Received: 6 December 2017 Accepted: 22 December 2017

DOI: 10.1002/suco.201700198

TECHNICAL PAPER

fib Model Code 2020: Towards a general code for both new and
existing concrete structures
Stuart Matthews1 | Agnieszka Bigaj-van Vliet2 | Joost Walraven3 | Giuseppe Mancini4 |
Gerrie Dieteren2

1
Building Technology Group, Building Research
Establishment Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK
2
Buildings, Infrastructure and Maritime, TNO,
Delft, The Netherlands
3
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands
4
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Politechnico di
Torino, Turin, Italy
Correspondence
Agnieszka Bigaj-van Vliet, Buildings,
Infrastructure and Maritime, TNO, PO Box 155,
NL-2600 AD Delft, The Netherlands.
Email: agnieszka.bigajvanvliet@tno.nl
Discussions have been underway in fib (Fédération Internationale du Béton) about
advancing the fib Model Code for concrete structures. These include the fib interna-
tional workshop in The Hague (June 2015), the fib MC2020 Core Group meeting
in Madrid (December 2015), and a series of follow-up worldwide consultations on
the fib ambition regarding the new developments in structural codes, including the
special session on Model Code in the fib Symposium in Maastricht (June 2017).
This paper discusses the main aspects of the development of fib MC2020, which is
envisaged as a single-merged general code fully integrating the provisions for the
design of new concrete structures with matters relating to existing concrete struc-
ture. It needs to deal effectively with both the design of structures and all the activi-
ties associated with the through-life management of existing concrete structures,
including matters such as their in-service assessment and interventions upon them.
To that end, MC2020 will take sustainability as a fundamental requirement, based
upon a holistic treatment of societal needs and impacts, life-cycle cost and environ-
mental impacts. This paper discusses the main aspects of the development of fib
MC2020. As part of this, the envisaged contribution of fib T10.1: Model Code
2020 is reviewed. However, recognizing the overall ambition of the fib MC2020
project, it is clear that all fib commissions, along with other bodies able to make
contributions on relevant topics, will need to work together to assemble the breadth
of knowledge and expertise which will be required for the fib MC2020 project.

KEYWORDS

conservation, general structural code for concrete structures, interventions, Model

Code, structural assessment, structural design, through-life care of concrete
structures

1 | INTRODUCTION articles was published in the fib Journal Structural Concrete

Discussions have been under way for some time in fib about
advancing the fib Model Code for concrete structures. Fol-
lowing publication of the final version of fib Model Code for
concrete structures 2010 (MC2010) 1, a series of explanatory
Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of the print
publication. The discussion will then be published in print, along with the
authors' closure, if any, approximately nine months after the print publication.
in the four editions printed in 2013, with these articles being
written by the authors/representatives of the groups of con-
tributors to the relevant parts of fib Model Code 2010. These
articles provided a variety of background information, addi-
tional explanation, research findings, and illustrative applica-
tion examples that it was not possible to include in the text of
fib Model Code 2010. There have also been a number of
other papers published in Structural Concrete over recent

