Professional Documents
Culture Documents
British Comparison EC3 and EC4 381324
British Comparison EC3 and EC4 381324
Composite Buildings
Companion Document to
EN 1993 and EN 1994
On 5th May 2006 the responsibilities of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)
transferred to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete
Composite Buildings – 2005
Whilst this document provides practical guidance on the use of Eurocode BS EN 1993 and 1994
– Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Structures. It shall not be used for the design of
actual projects until both the Eurocode and its National Annex are published by the British
Standards Institution and approved for use by the First Secretary of State for England and
Wales.
It should be noted that the guidance has been based on the latest draft Eurocode
BS EN 1993 and 1994 available at the time of writing.
This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium
for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to
it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be
acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified.
Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply
for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp,
or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements
House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or email:
HMSOlicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
DCLG Publications
PO Box 236
Wetherby
West Yorkshire
LS23 7NB
Tel: 08701 226 236
Fax: 08701 226 237
Textphone: 08701 207 405
Email: communities@twoten.com
or online via the DCLG website: www.communities.gov.uk
January 2007
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 Steel Structures 8
1.2 Composite steel and concrete structures 9
1.3 Aim and scope of this publication 9
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES 54
APPENDICES 56
Appendix A – Eurocode clause reference tables 56
WORKED EXAMPLES 61
Anchored Sheet Pile Wall 62
Cantilever 83
Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall 90
Simply Supported Beam with Full Lateral Restraint 104
Simply Supported Beam with Lateral Restraint at the Load Points 111
Steel Driven Pile in Stiff Clay 119
Base Plate without Bending Moment 128
Simply Supported Beam with Full Lateral Restraint – Fire Limit State 134
Simply Supported Composite Beam – Fire Limit State 148
Partial Depth (flexible) End Plate Connection 157
Connections in Fire 176
Column in Simple Construction – Fire Limit State 186
Column with Axial and Bi-Axial Moments (Due to simple connection) 195
Simply Supported Steel and Concrete Composite Beam 210
Concrete Filled CHS Composite Column 223
Continuous Steel and Concrete Composite Beam 235
5
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
6
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The aim of this Companion Document is to provide UK designers with an overview of the
Eurocodes system, and with detailed information for the principal parts of Eurocode 3 and
Eurocode 4 namely:
Eurocode 3
Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings
Part 1-2 Structural fire design
Part 1-8 Design of joints
Part 1-10 Material toughness and through-thickness properties
Part 5 Piling
Eurocode 4
Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings
Part 1-2 Structural fire design
The scope of this document was developed in consultation with industry. It comprises:
The document focuses on guidance for buildings. Design guidance relating to bridges and
other civil engineering works is not considered. Where the Eurocode design guidance is the
same as that currently (late 2004) given in British Standards or there is little change between
the Codes no discussion has been included. To keep this document concise detailed design
guidance is not presented.
BRE and Buro Happold have made every effort to ensure the accuracy and quality of all the
information in this document when first published. However, they can take no responsibility for
the subsequent use of this information, nor for any errors or omissions it may contain.
© Queen's Printer and Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office
7
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
1 Introduction
• To establish a common set of design rules for buildings and civil engineering works to be
used across Europe.
• To remove the barriers to ‘free’ movement of products and engineering services between
European countries, by removing the obstacles caused by different nationally codified
practices for the assessment of structural reliability.
The emerging Eurocodes (ENs) have been developed following work undertaken to modify
the European Prestandards (ENVs). The ENVs were published with National Application
Documents in the early 1990s to allow Designers to undertake provisional designs and make
comments on their content. Unlike the Eurocodes the ENVs did not have the status of
European Standards.
Following a period of co-existence the current British Standards will be superseded by the
Eurocodes. These Eurocodes will be denoted as BS EN in the UK.
The Eurocodes can be considered to be divided into codes that provide fundamental
guidance for structural design (Basis of Structural design), guidance that may apply to all
designs (loads, geotechnics and seismic) and detailed guidance for structural materials (steel
concrete etc.).
1
It should be noted that while there is an ENV version of part 1-7 there may not be an EN
version of this part of Eurocode 3.
8
Introduction
This Companion Document focuses on the guidance given for buildings. Design guidance
presented in the Eurocodes relating to bridges and other civil engineering works is not
considered.
The main differences between the current British Standards (2004) and the Eurocodes 3 and
4 are discussed. Where the design guidance is the same or there is little change between the
Codes no discussion has been included.
The parts of Eurocode 3 and 4 that are covered by this companion document are:
Eurocode 3
Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings
Part 1-2 Structural fire design
Part 1-8 Design of joints
Part 1-10 Material toughness and through-thickness properties
Part 5 Piling
Eurocode 4
Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings
Part 1-2 Structural fire design
9
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
p g
2 Eurocodes System
The numbering system used by the structural Eurocodes is EN199#-#-#: ####. The 199#
number is not the publication date, but the number of the Eurocode. The second and third #
denote the part of the Eurocode. The year of publication is given after the Eurocode number
(####). Eurocode 3 part 1.1 is used here to illustrate the Eurocodes numbering system that
will be used in the UK, BS EN 1993-1-1:2004. The letters BS are added to the front of the
2
Eurocode number to show that it has been published by BSI and contains the UK National
title page, forward and annex.
The organisation of design guidance in the Eurocode system is different to the current British
Standards (BS) system. Safety, serviceability and durability design guidance for different
types of structures is presented in BS EN 1990 (Basis of Structural Design), the current BS
system presents this design guidance within each material code. Therefore a copy of Basis
of Structural Design is required for all designs performed using the Eurocodes. For both the
Eurocodes and current BS systems product standards are used with design codes. The links
between the different Eurocodes are shown in Figure 1.
Structural safety,
EN1990
serviceability & durability
2
British Standards Institute
10
Eurocodes System
The individual material Eurocodes are divided into parts. Part 1 gives general rules and rules
for buildings, Parts 2, 3 etc. give rules for other applications (bridges etc.). These ‘high level’
parts are divided into sub-parts.
In addition to the ‘inter-action’ between the materials codes and Basis of Structural Design the
parts of each material code may cross-reference each other. This is due to the Eurocodes
presenting guidance in only one place (i.e. rules are not repeated in several parts) and
subsequently referring to that clause in other parts of the Eurocode. In some cases parts of
different material Eurocodes may be referenced e.g. a part of EN 1994 (Composite Steel and
Concrete Structures) may reference a part of EN 1992 (Concrete Structures) or EN 1993
(Steel Structures).
Each part of a Eurocode published by a National Standards Authority will be divided into
distinct sections, these are:
The technical content of the EN main text and EN Annex(es) is the same across the whole of
Europe. Those sections and the EN title page make up the 'EN' document published by
3
CEN . The National Standards Authority (BSI in the UK) is responsible for developing and
publishing the National title page, National forward and National Annex. The addition of these
National sections in the UK makes the 'EN' document in to a 'BS EN' document.
Each part of a Eurocode will have an accompanying National Annex. These annexes will
contain information that should be referred to when designing a structure to be constructed in
that country. Therefore if a UK designer was designing a building to be constructed in France
they would need to refer to the French National Annexes for all the Eurocodes used during
design and not the UK National Annexes.
The National Annex will contain information on the values / methods that should be used,
where a national choice is allowed in the main text of the Eurocode. The national choices are
collectively referred to as Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs). NDPs may be given for
coefficient values, loads (both applied and self-weight) and where a choice in design
approach is given. The EN main text specifies recommended values / approaches, the
National Annex can either accept the recommendations given or specify different values /
approaches to be used.
The National Annex will state how / if the content of an Informative EN Annex may be used for
the design of structures to be constructed in that country. Information given in a Normative EN
Annex may only be altered by the National Annex if the EN text allows different rules / values
to be given in the National Annex. References may be given to separate documents that give
guidance to help with the design of a structure. Such guidance is known as Non-Conflicting
Complementary Information (NCCI) and may not be presented in the National Annex itself.
