Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

Third International Workshop Vienna, September 20-21, 2012

Discussions on Design of Precast Prestressed Planks and Biaxially-loaded

Slender Columns Using EN 1992-1-1:2004
Kang Hai Tan1, Tuan Trung Nguyen1 and Truong Thang Nguyen1
1 Nanyang Technological Univ., Singapore
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
CKHTAN@ntu.edu.sg, nguyentt@ntu.edu.sg and NTThang@ntu.edu.sg

Abstract. The first part of the paper presents a comparison of prestressed plank design at
serviceability limit state between BS 8110 and EN 1992-1-1:2004 (EC2). While for the ultimate
limit state design there is no considerable gap in the results, there is a significant change in design
at the serviceability limit state. An example is given to demonstrate the comparison. In the second
part, structural responses and failure loads obtained from a test series on reinforced concrete
slender columns subjected to biaxial bending are compared to those determined from the design
methods based on nominal stiffness and nominal curvature in accordance with EC2. BS, ACI,
finite element-based and analytical analyses are also incorporated into the discussion. Both the
EC2 methods provide better agreement with the test results compared to the other methods.
Besides, more conservative predictions are obtained from the EC2 method of nominal curvature.

1 Introduction
The design of concrete structures in Singapore is in accordance with BS 8110 for years.
This national standard will be replaced by EN 1992-1-1 (EC2) and Singapore Annex.
Therefore, an understanding of the differences between BS 8110 and EC2 is very important
for local engineers so as to use the new code effectively and appropriately. In this paper,
precast prestressed planks and biaxially-loaded slender columns are chosen since these
members are commonly used in Singapore buildings.

2 Prestressed Precast Planks

Comparative studies between BS 8110 and EC2 have been reported by researchers [1, 2].
The comparisons showed the major differences between the stipulations of both codes at the
ultimate limit state (ULS). It was concluded that EC2 scope is more general than BS 8110,
which may encourage engineers to use innovative design methods. Therefore, it is not useful
to replicate the comparisons at ULS here. On the other hand, there are a few published
materials on the stipulations at the serviceability limit state (SLS) [3], especially for
prestressed concrete structures. Since prestressed concrete structures are a very wide topic, it
is impossible to examine all in one paper. Therefore, this part only focuses on the
comparisons of provisions at the SLS in the design of prestressed precast planks between BS
8110 and EC2.
2.1 Comparisons of Stipulations at SLS
2.1.1 Materials
BS 8110 stipulates that C40 is the minimum recommended grade for pre-tensioning, while
EC2 does not have such a requirement. Thus the design data used for pre-tensioning in EC2
are the same as for normal reinforced concrete members (EC2 Table 3.1).

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

Third International Workshop Vienna, September 20-21, 2012

The most important difference between the two codes in terms of materials is the provision
of yield strength of reinforcing steel. BS 8110 allows a minimum specified characteristic yield
strength fy of 250 MPa, while EC2 is only applicable for a range of yield strengths from 400 to
600 MPa, irrespective of the role of reinforcing steel in members, i.e. longitudinal bars or
stirrups. This may affect local practice in countries where steels with lower yield strength are
used for stirrups.
In any building codes, compressive stress in concrete is limited in order to prevent the
development of longitudinal cracks, micro cracks or high levels of creep. In EC2, at the
transfer stage, the stress is limited to 0.6fck(t), where fck(t) is the cylinder compressive strength
at the time of stressing. At service conditions, the stress is also limited to 0.6fck, where fck is
the 28-day cylinder compressive strength, irrespective of the fibre being considered. Under
quasi-permanent loads, compressive stress is limited to 0.45fck in order to restrict the creep
deformation. BS 8110 uses a similar value for compressive stresses at transfer, which is
limited to 0.5fci at the extreme fibre, where fci is the concrete strength at transfer. However, BS
8110 does not consider the effect of creep deformation, i.e. linear or nonlinear creep
deformation, under compressive stress.
At SLS, EC2 recommends two limited values for compressive stresses at rare load and
quasi-permanent load combinations, which are 0.6fck and 0.45fck respectively. BS 8110
proposes only one value of 0.33fcu as a limited value. It is because in EC2 a stress check must
be conducted at both the rare and the quasi-permanent load combinations, while in BS 8110,
peak load is adopted for the stress check.
With regard to tensile stress, BS 8110 stipulates the limiting value which is dependent on
the member class, while EC2 uses a fix value of fctm, where fctm is the mean value of axial
tensile strength of concrete.
The limited values for stresses recommended in EC2 and the corresponding values in BS
8110 are approximately equal since the cylinder strength is typically 10-20% less than the
corresponding cube strength. Therefore, the difference of these values is unlikely to have any
practical impact.
2.1.2 Load Combinations
For prestressed concrete structures, EC2 requires checking stresses at rare load and frequent
load combinations. Deflection is checked based on with quasi-permanent combination. In BS
8110, peak load is adopted for either stress check or deflection check. Tables 1 & 2 show the
load combinations used for precast prestressed planks at SLS and ULS.
Table 1 Load combinations for precast prestressed planks at SLS

