You are on page 1of 40

COMPARISON OF BS 8110 WITH EN 1992

1. INTRODUCTION
EN1992-1-1 sets out general rules for the design of buildings. It necessarily covers a
wide spectrum of structures and, therefore, may be seen as unduly complex for routine
design work.
The aim of this document is to highlight the similarities and differences between the
Eurocode and the British Standard BS 8110-1. It covers all the relevant parts of the
Eurocode that will commonly be used in the design of normal building structures.
This means the information is valid only for concrete grades up to C50/60 and does
not cover prestressed or lightweight concrete, although the Eurocode certainly does
cover these areas. It is believed that the vast majority of day-to-day designs will fall
within its scope.

2. BASIS OF DESIGN
The basis of design is in compliance with EN 1990 which is the header code for the
Eurocode suite. There is no direct comparison with British Standards as the concept of
a header code is entirely new

2.1. GENERAL
EN 1990 establishes Principals and requirements for the safety, serviceability and
durability of structures, describes the basis for their design and verification and gives
guidelines for related aspects of structural reliability.

2.2. BASIC REQUIREMENTS


The basic requirements of the code are in summary (clauses 2.1(1) (7)):
Principal requirements:
The structure will be designed and executed (built) in such a way that sustain all
actions and influences likely to occur and remain fit for purpose.
The structure will have adequate resistance, serviceability, and durability.
Fire requirements:
The structure will have adequate fire resistance for the required period.
Robustness requirements:

The structure will not be subject to disproportionate damage from explosion, impact
or human errors. The specific events to be considered will be decided on for each
individual project. (see also EN 1991-1-7)
Potential damage shall be avoided by choosing an appropriate structural system/form,
a list of suitable approaches is specified in clause 2.1(5).

2.3. LIMIT STATE DESIGN


Within the context of the Eurocode limit state design is exactly the same in principle
as that which is already understood by engineers. The general section specifies that
the limit states shall be associated with design situations and that a distinction should
be made between serviceability and ultimate states

2.3.1. DESIGN SITUATIONS


Four design situations should be considered:
1. Persistent

this refers to the conditions of normal use

2. Transient this refers to temporary conditions, usually execution


(construction) or repair
3. Accidental this refers to exceptional conditions such as explosion or fire
4. Seismic
events

this refers to conditions when the structure is subject to seismic

2.3.2. ACTIONS
The Eurocode as a highly prescriptive method of describing actions, it is composed of
several parts and ultimately gives a precise explanation of the action. They are
described in terms not only of magnitude but also duration, origin, position, and
response.
(1)P Actions shall be classified by their variation in time as follows:
- Permanent actions (G), e.g. self-weight of structures, fixed equipment and road
surfacing, and indirect actions caused by shrinkage and uneven settlements;
- Variable actions (Q), e.g. imposed loads on building floors, beams and roofs, wind
actions or snow loads;
- Accidental actions (A), e.g. explosions, or impact from vehicles
(4)P Actions shall also be classified
- by their origin, as direct or indirect,
- by their spatial variation, as fixed or free
- by their nature and/or the structural response, as static or dynamic.

2.3.3. VERIFICATION
The design situations should be verified by the partial factor method of
EN1990.
2.3.4. DESIGN VALUES OF ACTIONS
Within the Eurocode for permanent actions a lower bound value is labelled Gk,inf (inf
for inferior) and the upper bound value is labelled Gk,sup (sup for superior). These
values are only used when the statistical distribution is known. It is important to point
out that for unfavourable conditions the Gk,sup should be used and Gk,inf for favourable,
if only mean value is used then the same value is used for favourable and
unfavourable conditions. There are different partial factors for favourable and
unfavourable so even when using just a single mean value the design value will be
different for each case
In the majority of cases a single variable action is considered. So the combination
value 0Qk, will not be used. The leading variable action (largest imposed load) does
not have a combination factor applied to it for ULS & SLS, only any additional
variable actions. Generally speaking combination factors 0Qk, are used for ULS,
frequent values 1Qk, are used for SLS, and quasi-permanent values 2Qk, are used
for fatigue.

2.3.5. MATERIAL PROPERTIES


Properties of materials should be represented by characteristic values, as with actions
where a design is subject to the variability of the material property upper and lower
characteristic values should be considered in the design.

2.4. ASSUMPTIONS
The basic assumptions of EN 1990 cl 1.3(2) are:
- the choice of the structural system and the design of the structure is made by
appropriately qualified and experienced personnel;
- execution is carried out by personnel having the appropriate skill and
experience;
- adequate supervision and quality control is provided during execution of the
work, i.e. in design offices, factories, plants, and on site;
- the construction materials and products are used as specified in EN 1990 or in
EN 1991 to EN 1999 or in relevant execution standards, or reference material
or product specifications;
- the structure will be adequately maintained
- The structure will be used in accordance with the design assumptions.

2.5. FOUNDATION DESIGN


The design of concrete foundations me be found in EN 1997 for the geotechnical
aspects and to Eurocode 2 for structural concrete design

3. MATERIALS
3.1. CONCRETE
EN1992-1-1 cl 3.1.7
Two stress-strain relationships are defined for concrete, the parabola-rectangle and the
bi-linear relationship. Generally the bi-linear relationship will be adopted by most
designers. For grades below C50/60 a linear elastic strain range is assumed up to a
strain of 0.00175 (stress at fcd = ccfck/ c) which then continues at constant stress to an
ultimate strain of 0.0035.
The ultimate stress allowed for the concrete at these strains is fcd = ccfck/ c. where cc
is a modifier to take into account long term and unfavourable effects. The Eurocode
recommends a value of unity but the UK NA gives a value of 0.85.
BS 8110 cl 2.4.2.3
For normal-weight concrete the limit of strain within the parabolic curve range of the
stress-strain relationship is 2.4 x 10-4 (fcu/ m), which for C30 concrete gives a strain
value of 0.00107.
For the ultimate design stress of concrete the BS allows 0.67fcu/ m.
Comparison
The level of strain at which the concrete reaches its maximum stress is higher in the
Eurocode than the BS. Theoretically this allows higher strains to be induced in the
concrete where it is confined in compression (due to plane strain at uniform stress).
However the BS does not make any specific allowance for concrete in pure axial
compression, which is probably an error and as such the lower level strain at the point
of maximum stress is not an issue. Ultimately for any other case than pure axial
compression the Eurocode and the BS utilise an ultimate strain of 0.0035 for concrete
not greater than grade C50/60.
The Eurocode and BS will not give the same ultimate stress level for concrete because
the setting of the cc co-efficient determines the stress level allowed. The UK NA sets
this co-efficient at a value of 0.85. As the ratio of fcu/fck is approximately 0.8 this
means that 0.85fck is approximately equal to 0.85x0.8fcu = 0.68fcu. So EN 1992 will
allow marginally higher ultimate stresses to be induced in the concrete.

3.2. STEEL REINFORCEMENT


EN1992-1-1 cl 3.2.7
Stresses in reinforcement may be idealised with an inclined branch representative of
strain hardening. The strain is considered to be linear elastic to a stress of fyd = fyk/ s at
a strain of fyd/Es. for higher strains the stress level is allowed to increase by a ratio of a
factor K, where K = (ft/fy) and the steel reaches a stress of Kfyk/ s at ultimate strain,
UK. The value for K and UK are given in Annex C of EN1992-1-1, however the
values are minimums not absolute values. This means that advice will be required
from manufacturers to determine the exact values to be used. However it is expected

that most design engineers will ignore the effects of strain hardening and take the
conservative stress at the end of the linear elastic range as being the ultimate stress
allowable.
BS 8110 cl 2.4.2.3
The stress-strain relationships for reinforcing steel within are defined such that, for
steel of strength 460 N/mm2, after the strain limit to the linear elastic range of 0.00219
the stress is assumed to be constant at fy/ m. No amount of strain hardening is allowed
for.
Comparison
If a conservative view is taken to ignore the beneficial effects of strain hardening
allowed for in the Eurocode, the stress-strain relationship is precisely the same for
both codes.

4. DURABILITY AND COVER


4.1. GENERAL
EN 1992-1-1 cl 4.1 & cl 4.4.1
A durable structure shall meet the requirements of serviceability, strength and stability
throughout its intended working life, without significant loss of utility or excessive
maintenance.
The concrete cover to reinforcement is the distance from the outer surface of the
reinforcement to the nearest concrete surface. Drawings should specify the nominal
cover cnom. This is based on a minimum cover cmin with an allowance for deviations
due to construction. The minimum value is the greater of cmin,b for bond and cmin,dur for
durability
BS 8110-1 cl 3.1.5 & cl 3.3
A durable concrete element is one that is designed and constructed to protect
embedded metal from corrosion to perform satisfactorily in the working environment
for the life-time of the structure.
Nominal cover is the design depth of concrete cover to all steel reinforcement,
including links. It is the dimension used in design and indicated on the drawings. The
actual cover to all reinforcement should not be less than the nominal cover less 5mm.
Comparison
The codes generally agree on the nature of a durable structure although the Eurocode
wording is more encompassing and clear than the BS version.
The requirements for cover are slightly different. The BS states a nominal cover to be
used in design and allows a deviation of 5mm for execution. The Eurocode gives
minimum cover values for bond and durability and then adds a deviation allowance to
determine the nominal cover (10mm in UK NA) to be used in design.