3
European committee for standardization
11
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
The numbering system used in the Eurocodes follows the International Organisation for
Standardisation (ISO) practice i.e. a comma is used in place of a decimal point.
Permanent actions include the self-weight of the structural and non-structural elements.
These self-weights are combined to form a single value for consideration during design
checks. Loads due to prestressing are also considered as permanent actions.
Variable actions are defined in Basis of Structural Design as ‘actions for which the variation in
magnitude with time is neither negligible nor monotonic.’ Loads considered as variable
actions include:
Accidental actions are caused by events that usually have a short duration but have a
significant effect. It is considered that such events have a low probability of occurrence
during the design working life of a structure. Accidental design situations that should be
considered include fire and explosion.
Some variable actions may be classed as accidental actions for design checks. These are,
snow, wind and seismic. The Eurocodes and National Annexes identify when they may be
considered as accidental actions.
Another difference in the terminology used is that the Eurocodes use the term "resistance"
rather than "capacity" when defining the value of the forces that can be resisted by an
element before it fails i.e. moment resistance, shear force resistance etc.
The term "execution" is used in the Eurocodes to define all the processes associated with the
erection of a building or civil engineering works. The term may be applied to both on and off
site processes.
Principles are generally denoted by the letter P following a clause number, e.g. 1.3(2)P.
Principles are ‘general statements and definitions for which there is no alternative, as well as,
12
Eurocodes System
requirements and analytical methods for which no alternative is permitted unless specifically
stated.’
Application rules are generally denoted by a clause number without the letter P, e.g. 1.3(2).
Application rules are ‘generally recognised rules which comply with the Principles and satisfy
their requirements.’ It is permitted to use alternative design rules in place of those given in
Application rules. However, it must be shown that the alternative design rules meet the
requirements of any relevant Principles. It must also be shown that the alternative rules
provide equivalent structural safety, serviceability and durability to that expected from the
Eurocodes. If a design is carried out using an alternative rule to that given in an Application
rule the design cannot be said to be wholly in accordance with the Eurocode. However, it can
be said that the design is in accordance with the Principles of the Eurocode. This may have
implications for CE marking.
The Eurocodes also use different terms to identify when a rule must be used or when an
alternative to that given can be used. When the term shall is used in a clause the rule must
be used (as for a Principle). If a clause contains the word should an alternative to that rule
can be used (as for an Application rule).
The majority of Eurocodes make the distinction between Principle and Application rules using
the notation discussed earlier. However of the Eurocodes considered by this Companion
Document, EN1993-1-1 (General rules), EN1993-1-2 (Fire design) and EN1993-1-10
(material toughness and through-thickness properties), do not currently (November 2004) use
the letter P to denote a Principle, instead only the term shall identifies a rule as a Principle.
EN1993-1-1 does present supplementary guidance for the design of steel buildings, denoted
by the letter B after the clause number e.g. 5.1.1(4)B.
13
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
Designers unfamiliar with using the Eurocodes should pay particular attention to the
difference in axes convention. This is particularly important when using section tables that
use the BS 5950 convention. Figure 2 shows the axes convention and notation used for a
universal beam section.
z
tf
r
y y d h
tw
z
b
Figure 2. Member axes convention and dimension symbols used in the Eurocodes
In contrast to the current British Standards the Eurocodes do not ‘hide’ the material partial
factors (γ ) This results in expressions appearing more complex, or different property values
( Mi).
compared with those currently used in the UK.
An example of expressions with an increase in the number of terms from the British Standard
to the Eurocodes is the resistance of a cross-section for uniform compression:
Af y
Nc ,Rd = For Class 1, 2 or 3 cross-sections
γM 0
Where: NcRd is the resistance of the cross-section for uniform compression (N)
2
A is the cross-sectional area (mm )
2
fy is the yield strength (N/mm )
γM0
M0 is the partial material factor for the resistance of the cross-section
14
General Design Issues
Table 1. Section properties with different symbols used in the Eurocodes and BS 5950
In addition to the section property symbols given in Table 1, symbols for other coefficients and
values differ between the Eurocodes and British Standards. Table 2 presents some Latin
upper case letters used in the Eurocodes to define actions and forces. The letters given in
Table 2 define a number of different terms within the British Standards therefore a direct
comparison can not be given.
Table 2. Examples of Latin upper case letters used within the Eurocodes to define actions
and forces
15
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
The symbols used by the Eurocodes can have long chains of subscripts. This appears
cumbersome at first, however with use this system will be found to help interpretation
because the subscripts result in symbols that are nearly self defining. The multiple subscripts
used in the Eurocodes have been assembled following the guidance given in ISO3898: 1987,
commas are used to separate the multiple subscripts. Examples of the use of multiple
subscripts in the Eurocodes are given in Table 3.
The structure and the content of the Eurocodes results in the following documents being
required for design:
• Eurocodes
o EN1990 – Basis of Structural Design
o EN1991 – Actions on Structures
o EN199# - Material codes (normally several parts will be needed)
o EN1997 & EN1998 – Geotechnical and Seismic design
• Textbooks, design guides or similar sources of information
• Product standards / manufacturers’ information
16
EN 1993 Steel Structures
The following sections highlight the main differences between the guidance given in Eurocode
3 and BS 5950.
The material properties for structural steels given in BS 5950: Part 1 [2] are based on the
properties given in the product standard BS EN 10025 [3].
The main difference between the properties given in the product standard and those given in
EC3-1-1 is that the simplified table in EC3 uses a reduced number of thickness steps. The
result is that for steel thickness between 16mm and 40mm and between 63mm and 80mm the
values given in Table 3.1 of EC3-1-1 are approximately 4% higher than those values given in
both BS 5950:Part 1 and BS EN 10025. Furthermore, Table 3.1 only gives values up to
80mm thick while BS EN 10025 gives values up to 250mm and BS 5950 Part 1 has a
maximum thickness of 150mm. The UK National Annex to EC3-1-1 may recommend the use
of the nominal values given in BS EN 10025 in place of those given in Table 3.1.
• fu/fy≥ 1.10
• Elongation at failure not less than 15%
• εu ≥ 15εy
Where:
fu is the ultimate strength
fy is the yield strength
εu is the ultimate strain
εy is the yield strain (fy / E)
BS 5950: Part 1 has a different approach. It states that the design strength py should not be
greater than Us/1.2 where Us is the minimum tensile strength Rm specified in the relevant
product standard (BS EN 10025). This limit applies to all grades of steel regardless of the
17
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
method used for global analysis. However when plastic global analysis is used the steel
grades must satisfy the following additional criteria:
• ffuu/fyy ≥ 1.20
1.20
• Elongation at failure not less than 15%
• εuu ≥ 20ε
20 y
A comparison of the above limits shows that the EC3-1-1 limits are less onerous that those
given in BS 5950: Part 1.
The reason for the differences in the two sets of recommendations has been difficult to
establish but the following comments on the development of the limits used in both BS 5950
and EC3-1-1 might be helpful in understanding the code writers' thinking.
The origin of the BS 5950: Part 1 rules was the old BCSA ‘black book’ 23 or 29 which
extended plastic design from BS15 steels (later grade 43 and now called S275) to BS968
steels (later grade 50 and now called S355). The 1969 amendment extended BS 449 to
grade 50 for elastic analysis. For the early draft of BS 5950 the issue of allowing plastic
design of grade 50 steel in the UK was considered. On the basis of specific tests it
seemed plastic design could be allowed with smaller b/t and d/t limits i.e. for more
compact sections. The use of a general rule to avoid having to test every new grade of
steel was investigated. Professor Horne was consulted and his view was that the only
way to be sure a steel was NOT alright would be if it failed specific tests, but that it was
possible to make an informed judgement about parameters that would help decide if a test
was even necessary. As a result of these discussions a set of rules specific to plastic
global analysis were developed which meant than any steel that satisfied them was
satisfactory. A steel that did not meet these criteria might also be satisfactory but specific
tests were needed to be certain it could be used for plastic global analysis.
