An Overview of the Eurocodes

Evolution Project
Steve Denton
FREng FICE FIStructE
Head of Civil, Bridge and Ground Engineering, WSP
Visiting Professor, University of Bath
Chairman, CEN/TC 250

2 May 2018
Oslo
500 000
Engineers
500 000 €65 Billion
Engineers
500 000 €65 Billion 10-58
Engineers
500 000 €65 Billion 5000
10-58
Engineers Pages
500 000 €65 Billion 5000
10-58 1055 NDPs
Engineers Pages
500 000 €65 Billion 5000
10-58 1055 NDPs
Engineers Pages

33
Countries
500 000 €65 Billion 5000
10-58 1055 NDPs
Engineers Pages

97
33 SCs/WGs/
Countries TGs
500 000 €65 Billion 5000
10-58 1055 NDPs
Engineers Pages

97
33 SCs/WGs/
€7.8
Countries Million
TGs
500 000 €65 Billion 5000
10-58 1055 NDPs
Engineers Pages

97
33 SCs/WGs/
€7.8 €11.5
Countries Million Million
TGs
500 000 €65 Billion 5000
10-58 1055 NDPs
Engineers Pages

97
33 SCs/WGs/
€7.8 €11.5 76 Project
Countries TGs Million Million Teams
500 000 €65 Billion 5000
10-58 1055 NDPs
Engineers Pages

97
33 SCs/WGs/
€7.8 €11.5 76 Project
Countries TGs Million Million Teams

25
Phase 1 PTs
500 000 €65 Billion 5000
10-58 1055 NDPs
Engineers Pages

97
33 SCs/WGs/
€7.8 €11.5 76 Project
Countries TGs Million Million Teams

25 22
Phase 1 PTs Phase 2 PTs
500 000 €65 Billion 5000
10-58 1055 NDPs
Engineers Pages

97
33 SCs/WGs/
€7.8 €11.5 76 Project
Countries TGs Million Million Teams

25 22 300+
Phase 1&2
Phase 1 PTs Phase 2 PTs
Contracts
500 000 €65 Billion 5000
10-58 1055 NDPs
Engineers Pages

97
33 SCs/WGs/
€7.8 €11.5 76 Project
Countries TGs Million Million Teams

25 22 300+ August
Phase 1&2
Phase 1 PTs Phase 2 PTs
Contracts 2018
500 000 €65 Billion 5000
10-58 1055 NDPs
Engineers Pages

97
33 SCs/WGs/
€7.8 €11.5 76 Project
Countries TGs Million Million Teams

25 22 300+ August
Phase 1&2 2021
Phase 1 PTs Phase 2 PTs
Contracts 2018
 Agenda

— Background
— Why Design Standards Matter
— Research into Design Standards
— Aims for the evolution of Structural Eurocodes
17

— Process and timing

— Future Challenges
 Agenda

— Background
— Why Design Standards Matter
— Research into Design Standards
— Aims for the evolution of Structural Eurocodes
18

— Process and timing

— Future Challenges
 My background

— Chairman of CEN/TC 250 Structural Eurocodes

— WSP’s Head of Civil, Bridge and Ground Engineering
— Visiting Professor at the University of Bath
— Advisor to Clients and Government
19
 CEN/TC 250 Structural Eurocodes

20
Background

“Like life in general our codes seem

to get more and more complicated.”
Background
If a designer -buil der has
designed -buil t a hom e for
a man and his work is not
good, and if the house he
has designed -buil t falls in
Historical evolution (*)
Publication of the 2nd
generation of Eurocodes
Publication of the 1st
generation of Eurocodes
Limit state design

No. of design standards

and kills the h ouseholder,
that d esigner-buil der
shall be slain Re-thinking of structural safety
concepts + Introduction of computers
Rule 229, Code of
Permissible stress approach
Hamm urabi
New mathematical theories of
materials and structural behaviour

Ten Books of
Architecture New
Code of (Vitruvius) construction
Hammurabi materials