4.2. COVER FOR BOND


EN 1992-1-1 cl 4.4.1.2(3)
The minimum cover for bond cmin,b should not be less than the diameter of the bar.
This minimum should be increased by 5mm if the nominal aggregate size is greater
than 32mm.
BS 8110-1 cl - None
The BS does not state a specific cover needed to ensure bond, the nominal cover
values incorporate this but not transparently.
Comparison
The Eurocode is more precise and transparent than the BS

4.3. COVER FOR DURABILITY


EN 1992-1-1 cl 4.4.1.2(5)-(8)
The minimum cover for bond cmin,dur is given in EN 1992-1-1 Table 4.4N. The table is
based on categories of exposure conditions and structural classification. The exposure
classes are given in EN 1992-1-1 Table 4.1. The recommended structural
classification is S4 for 50 year working life, which is apparently the value adopted by
the UK NA. The structural classification is curious as it is not described in the text
and can only be determined by use of the NA which means the classification could
change across national boundaries.
The cover given in the code should be increased by a safety parameter cdur, , the
recommended value is 0. Where the reinforcement is made from stainless steel the
cover may be reduced by cdur,st, the recommended value is 0. For concrete with
additives the cover may further be reduced by a value cdur,st, the recommended value
is 0.
BS 8110-1 Table 3.3
The BS gives nominal cover dimensions which are simple and straightforward to
follow. The exposure conditions are well described. Adjustments are described in
terms of aggregate size and sulphate resisting additives.
Comparison
The UK NA has adopted a standard, BS 8500, that means the cover is the same now
as before. The annex has tables NA.2 and NA.3 these will give the same covers as in
the BS.

4.4. CHEMICAL ATTACK


EN 1992-1-1 cl 4.2
In addition to the conditions in EN 1992-1-1 Table 4.1, particular forms of aggressive
or indirect action should be considered.
BS 8110-1 cl
For aggressive soil and water conditions see BS 5328-1 cl 5.3.4

Comparison
The Eurocode does not give detailed guidance on how to deal with chemical attack. It
is recommended that the engineer refer to EN206-1. The BS directs the reader to a the
code for specifying concrete. BS 5328-1 is superseded by EN 206-1

4.5. CDEV AND OTHER ALLOWANCES


EN 1992-1-1 cl4.4.1.3
The Eurocode requires that the minimum value for cover is increased by a deviations
value. This is recommended to be 10mm but can be reduced based o the level of
quality control.
BS 8110-1 cl - None
The BS does not vary the nominal cover from the values stated for reinforced concrete
Comparison
The Eurocode has a slightly different method to the BS which allows a little more
flexibility but should ultimately come up with the same cover values provided the
recommended values are chosen.

4.6. COVER FOR FIRE RESISTANCE


4.6.1. GENERAL
EN 1992-1-2 cl
General rules for fire protection are given in 1992-1-2. In the Eurocodes part 1-2 is
always fire design. The extent of treatment needed is based on whether the design is
to meet actions, R, Integrity, E, or Insulation. I. the cover is given as an axis distance
from the centre of reinforcement to the edge of the section.
BS 8110-1 Table 3.4
Nominal reinforcement to meet specified fire periods is given in Table 3.4
Comparison
The Eurocode separates fire design from general design, the BS integrates it. The
Eurocode requires the purpose of the fire protection to be considered (R,E, or I),
secondly the Eurocode give axis distance from centre of bar not global cover from
face of bar like the BS.

4.6.2. COLUMNS
EN 1992-1-2 cl 5.3
The eccentricity of the column loads determines the method which may be used for
low eccentricity use Table 5.2a, for higher eccentricity (up to e < 0.5b) use Table 5.3.
For eccentricities above this the member should be considered to be a flexure member
(i.e. a beam)

BS 8110-1 Table 3.4


Covers are simply stated in terms of a fire rating
Comparison
The Eurocode integrates the cover requirements with the overall fire design
requirements and as such is more complicated than the BS method. Also as the cover
is given in terms of the axis distance to the main bar, there is no consistency in the
cover applied and has to be determined for each bar and each case individually.

4.6.3. WALLS
EN 1992-1-2 Table 5.4
The wall cover is based on the degree of exposure and degree of axial load carried
compared to normal design capacity. The cover can often be less than needed for
durability if a low fire rating is required.
BS 8110-1 Table 3.4
Covers are simply stated in terms of a fire rating
Comparison
The Eurocode integrates the cover requirements with the overall fire design
requirements and as such is more complicated than the BS method. Also as the cover
is given in terms of the axis distance to the main bar, there is no consistency in the
cover applied and has to be determined for each bar and each case individually.

4.6.4. BEAMS
EN 1992-1-2 Table 5.5 & Table 5.6
The cover for beams is based on width of the beam and the nature of continuity.
Where a beam width = bmin, the cover to sides is that for depth plus 10mm,
BS 8110-1 Table 3.4
Covers are simply stated in terms of a fire rating
Comparison
The Eurocode integrates the cover requirements with the overall fire design
requirements and as such is more complicated than the BS method. Also as the cover
is given in terms of the axis distance to the main bar, there is no consistency in the
cover applied and has to be determined for each bar and each case individually.

4.6.5. SOLID SLABS


EN 1992-1-2 Table 5.8
A minimum slab thickness is required along with a consideration of the nature of the
spanning capabilities. The covers are quiet low and except for the higher fire periods
will be less than the cover needed for durability.
BS 8110-1 Table 3.4
Covers are simply stated in terms of a fire rating

Comparison
The Eurocode integrates the cover requirements with the overall fire design
requirements and as such is more complicated than the BS method. Also as the cover
is given in terms of the axis distance to the main bar, there is no consistency in the
cover applied and has to be determined for each bar and each case individually.

4.6.6. SOLID FLAT SLABS


EN 1992-1-2 Table 5.9
The value for axis distance is based purely on providing a minimum slab thickness.
BS 8110-1 Table 3.4
Covers are simply stated in terms of a fire rating
Comparison
The Eurocode integrates the cover requirements with the overall fire design
requirements and as such is more complicated than the BS method. Also as the cover
is given in terms of the axis distance to the main bar, there is no consistency in the
cover applied and has to be determined for each bar and each case individually.

4.6.7. ONE-WAY RIBBED SLABS


EN 1992-1-2 Table 5.10
The requirement is based on rib width and flange thickness.
BS 8110-1 Table 3.4
Covers are simply stated in terms of a fire rating
Comparison
The Eurocode integrates the cover requirements with the overall fire design
requirements and as such is more complicated than the BS method. Also as the cover
is given in terms of the axis distance to the main bar, there is no consistency in the
cover applied and has to be determined for each bar and each case individually.

4.6.8. TWO-WAY CONTINUOUS SLABS


EN 1992-1-2 Table 5.11
The requirement is based on rib width and flange thickness.
BS 8110-1 Table 3.4
Covers are simply stated in terms of a fire rating
Comparison
The Eurocode integrates the cover requirements with the overall fire design
requirements and as such is more complicated than the BS method. Also as the cover
is given in terms of the axis distance to the main bar, there is no consistency in the
cover applied and has to be determined for each bar and each case individually.

4.6.9. COVERS FOR FIRE RESISTANCE WHEN USING > 15%


REDISTRIBUTION
EN 1992-1-2 cl
The tables in the Eurocode for beams and solid slabs are restricted to situations where
redistribution does not exceed 15%. Where redistribution exceeds 15% the member
should be considered simply supported and checked using EN 1992-1-2 Annex E.
BS 8110-1 cl - None
The BS does not cover this issue.
Comparison
The BS does not place a restriction on the degree of cover based on redistribution of
moment. However it will not be a common design situation that the redistribution will
be greater than 15% and so this issue is unlikely to be relevant in practice.

4.6.10.

FIRE ENGINEERING

EN 1992-1-2 cl 4.2 & cl 4.3


Fire design is based on the verifying that the effects of the actions in fire are not
greater than the resistance in fire after time, t, i.e. that Ed,fi fiEd
Where:
Ed
= design value of the force or moment for normal temperature design
= reduction factor for the design load level for the fire incident.
fi
BS 8110-1 cl
Not relevant for the simple determination of cover
Comparison
Fire is dealt with as a separate subject in the BS, the cover is separated from
dimension considerations. The Eurocode integrates the aspects into one single fire
design process.

5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
5.1. GENERAL
The purpose of structural analysis is to establish the distribution of either internal
forces and moments, or stresses, strains and displacements, over the whole or part of
the structure.

