L2 6 240 751 2ϕ6 . Arrieta An uniform distributed reinforcement is provided along the perimeter of the column.rqd.2.160 2ϕ6 .240 ϕ6 .11 Longitudinal reinforcement for Column B2 – Case 2 Floor As.200 L5/Roof 6 200 536 2ϕ6 .min1 As.11).22 the arrangement of the column reinforcement is represented.120 2ϕ6 . Detailing of reinforcement J.240 L3/L4 6 200 643 2ϕ6 .dsp (Table 4.max L Links [mm] [mm] [mm] At1 At2 L-2/L-1 8 400 1340 ϕ8 . Table 4. 127 . Table 4.min2 As.min st.120 2ϕ6 .200 L4/L5 6 200 536 2ϕ6 .140 2ϕ6 .2.

22 Reinforc cement for column c B2 .Case 2 128 .2. Arrieta Fig. Detaili ng of reinforc cement J.4..

Laboratoire Navier Geotechnical team (CERMES). CHAPTER 5 SOME GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF BUILDING DESIGN (EN 1997) Roger FRANK Université Paris-Est. Ecole des Ponts ParisTech. France 129 .

Some geotechnical aspects of building design (EN 1997) R. Frank 130 .

characteristic values of materials properties should be determined before applying any partial factor of safety. In the following.25 m in width and a height of 19 m above ground level – details are in Chapter 1.g. more generally speaking. field tests (e. The inner columns are founded on square spread foundations of dimensions B = 2 m and L = 2 m. It also gives all the prescriptions and rules for good practice required for properly conducting the geotechnical aspects of a structural project or. a purely geotechnical project. the following calculations will be presented: o for column B2: bearing capacity and sliding resistance of the spread foundations (ULS verifications).1. in particular the Eurocode 7 one. through foundations or retaining structures Eurocode 7 allows the calculation of the geotechnical actions on the structures. 2007) for the use of these tests in geotechnical design). gives the path leading to characteristic values. with two storeys below the ground level. The example building is a six-storey building. 2007). as well the resistances of the ground submitted to the actions from the structures.g.6 m. it is applied to the geotechnical design of a reinforced concrete building.1 Introduction Eurocode 7 deals with all the geotechnical aspects of the design of structures (buildings. It is designed as a reinforced concrete skeleton construction and has total dimensions of 30. The selection of appropriate values of soil properties for foundations (or other geotechnical structures) is probably the most difficult and challenging phase of the whole geotechnical design process and cannot be extensively described here. pressuremeter tests MPM and cone penetration CPT tests).Part 2: Ground investigation and testing (CEN. etc. 2004) o EN 1997-2 Geotechnical design . 5. Eurocode 7 consists of two parts: o EN 1997-1 Geotechnical design . identification and tri-axial compression tests). - see EN 1997-2 (CEN. laboratory tests (e. Figure 5.25 m in length.2.Part 1: General rules (CEN. the outer columns and the shear walls are supported by a peripheral diaphragm retaining wall of width 0. The present ‘philosophy’ with regard to the definition of characteristic values of geotechnical parameters is contained in the following clauses of Eurocode 7 – Part 1 (clause 2.’ 131 .2 shows the link between the two parts of Eurocode 7 and.5. In the Eurocodes approach. of height 9 m (embedded 3 m below the 2 levels of parking) – see Figure 5.’ ‘(7) […]the governing parameter is often the mean of a range of values covering a large surface or volume of the ground.2. 14. designed by applying the principles of Eurocode 2.2 in EN1997-1): ‘(2)P The characteristic value of a geotechnical parameter shall be selected as a cautious estimate of the value affecting the occurrence of the limit state.2 Geotechnical data The soil investigation can consist of core sampling. The characteristic value should be a cautious estimate of this mean value. bridges and civil engineering works) and should be used for all the problems of interaction of structures with the ground (soils and rocks). o comments on the settlement of the columns (SLS verification). After some considerations about the geotechnical data. Frank 5.4. more important. Some geotechnical aspects of building design (EN 1997) R.

e. a way of linking traditional geotechnical engineering and the new limit state approach) and to the assessment of the mean value (and not to a local value.5. i. the concept of 'derived value' of a geotechnical parameter (preceding the determination of the characteristic value) has been introduced (see Fig.1 General framework for the selection of derived values. o on the one hand. Type of test F= field L= laboratory F1 F2 L1 L2 Correlations C1 C2 Information from other Test results and sources on 1 2 3 4 derived values the site. they often depend on the individual judgment of the geotechnical engineer. there is now a clear reference to the limit state involved (which may look evident.’ ‘(11) If statistical methods are used. NOTE In this respect. in the present study. but is. characteristic values and design values of geotechnical properties (CEN. the soils and EN 1997-2 rocks and the project EN 1997-1 Cautious selection Geotechnical model and characteristic value s of geotechnical properties Application of partial factors Design values of geotechnical properties Fig. involves 'large' areas or 'large' ground masses). with a confidence level of 95%.5.2. this might appear to be a specific feature of geotechnical design which. indeed. o on the other hand. Some geotechnical aspects of building design (EN 1997) R.1). a cautious estimate of the low value is a 5% fractile. Frank These paragraphs in Eurocode 7 – Part 1 reflect the concern that one should be able to keep using the values of the geotechnical parameters that were traditionally used (the determination of which is not standardised.). 2007) 132 . the characteristic value should be derived such that the calculated probability of a worse value governing the occurrence of the limit state under consideration is not greater than 5%. However two remarks should be made at this point. it is assumed that the whole building is founded on a very stiff clay with the following characteristics: o undrained shear strength (in terms of total stresses): cu = 300 kPa o total unit weight γk = 20 kN/m3 The water-table is assumed to be at natural ground level. a cautious estimate of the mean value is a selection of the mean value of the limited set of geotechnical parameter values.’ For the sake of simplicity. Statistical methods are mentioned only as a possibility: ‘(10) If statistical methods are employed […]. such methods should differentiate between local and regional sampling […].2. in any case. where local failure is concerned.

8 m th hick) both at ULS (for pe rmanent andd transient design situatioons. fund damental combinaations) and ata SLS – se ee Tables 5.3. Forces and d moments o on the found dation of co olumn B2 . Some geo otechnical asspects of buillding design (EN 1997) R. Structurral and geo otechnica al actions The ‘stru uctural’ actio ons to be considered on the foundations are take en from the structural an nalysis in Chapterr 2. For the diaphragm retaining r walll. T Table 5.1. Frank 5. active and d passive pressurees from the ground g and th he groundwa ater (geotech hnical actions s) must also be considerred.e.33. i. The com mbinations of o forces and d moments for column B2 are giveen at the sole of the foundation (0.1.U ULS and SLS S 133 .3 Action ns on th he found dations 5.3.1.

Combina ation 1 (DA1-1) is called the ‘structurral combination’ because e safety is appplied on acttions (i.set = 1.00.1 Design app proach 1 (DA A1) Two commbinations (DA1-1 ( and DA1-2) sho ould be used d. γG. It should be checkedd that an UL LS is not reached for either off the two com mbinations.ssup = 1. Note tha at for the ressistance of piles p and an nchors resistatances factorrs γR are used insstead of mate erial factors γM.0 are applied to a partial lo action effectss) while the design valuee of the geotechnical resistancce Rd is base ed on the ma aterials charaacteristic res sistance.10): Ed {γFFrep} ≤ Rd {Xk} (5. for each geeotechnical structure. For the bearing capaacity of spread foundatio ons and for re etaining structures.6. With the e recommend ded values given in Note 2 of Table A2. Frank 5. thro ough partial material facctors γM > 1. CEN.50 or 0. The choice. 3 Design App proaches (D DA) are offerred by Euroocode EN 1990 1 and Eurocod de EN 1997-1 (Eurocode 7 – Part 1.4 A (B) of EN N 1990. 134 . applied aat the ‘sourc ce’ to the ground pparameters themselves.0. General:: the three e design a approache es of Euroc code 7 When cchecking ST TR/GEO Ultimate Limit States for permanent and transieent design situations s (fundam mental combiinations).1) where γF means γG.3..3.2. s is left to the Nationall Application Document. 5. thesee approache es can be summarrised as follow ws. Some geo otechnical asspects of buillding design (EN 1997) R. t actor is applied on unfavo No safety fa ourable permmanent (‘struuctural’ or ‘geotechhnical’) actions..inf G = 1.20 or 0. and d γQ = 1.2. Combina ation 2 (DA1 1-2) is calledd the ‘geotecchnical combbination’ beca ause the saffety is applie ed on the geotechnical resista ance Rd.e. for E Eqn. 1. 2004). γGG.20 too 1.35.35. oad factors γF  1.