2007

2020
~1850

~1926

~1945

~1970
~200 BC
~1750 BC

Years

(*) The graph is indicat ive

Background The Structural Eurocodes

Eurocodes European European

(EN1990 – EN1999) Product Execution
+ Standards Standards
National Annexes

European standards for construction

Non-contradictory
complementary
information

Client implementation and requirements

Support to the profession

 Agenda

— Background
— Why Design Standards Matter
— Research into Design Standards
— Aims for the evolution of Structural Eurocodes
24

— Process and timing

— Future Challenges
Why Design
Standards
Matter

Why do design
standards matter?
Why Design
Standards
Matter

Impact
Why Design
Standards
Matter

International trade
Why Design
Standards
Matter

Verification of adequacy
Why Design
Standards
Matter

Feedback
Why Design
Standards
Matter

New societal demands

Why Design
Standards
Matter

Research to application
 Agenda

— Background
— Why Design Standards Matter
— Research into Design Standards
— Aims for the evolution of Structural Eurocodes
36

— Process and timing

— Future Challenges
Research into
Design Research questions:
Standards
RQ: How can better design standards for the construction
industry be developed?

RSQ1: Which role do design standards currently fulfil in the construction

industry and are expected to fulfil in the future, particularly to meet needs,
interests and capabilities of users ?
RSQ2: What are the issues in the development and use of design
standards, what is their impact and how can they be managed?
RSQ3: What is a good design standard and what are its attributes
and/or components?
RSQ4: What practical steps can standards writers take to develop better
design standards?
Research into
Design
Number of research papers that address this
Standards question for the construction sector
Research into
Design
Number of research papers that address this
Standards question for the construction sector

1. ICE Debate, Moffatt and Dowling, 5

1981
2. IStructE Debate, Sunley and Taylor,
1982 4
3. Dibley 1990
4. SEI special issue “Codes of Practice
in Structural Engineering”, 2012
3

0
Research into
Design Challenges
Standards

From:
Angelino M (2017). Developing better
design standards for the construction
industry. Doctorate dissertation for the
University of Bristol, UK (to be
submitted)

Macro-environmental Hard
factors Soft Hard
(document
(external conten t)
(human
influences)
issues)
Research into
Design Challenges at different stages of standardisation
Standards
Stage Hard Soft Macro-environmental
(conten t) (human issues) (external factors)
•Balance betwee n advice and •Com peting nee ds of •Changes in th e constructi on
Development requirem ent s stakeholde rs industry
•Boundaries betwee n de sign •Subjectivity in the •Political aspects
standard s and oth er docum ents de velopm ent proce ss •Legal aspects
•Balance betwee n perform ance - •Unclear purpose of de sign •Social and cultu ral aspects
based and method -based standard s
requirem ent s •Economic aspects
•Users’ engagement
•Organi sation of content •Sustainability aspects
•Resources available
•Increase in technic al standard s •Users’ nee ds and pri mary •Contractual aspects
Use audience
•Cross-reference s among docum ents •Legal aspects
•Navigation betwee n technic al •Users’ skills and learning
provisions com ponent

•Length of de sign standard s

•Degree of com plexity of standard s
- - •Resources available
Maintenance
•Docum ent managem ent system
- •Subjectivity in the •Resources available
Derogation de rogati on proce ss
Research into
Design Impact
Standards Political
aspects
Unclear boundaries
between standards and
Limited users’
engagement
Subjectivity in the
development
Sustainability
of solutions
Contractual external documents process developed
aspects Unclear purpose of
design standards

Usage of the Competing needs

From: Legal
standard of stakeholders
aspects

Angelino M (2017). Developing better

Changes in the
design standards for the construction Navigation between construction industry
technical provisions
industry. Doctorate dissertation for the Structure-type
Users’ skills Development
and learning
University of Bristol, UK (to be
of the
standards component
standard Users’ needs and
submitted) Material-type Increase in primary audience
standards technical
standards
Usability Cross-references Intrinsic technical
of the among Inefficiencies in complexity
standard documents derogation
process
Unclear distinction
between advice
and requirements
Freedom
to design
Unclear
content
Long design
standards
Fully performance-
based requirements
Safety of for asset design Cost-
solutions effectiveness
Inefficiencies in
developed maintenance of solutions
process developed

