Bre En1993-En1994 PDF

Steel and Steel and Concrete
Composite Buildings
Companion Document to
EN 1993 and EN 1994
On 5th May 2006 the responsibilities of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)
transferred to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
Department for Communities and Local Government

Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU
Telephone: 020 7944 4400
Website: www.communities.gov.uk
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete
Composite Buildings – 2005
Whilst this document provides practical guidance on the use of Eurocode BS EN 1993 and 1994
– Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Structures. It shall not be used for the design of
actual projects until both the Eurocode and its National Annex are published by the British
Standards Institution and approved for use by the First Secretary of State for England and
Wales.
It should be noted that the guidance has been based on the latest draft Eurocode
BS EN 1993 and 1994 available at the time of writing.
© Crown Copyright, 2007
Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.
This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium
for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to
it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be
acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified.
Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply
for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp,
or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements
House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or email:
HMSOlicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
If you require this publication in an alternative format please email

alternativeformats@communities.gsi.gov.uk
DCLG Publications
PO Box 236
Wetherby
West Yorkshire
LS23 7NB
Tel: 08701 226 236
Fax: 08701 226 237
Textphone: 08701 207 405
Email: communities@twoten.com
or online via the DCLG website: www.communities.gov.uk
January 2007
Product Code: 06 BD 04021 (f)

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 Steel Structures 8
1.2 Composite steel and concrete structures 9
1.3 Aim and scope of this publication 9
CHAPTER 2 EUROCODES SYSTEM 10

2.1 Eurocodes Terminology 12
2.1.1 Types of clause used in the Eurocodes 12
CHAPTER 3 GENERAL DESIGN ISSUES 14

3.1 Convention for member axes 14
3.2 The explicit use of γ factors 14
3.2.1 Symbols used in the Eurocodes 15
3.3 Documents required when designing with the Eurocodes 16
CHAPTER 4 EN1993 STEEL STRUCTURES 17

4.1 Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings 17
4.1.1 Material Properties 17
4.1.2 Ductility requirements for structural steel 17
4.1.3 Fracture toughness 18
4.1.4 Structural stability of frames 18
4.1.5 Structural imperfections 19
4.1.6 Buckling – members in compression 19
4.1.7 Buckling – uniform members in bending 20
4.1.8 Buckling – uniform members in bending
and axial compression 21
4.2 Part 1-2: General rules – Structural fire design 21
4.2.1 Material properties 21
4.2.2 Structural fire design 23
4.2.3 Members in compression 23
4.2.4 Combined bending and axial compression 23
4.2.5 Structural connections 23
4.3 Part 1-8: Design of joints 23
4.3.1 Definitions 24
4.3.2 Material properties 24
4.3.3 Groups of fasteners 24
4.3.4 Analysis, classification and modelling 24
4.3.5 Structural joints connecting H or I sections 26
4.4 Part 1-10: Material toughness and
through-thickness properties 27
4.4.1 Fracture toughness 27
4.4.2 Through-thickness properties 28
4.5 Part 5: Steel Piling 29
CHAPTER 5 EN1994 STEEL AND CONCRETE

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES 31
5.1 Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings 31
5.1.1 Material Properties 31
5.1.2 Structural stability 32
5.1.3 Structural imperfections 32
5.1.4 Calculation of action (load) effects 32
5.1.5 Beams – Ultimate Limit State 33
5.1.6 Beam serviceability limit state 34
5.1.7 Lateral torsional buckling 35
5.1.8 Members in compression 35
5.1.9 Composite joints in frames for buildings 36
5.1.10Composite slabs with profiled metal sheeting 36
5.2 Part 1-2: Structural fire design 37
5.2.1 Fire exposure 37
5.2.2 Material Partial Factors 37
5.2.3 Structural analysis 37
5.2.4 Design procedures 37
5.2.5 Unprotected Composite Slabs 38
CHAPTER 6 EFFECTS ON UK STRUCTURAL

DESIGN PROCEDURES 40
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN ROUTE MAPS 41
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES 54
APPENDICES 56
Appendix A – Eurocode clause reference tables 56
WORKED EXAMPLES 61
Anchored Sheet Pile Wall 62
Cantilever 83
Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall 90
Simply Supported Beam with Full Lateral Restraint 104
Simply Supported Beam with Lateral Restraint at the Load Points 111
Steel Driven Pile in Stiff Clay 119
Base Plate without Bending Moment 128
Simply Supported Beam with Full Lateral Restraint – Fire Limit State 134
Simply Supported Composite Beam – Fire Limit State 148
Partial Depth (flexible) End Plate Connection 157
Connections in Fire 176
Column in Simple Construction – Fire Limit State 186
Column with Axial and Bi-Axial Moments (Due to simple connection) 195
Simply Supported Steel and Concrete Composite Beam 210
Concrete Filled CHS Composite Column 223
Continuous Steel and Concrete Composite Beam 235
5
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
6
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The aim of this Companion Document is to provide UK designers with an overview of the
Eurocodes system, and with detailed information for the principal parts of Eurocode 3 and
Eurocode 4 namely:
Eurocode 3
Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings
Part 1-2 Structural fire design
Part 1-8 Design of joints
Part 1-10 Material toughness and through-thickness properties
Part 5 Piling
Eurocode 4
The scope of this document was developed in consultation with industry. It comprises:
• An overview of the impact that Eurocodes 3 and 4 will have in the UK

• Route maps for the design of building elements to the Eurocodes in the UK
• The major technical differences between the Eurocodes and the UK Standards
The document focuses on guidance for buildings. Design guidance relating to bridges and
other civil engineering works is not considered. Where the Eurocode design guidance is the
same as that currently (late 2004) given in British Standards or there is little change between
the Codes no discussion has been included. To keep this document concise detailed design
guidance is not presented.
BRE and Buro Happold have made every effort to ensure the accuracy and quality of all the
information in this document when first published. However, they can take no responsibility for
the subsequent use of this information, nor for any errors or omissions it may contain.
© Queen's Printer and Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office
7
1 Introduction
The objectives of the Eurocodes are
• To establish a common set of design rules for buildings and civil engineering works to be
used across Europe.
• To remove the barriers to ‘free’ movement of products and engineering services between
European countries, by removing the obstacles caused by different nationally codified
practices for the assessment of structural reliability.
The emerging Eurocodes (ENs) have been developed following work undertaken to modify
the European Prestandards (ENVs). The ENVs were published with National Application
Documents in the early 1990s to allow Designers to undertake provisional designs and make
comments on their content. Unlike the Eurocodes the ENVs did not have the status of
European Standards.
Following a period of co-existence the current British Standards will be superseded by the
Eurocodes. These Eurocodes will be denoted as BS EN in the UK.
The Eurocodes can be considered to be divided into codes that provide fundamental
guidance for structural design (Basis of Structural design), guidance that may apply to all
designs (loads, geotechnics and seismic) and detailed guidance for structural materials (steel
concrete etc.).
1.1 Steel Structures

EN 1993 (Eurocode 3) gives structural design rules for steel structures. It is divided into six
main design areas, which are sub-divided into the following parts:
Part 1 General rules and rules for buildings

Part 1-3 General rules Supplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting
Part 1-4 Stainless steels
Part 1-5 Plated structural elements
Part 1-6 Strength and stability of shell elements
1
Part 1-7 Strength and stability of planar plated structures transversely loaded
Part 1-9 Fatigue strength of steel structures
Part 1-11 Design of structures with tension components made of steel
Part 1-12 Additional rules for the extension of EN 1993 to steel grades up to S700
Part 2 Steel Bridges
Part 3 Towers, masts and chimneys
Part 3-1 Towers and masts
Part 3-2 Chimneys
Part 4 Silos, tanks and pipelines
1
It should be noted that while there is an ENV version of part 1-7 there may not be an EN
version of this part of Eurocode 3.
8
Introduction
Part 4-1 Silos

Part 4-2 Tanks
Part 4-3 Pipelines
Part 5 Piling
Part 6 Crane supporting structures
1.2 Composite steel and concrete structures

EN1994 (Eurocode 4) gives structural design rules for composite steel and concrete
structures. It is divided into two main design areas, which are sub-divided into the following
parts:
Part 1 General rules and rules for buildings

Part 2 Bridges
1.3 Aim and scope of this publication

The aim of this Companion Document is to provide UK designers with an overview of the
Eurocodes system, and with more detail given for parts of Eurocode 3 and Eurocode 4.
This Companion Document focuses on the guidance given for buildings. Design guidance
presented in the Eurocodes relating to bridges and other civil engineering works is not
considered.
The main differences between the current British Standards (2004) and the Eurocodes 3 and
4 are discussed. Where the design guidance is the same or there is little change between the
Codes no discussion has been included.
To keep this document concise detailed design guidance is not presented.
The parts of Eurocode 3 and 4 that are covered by this companion document are:
Eurocode 3
Part 5 Piling
Eurocode 4
9
p g
2 Eurocodes System
The numbering system used by the structural Eurocodes is EN199#-#-#: ####. The 199#
number is not the publication date, but the number of the Eurocode. The second and third #
denote the part of the Eurocode. The year of publication is given after the Eurocode number
(####). Eurocode 3 part 1.1 is used here to illustrate the Eurocodes numbering system that
will be used in the UK, BS EN 1993-1-1:2004. The letters BS are added to the front of the
2
Eurocode number to show that it has been published by BSI and contains the UK National
title page, forward and annex.
The structural Eurocode system will contain the following codes:
BS EN 1990 — Basis of Structural Design

BS EN 1991 — Actions on Structures
BS EN 1992 — Design of Concrete Structures
BS EN 1993 — Design of Steel Structures
BS EN 1994 — Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures
BS EN 1995 — Design of Timber Structures
BS EN 1996 — Design of Masonry Structures
BS EN 1997 — Geotechnical Design
BS EN 1998 — Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance
BS EN 1999 — Design of Aluminium Structures
The organisation of design guidance in the Eurocode system is different to the current British
Standards (BS) system. Safety, serviceability and durability design guidance for different
types of structures is presented in BS EN 1990 (Basis of Structural Design), the current BS
system presents this design guidance within each material code. Therefore a copy of Basis
of Structural Design is required for all designs performed using the Eurocodes. For both the
Eurocodes and current BS systems product standards are used with design codes. The links
between the different Eurocodes are shown in Figure 1.
Structural safety,
EN1990
serviceability & durability
EN1991 Actions on structures
EN1992, EN1993, EN1994 Design & detailing

(material codes)
EN1995, EN1996, EN1999
Geotechnical & Seismic

EN1997 EN1998
design
ETAs Product harmonised

technical standards
Figure 1. Links between the individual Eurocodes
2
British Standards Institute
10
Eurocodes System
The individual material Eurocodes are divided into parts. Part 1 gives general rules and rules
for buildings, Parts 2, 3 etc. give rules for other applications (bridges etc.). These ‘high level’
parts are divided into sub-parts.
In addition to the ‘inter-action’ between the materials codes and Basis of Structural Design the
parts of each material code may cross-reference each other. This is due to the Eurocodes
presenting guidance in only one place (i.e. rules are not repeated in several parts) and
subsequently referring to that clause in other parts of the Eurocode. In some cases parts of
different material Eurocodes may be referenced e.g. a part of EN 1994 (Composite Steel and
Concrete Structures) may reference a part of EN 1992 (Concrete Structures) or EN 1993
(Steel Structures).
Each part of a Eurocode published by a National Standards Authority will be divided into
distinct sections, these are:
• National title page

• National forward
• EN title page
• EN main text
• EN Annex(es)
o Normative Annexes contain design rules / methods / values to be used when designing
to the Eurocode.
o Informative Annexes contain recommended design rules / methods or informative
values, e.g. snow densities.
• National Annex
The technical content of the EN main text and EN Annex(es) is the same across the whole of
Europe. Those sections and the EN title page make up the 'EN' document published by
3
CEN . The National Standards Authority (BSI in the UK) is responsible for developing and
publishing the National title page, National forward and National Annex. The addition of these
National sections in the UK makes the 'EN' document in to a 'BS EN' document.
Each part of a Eurocode will have an accompanying National Annex. These annexes will
contain information that should be referred to when designing a structure to be constructed in
that country. Therefore if a UK designer was designing a building to be constructed in France
they would need to refer to the French National Annexes for all the Eurocodes used during
design and not the UK National Annexes.
The National Annex will contain information on the values / methods that should be used,
where a national choice is allowed in the main text of the Eurocode. The national choices are
collectively referred to as Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs). NDPs may be given for
coefficient values, loads (both applied and self-weight) and where a choice in design
approach is given. The EN main text specifies recommended values / approaches, the
National Annex can either accept the recommendations given or specify different values /
approaches to be used.
The National Annex will state how / if the content of an Informative EN Annex may be used for
the design of structures to be constructed in that country. Information given in a Normative EN
Annex may only be altered by the National Annex if the EN text allows different rules / values
to be given in the National Annex. References may be given to separate documents that give
guidance to help with the design of a structure. Such guidance is known as Non-Conflicting
Complementary Information (NCCI) and may not be presented in the National Annex itself.
3
European committee for standardization
11
The numbering system used in the Eurocodes follows the International Organisation for
Standardisation (ISO) practice i.e. a comma is used in place of a decimal point.
2.1 Eurocodes Terminology