The EC3-1-1 drafting panel had a wider definition of plastic analysis than that used in the
UK. Their understanding was that ‘plastic analysis’ or even ‘plastic design’ means not only
plastic global analysis but that using the plastic modulus of a class 1 or class 2 cross-
section is also ‘plastic analysis’. The wider definition may have contributed to the
difference in values given in EC3-1-1 and BS5950: Part 1 for the plastic analysis limits.
18
EN 1993 Steel Structures
If θcr is above these limits then the effects of deformed geometry (second order effects) can
be neglected and a first order analysis may be used. If θ cr is less than 10, or 15, then the
effects of the deformed geometry should be considered. This defines the boundaries, but
unlike BS5950: Part 1 EC3-1-1 does not use the terms ‘non-sway’ and ‘sway’ sensitive to
describe the frames.
The limit used for elastic analysis in BS 5950: Part 1 is identical to that used in EC3-1-1. The
only difference is that the limit in BS 5950: Part 1 is for clad structures where the stiffening
effect of the cladding is not explicitly taken into account when calculating the elastic critical
load factor. No such limitation is placed on the method given in EC3. Consequently, bare
steel frames designed using EC3-1-1 may be less stiff than those designed to BS 5950.
Unlike EC3-1-1, BS 5950: Part 1 includes two simplified methods for taking account of
secondary effects for the plastic design of multi-storey rigid frames and a separate method for
the plastic design of portal frames.
• System imperfections
An initial-bow imperfection is introduced in the design of braced bays and built up
compression members. In the case of bracing systems any additional deflections due
to the action of the bracing system in resisting externally applied forces also have to
be taken into account.
• Frame imperfections
These are introduced into the analysis of all frames in the form of an equivalent initial
sway. For convenience this can be replaced by a closed system of equivalent forces,
except when determining reactions onto foundations. The frame imperfections are
intended to account for the possible effects of other forms of imperfection which may
affect the stability of frames such as lack-of-fit.
• Member imperfections
These are introduced in the design of compression members through a series of
imperfection factors which represent an equivalent lack of straightness. The values of
the imperfection factors also account for the effects of typical residual stress patterns.
Local bow imperfections of members, in addition to global sway imperfections, should
be included in the global analysis of frames that are sensitive to second order effects.
While BS 5950: Part 1 does not disallow this method of analysis system, frame and member
imperfections are not explicitly included in the standard. An allowance is made for them
within the buckling curves given in BS 5950: Part 1.
19
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
Another feature of EC3-1-1 is the introduction of two additional checks for members with open
cross-sections subject to compression. These checks are for the torsional and torsional-
flexural buckling of members in compression. The methods use the same base equations
used for flexural buckling but with the non-dimensional slenderness λ replaced by either the
non-dimensional slenderness for torsional ( λ T ) or torsional-flexural buckling ( λ TF ). These
parameters can be used to determined either χT or χTF and either the elastic torsional flexural
buckling force or the elastic torsional buckling force of the member. EC3-1-1 does not include
guidance on how to calculate these two parameters and the designer must rely on an
appropriate textbook.
The method used in BS 5950: Part 1 is different and is based on a modified Perry-Robertson
expression. A full description of this method is given in Annex B of BS 5950: Part 1.
The main difference between these two methods is that while BS 5950 is based on the
calculation of the equivalent slenderness , λLT, EC3-1-1 requires the designer to evaluate the
elastic critical moment for lateral-torsional buckling (Mcr) as an intermediate step before
calculating the non-dimensional slenderness ratio , λ LT . This is the traditional way of
evaluating λ LT but unfortunately EC3-1-1 does not include data for the evaluation of Mcr.
Designers must therefore rely on an appropriate textbook.
Furthermore, EC3-1-1 contains two methods for calculating the lateral torsional buckling of a
member. These are:
The second method has been calibrated against test data and has been shown to give
reasonable results for rolled sections. The calibration also showed the method to be
unsatisfactory for welded sections. It is therefore suggested that designers use the general
case for welded sections and the specific method for rolled sections. However, the UK
National Annex (once published) should be referred to for guidance on which method to use.
The second method includes a correction factor to allow for the shape of the bending moment
diagram. This correction factor is in addition to the equivalent uniform moment factors used
to allow for the differences between a uniform moment and the actual moment distribution
along the beam.
20
EN 1993 Steel Structures
All the fire parts of the structural Eurocodes are designed to be used with the fire part of the
Eurocode for Actions (EN1991-1-2 [6] hereafter referred to as EC1-1-2). The thermal actions
(either nominal or parametric) are taken from this document and the resulting thermal and
mechanical analysis undertaken using the principles and design methods detailed in EC3-1-2.
21
Figure3: Design Procedure EN1993-1-2
22
Project Design
23
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
4.3.1 Definitions
EC3-1-8 starts by defining the different components that constitute a steel joint and makes a
clear distinction between a connection and a joint. This can be confusing for UK designers
who generally use the words joint and connection interchangeably to describe the junction
between two steel members. In EC3-1-8 the word connection is used to define the location
at which two or more elements meet, while the word joint is used to define the zone where
two or more members are interconnected. Therefore a beam-to-column connection is the
interface between the flange (or web) of the column and the end of the beam, and includes all
the components (bolts, welds, end-plate, column flange etc) required to transfer the internal
forces from the beam to the column. The joint however is the assembly of all the basic
components which play a part in the behaviour of the configuration. For example, a single-
sided beam-to-column joint consists of a connection and a column web panel. It is important
that UK designers recognise this distinction as it is used throughout the standard.
In the BCSA/SCI publications the design resistance of a group of fasteners is taken as the
sum of the design resistances of the individual fasteners.
This difference in approach may cause problems for flexible end-plates. The current
approach in the UK often means that the top bolts are designed for bearing failure and the
remaining bolts for shear. Because the EC3-1-8 rules do not allow mixed modes of failure the
capacity of the bolt group according to the Eurocode philosophy would often be based on the
number of fasters multiplied by the design bearing resistance of the top bolts. Clearly this
may significantly reduce the apparent shear capacity of flexible end-plate connections and in
some cases may result in an increase in the number of bolts needed.
24
EN 1993 Steel Structures
the joint classification. Table 4 gives details (note that some of the terminology used in the
Eurocode has been slightly modified for clarity).
Although the relationship between type of framing, method of global analysis and joint
requirements (represented by their classification) has been known for some time, its inclusion
in a major structural code is new and some explanation of its use is required.
Simple frame design is based on the assumption that the beams are simply supported and
that the beam-to-column joints are sufficiently flexible and weak to restrict the development of
significant beam end-moments. In continuous framing the type of joint used will depend on
the method of global analysis. When elastic analysis is used the joints are classified
according to their stiffness and rigid joints must be used. When plastic analysis is used the
joints are classified according to their strength and full-strength joints must be used. When
elastic-plastic analysis is adopted then the joints are classified according to both their stiffness
and strength and rigid, full-strength joints must be used.
Semi-continuous frame design recognises the fact that most practical joints possess some
degree of both stiffness and moment resistance. When elastic analysis is used the joints are
classified according to their stiffness and semi-rigid joints should be used. If plastic global
analysis is used the joints are classified according to their strength and partial-strength joints
should be used. When elastic-plastic analysis is used the joints are classified according to
their stiffness and strength, and semi-continuity could be achieved in a number of ways (see
Table 4).