Economic
Negative aspects
Method-based
Positive New technical
provisions
requirements

Either negative or positive Short design

standards

Simplified
technical
New innovative provisions
solutions

Rigorous technical
provisions
Research into
Design Challenges
Standards

From:
Angelino M (2017). Developing better
design standards for the construction
industry. Doctorate dissertation for the
University of Bristol, UK (to be
submitted)

Hierarchical structure of the text Network structure of the text

 Agenda

— Background
— Why Design Standards Matter
— Research into Design Standards
— Aims for the evolution of Structural Eurocodes
44

— Process and timing

— Future Challenges
Aims of the
Evolution of the
Eurocode
Aims of the
Evolution of the
Eurocode

✓ Enhanced
Ease of Use
Aims of the
Evolution of the
Eurocode

✓ Enhanced ✓ Exemplary
Ease of Use levels of
international
consensus
Aims of the
Evolution of the
Eurocode

✓ Enhanced ✓ Exemplary
Ease of Use levels of
international
consensus
Aims of the
Evolution of the CEN/TC 250’s vision on the second generation
Eurocode of the Structural Eurocodes

Whilst respecting the achievements of the past, our

vision for the second generation of Structural
Eurocodes is to create a more user-orientated suite
of design standards that are recognised as the most
trusted and preferred in the world.
Aims of the
Evolution of the CEN/TC 250 Position Paper on Ease of Use
Eurocode

Five pillars to enhance ease of use of the Eurocodes

Aims of the
Evolution of the CEN/TC 250 Position Paper on Ease of Use
Eurocode

Five pillars to enhance ease of use of the Eurocodes

Aims of the
Evolution of the Recommendation 1: Statements of intent to
Eurocode meet users’ needs

PRIMARY TARGET AUDIENCE DEFINITION

Competent civil, structural and geotechnical engineers, typically qualified

Practitioners – Competent engineers
professionals able to work independently in relevant fields
Aims of the
Evolution of the Recommendation 1: Statements of intent to
Eurocode meet users’ needs
CATEGORIES OF CEN/TC 250
EUROCODES’ USERS STATEMENTS OF INTENT

Practitioners – Competent engineers We will aim to produce Standards that are suitable and clear for all common
[Primary target audience] design cases without demanding disproportionate levels of effort to apply them

We will aim to produce Eurocodes that can be used by Graduates where

Practioners – Graduates necessary supplemented by suitable guidance documents and textbooks and
under the supervision of an experienced practitioner when appropriate

We will aim not to restrict innovation by providing freedom to experts to apply

Expert specialists
their specialist knowledge and expertise

Working with other CEN/TCs we will aim to eliminate incompatibilities or

Product Manufacturers
ambiguities between the Eurocodes and Product Standards

We will aim to provide unambiguous and complete design procedures.

Software developers
Accompanying formulae will be provided for charts and tables where possible

We will aim to use consistent underlying technical principles irrespective of the

Educators intended use of a structure (e.g. bridge, building, etc.) and that facilitate the
linkage between physical behaviour and design rules

We will endeavour to produce standards that can be referenced or quoted by

National regulator
National Regulations

We will continue to promote technical harmonization across European markets

Private sectors businesses
in order to reduce barriers to trade

We will produce Eurocodes that enable the design of safe, serviceable, robust
Clients and durable structures, aiming to promoting cost effectiveness throughout their
whole life cycle, including design, construction and maintenance

We will engage proactively to promote effective collaboration with those other

Other CEN/TCs
CEN/TCs that have shared interests
Aims of the
Evolution of the Recommendation 1: Statements of intent to
Eurocode meet users’ needs