The Eurocode system uses different terminology to that used in the current BS system. An
important change that will effect every design approach is the change in terminology for
loading. In the Eurocodes the term “loads” is replaced by the term “actions”. The Eurocodes
also introduce the terms permanent action, variable action and accidental action.
Permanent actions include the self-weight of the structural and non-structural elements.
These self-weights are combined to form a single value for consideration during design
checks. Loads due to prestressing are also considered as permanent actions.
Variable actions are defined in Basis of Structural Design as ‘actions for which the variation in
magnitude with time is neither negligible nor monotonic.’ Loads considered as variable
actions include:
• Imposed floor & roof loads

• Snow loads
• Wind loads
Variable actions are sub-divided into two groups:
• Leading variable actions

These are variable actions which when acting on a structure cause the most significant
structural effects.
• Accompanying variable actions

These are variable actions that act on a structure at the same time as the leading
variable action.
Accidental actions are caused by events that usually have a short duration but have a
significant effect. It is considered that such events have a low probability of occurrence
during the design working life of a structure. Accidental design situations that should be
considered include fire and explosion.
Some variable actions may be classed as accidental actions for design checks. These are,
snow, wind and seismic. The Eurocodes and National Annexes identify when they may be
considered as accidental actions.
Another difference in the terminology used is that the Eurocodes use the term "resistance"
rather than "capacity" when defining the value of the forces that can be resisted by an
element before it fails i.e. moment resistance, shear force resistance etc.
The term "execution" is used in the Eurocodes to define all the processes associated with the
erection of a building or civil engineering works. The term may be applied to both on and off
site processes.
2.1.1 Types of clause used in the Eurocodes

The Eurocodes define two types of clause, Principles and Application rules. These terms will
be new to UK designers as the current BS system does not contain these clause types.
Principles are generally denoted by the letter P following a clause number, e.g. 1.3(2)P.
Principles are ‘general statements and definitions for which there is no alternative, as well as,
12
Eurocodes System
requirements and analytical methods for which no alternative is permitted unless specifically
stated.’
Application rules are generally denoted by a clause number without the letter P, e.g. 1.3(2).
Application rules are ‘generally recognised rules which comply with the Principles and satisfy
their requirements.’ It is permitted to use alternative design rules in place of those given in
Application rules. However, it must be shown that the alternative design rules meet the
requirements of any relevant Principles. It must also be shown that the alternative rules
provide equivalent structural safety, serviceability and durability to that expected from the
Eurocodes. If a design is carried out using an alternative rule to that given in an Application
rule the design cannot be said to be wholly in accordance with the Eurocode. However, it can
be said that the design is in accordance with the Principles of the Eurocode. This may have
implications for CE marking.
The Eurocodes also use different terms to identify when a rule must be used or when an
alternative to that given can be used. When the term shall is used in a clause the rule must
be used (as for a Principle). If a clause contains the word should an alternative to that rule
can be used (as for an Application rule).
The majority of Eurocodes make the distinction between Principle and Application rules using
the notation discussed earlier. However of the Eurocodes considered by this Companion
Document, EN1993-1-1 (General rules), EN1993-1-2 (Fire design) and EN1993-1-10
(material toughness and through-thickness properties), do not currently (November 2004) use
the letter P to denote a Principle, instead only the term shall identifies a rule as a Principle.
EN1993-1-1 does present supplementary guidance for the design of steel buildings, denoted
by the letter B after the clause number e.g. 5.1.1(4)B.
13
3 General Design Issues
3.1 Convention for member axes

The Eurocodes define the member axes differently to BS 5950. The Eurocodes system is in
keeping with the system generally used in computer software for global structural analysis. It
defines the longitudinal axis of the member as x-x, with the major axis of the cross-section as
y-y and the minor axis as z-z. The convention used in BS 5950 defines the major axis of the
cross-section as x-x, the minor axis as y-y and the longitudinal axis of the member as z-z.
The same convention is used for the u-u and v-v axes for angle sections in both Eurocode 3
and BS 5950.
Designers unfamiliar with using the Eurocodes should pay particular attention to the
difference in axes convention. This is particularly important when using section tables that
use the BS 5950 convention. Figure 2 shows the axes convention and notation used for a
universal beam section.
z
tf
r
y y d h
tw
z
b
Figure 2. Member axes convention and dimension symbols used in the Eurocodes
3.2 The explicit use of factors
In contrast to the current British Standards the Eurocodes do not ‘hide’ the material partial
factors (γ ) This results in expressions appearing more complex, or different property values
( Mi).
compared with those currently used in the UK.
An example of expressions with an increase in the number of terms from the British Standard
to the Eurocodes is the resistance of a cross-section for uniform compression:
Af y
Nc ,Rd = For Class 1, 2 or 3 cross-sections
γM 0
Where: NcRd is the resistance of the cross-section for uniform compression (N)
2
A is the cross-sectional area (mm )
2
fy is the yield strength (N/mm )
γM0
M0 is the partial material factor for the resistance of the cross-section
14
General Design Issues
3.2.1 Symbols used in the Eurocodes

The Eurocodes use different symbols for section properties compared with those used in BS
5950. The section properties with different symbols used in the Eurocode and BS 5950 are
given in Table 1 and shown in Figure 2. Section properties not included in Table 1 have the
same symbols in both codes.
Table 1. Section properties with different symbols used in the Eurocodes and BS 5950
Symbol used in design code

Section property BS 5950 Eurocode
Depth of cross-section D h
Effective section modulus Zeff Weff
Elastic section modulus Z Wel
Flange thickness T tf
Net area of cross-section An Aeff
Outer diameter of circular D d
sections
Plastic section modulus S Wpl
Radius of gyration r i
Radius of root fillet - r r1
channel sections*
Torsional constant J IT
Warping constant H Iw
Web thickness t tw
Width of cross-section B b
* Symbol used for radius of root fillet for other sections does not differ between codes
In addition to the section property symbols given in Table 1, symbols for other coefficients and
values differ between the Eurocodes and British Standards. Table 2 presents some Latin
upper case letters used in the Eurocodes to define actions and forces. The letters given in
Table 2 define a number of different terms within the British Standards therefore a direct
comparison can not be given.
Table 2. Examples of Latin upper case letters used within the Eurocodes to define actions
and forces
Terms Latin upper case letter used

within the Eurocodes system
Actions (General) F
Permanent action G
Variable action Q
Moment M
Axial force N
Shear force V
Resistance of element (used as the R
main symbol or as a subscript)
Effect of an action (used as a subscript E
to one of the above)
15
The symbols used by the Eurocodes can have long chains of subscripts. This appears
cumbersome at first, however with use this system will be found to help interpretation
because the subscripts result in symbols that are nearly self defining. The multiple subscripts
used in the Eurocodes have been assembled following the guidance given in ISO3898: 1987,
commas are used to separate the multiple subscripts. Examples of the use of multiple
subscripts in the Eurocodes are given in Table 3.
Table 3. Examples of symbols with multiple subscripts used in the Eurocodes
Terms Eurocode symbol

Design bending moment about the y-y axis My.Ed
Design resistance to bending moment about the y-y axis My.Rd
Characteristic resistance to bending moment about the y-y axis My,Rk
Plastic design shear resistance Vpl,Rd
Design resistance to tension forces Nt,Rd
Effective cross-sectional area for local buckling when considering Ac,eff,loc
plate buckling
Minimum elastic section modulus Wel.min
3.3 Documents required when designing with the Eurocodes

The Eurocodes present Principles and Application rules for design rather than design
guidance. This approach results in information that is considered to be ‘textbook’ information
being omitted. Therefore the designer must rely on appropriate textbooks/design guides to
provide this information. Information that is omitted from Eurocodes 3 and 4 includes:
• Calculation of buckling lengths for members in compression.

• Determining the non-dimensional slenderness parameter for later torsional buckling and
torsional or flexural torsional buckling.
• Determining the critical moment for lateral torsional buckling.
• Tables giving expressions to determine moments in continuous beams.
The above list should not be considered as exhaustive.
The structure and the content of the Eurocodes results in the following documents being
required for design:
• Eurocodes
o EN1990 – Basis of Structural Design
o EN1991 – Actions on Structures
o EN199# - Material codes (normally several parts will be needed)
o EN1997 & EN1998 – Geotechnical and Seismic design
• Textbooks, design guides or similar sources of information
• Product standards / manufacturers’ information
16
EN 1993 Steel Structures
4 EN1993 Steel Structures
The following sections highlight the main differences between the guidance given in Eurocode
3 and BS 5950.
4.1 Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings

EN1993-1-1 [1] (hereafter referred to as EC3-1-1) gives general structural design rules for
steel structures and buildings. Steel grades from S235 to S460 are covered by the guidance
given in EC3-1-1. BS 5950: Part 1 covers steel grades from S275 to S460. Part 1-12 of
Eurocode 3 will present guidance that can be used to apply the rules given in part 1-1 to steel
grades up to S700.
4.1.1 Material Properties

Clause 3.2.1(1) of EC3-1-1 allows the National Annex to choose between the nominal values
for the yield and ultimate strength of structural steel given in the product standard BS EN
10025 and those given in Table 3.1 of EC3-1-1.
The material properties for structural steels given in BS 5950: Part 1 [2] are based on the
properties given in the product standard BS EN 10025 [3].
The main difference between the properties given in the product standard and those given in
EC3-1-1 is that the simplified table in EC3 uses a reduced number of thickness steps. The
result is that for steel thickness between 16mm and 40mm and between 63mm and 80mm the
values given in Table 3.1 of EC3-1-1 are approximately 4% higher than those values given in
both BS 5950:Part 1 and BS EN 10025. Furthermore, Table 3.1 only gives values up to
80mm thick while BS EN 10025 gives values up to 250mm and BS 5950 Part 1 has a
maximum thickness of 150mm. The UK National Annex to EC3-1-1 may recommend the use
of the nominal values given in BS EN 10025 in place of those given in Table 3.1.
4.1.2 Ductility requirements for structural steel

The ductility requirements given in EC3-1-1 apply to all steels regardless of the method used
for global analysis. Whilst EC3-1-1 allows the National Annex to define ductility limits, the
Eurocode recommended limits are:
• fu/fy≥ 1.10
• Elongation at failure not less than 15%
• εu ≥ 15εy
Where:
fu is the ultimate strength
fy is the yield strength
εu is the ultimate strain
εy is the yield strain (fy / E)
BS 5950: Part 1 has a different approach. It states that the design strength py should not be
greater than Us/1.2 where Us is the minimum tensile strength Rm specified in the relevant
product standard (BS EN 10025). This limit applies to all grades of steel regardless of the
17
method used for global analysis. However when plastic global analysis is used the steel
grades must satisfy the following additional criteria:
• ffuu/fyy ≥ 1.20
1.20
• Elongation at failure not less than 15%
• εuu ≥ 20ε
20 y
A comparison of the above limits shows that the EC3-1-1 limits are less onerous that those
given in BS 5950: Part 1.
The reason for the differences in the two sets of recommendations has been difficult to
establish but the following comments on the development of the limits used in both BS 5950
and EC3-1-1 might be helpful in understanding the code writers' thinking.
The origin of the BS 5950: Part 1 rules was the old BCSA ‘black book’ 23 or 29 which
extended plastic design from BS15 steels (later grade 43 and now called S275) to BS968
steels (later grade 50 and now called S355). The 1969 amendment extended BS 449 to
grade 50 for elastic analysis. For the early draft of BS 5950 the issue of allowing plastic
design of grade 50 steel in the UK was considered. On the basis of specific tests it
seemed plastic design could be allowed with smaller b/t and d/t limits i.e. for more
compact sections. The use of a general rule to avoid having to test every new grade of
steel was investigated. Professor Horne was consulted and his view was that the only
way to be sure a steel was NOT alright would be if it failed specific tests, but that it was
possible to make an informed judgement about parameters that would help decide if a test
was even necessary. As a result of these discussions a set of rules specific to plastic
global analysis were developed which meant than any steel that satisfied them was
satisfactory. A steel that did not meet these criteria might also be satisfactory but specific
tests were needed to be certain it could be used for plastic global analysis.
The EC3-1-1 drafting panel had a wider definition of plastic analysis than that used in the
UK. Their understanding was that ‘plastic analysis’ or even ‘plastic design’ means not only
plastic global analysis but that using the plastic modulus of a class 1 or class 2 cross-
section is also ‘plastic analysis’. The wider definition may have contributed to the
difference in values given in EC3-1-1 and BS5950: Part 1 for the plastic analysis limits.
4.1.3 Fracture toughness

EC 3 and BS 5950 use different terminology and different approaches to establish the fracture
toughness of a material to avoid brittle fracture. BS 5950: Part 1 uses the ‘minimum service
temperature’, Tmin, to determine fracture toughness. In the UK Tmin is usually taken as -5°C
for internal steelwork and -15°C for external steelwork. The method used in EC3 is based on
a reference temperature of TEd which is determined from equation 2.2 of EC3-1-10 (see
section 4.4.1 for further details).
4.1.4 Structural stability of frames