3 Variable γQ Favourable 0 0 For DA1-2.3 summarises the recommended values of load factors used for DA1-1 (set A1) and DA1-2 (set A2).3 Partial factors on actions (γF) or the effects of actions (γE) (Table A.3. Table 5.2) where γF means γG.10): Ed {γFFrep} ≤ Rd {Xk /γM} (5. the recommended values for the partial factors γM both for ‘geotechnical’ actions and resistances are those of set M2 given in Table 5. Frank With the recommended values given in the Note of Table A2.3.0 1.sup = 1. Table 5.00.00. and γQ = 1.0 Permanent γG Favourable 1.4 (except for resistances of piles and anchors). Some geotechnical aspects of building design (EN 1997) R.00 or 0.3.0 Unfavourable 1.6.35 1.3 in EN 1997-1) Action Symbol Set A1 A2 Unfavourable 1. γG.4 (C) of EN 1990 for Eqn.15 to 1.set = 1.5 1.inf = 1. 135 .30 or 0. γG.

0 1. the factors can be applied either on the actions themselves (DA2.0 1. Some geotechnical aspects of building design (EN 1997) R. 1.sup = 1.6.00. factors γF) or on the actions’ effects (DA2*.1 1.3.3.0 * This factor is applied to tan φ' 5.5 and 5. γG. respectively.4) The recommended values for γF or γE are given in Note 2 of Table A2.0 Sliding γR.20 to 1.0 1.5 Partial resistance factors (γR) for spread foundations (Table A.25 Undrained shear strength γcu 1. factors γE).3.0 1.2 Design approach 2 (DA2 and DA2*) Only one combination should be used to check that the ULS is not reached.h 1.13 in EN 1997-1) Resistance Symbol Set R1 R2 R3 Bearing capacity γR.35.v 1. Thus. for Eqn.0 136 . and γQ = 1. On the action side.3.3. o for DA2: Ed {γFFrep} ≤ Rd {Xk}/γR (5.4 1.5 in EN 1997-1) Resistance Symbol Set R1 R2 R3 Bearing γR.0 1. Frank Table 5.50 or 0 The recommended values of the resistance factors for spread foundations and retaining structures are those for set R2 given in Table 5.0 1.10: γG.4 (B) of EN 1990. Safety is applied on both actions and resistances. Table 5. γG.0 1.1 1.3) o for DA2 *: γEEd {Frep} ≤ Rd {Xk}/γR (5.0 1.set = 1.4 1.0 Table 5.4 Weight density γγ 1.4 Unconfined strength γqu 1.4 Partial factors for soil parameters (γM) (Table A.6.0 Sliding resistance γR.4 in EN 1997-1) Soil parameter Symbol Set M1 M2 Angle of shearing resistance* γ ’ 1.v 1.0 1.3.2.6 Partial resistance factors (γR) for retaining structures (Table A.h 1.20 or 0.35.25 Effective cohesion γ c 1.inf = 1.

applied at the ‘source’ to the ground parameters themselves.00 or 0.0 1.e 1. in the Note of Table A2. 5.30 or 0. 2004).4 (B) of EN 1990.3.3.0. M and R of Tables 5.10: γG.5 and 5.20 to 1.3.15 to 1.4 1. Design Approach 2 (DA2) Combination: A1 “+” M1 “+” R2 3.50 or 0 and o for ‘geotechnical’ actions. 5.sup = 1. γG.set = 1.sup = 1. through partial material factors γM > 1.3. Some geotechnical aspects of building design (EN 1997) R. as follows (“+” means “to be combined with”): 1.6. can be summarised in a symbolic manner with sets A. Safety is applied on both actions (factors γF) and on the geotechnical resistance Rd. γG. Design Approach 3 (DA3) Combination: (A17 or A28) “+” M2 “+” R3 For the design of axially loaded piles and anchors. The recommended values of partial material factors γM for ground parameters are those of set M2 of Table 5.3. the three Design Approaches. and γQ = 1.3. This writes: Ed {γFFrep.4 (C) of EN 1990 for Eqn.4.4. 7 on structural actions 8 on geotechnical actions 137 .35. Frank Earth resistance γR.00.3 Design approach 3 (DA3) Only one combination should be used to check that the ULS is not reached. γG.2. 5.inf = 1.5) The recommended values for the actions are given: o for ‘structural’ actions.0 5. Xk /γM } ≤ Rd {Xk /γM} (5. DA2 and DA3 (for “fundamental” combinations) For spread foundations and retaining structures.00 and γQ = 1. for Eqn.00.2.3. Design Approach 1 (DA1) Combination 1: A1 “+” M1 “+” R1 Combination 2: A2 “+” M2 “+” R1 2.inf = 1.6.10: γG. in Note 2 of Table A2. see EN 1997-1 (CEN. for ULS in permanent and transient design situations.4 Summary for DA1.3.6.

4. Vyd and Vzd . the design values Nd.3.3. Thus the resistance depends on the actions.3).36·10-3 MNm Mzd = -4. Nd.3. Geotechnical resistance (bearing capacity) The resistance R (bearing capacity) is calculated with the sample method of Annex D of EN 1997-1 (CEN.v on the bearing capacity R are taken from the recommended values in Tables 5.1 in EN 1997-1): Nd ≤ Rd (5. which is quite common in geotechnical engineering (because of this. DA2 and DA3. R may be expressed as: R = A’ (π+2) cu sc ic (5. Rd is the design value of the resistance of the ground (ground bearing capacity) below the base of the foundation.2 B’/L’ 1 H  ic   1  1   2 A ' cu  H being the resultant horizontal force (resultant of Vy and Vz) Eccentricity is calculated by: o in the transversal (B) direction: eB = My/N o in the longitudinal (L) direction: eL = Mz/N For the calculations of eB. due to structural and geotechnical actions. Horizontal loads and moments on this foundation seem negligible.78·10-3 MNm Hd is the resultant of Vyd and Vzd. sc and ic.6. Some geotechnical aspects of building design (EN 1997) R.1 (derived with set A1 on actions – see Table 5. Vyd and Vzd. eL. for each Design Approach. are needed. Frank 5.6) where Nd is the design value of the axial component acting on the base of the foundation. as well as Mzd and Myd. which depend on the Design Approach under consideration.7) with A’ = B’ L’ = (B-2eB)(L-2eL) sc = 1+0.1.54·10-3 MN Myd = -2. Mzd and Myd are given in Table 5.4 Column B2 . I For undrained conditions (with α = 0 and q = 0) as in the present case.81 MN Vyd = -4. it is sometimes necessary to check the calculations both with unfavourable and favourable values of a number of actions…). The governing combination of actions is taken as the one with the largest value of Nd: Nd = 5.5 respectively. For DA1-1. Partial factors γM on cu and γR. 138 . Bearing capacity (ULS) The ULS condition is (Eqn.49·10-3 MNm Hd = 4. 2004) – see Annex 1 below.3.4 and 5.design of foundation 5.53·10-3 MN Vzd = -1.

these loads have to be divided by a factor somewhere between 1.0. that is. Sliding (ULS) The basic equation (Eqn.2 in EN 1997-1) is: Hd ≤ Rd + Rp.4b in EN 1997-1): Rd = { A’cu /γM} / γR. ic ≈ 1 and Rd = 4·5. Design Approaches 2 and 3 Design Approaches 2 and 3 yield the same level of safety.4/1. for simplicity is not considered here as in order to take into account any passive force the earth has to be properly in contact in front of the footing and well compacted. γR.0 thus cud = 300 kPa .39 .h are taken from the recommended values in Tables 5. Some geotechnical aspects of building design (EN 1997) R. the foundation is safe with regard to bearing capacity of the ground.d (5.28 MN Let us assume that Nd is equal to Nd for A1-1 divided by 1.4. Rp. thus Rd = 4·5.0 = 7.35.4 and 5.0 thus: cud = 300/1. sc ≈ 1.14·1.d is the passive earth force in front of the spread foundation.0 . for each Design Approach in persistent transient design situations. thus Nd ≤ Rd is not verified.8·10-4 m (!).2.4a and 6.23 MN and Nd ≤ Rd is verified.9) where γM and γR. The difference with the assumed B = 2.v = 1. thus Nd = 5.v (see Tables 5. say: B = L = 2.h (5.3.3.14·1.4 = 5. Frank For DA1-2.2 . which for undrained conditions is (Eqns.4 .4 and the other one is equal to 1. Design Approach 1 Combination DA1-1: γM = 1.0 = 5. 5.4 x Nd /(π+2) cu sc ic ≈ 4. and the total resistance R also depend on the Design Approach through γM (on cu) and γR. Rd is the sliding resistance.8) where Hd is the design value of the horizontal component of the load acting on the base of the foundation. sc ≈ 1. According to DA1.10 m.2·1·214·10-3 /1. 6. γR.2 .14·1.28/1.0 = 5. ic ≈ 1 and Rd = 4·5.3.2·1·300·10-3 /1.28 MN.v is equal to 1. Combination DA1-2: γM = 1.11 and 1.11.0 m is small. 139 .3.4 and 5.2 Correction factor ic.5). It can be seen easily that the size of the footing should be around: A’ = 1.0 = 7.v = 1.6 respectively. 6. For DA1-1. because one of the values for the factors γM and γR. which is not always the case.4 MN and Nd ≤ Rd is verified. which.1·10-4 m (!).2·1·300·10-3 /1. B’ ≈ B and L’ ≈ L and sc = 1. eL = 7. DA2 and DA3 eB = 4.4= 214 kPa . depending on the ratio of permanent G to variable loads Q.