CATEGORIES OF CEN/TC 250

EUROCODES’ USERS STATEMENTS OF INTENT

Practitioners – Competent engineers We will aim to produce Standards that are suitable and clear for all common
[Primary target audience] design cases without demanding disproportionate levels of effort to apply them

We will aim to produce Eurocodes that can be used by Graduates where

Practioners – Graduates necessary supplemented by suitable guidance documents and textbooks and
under the supervision of an experienced practitioner when appropriate

We will aim not to restrict innovation by providing freedom to experts to apply

Expert specialists
their specialist knowledge and expertise

Working with other CEN/TCs we will aim to eliminate incompatibilities or

Product Manufacturers
ambiguities between the Eurocodes and Product Standards

We will aim to provide unambiguous and complete design procedures.

Software developers
Accompanying formulae will be provided for charts and tables where possible

We will aim to use consistent underlying technical principles irrespective of the

Educators intended use of a structure (e.g. bridge, building, etc.) and that facilitate the
linkage between physical behaviour and design rules

We will endeavour to produce standards that can be referenced or quoted by

Aims of thePractioners – Graduates We will aim to produce Eurocodes that can be used by Graduates where

Evolution of the Recommendation 1:of Statements

under the supervision an experienced practitionerofwhenintent
appropriate to
necessary supplemented by suitable guidance documents and textbooks and

Eurocode Expert specialists meet users’ needs

We will aim not to restrict innovation by providing freedom to experts to apply
their specialist knowledge and expertise

CATEGORIES OF CEN/TC
Working 250other CEN/TCs we will aim to eliminate incompatibilities or
with
Product Manufacturers
EUROCODES’ USERS STATEMENTS OF INTENT
ambiguities between the Eurocodes and Product Standards

Practitioners – Competent engineers
Software developers
[Primary target audience]
Practioners – Graduates
Educators
Expert specialists
National regulator
We will aim to produce Standards that are suitable and clear for all common
We will aim to provide unambiguous and complete design procedures.
design cases without demanding disproportionate levels of effort to apply them
Accompanying formulae will be provided for charts and tables where possible
We will aim to produce Eurocodes that can be used by Graduates where
We will aim to use consistent underlying technical principles irrespective of the
necessary supplemented by suitable guidance documents and textbooks and
intended use of a structure (e.g. bridge, building, etc.) and that facilitate the
under the supervision of an experienced practitioner when appropriate
linkage between physical behaviour and design rules
We will aim not to restrict innovation by providing freedom to experts to apply
We will endeavour to produce standards that can be referenced or quoted by
their specialist knowledge and expertise
National Regulations

Working with other CEN/TCs we will aim to eliminate incompatibilities or

Product Manufacturers We will continue to promote technical harmonization across European markets
Private sectors businesses ambiguities between the Eurocodes and Product Standards
in order to reduce barriers to trade

We will produce Eurocodes

aim to provide that enable
unambiguous andthe design of
complete safe,procedures.
design serviceable, robust
Software developers
Clients and durable structures,
Accompanying formulaeaiming
will beto promoting
provided for cost effectiveness
charts throughout
and tables where their
possible
whole life cycle, including design, construction and maintenance
We will aim to use consistent underlying technical principles irrespective of the
Educators We will engage
intended use of proactively
a structure to promote
(e.g. bridge,effective
building,collaboration
etc.) and thatwith those the
facilitate other
Other CEN/TCs
CEN/TCs that have
linkage between shared
physical interests and design rules
behaviour