Structural Concrete. 2018;1–11. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco © 2018 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete 1
2 MATTHEWS ET AL.
years which concern the use of fib Model Code 2010. These
have all contributed to a growing pool of knowledge and
experience about designing and constructing in accordance
with the provisions of fib Model Code 2010. Additionally,
these activities and the continuing research work have helped
to identify where improvements/modifications to fib Model
Code 2010 are desired and possible, in particular, regarding
the extension of the current code provisions for matters relat-
ing to existing concrete structures.
The opportunity to advance fib Model Code 2010
became apparent to fib Special Activity Group (SAG) 7:
Assessment and interventions upon existing structures, now
fib Commission 3: Existing concrete structures (COM3),
which led to presenting the initial idea to create a model
code for the assessment of existing structures to complement
the existing fib MC2010. During the debate in the Technical
Council meetings held in Copenhagen in May 2015 it was
considered more appropriate to work toward a single merged
fib Model Code for concrete structures dealing with both
new and existing structures. Consequently, a decision was
made to hold a workshop to discuss the concept of such a
combined code and its required attributes. The workshop
was hosted by TNO in The Hague on June 30, 2015, with
over 40 attendees, including invited speakers representation
all fib commissions and those active in other professional
organizations, bringing perspectives from across the globe
and discussing many topics including:
• general concepts for future model code advancement,
• fundamental principles and reliability concepts for new
and existing structures,
• models and material characterization for existing
structures,
• inspection, maintenance, and retrofitting of existing
structures, and
• evaluation of decision-making about and management of
existing structures.
The workshop outcomes set down ideas for possible
ways forward and confirmed the aspiration for developing
integrated provisions for new and existing concrete struc-
tures. These were further developed by the fib MC2020 Core
Group set up by the fib Presidium, which was tasked with
considering the factors relevant to the preparation of a single
merged general code that fully integrates the provisions for
the design of new concrete structures and matters relating to
existing concrete structures, including situations where new
structural members are incorporated as parts of existing
structures, together with developing a route map for achiev-
ing this goal. After meeting in Madrid in December 2015,
the fib MC2020 Core Group proposed a roadmap outlining a
potential course forward in this project. Discussions at the
recent follow-up meetings such as at the fib Belgian Collo-
quium and the fib Netherlands Colloquium (Brussels and
Rotterdam, April 2016), the JCI-fib Joint Workshop on
Codes for Existing Structures (Tokyo, September 2016), the
fib Model Code 2020 workshop held in association with the
fib Symposium in Cape Town (November 2016), and the
special session on Model Code during the fib Symposium in
Maastricht (June 2017) confirmed that further work remains
to be done to take coverage in the fib Model Code for con-
crete structures beyond the point where work reached with
the publication of fib MC2010. An important aspect of these
activities is sensing the worldwide readiness of the wider fib
community to undertake the challenging and ambitious task
of preparing the next generation of the fib Model Code. The
future fib commission work along with the thematic fib
workshops to be held world-wide are envisaged to help
resolve exactly how radical the approach should be and what
should be integrated into such a general structural code.
In October 2016, fib T10.1: Model Code 2020 held its
first meeting in Lausanne, where the focus was on formulat-
ing vision and objectives for fib Model Code 2020 and scope
of the T10.1 work and to decide on the timeline of delivering
and disseminating Model Code to the engineering commu-
nity worldwide. Recognizing the overall ambition of the fib
MC2020 project, it was emphasized that all fib commissions,
along with other bodies able to make contributions on rele-
vant topics, will need to work together to assemble the
breadth of knowledge and expertise which will be required
for the fib MC2020 project. It is therefore envisaged that all
fib commissions along with members of the wider fib family
will contribute to the drafting of fib MC2020. In particular,
given the ambition of producing an internationally recog-
nized code, a strong involvement of all national groups and
more inclusive representation of all main geographic regions
are aimed at and liaison/cooperation is being sought with
other international organizations working on relevant topics.
Further details about the current and future activities of
Task Groups T10.1 may be found on the fib website (www.
fib-international.org/comm-a-tgs).
2 | N E E D F O R M OD E L C O DE
AD VA NC EME NT
At the time of its launch, the fib Model Code 2010 was (and
still is) the most comprehensive code on concrete structures,
addressing matters concerned with their complete life cycle:
conceptual design, dimensioning, construction, conservation,
and dismantlement. At the same time, fib aims to be at the
frontier of the prenormalization, which implies continuous
pioneering work in codification. Recognizing needs for
improvements and further development and identifying
chances and opportunities to do so is a part of fib's task asso-
ciated with its mission of assisting engineers, practitioners
and researchers in their work (see Walraven 2). With respect
to development of Model Code 2020, three main application
domains are to be considered, namely new concrete
MATTHEWS ET AL.
structures created with contemporary materials, design and
construction practices, new concrete structures making use
of novel materials, design and construction practices and
existing concrete structures utilizing a variety of old mate-
rials, designs, and construction practices. Each of these
domains has its specific needs and opportunities with regard
to code advancement, and treating these needs in a consis-
tent way for all domains will be a major improvement in the
Model Code provisions.
With regard to new concrete structures, the main concern
is the improvement of their performance, quality and com-
petitiveness, compared to other types of engineering solu-
tions. This implies a need for optimizing design and
construction procedures, enabling use of fit-for-purpose
solutions and improving environmental performance, energy
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of construction technolo-
gies appropriate to the whole life-cycle of the structures. It
has been recognized that with the current state of knowledge
significant steps can be made to improve the in-service per-
formance of structures (see Sakai et al. 3) and to incorporate
efficiently and effectively the through-life management strat-
egy by considering this at the design stage (see Matthews
et al. 4). Obviously, sustainability, through-life management
and life cycle perspective are important considerations for
existing structures; however some additional issues apply as
well, as discussed further below.
A particular need for advancement of the Model Code
has to do with the increasing development and use of novel
cementitious materials with alternative binders, various types
of fibers, and other forms of modification. Figure 1 illus-
trates the tremendous increase in concrete compressive
strength that has occurred since about 1950, and identifies
the various descriptions that have been assigned to the con-
cretes associated with these changes. It can be observed that
there is strong tendency toward developing materials with
enhanced strength characteristics. Also as time has passed,
we observe an increasing diversity in the materials and forms
350
300
RPC, UHPC: c.2000s
Compressive strength [MPa]
250
HPC: c.1990s
200
150
NSC: 1970-1980s
100
NSC: c.1950s
50
0 concrete, are not generally used anymore for structural
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Water-binder ratio [-]
FIGURE 1 Development of concrete compressive strength with time since
about 1950. Expressed in terms of mean concrete cylinder compressive
strength (courtesy: Harald Müller). NSC, normal strength concrete; MC
1990, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990; HPC, high-performance concrete; MC
2010, fib Model Code 2010; RPC, reactive powder concrete; UHPC, ultra-
high performance concrete
3
of construction used (see Figure 2). These calls for reflection
on the treatment of the novel materials and on the guidance
provided on how to deal with the evolution of materials in
structural codes, so they have provisions which are able to
accommodate further developments in the future (see Dehn
and Herrmann 5).
With regard to existing concrete structures, it is generally
recognized that:
• They are appreciably different entities to the new con-
crete structures which contemporary design and con-
struction practices create and that the differences
generally relate to the age/period when the structures
were constructed, the implicit assumptions contained in
the codes used for their design, and in the supporting
material/product standards of those earlier times.
• They are composed of materials with different character-
istics to those employed in contemporary concrete struc-
tures. While the specified concrete strength was typically
much lower than that employed today, the actual
strength can be significantly higher depending upon the
extent of subsequent in-service hydration (of the coarse
cement particles present).
• Their actual nature and condition can be investigated,
allowing a prognosis to be made about their future con-
dition and performance. However, investigations can be
difficult to undertake and leave significant uncertainties
to be addressed in the structural assessment process.
• Existing structures may have experienced damage or
deterioration—it is important to establish what the influ-
ence will be upon the current and future characteristics
of the concrete and steel. This may be an essential first
step toward making structure management and interven-
tion decisions for an existing structure.
• Certain structural materials and components are not used
anymore, such as plain or indented reinforcing steel.
Consequently, most modern codes and recommendations
are based on the assumption that standardized ribbed
reinforcing steel bars are used as reinforcement and,
accordingly, do not include provisions for use or evalua-
tion of previous types of reinforcing materials. Thus,
modern design rules can have limited applicability for
use in the assessment of older existing structures and
therefore should be applied with care.
MC 2010
• Some past structural materials, such as high alumina
cement concrete (HACC)/calcium aluminate cement
MC 1990
0.7
purposes because they had certain unfavorable character-
istics. In the case of HACC, due to chemical processes,
it often experienced a reduction in its compressive
strength while in service (see Neville 7).
• Depending upon the period of their construction, many
existing structures may contain obsolete structural details
which will actually produce suboptimum behavior in
4 MATTHEWS ET AL.