5.2. EFFECTIVE SPAN


EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.3.2.2:
The Eurocode defines effective span as the sum of the clear distance between the
faces of supports with an allowance a for each support, where a is dependant on

support conditions and is defined in EN 1992-1-1 Figure 5.4. For all support
conditions the minimum value of half effective depth or distance to bearing centreline
of supports should be used for a.
BS 8110-1 cl 3.4.1.2, cl 3.4.1.3, cl 3.4.1.4:
BS 8110 gives the same effective span for simple supports but for continuous and
cantilevers more prescriptive choosing only one of the two options for a that EN
1992 allows.
Comparison:
The effective length is approximately the same but EN 1992 will allow marginally
shorter effective lengths to be selected for continuous or cantilever beams

5.3. METHODS OF ANALYSIS


5.3.1. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES (ULS)
EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.1.1(7)
The Eurocode allows linear elastic analysis, linear elastic analysis with limited
redistribution of moments and plastic analysis
BS8110-1 cl 3.2.2
BS 8110 allows only linear elastic analysis and linear elastic analysis with limited
redistribution of moments.
Comparison:
EN 1992-1-1 allows plastic analysis in special circumstances. This is not a common
design method for reinforced concrete and as such is unlikely to be used by a design
engineer. To all relevant intents the two codes are the same on the issue of application
of structural analysis.
EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.5
The Eurocode defines the limits to redistribution in generic symbols the design values
are given in the National Annex. Recommended values are given for constants k1 to
k6. The UK National Annex gives values which effectively transform the
requirements to those identical to BS 8110. However using the recommended values
from EN 1992-1-1, would mean that less redistribution would be allowed
BS 8110-1 cl 3.2.2.1
BS 8110 requires that neutral axis depth x

(b 0.4)d

Comparison:
If the symbols from BS 8110 are converted to Eurocode symbols the equation above
from 8110 converts to:
Xu

( 0.4)d

0.4 + Xu/d 0.7

The recommended values from the Eurocode would lead to following comparable
equation (for fck 50):
0.44 + 0.8Xu/d

EN 1992-1-1 (5.10a)

This means that unless the neutral axis is within the first third of the top of the section
then the Eurocode will require a higher ratio of redistributed moment to the linear
elastic moment.
In summary the UK NA use means that the two codes are identical but the use of
recommended values alone will generally mean that less redistribution is allowed
when using EN 1992-1-1.
EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.6.2
The Eurocode states that plastic analysis may be carried out for sections with
suitability ductility which is deemed to be satisfied if the following conditions are
met:
1. Reinforcement is Class B or C
2. The ratio of internal moments to those in the span is between 0.5 and 2.0
3. And:
Xu/d

0.25

This means that the neutral axis must be high in the section resulting in low
strain in the concrete and higher strains in the steel. This is appropriate as the
steel is more ductile and therefore it is safer when designing plastically to
distribute more strain to this material. High strains in the concrete could result
in brittle failure of the section.
BS 8110-1 cl None
There are no specific rules given in the British Standard for plastic design.
Comparison:
The Eurocode rules on plastic design are completely new and no comparison is
available. Due to this fact it is not expected that in the normal course of design an
engineer will employ these rules. Plastic design will normally only be used in
situations where maximum utilisation of the section is required.

5.3.2. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES (SLS)


EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.4
Linear elastic analysis should be used provided:
1. Cross sections are uncracked and remain plane
2. The stress-strain relationship is linear
3. A mean value is used for elastic modulus

BS 8110-1 cl 2.5.4
The British Standard advises that section should remain plane and have linear stressstrain relationships. The modulus of elasticity for concrete for serviceability limit
states varies according to the grade strength and a mean value is used
Comparison:
The Eurocode agrees exactly in the method of applying the analysis for Serviceability
Limit State however there is a marked difference in the mean value of elastic
modulus. In EN 1992-1-1 Table 3.1 the Eurocode gives much higher values of elastic
modulus for concrete than the BS does for similar strengths

5.4. LOADING
EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.1.3
Relevant load cases and load factors should be taken from EN 1990. The equations
are defined in Equations 6.10, 6.10(a) and 6.10(b).
BS 8110-1 cl 2.4.3
The standard load cases are defined that are familiar to engineers 1.4 D + 1.6 L, 1.4 D
+ 1.4 W, and 1.2 D + 1.2 l + 1.2 W.
Comparison:
The Eurocode allows for significantly lower load cases to be analysed for the Dead +
Live load case but will be slightly larger for Dead + Live + Wind load case.

5.5. GEOMETRIC IMPERFECTIONS


EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.2
The Eurocode defines a method by which geometric imperfections may be considered
to be effective on the structure. There are two approaches, one which defines an
approximate eccentricity to be included in the analysis and a second which defines
notional horizontal forces to be considered combined with any other horizontal
actions (e.g. wind). Also in clause 6.1(4), a minimum eccentricity of h/30 or 20mm is
set.
BS 8110 cl 3.8.2.4
A minimum eccentricity is defined for consideration of geometric imperfections. This
is the used in the calculation of the design moments in columns cl 3.8.3.
Comparison
The method given in the Eurocode gives exactly the same results as in BS 8110 when
the eccentricity is considered. The eccentricity calculated from EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.2 is
used in cl 5.8.2 and cl 5.8.8 to determine the design moments. The formulae are the
same for both codes. The use of the EN 1992 notional horizontal forces gives the
same net effect as the use of eccentricity.

5.6. DESIGN MOMENTS IN COLUMNS


5.6.1. DEFINITIONS
5.6.1.1. Bracing members
EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.8.1
Bracing members contribute to the stability globally but braced members do not.
BS 8110 cl 3.8.1.5
A column may be considered braced in a given plane if lateral stability of the structure
as a whole is provided by walls or bracing. It should otherwise be considered
unbraced.
Comparison
Although different in terminology the approaches of the Eurocode and the BS are
essentially the same. If bracing is not provided then the column is unbraced but where
it is provided the column is braced and the column itself does not form part of the
resistive members for the bracing

5.6.1.2. Effective Length l0


EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.8.3.2
The effective length of a member is given in the Eurocode by equations for braced
and unbraced members. The equations require a value of the relative flexibility of the
end fixity to be determined due to rotational restraint. A figure is given showing
simplified cases. A note is provided that as full rigidity is practically impossible it is
recommended that a minimum value for relative flexibility should be taken as 0.1
BS 8110 cl 3.8.1.6
The effective length of columns is determined from Table 3.19 for braced columns
and Table 3.20 for unbraced columns.
Comparison
The net result from the Eurocode method is that it produces the same values for
effective length as the BS standard. The only difference is that for a member with full
fixity at an end the minimum flexibility means that the effective length is slightly
longer in the Eurocode. The worst case is for a member with full fixity at both ends
where the minimum flexibility recommendation means that the effective length would
be 0.59xlength, as opposed the BS Standard which would give 0.5xlength for the
same situation.

5.6.1.3. Slenderness Ratio


EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.8.3.1
The Eurocode defines a limiting slenderness ratio in terms of the ratio of gyration. It
is given as the effective over the radius of gyration of the uncracked concrete section.

BS 8110 cl 3.8.1.3
The BS defines a slenderness ratio (but without giving it that name) as effective
length over plan dimension in the direction of bending considered, lex/h or ley/b
Comparison
There is quite a difference between the two methods and no direct comparison may be
made. The two codes diversify in their use of their slenderness ratio to calculate if the
member is subject to slender 2nd order effects. The use of radius of gyration in the
Eurocode means that the method may be applied plan profiles other than rectangular
sections.

5.6.1.4. Limiting slenderness ratio


EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.8.3.1
2nd order effects may be ignored in the Eurocode if the slenderness ratio is below the
limiting value. The equation for calculating the limiting ratio is complex and involves
the use of creep co-efficients and the area of reinforcing steel (which necessarily is
not known at this stage) the process could therefore be iterative. However
recommended conservative values are given to simplify the calculation.
BS 8110 cl 3.8.3.4
Provided the length to depth ratio is less than 15 for braced columns and 10 for
unbraced columns, 2nd order effects may be ignored (i.e. the column is considered
short, not slender)
Comparison
The Eurocode has a more complex method. There is no direct comparison available
between the methods as the Eurocode requires consideration of the axial load to
determine the limiting slenderness. A zero load would sensibly mean that the column
is never slender and an increasing load reduces the limit to make the column more
likely to be slender. The Eurocode method is more scientific than the generalised BS
case.

5.6.2. DESIGN BENDING MOMENTS


5.6.2.1. Non-slender columns
EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.8.8.2
For non-slender columns the design moments are the greater of the maximum end
moment with allowance for minimum eccentricity and the combined mid-height
moment
BS 8110 cl 3.8.3.2
For non-slender columns the design moments are the greater of the maximum end
moment with allowance for minimum eccentricity and the combined mid-height
moment

Comparison
The two codes agree exactly on the calculation of the first order design moment.

5.6.2.2. Slender columns


EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.8.5
The Eurocode gives three methods for dealing with slender members:
General method based on non-linear methods, this approach requires the use
of computer software. To use this method the reinforcement must be known so
the method is really only suitable as a checking approach
Nominal stiffness method Again to use this method the reinforcement must be
known so the method is really only suitable as a checking approach or as part of
an iterative process. The design moments are obtained by multiplying the first
order moments by a magnifier. This is similar in principle to the k-amp method
used in steel design. It appears quite simple but is actually complex to apply as a
buckling load must be established based on the nominal stiffness.
Nominal curvature method this is essentially the method used in the BS
Standard. This method attempts to predict the deflection at which failure of the
concrete will initiate (i.e. when the strain reaches its maximum compressive
value) The established load will either correspond to the actual ultimate load or
a conservative estimate of this load.
BS 8110 cl 3.8.3
The effect of the additional moment induced by deflection of the column is allowed
for in calculating design moments.
Comparison
The most appropriate method and the only non-iteritive method in the Eurocode is the
nominal curvature method. This is almost exactly the same as the method given in the
BS.