which is thus a favourable action . for the sake of illustration. the initial pressure at the base level of the excavation is around (3·20) kN/m3 = 60 kPa.1 = 1. Thus A’≈ BL≈ 4m².h = 1.300 /1. various assumptions are made in order to estimate the maximum possible settlement.0 . For column B2. in practice settlements are ignored.2 MN which corresponds to the applied pressure on the ground: 140 . called “compensated foundation”.4 .214/1.0 = 1. 5. For this type of foundation.5 MN (for DA1-1. Thus.1. Assuming for the weight density of the ground γ = 20 kN/m3.0 = 0. γR. Design Approach 1 Combination DA1-1: γM = 1.1: Q = 4. Combination DA1-2: γM = 1.1: Hd = 5.2 MN and Hd ≤ Rd is largely verified.03 kN (which is quite small) with Myd ≈ .3. Mzd ≈ -4.0 .h = 1. Design Approach 3 γM = 1. The eccentricities eB and eL remain negligible and B’ ≈ B and L’ ≈ L. from Table 5.4= 214 kPa and Rd = 4·0. with Hd < 5. γR.3. According to DA1. Compensated foundation The total weight of the present building is less than the weight of the ground removed to build the underlying parking.09·10-3 MNm. Some geotechnical aspects of building design (EN 1997) R.09 MN and Hd ≤ Rd is largely verified. Settlements are usually checked under the vertical load Q obtained with quasi-permanent SLS combinations.0 = 0.5 Comments on settlements (SLS) 5.0 thus cud = 300 kPa and Rd = 4·0. γR. Nevertheless.214/1.70·10-3 MNm.1 thus cud = 300 kPa and Rd = 4·0.and its design value should be obtained using the factors for favourable actions. in drained conditions the sliding resistance is moreover directly proportional to the vertical load.03 kN and Hd ≤ Rd is largely verified.0 thus cud = 300/1.0 thus cud = 300/1. the foundation is safe with regard to sliding.300 /1.4 . Frank As for the bearing capacity. γR.h = 1. which itself depends on the eccentricities).2. the sliding resistance in undrained conditions also depends on the values of the actions (through A’ = B’ L’. DA2 and DA3).5. The largest value of Hd for persistent transient design situations (fundamental combinations) is – see Table 5.86 MN. Nd ≈ 5. settlements will be limited as the construction of the building simply consists in partly “putting back” something similar to the ground in its initial position. Design Approach 2 γM = 1.4= 214 kPa and Rd = 4·0.86 MN and Hd ≤ Rd is largely verified.h = 1.

see e.12 and λc = 1. et al. it is most likely that the stiffness of the clay would increase with depth.6 m For a square foundation: thus λd = 1. 2002).05 MPa σvo = 0 assumed for simplicity. some conservative assumptions have been made: for instance.5. The settlement is expressed as:  2B  λ B a αλ B  s  q  σv 0    0   d   c  (5. In the following the Ménard pressuremeter (MPM) method is used. Frank q = Q / (BL) = 4.1 For an overconsolidated clay in Eqn. 2004) allows the use of pseudo-elastic methods written under the form: s = qBf / Em (5. the relative rotation is: b = sB2 / 2L = 8.4·10-3 Annex H of EN 1997-1 (informative) states that for buildings in the most of cases a relative rotation β = 1/500 = 2·10-3 is acceptable. his one being equal to 9cu on average (cu is the undrained shear strength of the clay .017 m = 17 mm.10) the exponent α may be assumed α = 1.g.05·[0.2/(2·2) = 1.0116+0.0) / (9·43)] = 1.10)  9E d  B0  9E c   In the current case: q = 1. in informative Annexes.0057] = 0. 5.12·2)/(9·43 0.00)·[(2 0. Frank. Some geotechnical aspects of building design (EN 1997) R.2 of EN 1997-2 (CEN. If this building was just built to “rest” on the stiff clay loaded from its natural level (with no excavation at all).11) 141 . . for highly overconsolidated clays to 16 times the limit pressure.5.6 1. 5.2.0 The Ménard pressuremeter modulus is assumed to be constant over depth and equal. Calculation based on the results of Mènard pressuremeter method Eurocode 7 – Part 2 (EN1997-2) provides.6) + (1·1. described in Annex E. as if the soil is simply loaded from its initial natural level (without the unloading due to the excavation) B=2m B0 = 0.5/6000= 1. several methods for determining the settlement of spread foundations.1978) EM ≈ (9·16) cu = 144·300·10-3 = 43 MPa Ed = Ec = 43 MPa sB2 = (1.. 1999 and Baguelin.1·2. Adjusted elastic method Eurocode 7 .3. as a minimum. (5. Furthermore.05 – 0.Part 1 (CEN. the differential settlement would be clearly acceptable.05 MPa. The span between two columns is L = 6 m: assuming that the differential settlement δs = sB2/2.

Règles Techniques de Conception et de Calcul des Fondations des Ouvrages de Génie Civil (in French: Technical Rules for the Design of Foundations of Civil Engineering Structures). The value for Eu is consistent with unload-reload moduli from pressuremeter tests and moduli from plate loading tests in the same clay. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels. Thus. (1978). Some geotechnical aspects of building design (EN 1997) R.O.. 142 .0·0. November 2004. Textes Officiels N° 93-3 T. Presses de l’Ecole des ponts et Techniques de l’ingénieur.11) leads to: sB2 = 1. References Baguelin. CEN 2002. Note that the undrained shear strength of the Singapore clay matrix is cu > 150 kPa. For the Fort Canning Tunnel in Singapore. Cahier des clauses techniques générales applicables aux marchés publics de travaux. as an elastic approach is more appropriate for the reloading phase of the clay (after excavation). EN 1997-1:2004 (E).8 mm. Trans Tech Publications. Mair (2011) quotes a value of the undrained modulus Eu for the hard clay matrix Eu ≈ 500 MPa. 1999.0023 = 2. from back-analysis of settlements of buildings on rafts. J. The Pressuremeter and Foundation Engineering. March 2007. Calcul des fondations superficielles et profondes. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design . EN 1990: 2002. D. CEN 2007.Part 2: Ground investigation and testing. Frank where Em is the design value of the modulus of elasticity. 5. FASCICULE N°62 -Titre V. du logement et des transports 1993. Frank R. EN1997- 2:2007 (E). CEN 2004. it would be 10 times the “first loading” modulus EM obtained with the Ménard pressuremeter quoted above.F.10).Part 1: General rules. 182 pages. The elastic calculation (Eqn. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels.5. Clausthal. is probably more realistic. This settlement. F. which is not surprising.05·2. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design .H. Shields. This method assumes that an estimate of an equivalent and unique Young’s modulus value is possible to represent the ground affected by the load and for the correct level(s) of deformation… All the difficulty lies in the assessment of Em. The result confirms that the settlement of such a “compensated” foundation can be ignored in practice.. Jézéquel..66/500 = 0. Germany. Paris. largely less to the one calculated using the first loading Ménard modulus together with the Ménard empirical formula (Eqn. Eurocode: Basis of structural design. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels. MELT-Ministère de l'Equipement.

sc = 1.2 for a square or circular shape. only used for drained conditions) B the foundation width B' the effective foundation width D the embedment depth e the eccentricity of the resultant action. o the shape of the foundation: sc = 1 + 0.3 A' = B'  L' the design effective foundation area b the design values of the factor for the inclination of the base. 143 . Figure D.2(B'/L') for a rectangular shape. Annex D. 2004): Annex D (informative): A sample analytical method for bearing resistance calculation.1) with the dimensionless factors for: o the inclination of the foundation base: bc = 1 – 2α / (π + 2).1.3 Undrained conditions The design bearing resistance may be calculated from: R/A' = (+2) cu bc sc ic + q (D.1 — Notations D. with subscript c (with subscripts q and γ.3: Undrained conditions The following symbols are used in Annex D. Some geotechnical aspects of building design (EN 1997) R. with subscripts B and L i the inclination factor of the load. with subscript c (with subscripts q and γ for drained conditions only) V the vertical load α the inclination of the foundation base to the horizontal γ weight density of the soil below the foundation level The notations used are given in Figure D. Frank ANNEX 1 From EN 1997-2 (CEN. with subscript c (with subscripts q and γ for drained conditions only) L the foundation length L' the effective foundation length q overburden or surcharge pressure at the level of the foundation base s the shape factor of the foundation base.