Material and/or form of construction Period of availability / major use in the UK (density of shading indicates extent of use)
Cement and concrete based materials 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2010

Mass concrete: lime or pre-Portland cement based

Mass concrete: Portland cement based FIGURE 2 Indicative usage of cement
Clinker aggregate concrete in filler joist floors
Reinforced concrete: early patent systems and concrete materials/forms of
Reinforced concrete
Precast concrete construction in the United Kingdom
Pre-tensioned concrete
Post-tensioned concrete (ISE 6). The density of shading
Lightweight structural concrete, blocks and screeds
Asbestos-fibre-reinforced cement sheet materials indicates the intensity of usage in that
Glass-fibre-reinforced cement (cladding & permanent formwork)
Other-fibre-reinforced concretes (screeds & ground floors)
Polymer-fibre-reinforced concrete
period. Heavier shading indicates the
more intense usage

respect of failure modes associated with shear, punching, of sustainability when dealing with new and existing
and torsion in some regions of the structure. Clearly the concrete structures;
implications of such structural details need to be evalu- • a model code that will take sustainability as a fundamen-
ated. However, this is not always an easy undertaking tal requirement, based upon a holistic treatment of socie-
and work needs to be undertaken in MC2020 to provide tal needs and impacts, life-cycle cost and environmental
assessment guidance that enables proper consideration of impacts. These overarching requirements will have
the actual structural detailing of existing concrete defining implications for subsidiary performance
structures. requirements critical to structural design and assessment
procedures. These are matters such as human and envi-
ronmental safety, serviceability and durability, and other
3 | V I S I O N A N D O B J E CT IV ES FO R F IB specific performances such as the robustness of the struc-
M O D E L CO D E 2 0 2 0 ture and the resilience of its functionality;
• a model code that follows an integrated life cycle per-
The vision for fib MC2020 is to go beyond the point reached spective which promotes a holistic treatment of;
by fib MC2010, recent ISO codes, such as ISO 16311, and • a model code with a safety philosophy based on reliabil-
the current Eurocode activities to extend the application of ity concepts, that takes advantage of better knowledge
Eurocodes to existing structures. fib MC2020 is envisaged and understanding of uncertainties and of the risk accep-
as an ambitious project that would build upon the achieve- tance and risk differentiation concept for both new and
ments of fib MC 2010 and its holistic treatment of activities existing structures;
for the design, construction, conservation, and dismantle- • a model code that consequently makes use of the perfor-
ment of concrete structures. The goal is that such a single mance based concept to close the gap between material
merged code would fully integrate the guidelines for the engineers and structural engineers and to remove specific
design of new concrete structures with those relating to constraints for novel types of concrete and reinforcing
existing concrete structures, also recognizing the fact that the materials;
differentiation between new and existing structures is not • a model code with provisions based on rational, physi-
always easy to achieve, particularly during/after the adapta- cally correct and appropriately generalized models,
tion of existing structures for new performance require- allowing for implementation of the level of approxima-
ments. It is anticipated that the format and contents of fib tion approach for both the design of new structures and
MC2020 will evolve to suit these forward-looking objec- all the activities associated with the through-life manage-
tives, dealing both with the design of new structures and all ment of existing concrete structures including matters
the activities associated with the through-life management of such as in-service assessment and interventions
existing concrete structures including matters such as in- upon them;
service assessment and interventions upon them, including • a model code that allows full advantage to be taken of
situations where new structural members are incorporated as information that can be acquired by (in situ) testing and
parts of existing structures. monitoring of existing structures, for the through-life
The numerous aspirational goals that have been identi- management of existing concrete structures including
fied for fib MC2020 in the various technical discussions prediction and updating of reliability and durability of
include that ideally it should be: deteriorating structures;
• a model code that recognizes the importance of robust-
• a model code that includes worldwide knowledge with ness and redundancy for respectively new and existing
respect to materials and structural behavior and recog- structures, and offers consistent treatment of those in
nizes the needs of engineering communities in different (conceptual) design, through-life management and asso-
regions of the world; ciated activities such as assessment;
• a model code that reflects the importance of sustainabil- • a model code that reflects the importance of sustainabil-
ity and provides guidelines for the consistent treatment ity approach and provides guidelines for consistent
MATTHEWS ET AL.
treatment of sustainability demands to new and existing
concrete structures;
• a model code that gives particular attention to the
issues specific for existing structures, such as the
effect of material degradation and/or insufficient or
deficient detailing on the provided material and mem-
ber behavior models, the need for model improvement
and the treatment of uncertainties in models and
model parameters for existing structures and (phased)
interventions;
• a model code that adopts through-life management, and
recognizes the decision making processes for the man-
agement of existing structures and undertaking interven-
