Professional Documents
Culture Documents
It will be noted that if the above is applied to the control perimeter at 2d, the same total
reinforcement requirement as in 2-1-1/(6.52) is produced. If it is applied at the perimeter u
out
,
some reinforcement requirement will still be predicted because of the 0.75 factor on v
Rd,c
in
the expression. This is unfortunate, but as long as reinforcement is detailed so that it is
stopped no further than 1.5d inside the perimeter u
out
as required by 2-1-1/6.4.5(4), some
reinforcement will be available for this check.
Fatigue in Reinforcement (cl 7.6)
At ENV stage, fatigue was only covered in the bridge part of EC2. However, it was decided
that, because fatigue is an issue in other types of structures, coverage should be moved to EN
1992-1-1. One consequence of this was that the service stress range below which fatigue does
not have to be checked had to be based on a true non-propagating stress range which is
independent of load type. It is possible to derive less conservative rules for specific load types
where the number of cycles is limited. The PD introduces rules for highway bridges based
on the same work as those used to derive figures in BD 24. However, it was decided
considering only the worst span case made them unduly conservative so variation with span is
incorporated.
The rules only cover straight bars. However, it seems reasonable to assume the allowable
stress range in bent bars reduces proportionately to the stress range given in Table 6.3N of EN
1992-1-1. They also make a distinction according to bar size. This reflects fatigue
requirements in BS 4449 and the higher stresses for smaller bars are only allowed for bars
complying with BS 4449. This does, however, introduce an anomaly since the full
calculations to EN 1992 do not acknowledge an effect of bar size and appear to be
conservative for smaller bars to BS 4449.
C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 10
Checks for specific cases show the rules can be quite conservative compared with the full
calculations. Nevertheless the rules are useful as they reduce the number of times full
calculations will be required.
Shell Elements (cl 7.7)
It is noted that Annex LL would apply to the design of slabs subjected principally to
transverse loading. In previous UK practice, such cases would have been designed using the
Wood-Armer equations
[4]
or the more general capacity field equations
[5]
. The combined
used of 2-2/Annex F, 2-2/6.109 and 2-2/Annex LL to design slab reinforcement does not
necessarily lead to conflict with these approaches. The reinforcement produced is usually the
same, other than minor differences due to assumptions for lever arms. However, 2-2/6.109
sometimes limits the use of solutions from the Wood-Armer equations or the more general
capacity field equations through its limitation of
el
u u = 15. It also requires an additional
check of the plastic compression field, which references 4 and 5 do not require. Despite
neglect of these requirements, the Wood-Armer equations have been used without difficulty
in the past and the PD reflects this experience by permitting their use together with capacity
field equations.
Laps (cl 9.1)
There are a number of areas where following the requirements of Eurocode 2 are either
impractical or impossible. Transverse reinforcement cannot always be provided at laps in an
outer layer for example. The guidance provided in the PD addresses these.
Anchorage Zones of Post-tensioned Members (cl 9.3)
The recommendations given under clause 9.3 have been added since, unlike BS 5400 Part 4,
EN 1992 gives few specific requirements for the design of post-tensioned anchorage zones.
This is again a function of covering behaviour rather than elements and thus the design must
be carried out using the strut and tie rules and rules for partially loaded areas. The reference
to the use of CIRIA Guide 1
[6]
for calculation of reinforcement requirements is legitimate and
non-contradictory; although it does not obviously utilise strut and tie analysis, the methods it
proposes are based on strut and tie idealisations and the resulting lever arms between tension
and compression zones.
Compression Reinforcement of Beams and Columns (cl 10.2)
The rules of EN 1992 were not considered to be completely clear with respect to the detailing
of confinement to compression bars designed to contribute to the resistance of the section.
The recommendations given in the PD amalgamate the requirements of Eurocode 2 and those
in BS 5400 Part 4, which are compatible and more precise.