33 Sand and gravel 6–10 0.5 Table E. c.5 Weathered 0. for settlement of spread foundations L/B Circle Square 2 3 5 20 d 1 1. d. d.78 2.6 m. Frank ANNEX 2 From EN 1997-2 (CEN.  2B  λ B a αλ B  s   q  σv 0    0   d   c   9Ed  B0  9Ec   where Bo is a reference width of 0.5 >12 0.67 Remoulded 7–9 0.2. v0 is the total (initial) vertical stress at the level of the foundation base. B is the width of the foundation. Annex X. The example was published by the French Ministère de l‘Equipement du Logement et des Transport (1993).5 Sand 5–12 0. Ec is the weighted value of EM immediately below the foundation.4 1.3 1. see EN1997-2.33 >10 0.5 Over-consolidated >14 0.65 c 1 1. Ed is the harmonic mean of EM in all layers up to 8B below the foundation.2 — The shape coefficients. Some geotechnical aspects of building design (EN 1997) R. 2004): Annex E (informative): E.2 Example of a method to calculate the settlements for spread foundations The following is an example of a method to calculate the settlement s. For additional information and examples.25 Extensively fractured 0.3 — Correlations for deriving the coefficient  for spread foundations Type of ground Description EM/pLM  Peat 1 Over-consolidated 16 1 Clay Normally consolidated 9–16 0.12 1.67 144 . Table E.2.  is a rheological factor given in Table E.2 1.14 2.3. q is the design normal pressure applied on the foundation.67 Silt Normally consolidated 5–14 0.53 1.1 1. of spread foundations using a semi-empirical method developed for MPM tests. c are shape factors given in Table E.33 Rock Unaltered 0.3. §X.

CHAPTER 6 FIRE RESISTANCE ACCORDING TO EN 1992-1-2 Caroline MORIN and Fabienne ROBERT CERIB. France 145 .

Robert 146 .Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C. Morin and F .

Its cross section is a T-beam where its effective width has been calculated in chapter concerning Limit State Design (ULS-SLS). i. EN 1991-1-2 describes the thermal and mechanical actions for the structural design of building exposed to fire. EN 1992-1-2 describes the principles.125 m. The global analysis of the overall structure is not covered.2 Data concerning building 6. Description of the building The building is described in 1.18 m. Sec 5). o The 4 m high column B2 is the one in the second basement. a part of a structure or a member to fulfil its required functions (load bearing function and/or fire spreading function) for a specified load level. Chapter 1. Focus is on: o The beam in axis 2 which consists of a continuous beam.25 m.4. The cross-section is a square of 0. refurbishment or demolition). including the safety requirements. The width bw of the web is 0. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.the ability of a structure. and where required and applicable. The fire may occur anywhere. The effective width beff at mid-span is equal to 2.40 m. 6. Its section Ac. in any session and in any phase in the lifetime of a building (construction. requirements and rules for the structural design of concrete buildings for the accidental situation of fire exposure. EN 1991-1-2 and EN 1992-1-2) through the example out of the concrete building. the French National Annex has been selected.1. Sec-3). In this chapter. Sec-4).5.1 Introduction Fire is a definite danger to any construction and needs to be prevented and fought by all possible means. The height of the beam hbeam is 0. it uses nominal fires to generate thermal actions like the standard temperature-time curve (EN 1991- 1-2. The aim of this chapter is to give a general overview of the fire design according to Eurocodes (EN 1990. a beam and a slab) will be determined.e.2. o simplified calculation methods (EN 1992-1-2. EN 1990 concerns the basis of structural design.1 m.. For this example. EN 1992-1-2 gives alternative procedures.column has been calculated in the previous chapter concerning ULS-SLS and is equal to 3. values and recommendations for classes with notes indicating where national choices have to be made.2. for a specified fire exposure and for a specified period of time…”. for civil engineering works to be built in the relevant country. The length Lbeam of the continuous beam is equal to 7. The plan view and the main sections of the building are given in Figure 6. Therefore the National Standard implementing EN 1992-1-2 should have a National Annex containing the Eurocode all Nationally Determined Parameters to be used for the design of buildings. design procedure and design aids.83 m. Fire resistance is defined as “. The height of the slab hslab is 0.2. Morin and F . The methods given in EN 1992-1-2 are applicable since concrete materials used in the building are normal weight concrete materials with strength class lass then the limit strength class C90/105. In this chapter the different methods given in EN 1992-1-2.6 m and at intermediate support is equal to 1. service.Robert 6. Sec-4 are used: o tabulated data (EN 1992-1-2. the prescriptive approach is adopted (in opposite to the performance-based code).column is equal to 0. Its effective length l0.1. EN 1991-1-2 and EN 1992-1-2 are intended to be used in conjunction with EN 1991-1-1 and EN 1992-1-1.2.1 to 6. 147 .25 m². The slenderness λcolumn of the column at normal temperatures is equal to 22. The fire load- bearing capacity of three concrete members (a column.50 m.

6. Fig.2. Morin and F .Robert o The slab on the beams (A1B2) is a two-way slab of uniform thickness (hslab = 0. The width of the slab in X-direction lx is equal to 6 m and the width of the slab in y-direction ly is equal to 7.1 Plan view of the slab on beams Fig.2 Section 1 of the building 148 .2.125 m.18 m). 6. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.

2. beam and slab 149 .3 Section 2 of the building with the 8 floors Fig.Robert Fig.2. Morin and F . 6. 6. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.4 Elements verified under fire (dimensions) – column.

Mathematical model for stress-strain relationships of concrete under compression at elevated temperatures is as in Eqn 6. Mechanical material properties 6.θ. The reduction factor for concrete strength dependent on the material temperature is in Figure 6. Morin and F .1).2.θ/Xk) and γM. kθ is the reduction factor for a strength or deformation property dependent on the material temperature (Xk.θ < ε < εcu1.2.θ and the strain εc1. as a function of concrete temperatures.1) Xk is the characteristic value of strength or deformation property for normal temperature as described in EN 1992-1-1.θ and numerical purposes.2.θ: 3  ε  fc.1): X d .1 Concrete class and steel class of members Slab Beam Column C25/30 C25/30 C30/37 Grade 500 class B Grade 500 class B Grade 500 class B The exposure class considered is XC2-XC1. the classes of concrete and reinforcement steel (see Ch.θ     For εc1.2 for ε < εc1.fi  k θ X k γ M .2. a descending branch should be adopted.θ   2       εc1.2.2.2.5. 6. to avoid country specific conditions it was fixed to 30 mm.1 gives. The mechanical properties of concrete and reinforcing steel at normal temperature are given in EN 1992-1-1 for normal temperature design.θ σ θ   (6.fi are defined as follows (Eqn 6. Values are given in Table 6. Sec-3 strength and deformation properties of uniaxially stressed concreted at elevated temperatures are given in terms of stress-strain relationship. Design values of mechanical (strength and deformation) material properties Xd.fi is taken equal to 1.2 Concrete The concrete used is assumed to be made of siliceous aggregates. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C. γM.2)   ε   3 εc1.2.Robert 6. Table 6. The nominal cover cnom (see Ch. for each member.1) due to non-uniformity of EU National choices. 150 . For thermal and mechanical properties of concrete and reinforcing steel.fi is the partial safety factor for the relevant material property for the fire situation.2. Table 6.2.2. In EN 1992-1-2. This relationship is described by two parameters: the compressive strength fc.θ corresponding to fc.1 General The values of material properties shall be considered as characteristic values to be used with simplified and advanced calculation methods.fi (6.0.

0250 0.0450 1100 0. The strength and deformation properties of reinforcing steel at elevated temperatures is obtained from stress-strain relationships described in EN 1992-1-2. Table 3. The mathematical model for stress-strain relationships of reinforcing steel at elevated temperatures is presented in Figure 6.6.0425 1000 0.85 0.0250 300 0.0400 900 0. as a function of steel temperature.Robert Table 6.2.30 0.0300 500 0. Sec-3.0350 700 0.2. 151 .08 0.0250 0.2.5 Coefficient kc(θ) for decrease of concrete strength fck (1: siliceous aggregates.0025 0.θ.θ/fck εc. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.0100 0.0375 800 0. 2: calcareous aggregates) 6.0250 0.2.95 0.00 .2 Values of the main parameters of the stress-strain relationships .3.2.0070 0.75 0. the proportional limit fsp. Values of these parameters are given in Table 6.15 0.0040 0.00 0.0225 200 0.1) Temperature (°C) fc.04 0.0055 0. - Fig.0250 0.0275 400 0.45 0.θ.60 0.0475 1200 0.0150 0.θ and the maximum stress level fsy.0250 0. Morin and F .00 0.01 0.2. Sec-3. defined by three parameters: the slope of the linear elastic range Es.0325 600 0.θ 20 1. 6.θ εc1.0250 0.normal concrete with siliceous aggregates (from EN 1992-1-2.0200 100 1.3 Reinforcing bars The reinforcing steel used is cold worked steel.

Sec-3. Table 3.00 1.00 0.00 152 .2a) Temperature (°C) fsy.08 800 0. Sec-3 Table 6.00 1.3 Values of the main parameters of the cold worked reinforcing steel stress-strain relationships at elevated temperatures (from EN 1992-1-2.87 300 1.05 0.00 100 1.θ /fyk Es.24 700 0.94 0.00 200 1.72 400 0.02 1200 0.2.θ /Es 20 1.06 900 0.56 500 0. 6.05 1000 0.2.03 1100 0.03 0.12 0.40 600 0.40 0.00 0.08 0.11 0.6 Mathematical model of the reinforcing steel stress-strain relationships at elevated temperatures according to EN 1992-2. Morin and F .67 0.Robert Fig.00 0. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.