In both standards the designer is required to determine if the effects of the deformed
geometry of the structure will significantly affect or modify structural behaviour, for example by
introducing additional (secondary) moments. In EC3-1-1 this is achieved by checking that the
critical load factor, αcr1
cr, for the structure under consideration satisfies the following limits:
αcrcr ≥ 10 for elastic analysis
αcrcr ≥ 15 for plastic analysis
18
If θcr is above these limits then the effects of deformed geometry (second order effects) can
be neglected and a first order analysis may be used. If θ cr is less than 10, or 15, then the
effects of the deformed geometry should be considered. This defines the boundaries, but
unlike BS5950: Part 1 EC3-1-1 does not use the terms ‘non-sway’ and ‘sway’ sensitive to
describe the frames.
The limit used for elastic analysis in BS 5950: Part 1 is identical to that used in EC3-1-1. The
only difference is that the limit in BS 5950: Part 1 is for clad structures where the stiffening
effect of the cladding is not explicitly taken into account when calculating the elastic critical
load factor. No such limitation is placed on the method given in EC3. Consequently, bare
steel frames designed using EC3-1-1 may be less stiff than those designed to BS 5950.
Unlike EC3-1-1, BS 5950: Part 1 includes two simplified methods for taking account of
secondary effects for the plastic design of multi-storey rigid frames and a separate method for
the plastic design of portal frames.
4.1.5 Structural imperfections

A feature of EC3-1-1 is its explicit allowance in the calculation procedures for practical
imperfections that have an influence on the resistance of members or structures. A number
of alternative procedures are given in Section 5.3, some with limited scope. Generally they
consider:
• System imperfections
An initial-bow imperfection is introduced in the design of braced bays and built up
compression members. In the case of bracing systems any additional deflections due
to the action of the bracing system in resisting externally applied forces also have to
be taken into account.
• Frame imperfections
These are introduced into the analysis of all frames in the form of an equivalent initial
sway. For convenience this can be replaced by a closed system of equivalent forces,
except when determining reactions onto foundations. The frame imperfections are
intended to account for the possible effects of other forms of imperfection which may
affect the stability of frames such as lack-of-fit.
• Member imperfections
These are introduced in the design of compression members through a series of
imperfection factors which represent an equivalent lack of straightness. The values of
the imperfection factors also account for the effects of typical residual stress patterns.
Local bow imperfections of members, in addition to global sway imperfections, should
be included in the global analysis of frames that are sensitive to second order effects.
While BS 5950: Part 1 does not disallow this method of analysis system, frame and member
imperfections are not explicitly included in the standard. An allowance is made for them
within the buckling curves given in BS 5950: Part 1.
4.1.6 Buckling – members in compression

BS
BS 5950: Part11uses
5950: Part usesaamodified
modified Perry
Perryformula
formula to to
determine member
determine memberbuckling resistance.
buckling resistance.
This method is described in Annex C of BS 5950: Part 1. In
This method is described in Annex C of BS 5950: Part 1. In EC3-1-1 the member EC3-1-1 the member buckling
buckling
resistance
resistanceisisderived
derivedfrom
fromthetheresistance
resistance of ofthethecross-section by applying
cross-section a reduction
by applying a reductionfactor,
factor,
χ.. Different valuesofofχ are
Differentvalues aredetermined
determined forfor
flexural buckling
flexural (χy (y-y
buckling or χzor(z-zz (z-z
axis)axis)
( y (y-y axis)),
axis)),
lateral
lateral torsional
torsionalbuckling ), ),torsional
buckling(χ(LTLT torsional (χT( ) Tand
) andtorsional-flexural buckling
torsional-flexural (χTF(). TF
buckling The). The
reduction factor is a function of an imperfection factor (α) and the
reduction factor is a function of an imperfection factor ( ) and the non-dimensionalnon-dimensional
19
slenderness ratio λ of the compression member. λ is a function of the slenderness ratio of

the member Lcr/i, where Lcr is the buckling length in the plane of buckling. The buckling length
is similar to the effective length used in BS 5950: Part 1. Unfortunately, unlike BS 5950: Part
1, EC3-1-1 does not give guidance on the buckling lengths to be used. Consequently,
guidance on the buckling lengths (or effective length) must be obtained from either BS 5950:
Part 1, design guides or appropriate textbooks.
Another feature of EC3-1-1 is the introduction of two additional checks for members with open
cross-sections subject to compression. These checks are for the torsional and torsional-
flexural buckling of members in compression. The methods use the same base equations
used for flexural buckling but with the non-dimensional slenderness λ replaced by either the
non-dimensional slenderness for torsional ( λ T ) or torsional-flexural buckling ( λ TF ). These
parameters can be used to determined either χT or χTF and either the elastic torsional flexural
buckling force or the elastic torsional buckling force of the member. EC3-1-1 does not include
guidance on how to calculate these two parameters and the designer must rely on an
appropriate textbook.
4.1.7 Buckling – uniform members in bending

In EC3-1-1 the lateral torsional buckling of a laterally unrestrained beam is determined from
the resistance of the cross-section by applying a reduction factor, χ. The reduction factor, χLT,
is a function of both the imperfection factor ,αLT, and the non-dimensional slenderness ratio,
λ LT , of the beam. This approach is similar to the method used for calculating the buckling
resistance of a column.
The method used in BS 5950: Part 1 is different and is based on a modified Perry-Robertson
expression. A full description of this method is given in Annex B of BS 5950: Part 1.
The main difference between these two methods is that while BS 5950 is based on the
calculation of the equivalent slenderness , λLT, EC3-1-1 requires the designer to evaluate the
elastic critical moment for lateral-torsional buckling (Mcr) as an intermediate step before
calculating the non-dimensional slenderness ratio , λ LT . This is the traditional way of
evaluating λ LT but unfortunately EC3-1-1 does not include data for the evaluation of Mcr.
Designers must therefore rely on an appropriate textbook.
Furthermore, EC3-1-1 contains two methods for calculating the lateral torsional buckling of a
member. These are:
• The general case, and

• A method specifically for rolled sections or equivalent welded sections.
The second method has been calibrated against test data and has been shown to give
reasonable results for rolled sections. The calibration also showed the method to be
unsatisfactory for welded sections. It is therefore suggested that designers use the general
case for welded sections and the specific method for rolled sections. However, the UK
National Annex (once published) should be referred to for guidance on which method to use.
The second method includes a correction factor to allow for the shape of the bending moment
diagram. This correction factor is in addition to the equivalent uniform moment factors used
to allow for the differences between a uniform moment and the actual moment distribution
along the beam.
20
4.1.8 Buckling – uniform members in bending and axial compression

EC3-1-1 introduces two alternative methods for calculating the buckling resistance of a
member subject to combined bending and axial compression. Both approaches use
interaction equations which have a similar general form to those used in BS 5950: Part 1.
However, this is where the similarity ends. The methods in EC3-1-1 include interaction
factors, k, which account for the shape of the bending moment diagram and the class of the
cross-section. The interaction factors have been derived from two alternative approaches
and expressions for each interaction factor are included in Annex A for Method 1 and Annex
B for Method 2. Both methods require the evaluation of complex expressions in order to
determine the interaction factors. However, Method 2 is a little easier. A comparison
between Methods 1 and 2 and BS 5950 has shown that Method 2 is in better agreement with
BS 5950: Part 1 than Method 1. Furthermore, there is some doubt over the applicability of
Method 1 to asymmetric sections. For these reasons the National Annex may allow both
methods to be used but restrict the scope of Method 1 to bi-symmetrical sections.
4.2 Part 1-2: General rules – Structural fire design

The fire part of Eurocode 3 (EN1993-1-2 [4], hereafter referred to as EC3-1-2) is not radically
different from the UK standard for the fire resistant design of steel structures. BS 5950 Part 8
[5] is a performance based code that allows for calculation of fire resistance in addition to the
use of fire test data. The principal difference between the two codes is that the calculation
procedures in BS 5950: Part 8 are limited to a thermal exposure based on the standard fire
curve while EC3-1-2 allows for alternative thermal exposures based on the factors influencing
fire growth and development. The design procedure for EC3-1-2 is illustrated in Figure 3.
Effectively the scope of BS 5950: Part 8 is restricted to the left hand branch of the diagram.
All the fire parts of the structural Eurocodes are designed to be used with the fire part of the
Eurocode for Actions (EN1991-1-2 [6] hereafter referred to as EC1-1-2). The thermal actions
(either nominal or parametric) are taken from this document and the resulting thermal and
mechanical analysis undertaken using the principles and design methods detailed in EC3-1-2.
4.2.1 Material properties

For fire resistant design by calculation the most common method in the Eurocodes is to use a
modified form of the equations for resistance at ambient temperature using reduced material
properties corresponding to the appropriate temperature. For this reason EC3-1-2 contains
detailed guidance on the material properties of carbon and stainless steels. These are
presented as stress-strain relationships and as reduction factors relative to the ambient
temperature strength and elastic modulus. It is important to note that the variation of Young’s
modulus with temperature is different to the variation in steel strength . The information is
presented in the form of strength reduction factors (k(ky,yθ) in EC3-1-2 and strength retention
factors in BS 5950: Part 8. The strength reduction factors given in EC3-1-2 correspond to the
2% strain values in Table 1 of BS 5950: Part 8. Elevated temperature properties are also
presented for thermal elongation, specific heat and thermal conductivity. The relationships
given in EC3-1-2 are identical to those in BS 5950: Part 8. The corresponding properties for
stainless steel may be found in Annex C of EC3-1-2. Annex A of EC3-1-2 presents an
alternative stress-strain relationship for carbon steels allowing for strain hardening.
21
Figure3: Design Procedure EN1993-1-2
22
Project Design
Prescriptive Rules Performance Based Code

(Thermal Actions given by Nominal Fire) (Physically based Thermal Actions)
Member Analysis of Part Analysis of Selection of Simple or Advanced

Analysis of the Structure Entire Structure Fire Development Models
Calculation of Calculation of Selection of Member Analysis of Analysis of

Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Analysis Part of the Entire
Actions at Actions at Actions Structure Structure
Boundaries Boundaries
Tabulated Simple Advanced Simple Advanced Advanced Calculation of Calculation of Selection of

Data Calculation Calculation Calculation Calculation Calculation Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical

Models Models Models Models Models Actions Actions Actions
(if available) at Boundaries at Boundaries
Simple Advanced Advanced Advanced

Calculation Calculation Calculation Calculation
Models Models Models Models
(if available)
4.2.2 Structural fire design

In EC3-1-2 fire resistance may be determined either by simple calculation models, advanced
calculation models or testing. The current British Standard is based on fire resistance derived
from standard fire tests and fire resistance derived from calculations. The main difference in
approach is that BS 5950: Part 8 includes tabulated data for limiting temperatures and design
temperatures based on the results from standard tests while EC3-1-2 does not include
tabulated data for design temperatures.
4.2.3 Members in compression

For compression members with Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 cross-sections a non-dimensional
slenderness is calculated based on the buckling length in the fire situation. In general the
buckling length should be determined as for ambient temperature design. However, in a
braced frame the buckling length may be determined based on continuity at the connections
provided that the fire resistance of the building components that separate the fire
compartments is not less than the fire resistance of the column. Thus in a braced frame
where each storey comprises a separate fire compartment, intermediate columns are
assumed to be fixed in direction at either end and the effective length is half of the system
length. In the top storey the buckling length may be taken as 0.7 x the system length. This is
different to the approach used in BS 5950: Part 8 where the buckling length is determined
following the guidance given for ambient temperature design i.e. current UK practice is more
conservative. It is anticipated that this issue will be addressed in the UK National Annex for
EC3-1-2.
4.2.4 Combined bending and axial compression

For members subject to combined bending and axial compression the calculation method in
EC3-1-2 is more complex than the corresponding calculation in BS 5950: Part 8 and differs
from the method in EC3-1-1. The interaction formula for the combination of axial load and
minor and major axis bending is based on the procedure in the original draft for the
development of the Eurocode, ENV 1993-1-1 as the new method in EC3-1-1 has not been
verified for the fire situation at the time of writing.
4.2.5 Structural connections

The latest version of BS 5950: Part 8 contains guidance on the calculation of the thickness of
protection required for structural connections and takes into account the relative load ratio of
the connection compared to that of the connected members. EC3-1-2 in addition to similar
guidance includes a more detailed approach in Annex D where the design resistance of bolts
in shear and tension, and the design resistance of welds can be calculated using a
temperature profile based on the temperature of the bottom flange of the beam at mid-span.
This method is mainly applicable for simple connections although potentially could be applied
to all components of the connection using the approach in EN1993-1-8.
4.3 Part 1-8: Design of joints