BS 8110

Fd = Gkj ''+'' P ''+''

j 1

EC2

Q
i 1

(1)

k ,i

Rare load combination:

Fd = Gkj ''+'' P ''+'' Q1,1 ''+''

0,i

Qk ,i

Frequent load combination:

Fd = Gkj ''+'' P ''+'' 1,1Q1,1 ''+'' 2,iQk ,i
Quasi-permanent load combination:
Fd = Gkj ''+'' P ''+'' 2,iQk ,i

(2)
(3)
(4)

Table 2 Load combinations for precast prestressed planks at ULS

BS 8110

Fd =
1.4 Gkj ''+'' 1.6

k ,i

(5)

EC2
Fd = Gj Gkj ''+'' P P ''+'' Q ,1Qk ,1 ''+''

0,iQk ,i

Q ,i

(6)

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

Third International Workshop Vienna, September 20-21, 2012

where: + implies to be complied with; P is the representative value of the prestress action; Gkj is characteristic
value of a permanent action; Q1,1 is characteristic value of the leading variable action; Qk ,i is characteristic
values of accompanying variable action; 0 is the factor for combination value of a variable action; 1 is the
factor for frequent value of a variable action; 2 is the factor for quasi-permanent value of a variable action.

2.1.3 Serviceability Limit State

Concrete cover
EC2 specifies a minimum cover, which is the greater of the two requirements for bond
and durability. A tolerance of up to 10 mm must be further added. In contrast, BS 8110
specifies a nominal value and a tolerance of 5 mm is accepted.
Eqs. (7) & (8) show the values for concrete cover due to bond requirement for pretensioned tendon recommended by BS8110 and EC2.

cmin,b d

(BS8110 3.3.1.2)

(7)

cmin,b (1.5d tendon ) or ( 2.5d wire )

(EC2 4.4.1.2 )

(8)

It can be seen that EC2 requires a thicker concrete cover for bond requirement for pretensioned tendon. It may significantly affect the design of pre-tensioned members. For
example, in Singapore context, prestressed precast planks use 9.54 mm diameter wire as
prestressed steel with 25 mm concrete cover in BS 8110 design. If EC2 design is applied, it
requires at least a cover of 34 mm. Therefore, the planks have 5 mm cover less than the EC2
requirement. As a result, the eccentricity of prestressing steels would reduce leading to a
decrease of bending moment resistance.
In terms of the cover for durability requirements, there is a difference in approach between
the two codes. EC2 classifications are based on potential deterioration mechanisms and they
allow designers to identify the most severe conditions in a particular case, rather than simply
assessing the environmental exposure stipulated in BS 8110.
Serviceability classification
BS 8110 classifies a flexural member section into three classes, namely, no tensile stresses,
tensile stresses but no cracking, and cracks with limited crack widths. But EC2 does not have
this classification. EC2 recommends a limit value for the calculated crack width based on
exposure classes. For prestressed members with bonded tendons, crack width shall be
calculated with frequent load combination with a limit value of 0.2 mm. For the most severe
exposure classes such as XD and XS, EC2 requires to check Decompression criterion which
demands that all parts of the tendon or duct lie at least 25 mm within the concrete in
compression. For exposure class XC, the Decompression criterion needs to be checked
under quasi-permanent load combination. Hence, serviceability requirements in EC2 are more
complicated compared to those in BS 8110.
In the calculation of stresses and deflections, in EC2, a cross-section should be assumed to
be uncracked provided that the flexural tensile stress does not exceed. It means that the
section must be checked whether it would crack or not before calculating stresses and
deflections. In contrast, in BS 8110, for class 3 members, it can be assumed that the concrete
is uncracked although cracking is allowed and that design hypothetical tensile stresses exist at
the limiting crack widths.
Defection calculations
Both codes allow two alternative approaches for deflection calculation. They are: (1) by
analysis whereby the calculated values of effects of loads are compared with acceptable
values; (2) by deemed-to-satisfy provisions, such as limiting span/depth ratios and detailing