The traditional UK approach of classifying a joint only recognises two types (pinned and rigid)
and it is relatively straightforward to use engineering judgement to choose between these.
For an extended system, such as the one used in EC3-1-8, the structural properties of a joint
may need to be quantified in order to classify it. EC3-1-8 includes methods for doing this, and
it is the inclusion of these methods that constitutes the biggest difference between the design
of joints to the Eurocode and the traditional methods used in the UK.
By comparing the quantified stiffness of a joint against the limits given in EC3-1-8 it can be
classified as pinned, rigid or semi-rigid. Similarly a joint can be classified by comparing its
quantified moment resistance with limits for pinned, full-strength or partial strength joints. A
fuller description of a joint’s behaviour can also be obtained by classifying it using both
stiffness and strength. Such a classification leads to joints which are pinned, rigid/full-
strength, rigid/partial strength and semi-rigid/partial-strength.
One problem that this may cause is that joints which have traditionally been taken as pinned
or rigid may not be pinned or rigid under the new classification system. This situation is
complicated by the fact that the Eurocode not only gives guidance on calculating stiffness and
strength (for some joint types), but clause 5.2.2.1 also allows classification on the basis of
‘experimental evidence’ or ‘experience of previous performance’. Clearly the results of these
three approaches for a given joint may not always agree. This could prove problematical if
25
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
checking authorities require designers to demonstrate that a joint is pinned or rigid, and could
lead to increased design time and/or changes to the UK’s commonly used joints.
To establish the stiffness boundary between rigid and semi-rigid joints the relationship
between joint stiffness and the Euler buckling load for a single-bay, single-storey frame was
investigated [11]. It was decided that a semi-rigid joint can be considered as rigid provided
the difference between the Euler buckling load for a single-bay, single-storey frame with semi-
rigid joints and the Euler buckling load of a similar frame with rigid joints was less than 5%.
By adopting this approach a classification method based on the rigidity of the connected
beam was developed. While such a system is easy to use it has attracted criticism, some of
which is detailed below:
• When compared to the stiffness limits given in some national standards the limits in EC3-
1-8 appear to be conservative.
• The classification system given in EC3-1-8 can be applied to any steel structure but as
the limits have been determined on the basis of a single-bay, single-storey frame the
accuracy of its application to multi-bay, multi-storey frames is questionable.
• The stiffness boundaries between joint types have been determined on the basis of the
ultimate limit state and on the assumption that a difference of 5% between the
performance of a frame with rigid and semi-rigid joints is small and can be neglected.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the differences at serviceability limit states,
where displacements of the structure are more important, are equally small and can be
neglected. Clearly, when deriving classification criteria both serviceability and ultimate
limit states should be considered.
26
EN 1993 Steel Structures
EC3-1-8 incorporates a method for calculating the stiffness of a bare steel joint based on work
initially carried out by Zoetemeijer [12] and more recently by Jaspart [13 & 14]. This method
uses the component approach in which the rotational response of the joint is determined from
the mechanical properties of the different components (end-plate, cleat, column flange, bolts
etc.). The advantage of this approach is that the behaviour of any joint can be calculated by
decomposing it into its components.
The stiffness of each joint component is represented by a linear spring with a force-
displacement relationship. Tables are included in EC3-1-8 which give expressions for
evaluating the stiffness of the different components. The combined effect of the components
is determined by considering each spring, with an appropriate lever arm, to give a rotational
stiffness.
EC3-1-8 gives a number of practical rules for checking the rotation capacity of a joint. These
rules are based on the above sources of ductility for bolted joints and entail checking that the
critical mode of failure is based on one of the above components.
TEd md++ ∆
= TTmd
Ed = TTr + ∆T+σ +T∆T
r +T R +R +T∆T
+ε +T∆T
cf εcf
Where
md isisthe
TTmd theminimum
minimum service
service temperature
temperaturewithwithaaspecific
specificreturn
returnperiod,
period,given
given in EN
in EN1991-1-5
1991-1-5
∆TTrr isisananadjustment
adjustment for
for radiation
radiation loss, obtained from EN 1991-1-5
loss, obtained from EN 1991-1-5
∆TTσ isisthetheadjustment
adjustment for stress
stress and
andyield
yieldstrength
strengthofofmaterial,
material,crack
crackimperfections
imperfections andand
member shape
member shape and
and dimensions,
dimensions,given
givenininENEN1993-1-10
1993-1-10
∆TTRR isisaa safety
safety allowance,
allowance, ifif required,
required,totoreflect
reflectdifferent
differentreliability levels
reliability for for
levels different
different
applications, obtained from EN 1993-1-10
applications, obtained from EN 1993-1-10
∆TTε isisthetheadjustment
adjustment for
for a
a strain
strain rate
rate other
otherthan
thanthe
thereference
reference strain rate,
strain obtained
rate, obtainedfrom EN
from
1993-1-10
EN 1993-1-10
∆Tε is the adjustment for the degree of cold forming, defined in EN 1993-1-10
T cfcf is the adjustment for the degree of cold forming, defined in EN 1993-1-10
Elastic analysis should be used to determine the stress at the reference temperature. The
maximum element thicknesses given in Table 2.1 of EC3-1-10 relate to three levels of stress,
27
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
0.25fy(t), 0.5fy(t) and 0.75fy(t). Where fy(t) is the nominal yield strength adjusted for the
thickness of the element.
The current UK guidance gives maximum thickness values for minimum temperatures of
-5°C, -15°C, -25°C, -35°C and -45°C. The minimum temperature of -5°C for internal
steelwork given in BS 5950: Part 1 relates to the temperatures experienced during
construction, when it is vulnerable to brittle fracture. The values given in EC3-1-10 consider a
wider range of temperatures, +10°C to -50°C in 10°C intervals. Interpolation between the
values is allowed, but extrapolation beyond the extreme values given in the table is not
permitted.
The minimum temperature used in BS 5950: Part 1 and the reference temperature (TEd) of
EC3-1-10 are not equivalent to each other. The minimum temperature used in BS 5950: Part
1 is similar to the minimum service temperature with a specific return period (Tmd).
Maximum element thickness values are given for different steel grades in both codes,
although more steel grades/types are considered in BS 5950: Part 1. Table 5 gives the steel
grades/types considered in both standards. Comparing the steel grades covered by BS 5950:
Part 1 and EC3-1-10 it appears that no allowance has been made in Table 2.1 of EC3-1-10
for the steel grades used for hollow sections. EC3-1-10 allows the use of fracture mechanics
for a numerical evaluation. Therefore this method may be used for the steel grades used for
hollow sections.
Table 5. Material property standards for which maximum element thicknesses are given in
BS 5950: Part 1 and EN 1993-1-1
Material property standards for which maximum element thicknesses are given in standards
BS 5950: Part 1 EN 1993-1-1
S275 to S460 steel grades S275 to S690 steel grades
BS EN 10025 BS EN 10025
BS EN 10113 BS EN 10113
BS EN 10137 BS EN 10137
BS EN 10166
BS EN 10210
BS EN 10219
BS7668
A note to clause 2.2(5) of EC3-1-10 allows the National Annex to ‘give maximum values of the
range between TEd and the test temperature and also the range of σEd Ed,, to which the validity of
values for permissible thickness in Table 2.1 may be restricted.’ A further note to this clause
allows the National Annex to limit the use of Table 2.1 for steel grades up to S460. The UK
National Annex to EC3-1-10 is currently under development and no comment can be made at
this time on the values that may be included in it.
28
EN 1993 Steel Structures
To check if lamellar tearing may be ignored EC3-1-10 requires the ‘available design’ and
4
‘required design’ Z-values to be compared. The available design Z-value is given in BS EN
10164 [16]. The required design Z-value is obtained from coefficients given in EC3-1-10
relating to weld depth, shape and position of welds, material thickness, restraint of shrinkage
and influence of preheating. BS 5950: Part 2 [17] states that ‘the material shall be tested for
through-thickness properties to the specified quality class in accordance with BS EN 10164.