We will endeavour to produce standards that can be referenced or quoted by

National regulator
National Regulations
Aims of the
Evolution of the Recommendation 2: Principles and related
Eurocode priorities
General principles (primary)
1 Improving clarity and understandability of technical provisions of the Eurocodes
2 Improving accessibility to technical provisions and ease of navigation between them
3 Improving consistency within and between the Eurocodes
4 Including state-of the-art material the use of which is based on commonly accepted results of research and
has been validated through sufficient practical experience
5 Considering the second generation of the Eurocodes as an “evolution” avoiding fundamental changes to the
approach to design and to the structure of the Eurocodes unless adequately justified
Specific principles (secondary)
6 Providing clear guidance for all common design cases encountered by typical competent practitioners in the
relevant field
7 Omitting or providing only general and basic technical provisions for special cases that will be very rarely
encountered by typical competent practitioners in the relevant field
8 Not inhibiting the freedom of experts to work from first principles and providing adequate freedom for
innovation
9 Limiting the inclusion of alternative application rules
10 Including simplified methods only where they are of general application, address commonly encountered
situations, are technically justified and give more conservative results than the rigorous methods they are
intended to simplify
11 Improving consistency with product standards and standards for execution
12 Providing technical provisions that are not excessive sensitive to execution tolerances beyond what can be
practically achieved on site
Aims of the
Evolution of the Recommendation 2: Principles and related
Eurocode priorities

General principles (primary)

1 Improving clarity and understandability of technical provisions of the Eurocodes
2 Improving accessibility to technical provisions and ease of navigation between them
3 Improving consistency within and between the Eurocodes
4 Including state-of the-art material the use of which is based on commonly accepted results of research and
has been validated through sufficient practical experience
5 Considering the second generation of the Eurocodes as an “evolution” avoiding fundamental changes to the
approach to design and to the structure of the Eurocodes unless adequately justified
Specific principles (secondary)
6 Providing clear guidance for all common design cases encountered by typical competent practitioners in the
relevant field
7 Omitting or providing only general and basic technical provisions for special cases that will be very rarely
encountered by typical competent practitioners in the relevant field
8 Not inhibiting the freedom of experts to work from first principles and providing adequate freedom for
innovation
9 Limiting the inclusion of alternative application rules
 3 Improving consistency within and between the Eurocodes
Aims of the
4 Including state-ofRecommendation 2:
the-art material the use of which is based Principles
on commonly acceptedand
results ofrelated
research and
Evolution of the
Eurocode 5 Considering the priorities
has been validated through sufficient practical experience
second generation of the Eurocodes as an “evolution” avoiding fundamental changes to the
approach to design and to the structure of the Eurocodes unless adequately justified
Specific principles (secondary)
6 Providing clear guidance for all common design cases encountered by typical competent practitioners in the
relevant field
7 Omitting or providing only general and basic technical provisions for special cases that will be very rarely
encountered by typical competent practitioners in the relevant field
8 Not inhibiting the freedom of experts to work from first principles and providing adequate freedom for
innovation
9 Limiting the inclusion of alternative application rules
10 Including simplified methods only where they are of general application, address commonly encountered
situations, are technically justified and give more conservative results than the rigorous methods they are
intended to simplify
11 Improving consistency with product standards and standards for execution
12 Providing technical provisions that are not excessive sensitive to execution tolerances beyond what can be
practically achieved on site
Aims of the
Evolution of the CEN/TC 250 Position Paper on Ease of Use
Eurocode

Five pillars to enhance ease of use of the Eurocodes

 Enhancing Ease of Use

— Appointment of Technical Reviewer

— Detailed review of deliverables
— Development of TC 250 document
N1250 ‘Policy Guidelines and
Procedures’
60

— Provision of examples and advice

 Enhancing Ease of Use
— Guidance materials, examples and briefings developed

61
 Agenda

— Background
— Why Design Standards Matter
— Research into Design Standards
— Aims for the evolution of Structural Eurocodes
62

— Process and timing

— Future Challenges
Evolution European Commission Mandate M/515
process and
timing
Evolution CEN/TC 250 Technical response
process and
timing
• 138 pages
• Over 1000 experts from across
Europe involved
• Structure of tasks and sub-tasks
• Phased programme
Evolution CEN/TC 250 Work Programme Structure
process and
timing

SC / WG
Task 1 Sub-task
etc Sub-task
Sub-task
Sub-task
Task 2
Sub-task
Sub-task
Sub-task
Task n Sub-task