6. Morin and F . Sec-3 as a function of temperature θ and other variables. Differently from the thermal conductivity.2.7): εc  θ   1.2.8  104  9  106  θ  2. specific heat cp(θ) and density ρ(θ) are not nationally Determined Parameters. 2: prestressing steel) 153 .416  104  1.2  103  2  105  θ for 860C  θ  1200C (6.the strain εs(θ) at temperature θ of reinforcing steel is (Fig.Robert 6. Materials’ physical and thermal properties Concrete thermal and physical properties are described in EN 1992-1-2. 2: calcareous aggregates) o Steel .3) εc  θ   14  103 for 700C  θ  1200C (6.8 Steel strain f(θ) (1: reinforcing steel.5) εc  θ   11 103 for 750C  θ  860C (6.6) εsc  θ   6.3  1011  θ 3 for 20C  θ  700C (6.1 Thermal strain of concrete and steel o Concrete .2.the strain εc(θ) at temperature θ of a siliceous concrete is (Fig.7) Fig.2  105  θ  0.4) Fig.2.3.2.8): εsc  θ   2. 6. 6.4  108  θ 2 for 20C  θ  750C (6.6.7 Concrete strain f(θ) (1: siliceous aggregates. 6.3.2. thermal strain εc(θ). Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.

Sec-3.2.9 and 6.3 Concrete thermal conductivity The variation of concrete thermal conductivity λc with temperature is set by the National annex within a range defined by lower and upper limits.2.8) λc  0.9 illustrates the variation of the specific heat as a function of concrete temperature θ: for u=1.2. 6. Figure 6.8. f(θ) and moisture contents by weight .5 % of concrete weight.136  θ 100   0.2.peak is 1470 J/kgºK.10 were adopted.0107  θ 100  W/mK 2 θ  140C (6.2451 θ 100  0.3.9) λc  1. 6.3.2. 6.2. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.324 W/mK 140  θ  160C (6.02604θ  5.3. Fig.siliceous concrete 6.36  0. 6.5 % the value of cp.2 Concrete specific heat Calculation in the following are based on a moisture content u=1. which correspond to the curves in Figure 6. Morin and F .2.10 Thermal conductivity of concrete (French National Annex of EN 1992-1-2) λc  2  0.9 Specific heat cp.4 Density of concrete and reinforcing bars The variation of density with temperature influenced by water loss is described in EN 1992-1-2.10) 6. 154 . Eqns. Fig. For the following calculations.10 described in the French National Annex.0057  θ 100  W/mK 2 θ  160C (6.Robert 6.

4 Steel reinforcement of column B2 Longitudinal Transversal 12ϕ20 ϕ12/200 mm The axis distance of the longitudinal steel bars from the concrete surface is: acolumn: (30 + 12 + 20/2) mm = 52 mm.2. At support.5 Steel longitudinal (lower/upper) and transversal reinforcement of beam in axis 2 Title 1 Perimeter support Middle span Intermediate support Upper 7ϕ12 2ϕ10 9ϕ12 Lower 3ϕ16 3ϕ16 3ϕ16 Stirrups ϕ6/175 ϕ6/175 ϕ6/175 At middle span.4.11 Layout of the reinforced column B2 Table 6.4. 6. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C. the axis distance amid-span.2.1 Column B2 According to Chapter 3.beam of steel reinforcement from the nearest exposed surface is 44 mm. 155 . 6.Robert 6.69 cm²) in a symmetric manner with stirrups ϕ12/200 mm (Figure 6. Morin and F .beam of steel reinforcement from the nearest non- exposed surface is 42 mm.125 m long. reinforced as in Table 6.2.5.2. beam and slab) 6. the column reinforcement is made of 12ϕ20 (37.2.2.2. the axis distance asupport.2 Beam in axis 2 The beam in axis 2 is a continuous beam with spans 7.2.4. Table 6.11 and Table 6.4).2. Reinforced members’ sections (column. Fig.

6 and Table 6. Fig.75 m) (3.5 m) strip (1.5 m) (3 m) strip (1. Actions The thermal and mechanical actions are taken from EN 1991-1-2. i. is considered.2. The slab thickness hslab is 0.2.slab  cnom  φx   30  12   49 mm (6.2.12 and in Table 6.12) 2 2 6.2.7 Longitudinal reinforcement of the slab in y-direction Perimeter beam strip Middle strip Intermediate beam Title 1 (1. 6.4.slab  c nom   30   36 mm (6.12 Layout of the reinforced slab Table 6.7.2.18 m.2.slab of reinforcing steel in x-direction from the nearest exposed surface is : φx 12 ax . slab on beams.3 Slab on beams For this study only one type of horizontal slabs.slab of reinforcing steel in Y-direction from the nearest exposed surface is : φy 14 ay . The emissivity 156 . considered at normal temperature.5 m) Upper ϕ16/250 mm ϕ16/125 mm ϕ16/250 mm ϕ12/500 mm ϕ12/250 mm ϕ12/500 mm Lower ϕ14/500 mm ϕ14/250 mm ϕ14/500 mm The axis distance ax.6 Longitudinal reinforcement of the slab in x-direction Perimeter beam strip Middle strip Intermediate beam Title 1 (1.e. The slab reinforcement is in Figure 6. These actions.11) 2 2 The axis distance ay.2. Morin and F .Robert 6.5.2. shall be applied because they are likely to act in fire situation.75 m) Upper ϕ14/250 mm ϕ14/125 mm ϕ14/250 mm Lower ϕ12/250 mm ϕ12/125 mm ϕ12/250 mm Table 6. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.

t during fire exposure.beam NEd. embedded services and partitions).5 kN/m² 3 kN/m² 2 kN/m² 8.1Q1.m 128. the maximum bending moments in the fire situation can be obtained multiplying by 0.7.x-slab. 157 . Tabulated data are based on a reference load level ηfi = 0.3 Tabulated data 6.5 for dwellings .d.m. Annex A.3.fi.x-slab M0Ed.5 kN/m² The ratio lx/ly is equal to 0.7 kN. Sec-5 no further checks are required concerning shear and torsion capacity and spalling.fi.fi. Linear interpolation between values in the tables may be carried out.9. The ratio LEd.1.y-slab is μy = 0. apply to normal weight concrete made with siliceous aggregates (Figure 6. to be used within the specified limits of validity.1). In this case the member is assumed as isolated. The resulting isostatic moment M0Ed.Robert related to the concrete surface is taken as 0. The design isostatic moment in X-direction M0Ed. (ψ1. To obtain the relevant effects of actions Efi. Using tabulated data.column 15. Tabulated data are verified design solutions for a standard fire exposure up to 240 minutes.m 6.fi = 8.671 and is equals to μyM0Ed. For beam in axis 2. Sec-2). the normal force NEd.2.5 kN/m² under fire - see Table 6. the Eurocode fire parts give design solutions in terms of tabulated data (based on tests or advanced calculation methods).fi under fire is 2849 kN (the design normal force NEd is 4384 kN) and the bending moment at the ends MEd.2.column MEd.1 = 0. except those resulting from thermal gradients.2. o Imposed permanent actions GImp (finishing. The design loads are LEd = 13.fi.fi. the representative value of the variable action Q1 is the frequent value ψ1.8 External actions on slabs Gslab GImp Q1 LEd. Scope Where simple calculation models are not available.y-slab M0Ed. o Variable actions Q1. given in tables in terms of minimal cross-sectional dimensions and of minimum nominal axis distance.fi. pavement. Actions acting on slab. according to EN 1992-1-2.EN 1990.7 (EN 1992-1-2.x-slab is μx = 0.1).65 the design moments in chapter 3 . Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.9 Exterior actions acting on beam (axis 2) and on the column B2 M0Ed.beam is 128. The following actions are considered: o Dead weight Gslab based on reinforced concrete unit weight of 25 kN/m3 and on the geometry of the slab. Table 6.84. For column.65. beam and column are summed up in Table 6. The design isostatic moment in y-direction M0Ed.7 kN.125 kN/m² at normal temperatures and LEd. Table A1.fi /LEd is equal to 0.fi. In France. Indirect fire actions are not considered.2. the mechanical actions are combined in accordance with EN 1990 for accidental design situations. Morin and F .fi.3.column under fire is 14 kN.fi 4. Table 6.m 10.052. The values.m.8.fi.7 kN.fi.m 2849 kN 14 kN.9 kN.

fi Under the condition e/b ≤ 0.2.fi ncolumn  (6.25 (e = 0. Note 2. 158 . Therefore the column fire resistance is R90.33 According to Figure 6. Validity of the method is first checked before using tabulated data: o Load level. Column 500/52 Tabulated data are given for braced structures.13) 0. For this study.3.3.7   Ac fcd  As fyd  o First order eccentricity under fire conditions. e. 6.004 22. by linear interpolation between the different column tables the minimum dimensions required for ω = 0.3.fi e (6. method B is used.5 0.15) All of those parameters are sum up in Table 6.2. Morin and F .33 and n=0.1 Parameters for method B (Tabulated data) – column B2 n e fi ω 0.3. two methods (A and B) are provided in EN 1992-1-2. is assumed to be equal to λ at normal temperature in all cases. ncolumn. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.1 Sections through structural members showing nominal axis and minimum dimensions (EN 1992-1-2.14) N0Ed .61 0.3. Table 6. o The mechanical reinforcement ratio at normal temperature is: As fyd  Ac fcd (6.1. To assess the fire resistance of columns.61 are 500/46. Sec-5) 6.004). Sec-5. is : M0Ed .Robert Fig. o Slenderness of the column under fire conditions fi as mentioned in EN 1992-1-2. Sec-5. at normal temperature conditions is : N0Ed .