The inclusion of the Z-value check in EC3-1-10 may result in designers having to perform this
check for every welded joint in a structure. Currently in the UK only joints identified as being
at risk from lamellar tearing are checked. EC3-1-10 allows the National Annex to limit the
scope of section 3 to ‘certain steel products’. This may be used in the UK National Annex to
limit the Z-value checks to specific types of welded joints.
• Steel piled foundations of civil engineering works on land and over water
• Temporary or permanent structures necessary for the execution of steel piling
• Temporary or permanent retaining structures composed of steel sheet piles, including all
kinds of combined walls.
Guidance for steel piles filled with concrete is also included in EC3-5.
EC3-5 contains an annex giving detailed rules for the design of cold formed pile sections and
combined walls. These areas have not previously been dealt with in UK guidance.
Current UK standards do not contain an equivalent code to EC3-5. BS 8002 [19] is basically
a geotechnical code that requires input from BS 5950: Part 1 to allow the design of steel piles.
Current SCI documents cover some aspects of UK steel pile design. However, the guidance
given in these documents does not give the detail required for a ‘full’ design, and it only
applies to simple structures.
EC3-5 introduces some new concepts to the traditional UK design process, these include:
The checks on shear in a sheet pile wall, which are perhaps covered ‘by inspection’ in current
practice need to be formally assessed, as do shear buckling and combined moments, shear
and axial loading. Many of these checks will require section data and it is likely that either
data sheets giving member capacities or the basic geometric information will be provided by
the sheet pile manufacturers. The effects of water pressures on the structural design are also
to be taken into account (which is a new concept for UK designers), and specific rules for the
transfer of shear in the interlocks of piles and its effect on the strength and stiffness of pile
4
Z-value is the transverse reduction of area in a tensile test of the through-thickness ductility
of a specimen, measured as a percentage
29
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
sections are included. This issue is addressed qualitatively in BS 8002 but is covered in more
depth in EC3-5, as it has a much higher profile outside the UK. Compared with current UK
practice EC3-5 deals more formally with combined-walls and cellular structures, as well as
high modulus walls.
Conflicting views have emerged within the UK industry on the implementation of EC3-5.
These views have emerged because of the significant differences in scope and approach
between current UK practice and the Eurocode system. One of the major areas for concern is
the effect that a move from lumped factor design to a partial factor approach will have on
design requirements. This is compounded by changes in the specific calculations that are
required to satisfy the new code. There are situations where formal calculations are now
required which would previously have been dealt with by inspection in the UK. There is also
concern that these design changes may make designs less efficient, or effective, compared
with current UK practice.
One of the most difficult areas to assess is the effect that the plastic design rules will have on
the design process as there is little or no experience with these design rules within the UK.
The design calculations need to consider the situation at all stages in the life of the structure
and if the proposed section has appropriate parameters, the wall can be designed on the
basis of plastic section properties and moment redistribution. This assumes that the pile
section is capable of sustaining a moment of resistance as the pile rotates plastically and this
ability may change with the amount of corrosion that the section has sustained. This may be
accepted practice in structural designs but the response of soil when the system is at or
approaching plastic conditions is not understood.
There is reference made to EN 12063, the standard covering site activities which goes into
significantly more detail than current British Standards on some aspects of site work (i.e.
welding).
One potential area of conflict with current UK methods is the fact that there is no overt
difference between the requirements for temporary and permanent construction. This was
previously dealt with by allowing increased stress levels in temporary works piling (BS8002:
1994 [19]) and not considering corrosion on the section properties. Under the new rules there
will be no change in stress, which may be a retrograde step in some minds.
30
EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures
The main differences between the design guidance given in Eurocode 4 and BS 5950 are
discussed in this section.
EC4-1-1 provides design guidance for some types of element not common in the UK, such as
partially encased concrete beams, composite columns in buildings, high strength structural
steels and composite joints together with various methods of continuous beam design and the
detailing of the continuous joints.
5.1.1.1 Concrete
Unless given in EC4-1-1, concrete material properties must be obtained from EN1992-1-1
[21] (hereafter referred to as EC2-1-1) for both normal weight and lightweight concrete.
However, EC4-1-1 does not cover the design of composite structures with concrete grades
lower than C20/25 or higher than C60/75. EC4-1-1 therefore extends the range of concrete
strengths compared to those available in BS 5950.
The classification for normal weight concrete used in the Eurocodes system (Cx/y) gives the
2
cylinder strength (x) and the cube strength (y) in N/mm . The design strengths used in the
Eurocodes are based on the cylinder strengths and not the cube strengths, so care should be
taken by designers to use the correct value.
Research has shown that to prevent premature concrete crushing some design rules should
2
be modified for steels with strength greater than 355N/mm . Such modifications have been
2
incorporated into EC4-1-1 so that it can cover steels with strengths up to 460N/mm .
31
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
It is suggested that this increase in internal forces may be neglected if the increase in forces
due to second-order effects is less than 10% of the forces determined in first-order analysis.
The Eurocode also states that if second-order effects in individual members and relevant
member imperfections are fully accounted for in the global analysis of the structure, individual
stability checks on the members (such as lateral torsional buckling presumably) are not
necessary.
This is in contrast to BS5950 where there is no specific requirement to consider the increase
in internal forces due to second-order effects but individual stability checks are required.
An additional Principle stated is that appropriate allowances must be made for creep and
cracking of concrete and for the behaviour of joints when determining the stiffness of the
structure.
Part 3, BS5950, uses a slightly different approach where the specific effects of concrete creep
do not have to be considered provided that material values given are used when calculating
the modular ratio.
The effects of concrete cracking are considered in BS5950, where the cracked section
method is used to determine member stiffness for elastic analysis, although the un-cracked
section is used to calculate deflections.
Equivalent geometric imperfections should be used unless the effects of local imperfections
are included in the member resistance design formulae. EC4-1-1 gives values of initial bow
imperfections for composite columns and whilst there are no specific imperfection
requirements for beams, EC4-1-1 incorporates the effects of imperfections within the formulae
for the buckling resistance moment of laterally unrestrained composite beams. A similar
approach is adopted in the current British Standard. The designer should refer to EC3-1-1 for
the effects of global imperfections and for the formulae for buckling resistance of steel
members, which also incorporate the effects of member imperfections.
No specific requirements for dealing with member or global imperfections are outlined within
BS 5950: Part 3.
32
EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures
Allowance must also be made for shear lag. This is achieved for continuous beams by using
an effective width of slab. In much the same way as in BS 5950: Part 3, EC4-1-1 outlines a
number of provisions for determining the effective width of concrete slab, with the total
effective width for the sagging portion of a beam (noted as beff1 in EC4-1-1) being the familiar
Le/4 but no greater than the geometric distance between the beam centres.
EC4-1-1 does not give separate values of effective slab width for slabs spanning
perpendicular to and parallel to the supporting beam. A subtle distinction between the two
cases is given in BS 5950: Part 3, where the effective width of a slab spanning parallel to the
beam is limited to 0.8 times the beam spacing.
In contrast to BS 5950: Part 3, EC4-1-1 makes allowance for the shrinkage of concrete, in the
serviceability limit state, as well as cracking of concrete, creep, the sequence of construction
and any pre-stressing.
The effects of creep are dealt with using the modular ratio for short-term loading modified by a
creep coefficient depending upon the age of the concrete at the moment considered, t, and
the age at loading, t0, and a creep multiplier which can be used to account for the effects of
concrete shrinkage. In practice, the effects of curvature due to shrinkage of normal weight
concrete may often be ignored (see clause 7.3.1(8), EC4-1-1 for details). This is a little
different to the approach used in BS 5950: Part 3, where the modular ratio is determined
considering the proportion of long-term to short-term loading.