Sub-task
Sub-task
Sub-task
Sub-task
Evolution Detailed task plans
process and
timing
Evolution CEN/TC 250 Work Programme
process and
timing

• 76 tasks
• Four overlapping
phases of drafting
work
 timing
Evolution
process and

EN 1990

EN 1991

EN 1992
Key changes

EN 1993

EN 1994

EN 1995
Assessment

EN 1996
Robustness

Ease of use

EN 1997
Climate change

EN 1998

EN 1999

Glass

FRP

Membrane
Evolution Responding to systematic review comments
process and
timing

Mandate M515 Work

Programme

Evolution of Eurocodes
Eurocode Systematic
Review Comments
Evolution Drafting approach and further details
process and
timing

 Follow CEN Internal Regulations

 Specific information available in

CEN/TC 250 document N1250
[CEN, Eurocodes]

 Further details available in

Phase 1 call for experts
specification (Vol 3) [NEN,
Eurocodes 2020]
Evolution Drafting approach and further details
process and
timing

 Follow CEN Internal Regulations

 Specific information available in

CEN/TC 250 document N1250
[CEN, Eurocodes]

 Further details available in

Phase 1 call for experts
specification (Vol 3) [NEN,
Eurocodes 2020]
 Eurocodes started

1975
ENVs started
Timeline

Publication of ENVs

Conversion of ENV to EN

Publication 1st generation of the Eurocodes

1990 1992 1998 2007
 Eurocodes started

1975
ENVs started
Timeline

Publication of ENVs

Conversion of ENV to EN

Publication 1st generation of the Eurocodes

1990 1992 1998 2007

Programming Mandate

Response to Programming Mandate

Specific Mandate

Response to Specific Mandate

2010 2011 2012 2013
 Eurocodes started

1975
ENVs started
Timeline

Publication of ENVs

Conversion of ENV to EN

Publication 1st generation of the Eurocodes

1990 1992 1998 2007

Programming Mandate

Response to Programming Mandate

Specific Mandate

Response to Specific Mandate

2010 2011 2012 2013

Start PT Phase 1
2015

Start PT Phase 2
2017

Start PT Phases 3&4

End PT Phase 1

Target: First CEN Enquiry on draft standards

End PT Phase 2

End PT Phases 3&4

2018 2019 2020 2021
 Eurocodes started

1975
ENVs started
Timeline

Publication of ENVs

Conversion of ENV to EN

Publication 1st generation of the Eurocodes

1990 1992 1998 2007

Programming Mandate

Response to Programming Mandate

Specific Mandate

Response to Specific Mandate

2010 2011 2012 2013

Start PT Phase 1
2015

Start PT Phase 2
2017

Start PT Phases 3&4

End PT Phase 1
Prel iminar y plan

Target: First CEN Enquiry on draft standards

End PT Phase 2

End PT Phases 3&4

2018 2019 2020 2021

Target: Last standards made available to NSBs

2023

Date of withdrawal of 1st generation of Eurocodes

202x
 Objectives for CEN/TC 250 publication plan for
second generation of Eurocodes (1 of 2)

1. Ensure that we have a fully compatible suite of standards at all

times for use by industry.
2. Schedule enquiries and formal votes so that they do not place
an excessive burden on CEN members and their mirror
76
committees, and on SCs and WGs .
 Objectives for CEN/TC 250 publication plan for
second generation of Eurocodes (2 of 2)

3. Make new Eurocode parts available as early as possible, whilst

respecting interdependencies with other Eurocode parts.
4. Ensure that sufficient time is available for development of
National Annexes.
77

5. Ensure that sufficient time is available for removal of national

conflicting standards by NSBs and update of supporting
industry guidance material.
 0
work
Start PT

Drafting by PTs
(1st, 2nd and final draft)

