FINAL YEAR PROJECT 1

COMPREHENSIVE COMPARISON
BETWEEN BS8110 AND EUROCODE 2

NAME: MOHAMAD ZAHIR BIN ABDUL RAZAK

STUDENT ID: 2015887538
SUPERVISOR: MOHD AZUAN TUKIAR
 INTRODUCTION

The code of practice is intended to provide guidance to registered professional

engineers as to appropriate professional conduct or practice, set out the minimum
levels of professional conduct required to be met by registered professional engineers.

Building codes are essentially sets of safety regulations in respect of structure, fire,
and health. They were originally developed in response to frequently occurring
hazards of structural collapse, catastrophic fires, and the spread of disease. This
research will recognize the level of implementation of Eurocode 2 in Malaysia and
determine differences between BS 8110 and EC2.
 Eurocode: Basic of structural design
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures
Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and
concrete structures
Eurocode 5: Timber structures
Eurocode 6: Masonry structures
Eurocode 9: Aluminum structures
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
Eurocode 8: Design for structures for
earthquake resistance
BS 1192 Construction Drawing Practice
BS 1363 Mains Power Plugs and Sockets
BS 1852 Resistor Value Coding
BS 5750 Quality Management
BS 6930 Site Investigations
BS 5950 Steel Structure
BS 6879 British Geocodes
BS 8110 Design and Construction

Clause 1 Introduction to EC2
Clause 2 Basis of Design
Clause 3 Characteristics and behavior of materials
Clause 4 Durability and cover to reinforcement
Clause 5 Structural analysis
Clause 6 Ultimate limit state
Clause 7 Serviceability limit state
Clause 8 Detailing of reinforcement and prestressing tendons
Clause 9 Detailing of members and particular rules
Clause 10 Additional rules for precast concrete elements and structures
Clause 11 Lightweight aggregated concrete structures
Clause 12 Plain and lightly reinforced structures
Part 1 - Design objectives and recommendations on areas such as basic
design, structural design, analysis, loading and material properties.
Part 2 - Design objectives and general recommendation.
Part 3 - Design and detailing for reinforced concrete
Part 4 - Design and details for prestressed concrete
Part 5 - Structural design and details of precast and composite construction
Part 6 - Materials, specifications, concrete and construction
Part 7 - Specifications and workmanship for the reinforcement
Part 8 - Specifications and workmanship for prestressing tendons
 PROBLEM STATEMENT
i) What is the In Malaysia, the construction practices rely very much on the British Standard. The use of BS 8110, a design code
current situation for concrete structures is a very common among the engineers in our country. Malaysia has always used the British
Standards as the main source of reference.

ii) What is wrong -Without the updating in the British Standard, this give the rise of the issues of what alternative code of practice
with the current will the local practicing engineers refer to.
situation -If no action is taken, the local construction industry will face difficulty in competing against other countries in the
globalized.

iii) What needs -The practicing engineer shall be re-trained extensively in the use of Eurocode2.
more to be done? -IEM should continue conducts more practical and intensive Eurocode courses and seminars nationwide by
engaging practicing consulting engineers.
-Besides the education, intensive courses and seminar, the IT software industry would also require some time to
institute and to fine-tune the inclusion of Eurocodes as a design suite or package into their commercial software.
-Last but not least, are the mindsets of the engineering graduates when they are being churned out from
universities into industry. Eurocode are here to stay, and if these graduates want to be competitive not only in the
local practice but internationally, then it is sufficient for them to be well-versed in the adoption and application of
Eurocodes.
 RESEARCH QUESTION

1 2 3 4
What is the level of What are the strategy What are the What is the cost
implementation of needed to implement differences between impact in
Eurocode 2 among the Eurocode 2 in BS 8110 and Eurocode implementation
practicing engineers in Malaysia? 2? Eurocode 2?
Malaysia?
 HYPOTHESIS
Majorities of the construction professionals are already aware of the impending changes of BS 8110 to
Eurocodes 2. This seem logical as the period of 3 years of transition that suggested by BEM to KPKT already
end by 31 May 2017. They also are ready to adopt MS EN 1992 as the guideline for the design concrete
structure and many of them are able follow the guideline as they are adequately equipped in
facility/software to adopt MS EN 1992. However, more effort has to be put in order to ensure all practicing
engineer use EC 2.

A few strategies have been identified for successful implementation of Eurocode 2 in Malaysia. These
strategies cover many aspects which are the acceptance of Eurocode 2 by approving authority,
awareness campaign, education and training, research and development and the leader of
implementing Eurocode 2. All institution especially IEM, CIDB, JKR and SIRIM need to be more aggressive in
plotting strategies to ensure the EC 2 fully implemented in Malaysia.

Generally, EC2: Part 1 is broadly comparable to the existing British Standard, BS 8110 Part 1 and 2 [2--3].
Whilst BS 8110 is basically applicable to buildings, EC2 comprised of various parts and covers on the
different types of structures. Building is generally covered by EC2: Part I. EC 2: Part 1 can be distinguished
easily from BS 8110 in the way the chapters are described. The former contained chapters dealing with
beams, slabs, columns, etc. whereas, EC2: Part 1 has chapters on bending, shear, torsion, buckling etc. The
arrangement of chapters in EC2 is basically based on phenomena whilst BS 8110 uses element types
On the cost comparison for design of buildings using BS 8110 and Eurocode 2, for all practical process,
there is not too much difference between the two design.
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