EN1993-1-8 [7] (hereafter referred to as EC3-1-8) gives guidance for the design of steel joints
subject to predominantly static loads. Steel grades S235, S275, S355 and S460 are covered
by the guidance given.
23
4.3.1 Definitions
EC3-1-8 starts by defining the different components that constitute a steel joint and makes a
clear distinction between a connection and a joint. This can be confusing for UK designers
who generally use the words joint and connection interchangeably to describe the junction
between two steel members. In EC3-1-8 the word connection is used to define the location
at which two or more elements meet, while the word joint is used to define the zone where
two or more members are interconnected. Therefore a beam-to-column connection is the
interface between the flange (or web) of the column and the end of the beam, and includes all
the components (bolts, welds, end-plate, column flange etc) required to transfer the internal
forces from the beam to the column. The joint however is the assembly of all the basic
components which play a part in the behaviour of the configuration. For example, a single-
sided beam-to-column joint consists of a connection and a column web panel. It is important
that UK designers recognise this distinction as it is used throughout the standard.
4.3.2 Material properties

In EC3-1-8 the nominal values of the yield strength, fyb, and the ultimate tensile strength, fub,
for grade 8.8 and 10.9 bolts are considerably greater than the equivalent values used in BS
5950: Part 1. This is due to the standards taking account of different effects within the quoted
material property values. EC3-1-1 gives ultimate values and BS5950: Part 1 gives
permissible values. The partial material factors are included in the properties given in BS
5950: Part 1 but are defined separately in EC3-1-8. BS5950 Part 1 material properties may
be used to account for prying actions without the direct calculation of the prying force by
applying a factor to the material properties, EC3 gives a separate check for prying action.
4.3.3 Groups of fasteners

The approach used in EC3-1-8 is different to that used in the BCSA/SCI publications on
Joints in Steel Construction [8, 9 & 10]. In EC3-1-8 the design resistance of a group of
fasteners may be taken as the sum of the design bearing resistances of the individual
fasteners provided the design shear resistance of each individual fastener is greater than or
equal to the design bearing resistance. If this condition is not satisfied then the design
resistance of a group of fasteners should be taken as the number of fasteners multiplied by
the smallest design resistance of any of the individual fasteners.
In the BCSA/SCI publications the design resistance of a group of fasteners is taken as the
sum of the design resistances of the individual fasteners.
This difference in approach may cause problems for flexible end-plates. The current
approach in the UK often means that the top bolts are designed for bearing failure and the
remaining bolts for shear. Because the EC3-1-8 rules do not allow mixed modes of failure the
capacity of the bolt group according to the Eurocode philosophy would often be based on the
number of fasters multiplied by the design bearing resistance of the top bolts. Clearly this
may significantly reduce the apparent shear capacity of flexible end-plate connections and in
some cases may result in an increase in the number of bolts needed.
4.3.4 Analysis, classification and modelling

Joint design depends very much on the designer’s decision regarding the method by which
the structure is to be analysed. Both EC3-1-8 and BS 5950: Part 1 recognise that either
elastic or plastic global analysis may be used, for frames that are simple, semi-continuous or
continuous. When elastic analysis is adopted joint stiffness is relevant, when the analysis is
plastic then strength of the joint is relevant. EC3-1-8 goes a step further than the British
Standard and includes a table that relates the type of framing, method of global analysis and
24
the joint classification. Table 4 gives details (note that some of the terminology used in the
Eurocode has been slightly modified for clarity).
Table 4. Type of framing, analysis used and joint classification/requirements
Method of global Classification/requirements of joint

analysis
Elastic Nominally pinned Rigid Semi-rigid
Rigid-plastic Nominally pinned Full-strength Partial-strength
Elastic-plastic Nominally pinned Rigid and Semi-rigid and partial strength or
full-strength Semi-rigid and full-strength or
Rigid and partial-strength
Type of framing Simple Continuous Semi-continuous
Although the relationship between type of framing, method of global analysis and joint
requirements (represented by their classification) has been known for some time, its inclusion
in a major structural code is new and some explanation of its use is required.
Simple frame design is based on the assumption that the beams are simply supported and
that the beam-to-column joints are sufficiently flexible and weak to restrict the development of
significant beam end-moments. In continuous framing the type of joint used will depend on
the method of global analysis. When elastic analysis is used the joints are classified
according to their stiffness and rigid joints must be used. When plastic analysis is used the
joints are classified according to their strength and full-strength joints must be used. When
elastic-plastic analysis is adopted then the joints are classified according to both their stiffness
and strength and rigid, full-strength joints must be used.
Semi-continuous frame design recognises the fact that most practical joints possess some
degree of both stiffness and moment resistance. When elastic analysis is used the joints are
classified according to their stiffness and semi-rigid joints should be used. If plastic global
analysis is used the joints are classified according to their strength and partial-strength joints
should be used. When elastic-plastic analysis is used the joints are classified according to
their stiffness and strength, and semi-continuity could be achieved in a number of ways (see
Table 4).
The traditional UK approach of classifying a joint only recognises two types (pinned and rigid)
and it is relatively straightforward to use engineering judgement to choose between these.
For an extended system, such as the one used in EC3-1-8, the structural properties of a joint
may need to be quantified in order to classify it. EC3-1-8 includes methods for doing this, and
it is the inclusion of these methods that constitutes the biggest difference between the design
of joints to the Eurocode and the traditional methods used in the UK.
By comparing the quantified stiffness of a joint against the limits given in EC3-1-8 it can be
classified as pinned, rigid or semi-rigid. Similarly a joint can be classified by comparing its
quantified moment resistance with limits for pinned, full-strength or partial strength joints. A
fuller description of a joint’s behaviour can also be obtained by classifying it using both
stiffness and strength. Such a classification leads to joints which are pinned, rigid/full-
strength, rigid/partial strength and semi-rigid/partial-strength.
One problem that this may cause is that joints which have traditionally been taken as pinned
or rigid may not be pinned or rigid under the new classification system. This situation is
complicated by the fact that the Eurocode not only gives guidance on calculating stiffness and
strength (for some joint types), but clause 5.2.2.1 also allows classification on the basis of
‘experimental evidence’ or ‘experience of previous performance’. Clearly the results of these
three approaches for a given joint may not always agree. This could prove problematical if
25
checking authorities require designers to demonstrate that a joint is pinned or rigid, and could
lead to increased design time and/or changes to the UK’s commonly used joints.
To establish the stiffness boundary between rigid and semi-rigid joints the relationship
between joint stiffness and the Euler buckling load for a single-bay, single-storey frame was
investigated [11]. It was decided that a semi-rigid joint can be considered as rigid provided
the difference between the Euler buckling load for a single-bay, single-storey frame with semi-
rigid joints and the Euler buckling load of a similar frame with rigid joints was less than 5%.
By adopting this approach a classification method based on the rigidity of the connected
beam was developed. While such a system is easy to use it has attracted criticism, some of
which is detailed below:
• When compared to the stiffness limits given in some national standards the limits in EC3-
1-8 appear to be conservative.
• The classification system given in EC3-1-8 can be applied to any steel structure but as
the limits have been determined on the basis of a single-bay, single-storey frame the
accuracy of its application to multi-bay, multi-storey frames is questionable.
• The stiffness boundaries between joint types have been determined on the basis of the
ultimate limit state and on the assumption that a difference of 5% between the
performance of a frame with rigid and semi-rigid joints is small and can be neglected.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the differences at serviceability limit states,
where displacements of the structure are more important, are equally small and can be
neglected. Clearly, when deriving classification criteria both serviceability and ultimate
limit states should be considered.
4.3.5 Structural joints connecting H or I sections

The method described in Chapter 6 of EC3-1-8 for the design of joints between H or I
sections is based on the component approach. Explicit guidance is only given for flush and
extended end plate joints, although a designer might need to calculate stiffness and/or
strength for other types of joint in order to classify them. As well as this limitation it is worth
noting that the procedures for calculating the design moment resistance and rotational
stiffness of a joint are complex and time-consuming and are not suitable for hand calculation.
Computer software is recommended for these complex calculations.
4.3.5.1 Design resistance

In the given method for calculating moment resistance the potential resistance of each
component is calculated. These potential resistances are then converted to actual forces by
balancing the forces in the tension components with those in compression. The moment
capacity of the joint is then calculated by summing the product of the forces in the tension
components and their distances from the centre of compression. This approach is very
similar to the method described in the BCSA/SCI publication Joints in Steel Construction:
Moment connections [9] (which was in fact heavily based on the Eurocode). However, the
Eurocode also includes methods for calculating a joint’s rotational stiffness and rotation
capacity. Both of these methods will be new to UK designers and are therefore briefly
described below.
4.3.5.2 Rotational stiffness

Calculating the stiffness of any joint can be a difficult process. For this reason Reference 9
takes a pragmatic approach and gives simple rule-of-thumb detailing guidelines which, if
followed, will in most circumstances ensure an appropriate joint stiffness, so that frame design
assumptions are not invalidated.
26
EC3-1-8 incorporates a method for calculating the stiffness of a bare steel joint based on work
initially carried out by Zoetemeijer [12] and more recently by Jaspart [13 & 14]. This method
uses the component approach in which the rotational response of the joint is determined from
the mechanical properties of the different components (end-plate, cleat, column flange, bolts
etc.). The advantage of this approach is that the behaviour of any joint can be calculated by
decomposing it into its components.
The stiffness of each joint component is represented by a linear spring with a force-
displacement relationship. Tables are included in EC3-1-8 which give expressions for
evaluating the stiffness of the different components. The combined effect of the components
is determined by considering each spring, with an appropriate lever arm, to give a rotational
stiffness.
4.3.5.3 Rotation capacity

The rotation capacity of a joint is very important (a ‘pin’ or ‘plastic hinge’ must be able to
rotate sufficiently) but this is difficult to calculate accurately. However, numerous researchers
have investigated rotation capacity and have identified many sources of ductility in joints,
some of which are listed below:
• Column web panel in shear

• Column flange in bending
• End plate in bending
• Tension flange cleat in bending
EC3-1-8 gives a number of practical rules for checking the rotation capacity of a joint. These
rules are based on the above sources of ductility for bolted joints and entail checking that the
critical mode of failure is based on one of the above components.
4.4 Part 1-10: Material toughness and through-thickness properties

EN1993-1-10 [15] (here after referred to as EC3-1-10), gives design guidance for the
selection of steel for fracture toughness and through-thickness properties.
4.4.1 Fracture toughness

To determine the maximum permissible thickness of a steel element using EC3-1-10 the
reference temperature, steel grade and stress at the reference temperature are required. The
following expression is used to determine the reference temperature:
TEd md++ ∆
= TTmd
Ed = TTr + ∆T+σ +T∆T
r +T R +R +T∆T
+ε +T∆T
cf εcf
Where
md isisthe
TTmd theminimum
minimum service
service temperature
temperaturewithwithaaspecific
specificreturn
returnperiod,
period,given
given in EN
in EN1991-1-5
1991-1-5
∆TTrr isisananadjustment
adjustment for
for radiation
radiation loss, obtained from EN 1991-1-5
loss, obtained from EN 1991-1-5
∆TTσ isisthetheadjustment
adjustment for stress
stress and
andyield
yieldstrength
strengthofofmaterial,
material,crack
crackimperfections
imperfections andand
member shape
member shape and
and dimensions,
dimensions,given
givenininENEN1993-1-10
1993-1-10
∆TTRR isisaa safety
safety allowance,
allowance, ifif required,
required,totoreflect
reflectdifferent
differentreliability levels
reliability for for
levels different
different
applications, obtained from EN 1993-1-10
applications, obtained from EN 1993-1-10
∆TTε isisthetheadjustment
adjustment for
for a
a strain
strain rate
rate other
otherthan
thanthe
thereference
reference strain rate,
strain obtained
rate, obtainedfrom EN
from
1993-1-10
EN 1993-1-10
∆Tε is the adjustment for the degree of cold forming, defined in EN 1993-1-10
T cfcf is the adjustment for the degree of cold forming, defined in EN 1993-1-10
Elastic analysis should be used to determine the stress at the reference temperature. The
maximum element thicknesses given in Table 2.1 of EC3-1-10 relate to three levels of stress,
27
0.25fy(t), 0.5fy(t) and 0.75fy(t). Where fy(t) is the nominal yield strength adjusted for the
thickness of the element.
The current UK guidance gives maximum thickness values for minimum temperatures of
-5°C, -15°C, -25°C, -35°C and -45°C. The minimum temperature of -5°C for internal
steelwork given in BS 5950: Part 1 relates to the temperatures experienced during
construction, when it is vulnerable to brittle fracture. The values given in EC3-1-10 consider a
wider range of temperatures, +10°C to -50°C in 10°C intervals. Interpolation between the
values is allowed, but extrapolation beyond the extreme values given in the table is not
permitted.
The minimum temperature used in BS 5950: Part 1 and the reference temperature (TEd) of
EC3-1-10 are not equivalent to each other. The minimum temperature used in BS 5950: Part
1 is similar to the minimum service temperature with a specific return period (Tmd).
Maximum element thickness values are given for different steel grades in both codes,
although more steel grades/types are considered in BS 5950: Part 1. Table 5 gives the steel
grades/types considered in both standards. Comparing the steel grades covered by BS 5950:
Part 1 and EC3-1-10 it appears that no allowance has been made in Table 2.1 of EC3-1-10
for the steel grades used for hollow sections. EC3-1-10 allows the use of fracture mechanics
for a numerical evaluation. Therefore this method may be used for the steel grades used for
hollow sections.
Table 5. Material property standards for which maximum element thicknesses are given in
BS 5950: Part 1 and EN 1993-1-1
Material property standards for which maximum element thicknesses are given in standards
BS 5950: Part 1 EN 1993-1-1
S275 to S460 steel grades S275 to S690 steel grades
BS EN 10025 BS EN 10025
BS EN 10113 BS EN 10113
BS EN 10137 BS EN 10137
BS EN 10166
BS EN 10210
BS EN 10219
BS7668
A note to clause 2.2(5) of EC3-1-10 allows the National Annex to ‘give maximum values of the
range between TEd and the test temperature and also the range of σEd Ed,, to which the validity of
values for permissible thickness in Table 2.1 may be restricted.’ A further note to this clause
allows the National Annex to limit the use of Table 2.1 for steel grades up to S460. The UK
National Annex to EC3-1-10 is currently under development and no comment can be made at
this time on the values that may be included in it.
4.4.2 Through-thickness properties