tions upon them, and the effect of (phased) interventions
on the structural behavior and service life expectations;
• a model code that gives particular attention to new types
of concrete and new techniques for construction and
(remedial and enhancement) interventions, which
includes defining test methods and creating a framework
for testing and performance evaluation of concrete with
supplementary binding materials and novel types of
aggregates;
• a model code that consistently treats the end-of-service-
life issues such as demolition and disposal including
safety level for dismantling and structural aspects of dis-
mantlement, and finally;
• a model code that is oriented toward practical needs, pro-
vides guidelines to the practitioners when provisions in
regular standards are deficient or lacking, and can serve
as a reference for engineering standards worldwide.
As part of the discussion on the content of the fib Model
Code 2020, the question has arisen about the form that such
a general structural code would take. It has been suggested
that success might be portrayed diagrammatically by
Figure 3a, with extensive general provisions being shared
for applications for both new and existing structures,
whereas an ineffective formulation might be portrayed as
shown in Figure 3b (Denton 2015). Further discussions will
be needed to resolve how radical the approach should be to
creating a general structural code for both new and existing
concrete structures.
FIGURE 3 (a) Successful future general
structural code with extensive shared
general provisions and (b) Ineffective
future general structural code with limited
shared general provisions (courtesy: Steve
Denton from 8)
5
Recognizing the overall ambition of the fib MC2020 pro-
ject, it is clear that all fib commissions, together with other
bodies who are working on relevant topics, will need to
work together to assemble the breadth of knowledge and
expertise which will be required for the fib MC2020 project.
It is envisaged that all fib commissions along with members
of the wider fib family will contribute to the drafting of fib
MC2020. In particular, it is proposed that the contributing
group should provide a more inclusive representation of all
main geographic regions (Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe,
North America, and South America) to bring insights that
would not otherwise be gained. Additionally, it is proposed
that liaison/cooperation will be sought with other interna-
tional organizations working on relevant topics, including
bodies such as CEN, ISO, JCI, ACI, PCI, JCSS, and
RILEM. It is also foreseen that contacts with international
organizations will be developed and maintained via various
mechanisms including holding of joint events, which could
act as an important stimulus to participation in the work on
various topics and as a basis to explore the range of technical
practice employed in various regions and by different profes-
sional groups. However, the specifics of these involvements
and interactions go beyond the scope of this paper.
It is also recognized that an important objective would
be to present detailed background technical information in
supporting fib bulletins, preferably with these publications
being developed and made available as work on fib MC2020
progresses. Ideally the development of background docu-
ments would enable continuous dissemination of up-to-date
results to other bodies that wish to adopt the fib MC2020
concepts, and would also provide for timely feedback in the
final stage of harmonization of fib MC2020.
Finally, consideration will need to be given to new ways
of delivering fib MC2020, with modern (digital) delivery
being foreseen alongside the traditional hardbound book for-
mat. A digital delivery format would facilitate subsequent
maintenance and evolution of fib MC2020. It could also help
further develop fib's knowledge dissemination process,
working in coordination with fib Commission 9: Dissemina-
tion of knowledge. This would allow fib to reach a larger
audience, as well as potentially allowing efficient periodic
adjustments to be made to the technical content of the fib
6 MATTHEWS ET AL.
Model Code for concrete structures as future developments
occurred.
4 | AD VA NC EME NT S IN F I B M O D E L
CODE 2020
The above mentioned selected aspects make clear that sig-
nificant improvement is needed and may be achieved in
the guidance available for the design and structural
assessment of the vast portfolio of existing concrete struc-
tures which form the diverse range of buildings and infra-
structure that we all rely on during our day-to-day lives.
In the following some of the main areas identified for
improvement are discussed, showing examples of techni-
cal procedures required modification to support advanced
design and effective assessment of existing concrete struc-
tures identified numerous aspects that need to be
addressed. Additional points to those mentioned below
and further details to those included in the provisional
Table of Contents of the fib Model Code 2020, are cur-
rently under review by fib T10.1.
As one component of the activities to take forward this
work, the fib T10.1 meeting in Delft in March 2017
endorsed the idea of setting up MC2020 Action Groups
focusing on specific technical topics. Currently the following
Action Groups are envisaged:
AG1 Action Group Databases
AG2 Action Group Shear and Punching
AG3 Action Group Bond
AG4 Action Group Durability and Service Life Prediction
AG5 Action Group Detailing
AG6 Action Group Fire
AG7 Action Group Seismic Design and Assessment
AG8 Action Group Nonlinear Finite Element Modeling
(AG: NL FEM)
AG9 Action Group Structural Health Monitoring and Test-
ing (AG: SHM and Testing)
AG10 Action Group Robustness
AG11 Action Group Fatigue
AG12 Action Group Impact and Explosion
The vision for the MC2020 Action Groups is that they
will draw together knowledge and expertise in their selected
technical topic areas, both within and outside fib, as is appro-
priate. Accordingly they will commonly address topics
which several fib commissions/fib Task Groups have an