1 2 3
To analyze the level of To determine the differences To analyze cost impact in
implementation of Eurocode between BS 8110 and EC2 implementation of EC2
2 among the practicing
engineers in Malaysia and
identify the necessary
strategies in implementing
Eurocode 2 in Malaysia
 1 2 3
Study the
differences
Conduct the
survey on
Study the design
of double storey
LIMITATION
between BS 8110
and Eurocode 2
engineer,
consultant, and
building and its
cost impact OF STUDY
contractor
 Able to analyze if the
Malaysian engineer are ready
to adopt EC 2 in their work and
we can identify the best
method or strategies that can
be implemented to make our
local engineer use EC 2

SIGNIFICANCE
OF STUDY By providing a sample of
design double storey house
and analyse cost impact in
implementation of EC2, it will
show the impact usage of EC2
in design concrete structure
RESEARCH GAPS
Design code of concrete

Comparison between EC 2 and BS 8110

A Comparative A Comparative Study on The Design Standardisation

Study of EC2 Study of BS 8110 Improvement Comparison Of Structural
and BS8110 And Eurocode 2 Code of of Different Design: A Shift
Beam Analysis Standards For Practices In Structural from British
and Design in Design Of A Structural Elements By Standards To
a Reinforced Continuous Design and using Different Eurocodes
Concrete Four Reinforced Material International
Storey Building Concrete Beam Specifications Codes

Level of
awareness on
Structural Design Eurocode 2
Design Design
design and concrete and cost
reinforcement concrete
material structure differences
concrete structure
structure specification

Shodolapo T.C. Nwofor Nurul Atiqah et Labani Nandi Faridah Shafii

Oluyemi et al, 2015 al, 2012 et al, 2014 et al, 2001
Franklina &
Kenneth Kwesi
Mensahb et al,
2011
METHODOLOGY Start

Conduct survey on
implementation of
EC2(fyp1)

Make comparisons
between Eurocode 2
and BS 8110(fyp2)

Design model of
structure(fyp2)

Analyse the cost impact

(fyp2)

Result and data

 Objective Description of Methodology

Objective 1 1) Questionnaire Survey

To analyze the level of The primary data collection of this research was based on the questionnaire survey. The questionnaire was design according to
implementation of Eurocode 2 the subject of awareness level of Malaysian construction professionals toward the changing of concrete design code. The
among the practicing questionnaires were also about to obtain respondents opinion toward the strategies of implementing Eurocode 2. The data
engineers in Malaysia and collection is classified as variability method which included rating and also ranking method.
identify the necessary The questionnaires were distributed to engineer all over states in Malaysia to get detailed data collection. The feedback from
strategies in implementing questionnaires was analyzed with using statistical method.
Eurocode 2 in Malaysia
2) Ranking method
To obtain respondents opinion in the ranking, the statement stated in the questionnaire survey. This method helps in comparing
the obtained information. In order to identify the degree of agreement of dominant content, the classification of rating scale
was used.

3) Telephone Interview and Online Survey

Telephone interview and online survey was used in this research in order to be cost effective. This way can eliminate travel time
of interviews. It is also a great possibility of reaching the customers all over the geography.

Objective 2 Literature Reviews

To determine the differences By review text of scholarly paper, the differences between BS 8110 and EC 2 are determined.
between BS 8110 and EC2

Objective 3 i. By designing a model of double storeys building using BS8110 and EC2
To analyze cost impact in
implementation of EC2 i. Extract out info on the quantity of material to be use to construct the building and estimate the cost based on the current
price of material.
SURVEY QUESTION
PART 2: KNOWLEDGE OF
EUROCODE 2
 PART 3: RESPONDENT OPINION
ACTION ON THE WITHDRAWAL OF BS 8110
RESPONSIBLE INSTITUTION IN LEADING IMPLEMENTATION OF EUROCODE 2 IN MALAYSIA

57.1% 57.1%
42.9%
28.6%
14.3%

71.4% 57.1%

28.6%
28.6%
14.3%
EDUCATION AND TRAINING

85.7%
71.4%

28.6%
14.3%

71.4%

28.6%
EXPECTED OUTCOME
Can create awareness among the practicing engineer and graduates in Malaysia about the
existence of Eurocode 2 and the need to use the latest design code for concrete structures.
Able to figure out the efficient strategies in implementing of Eurocode 2 in Malaysia
Able to determine the differences between BS 8110 and EC 2
Able to identify cost impact in implementation of EC 2
 GANTT CHART

ACTIVITY FYP1 FYP2

MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN

Discuss on the title of the final year project

Discuss the objective and questionnaire of the

topic

Discuss the methodology of the project

Discuss the progress of questionnaire

Discuss the proposal of fyp

Check the slide presentation FYP 1
 REFERENCES
Safii, F., Omar, W., Mohammad, S., & Makhtar, A. M. (2001). Standardisation of Structural
Design: A Shift from British Standards to Eurocodes. Jurnal Teknologi, 34(1).
doi:10.11113/jt.v34.632
Ir. Prof. Dr. Jeffry Chiang. (2015). Structural Eurocodes to Replace British Standards in
Malaysia
Labani Nandi M. Tech , Prof. Priyabrata Guha Narula. (2014). Design Comparison of
Different Structural Elements By using Different International Codes
T.C. Nwofor, S. Sule, D.B. Eme. (2015). A Comparative Study of BS8110 And Eurocode 2
Standards for Design of a Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beam
Nurul Atiqah Binti Ajis. (2012). Study on The Improvement Code of Practices In Structural
Design and Material Specifications: Degree Project
Ng Ming Kwong. (2007). The Strategy of Implementing Eurocode 2 In Malaysia. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia: Master Project.
Simon F. (2003). Eurocodesnews. Newsletter of Eurocodes Expert. The Construction.
Industrys Forum for Users of the New Structural Eurocodes: Issue 1.
Position Paper for Concrete Code of Practice in Local Construction Industry after 2008.
(2003). The Institution of Engineers Malaysia.
The Ingenieur Board of Engineering Malaysia. (2006). Vol. 31