36 views

Uploaded by Paul Devine

Comparison of BS 8110 With en 1992

- Container Ship Guidelines - GL
- Gravity Dam
- Mom III Module 1
- Mom II Module 24
- water storage tank hydraulic design
- Stress Distribution 1
- 98
- 3_ESTATICA
- Elastic Stresses in Adhesive Single Joints
- Tutorial No. 2-Normal Stresses & Mechanical Properties
- Bending Deformation of Honeycomb Consisting of Regular Hexagonal Cells_chen2011
- Murphy Scaffold Plank Technical Guide
- Tasks
- Applied Elasticity - I
- 688 01 Aufgaben Nur Englisch
- ME IES 2014 Conventional Paper II
- Gravity Dam Design
- Factors Affecting Pavement Design
- Analysis Tie Rod
- fem15

You are on page 1of 40

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.

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).

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

Four design situations should be considered:

1. Persistent

(construction) or repair

3. Accidental this refers to exceptional conditions such as explosion or fire

4. Seismic

events

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.

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.

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.

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.

4.1. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

4.6.1. 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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

5.3.1. 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

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.

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.

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.

5.6.1. 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

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.

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.

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.

5.6.2.1. 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.

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.

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.

5.7.1. 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

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

6.1. 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

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.

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

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

K

z

x

As

If K > K

z

d 0.5 + 0.25

K

0. 9

0.95d

(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

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

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.

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:

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:

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

8.2.1. 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

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

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

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.

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.

8.3.1. 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.

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.

Not Covered

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.

SHEAR REINFORCEMENT

WITHOUT

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

10.4.1.

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.

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.

11.1.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.

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

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.

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

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.

- Container Ship Guidelines - GLUploaded byprohithgandhi
- Gravity DamUploaded byFarhat Javed
- Mom III Module 1Uploaded byWolf Lord
- Mom II Module 24Uploaded byWolf Lord
- water storage tank hydraulic designUploaded byjgarcia8899
- Stress Distribution 1Uploaded byBryan Ewe
- 98Uploaded byHuda Jawad
- 3_ESTATICAUploaded byjudarangoca
- Elastic Stresses in Adhesive Single JointsUploaded byErico Antonio Teixeira
- Tutorial No. 2-Normal Stresses & Mechanical PropertiesUploaded bywaleedkhalillahmed
- Bending Deformation of Honeycomb Consisting of Regular Hexagonal Cells_chen2011Uploaded byTanmoy Mukherjee
- Murphy Scaffold Plank Technical GuideUploaded byAbdul Hadhi
- TasksUploaded byLeila Araghian
- Applied Elasticity - IUploaded byshivam18
- 688 01 Aufgaben Nur EnglischUploaded bymile
- ME IES 2014 Conventional Paper IIUploaded byKrishna Pramod
- Gravity Dam DesignUploaded bycivengbridge64
- Factors Affecting Pavement DesignUploaded byEnd End
- Analysis Tie RodUploaded by78858799
- fem15Uploaded bychrissbans
- Gravity Dam DesignUploaded bygigiosss
- SLSMUploaded byMoh Bayo
- Cant SlabUploaded byinsane88
- 111 Sample ChapterUploaded byAnonymous bfbxnOaw
- Acad AdvisingUploaded byBryan Yu
- Heesakkers IIUploaded byDavid Aguilar
- Fea Ex 1Uploaded byAnshulGupta
- ERROR: Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design 10th EdUploaded byTim
- #Leonhardt & Walther Contribution to the Treatment of Shear in Reinforced ConcreteUploaded byYuliana Horis
- Fernandez 07 AUploaded byBatisxuta Michael

- AlsiUploaded byKimberly Sosa
- Failure of Rcc Structure PDFUploaded byRandi
- Amipox GRE Cal Manual Ws HiddUploaded byrasnowmah2012
- Instant Notes in Physical ChemistryUploaded bymjarteza
- IMPACT TESTUploaded byNathaniel Adam David
- JournalNX- Heat Pipe NanofluidUploaded byJournalNX - a Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal
- Compression Behavior of Cellulose EstersUploaded byswamysantoshkumar
- Study the Rheological and Mechanical Properties of PVAUploaded byiiste
- NaldaUploaded bySaalinraj Santharaj
- Experiment Mild Steel Fatigue TestUploaded byzaini mohd zin
- 50112384Uploaded byyasernaji
- NDT Structural SteelUploaded bytinz_3
- Geotechnical Engineering - Ed. 2 v1Uploaded byalistugui
- Boundary Element Formulation for the ClassicalUploaded byPaulo Cavalcante
- Composites Sheet Answers.pdfUploaded byEng Mahmoud Khairy
- Duplex Stainless Steel EN 1.4460.pdfUploaded bytien
- Surface Energy - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded byPresi Nkamba
- CHAPTER 1-3 Fluid MechanicsUploaded bygcytd65e756c56e765r
- JL-93-July-August Guidelines for the Use of Epoxy-Coated StrandUploaded byManishMokal
- Chapter 4. CyclonesUploaded byUzair Wahid
- Experimental Study on Static Shear Behavior of as Compared With Nsc BeamsUploaded byaihr78
- High voltage Breakdown GasesUploaded byRakesh Vasani
- Reaction_types+PerkinsUploaded byBárbaraCarrillo
- Understanding Specific Latent HeatUploaded byNoraidah Harun
- UC100x100x17 Design CalculationUploaded byWin Than
- Free and Forced Convection Lab ReportUploaded byMoWatts17
- 20MnVS6--Uploaded bybill
- Laser Light Dynamics Vol 2 - HakenUploaded byJuan Abner Castillo
- Phase Field ModelsUploaded byAndrea Infuso
- Two Phase Flow RegimesUploaded byjobingp