Beam 25 50/44 Tabulate ed data in En n 1992-1-2. for up to a distance of 00. The beaam has a con nstant width bw.3leff from th he center line of th he support is sufficient (see EN 1992--1-2. minimum m co lumn dimen nsions and axis a distancces for reinfo orced concretee columns with w rectanguular or circu ular section (EN 1992-1--2.3.R Robert Fig. The con ntinuous beamm can ensurre its load-beearing capaccity up to 90 minutes. Note: it is assumed that redistrib bution of ben nding momennt under norm mal temperaature design does not exceed 15 %. Sec-5).2 Fire re esistance. Mo orin and F .3. for of widtth values less thann values in column c 3. The bea am has only one layer off reinforceme ent. the conntinuous beaam should be e considered as simply suupported. R asd is eequal to 45 mm m (35 + 10 mm). H However. Then.3. 159 . the area of ttop reinforce ement over th he intermediiate support. Interpola ation between columns 2 and 3 gives s a width of 250 m mm and an axisa distance of 40 mm. Fire resistance e according to t EN 1992-1 1-2 C. 6 6. In this building. b for standardd fire resistan nce from R30 0 to R240.3. as indicated un nder the tabl e. for R120.25 m). the uppe er side is insulated by sla abs during th he whole fire duration. an increase of a is required d. Sec-5 apply to beams ex xposed to firre on three ssides. Otherw wise. m Figure 6. Forr R90 and ab bove.beam (equ als to 0. Sec-5) 6..3 6 providees minimum values v of axis distance to the e soffit and sides of co ntinuous beams and minimum widtths of the beam.

Note: moment redistribution is assumed not to exceed 15 % for ambient temperature design.4 are applied.Robert Fig. The ratio of the lengths in y and x-directions ly /lx is equal to 1. The minimum slab thickness hs ensures adequate separating function (criteria E and I).32<1.4 (column 2 and 4) apply to one-way or two-way continuous slab. 6.3.3. 160 . continuous solid two-way-slabs are supported at all four edges. The values given in Figure 6. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.5.3. Sec-5) 6. In this building. Columns 2 and 4 of Figure 6.continuous reinforced concrete beam (EN 1992-1-2.4. Slab 180/36/49 Fire resistance of reinforced concrete slabs is considered adequate if the values of Figure 6. Morin and F .3 Minimum dimensions and axis distances .3.3.4 apply.

161 . Coefficients a0.4 Minimum dimensions and axis distance for reinforced concrete simply supported one-way and two-way solid slabs (EN 1992-1-2.3. 6. reinforcement at least equal to 50 % of the isostatic bending moment.125 m and in X-direction. under ambient temperature. For 240 minutes.08 for Wire Fabrics L is the half the sum of the two ideal spans located west and east of the support. In y-direction.40 m.3. In Y-direction. Sec-5) The French National Annex gives additional rules on rotation capacity on supports.2.16). Morin and F . column 5 may be used leading to an axis distance of 50 mm (> 49 mm). The French National Annex requires on supports. if we use the French National Annex. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C. the calculation under fire may be avoided provided the axis distance of column 5 of Figure 6. over a length at least equal to 1/3 of the longest contiguous span. the minimum axis distance of the reinforcement in X-direction (36 mm) is less than the one in the table (40 mm). L equals to 7. In case of continuous slab. b0 and h0 are in Table 6.Robert Fig.4 is used.25 for class A (bars and rods) o ΩR = 0.25 for class B (bars and rods) o ΩR = 0. if the condition related to the slab thickness is verified (see Eqn 6.16) 100ΩR  a0 L Limiting values for angle Ω of the yield hinge (ΩR) are based on reinforcement properties: o ΩR = 0. L equals to 5.3. The condition for the thickness of the slab is: b0 h  h0  (6. The continuous slab can maintain its load-bearing capacity up to 180 minutes.

Table 6. Indirect fire actions are not considered.882 0. Temperatures profiles in concrete cross-sections subjected to a fire standard exposure are calculated using software Cim’Feu EC2 developed in France and concrete thermal properties (see 6.3. Simplified calculation methods are used to determine the ultimate load-bearing capacity of a heated cross-section under the relevant combination of actions.4 Simplified calculation methods 6.64 1.3 Minimum height h of the slab (ΩR = 0.1.3.2240 The numerical application leads to the height for different duration of fire in Table 6.3. the member is considered as isolated.135 m From table 6.25) L=7. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.3.137 m 0.2.105 m 90 min 0. for 180 minutes the condition is not verified (0.868 0.166 m 0. Methodology In this part. Table 6. 6.t.195 m 0.109 m 0.195 m > hslab).20 105. 162 .25).4.Robert Table 6.289 0.118 m 120 min 0.fi.3.0715 90 -3.3.25 (in Y-direction) (in X-direction) 30 min 0.4.153 m 0.5.40 m ΩR = 0.0564 60 -2.81 0.3).3. In the fire situation It has to be verified that the design effect of actions Ed.4 Duration of load bearing capacity of members with tabulated data Method Column Beam Slab Tabulated data R90 R90 R120 6.081 m 60 min 0.67 1.28 3.125 m L=5.2 Coefficients a0.3 the slab maintains its load-bearing capacity up to 120 minutes.1082 120 -5.097 0. Morin and F . Summary Resistance to fire R calculated with tabulated data are in Table 6.1860 180 -40. except those resulting from thermal gradients.127 m 180 min 0. b0 et h0 REI a0 b0 h0 30 -1.3 (ΩR = 0.fi is less than or equal to the corresponding design resistance Rd.740 2.

Sec-4 and in EN 1992-1-2. Morin and F . o The method based on estimation of curvature deals with columns where second order effects under fire are significant. while the residual concrete cross-section retains its initial values of strength and modulus of elasticity. The estimation of curvature is described in EN 1992-1-2. Concrete thermal properties are defined in section 6. combined with the drop of the elasticity modulus at the inner layers.1 Temperature profiles in cross-section of the column In the second step. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C. the temperatures in the center of the reinforcing bars are determined. see Chapter 3). In the first step. This method is based on the estimation of the curvature (EN 1992-1-1. 6. assessing a reinforced concrete cross-section exposed to bending moment and axial load. Sec-5.fi.1. three simplified methods are described: o ‘500°C isotherm method’: this method is applicable to a standard fire exposure and any other heat regimes which cause similar temperature fields in the fire exposed member.fi. Annex B.4. 163 .1 m.see Figure 6.4. especially for columns but is applicable to the standard temperature-time curve only. For each reinforcing bar.2. The damage of the outer layers of the column due to high temperatures.column is equal to 3.Robert In EN 1992-1-2.2. Sec-5). the structural behaviour of the column is significantly influenced by second order effects under fire conditions. Concrete with temperatures in excess of 500°C is assumed not to contribute to the member load bearing capacity. Annex B. The thickness of the damaged concrete a500 is assumed equal to the average depth of the 500°C isotherm in the compression zone of the cross-section. Annex B. considered as an isolated member under fire conditions. results in a decrease of the stiffness.4. Therefore according to EN 1992-1-2. Fig.1.4. l0. using software (CIM’feu EC2) temperatures profiles in the concrete cross-section subjected to a standard 180 minutes fire exposure are determined omitting the presence of reinforcement .column. may be assumed equal to l0. see Table 6.3.column at normal temperature (l0. The fire damaged cross-section is represented by a reduced cross-section ignoring a damaged zone of thickness az at the fire exposed sides. o ‘Zone method’: this method provides more accurate results that the previous one. a procedure is presented to calculate the load-bearing capacity of a reinforced concrete cross-section subjected to bending moment and axial load using the method based on estimation of curvature. the reduction coefficient factor ks(θ) is calculated. The method is valid for minimum width of cross-section depending on the fire resistance or on the fire load density (see EN 1992-1-2. Table B1). Column In this study. As a safe simplification the effective length under fire conditions. 6.