interest in and therefore will have a need to collaborate in
the development of the relevant contributions to MC2020.
Thus the Action Groups are expected to address wider or
generic issues. Accordingly they are expected to provide
input across MC2020 and therefore may well need to deal
with philosophical points which require wider consideration
than is perhaps necessary for contributions to a single
section of MC2020.
4.1 | Sustainability perspective
MC2020 provides an important opportunity to further
advance our approach to the sustainable design, construc-
tion, and through-life care of concrete structures. Central to
this will be how we formulate and verify performance
requirements for concrete structures within a holistic sustain-
ability framework utilizing the widely accepted “three pillars
of sustainability” of social, environmental and economic per-
formance. Such an approach provides a way to recognize the
great benefits concrete structures provide to humankind's
global society, along with their impacts on that society and
the wider environment, as well as their economic cost and
return.
Adopting this integrated life-cycle approach, the
requirements for social performance would have defining
implications for subsidiary performance requirements criti-
cal to structural design and assessment procedures. These
are matters such as human and environmental safety, dura-
bility, serviceability and other social aspects, such as
esthetics, adaptability and maintenance. Based upon the
wider social context, there may be requirements for specific
performances such as the robustness of the structure and
the resilience of its functionality. There is ongoing debate
about how these aspects, along with the verification of the
associated performance requirements, might be best dealt
with in the organization of MC2020. While the approach
adopted has to be philosophically robust, its implementa-
tion needs a practical and convenient methodology for
its use.
Sustainable design of concrete structures should aim at cre-
ating satisfactorily reliable structures which meet the specified
demands for safety, serviceability, and durability for a defined
number of years in an environmentally acceptable manner at a
suitable through-life cost. The Model Code needs to support
the creation of structures with reduced environmental impact
by facilitating the efficient and moderate use of natural
resources, with the production of less waste and pollution,
which support economic prosperity and vibrant social develop-
ment. Good example of effective extension of the use of the
structures after adaptation to the new faction can be found in
Van Nelle factory Rotterdam which is still fit for use after
structural and architectural readaptation (Figure 4).
4.2 | Through-life management of concrete structures
The treatment of the through-life management of concrete
structures, a topic introduced in MC2010, will be evolved to
suit the broader circumstances of application of MC2020.
Conceptually through-life management seeks to integrate
issues relating to the design and construction of new con-
crete structures with those required for the management of
existing concrete structures throughout their service life. It is
expected that adequate through-life management of existing
structures will enable optimization of life cycle cost of the
MATTHEWS ET AL.
FIGURE 4 Built in 1930 Van Nelle factory Rotterdam is still fit for use
after structural and architectural re-adaptation to a new function (source:
https://www.flickr.com—Nanette de Jong)
structures. This is a challenge often faced in the engineering
practice, which can be illustrated by an example of Krk
Bridge, Croatia where the associated costs of the mainte-
nance and repair works in a period of less than 30 years' ser-
vice amounted to some 25% of the cost of construction of
the structure (see Figure 5).
FIGURE 5 Krk Bridge, Croatia, general
view, and illustration of deterioration: the
associated costs of the maintenance and
repair works in a period of less than
30 years' service amounted to some 25% of
the cost of construction of the structure
7
Suitable quality management processes are required
throughout the design and construction/intervention stages
to ensure that the structure will comply with the specified
performance requirements, including being adequately dura-
ble. A component of such quality management is the prepa-
ration of a Birth Certificate Document containing all the
relevant data to allow effective and efficient management of
the structure throughout its life cycle.
An aspect of through-life management is the implemen-
tation of the conservation and management strategies
defined during design. This requires processes by which the
condition of existing concrete structures can be evaluated
and interventions undertaken. These activities may include
monitoring, inspection, making assessments, possibly
restricting usage, performing maintenance and undertaking
interventions to extend service life and/or meet new perfor-
mance requirements, as appropriate.
Accordingly the provisions necessary for the successful
through-life management of concrete structures need to be
identified during the conceptual design stage. For many
structures these considerations might focus on longevity and
durability provisions to ensure that the minimum required
safety and performance levels are respected for the relevant
Limit States. However, for some structures these consider-
ations might include addressing matters such as resilience
and recovery from exceptional events, such as tsunamis,
severe earthquakes, or other potential causes of major dam-
age, as well as postevent functionality requirements.
4.3 | Fundamental reliability principles
Overall there are many considerations which need to be
incorporated within MC2020 for selecting an appropriate
structural reliability level for either a new or an existing
structure. The selection the structural reliability level to be
adopted in Model Code 2020 needs to take into account in a
comprehensive way the important differences which exist
8 MATTHEWS ET AL.

