Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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 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).
2.3.2. 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.
2.4. 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.
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.
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.
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
4.6.2. 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)
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.
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.
4.6.10.
FIRE ENGINEERING
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.
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
(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.
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.
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.
Comparison
The two codes agree exactly on the calculation of the first order design moment.
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.
5.7.2. 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
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
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
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
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
Ed =
VEd
ui d
Where:
VEd
is the applied shear force
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
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.
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.
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.
WITHOUT
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.
( Ed 0.75 Rd ,c ) s r u1
1.5 f ywd ,ef
Where:
sr
fywd,eff
d
u1
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.