Section 3 of EC3-1-10 gives a method for determining the susceptibility of steel to lamellar
tearing. Lamellar tearing is a weld induced flaw and is usually detected during ultrasonic
inspection of welds. The main risk of lamellar tearing is with cruciform joints, T-joints, corner
joints and when full penetration welds are used.
28
To check if lamellar tearing may be ignored EC3-1-10 requires the ‘available design’ and
4
‘required design’ Z-values to be compared. The available design Z-value is given in BS EN
10164 [16]. The required design Z-value is obtained from coefficients given in EC3-1-10
relating to weld depth, shape and position of welds, material thickness, restraint of shrinkage
and influence of preheating. BS 5950: Part 2 [17] states that ‘the material shall be tested for
through-thickness properties to the specified quality class in accordance with BS EN 10164.
The inclusion of the Z-value check in EC3-1-10 may result in designers having to perform this
check for every welded joint in a structure. Currently in the UK only joints identified as being
at risk from lamellar tearing are checked. EC3-1-10 allows the National Annex to limit the
scope of section 3 to ‘certain steel products’. This may be used in the UK National Annex to
limit the Z-value checks to specific types of welded joints.
4.5 Part 5: Steel Piling

EN1993-5 [18] (hereafter referred to as EC3-5) gives guidance for the design of all types of
steel piles including hot and cold formed sheet piles, bearing piles and piling systems built up
from component parts. It gives guidance for different shapes, sizes and arrangements of
steel piles. Although some of these are not common in the UK at present they may find future
application.
The fields of application considered by the Eurocode are:
• Steel piled foundations of civil engineering works on land and over water
• Temporary or permanent structures necessary for the execution of steel piling
• Temporary or permanent retaining structures composed of steel sheet piles, including all
kinds of combined walls.
Guidance for steel piles filled with concrete is also included in EC3-5.
EC3-5 contains an annex giving detailed rules for the design of cold formed pile sections and
combined walls. These areas have not previously been dealt with in UK guidance.
Current UK standards do not contain an equivalent code to EC3-5. BS 8002 [19] is basically
a geotechnical code that requires input from BS 5950: Part 1 to allow the design of steel piles.
Current SCI documents cover some aspects of UK steel pile design. However, the guidance
given in these documents does not give the detail required for a ‘full’ design, and it only
applies to simple structures.
EC3-5 introduces some new concepts to the traditional UK design process, these include:
• The use of plastic design for piling

• Four classes for sheet piling and the resultant different design approaches
• A more formal system for assessing the structural performance of piling structures
The checks on shear in a sheet pile wall, which are perhaps covered ‘by inspection’ in current
practice need to be formally assessed, as do shear buckling and combined moments, shear
and axial loading. Many of these checks will require section data and it is likely that either
data sheets giving member capacities or the basic geometric information will be provided by
the sheet pile manufacturers. The effects of water pressures on the structural design are also
to be taken into account (which is a new concept for UK designers), and specific rules for the
transfer of shear in the interlocks of piles and its effect on the strength and stiffness of pile
4
Z-value is the transverse reduction of area in a tensile test of the through-thickness ductility
of a specimen, measured as a percentage
29
sections are included. This issue is addressed qualitatively in BS 8002 but is covered in more
depth in EC3-5, as it has a much higher profile outside the UK. Compared with current UK
practice EC3-5 deals more formally with combined-walls and cellular structures, as well as
high modulus walls.
Conflicting views have emerged within the UK industry on the implementation of EC3-5.
These views have emerged because of the significant differences in scope and approach
between current UK practice and the Eurocode system. One of the major areas for concern is
the effect that a move from lumped factor design to a partial factor approach will have on
design requirements. This is compounded by changes in the specific calculations that are
required to satisfy the new code. There are situations where formal calculations are now
required which would previously have been dealt with by inspection in the UK. There is also
concern that these design changes may make designs less efficient, or effective, compared
with current UK practice.
One of the most difficult areas to assess is the effect that the plastic design rules will have on
the design process as there is little or no experience with these design rules within the UK.
The design calculations need to consider the situation at all stages in the life of the structure
and if the proposed section has appropriate parameters, the wall can be designed on the
basis of plastic section properties and moment redistribution. This assumes that the pile
section is capable of sustaining a moment of resistance as the pile rotates plastically and this
ability may change with the amount of corrosion that the section has sustained. This may be
accepted practice in structural designs but the response of soil when the system is at or
approaching plastic conditions is not understood.
There is reference made to EN 12063, the standard covering site activities which goes into
significantly more detail than current British Standards on some aspects of site work (i.e.
welding).
One potential area of conflict with current UK methods is the fact that there is no overt
difference between the requirements for temporary and permanent construction. This was
previously dealt with by allowing increased stress levels in temporary works piling (BS8002:
1994 [19]) and not considering corrosion on the section properties. Under the new rules there
will be no change in stress, which may be a retrograde step in some minds.
30
EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures
5 EN1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures
The main differences between the design guidance given in Eurocode 4 and BS 5950 are
discussed in this section.
5.1 Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings

Eurocode 4 applies to the design of composite structures and members for building and civil
engineering works. The Eurocode is concerned only with the requirements for the resistance,
serviceability and durability of composite steel and concrete structures. EN1994-1-1 [20]
(hereafter referred to as EC4-1-1) gives a general basis for the design of composite structures
along with specific rules for buildings.
EC4-1-1 provides design guidance for some types of element not common in the UK, such as
partially encased concrete beams, composite columns in buildings, high strength structural
steels and composite joints together with various methods of continuous beam design and the
detailing of the continuous joints.
5.1.1 Material Properties
5.1.1.1 Concrete
Unless given in EC4-1-1, concrete material properties must be obtained from EN1992-1-1
[21] (hereafter referred to as EC2-1-1) for both normal weight and lightweight concrete.
However, EC4-1-1 does not cover the design of composite structures with concrete grades
lower than C20/25 or higher than C60/75. EC4-1-1 therefore extends the range of concrete
strengths compared to those available in BS 5950.
The classification for normal weight concrete used in the Eurocodes system (Cx/y) gives the
2
cylinder strength (x) and the cube strength (y) in N/mm . The design strengths used in the
Eurocodes are based on the cylinder strengths and not the cube strengths, so care should be
taken by designers to use the correct value.
5.1.1.2 Structural steel

Reference should be made to EC3-1-1, clauses 3.1 and 3.2 for the properties of structural
steel, however, EC4-1-1 does not cover steel grades with a characteristic strength greater
2
than 460N/mm . This is in common with BS 5950: Part 3 where the design strength of
structural steel is obtained by reference to BS 5950: Part 1. However, a comment is made in
BS 5950 that due to a lack of test evidence, the design strength should not be taken as
2
greater than 355N/mm . This limit is lower than that given in EC4-1-1.
Research has shown that to prevent premature concrete crushing some design rules should
2
be modified for steels with strength greater than 355N/mm . Such modifications have been
2
incorporated into EC4-1-1 so that it can cover steels with strengths up to 460N/mm .
31
5.1.2 Structural stability

The effects of the deformed geometry of the structure must be considered and an important
design Principle outlined states that second-order effects should be considered if they
increase the action effects significantly or modify significantly the structural behaviour.
It is suggested that this increase in internal forces may be neglected if the increase in forces
due to second-order effects is less than 10% of the forces determined in first-order analysis.
The Eurocode also states that if second-order effects in individual members and relevant
member imperfections are fully accounted for in the global analysis of the structure, individual
stability checks on the members (such as lateral torsional buckling presumably) are not
necessary.
This is in contrast to BS5950 where there is no specific requirement to consider the increase
in internal forces due to second-order effects but individual stability checks are required.
An additional Principle stated is that appropriate allowances must be made for creep and
cracking of concrete and for the behaviour of joints when determining the stiffness of the
structure.
Part 3, BS5950, uses a slightly different approach where the specific effects of concrete creep
do not have to be considered provided that material values given are used when calculating
the modular ratio.
The effects of concrete cracking are considered in BS5950, where the cracked section
method is used to determine member stiffness for elastic analysis, although the un-cracked
section is used to calculate deflections.
5.1.3 Structural imperfections

When using EC4-1-1 appropriate allowances must be made to cover the effects of
imperfections, including residual stresses and geometrical imperfections present even in the
unloaded structure, such as lack of verticality, out of straightness and the unavoidable minor
eccentricities present in joints. The assumed shape of any imperfections must take into
account the elastic buckling mode of the structure or member in the most unfavourable
direction and form, in the plane of buckling considered.
Equivalent geometric imperfections should be used unless the effects of local imperfections
are included in the member resistance design formulae. EC4-1-1 gives values of initial bow
imperfections for composite columns and whilst there are no specific imperfection
requirements for beams, EC4-1-1 incorporates the effects of imperfections within the formulae
for the buckling resistance moment of laterally unrestrained composite beams. A similar
approach is adopted in the current British Standard. The designer should refer to EC3-1-1 for
the effects of global imperfections and for the formulae for buckling resistance of steel
members, which also incorporate the effects of member imperfections.
No specific requirements for dealing with member or global imperfections are outlined within
BS 5950: Part 3.
5.1.4 Calculation of action (load) effects

Action effects are generally calculated by elastic global analysis even where the capacity of a
cross-section is based on its plastic or non-linear resistance. Elastic global analysis should
also be used for serviceability limit states, with, where appropriate, corrections for non-linear
effects.
32
Allowance must also be made for shear lag. This is achieved for continuous beams by using
an effective width of slab. In much the same way as in BS 5950: Part 3, EC4-1-1 outlines a
number of provisions for determining the effective width of concrete slab, with the total
effective width for the sagging portion of a beam (noted as beff1 in EC4-1-1) being the familiar
Le/4 but no greater than the geometric distance between the beam centres.
EC4-1-1 does not give separate values of effective slab width for slabs spanning
perpendicular to and parallel to the supporting beam. A subtle distinction between the two
cases is given in BS 5950: Part 3, where the effective width of a slab spanning parallel to the
beam is limited to 0.8 times the beam spacing.
In contrast to BS 5950: Part 3, EC4-1-1 makes allowance for the shrinkage of concrete, in the
serviceability limit state, as well as cracking of concrete, creep, the sequence of construction
and any pre-stressing.
The effects of creep are dealt with using the modular ratio for short-term loading modified by a
creep coefficient depending upon the age of the concrete at the moment considered, t, and
the age at loading, t0, and a creep multiplier which can be used to account for the effects of
concrete shrinkage. In practice, the effects of curvature due to shrinkage of normal weight
concrete may often be ignored (see clause 7.3.1(8), EC4-1-1 for details). This is a little
different to the approach used in BS 5950: Part 3, where the modular ratio is determined
considering the proportion of long-term to short-term loading.
In common with BS 5950: Part 3, EC4-1-1 considers the effects of cracking on the flexural
stiffness of composite beams in two ways.
Involved Method – An initial “un-cracked analysis” is carried out assuming the un-cracked
stiffness, EaI1, throughout. In areas where the extreme fibre tensile stress
in the concrete is twice the concrete strength, the stiffness of the section is
reduced to the cracked flexural stiffness, EaI2. An updated distribution of
internal forces is then determined by re-analysis, termed the “cracked
analysis”.
Simple Method – The effect of cracking can be modelled by taking a reduced flexural
stiffness over 15% of the span on each side of each internal support, with
the un-cracked flexural stiffness taken elsewhere. This method may be
used for continuous beams where the ratio of the adjacent spans
(shorter/longer) is greater than or equal to 0.6.
The more complicated method given in BS 5950: Part 3, is basically the same as the simple
method given in EC4-1-1, where a cracked section is assumed over 15% of the span on each
side of each internal support, with the un-cracked section assumed elsewhere.
The simplified method given in the BS 5950: Part 3 involves carrying out an elastic analysis,
assuming all members are un-cracked. The resulting negative moments over the supports
and at mid-span can then be re-distributed in accordance with guidance given in Table 4 of
BS 5950: Part 3, which effectively models the reduced stiffness of the member over the
supports. EC4-1-1 also allows some limited redistribution, in accordance with Table 5.1, with
both cracked and uncracked analysis for buildings, for the verification of all limit states other
than fatigue.
5.1.5 Beams – Ultimate Limit State