In common with BS 5950: Part 3, EC4-1-1 considers the effects of cracking on the flexural
stiffness of composite beams in two ways.
Involved Method – An initial “un-cracked analysis” is carried out assuming the un-cracked
stiffness, EaI1, throughout. In areas where the extreme fibre tensile stress
in the concrete is twice the concrete strength, the stiffness of the section is
reduced to the cracked flexural stiffness, EaI2. An updated distribution of
internal forces is then determined by re-analysis, termed the “cracked
analysis”.
Simple Method – The effect of cracking can be modelled by taking a reduced flexural
stiffness over 15% of the span on each side of each internal support, with
the un-cracked flexural stiffness taken elsewhere. This method may be
used for continuous beams where the ratio of the adjacent spans
(shorter/longer) is greater than or equal to 0.6.
The more complicated method given in BS 5950: Part 3, is basically the same as the simple
method given in EC4-1-1, where a cracked section is assumed over 15% of the span on each
side of each internal support, with the un-cracked section assumed elsewhere.
The simplified method given in the BS 5950: Part 3 involves carrying out an elastic analysis,
assuming all members are un-cracked. The resulting negative moments over the supports
and at mid-span can then be re-distributed in accordance with guidance given in Table 4 of
BS 5950: Part 3, which effectively models the reduced stiffness of the member over the
supports. EC4-1-1 also allows some limited redistribution, in accordance with Table 5.1, with
both cracked and uncracked analysis for buildings, for the verification of all limit states other
than fatigue.
33
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
the effective area of the structural steel is stressed to its design yield stress, fyd, in either
tension or compression and the effective area of concrete in compression resists a stress of
0.85fcd (which is constant over the whole depth between the plastic neutral axis and the most
compressed fibre of concrete). The value fcd is the design cylinder compressive stress which
is determined according to the following expression (given in EC2-1-1):
Where: αcc is a coefficient that takes account of long term effects on compressive stress and
unfavourable effects due to the way the load is applied
fck is the cylinder compressive stress
γC is the concrete partial factor
EC2-1-1 allows the relevant National Annex to specify a value for αcc, however, the guidance
given in EC4-1-1 has been developed using αcc equal to one. Therefore where fcd is given in
EC4-1-1 it represents fck / γC. See reference [23] for further discussion on this topic. In
principle, this is exactly the same approach as that taken in BS 5950: Part 3. However, the
concrete cube compressive stress is used with the material safety factor included in BS 5950:
Part 3. Therefore in BS 5950: Part 3 the concrete is assumed to resist a stress of 0.45fcu over
the whole depth between the plastic neutral axis and the most compressed fibre of concrete.
In keeping with the other Eurocodes, EC4-1-1 does not give any guidance for the
determination of the effective or equivalent span, LE.
EC4-1-1 outlines limits on the degree of shear interaction required, including the requirement
that full shear interaction is attained when the effective span is greater then 25m. The
minimum degree of shear interaction for spans less than 25m is determined based upon the
yield stress of the steel section and effective span and should always be greater than 0.4.
BS 5950: Part 3 gives similar guidance, but stipulates that full shear interaction is required
when the span is greater than 16m, and shear interaction must be greater than 0.4 for spans
up to 10m. For intermediate spans the minimum degree of shear interaction is given by the
simple equation (L-6)/10 ≥ 0.4.
The vertical shear strength is based on that of the bare steel section in exactly the same way
as BS 5950: Part 3.
EC4-1-1 refers the user to EN1990 A1.4.4 for criteria reflecting to the dynamic properties of
floor beams. Unlike BS5950, stress limits under construction loading are not given (these
need only be checked if fatigue is a consideration).
EC4-1-1 states that the effect of cracking of concrete in regions subject to hogging moments
should be taken into account by adopting appropriate global analysis methods. This is in
contrast to BS 5950: Part 3, where the gross uncracked section is used when calculating
deflections.
Although no specific procedures are stated in EC4-1-1, the effects of creep must be included
when calculating deflections. It is therefore necessary to consider relevant values of the
modular ratio when calculating the equivalent second moment of area of the gross section
and distinguishing between shorter term and long term loading. This effect is covered in BS
34
EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures
5950: Part 3, by the use of an effective modular ratio, for the proportion of total loading that is
long term.
EC4-1-1 does not make allowance for increased deflections in beams with partial shear
interaction (provided the degree of shear interaction is above 0.5). This is in contrast to BS
5950: Part 3, where the deflection of a beam with partial shear interaction is increased from
that with full interaction, based upon the degree of shear interaction provided. EC4-1-1 does
not provide any guidance on the procedure to be used if the shear interaction is between 0.4
and 0.5.
In general, the methods outlined in EC3-1-1 (discussed in section 4.1.8) can be adopted
when checking the lateral torsional buckling resistance of the steel section during
construction, and EC4-1-1 outlines a method applicable to composite beams with uniform
cross-sections classified as Class 1, 2 or 3. This method basically decreases the composite
moment resistance of the section using a reduction factor based on the relative slenderness
of the section, λLT
LT..
EC4-1-1 also outlines some detailing rules which can be used to prevent lateral torsional
buckling. These include ensuring that adjacent spans do not differ in length by more than
20%, the top flange of the steel section is connected to a reinforced concrete or composite
slab which is in turn connected to another member approximately parallel to form an inverted
U frame, and by laterally restraining the bottom flange of each member and stiffening the web
at each support. No such advice is presented in BS 5950: Part 3.
EC4-1-1 covers the design of composite columns and composite compression members with
concrete encased sections, partially encased sections and concrete filled rectangular and
circular tubes. It should be noted that EC4-1-1 only covers isolated non-sway columns in
frames where all other structural members within the frame are also composite or steel. The
Eurocode considers elements constructed with grade S235 to S460 steel and with normal
weight concrete with grades between C20/25 and C50/60. It should be noted that the upper
concrete strength limit is less than that for other design guidance contained within EC4-1-1.
EC4-1-1 provides two methods for the calculation of the resistance of composite columns; the
General Method and the Simplified Method.
General Method – This takes explicit account of both second-order effects and
imperfections. The method is relatively complex and requires the use of
numerical computational tools. Whilst EC4-1-1 includes a description of
the processes to be considered it does not include detailed rules for the
general method. It is not covered at all in BS 5400.
35
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
Simplified Method – This can be applied to a doubly symmetric member with a uniform cross-
section over its height. The method makes use of the European buckling
curves for steel columns, which implicitly take account of imperfections.
1. There is full interaction between the steel and concrete sections until failure occurs
2. Geometric imperfections and residual stresses are taken into account in the calculation
3. Plane sections remain plane whilst the column deforms.
In summary, the vertical shear resistance of the joint is assumed to come solely from the steel
components and is therefore calculated in accordance with the guidelines outlined in EC3-1-
8. The design moment resistance (with full shear connection) is calculated using the
provisions of EC3-1-8 but taking account of the contribution of the slab reinforcement in
tension (where the top row of reinforcing bars in tension may be treated in a similar manner to
a bolt-row in tension in a plain steel joint).
The moment capacity of the joint is calculated assuming the effective area of longitudinal
reinforcement in tension is stressed to its design yield stress, fsd, and the effective area of the
bottom flange of the beam and part of the web etc. in compression to its design yield strength,
fyd.
As with the design of a composite beam the effective area of concrete in compression resists
a stress of 0.85fcd, constant over the whole depth between the plastic neutral axis and the
most compressed fibre of concrete.