between the circumstances of new construction and the Also for the assessment of existing structures, the deter-
assessment and extension of life of existing buildings and mination of the properties of the structural materials and
other constructed assets. Recognizing the world perspective their corresponding constitutive relations is an indispensable
that is being adopted for the Model Code 2020, the envis- step in the process leading to conclusions and decision mak-
aged approach involves the selection of an appropriate struc- ing. Also here the definition of suitable measurement
tural reliability level early in the design process which will methods, to be used both at the site and in the laboratory, is
take into account not only these types of factors, but also required.
other issues such as those raised by developing countries Moreover attention should be given to the properties of
relating to the local (national or regional) selection of appro- older types of materials, like plain reinforcing bars, which
priate reliability levels to be used in design and/or structural have practically been ignored in modern code recommenda-
assessment relative to their economic level. tions, but are again highly relevant in relation to the assess-
There is the need to recalibrate the target reliability ment of existing structures from different eras of construction.
levels accounting for the economic constraints and sustain- Finally, measurement methods have to be defined in
ability considerations associated with existing structures, order to determine the properties of structural materials in
while respecting the generally accepted risk levels relating to existing structures subject to deterioration. In all cases where
the loss of human life adopted for new structures. Target material properties are measured, both the mean values and
reliability levels should also be modified for monumental the coefficient of variation have to be determined, for the
buildings taking into account not only their status as existing sake of the assessment of structural reliability.
structures, but also that their operation and use might also be
assisted by the implementation of active and/or passive mon-
itoring and safety management systems, so that their conse-
quence class can be reduced by limiting the risk for human
life by means of appropriate control measures and proce-
dures. It is proposed that structural robustness will be treated
at a metric level by definition of a specific β-value, so allow-
ing for its correct quantification.
The inclusion of existing structures within the new
Model Code will require the management of new types of
uncertainties, of an epistemic nature, to cover the lack of
knowledge of their structural configuration and some aspects
of their structural behavior. Such specific uncertainties can-
not be treated at an aleatoric level but may require use of
event tree and Bayesian approaches, which are not usually
employed in the design of new structures.
General provisions for the treatment of model uncer-
tainties related to the definition of empirical and semi-
empirical resistance models will be given, with the scope to
achieve better uniformity in their reliability level.