In EC4-1-1 the resistance moment of a composite cross-section with full interaction between
the structural steel, reinforcement and concrete is given by plastic theory. It is assumed that
33
the effective area of the structural steel is stressed to its design yield stress, fyd, in either
tension or compression and the effective area of concrete in compression resists a stress of
0.85fcd (which is constant over the whole depth between the plastic neutral axis and the most
compressed fibre of concrete). The value fcd is the design cylinder compressive stress which
is determined according to the following expression (given in EC2-1-1):
fcd = αcc fck / γC
Where: αcc is a coefficient that takes account of long term effects on compressive stress and
unfavourable effects due to the way the load is applied
fck is the cylinder compressive stress
γC is the concrete partial factor
EC2-1-1 allows the relevant National Annex to specify a value for αcc, however, the guidance
given in EC4-1-1 has been developed using αcc equal to one. Therefore where fcd is given in
EC4-1-1 it represents fck / γC. See reference [23] for further discussion on this topic. In
principle, this is exactly the same approach as that taken in BS 5950: Part 3. However, the
concrete cube compressive stress is used with the material safety factor included in BS 5950:
Part 3. Therefore in BS 5950: Part 3 the concrete is assumed to resist a stress of 0.45fcu over
the whole depth between the plastic neutral axis and the most compressed fibre of concrete.
In keeping with the other Eurocodes, EC4-1-1 does not give any guidance for the
determination of the effective or equivalent span, LE.
EC4-1-1 outlines limits on the degree of shear interaction required, including the requirement
that full shear interaction is attained when the effective span is greater then 25m. The
minimum degree of shear interaction for spans less than 25m is determined based upon the
yield stress of the steel section and effective span and should always be greater than 0.4.
BS 5950: Part 3 gives similar guidance, but stipulates that full shear interaction is required
when the span is greater than 16m, and shear interaction must be greater than 0.4 for spans
up to 10m. For intermediate spans the minimum degree of shear interaction is given by the
simple equation (L-6)/10 ≥ 0.4.
The vertical shear strength is based on that of the bare steel section in exactly the same way
as BS 5950: Part 3.
5.1.6 Beam serviceability limit state

Serviceability requirements are specified in relation to limiting deflections and concrete
cracking. Elastic analysis must be used for the serviceability limit state and the effective width
of the concrete flange, considered in beam design, is as defined for the ultimate limit state.
EC4-1-1 refers the user to EN1990 A1.4.4 for criteria reflecting to the dynamic properties of
floor beams. Unlike BS5950, stress limits under construction loading are not given (these
need only be checked if fatigue is a consideration).
EC4-1-1 states that the effect of cracking of concrete in regions subject to hogging moments
should be taken into account by adopting appropriate global analysis methods. This is in
contrast to BS 5950: Part 3, where the gross uncracked section is used when calculating
deflections.
Although no specific procedures are stated in EC4-1-1, the effects of creep must be included
when calculating deflections. It is therefore necessary to consider relevant values of the
modular ratio when calculating the equivalent second moment of area of the gross section
and distinguishing between shorter term and long term loading. This effect is covered in BS
34
5950: Part 3, by the use of an effective modular ratio, for the proportion of total loading that is
long term.
EC4-1-1 does not make allowance for increased deflections in beams with partial shear
interaction (provided the degree of shear interaction is above 0.5). This is in contrast to BS
5950: Part 3, where the deflection of a beam with partial shear interaction is increased from
that with full interaction, based upon the degree of shear interaction provided. EC4-1-1 does
not provide any guidance on the procedure to be used if the shear interaction is between 0.4
and 0.5.
5.1.7 Lateral torsional buckling

The possibility of the onset of lateral torsional buckling is covered in more depth in EC4-1-1
than in BS 5950: Part 3.
In general, the methods outlined in EC3-1-1 (discussed in section 4.1.8) can be adopted
when checking the lateral torsional buckling resistance of the steel section during
construction, and EC4-1-1 outlines a method applicable to composite beams with uniform
cross-sections classified as Class 1, 2 or 3. This method basically decreases the composite
moment resistance of the section using a reduction factor based on the relative slenderness
of the section, λLT
LT..
EC4-1-1 also outlines some detailing rules which can be used to prevent lateral torsional
buckling. These include ensuring that adjacent spans do not differ in length by more than
20%, the top flange of the steel section is connected to a reinforced concrete or composite
slab which is in turn connected to another member approximately parallel to form an inverted
U frame, and by laterally restraining the bottom flange of each member and stiffening the web
at each support. No such advice is presented in BS 5950: Part 3.
5.1.8 Members in compression

The first point to note is that at present there is no specific British Standard that covers the
design of composite columns in building structures. Whilst BS 5950: Part 3 Section 3.1 refers
to BS 5950 Part 3 Section 3.2, Code of Practice for the Design of Composite Columns and
Frames, it has never been published. BS 5400: Part 5 ‘Code of practice for the design of
composite bridges’ [24], does, however, cover the design of concrete encased sections and
concrete filled circular and square hollow sections, although clearly this is for use with bridge
structures.
EC4-1-1 covers the design of composite columns and composite compression members with
concrete encased sections, partially encased sections and concrete filled rectangular and
circular tubes. It should be noted that EC4-1-1 only covers isolated non-sway columns in
frames where all other structural members within the frame are also composite or steel. The
Eurocode considers elements constructed with grade S235 to S460 steel and with normal
weight concrete with grades between C20/25 and C50/60. It should be noted that the upper
concrete strength limit is less than that for other design guidance contained within EC4-1-1.
EC4-1-1 provides two methods for the calculation of the resistance of composite columns; the
General Method and the Simplified Method.
General Method – This takes explicit account of both second-order effects and
imperfections. The method is relatively complex and requires the use of
numerical computational tools. Whilst EC4-1-1 includes a description of
the processes to be considered it does not include detailed rules for the
general method. It is not covered at all in BS 5400.
35
Simplified Method – This can be applied to a doubly symmetric member with a uniform cross-
section over its height. The method makes use of the European buckling
curves for steel columns, which implicitly take account of imperfections.
Both methods assume the following:
1. There is full interaction between the steel and concrete sections until failure occurs
2. Geometric imperfections and residual stresses are taken into account in the calculation
3. Plane sections remain plane whilst the column deforms.
5.1.9 Composite joints in frames for buildings

BS 5950: Part 3 does not cover the design of composite joints. The design guidance given in
EC4-1-1 will be completely new to the majority of UK designers.
EC4-1-1 defines a composite connection as ‘a joint between a composite member and

another composite, steel or reinforced concrete member, in which reinforcement is taken into
account in design for the resistance and stiffness of the joint’.
The guidance given in EC4-1-1 applies principally to moment-resisting beam-column

connections and relates to ultimate resistance, rotational stiffness and rotation capacity.
Joints are classified as rigid, nominally pinned, or semi-rigid for stiffness, and as full strength,
nominally pinned or partial strength in relation to moment resistance.
In summary, the vertical shear resistance of the joint is assumed to come solely from the steel
components and is therefore calculated in accordance with the guidelines outlined in EC3-1-
8. The design moment resistance (with full shear connection) is calculated using the
provisions of EC3-1-8 but taking account of the contribution of the slab reinforcement in
tension (where the top row of reinforcing bars in tension may be treated in a similar manner to
a bolt-row in tension in a plain steel joint).
The moment capacity of the joint is calculated assuming the effective area of longitudinal
reinforcement in tension is stressed to its design yield stress, fsd, and the effective area of the
bottom flange of the beam and part of the web etc. in compression to its design yield strength,
fyd.
5.1.10 Composite slabs with profiled metal sheeting

Section 9 of EC4-1-1 covers the design of single span composite floor systems, including
cantilevered floors, in building applications. The scope is limited to in-situ concrete used with
sheets with narrowly spaced webs.
As with the design of a composite beam the effective area of concrete in compression resists
a stress of 0.85fcd, constant over the whole depth between the plastic neutral axis and the
most compressed fibre of concrete.
A similar approach is adopted in BS 5950: Part 3, with the concrete cube compressive stress
being used. The concrete is assumed to resist a stress of 0.45fcu over the whole depth
between the plastic neutral axis and the most compressed fibre of concrete. BS 5950: Part 3
recommends that the lever arm should not exceed 0.9 times the effective depth of the slab to
the centroid of the steel sheet. In addition, the concrete stress block should not exceed 0.45
times the effective depth of the slab to the centroid of the steel sheet. There is no such
limitation outlined in EC4-1-1.
An important point to note is that the most usual mode of failure of a composite slab is by
longitudinal shear, which can be difficult to predict theoretically. As such, composite slab
36
design in the UK is generally based on manufacturers’ load capacity tables/software which

are based on experimental testing (the semi-empirical m-k method). Informative Annex B of
EC4-1-1 outlines testing procedures on composite slabs, which are not the same as
traditionally used in the UK. The national annex may comment on this difference. Please
refer to Johnson and Anderson [19] for more details. In addition, EC4-1-1 allows the design
longitudinal shear resistance to be determined using both the m-k method and the partial
interaction method. This is in contrast to BS 5950: Part 3.
5.2 Part 1-2: Structural fire design

EN1994-1-2 [25] (hereafter referred to as EC4-1-2) covers the fire design of composite steel
and concrete structures. In essence, it identifies the differences between the fire design and
the ambient design methods and provides supplementary information for the design for fire.
This is similar to the scope of BS 5950 Part 8, except that the current British Standard covers
both bare steel and composite construction in fire.
EC4-1-2 is not applicable to uncommon material grades, such as concrete grades lower than
C20/25 and higher than C60/75 and LC60/75. EC4-1-2 provides design guidance for some
types of element that are not common in the UK, such as partially encased concrete beams
and composite columns.
5.2.1 Fire exposure

The nominal fire exposure given in EC4-1-2 is similar to BS 5950: Part 8, where the exposure
to standard and hydro carbon fire curves is adopted. However, EC4-1-2 also allows the
consideration of parametric fire exposure, which considers real behaviour (as discussed in
section 4.2).
5.2.2 Material Partial Factors

The recommended material partial factors given in EC4-1-2 are the same as those given in
BS 5950: Part 8 except for concrete. EC4-1-2 recommends a value of 1.0 for concrete
compared with 1.1 given in BS 5950 Part 8. However, it should be noted that the Eurocodes
consider cylindrical compressive stress compared with cube compressive stress used in the
British Standards. The resulting difference between the concrete design values is small, with
the Eurocode value being approximately 2% greater than the BS5950 Part 8 value.
5.2.3 Structural analysis

While the assessment methods given in both EC4-1-2 and BS 5950: Part 8 assume that the
structural members are individual elements, EC4-1-2 also provides brief guidance on global
structural analysis and the use of an analytical model which takes into account secondary
effects and whole building behaviour. Recommendations on the validation of these advanced
calculation models are also given. Such guidance promotes the use of performance design
for structural fire design.
5.2.4 Design procedures

EC4-1-2 provides three design methods:
• Tabulated data
• Simple calculation models
• Advanced calculation models
37
The tabulated design data is provided for some structural types which are not easily
addressed by simplified calculation methods. They are not common types of construction in
the UK. The following elements are included:
Simply supported beams

• Composite beams comprising a steel section and concrete upper flange.
• Composite beams comprising a steel beam with partial concrete encasement.
• Encased steel beams, for which the concrete has only an insulating function.
Columns
• Composite columns comprising totally encased steel sections
• Composite columns comprising partially encased steel sections
• Composite columns comprising concrete filled hollow sections.
Note: The tables only cover the case where columns at the level under consideration are fully
continuous with the columns above and below, and the fire is limited to only a single storey.
The simple calculation models provided in EC4-1-2 are more akin to the concept adopted for
BS 5950 Part 8. However, EC4-1-2 recommends additional checks which include vertical
shear resistance, combined bending and vertical shear and longitudinal shear resistance on
composite beam design. Similar checks for other elements such as column and slab
members are also given.
EC4-1-2 provides recommendations for size, arrangement and detail of composite beams
with concrete encasement, composite columns and beam to column joints, to achieve various
fire resistance. This is to ensure composite action during fire exposure and the transmission
of the applied forces and moments in the beam to column joints. The recommendations fall
into the following categories:
• Minimum cover to steel section

• Minimum axis distance to the main bar reinforcement
• Minimum percentage and size of reinforcement
• Minimum size and maximum spacing of links
• Details at connections
Such recommendations are not given in BS 5950: Part 8 although many of them are good
practice and can be accommodated within typical construction details in the UK. One
recommendation which does not fall into this category is clause 5.2 (2) which relates to
partially encased composite beams and recommends a maximum cover of 35mm. It is not
unusual to have 40mm cover in reinforced concrete design in the UK. However, concrete
encased composite beams are not a common form of construction in the UK.
5.2.5 Unprotected Composite Slabs