5.6.3. BI-AXIAL BENDING


EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.8.9
The Eurocode offers as a simplification separate design in both directions
disregarding biaxial bending (EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.8.9(2)) No further check is necessary
if the ratio of slenderness ratios for both directions is not greater than 2, and ratio of
relative eccentricities is not greater than 0.2.
For columns which do not comply with the simplified rules above the biaxial bending
must be taken into account a summation rule. The method in the Eurocode is the
failure surface method and was previously presented in CP110 although the exponent
factors are different. The Eurocode exponent factors are considerably less
conservative than those given in CP110. The rule given in EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.8.9(4) is
straightforward to apply.
BS 8110 cl 3.8.4.5
A direct design method is given in BS 8110-1 the method is derived from the failure
surface theory. The method requires the increase of moment about one axis, the

relevant axis depends on the relative values of the moments and column section
dimensions. The amount of increase depends on the ratio of axial load to axial load
capacity under axial load only.
Comparison
The Eurocode shows a regression to the method of CP110, however with significantly
improved exponents. The BS uses the same method but hides it from the user to
present a simplified version which is only applicable to rectilinear section profiles.
The BS version is more conservative than the Eurocode version but both are likely to
produce the same steel reinforcement sizes due to rounding to suit bar size.

5.7. FLAT SLABS


5.7.1. DEFINITION
For the purpose of this section flat slabs may be of uniform thickness or they may
incorporate drops (thickenings over columns)

5.7.2. ANALYSIS
EN 1992-1-1 cl I.1.1
The Eurocode does not restrict the engineer from using any suitable analysis method
but does present an informative Equivalent Frame analysis method in Annex I
BS 8110 cl 3.7.2.2
The BS uses and equivalent frame analysis method
Comparison
The two codes utilise the same approach as a recommended method

5.7.2.1. Equivalent frame method


EN 1992-1-1 cl I.1.2
The slab should be divided into frames.
For vertical loading the stiffness may be based on the full width of the panels.
For horizontal loading 40% of this value should be used.
The bending moment apportionment allows considerable scope for choice to the
engineer ranges of values are given in EN 1992-1-1 Table I.1.
For transfer of moment from edge beams the maximum moment transferred is
0.17bed2fck
BS 8110 cl
The slab should be divided into frames.
For vertical loading the stiffness may be based on the full width of the panels.
For horizontal loading half of this value should be used.
The BS gives a specific apportionment of bending moments in the slab

For transfer of moment from edge beams the maximum moment transferred is
0.15bed2fcu
Comparison
The Eurocode is identical for vertical loading but more conservative for
horizontal loading by 20%.
The BS restricts the engineer to a single set of bending moment apportionment,
the Eurocode allows a range to be select, the range allows the exact values of
the BS to be selected.
As the ratio of fck/fcu is approximately 0.8 the Eurocode is more conservative
in the amount of moment it allows to be transferred. The Eurocode is
conservative by approximately 10% (0.17x0.8 / 0.15)

5.8. CORBELS
EN 1992-1-1 cl I.1.3
To be Included later
BS 8110 cl
To be Included later
Comparison
To be Included later

6. BENDING AND AXIAL FORCE


6.1. ASSUMPTIONS
EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.1
The basic assumptions of the Eurocode are taken from CEB Model Code for Concrete
Structures. The assumptions in EN1992 define the stress-strain arrangement and are
summarised as follows:
Plane sections remain plane
Strain in bonded reinforcement is the same as that in the surrounding concrete
Tensile strength of concrete is ignored
Stresses in reinforcement may be idealised with an inclined branch
representative of strain hardening
For sections not fully in compression the maximum strain is limited to 0.0035
For sections in plane compression the maximum strain is limited to 0.00175
For sections between these two conditions the strain profile is determined
assuming the strain is 0.00175 at mid depth of the section
BS 8110-1 cl 3.4.4.1 & cl 4.3.4.2
Plane sections remain plane
Tensile strength of concrete is ignored
For reinforcing steel, after a strain limit to the linear elastic range, the stress is
assumed to be constant at fy/ m. No amount of strain hardening is allowed for

Stresses in concrete in compression are derived from a linear strain increase


from 0 to 0.0035 through the depth of the compressed section.
In prestressed members compressive stress should not exceed 0.33fcu at the
extreme fibre (unless continuity is assumed then 0.4fcu may be used) in direct
compression the stress should not exceed 0.25fcu
Comparison
Generally the two codes agree on the assumptions for design. Although the BS does
not specifically state it, it does agree by implication with the Eurocode that the strain
in reinforcing steel is the same as that of the concrete bonded to it. The major
difference is in the BS method of dealing with pure and partial axial compression.
This issue is dealt with in BS 8110-1 cl 4.3.4.2.
The BS deals with the issue by limiting the stress in the section and states that for pure
axial compression the maximum stress is 0.25fcu which occurs at a strain of 0.00194,
assuming a linear stress-strain relationship. The Eurocode instead limits the strain in
the section and restricts the designer to a smaller strain of 0.00175 but allows full
stress to be developed (practically in the Eurocode section design will be determined
by the stress allowed in the reinforcing steel at this level of strain fyd = 320 N/mm2 for
grade 500 steel)
For situations of compression but not pure axial compression, the Eurocode presents a
linear relationship between maximum strain of 0.0035 at the outside fibres and a
minimum strain of 0.00175 at mid depth of the section. The BS simply restricts the
concrete stress to 0.33fcu. The Eurocode is obviously more scientifically correct
dealing with the phenomenon of constrained concrete strains in a direct manner
compared to the BS route of conservative fudges. The BS will require more steel
than the Eurocode to carry the stress for concrete profiles with large concrete/steel
ratios. But overall, because of the rounding of steel areas due to bar dimensions, the
designs from both codes will in most cases result in the same reinforcement
scheduling.

6.2. DERIVED FORMULAE


EN1992-1-1 cl 6.1
While no formulae are printed specifically in EN1992-1-1, using the Eurocode
information on structural analysis formulae may be derived which are similar in
format to the BS formulae and can be directly implemented as replacements
BS8110-1 cl
The BS gives specific design formulae which have been derived from a balanced
rectangular stress block design. This is the optimal situation but
Comparison
The Eurocode does not give any method to calculate bending with or without axial
load directly. This is because the Eurocode is phenomenon based. The descriptions
given in structural Analysis and Materials are considered adequate to combine with
text book theory to calculate the design of a section. As such the options for design
are much wider than in the BS. A table is given below which gives Eurocode
compatible equations in the format of their BS equivalents:

Basic Symbols
s
c

fcd
cc
3
fyk
fyd

BS 8110-1:1997

EN1992-1-1:2004

1.05
1.5
0.447 fcu
None (= unity)
0.0035
460
0.95 fyk

1.15
1.5
cc fck / c = 0.566 fck
0.85 (UK NA)
0.0035
500
0.87 fyk

Internal forces balanced design


Cc
0.201 fcubd
T
0.95 fyAs
z
0.775 d
MRc
0.156 fcubd2
MRs
0.738 fyAsd
As
M Rs
0.738 f y d

K
K
(distribution
10%)
K
(distribution
> 10%)
If K

0.226 fckbd
0.87 fykAs
0.8 d
0.181 fckbd2
0.8 fydAsd
M Rs
0.8 f yd d

100 As
= 21.1 fcu/fy
bd
M
0.156 f cu b

100 As
= 22.6 fck/fyd
bd
M
0.181 f ck b

M
= 0.156
bd 2 f cu
0.156

M
= 0.181
bd 2 f ck
0.181

0.402(b 0.4) 0.18(b 0.4)2

0.453(b 0.4) 0.18(b 0.4)2

K
z

x
As

If K > K
z

d 0.5 + 0.25

K
0. 9

0.95d

d 0.5 + 0.25 0.88 K

(d z)/0.45
M
0.95 f y z

d 0.5 + 0.25

K'
0.9

0.95d

(d z)/0.4
M
f yd z

0.95d

d 0.5 + 0.25 0.88 K ' 0.95d

x
As
As

BS 8110-1:1997
(d z)/0.45
( K K ') f cu bd 2
0.95 f y (d d ')

EN1992-1-1:2004
(d z)/0.4
( K K ') f ck bd 2
f yd (d d ')

K 'f cu bd 2
+ As'
0.95 f y z

K 'f ck bd 2
+ As'
f yd z

Design for flange beams where NA falls in flange


M + 0.1 f cu bw d (0.45 h f )
9 M + f ck bw d (0.4 h f )

As

0.95 f y ( d 0.5hf )
f

0.45

hf
d

bw
b

hf
2d

+ 0.15

9 f yd ( d 0.5hf )

bw
b

0.566

hf
d

bw
b

hf
2d

+ 0.18

bw
b

7. SHEAR
7.1. GENERAL
7.1.1. DEFINITIONS
EN1992-1-1 cl 6.2.1(1)P
Three shear definitions are used in the Eurocode:
VRd,c
Design shear resistance of a member without reinforcement
VRd,s
Design shear force capacity of the shear reinforcement
VRd,max
Design value of the maximum shear force before concrete crushing in
compression
BS 8110-1 cl 3.4.5.2 & cl 3.4.5.6
The BS defines pure concrete shear resistance as 0.8fcu, and the maximum shear
resistance as 5 N/mm2. The shear resistance of the reinforcement, Vb, is defined as a
function of the bar spacing and area of steel provided.
Comparison
The shear resistance of bent up bars is treated identically between the two codes, only
the symbols are different.