4.4 | Contemporary, recent, old, and innovative

materials
Up to now concrete properties have generally been
expressed as a function of the concrete compressive strength,
determined on standard tests. The development of concrete
as a structural material, however, has resulted in special
mixture-compositions aimed at the optimization of particular
concrete properties. The determination of the particular prop-
erties of defined performance concretes, with the objective
of taking best advantage of their characteristics, requires the
FIGURE 6 The MuCEM (Musée des civilisations de L'Europe et de la
prescription of related measurement methods. In such a way
Mediteranée) is the first building in which ultra high-performance concrete
contemporary standard concrete's for general application and (UHPC) has been employed in different applications, both as structural
defined performance concrete's can be used in a suitable way member and as sheathing, on a vast scale (source: https://www.flickr.com—
for the application being considered (see Figure 6). Sébastien Bertrand and Jean-PierreDalbéra)
MATTHEWS ET AL.
4.5 | Design and assessment procedures
To be able to carry out design of new structures and verifica-
tion of the structural reliability and the remaining service life
of existing structures, general models for structural behavior
are necessary. Those models have to be offered with differ-
ent levels of approximation. The most appropriate level of
approximation for the case being considered depends on the
stage of development, for example, predesign or final
design, along with the complexity and consequences of
intervention.
The design and assessment methods should be suitable
for new structures, including high performance structural
materials, existing structures built with traditional or even
outdated structural materials and procedures, existing struc-
tures designed on the basis of superseded methods, and
structures in which there is deterioration of their materials.
The design and assessment methods should also be valid for
structures after retrofitting, so that the role of advanced
repair materials and methods should be included.
Target verification criteria should be given for all levels
of application; including structures after intervention (see
Figure 7). The design and assessment methods should be
valid for structural safety (including the effect of dynamic
loading and temperature effects) and serviceability, for
defined periods of time (in relation to the required service
life), and taking account of wider sustainability and resil-
ience considerations. Attention is to be given to the impor-
tance of good conceptual design, as well as conceptual re-
design, based on a defined minimum level of information
about the condition of the structure considered.
4.6 | Advancements enabled by numerical tools,
monitoring, and sensor techniques
The fib Model Code 2020 will aim an enabling use and
benefiting from new technologies. For structures with spe-
cial characteristics (size, complications, advanced shapes,
unknown boundary conditions) reliable numerical analyses
can provide valuable information on structural behavior,
safety and remaining service life. It is expected that non lin-
ear FEM analysis will be increasingly used in the future
for both:
FIGURE 7 Repair of substructure of a
VA0128 overpass on the Ljubljana—Koper
highway, Slovenia, using cathodic
protection system at test site of FP6
ARCHES (source: Rob Polder)
9
• new structures characterized by high structural complex-
ity and/or special details or by use of special materials,
and for
• existing structures in their original state or after
intervention.
There is then the need to define a consistent safety for-
mat for such types of analysis calibrated on the current reli-
ability levels. The use of non linear FEM will also require
the definition of specific model uncertainties to ensure the
reliability level of such calculation tools, calibrated on a set
of specific experimental tests.
Testing and monitoring shall enable to assess reliable
data on the real conditions and behavior of structures, and
may enable reduction of uncertainties in the assessment and
prediction of the performance of the structures. In situ load
testing and proof loading may be a useful tool for the defini-
tion of structural behavior and for the updating of the numer-
ical models describing the structure; specific provisions for
the use of such special types of test on the structure will be
given in the Model Code.
Monitoring is becoming a fundamental tool to control
the evolution in time of structural behavior and to allow a
predictive, instead of reactive, policy to be used to control
the maintenance process. The developing availability of low-
cost microsensors (MEMS) will allow their extensive use in
the measurement of local behaviors (crack opening evolu-
tion, stress levels) and overall behavior (displacements, rota-
tions, accelerations). The Model Code will give suggestions
for the treatment of large data sets (Big Data) produced by
monitoring. These processes are expected to involve the use
of specific algorithms and by the development of self-
diagnosis procedures.
4.7 | New issues for consideration
When working toward a new Model Code for concrete struc-
tures, inevitably blind spots show up. Areas are found where
expressions based on laboratory testing do not give a suffi-
ciently representative basis for solving practical problems.
Such a mismatch between the results of research and practice,
may indicate a clear requirement to develop improved models
10
for structural behavior, with increased practical relevance.
Moreover new developments are expected with regard to
effective monitoring of structures and the management of big
sets of data, resulting in improved maintenance programs.
There are many aspects of deterioration models which have
to be improved. Another challenge is the use of websites
offering defined-purpose calculation programs or relevant
appropriate data, for the analysis of structures under particular
conditions. Feedback from users of any updated code, partic-
ularly a future-oriented Model Code, can be of tremendous
value for the introduction of further improvements.
5 | CO N CL U DI N G R E M A RK S
fib MC2020 is envisaged as an ambitious and extremely
challenging project that would build upon the achievements
of fib MC 2010 and its treatment of activities for the conser-
vation of existing concrete structures. The vision for fib
MC2020, as a single merged general structural code, is to go
beyond the point reached by fib MC2010, recent ISO codes,
such as ISO 16311, and the current Eurocode activities to
extend their application to existing structures.
It is proposed that MC2020 will take sustainability as a
fundamental requirement, based upon a holistic treatment of
societal needs and impacts, life-cycle cost and environmental
impacts.
Adopting an integrated life-cycle approach, the require-
ments for social performance would have defining implica-
tions for subsidiary performance requirements critical to
structural design and assessment procedures. These are mat-
ters such as human and environmental safety, serviceability,
durability, robustness of the structure and the resilience of its
functionality, as well as other performance aspects, including
aesthetics, adaptability, maintenance, and so on.
It is proposed that fib MC2020 will follow an inte-
grated life cycle perspective and service life design
approach which promotes a holistic treatment of defined
performance requirements incorporating consideration of
structural safety, serviceability, durability, and sustainabil-
ity that link to wider issues such as the through-life man-
agement, cost, environmental and societal impacts of
concrete structures.
The process for developing fib MC2020 is expected to:
• Involve all fib commissions and bodies working on rele-
vant topics for example, COM3 Existing concrete
structures, as well as engaging with other international
engineering and material science bodies.
• Establish a shared vision of specifics of the task—say
via various initial workshops.
• Employ a planning, coordinating and drafting body to
identify topics/the desired contents for fib Model
Code 2020.
MATTHEWS ET AL.
• Adopted improved ways of working including target
workshops on specific issues, and so on.
Further discussions will be needed to resolve how radical
the approach should be to create a general structural code for
both new and existing concrete structures.
In terms of new ways for delivering the fib Model Code
for concrete structures, the use of contemporary (digital)
delivery routes is foreseen. This would potentially ease the
task of subsequently maintaining/undertaking further devel-
opment of the fib Model Code for concrete structures, as
well as facilitating improvements in the knowledge dissemi-
nation process working in coordination with fib COM9: Dis-
semination of knowledge. This could allow fib to reach a
larger audience, as well as potentially allowing efficient peri-
odic adjustments to be made to the technical content of the
fib Model Code for concrete structures when this was
appropriate.
Although the above considerations are not exhaustive,
it is clear that the fib MC2020 project will open up new
fields of endeavor in structural engineering that should
help facilitate harmonization of structural design and
assessment concepts and procedures which currently vary
in the different regions and countries of the world. The
work on Model Code 2020 is expected to contribute to the
future development of other aspects of fib activities, such
as providing material for future fib seminars and teaching
courses, including those to be given in developing coun-
tries. The work is also likely to identify specific topics
and research activities (to be undertaken by others) that
would benefit owners of concrete structures, as well as the
professionals involved in the through-life care and man-
agement of the large number of existing concrete struc-
tures. Last, but not least, the MC2020 program of work
will help maintain and, we trust, enhance the international
reputation of fib.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the wide range of ideas
incorporated into this paper which were received from vari-
ous sources and in particular for the contributions made by
attendees at the workshops and T10.1 meetings held
between June 2015 and March 2017, and those arising from
the valuable Core Group discussions in Madrid in December
2015.
OR CID
Agnieszka Bigaj-van Vliet http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8678-4990
REFERENCES
1. fib MC2010. Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. Fédération Interna-
tionale du Béton (fib), Lausanne, Switzerland. Berlin: Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn,
2013.
MATTHEWS ET AL. 11