A similar approach is adopted in BS 5950: Part 3, with the concrete cube compressive stress
being used. The concrete is assumed to resist a stress of 0.45fcu over the whole depth
between the plastic neutral axis and the most compressed fibre of concrete. BS 5950: Part 3
recommends that the lever arm should not exceed 0.9 times the effective depth of the slab to
the centroid of the steel sheet. In addition, the concrete stress block should not exceed 0.45
times the effective depth of the slab to the centroid of the steel sheet. There is no such
limitation outlined in EC4-1-1.
An important point to note is that the most usual mode of failure of a composite slab is by
longitudinal shear, which can be difficult to predict theoretically. As such, composite slab
36
EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures
EC4-1-2 is not applicable to uncommon material grades, such as concrete grades lower than
C20/25 and higher than C60/75 and LC60/75. EC4-1-2 provides design guidance for some
types of element that are not common in the UK, such as partially encased concrete beams
and composite columns.
• Tabulated data
• Simple calculation models
• Advanced calculation models
37
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
The tabulated design data is provided for some structural types which are not easily
addressed by simplified calculation methods. They are not common types of construction in
the UK. The following elements are included:
Columns
• Composite columns comprising totally encased steel sections
• Composite columns comprising partially encased steel sections
• Composite columns comprising concrete filled hollow sections.
Note: The tables only cover the case where columns at the level under consideration are fully
continuous with the columns above and below, and the fire is limited to only a single storey.
The simple calculation models provided in EC4-1-2 are more akin to the concept adopted for
BS 5950 Part 8. However, EC4-1-2 recommends additional checks which include vertical
shear resistance, combined bending and vertical shear and longitudinal shear resistance on
composite beam design. Similar checks for other elements such as column and slab
members are also given.
EC4-1-2 provides recommendations for size, arrangement and detail of composite beams
with concrete encasement, composite columns and beam to column joints, to achieve various
fire resistance. This is to ensure composite action during fire exposure and the transmission
of the applied forces and moments in the beam to column joints. The recommendations fall
into the following categories:
Such recommendations are not given in BS 5950: Part 8 although many of them are good
practice and can be accommodated within typical construction details in the UK. One
recommendation which does not fall into this category is clause 5.2 (2) which relates to
partially encased composite beams and recommends a maximum cover of 35mm. It is not
unusual to have 40mm cover in reinforced concrete design in the UK. However, concrete
encased composite beams are not a common form of construction in the UK.
When determining the sagging moment resistance the contribution of the steel deck is
included in the EC4-1-2 method. This design philosophy differs from that currently used in
the UK’s Fire Engineering approach, where the contribution of the steel deck is not included
when determining the sagging moment resistance of a composite floor at elevated
temperatures. The steel deck contribution is excluded from the UK method as it is fully
exposed to the fire which causes the strength of the deck to decrease as it becomes hot.
Observations from real fires in the UK (Broadgate, Basingstoke, etc) and observations from
38
EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures
standard fire tests show that considering the deck and concrete to act compositely during a
fire may be unconservative. However, the simple method currently used in the UK is based
on tests and will therefore include a component representing the deck.
Annex D of EC4-1-2 is an Informative Annex this allows each National Annex to specify how it
should be used within that country. It is envisaged that the UK National Annex may not allow
the use of Annex D in the UK.
39
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
An initial difference UK designers will find when using the Eurocodes (in comparison with the
current British Standards) is that the Eurocodes set out Principles and Application rules for
design rather than providing detailed calculation procedures. Due to this approach
information that is considered to be ‘textbook’ information is not included in the Eurocodes.
Currently the British Standards include this type of information, therefore UK designers will
need to be prepared for this change.
UK designers will find that when designing to the Eurocodes an increased number of design
standards are required. This is due to the Eurocode system not reproducing guidance once
it has been presented in another part of a Eurocode, it only refers back to earlier guidance.
This issue was discussed in section 2.
For some design checks / approaches UK designers will have to become familiar with new
calculation methods. Initially this may lead to increased design time whilst designers become
familiar with the new checks. Areas where new design checks / approaches are given in
Eurocodes include:
• Fire design of steel members subjected to combined bending and axial compression
The Eurocode method is more complex than the current British Standard.
• Determination of the design resistance of bolts in shear and tension, and the design
resistance of welds at elevated temperatures.
Not currently covered in British Standard.
• Steel and concrete composite columns.
The current British standards do not include guidance for composite columns in
buildings.
• Steel and concrete composite connections.
The current British standards do not include guidance for composite connections.
However, there is a BCSA/SCI composite connections publication [10].
• Classification of connections.
More complex system in Eurocodes than current British Standard.
• Through-thickness checks at welded connections.
Eurocode requires more checks to be undertaken than current British Standard.
It is considered that the more complex design checks in EC3-1-8 for connections may result
in designers placing more reliance on computer software. This is due to the checks for
design moment resistance and rotational stiffness of a connection being complex and time
consuming and not suitable for hand calculations.
The Eurocodes, unlike the current British Standards, permit the adoption of novel forms of
construction provided that the design principles of the Eurocodes are maintained. This gives
UK designers greater structural design ‘freedom’ compared with the British Standards.
However, current Building Regulations do not require structural designs to be fully compliant
with British Standards, but they must show how the Building Regulation requirements are
meet. Any designs to the emerging Eurocodes would need to demonstrate compliance with
the requirements of the Building Regulations.
Whilst there might be an increase in design effort in the initial years, the development of
design aids and designers' familiarity with the Eurocodes will reduce this in the future.
40
Design Route Maps
This section presents route maps for the design of some structural elements to assist the
designer in becoming familiar with the layout of the guidance given in the Eurocodes. The
route maps do not consider all types of structural elements, as it is considered such guidance
will be provided in design guides.
Column Page 44
To supplement the information given in the route maps Appendix A contains tables that
reference clause numbers within the Eurocodes for the design topics considered in this
Companion Document.
41
42
High level design overview route map
Ambient temperature design Fire limit state design Robustness design checks Foundation design
Combination of actions
BS EN 1990 Table A1.2(B)
No
Section Classification
Table 5.2
No
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
43
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
Factors γGG&&γQQBS
Partial Factors BS
EN 1990 Table
TableA1.2(3)
A1.2(3)
Combination of actions
BS EN 1990 Table A1.2(B)
No
Material strength prEN10025-3
(Product standard)
Materialpartial
Material factors ψMiMi Clause
partial factors Clause 6.1(1)
6.1(1)
Class 4
Class 3 web,
with class 1 Calculate effective cross-section
or 2 flanges. properties Clause 6.2.2.5
Calculate MEd due to any change
Calculate effective in centroid location.
web properties Change in centroid location
Clause 6.2.2.4 determined following method given
in BS EN 1993-1-5
Continuedon
Continued onpage
page 45
45
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
44
Design Route Maps
From page 45
From page
From 44
44
–
Calculateslenderness
Calculate slendernessfor
forflexural
flexural buckling
buckling (λ)
( Clause 6.3.1.3
) Clause 6.3.1.3
–
Is λ 0.2 or
Yes
NEd –
λ 0.04
Ncr
No
Flexural Select buckling curve from Table 6.2
buckling
check
Obtain imperfection factor from Table 6.1
Class 4
–
Account for λ MEd using interaction
given in Clause 6.3.4 or 6.3.3
Is the cross- No
section open?
Yes
Calculate Slenderness for torsional and flexural-
– –
torsional buckling ( λ T or λTF ) Clause 6.3.1.4
Textbook required to determine Ncr,T and Ncr,TF
– –
to calculate ( λ T or λ TF )
– – –
Repeat flexural buckling checks, replacing λ with λT or λ TF and with χ T or χ TF
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
45
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
Yes
More than one Combination
Combinationcoefficients
coefficients(ψ( i) i)
variable action? BS
BS EN
EN1990
1990Table
TableA1.1
A1.1
No
Calculate the shear connector resistance to Clause 6.6.3.1 and determine the
actual degree of shear connection, η , to Clause 6.6.1.