The shear resistance of the concrete alone is treated differently. The BS uses an
approximation to the shear resistance and maximum crushing resistance. The
Eurocode use a calculable method to determine these resistances. To calculate the
concrete shear resistance the value of tensile capacity of the concrete, which is given
in the NA. The equation is largely empirical as no consensus can be reached exactly
to the shear performance of concrete nor to the exact mode of failure. There is an
allowance for the beneficial effect of axial compression. This part of the equation may
be left out as a conservative approach.

The maximum shear transmitted, as given by the crushing capacity of the concrete, is
calculated considering an adjustment factor, v1, which takes into account the actual
stress distribution across the strut and takes into account cracking. For C30/37
concrete the value of the maximum resistance is 5.28 N/mm2. This is marginally
higher than the BS value. For higher concrete strengths the margin increases
significantly.

7.1.2. REQUIREMENTS FOR SHEAR REINFORCEMENT


EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.2.1(3) & cl 9.2.2
If the shear to be resisted is less than the concrete shear resistance VRd,c, no shear
reinforcement is required but minimum reinforcement should be provided except in
the case of minor elements and slabs where transverse redistribution of loads is
possible. In other cases the shear reinforcement must be designed. The minimum
shear links to be provided are given by an expression:

Asw = w,min sbw sin


where:

w,min = (0.08 f ck ) / f yk
The maximum spacing of vertical links is the lesser of 0.75d or 600mm
BS 8110-1 Table 3.7
Minimum links should be provided except in the case of minor elements and slabs
where transverse redistribution of loads is possible. In other cases the shear
reinforcement must be designed. The minimum shear links to be provided are given
by an expression:

Asw = 0.4bv s v / 0.95 f yv


The maximum spacing of vertical links is the lesser of 0.75d or 600mm
Comparison
Basically the two codes are in agreement. However the Eurocode expression for
calculating the minimum reinforcement ratio, w,min, is an improvement on the
conservative rule of the BS which requires 0.4 N/mm2 no matter what. For C25/30
concrete, the values are identical for Asw, but for higher strength concretes, the
Eurocode requires less steel to be provided.
Interestingly there is no upper limit given on the concrete strength which may be used
in these formulae. This could result in virtually negligible steel being required for
very high strength concrete.

7.1.3. UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED LOADING


EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.2.1(8)

Reinforcement need not be checked at a distance less than d from face of support,
however reinforcement provided should continue to the support.
BS 8110-1 cl 3.4.5.10
Reinforcement need not be checked at a distance less than d from face of support,
however reinforcement provided should continue to the support.
Comparison
The rules are the same

7.1.4. LONGITUDINAL TENSION REINFORCEMENT


EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.2.1(7)
The longitudinal reinforcement should be capable of resisting any additional tensile
forces caused by shear.
BS 8110-1 cl 3.4.5.4
The longitudinal tension reinforcement should continue to a distance at least d beyond
the section considered
Comparison
The Eurocode only with the additional stresses in the longitudinal bars caused by
shear and seems to ignore bond & anchorage. In the Eurocode bond & anchorage are
dealt with in Section 8 of the code. BS 8110 concerns itself with bond & anchorage
but makes no mention of the additional tensile stresses due to shear

7.2. RESISTANCE OF MEMBERS WITHOUT SHEAR


REINFORCEMENT
EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.2.2
If the shear resistance of concrete, VRd,c, is greater than the applied shear then no
reinforcement is necessary (however the minimum should be provided) The design
value if resistance is calculated from an equation which allows for the tensile
resistance of concrete and includes an allowance for the beneficial effect of axial
force.
BS 8110-1 Table 3.8 & cl 3.4.5.12
Table 3.8 gives values for the shear resistance of concrete as a design concrete shear
stress, c. The numerical foundation for this table is given in the Notes. Clause
3.4.5.12 gives an additive value to concrete shear stress to be applied when an axial
force is acting.
Comparison
The two methods give very similar results and define approximately the same shear
capacity. The BS does however give slightly higher values for reinforcement rations
in excess of 2%.
The allowance for axial force in the BS is more scientific (unusual as Eurocodes are
normally more transparent) the calculation for its effects is simpler in the Eurocode

due to the use of a universal constant to represent the BS term 0.6Vh/M. The BS term
may vary between 0 and 6, the Eurocode term is constantly 0.15. Generally this means
that for low shear and mid span areas the Eurocode will give higher contributions due
to axial loading, however close to supports and in regions of high shear the Eurocode
will be conservative compared to the BS.

7.3. RESISTANCE OF MEMBERS REQUIRING SHEAR


REINFORCEMENT
7.3.1. BASIS
EN 1992-1-1:2004
The Eurocode uses a truss model to evaluate the shear resistance of the member.
BS 8110-1:1985
The BS adopted a truss model in preparation for the arrival of the Eurocodes in the
change to CP110.
Comparison
Both codes agree on the structural model to be implemented

7.3.2. SHEAR CAPACITY CHECK


EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.2.3(3)
Shear should not exceed VRd,max, the shear capacity of concrete crushing in
compression as a diagonal strut.
BS 8110-1 cl 3.4.5.4
Shear should not exceed the lesser of 0.8fcu, or 5 N/mm2, the shear capacity of
concrete crushing in compression as a diagonal strut.
Comparison
The rules are essentially similar but vary based on the allowance shear resistance that
should not be exceeded. The Eurocode provides an allowance for increasing strength
of concrete in the calculation of crushing resistance for diagonal struts. The BS is
conservative in comparison to the Eurocode by 3% for C25/30 and up to 38% for
C50/60.

7.3.3. SHEAR REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED


EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.2.3
The Eurocode defines the shear reinforcement in terms of the angle of the concrete
compression strut and the axis perpendicular to the applied shear. Generally this
means the angle of the compression strut relative to the horizontal (as normally shear
applied will be vertical) The compression strut may be spread over a set of links such
that the angle is between 450 and 21.80. When reinforcement is required no allowance
may be taken for the concrete compressive strength as a strut. Cl 6.2.3(3) states that
when using reinforcement VRd is the smaller of VRd,max and VRd,s.

VRd,s = (Asw/s) z fywd cot


BS 8110-1 cl Table 3.7
The BS gives a graduation in the application of reinforcement. For the cases where
reinforcement is needed in excess of the minimum value the area of steel should be
calculated from:
Asv = bvsv( - c)/0.95fyv
Comparison
The methods are clearly very similar the main difference is in the fact that the
Eurocode does not allow the concrete strength to be used, so all the shear must be
carried by the reinforcement alone. Cl 6.2.1(2) implies that the concrete strength and
longitudinal reinforcement contributions may be included in resistance but cl 6.2.3(3)
modifies the calculation of the resistance VRd and states that it is the lesser of VRd,max
and VRd,s. Clearly this means the Eurocode will produce conservative designs and it is
difficult to understand why the code has been written so conservatively.
The second difference is in the limit to the contribution of the reinforcement (EN) or
reinforcement/concrete (BS). As stated previously, the total shear resistance can not
exceed the values given in Section 7.3.2 above. Generally this is higher for the
Eurocode than for the BS.

7.3.4. ADDITIONAL TENSILE FORCES


EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.2.3(7)
The additional tensile force due to shear must be calculated and the longitudinal steel
shown to be capable of resisting it. A simplified version of this force is given as a
maximum limit as:
Ftd = M Ed ,max / z
The true value at any point is given by:
Ftd = 0.5V Ed (cot cot )
However if the design for moment has been carried out for the maximum moment
then the additional forces may be omitted, however it would be prudent to check them
independently against provided reinforcement for the maximum shear.
BS 8110-1 cl 3.12.8.3
The additional tensile force due to shear resistance is not accounted for directly in BS
8110-1:1997, however sufficient anchorage is required. It would be up to the engineer
to determine the force in the bar due including this additional tensile force
Comparison
The Eurocode deals with this issue the BS does not, but the additional force is likely
to be small and is not an influence when designing for maximum moment. It is the

practical norm to design for maximum moment and so generally this requirement may
be omitted. However in designs where bars are curtailed or a very high shear acts
independently of the maximum moment then these forces should be accounted for as
an additional check. The BS does require the reinforcement to be anchored and in
doing so imposes the responsibility on the engineer to design for the correct force.