Informative Annex D of EC4-1-2 presents design rules for determining the fire resistance of
unprotected composite slabs exposed to fire beneath the slab. It is worth noting that EC4-1-2
considers a concrete slab thickness and determines a fire resistance period, where the UK
method considers a fire resistance period and determines the concrete slab thickness.
When determining the sagging moment resistance the contribution of the steel deck is
included in the EC4-1-2 method. This design philosophy differs from that currently used in
the UK’s Fire Engineering approach, where the contribution of the steel deck is not included
when determining the sagging moment resistance of a composite floor at elevated
temperatures. The steel deck contribution is excluded from the UK method as it is fully
exposed to the fire which causes the strength of the deck to decrease as it becomes hot.
Observations from real fires in the UK (Broadgate, Basingstoke, etc) and observations from
38
standard fire tests show that considering the deck and concrete to act compositely during a
fire may be unconservative. However, the simple method currently used in the UK is based
on tests and will therefore include a component representing the deck.
Annex D of EC4-1-2 is an Informative Annex this allows each National Annex to specify how it
should be used within that country. It is envisaged that the UK National Annex may not allow
the use of Annex D in the UK.
39
6 Effects on UK structural design procedures
An initial difference UK designers will find when using the Eurocodes (in comparison with the
current British Standards) is that the Eurocodes set out Principles and Application rules for
design rather than providing detailed calculation procedures. Due to this approach
information that is considered to be ‘textbook’ information is not included in the Eurocodes.
Currently the British Standards include this type of information, therefore UK designers will
need to be prepared for this change.
UK designers will find that when designing to the Eurocodes an increased number of design
standards are required. This is due to the Eurocode system not reproducing guidance once
it has been presented in another part of a Eurocode, it only refers back to earlier guidance.
This issue was discussed in section 2.
For some design checks / approaches UK designers will have to become familiar with new
calculation methods. Initially this may lead to increased design time whilst designers become
familiar with the new checks. Areas where new design checks / approaches are given in
Eurocodes include:
• Fire design of steel members subjected to combined bending and axial compression
The Eurocode method is more complex than the current British Standard.
• Determination of the design resistance of bolts in shear and tension, and the design
resistance of welds at elevated temperatures.
Not currently covered in British Standard.
• Steel and concrete composite columns.
The current British standards do not include guidance for composite columns in
buildings.
• Steel and concrete composite connections.
The current British standards do not include guidance for composite connections.
However, there is a BCSA/SCI composite connections publication [10].
• Classification of connections.
More complex system in Eurocodes than current British Standard.
• Through-thickness checks at welded connections.
Eurocode requires more checks to be undertaken than current British Standard.
It is considered that the more complex design checks in EC3-1-8 for connections may result
in designers placing more reliance on computer software. This is due to the checks for
design moment resistance and rotational stiffness of a connection being complex and time
consuming and not suitable for hand calculations.
The Eurocodes, unlike the current British Standards, permit the adoption of novel forms of
construction provided that the design principles of the Eurocodes are maintained. This gives
UK designers greater structural design ‘freedom’ compared with the British Standards.
However, current Building Regulations do not require structural designs to be fully compliant
with British Standards, but they must show how the Building Regulation requirements are
meet. Any designs to the emerging Eurocodes would need to demonstrate compliance with
the requirements of the Building Regulations.
Whilst there might be an increase in design effort in the initial years, the development of
design aids and designers' familiarity with the Eurocodes will reduce this in the future.
40
Design Route Maps
7 Design Route Maps
This section presents route maps for the design of some structural elements to assist the
designer in becoming familiar with the layout of the guidance given in the Eurocodes. The
route maps do not consider all types of structural elements, as it is considered such guidance
will be provided in design guides.
The route maps given in this section are:
High level design overview Page 42
Simply supported beam Page 43
Column Page 44
Composite simply supported beam Page 46
Composite continuous beam Page 47
Composite Column Page 48
Fire Engineering design of Steel Structures – General Page 50
Summary of Structural Fire Engineering Design to the Eurocodes Page 51
Fire limit state design – simply supported beam Page 52
Steel sheet pile Page 53
To supplement the information given in the route maps Appendix A contains tables that
reference clause numbers within the Eurocodes for the design topics considered in this
Companion Document.
41
42
High level design overview route map
Design of structural members / elements for a framed building
Ambient temperature design Fire limit state design Robustness design checks Foundation design
Actions Actions Guidance on the type of Actions

EN1990 — Combinations of EN1990 — Combinations of analysis required for the EN1990 — Combinations of
actions actions structure actions
EN1991-1-1 — Dead and EN1991-1-1 — Dead and EN1991-1-7 — Accidental EN1991-1-1 — Dead and
imposed actions imposed actions actions imposed actions
EN1991-1-3 — Snow EN1991-1-2 — Fire Textbook information EN1991-1-3 — Snow
EN1991-1-4 — Wind EN1991-1-4 — Wind EN1991-1-4 — Wind
EN1991-1-6 — Actions during EN1997 — Geotechnical
execution actions
Member design Member design Member design

Steel EN1993-1-2 — Steel, Fire EN1997 — Geotechnical (sizing
EN1993-1-1 — General rules EN1994-1-2 — Composite steel of members)
EN1993-1-5 — Plated elements & concrete, Fire EN1993-5 — Piling
EN1993-1-8 — Joints EN1992 -1-2 — Concrete, Fire EN1992 — Concrete
EN1993-1-10 — Fracture Textbook information
Other parts of EC2, 3, & 4
toughness
(as for ambient temperature
EN1991-1-5 — Thermal actions
design)
Composite steel and concrete
Textbook information
EN1994-1-1 — General rules
EN1992 — Concrete structures

Design Route Maps
Simply supported beam route map – Full lateral support provided
Values for Permanent (G) and

Variable (Q) Actions BS EN 1991-1-1
Partial Factors γG & γQ BS

EN 1990 Table A1.2(3)
Combination of actions
BS EN 1990 Table A1.2(B)
More than one Yes Combination coefficients (ψi)

variable action? BS EN 1990 Table A1.1
No
Material strength prEN10025-3

(Product standard)
Section Classification
Table 5.2
Material partial factors γMi Clause 6.1(1)
Yes Undertake checks given in

Does shear buckling need to be Section 5 of BS EN 1993-1-5
checked? Clause 6.2.6(6)
No
Shear resistance Plastic design

Clause 6.2.6(1), 6.2.6(2) & 6.2.6(3)
Undertake
checks for Yes
maximum Does the shear reduce the moment Reduced material strength
moment capacity? Clause 6.2.8(2) Clause 6.2.8(3)
plus shear
and No
maximum Check Moment resistance Clause 6.2.5
shear plus
moment
Serviceability limit state checks BS EN 1990 Clause 6.5
& A1.4, and BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause 7.2 & National
Web Checks refer to BS EN 1993-1-5 Clause

6.2(1), 6.4(1) & (2), 6.5(1) (2) & (3)
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
43
Column route map – Axial load only
Values for Permanent (G) and

Variable (Q) Actions BS EN 1991-1-1
Factors γGG&&γQQBS
Partial Factors BS
EN 1990 Table
TableA1.2(3)
A1.2(3)
Combination of actions
BS EN 1990 Table A1.2(B)
More than one Combination

Combinationcoefficients
coefficients(ψ(i) i)
Yes
variable action? BS
BSEN
EN1990
1990Table
TableA1.1
A1.1
No
Material strength prEN10025-3
(Product standard)
Check thickness of cross-section Clause 3.2.3

and BS EN 1993-1-10 Table 2.1
Section Classification Table 5.2
Materialpartial
Material factors ψMiMi Clause
partial factors Clause 6.1(1)
6.1(1)
Class 4
Class 3 web,
with class 1 Calculate effective cross-section
or 2 flanges. properties Clause 6.2.2.5
Calculate MEd due to any change
Calculate effective in centroid location.
web properties Change in centroid location
Clause 6.2.2.4 determined following method given
in BS EN 1993-1-5
Calculate the buckling length

(no values given in BS EN 1993-1-1)
Continuedon
Continued onpage
page 45
45
44
Design Route Maps
Column route map – Axial load only (continued)
From page 45
From page
From 44
44
–
Calculateslenderness
Calculate slendernessfor
forflexural
flexural buckling
buckling (λ)
( Clause 6.3.1.3
) Clause 6.3.1.3
–
Is λ 0.2 or
Yes
NEd –
λ 0.04
Ncr
No
Flexural Select buckling curve from Table 6.2
buckling
check
Obtain imperfection factor from Table 6.1
Calculate reduction factor Clause 6.3.1.2
Calculate buckling resistance Nb,Rd Clause 6.3.1.1
Class 4
–
Account for λ MEd using interaction
given in Clause 6.3.4 or 6.3.3
Is the cross- No
section open?
Yes
Calculate Slenderness for torsional and flexural-
– –
torsional buckling ( λ T or λTF ) Clause 6.3.1.4
Textbook required to determine Ncr,T and Ncr,TF
– –
to calculate ( λ T or λ TF )
– – –
Repeat flexural buckling checks, replacing λ with λT or λ TF and with χ T or χ TF
Check compressive resistance Clause 6.2.4
Unsymmetrical Class 4 sections
Account for MEd Clause 6.2.9.3(2)
45
Composite simply supported beam route map
Values for Permanent (G) and Variable (Q) Actions BS EN 1991-1-1
Combination of actions BS EN 1990 Table A1.2(B)
Yes
More than one Combination
coefficients(ψ( i) i)
variable action? BS
BS EN
EN1990
1990Table
TableA1.1
A1.1
No
Material strengths to prEN10025-3

(Product standard) and BS EN 1992-1-1.
Material partial factors Mi from BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause 6.1(1) and BS EN 1992-1-1.
Determine non-composite moment resistance, Mpl,a,Rd, and lateral-torsional buckling

resistance Mb,Rd of steel section to BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.5 and 6.3.2 respectively.
Determine the vertical resistance to shear, VRd, of the

section to
steel section to BS
BS EN
EN1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6
1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6
Vertical shear, VEd Yes

greater than half shear Adopt a reduced design steel strength for
resistance VRd? bending in accordance with Clause 6.2.2.4(2)
No
Determine effective breadth of slab, beff, to Clause 5.4.1.2
Calculate Composite moment resistance, Mpl,Rd, of cross-section at supports and at

mid-span to Clause 6.2.1.2, assuming full shear interaction between the structural
steel and concrete.
Calculate the shear connector resistance to Clause 6.6.3.1 and determine the
actual degree of shear connection, η , to Clause 6.6.1.
Sufficient shear
studs to ensure full
Yes shear interaction? No
Moment resistance of composite Calculate moment resistance of

cross-section, MRd is moment composite cross-section with partial
resistance for full shear interaction, shear connection, MRd. Clause
Mpl,Rd. 6.2.1.3
Check composite and non-composite deflections to Clause 7.3.1 and

check the dynamic property of floor beams to BS EN1994-1-1, 7.3.2
46
Design Route Maps
Composite continuous beam route map
Values for Permanent (G) and Variable (Q) Actions BSEN1991-1-1
Combination of actions BSEN1990 Table A1.2(B)
Yes Combination
coefficients(ψi)
More than one BS EN 1990 Table A1.1A1.1
( i) BSEN1990 Table
variable action? No

(Product standard) and BS EN1992-1-1.
Material partial factors Mi from BSEN1993-1-1 Clause 6.1(1) and BS EN 1992-1-1.
Determine non-composite moment resistance, Mpl,a,Rd, and lateral-torsional buckling

resistance Mb,Rd of steel section to BS EN1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.5 and 6.3.2 respectively.
Determine the vertical resistance to shear, VRd, of the

steel section
section to
to BS
BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause
EN1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6
6.2.6
Vertical shear, VEd Yes

Adopt a reduced design steel strength for
greater than half shear bending in accordance with Clause 6.2.2.4(2)
resistance VRd?
No
Determine effective breadth(s) of slab, beff, to Clause 5.4.1.2
Calculate composite moment resistance, Mpl,Rd, of cross-section at supports and at

mid-span to Clause 6.2.1.2, assuming full shear interaction between the structural
steel, reinforcement and concrete.
Calculate the shear connector resistance to Clause 6.6.3.1 and determine the
actual degree of shear connection, η, to Clause 6.6.1.
Sufficient shear
studs to ensure full
Yes shear interaction? No
Moment resistance of composite Calculate moment resistance of

cross-section, MRd is moment composite cross-section with partial
resistance for full shear interaction, shear connection, MRd. Clause
Mpl,Rd. 6.2.1.3
Check the lateral-torsional buckling capacity, Mb,Rd, of

the composite section to Clause 6.4.
Check composite and non-composite deflections to Clause 7.3.1 and

check the dynamic property of floor beams to BS EN1994-1-1, 7.3.2
47
Composite column route map
Values for Permanent (G) and Variable (Q) Actions BSEN1991-1-1
Combination of actions BSEN1990 Table A1.2(B)
Yes
Combination
coefficients(ψi)
More than one
BS
( iEN 1990 TableTable
) BSEN1990 A1.1 A1.1
variable action?
No