Sufficient shear
studs to ensure full
Yes shear interaction? No
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1994-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
46
Design Route Maps
Yes Combination
Combinationcoefficients
coefficients(ψi)
More than one BS EN 1990 Table A1.1A1.1
( i) BSEN1990 Table
variable action? No
Calculate the shear connector resistance to Clause 6.6.3.1 and determine the
actual degree of shear connection, η, to Clause 6.6.1.
Sufficient shear
studs to ensure full
Yes shear interaction? No
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
47
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
Yes
Combination
Combinationcoefficients
coefficients(ψi)
More than one
BS
( iEN 1990 TableTable
) BSEN1990 A1.1 A1.1
variable action?
No
Select column type (concrete encased or infilled hollow section) and use an
appropriate approximate method to determine a trial column section.
Calculate the elastic critical buckling force, Ncr, for the relevant buckling
mode and buckling length. Assuming an Euler buckling mode, the
critical buckling force can be calculated using: NCr = π 2 (EI ) l e2 , where
le is the effective length of the column.
Continuedon
Continued on page
page 49
49
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1994-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
48
Design Route Maps
Frompage
From page 48
48
–
Determine the relative slenderness, λ , of the composite section in
accordance with equation (6.39), Clause 6.7.3.3(2), using the
characteristic plastic resistance and the critical buckling force.
Check for long term creep effects on the effective elastic flexural stiffness
in accordance with Clause 6.7.3.3(4) and re-evaluate the relative
slenderness.
Note: this revised slenderness value may mean that the section is no longer within the
slenderness limit of 2.0 (clause 6.7.3.1(1)), or it may mean that no enhancement due to any
concrete confinement within a tubular section is possible.
Vertical shear, VEd Yes Adopt a reduced design steel strength for
greater than half shear bending in accordance with Clause 6.2.2.4(2)
resistance Vpl,Rd?
No
Using the values for moment resistance, the plastic resistance of the concrete, Npm,Rd
and the maximum plastic moment resistance, Mmax,Rd, produce the interaction curve
described in Clause 6.7.3.2(5).
N Ed
Check that equation (6.44): 1.0 is satisfied.
xN pl ,Rd
Where x is the reduction factor for the relevant buckling mode given in
–
BS EN1993-1-1, 6.3.1.2 in terms of the relative slenderness λ .
M Ed M Ed
Check that equation (6.45): = ≥ α M is satisfied
M pl , N , Rd µ d M pl , Rd
Where MEd is the maximum design moment and Mpl,N,Rd is the plastic bending
resistance taking into account the normal force NEd (taken from Figure 6.18, and is
basically the value of moment resistance at the relevant applied normal force, NEd,
determined using the interaction curve produced above).
Note: For steel grades between S235 and S355 inclusive, the coefficient M
should be taken as 0.9 and for
steel grades S40 and S460 it should be taken as 0.8.
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1994-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
49
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-2 unless otherwise stated.
50
Design Route Maps
51
Summary of structural fire engineering design to the Eurocodes
Determine fire resistance requirements from Building Regulations or fire engineering
calculations
Assess performance by calculation according to type of member
Tension Compression Beams in bending Class 3 beams Combined bending and axial
members members class class 1 or 2 cross 4.2.3.4 compression 4.2.3.5
4.2.3.1 1,2,or 3 cross sections 4.2.3.3
sections 4.2.3.2
Nfi,t,Rd >Nfi,Ed Nb,fi,t,Rd > Nfi,Ed MM , θ,>RdM
fi, fl,Rd >M
fi,Ed
fi,Ed θ,Rd
MMfi,fl,,Rd > >M
Mfi,Ed
fi,Ed θ,Rd
RRfi,fl,,Rd > >R
Rfi,Ed
fi,Ed
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-2 unless otherwise stated.
52
Fire limit state design – Simply supported beam route map
(assumes knowledge of maximum steel temperature)
Determine fire resistance requirements from Building Regulations or fire engineering calculations
plastic elastic
Apply protection thickness derived
Uniform Non-uniform Uniform Non-uniform from test or assessment
temperature temperature temperature temperature
4.2.3.3 (1) 4.2.3.3 (2) 4.2.3.4 (1) 4.2.3.4 (2)
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-2 unless otherwise stated.
Design Route Maps
No
Determine the design moment resistance for the chosen section taking into
account:
• Class of section (EN1993-5, 5.2.1 and Table 5.1)
• Rotation capability (Annex C)
• Shear force transfer factors βB and βD (EN1993-5, 5.2.2 and 6.4(3))
• Reductions due to water pressure (EN1993-5, 5.2.4 and Table 5.2)
• Design bending moment and shear force (EN1993-5, 5.2.2)
• Design axial load and Elastic critical load and effective buckling
length for the chosen section (EN1993-5, 5.2.3)
Confirm capability of selected sheet pile section for the specified conditions
53
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
8 References
1. BS EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1.1: General rules and
rules for buildings, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)
2. BS 5950-1: 2000 Structural use of steelwork in building – Part 1: Code of practice for
design – Rolled and welded sections, British Standards Institution, London, May 2001
3. BS EN 10025: 1993, Hot rolled products of non-alloy structural steels. Technical delivery
conditions, British Standards Institution, London, November 1993
5. BS 5950-8: 2003, Structural use of steelwork in building – Part 8: Code of practice for fire
resistant design, British Standards Institution, London, 2003
8. BCSA and SCI, Joints in Steel Construction – Simple Connections, SCI, 2002
9. BCSA and SCI, Joints in Steel Construction – Moment Connections, SCI, 1995
10. BCSA and SCI, Joints in Steel Construction – Composite connections, SCI, 1998
11. Stark, J. W. B & Bijlaard, F. S. K. Design rules for beam-column connections in Europe.
TNO Report number BI-83-60, Delft, The Netherlands, 1983.
12. Zoetemeijer, P. A. Design method for the tension side of statically loaded beam-column
connections. Heron 20, Number 1, Delft University, Delft, The Netherlands, 1974.
13. Jaspart, J.P. Etude de la semi-rigidét des noeuds pouter-colomme et son influence sur la
résistance et la staibility des ossatures ne acier. PhD Thesis University Liege, Belgium,
1991.
14. Weynand, K, Jaspart, J. P & Steenhuis, M. The stiffness model of revised Annex J of
Eurocode 3. Connections in Steel Structures III behaviour strength and design,
rd
Proceedings of the 3 International workshop on connections, Pages 441-452, Trento,
Italy, May 1995.
16. BS EN 10164: 1993, Steel products with improved deformation properties perpendicular
to the surface of the product. Technical delivery conditions, British Standards Institution,
London, August 1993
54
References
17. BSI, BS 5950-2: 2001: Structural use of steelwork in building Part 2: Specification for
materials, fabrication and erection – Rolled and welded sections, British Standards
Institution, London, August 2001
18. BS EN 1993-5, Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 5: Piling, British Standards
Institution, London, (In preparation)
19. BS 8002: 1994, Code of practice for earth retaining structures, British Standards
Institution, London, April 1994
20. BS EN 1994-1-1, Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part
1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, British Standards Institution, London, (In
preparation)
21. BS EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures – Part 1.1 General rules
and rules for buildings, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)
22. BS 5950-3.1: 1990, Structural use of steelwork in building Part 3 Section 3.1 Code of
practice for design of simple and continuous composite beams, British Standards
Institution, London, February 1999.
24. BS 5400-5: 1979, Steel, concrete and composite bridges Part 5: Code for practice for
design of composite bridges, British Standards Institution, London, October 1999.
25. BS EN 1994-1-2, Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part
1.2: General rules – Structural fire design,, British Standards Institution, London, (In
preparation)
55