7.3.5. MEMBERS WITH ACTIONS APPLIED AT THE UPPER


SIDE
EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.2.3(8)
An increase in the shear resistance is allowed for at the region, av, before supports
where loading occurs with a distance between 0.5d av 2d. In this case the shear
strength may be multiplied by = av/2d.
BS 8110-1 cl 3.4.5.8
An increase in the shear resistance is allowed for at the region, av, before supports
where loading occurs with a distance between 0.5d av 2d. In this case the shear
strength may be multiplied by av/2d.
Comparison
The codes are identical

7.3.6. MEMBERS WITH ACTIONS APPLIED NEAR BOTTOM


OF THE SECTION
EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.2.1(9)
Where load is applied near bottom of the section, sufficient shear reinforcement to
carry the load to the top of the section should be provided in addition to any shear
reinforcement required to resist the shear.
BS 8110-1 cl 3.4.5.11
Where load is applied near bottom of the section, sufficient shear reinforcement to
carry the load to the top of the section should be provided in addition to any shear
reinforcement required to resist the shear.
Comparison
The codes are identical

8. PUNCHING SHEAR
8.1. GENERAL
8.1.1. BASIS OF DESIGN
EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.4.1(2) & 6.4.2(1)
Punching shear is when a concentrated load is applied to a small area of slab. This is
commonly the reaction of the column on a slab. The resulting stress is verified along a

perimeter around the loaded area. The effective depth is the average of the
reinforcement passing in orthogonal directions
BS 8110-1 cl 3.7.7.1
Punching shear is when a concentrated load is applied to a small area of slab. This is
commonly the reaction of the column on a slab. The resulting stress is verified along a
perimeter around the loaded area. The effective depth is not specifically defined but it
is common practice to take it as the average of the reinforcement passing in
orthogonal directions
Comparison
The codes have the same definition for punching shear. The Eurocode is a slightly
more precise in that it specifically defines the effective depth to be considered.

8.1.2. DESIGN PROCEDURE


EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.4.1(4)
The shear resistance should be checked at the face of the column and at the basic
control perimeter. If shear reinforcement is needed a further perimeter should be
checked to determine where it is no longer needed
BS 81101-1 cl 3.7.7.6
The shear capacity is checked at a distance 1.5d from the face of the loaded area. The
shear stress should be checked on successive perimeters at 0.75d intervals until a
perimeter is reached which does not require shear reinforcement.
Comparison
In principal the approach is the same in both codes. The Eurocode gives a general
principle in cl 6.4.1 but specific detailing rules in cl 9.4.3 (see below) the BS gives all
the rules in cl 3.7.7.6

8.2. APPLIED SHEAR STRESS


8.2.1. GENERAL
EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.4.3(3)
The applied shear stress is:

Ed =

VEd
ui d

Where:
VEd
is the applied shear force

is a factor to take account of eccentricity of loading (common values are given


in EN 1992-1-1 Figure 6.21N
ui
is the length of the control perimeter
d
is the effective depth of the slab
BS 8110-1 cl 3.7.6.2

The BS defines a shear force at the perimeter:

Veff = Vt 1 +

1.5M t
Vt x

Where Vt is the design shear transferred to the column. Veff is additionally defined in
terms of a simplified case where all spans are loaded approximately equally.
Comparison
The Eurocode deals with stress and the BS with the action. The formulae are very
different between the codes but the results are essentially the same. The advantage of
the Eurocode method is that when the case is not simple a clear method is given for
calculating the stress based on the column proportions in orthogonal directions and
the unbalanced moment transmitted due to shear and bending. This is achieved by
calculating a precise value. The BS gives simplified rules for the calculating of the
comparative coefficient to be applied to Vt but does not define precisely what should
be considered approximately equal spans and gives the similar equations for
calculating the factor to be applied to Vt for unequal spans. The BS equations are
conservative and very generalist

8.2.2. VALUES OF (CONSERVATIVE VALUES FROM


DIAGRAM)
EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.4.3(6)
Where adjacent spans do not differ by more than 25% the values of may be taken
from EN 1992-1-1 Figure 6.21N
BS 8110-1 cl 3.7.6.2 & cl 3.7.6.3
In absence of precise calculations a set of common values for Vt are given on Figure
3.15.
Comparison
The simplified rules given figuratively are identical for internal and edge columns but
the Eurocode gives higher stresses for corner columns.

8.2.3. VALUES OF (USING CALCULATION METHOD)


EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.4.3(3)(5)
Methods are given for internal columns, edge columns, corner columns and columns
where the eccentricity is exterior to the slab. The methods are not well explained but
example equations are given for rectangular and circular internal columns and for
edge and corner rectangular columns.
BS 8110-1:1997
No such rules exist for the calculation of the factor to be applied to Vt
Comparison

The BS does not give any comparative method for calculating the factor for Vt. The
simplified rule is the only method given. The Eurocode is clearly superior in that
allows all design situations to be analysed.

8.3. CONTROL PERIMETERS


8.3.1. BASIC CONTROL
COLUMNS)

PERIMETER

U1

(INTERNAL

EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.4.2
The Eurocode states that the basic control perimeter is taken at 2d from the column
face.
BS 8110-1 cl 3.7.7.6
The shear capacity is checked on a perimeter 1.5d from the face of the loaded area.
Comparison
The Eurocode considers the equivalent vertical failure plane to be further away from
the face of the loaded area than the BS. This will result in slightly less force being
designed for. The reason the Eurocode has a different value is that the angle of shear
failure has been researched and empirically it has been shown to be closer to 2d than
1.5d.

8.3.2. OPENINGS
EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.4.2(3)
For openings exist in the slab within 6d of the loaded area, part of the control area will
be ineffective. The effect is shown in EN 1992-1-1 Figure 6.14
BS 8110-1 cl 3.7.7.7
For openings exist in the slab within 6d of the loaded area, part of the control area will
be ineffective. The effect is shown in BS 81101-1 Figure 3.18
Comparison
The codes agree exactly on the method of treatment however due to the control
perimeter being larger in the Eurocode there will be a slightly larger length of
perimeter excluded from resisting shear.

8.3.3. PERIMETER COLUMNS


EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.4.2(4)-(5)
The control perimeter for edge columns is at a distance 2d for the face of the loaded
area with radius of 2d for the corners. When eccentricity is towards slab interior a
reduced perimeter may be used.
BS 8110-1 cl 3.7.7.8
When the column is close to a free edge the perimeter may be taken as the lesser of
1.5d around the column of the distance to the free edge

Comparison
The BS uses 1.5d to define the perimeter, the Eurocode uses 2d. The Eurocode defines
an area with curved corners; the BS defines a purely rectilinear area. The principles
are otherwise the same.

8.3.4. ELONGATED SUPPORTS


Not Covered

8.3.5. COLUMN HEADS


EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.4.2(9)-(11)
Where column heads are provided and where the projection for the head from the
soffit is greater than twice the height of the head below the soffit critical sections both
within the head and the slab should be checked. Guidance as to the distance of these
perimeters is given in EN 1992-1-1 Figure 6.18. the distance is a function of a
diagonal failure plane of 26.60.
BS 8110-1 cl
No specific guidance is given
Comparison
The BS does not deal with this issue at all. The Eurocode approach is sensible and
clear.

8.4. PUNCHING SHEAR RESISTANCE


SHEAR REINFORCEMENT

WITHOUT

EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.4.3(2) & cl 6.4.4


Three shear definitions are used in the Eurocode:
Rd,c
Design shear resistance of a member without reinforcement
Rd,s
Design shear capacity of the shear reinforcement
Rd,max
Design value of the maximum shear before concrete crushing in
compression
Shear reinforcement is not needed if Ed < Rd,c (Rd,c Rd,max)
BS 8110-1 cl 3.7.7.2 & cl 3.7.7.4
The BS defines pure concrete shear resistance as 0.8fcu, and the maximum shear
resistance as 5 N/mm2.
Comparison
The shear resistance of the concrete alone is treated differently. The BS uses an
approximation to the shear resistance and maximum crushing resistance. The
Eurocode use a calculable method to determine these resistances. To calculate the
concrete shear resistance the value of tensile capacity of the concrete, which is given
in the NA. The equation is largely empirical as no consensus can be reached exactly

to the shear performance of concrete nor to the exact mode of failure. There is an
allowance for the beneficial effect of axial compression. This part of the equation may
be left out as a conservative approach.
The maximum shear transmitted, as given by the crushing capacity of the concrete, is
calculated considering an adjustment factor, v1, which takes into account the actual
stress distribution across the strut and takes into account cracking. For C30/37
concrete the value of the maximum resistance is 5.28 N/mm2. This is marginally
higher than the BS value. For higher concrete strengths the margin increases
significantly.

8.5. PUNCHING SHEAR RESISTANCE WITH SHEAR


REINFORCEMENT
EN 19912-1-1 cl 6.4.5(1)
Where shear reinforcement is to be provided it the area of steel needed should take the
concrete contribution into account. The area of steel is given by:
Asw =

( Ed 0.75 Rd ,c ) s r u1
1.5 f ywd ,ef

Where:
sr
fywd,eff
d
u1

is the radial spacing of perimeters of reinforcement (see EN 1992-1-1 9.4.3)


is the effective design strength of reinforcement (250 + 0.25d) fywd
is the mean effective depth
is the control perimeter considered

BS 8110-1 cl 3.7.7.5
Where shear reinforcement is required the BS makes s distinction between the case
where the stress is greater than 160% of the pure concrete resistance:
Asw =

5(0.7 c )ud
0.95 f yv

And the case where the stress is not greater than 160% of the pure concrete resistance:
Asw =

( c )ud
0.95 f yv

Comparison
The BS uses approximations to determine the effectiveness of the shear capacity of
the concrete which are conservative. The Eurocode while employing basically the
same principle is less conservative and will result in a lower requirement for steel area
to resist the shear unless the pure concrete resistance is very small.