(Product standard) and BS EN1992-1-1.
Material partial factors γMi from BS EN1993-1-1, 6.1(1) and BS EN 1992-1-1.
Select column type (concrete encased or infilled hollow section) and use an
appropriate approximate method to determine a trial column section.
Steel section fully Check the minimum wall thickness

encased in accordance No
of section to prevent local buckling
with Clause 6.7.5.1(2)? of the section, Clause 6.7.1(9)
Yes
Calculate the plastic resistance to compression, Npl,Rd, of the

composite cross section, as the sum of the plastic resistances of the
steel section, concrete and reinforcement, in accordance with Clause
6.7.3.2 and equation (6.30).
Check that the steel contribution ratio to the plastic resistance to

compression, defined as σ, in Clause 6.7.3.3(1) is between 0.2 and 0.9.
Select an appropriate steel section if not.
Calculate the characteristic plastic resistance to compression, Npl,Rk, of

the composite cross section.
Determine the effective flexural stiffness, (EI)eff, of the composite cross-

section in accordance with Clause 6.7.3.3(3).
Calculate the elastic critical buckling force, Ncr, for the relevant buckling
mode and buckling length. Assuming an Euler buckling mode, the
critical buckling force can be calculated using: NCr = π 2 (EI ) l e2 , where
le is the effective length of the column.
Continuedon
Continued on page
page 49
49
48
Design Route Maps
Composite column route map (continued)
Frompage
From page 48
48
–
Determine the relative slenderness, λ , of the composite section in
accordance with equation (6.39), Clause 6.7.3.3(2), using the
characteristic plastic resistance and the critical buckling force.
Check for long term creep effects on the effective elastic flexural stiffness
in accordance with Clause 6.7.3.3(4) and re-evaluate the relative
slenderness.
Note: this revised slenderness value may mean that the section is no longer within the
slenderness limit of 2.0 (clause 6.7.3.1(1)), or it may mean that no enhancement due to any
concrete confinement within a tubular section is possible.
Determine the vertical resistance to shear, Vpl,Rd, of the

composite section to BS EN1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6
Vertical shear, VEd Yes Adopt a reduced design steel strength for
greater than half shear bending in accordance with Clause 6.2.2.4(2)
resistance Vpl,Rd?
No
Calculate Composite moment resistance, Mpl,Rd, of the cross-section to Clause 6.2.1.2,

assuming full shear interaction between the structural steel, reinforcement and concrete.
Determine the maximum plastic moment resistance in

the presence of compressive normal force, Mmax,Rd.
Using the values for moment resistance, the plastic resistance of the concrete, Npm,Rd
and the maximum plastic moment resistance, Mmax,Rd, produce the interaction curve
described in Clause 6.7.3.2(5).
N Ed
Check that equation (6.44): 1.0 is satisfied.
xN pl ,Rd
Where x is the reduction factor for the relevant buckling mode given in
–
BS EN1993-1-1, 6.3.1.2 in terms of the relative slenderness λ .
M Ed M Ed
Check that equation (6.45): = ≥ α M is satisfied
M pl , N , Rd µ d M pl , Rd
Where MEd is the maximum design moment and Mpl,N,Rd is the plastic bending
resistance taking into account the normal force NEd (taken from Figure 6.18, and is
basically the value of moment resistance at the relevant applied normal force, NEd,
determined using the interaction curve produced above).
Note: For steel grades between S235 and S355 inclusive, the coefficient M
should be taken as 0.9 and for
steel grades S40 and S460 it should be taken as 0.8.
Assess whether specific provisions are needed in order to achieve

adequate load interaction, Clause 6.7.4.
49
Fire engineering design of steel structures – General route map
Define performance criteria – National

Regulations (AD-B), time equivalence
(EN1991-1-2), Fire engineering design
Consider relevant design fire

scenarios
Nominal fire curves (standard Natural fires – parametric

fire, external fire curve, curves, advanced methods
hydrocarbon fire – EN1991-1-2
Determine temperature profile – by calculation

(4.2.5.1(1), 4.2.5.2 (1)), from test data or using advanced
methods
Calculation of mechanical actions using modified procedure

based on ambient temperature design (4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2,
4.2.3.3, 4.2.3.4, 4.2.3.5)
50
Design Route Maps
51
Summary of structural fire engineering design to the Eurocodes
Determine fire resistance requirements from Building Regulations or fire engineering
calculations
Assess performance by calculation according to type of member
Tension Compression Beams in bending Class 3 beams Combined bending and axial
members members class class 1 or 2 cross 4.2.3.4 compression 4.2.3.5
4.2.3.1 1,2,or 3 cross sections 4.2.3.3
sections 4.2.3.2
Nfi,t,Rd >Nfi,Ed Nb,fi,t,Rd > Nfi,Ed MM , θ,>RdM
fi, fl,Rd >M
fi,Ed
fi,Ed θ,Rd
MMfi,fl,,Rd > >M
Mfi,Ed
fi,Ed θ,Rd
RRfi,fl,,Rd > >R
Rfi,Ed
fi,Ed
52
Fire limit state design – Simply supported beam route map
(assumes knowledge of maximum steel temperature)
Determine fire resistance requirements from Building Regulations or fire engineering calculations
Analysis route Tabulated data route
Assess performance from test or manufacturers data

Calculation 4.2
Determine section factor A/V
Class 1 or 2 Class 3 4.2.3.4 Consult protection manufacturers data

4.2.3.3 sheet (Yellow Book*)
plastic elastic
Apply protection thickness derived
Uniform Non-uniform Uniform Non-uniform from test or assessment
temperature temperature temperature temperature
4.2.3.3 (1) 4.2.3.3 (2) 4.2.3.4 (1) 4.2.3.4 (2)
Mfi,t,Rd > Mfi,t,Ed
Design Route Maps
Steel sheet pile route map
Values of permanent and variable actions from EN1997-1 and EN1991
Combination of actions from EN1990 Table A1.2(B) & A1.2(C)
More than one Yes Combination coefficients

variable action? EN1990 Table A1.1
No
Material strengths to EN10248 and EN10249

(product standards)
Material partial factors γmi from EN1993-5, 5.1.1
Select sheet pile section on the basis of

experience and manufacturers data
Determine reduced section properties in respect of

corrosion over the life of the structure
Determine the design moment resistance for the chosen section taking into
account:
• Class of section (EN1993-5, 5.2.1 and Table 5.1)
• Rotation capability (Annex C)
• Shear force transfer factors βB and βD (EN1993-5, 5.2.2 and 6.4(3))
• Reductions due to water pressure (EN1993-5, 5.2.4 and Table 5.2)
• Design bending moment and shear force (EN1993-5, 5.2.2)
• Design axial load and Elastic critical load and effective buckling
length for the chosen section (EN1993-5, 5.2.3)
Check section capability to resist concentrated loads from wallings etc

(EN1993-5, 7.4.3)
Check structural requirements for crimping or welding if necessary

(EN1993-5, 5.2.2 and 6.4)
Assess installation of the selected section (EN1993-5, 2.7 and EN12063)
Confirm capability of selected sheet pile section for the specified conditions
53
8 References
1. BS EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1.1: General rules and
rules for buildings, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)
2. BS 5950-1: 2000 Structural use of steelwork in building – Part 1: Code of practice for
design – Rolled and welded sections, British Standards Institution, London, May 2001
3. BS EN 10025: 1993, Hot rolled products of non-alloy structural steels. Technical delivery
conditions, British Standards Institution, London, November 1993
4. BS EN 1993-1-2, Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1.2: General rules –

Structural fire design, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)
5. BS 5950-8: 2003, Structural use of steelwork in building – Part 8: Code of practice for fire
resistant design, British Standards Institution, London, 2003
6. BS EN1991-1-2: 2002, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 1.2: General actions –

Actions on structures exposed to fire, British Standards Institution, London, November
2002
7. BS EN 1993-1-8, Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1.8: Design of joints,

British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)
8. BCSA and SCI, Joints in Steel Construction – Simple Connections, SCI, 2002
9. BCSA and SCI, Joints in Steel Construction – Moment Connections, SCI, 1995
10. BCSA and SCI, Joints in Steel Construction – Composite connections, SCI, 1998
11. Stark, J. W. B & Bijlaard, F. S. K. Design rules for beam-column connections in Europe.
TNO Report number BI-83-60, Delft, The Netherlands, 1983.
12. Zoetemeijer, P. A. Design method for the tension side of statically loaded beam-column
connections. Heron 20, Number 1, Delft University, Delft, The Netherlands, 1974.
13. Jaspart, J.P. Etude de la semi-rigidét des noeuds pouter-colomme et son influence sur la
résistance et la staibility des ossatures ne acier. PhD Thesis University Liege, Belgium,
1991.
14. Weynand, K, Jaspart, J. P & Steenhuis, M. The stiffness model of revised Annex J of
Eurocode 3. Connections in Steel Structures III behaviour strength and design,
rd
Proceedings of the 3 International workshop on connections, Pages 441-452, Trento,
Italy, May 1995.
15. BS EN 1993-1-10, Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1.10: Material

toughness and through-thickness properties, British Standards Institution, London, (In
preparation)
16. BS EN 10164: 1993, Steel products with improved deformation properties perpendicular
to the surface of the product. Technical delivery conditions, British Standards Institution,
London, August 1993
54
References
17. BSI, BS 5950-2: 2001: Structural use of steelwork in building Part 2: Specification for
materials, fabrication and erection – Rolled and welded sections, British Standards
Institution, London, August 2001
18. BS EN 1993-5, Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 5: Piling, British Standards
Institution, London, (In preparation)
19. BS 8002: 1994, Code of practice for earth retaining structures, British Standards
Institution, London, April 1994
20. BS EN 1994-1-1, Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part
1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, British Standards Institution, London, (In
preparation)
21. BS EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures – Part 1.1 General rules
and rules for buildings, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)
22. BS 5950-3.1: 1990, Structural use of steelwork in building Part 3 Section 3.1 Code of
practice for design of simple and continuous composite beams, British Standards
Institution, London, February 1999.
23. Johnson R P and Anderson D, Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-1 Eurocode 4: Design of

composite steel and concrete structures Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings.
ISBN: 0 7277 3151 3. Thomas Telford 2004.
24. BS 5400-5: 1979, Steel, concrete and composite bridges Part 5: Code for practice for
design of composite bridges, British Standards Institution, London, October 1999.
25. BS EN 1994-1-2, Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part
1.2: General rules – Structural fire design,, British Standards Institution, London, (In
preparation)
55

Bre En1993-En1994 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bre En1993-En1994 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steel and Steel and Concrete

Department for Communities and Local Government

© Crown Copyright, 2007

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

If you require this publication in an alternative format please email

Product Code: 06 BD 04021 (f)

CHAPTER 2 EUROCODES SYSTEM 10

CHAPTER 3 GENERAL DESIGN ISSUES 14

CHAPTER 4 EN1993 STEEL STRUCTURES 17

CHAPTER 5 EN1994 STEEL AND CONCRETE

CHAPTER 6 EFFECTS ON UK STRUCTURAL

• An overview of the impact that Eurocodes 3 and 4 will have in the UK

The objectives of the Eurocodes are

1.1 Steel Structures

Part 1 General rules and rules for buildings

Part 4-1 Silos

1.2 Composite steel and concrete structures

Part 1 General rules and rules for buildings

1.3 Aim and scope of this publication

To keep this document concise detailed design guidance is not presented.

The structural Eurocode system will contain the following codes:

BS EN 1990 — Basis of Structural Design

EN1991 Actions on structures

EN1992, EN1993, EN1994 Design & detailing

Geotechnical & Seismic

ETAs Product harmonised

Figure 1. Links between the individual Eurocodes

• National title page

2.1 Eurocodes Terminology

• Imposed floor & roof loads

Variable actions are sub-divided into two groups:

• Leading variable actions

• Accompanying variable actions

2.1.1 Types of clause used in the Eurocodes

3 General Design Issues

3.1 Convention for member axes

3.2 The explicit use of factors

3.2.1 Symbols used in the Eurocodes

Symbol used in design code

Terms Latin upper case letter used

Table 3. Examples of symbols with multiple subscripts used in the Eurocodes

Terms Eurocode symbol

3.3 Documents required when designing with the Eurocodes

• Calculation of buckling lengths for members in compression.

The above list should not be considered as exhaustive.

4 EN1993 Steel Structures

4.1 Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings

4.1.1 Material Properties

4.1.2 Ductility requirements for structural steel

4.1.3 Fracture toughness

4.1.4 Structural stability of frames

αcrcr ≥ 10 for elastic analysis

αcrcr ≥ 15 for plastic analysis

4.1.5 Structural imperfections

4.1.6 Buckling – members in compression

slenderness ratio λ of the compression member. λ is a function of the slenderness ratio of

4.1.7 Buckling – uniform members in bending

• The general case, and

4.1.8 Buckling – uniform members in bending and axial compression

4.2 Part 1-2: General rules – Structural fire design

4.2.1 Material properties

Prescriptive Rules Performance Based Code

Member Analysis of Part Analysis of Selection of Simple or Advanced