2. Walraven JC. Model code 2010 for concrete structures: mastering challenges
and encountering new ones. Struct Concr. 2013;14(1):3–9. Joost Walraven
3. Sakai K, Shibata T, Kasuga A, Nakamura H. Sustainability design of concrete Faculty of Civil Engineering and
structures. Struct Concr. 2016;17(6):1115–1124.
Geosciences, Delft University of
4. Matthews S, Bigaj-van Vliet AJ, Ueda T. Conservation of concrete structures
according to fib Model Code 2010. Struct Concr. 2013;14(4):362–377. Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
5. Dehn F, Herrmann A. A performance-based approach for mechanical j.c.walraven@tudelft.nl
concrete properties—a roadmap towards constitutive coherence. In:
Beushausen HD, editor. fib Symposium 2016: performance-based
approaches for concrete structures—Cape Town/South Africa. Cape
Town, South Africa: International Federation for Structural Concrete
(fib), 2016; p. 83–90. ISBN:978-2-88394-121-2.
6. Institution of Structural Engineers. Appraisal of existing structures. 3rd ed. - Giuseppe Mancini
London: ISE, 2010 [refer to Table 6.1 for indicative usage of cement and con- Faculty of Civil Engineering, Poli-
crete products in the UK].
technico di Torino, Turin, Italy
7. Neville AM. Properties of concrete. 4th ed. Essex: Longman, 1995.
8. Denton S. Advancing the fib Model Code for concrete structures. Paper pre- giuseppe.mancini@polito.it
sented at: fib Workshop: Advancing the fib Model Code for concrete struc-
tures: need for code provisions for assessment, interventions and management
of existing concrete structures, The Hague, Jun 30; 2015,

AUTHOR'S BIOGRAPHIES Gerrie Dieteren

Buildings, Infrastructure and Maritime,
Stuart Matthews TNO, The Netherlands
Building Technology Group, Build- gerrie.dieteren@tno.nl
ing Research Establishment Ltd,
Hertfordshire UK
matthewss@bre.co.uk

Agnieszka Bigaj-van Vliet

Buildings, Infrastructure and Maritime,
TNO, The Netherlands
How to cite this article: Matthews S, Bigaj-van
agnieszka.bigajvanvliet@tno.nl
Vliet A, Walraven J, Mancini G, Dieteren G. fib Model
Code 2020: Towards a general code for both new and
existing concrete structures. Structural Concrete. 2018;
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700198