8.6. PUNCHING SHEAR RESISTANCE ADJACENT TO


COLUMNS
EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.4.5(3)
Beside a column face the punching shear stress is limited to Rd,max (limited to 0.5fcd
by the UK NA) and is defined as:

Ed =

VEd
u0 d

Where:
u0
for an interior column u0 = length of column periphery
for an edge column u0 = c2 + 3d c2 + 2c1
for a corner column u0 = 3d c2 + c1
c1,c2 are the column dimensions (c1 is perpendicular to the free edge)
BS 8110-1 cl 3.7.6.4
The BS defines pure concrete shear resistance as 0.8fcu, and the maximum shear
resistance as 5 N/mm2. The stress at the column face must not exceed this
Comparison
The methods are very different. The BS version is simple but also very general. As the
Eurocode values are based on the strength of concrete the value allowed increases
with increasing strength. The Eurocode will give higher maximum resistances for
concrete above grade C20/25.

9. TORSION
9.1. GENERAL
EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.3.2
The design for torsion in concrete structures in EN 1992-1-1 utilises a model where
sections are considered to be thin walled connected structures. The Eurocode presents
a general method which is equally applicable to individual elements (beams, columns,
etc) and to global structures. The shear stress is established by considering an
enclosed effective area composed of elements of effective thickness.
BS 8110-2 cl 2.4.1 cl 2.4.1
The BS explains the general theory of torsion in text book detail. Ultimately the
method relies on the torsional rigidity of rectangular elements which are summated to
gain an overall rigidity.
Comparison
The BS and Eurocode agree on the approach exactly. The difference is that the BS
offers more information but is focused purely on beams. The Eurocode allows the
method to be applied to any concrete structure. The major application difference is the
effective thickness of the elements considered. The Eurocode gives a general outline

to be employed but is not definitive. The BS implies that the outside dimensions
determine the effective thickness; the smaller of the rectangular dimensions is the
effective thickness. Overall, the same theory has been used to create both codes.

9.2. TORSIONAL RESISTANCES


EN 1992-1-1 cl 6.3.2(3)
The Eurocode gives an expression to calculate the longitudinal reinforcement required
to resist torsion. The code does not specify a requirement for links. The calculation
involves the use of the angle of the compression strut. For members in bending this
will have been established for the truss model used to design shear. The Eurocode
always requires reinforcement to resist torsion there is no minimum value below
which reinforcement is not required.
A maximum shear allowed is TRd,max and is based on the maximum shear resistance
for the section which has an allowance for the degree of prestressing.
BS 8110-2 cl 2.4.7
The BS requires both links and longitudinal reinforcement to be provided. The
formulae are given for both directions of reinforcement and are in terms of the plan
dimensions. However the BS allows a minimum value of shear stress where
reinforcement is not needed, t,min.
There is no allowance for compression strut failure within the calculation as the shear
stress is restricted to the shear capacities which are common throughout the code of
0.8fcu, and 5 N/mm2.
Comparison
The BS relies on both steel directions. The Eurocode relies on longitudinal steel and
presumably employs the idea that the minimum links will be adequate to transfer the
shear between these bars and anchor them. The Eurocode limits the stress available to
a higher level than the standard BS conservative values of 0.8fcu, or 5 N/mm2. The
Eurocode always requires some reinforcement the BS does not necessarily.
On analysis of the formula used for both codes, which ultimately are similar, the
Eurocode will require the use of 20% less steel than the BS for a compression strut
angle of 450. For the maximum compression strut angle of 26.60. the Eurocode will
require 60% more steel than the BS. This is because the BS clearly considers the
compression strut to be 450, while also adding a 20% safety factor.

9.3. COMBINED TORSION AND SHEAR


EN 1992-1-1 cl
The Eurocode requires a summation to be applied to the shear and torsion components
of the stresses. The maximum value of the ratios of torsion and shear utilizations must
not combine to be greater than unity. As the maximum torsional resistance is based on
the maximum concrete shear resistance it can be guaranteed that the resistance of the
section is not compromised.

BS 8110-2
The BS makes no mention of concrete stress limits combined torsion and shear. The
codes simply allow the design of reinforcement for both aspects individually. The
limits on concrete shear capacity could be used in both cases, resulting in double
counting. The 0.8fcu, or 5 N/mm2 limit should not be utilised fully for both stress
calculations but the code allows this to happen.
Comparison
The Eurocode is correct to limit the design. It is not safe to make the torsional
utilisation and the shear utilisation both near to unity. The overall shear resistance of
the concrete compression strut must not be breached by the combination of both
stresses, the BS allows a situation where this could occur. The BS requires the correct
steel to be placed to deal with the combined stresses but does not check that no
concrete failure will occur as a result of this. The BS is unsafe in this instance.

10. SERVICEABILITY
10.1.INTRODUCTION
EN 1992-1-1 cl 7.1
The Eurocode has three categories of serviceability limit state:

Stress limitation
Crack control
Deflection control
BS 81101-1 cl 3.4.6 & cl 3.4.7
The BS has two categories of serviceability limit state:

Crack control
Deflection control
Comparison
Stress limitations have not existed in UK practice for concrete structures for over 30
years. This is when a move was made away from the permissible stress methodology
to that of limit state. For most practical purposes the limits on stress will be
automatically satisfied by compliance with the other parts of the Eurocode.

10.2.CONTROL OF CRACKING
EN 1992-1-1 cl 7.3.3 & cl 7.3.4
The Eurocode offers a calculation method and approximation method for the control
of cracks in concrete. The approximate method relies on the limitation of bar size
and/or bar spacing. Crack widths are restricted to 0.3mm for normal conditions and
0.2mm for prestressed conditions. The tables are based on the degree of stress
utilisation of the steel in the quasi-permanent loading arrangement.
BS 81101-1 cl3.4.7 & cl 3.12.11.2

The BS controls cracking by use of tables in part 1 and by a calculation method in part
2. The tables are the most commonly used approach. The table limits the crack to
0.3mm based on the steel grade and the amount of redistribution. The tables in the BS
provide a maximum bar spacing requirement.
Comparison
The principles behind the methods are similar. The Eurocode considers both bar
spacing and bar dimension but for loading cracks only one table need be satisfied. The
Eurocode requires the amount of steel stress to be calculated and as such is more
accurate than the BS which gives a worst case scenario. The tables do give very
similar results for the same design utilisations. The Eurocode will therefore give
slightly less stringent requirements for most designs as in these designs the steel will
not be fully utilised in the ultimate design state.

10.3.MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT AREAS OF MAIN


BARS
EN 1992-1-1 cl 7.3.2
The Eurocode gives a simple formula for calculating the minimum amount of
reinforcement required to control cracking. Even using very conservative values for
the parameters in the equation it is unlikely that any design would fail to provide the
minimum amount of reinforcement. The formula is based on the tensile strength of
concrete which is given in a table in section 3 of the Eurocode and the steel stress.
The Eurocode is not clear but it is best to limit the steel stress to that at the point of
crack formation (i.e. the quasi-permanent loading case) the code allows the use of the
full yield stress but this could result in not enough steel being provided for crack
control.
BS 8110-1 cl
BS 8110-1 Table 3.25 provides specific instances and specific percentages of
reinforcement in tabular form for both tension and compression in the members.
Comparison
Whilst the Eurocode provides a simple formula it is the case that it must be applied in
all instances as a check. The BS 8110-1 method more simply provides specific
percentages of reinforcement with no further check required. The Eurocode rules
could be adapted to produce a similar table to the BS using limiting stress scenarios,
this would of course, like the BS, be conservative.

10.4.MINIMUM AREAS OF SHEAR REINFORCEMENT


10.4.1.

BEAMS

EN 1992-1-1 cl 9.2.2(5)
The minimum shear reinforcement for beams is dealt with by virtue of a simple ratio,
which requires the steel ratio (Asw,min/sbw) to be greater than (0.08fck)/fyk.
BS 8110-1 cl

BS 8110-1 Table 3.7 provides three instances where a check for minimum areas
should be performed. It does state in Note 2 that minimum links should provide a
design shear resistance of 0.4 N/mm2.
Comparison
The Eurocode provides a formula to be used in all instances. BS 8110-1 cites specific
examples of low, medium and high shear with a formula. For medium shear (as
defined by the BS) the Eurocode requires higher percentages of steel reinforcement to
be provided. For high shear situations the BS is dependant on the shear stress applied
while the Eurocode is independent of it. This means that the BS may require more
reinforcement to be provided for very high applied shear stress.
The BS method is obviously more transparent. The Eurocode approach is
conservative in the low-mid shear situations and unscientific for high shear as the
minimum reinforcement is based solely on the concrete maximum shear stress. This
will be conservative if the maximum shear stress is not applied to the concrete.

10.4.2.