849 MN and the bending moment MEd. see EN 1992-1-2.column = 14 kNm.fi.110 4 20 314 448 52 741.701 220 350.12 / π ²  96 kNm (6.018 2 20 314 202 52 488. The nominal second order moment M2.6 0.6 0.column = 246 kNm with a curvature (1/r)fi.033 m taken into account additional eccentricity (effect of imperfections.column equals to 0. Table 6.93 0. Calculations lead to an ultimate moment MRd.81 R180 60 1444 4.116 36 57.6 0. a500. Acfcd.fi.column is108 kNm.6 1754 5.93 0.column(20°C) = 30/1=30 MPa o Steel reinforcement: fyd.39 0.max is determined.39 0.39 0.4.4 0.035 m-1.6 0.39 0. Morin and F .39 0.6 0.1 indicates that Asfyd.fi. Annex B. So.5.93 0.110 9 20 314 52 448 741. is equal to 60 mm for an exposure of 180 minutes and a width of 500 mm.701 220 350.701 220 350. The first order eccentricity e0.116 36 57.column.2). Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.701 220 350.33 As mentioned in section 2. Annex B Time of exposure az (mm) Ac.701 220 350.110 11 20 314 298 448 488.column for the curvature corresponding to the maximum moment MRd.701 220 350.33 MN (Table 6.6 0. The moment-curvature diagram for the axial normal force NEd.018 Σ 1908 0.fi(θ) is equal to 0.701 220 350.018 5 20 314 52 202 488.column = 2.110 6 20 314 448 202 488.fi.4.4 0.column is determined for each reinforcing bar and for each concrete zone using the relevant stress-strain diagram (see Figure 6.column is determined.116 36 57.701 220 350.6 0.2).110 12 20 314 448 448 741.17) 164 .fi.93 0.110 8 20 314 448 298 488.26 R120 49.4. Sec-5 and chapter 3).fi.952 Strength properties of concrete and steel reinforcement under fire conditions are: o Concrete: fcd.39 0.39 0. The first order bending moment for fire conditions M0Ed.2 Damaged zone az according to EN 1992-1-2.035  3.4 0.952 MN.column is equal to 0.018 10 20 314 202 448 488.6 0.4 0.fi (cm²) Ac.fi 1 r  l 02 c  2849  0. According to EN 1992-1-2.fi  NEd .110 7 20 314 52 298 488.column.fi (MN) R90 40.4.column(20°C) = 500/1=500 MPa Table 6.8 1603 4.1 Temperatures and reduced strength of steel reinforcement As x y T ks(θ) Asks(θ) ks(θ)fyd(θ) ks(θ)fyd(θ)As ϕ(mm) (mm²) (mm) (mm) (°C) (mm²) (MPa) (MN) 1 20 314 52 52 741. Sec-5): M2.fi.110 3 20 314 298 52 488. the axial normal force NEd.fi(θ) is equal to 4.Robert Table 6.39 0.4. the thickness of the damaged concrete.fi. The resistant moment is calculated for different curvatures and the ultimate moment MRd.116 36 57.fifcd.fi. as follow (see EN 19992-1-1.fi.

Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2
C. Morin and F .Robert

Where c is a factor depending on the curvature distribution (c equals to π²). For (1/r)fi,column equals to
0,035 m-1 and NEd,fi,column equals to 2849 kN, M2,fi,column is equal to 96 kNm.
The remaining ultimate first order moment capacity M0Rd,fi,column,max is then calculated as the difference
between the ultimate moment capacity and the nominal second order moment (Figure 6.4.2), as
follow:

M0Rd ,fi ,column  MRd ,fi ,column  NEd ,fi 1 r  l 02 c  246  96  150 kNm (6.18)

M0Rd,fi,column is equal to 150 kNm.
Comparing in the final step the remaining ultimate first order moment capacity M0Rd,fi,column with the first
order bending moment for fire conditions M0Ed,fi,column:

M 0 Rd ,fi ,column  150 kNm  M 0 Ed ,fi ,column  108 kNm (6.19)

All results are summed up in Table 6.4.3.

Fig. 6.4.2 Ultimate moment capacity, second order moment and ultimate first order moment
capacity as a function of the curvature (1/r) (EN 1992-1-2, Annex B)

Table 6.4.3 Calculation results for column under fire conditions at 180 minutes

MRd,fi,column M0Rd,fi,column M2,fi,column M0Ed,fi,column N0Ed,fi,column (1/r)fi,column
246 kNm 150 kNm 96 kNm 108 kNm 2849 kN 0,035 m-1

The column load-bearing capacity under fire is R = 180 minutes.

165

Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2
C. Morin and F .Robert

6.4.3. Continuous beam

Calculations are made at mid-span, internal and end supports on the basis of the design moments
(section 6.2.5), geometry of the beam (section 6.2.4) and the reinforcing bars sections and cover
(section 6.2.5).

6.4.3.1 Mid-span

In a first step, temperatures profiles in the concrete cross-section subjected to a 120 minutes standard
fire exposure are determined omitting the presence of reinforcement, with software (CIM’feu EC2),
see Figure 6.4.3. Concrete thermal properties are presented in section 6.2.3.

Fig. 6.4.3 Temperatures profiles in the beam

Temperatures in steel reinforcement are presented with the corresponding strength reduction factor,
are in Table 6.4.4, for 120 minutes of fire exposure.

Table 6.4.4 Temperatures reduced sections and tension under 120 minutes of fire exposure
mid-span of the continuous beam in axis 2

Layer Steel As (cm²) T (°C) ks ks As (cm²) Fs (kN)
1 1ϕ16 2,01 507 0,65 1,31 65,5
1 2ϕ16 4,02 677 0,18 0,72 36
∑ 3ϕ16 6,03 - - 2,03 101,5

The total tension force in steel reinforcement under fire at 120 minutes is Fs,fi,mid-span,beam = 101,5 kN.
The effective depth dmid-span,beam is 356 mm. Equilibrium of forces leads to an effective height of the
compressive zone equal to 8,82 mm. The lever arm zmid-span,beam of the internal forces is 352 mm. The
resistant moment of the section at mid-span under fire is MRd,fi,mid-span,beam = 36 kNm.

6.4.3.2 Internal support

The total tension force in steel reinforcement under fire at 120 minutes is Fs,fi,intermediate,beam = 508,5 kN.
As mentioned before, EN 1992-1-2, Sec-4 allows simplified calculation methods to determine the
ultimate load-bearing capacity of a heated cross section and to compare the capacity with the relevant
combination of actions. In this case, the ‘500°C isotherm method may be used because the fire
exposure is a standard one and the cross-section has a width bw = 250 mm greater than 160 mm at
120 minutes. This method gives a reduction of the cross-section size assuming a heat damaged zone
at the concrete surfaces. Damaged concrete, i.e. concrete with temperatures in excess of 500°C, is

166

Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2
C. Morin and F .Robert

assumed not to contribute to the load bearing capacity of the member, while the residual concrete
cross-section retains its initial values of strength and modulus of elasticity.
The procedure for calculating the resistance of the cross-section at intermediate support of the beam
in the fire condition is as follows:
o The isotherm of 500°C for the standard fire exposure is determined according to temperature
profiles in the cross-section;
o The resulting width bw,fi and an effective height dfi of the cross-section are determined
excluding the concrete outside the 500 °C isotherm (Figure 6.4.4): bw,fi = 160 mm and
dfi =278 mm;

Fig. 6.4.4 Fire exposure on three sides, reduced cross-section of a reinforced concrete beam
at support (EN 1992-1-2, Annex B)

o The temperature of reinforcing bars in tension and their reduced strength are determined (see
table 6.4.5).

Table 6.4.5 Temperatures, reduced sections and tension under 120 minutes of fire exposure at
intermediate support of the continuous beam in axis 2

Layer Steel As (cm²) T (°C) ks ks As (cm²) Fs (kN)
1 1ϕ12 1,13 50 1 1,13 56,5
1 2ϕ12 2,26 93 1 2,26 113
1 2ϕ12 2,26 99,5 1 2,26 113
1 2ϕ12 2,26 99,5 1 2,26 113
1 2ϕ12 2,26 99,5 1 2,26 113
∑ 9ϕ12 10,17 - - 10,17 508,5

The total tension force in reinforcement under fire at 120 minutes is Fs,fi,intermediate support,beam = 508,5 kN.
o The ultimate load-bearing capacity is then calculated
The lever arm zintermediate,beam between the tension reinforcement and concrete is 256 mm. The
resisting moment of the section at intermediate support under fire MRd,fi,intermediate,beam = 130 kNm.