2017
Informal

Phase 1 -
End of Oct
enquiry
3 months
by
PTs
3 months
Review

X
End
of PT

by
Review

“Y” months
SCs/WGs

X+Y
Translation
& editing
produced
Final draft

3.25 months
X+Y+3.25
CEN Enquiry
3 months
X+Y+6.25

Translation previous to
“Z” months
SCs/WGs

FV optional. If
comments by

necessary, 1,5 months

Consideration of

to be added
X+Y+Z+6.25
Formal vote
2 months
X+Y+Z+8.5 Date of Ratification (DoR)
Finalisation – 1 month after vote
X+Y+Z+9.25
2 months
EN 1991-1-5

Date of Ratification (DoR) – 1 month after

EN made available by CEN to NSBs (DAV)

Date of Announcement (DoA)

Date of Withdrawal (DoW)

Date of Publication (DoP)
SC1.T5
(recommendations

vote
produced in
Phase 1)

HGB.T1
(recommendations
produced in Final draft
Phase 1) standard
produced

Finalisation
CEN Enquiry
SC1.T4

Formal vote
Work at national level

Translation
& editing
Consideration

Editing
(draft standard Work on draft standards by (development of NAs and
of comments
developed in SCs/WGs time to update supporting
by SCs/WGs
Phase 2) industry guidance material)

SC1.T6
(clauses produced
in Phase 3)
 Start PT work End of PT +
sign-off of PT
work

Review of

Informal
enquiry
3 months
Drafting by PTs deliverables by
(1st, 2nd and final draft of the deliverables) PTs
3 months

Time (Months)
 Phase 1 drafts: Informal enquiry Over 9,200
comments received

Approximate No. of comments from informal

3000
2717

2500 2443

2000
enquiry

1500

81
1124

1000

505
448 400
500
297 245 269 293
230 214 238 226
108 142 91 138 130
7 17 1 6 48 7 14
0

Eurocode part
 X

“Y” months
SCs/WGs

from other PTs

Input / contributions
X+Y Work on draft standards by
Translation
& editing
standard
produced
Final draft

3.25 months
X+Y+3.25

CEN Enquiry
3 months
X+Y+6.25

Time (Months)
“Z” months

Translation previous to FV
Consideration of
comments on draft

optional. If necessary, 1,5

standards by SCs/WGs

months to be added
X+Y+Z+6.25
Editing
0.5 months Option to skip FV
X+Y+Z+6.75
Formal vote
2 months
X+Y+Z+8.75 Date of Ratification (DoR)
– 1 month after vote
X+Y+Z+9.75 Finalisation
2 months
X+Y+Z+10.75
EN made available by CEN
to NSBs (DAV)
 EN made available by CEN

Date of Announcement

Date of Withdrawal
Date of Publication
to NSBs (DAV)

(DoW)
(DoA)

(DoP)
Development of NAs
Time to update supporting industry guidance material
max. 12 months (see BT C46/2009)

Removal of national conflicting standards

max. 36 months, otherwise go to BT

X+Y+Z+46.75
X+Y+Z+13.75
X+Y+Z+10.75

X+Y+Z+22.75

Time (Months)
 • Detailed plan with
Publication plan interdependences
• Identification of slots for
undertaking CEN enquiries and
Formal Vote
• Management of NSBs workload
 Agenda

— Background
— Why Design Standards Matter
— Research into Design Standards
— Aims for the evolution of Structural Eurocodes
85

— Process and timing

— Future Challenges
Aims of the
Evolution of the
Eurocode

✓ Enhanced ✓ Exemplary
Ease of Use levels of
international
consensus
Aims of the
Evolution of the
Eurocode

✓ Enhanced ✓ Exemplary
Ease of Use levels of
international
consensus
Future
Challenges
The chairman shall do everything possible to
obtain a unanimous decision of the Technical
Committee. If unanimity on a subject is not
obtainable, the chairman shall try to seek
consensus rather than rely simply on a majority
decision.

CEN Internal Regulations -

Responsibility of the Chairman of a CEN TC
 Different perspectives Points of agreement
Issue /
fully understood noted and then
disagreement
(including underlying disagreement
identified
concerns) isolated

Options set out Decision taken based

(and refined) on options
Thank you

wsp.com