FLAT SLABS

EN 1992-1-1 cl 9.4.3(2)
The minimum shear reinforcement for flat slabs is dealt with by virtue of a simple
ratio, which requires the steel ratio (Asw,min/sbw) to be greater than (0.08fck)/fyk.
BS 8110-1 cl
BS 8110-1 states that if the applied shear stress is less than 1.6 c no shear
reinforcement is required. Where the applied stress is greater than 1.6 vc but less than
double its value links must be provided using an empirical formula which ensures a
high level of shear reinforcement (varying between 0.6 N/mm2 and 2 N/mm2). For
high shear greater than twice the pure concrete capacity specialist analysis is required.
Comparison
The Eurocode states that in the case where shear reinforcement is required for a
particular perimeter then the simple formula provided should be used. BS 8110-1 is
more stringent in that it stipulates that three separate conditions that must be
examined. It provides two equations for the less onerous situations.
The BS will require the provision of less reinforcement for situations where the
applied stress is less than 1.6c. this is because the Eurocode rates the minimum steel
on the maximum resistance of the concrete, however at low shear (i.e. <1.6c) the
concrete is not fully stressed and the Eurocode is effectively over-prescribing. For
high shear (i.e. <1.6c) the BS will always be conservative compared to the Eurocode
as the Eurocode will be based on an applied stress of 0.48 N/mm2 (for C30/37) to 0.62
N/mm2 (for C50/60) whereas the BS will be based on a range of 0.6 N/mm2 to 2
N/mm2.

10.5.DEFLECTION
10.5.1.

GENERAL

EN 1992-1-1 cl 7.4.2(1)

The Eurocode gives simple rules for span/depth ratio which provide adequate design
for most circumstances to prevent excessive deflections. More rigorous checks will be
required for designs which fall outside normal circumstances or where the deflection
limits are other than those implied in simple methods. The Eurocode is not specific
but it seems obvious that the limits are intended to allow for a deflection for span/250
as cl 7.4.1(4) states that when deflection due to quasi permanent loads exceeds
span/250 the utility of the structure may be impaired. For deflections that could cause
damage to after construction the span/depth ratio should be limited to span/500.
BS 8110-1 cl 3.4.6.3
The basic span/effective depth ratios are based on limiting deflections of span/250. A
further limit of span/500 or 20mm (maximum) is given for brittle finishes and areas
where damage to partitions may occur.
Comparison
Both codes base their simplified rules on span/250. The codes also agree that a more
onerous limit of span/500 should be employed when damage may occur due to
deflection. The BS imposes an additional deflection limit for this circumstance of
20mm. the Eurocode has omitted this condition but it will not contradict the design for
an engineer to adopt it, which is probably sensible. The Eurocode also fails to state
clearly what conditions must exist for the simplified rules to be valid, beyond normal
circumstances, this phrase is not clarified but it seems obvious that it means
span/250. therefore the table is not appropriate for designs which require the more
stringent span/250 limit.

10.5.2.

BASIC SPAN-EFFECTIVE DEPTH RATIOS

EN 1992-1-1 cl 7.4.2(2)
The Eurocode gives a table for maximum span/effective depth ratios. The table is
varied based on a degree of tensile reinforcement in the section. There are only two
options for stress high stress (reinforcement at 1.5%, and lightly stressed
(reinforcement less than 0.5%). But an expression is given for interpretation in
between. In addition the following extra rules apply:

For flat slabs where the span exceeds 8.5m the span/depth value from the table
should be multiplied by 8.5/leff
For other members where the span exceeds 7.0m the span/depth value from the
table should be multiplied by 7.0/leff
For flanged members where the ratio of rib breadth to flange breadth is less than
0.33 the span/depth value from the table should be multiplied by 0.8
When there is more tensile steel provided than needed the span/effective depth
ratio should be increased by the direct ratio
BS 8110-1 cl 3.4.6.3 cl 3.4.6.6
The BS gives a table for maximum span/effective depth ratios. The table is varied
based on whether or not the section rib breadth to flange breadth ratio is less than
0.33. In addition the following extra rules apply:

For members where the span exceeds 10.0m the span/depth value from the table
should be multiplied by 10.0/leff except for cantilevers when the value must be
calculated
When there is more tensile steel provided than needed the span/effective depth
ratio should be increased by a set of values given in Table 3.10
When there is more compression steel provided than needed the span/effective
depth ratio should be increased by a set of values given in Table 3.11
Comparison
The codes are essentially similar. The values for span/effective depth for lightly
stressed steel in EN 1992-1-1 are the same as the base values from the BS Table 3.9.
When the highly stressed values are used it is close to the value gained by multiplying
the worst value from Table 3.10 with the Table 3.9 value. The BS does however give
slightly higher ratios overall and therefore is slightly less conservative. The Eurocode
results in slightly deeper section requirements but only by a small percentage.
The Eurocode makes no allowance for compression reinforcement; the BS does make
an allowance. For realistic designs this means that the Eurocode will be significantly
conservative compared to the BS.
However the limits allowed in the BS will often be superseded by the design
requirements for ultimate state. It is theoretically possible to have a ratio of as much
as 60 in the BS. This is unacceptable and would not be a practical design.

11. PLAIN CONCRETE


11.1.GENERAL
EN 1992-1-1 cl 12.3.1(2)
The Eurocode states that the design compressive strength fcd,pl = ccfck/c and tensile
strength is fcd,pl = ctfctk,0.05/c where cc and ct are factors representing the ductile
property of concrete. In the UK annex the value is set to 0.6 (the recommended value
is 0.8) which means the strength is reduced by 30% compared to reinforced concrete.
BS 8110-1 cl None
No reduction in material strengths is proposed by BS 8110-1 but the values given for
design strengths are reduced instead in the relevant sections
Comparison
The Eurocode has addressed a form of design that is common in parts of Europe but
not common in the UK. BS 8110-1 does not deal with this and as such no comparison
can be made. However the BS does deal with it in the specific design criteria and as
such it is hidden from the reader. The Eurocode is more transparent.

11.2.BENDING AND AXIAL FORCE


EN 1992-1-1 cl 12.6.1(3)
The Eurocode gives guidance on the axial resistance of a rectilinear cross section
which may be taken as:

N Rd = f cd bhw (1 2e / hw )
Where:
fcd
= 0.6 x 0.85 fck/1.5
hw
is the wall depth
b
is the width of the wall
e
is the eccentricity of NEd in the direction of hw
BS 8110-1 cl 3.9.4.17
The BS gives an equation:
nw = 0.3( h 2ex ) f cu
Comparison
The Eurocode is more conservative as it gives an equivalent value of 0.272(h-2ex)fcu,
which is 10% lower than the BS value.

11.3.SHEAR RESISTANCE
EN 1992-1-1 cl 12.6.3
The Eurocode gives quite a complex method of determining the resistance in shear
and compression which is linked to the stress from the axial loading and the tensile
resistance of the concrete. The tensile resistance is the reduced value given in EN
1992-1-1 cl 12.3(2).
BS 8110-1 cl 3.9.4.16
The shear resistance need not be checked if the horizontal shear is less than quarter
the design axial force, or horizontal shear does not produce a shear stress in excess of
0.45 N/mm2.
Comparison
The Eurocode has addressed a form of design that is common in parts of Europe but
not common in the UK. BS 8110-1 does not give guidance on designing for shear but
merely states limits below which it can be ignored. The Eurocode gives a complex but
definitive method of assessing the shear capacity

11.4.BUCKLING RESISTANCE OF COLUMNS AND


WALLS
EN 1992-1-1 cl 12.6.5.2
A simplified method is presented in the Eurocode which involves determining the first
order eccentricity and the eccentricity due to imperfections (EN 1992-1-1 cl 5.2) the
effective height is required and in this case is derived from a table (EN 1992-1-1
Table 12.1). There are conditions under which this method can be used but generally
it can be used for most applications.
BS 8110-1 cl 3.9.4.2 & 3.9.4.3

A value is given for calculating the effective height which is highly conservative and
a limiting slenderness ratio of le/h 30.
Comparison
The Eurocode gives a calculable method whereas the BS simply states an ultimate
slenderness limit that may not be exceeded. The Eurocode method is much more long
winded but will give slightly less conservative answers.

11.5.SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES


EN 1992-1-1 cl 12.7
The overall depth of the wall should not be less than 120mm, and then no additional
checks need be made for serviceability state. Where significant chases or recesses
exist then a special analysis should be carried out.
BS 8110-1 cl 3.9.4.19 & 3.9.4.24
The BS states that if the rules given for ultimate limit state design are followed then
the serviceability criteria will be satisfied for deflection but that some reinforcement
may be needed for cracking
Comparison
Neither code has any particular mention of appropriate criteria

11.6.STRIP AND PAD FOUNDATIONS


EN 1992-1-1 cl 12.9.3
The Eurocode defines a relationship in terms of the depth of the foundation to the
projection from the column/wall face.
BS 8110-1 cl 3.11.3.4
The BS refers back to general punching shear sections of the code BS 8110-1 cl 3.7.6
but directs the reader to omit the shear reinforcement
Comparison
The Eurocode presents a fairly empirical formula which is designed to prevent
punching shear being a problem by effectively making the height of the base equal to
the projection from the wall/column face. BS 8110-1 requires punching shear to be
checked. The Eurocode method is simple but crude.