C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 11
Pile Caps (cl 10.4)
BS EN 1992-2:2005 does not provide specific guidance for checking shear in pile caps. BS
5400 Part 4 and BS 8110 did. In particular, they provided guidance on the width over which
short shear span enhancement could be considered when checking flexural shear across the
pile cap (d in Figure 4). This guidance was markedly different; BS 8110 allowing it to be
considered over full width provided pile spacing did not exceed 3 diameters and BS 5400 only
allowing it to be considered over pile width. This could lead to very large differences
between the two codes but there was a lack of test data to resolve this. If you apply the BS
8110 rule to the tests from the paper on which the BS 5400 rules were based
7
, punching shear
around the loaded column becomes critical and it is therefore not possible to tell if the BS
8110 approach is safe. Recent work
[8],[9]
has addressed this issue and enabled the PD to
incorporate guidance which is much closer to that in BS 8110. This work also confirmed that
it was not necessary to consider the diagonal plane for corner piles as found in BS5400 Part
4. Figure 4 shows this as plane (c). The provisions should result in significant economy
compared with past UK practice.
Figure 4. planes to consider for pile cap shear design
Requirements for Voided Slabs (cl 10.5)
Voided slabs are not explicitly covered by EN 1992-2, which is a function of the philosophy
of providing rules covering behaviour and not element type. There are sufficient rules in the
Eurocodes to cover the design of a voided slab but there was concern that the distortional
behaviour of such a slab might not be considered properly by designers due to a lack of
direction. As a result, the PD provides additional guidance setting out the recommended
analysis to use and the verifications to be performed. The material is mainly imported from
BS5400 Part 4. Further guidance on this is provided by work carried out recently by
Walker
[10]
.
(a) 2d perimeter
(c) Flexural shear plane
for corner pile
(b) Reduced
perimeter
(d) Flexural shear plane
across cap
C Hendy, P Jackson, C George, S Denton page 12
Additional Rules for External Prestressing (cl 12)
Requirements for replaceability and robustness of external prestressing are not provided in
EN 1992-2; the requirements in 2-2/6.1(109) for guarding against brittle fracture need not be
applied where tendons are inspectable. In the UK, a more cautious approach has been
traditionally adopted to allow for loss of pretress in externally prestressed bridges due to
either undetected corrosion or accidental damage. The requirement of BD58/94 to ensure that
the bridge can carry dead load with the lesser of two tendons or 25% of the tendons at any
section removed has therefore been imported into the PD. In addition, identification of the
need to consider the possibility of cable vibration caused by matching natural frequencies of
deck and tendons has been introduced.
References
[1] BS 5400-4:1990, Steel, concrete and composite bridges Part 4: Code of practice for the
design of concrete bridges. (1990) British Standards Institution, London.
[2] BD 58/94 (1994) The Design of Concrete Highway Bridge and Structures with External
and Unbonded Prestressing, Highways Agency, UK
[3] Hendy C.R. and Smith D.A (2007), Designers Guide to EN1992-2, Eurocode 2: Design
of concrete structures. Part 2: Concrete bridges. London, Thomas Telford. ISBN:
0727731599
[4] Wood, R.H. The reinforcement of slabs in accordance with a pre-determined field of
moments. Concrete. 1968, 2, 6976.
[5] Denton, S.R., and Burgoyne C.J. The assessment of reinforced concrete slabs. The
Structural Engineer. 1996, 74 (9), 147152.
[6] CIRIA Guide 1, A guide to the design of anchor blocks for post-tensioned prestressed
concrete members. London: CIRIA, 1976.
[7]Clarke, J. L, Behaviour and Design of Pile Caps with Four Piles, Cement and Concrete
Association, 1973 Report 42.489.
[8] Cao, J. (2009). The shear behaviour of the reinforced concrete four-pile caps, PhD Thesis,
University of Southampton, UK.
[9[ Cao, J. and Bloodworth, A.G. (2010), Shear behaviour of reinforced concrete pile caps
under full-width wall loading Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures and
Buildings (to be published).
[10] Walker, G.M. Strength assessment of reinforced concrete voided slab bridges. PhD
thesis, Cambridge University, 2006.