167

3 End support The procedure for calculating the resistance of the cross-section at end support of the beam in the fire condition is the same as for the intermediate support: o The isotherm of 500°C for the standard fire exposure is first determined. Table 6.beam MRd. o The new width bw. Tables 6.7).5.fi. 0.4. see Figure 6.7 The total resistant moment MRd.2. In a first step.beam 36 130 101 151. Table 6.9).2.fi and a new effective height dfi of the cross-section is determined excluding the concrete outside the 500 °C isotherm: bw. The total resistant moment of the beam is MRd.fi.7 kNm.4. .26 73.7 Resisting and design moments for the beam in axis 2 (in kNm) MRd.beam is then compared with the isostatic moment of the corresponding beam to verify if M0Ed. reduced sections and tension under 120 minutes of fire exposure end support of the continuous beam in axis 2 Layer Steel As (cm²) T (°C) ks ks As (cm²) Fs (kN) 1 1ϕ12 1.beam support.4. Thermal properties of the concrete are in section 6.fi.6 Temperatures.end. 6.6 and Table 6.13 50 1 1.113 1 2ϕ12 2.4.26 0.6). Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.4 Summary The resisting moments MRd.7.beam = 151.4.8 and Table 6.4.fi. temperatures profiles in the concrete cross-section subjected to a fire exposure at 180 minutes have been determined omitting the presence of reinforcement with software (CIM’feu EC2).2.fi.4.fi.26 0.2) and the reinforcing bars (sections and cover.4.beam > M0Ed.fi. The beam load-bearing capacity under fire is R = 120 minutes.113 ∑ 7ϕ12 7. Morin and F .mid-span.fi.26 82 1 2.beam: MRd.beam 128.396 The total tension force in reinforcement under fire at 120 minutes is Fs.5 1 2.fi.beam M0Ed.fi.beam of the continuous beam are presented in Table 6.Robert 6. The resisting moment of the section at end support under fire is MRd.8 and 6.2.intermediate support.fi.4.beam.intermediate. The lever arm zend.113 1 2ϕ12 2. according to design moments (see Table 6. Two-way slab Calculations have been made in the two directions of the slab (x and y-).50 128.2.3.26 0.9 present temperatures in the center of the reinforcing bars with the associated strength reduction factor ks(θ) for the two directions.beam = 396 kN.end-support. MRd.4.beam between the tension reinforcement and concrete is 256 mm.057 1 2ϕ12 2.fi = 160 mm and dfi = 278 mm.92 . 6. see Table 6.fi.3. 168 .beam = 101 kNm.fi.13 0. geometry of the slab (see section 6.beam MRd. o The temperature of reinforcing bars in tension and their reduced strength are determined (see Table 6.fi.4.26 82 1 2.50 kNm > M0Ed.

fi.24 362 At support 4ϕ16 8.fi. the total tension force in reinforcement after 180 minutes fire is Fs.14 157 At support 4ϕ14 6.y-slab is 131 mm. The load-bearing capacity of the slab in the X- direction is verified at 180 minutes.05 619 0.68 7. reduced sections and tension under 180 minutes of fire exposure mid-span and support of the continuous slab (Y-direction) Steel As (cm²) T (°C) ks ks As (cm²) Fs (kN) At mid-span 4ϕ12+4ϕ14 10.fi.4.5 Temperatures profiles in slab Table 6.x-slab = 22.x-slab = 15.9 kN. Morin and F . The lever arm zmid-span.50 kNm/m.x-slab = 157 kN.04 164 1 8. The design moment in X-direction for the two-way slab is MEd.50 kNm/m. The lever arm zmid-span. the effective height of the compressive zone is 14.4. The total resistant moment is MRd.m/m. calculations give a resisting moment under fire MRd.4 1 6.fi.y-slab of the internal forces is 122 mm.fi.6 mm.y-slab =362 kN.04 402 Calculations are done successively for the two directions: o In X-direction At mid-span.support. The effective depth dmid-span. reduced sections and tension under 180 minutes of fire exposure mid-span and support of the continuous slab (X-direction) Steel As (cm²) T (°C) ks(θ) ks As (cm²) Fs (kN) At mid-span 8ϕ12 9. The resisting moment of the section at 169 . The resisting moment of the section at mid-span under fire is MRd.3 mm.fi.9 Temperatures. o In Y-direction At mid-span. At support.mid-span.3 mm. the effective height of the compressive zone is 1.16 308 Table 6.5 = 58. the total tension force in reinforcement after 180 minutes fire is Fs.8 Temperatures.slab of the internal forces is 143. The effective depth dmid-span.x-slab is 144 mm.4.x-slab = 36 kNm/m.Robert Fig.mid-span. 6. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.16 140.mid-span.x-slab= 36 + 22.68 497 0.3468 3.

x-slab MEd. 6.fi.fi.y-slab 58.1 Duration of load bearing capacity of members with tabulated data and simplified calculation methods Column Beam Slab Tabulated data R90 R90 R120 Simplified method R180 R120 R180 170 . beam and slab.support. effects of thermal expansions and deformations (indirect fire actions) have to be taken into account (EN 1992-1-2.fi. The load-bearing capacity of the slab in the Y-direction is verified at 180 minutes.fi.1.fi.70 kN.50 15. Geometrical non- linear effects are taken into account. Morin and F . Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.10. In global structural analysis the relevant failure mode in fire exposure.5 Advanced calculation methods Advanced calculation methods.14 kNm/m.14+39.y-slab MEd. calculations lead to a resisting moment under fire MRd. Any heating curve can be used. Table 6. In future work. At support.70 = 83. tabulated data and simplified methods have been used. Indirect fire actions are considered throughout the structure.fi.6 Conclusions For determining the load-bearing capacity of the column.84 10.y-slab = 39. Compatibility must be ensured and maintained between all parts of the structure (limitation of deformations). Advanced calculation methods include (EN 1992-1-2. provided that the material (concrete and steel) properties are known for the relevant temperature range.m/m. Special attention is given to boundary conditions.fi.fi.m/m. Calculations were based on member analysis. The design moment in Y-direction for the two-way slab is MEd.84 kNm/m.7 kN.7 The load-bearing capacity of the two-way slab under fire is R = 180 minutes.4. The total resistant moment is MRd. All results ( X and Y direction) are presented in Table 6. based on fundamental physical behaviour.y-slab = 44. are based on a “global” structural analysis (analysis of the entire structure) for the fire situation and provide a realistic analysis of structures exposed to fire.9 83.resisting and design moments (kNm/m) MRd. Sec-4): o a thermal response model based on the theory of heat transfer and the thermal actions presented in EN 1991-1-2. see Table 6.6.x-slab MRd. the temperature-dependent material properties and member stiffnesses.Robert mid-span under fire is MRd. Table 6. o a mechanical response model taking into account the changes of mechanical properties with temperature. 6. The effects of thermally induced strains and stresses due to temperature and temperature differentials have to be considered.mid-span.10 Two-way slab .y-slab = 44. The use of simplified methods results in longer fire resistances R. advanced calculation methods should provide a more accurate estimation of the duration of the load-bearing capacity of the entire or of a part of the structure.6.4. The partition of deformation may be assumed.y-slab = 10. Sec-2).

Part 1-2: General actions. actions on structures exposed to fire. CEN. EN 1991-1-1:2003. Morin and F . self- weight and imposed loads for buildings.Robert References EN 1990:2003. CEN. Eurocode 0: Basis of Structural Design. CEN. EN 1992-1-2:2005. EN 1991-1-2:2003. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. CEN. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.Structural fire design. Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures. Part 1-2: General rules . Part 1-1: General actions – Densities. 171 . Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. CEN. EN 1992-1-1:2005. Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C.

Fire resistance according to EN 1992-1-2 C. Morin and F .Robert 172 .

Silvia Dimova.0 x 29. Manfred Curbach. Giuseppe Mancini.2788/35386 Abstract This document is a report with worked examples presenting step-by-step the design of a reinforced concrete cast on site building following Eurocode 2. Caroline Morin. structural analyses. Sausanne Gmainer. Martin Poljanšek. Last chapter gives general overview of the fire design according to the Eurocodes. Roger Frank. Belgium. . Fabienne Robert Editors: Francesco Biasioli. The materials were prepared and presented at the workshop “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Buildings” held on 20-21 October 2011 in Brussels. and in collaboration with CEN/TC250/Sub-Committee 2. Pinto Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2014 – 182 pp.7 cm EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1831-9424 ISBN 978-92-79-36548-5 doi:10. Artur V. Borislava Nikolova. harmonization and further development of the Eurocodes’ prepared by JRC in collaboration with DG ENTR and CEN/TC250 “Structural Eurocodes”. The design process has been divided between different authors. The document is part of the Report Series ‘Support to the implementation. The workshop was organized by JRC with the support of DG ENTR and CEN. – 21. Just Walraven. Each chapter of the report focuses on a different step in the design process: conceptual design.European Commission EUR 26566 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen Title: Eurocode 2: DESIGN OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Author(s): Francesco Biasioli. detailing of the reinforcement as well as some geotechnical aspects of building design. Jose Arrieta. limit states design and verification. some of whom were involved in the preparation and/or assessment of Eurocode 2. Martin Just.

z LB-NA-26566-EN-N As the Commission's in-house science service. doi:10. the JRC addresses key societal challenges while stimulating innovation through developing new methods. evidence-based scientific and technical support throughout the whole policy cycle. tools and standards. the scientific community and international partners. the Joint Research Centre's mission is to provide EU policies with independent. Working in close cooperation with policy Directorates-General. and sharing its know-how with the Member States.2788/35386 ISBN 978-92-79-36548-5 .

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.