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

Third International Workshop Vienna, September 20-21, 2012

rules. However, there are two obvious differences between BS 8110 and EC2 in deflection
calculations in terms of loading and the principles used for cracked sections.
BS 8110 considers dead load and a proportion of the live load as permanent to calculate
deflection. EC2 differs from BS8110 in that it requires deflections to be calculated under the
quasi-permanent combination rather than peak load.
When the section is considered to be cracked, BS 8110 assumes that stresses in the concrete
in tension may be calculated on the assumption the stress distribution is triangular with a
value at the centroid of the tension steel of 1 N/mm2. However, EC2 proposes a very
complicated procedure which requires calculating the average curvature of the uncracked and
cracked sections using the actual concrete tensile strength. Therefore, Vollumn [3] concluded
that EC2 allows significant reduction in slab thickness compared to BS 8110. This conclusion
is unlikely to be true since concrete tensile strength varies in a small range with different
concrete grades.
2.2 Example
A simply supported precast prestressed plank has an effective span of 3.4 m. The cross
section is a rectangular section as shown in Fig. 1. The overall depth of plank is 150 mm
including 80 mm concrete topping. The plank is used for an office building in the
environment of X0, XC1 class. It is given that at serviceability prestressed force after all
losses Pe = 114 kN and eccentricity e = 5 mm. Both Pe and e are constant over the entire span.
The plank carries a partition load and finishes of 2.0 kN/m2, and a live load of 2.0 kN/m2.
Concrete grade of plank and topping is grade C32/40. It is required to check the stresses and
deflection at SLS.

Fig. 1. Typical section of prestressed plank

Solution: Plank self weight including topping: SW = 3.6 kN/m2. Area of plank section A =
70 x 103 mm2. For uncracked transformed section: neutral axis depth xu = 76.2 mm; second
moment of area Iu = 2.88 x 108 mm4; and section moduli to top and bottom fibers: Zt = 3.90 x
106 mm3, Zb = 3.78 x 106 mm3.
Table 3 Checking plank at SLS conditions

BS 8110
1. Load combination SW + DL + LL = 7.6 kN/m
at SLS
M SLS =
10.98 kNm
(calculated
with
plank width b = 1m)

EC2
SLS1 Rare load combination
SW + G + Q = 7.6 kN/m

M SLS 1 =
10.98 kNm
SLS2 Frequent load combination
SW + G + 0.5 x Q = 6.6 kN/m

M SLS 2 =
9.54 kNm
SLS3 Quasi-permanent
SW + G + 0.3 x Q = 6.2 kN/m

M SLS 3 =
8.96 kNm

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

Third International Workshop Vienna, September 20-21, 2012
2. Check if section is =
M cr f ctm I u / ( h =
xu )
cracked?
11.43 kNm > 10.98
3. Allowable stresses Compressive stress:

0.33 f cu = 13.20 MPa

Tensile stress:

At SLS3: 0.45 f ck = 14.4 MPa

4. Check for stresses Top fibre:

2.93 MPa
(top
fibre
in Bottom fibre: 0.63 MPa
compression; bottom
fibre in tension)
Section is satisfied.
5. Deflection
calculation

M cr = 11.43 > 9.54 kNm

Section is uncracked.
Compressive stress:
At SLS1: 0.6 f ck = 19.2 MPa

0.45 f cu = 2.85 MPa

- Long term deflection:

Due to prestressing: 0.3 mm
Due to permanent dead load:
2
=
ymax KL
=
M / Eeff I eff 3.7 mm
Due to shrinkage: 0.1mm.
- Short term deflection:
0.44 mm < L/360 = 9.4 mm
Total deflection:
3.94 mm < L/250 = 13.6 mm

Tensile stress: f ctm = 3.02 MPa

SLS1: Top fibre: 3.84 MPa;
Bottom fibre: 0.58 MPa.
SLS2: Top fibre:
3.45 MPa;
Bottom fibre: 0.20 MPa.
Section is satisfied.
- Due to prestressing: 0.3 mm;
- Flexural curvature:
1/ rm =
(1 )(1/ r1 ) + (1/ r2 )
=
2.98 106 1/mm (with =
0)

Due to SLS3 - Quasipermanent load: 3.6 mm.

- Due to shrinkage: 0.18 mm
Total deflection:
3.50 mm < L/250 = 13.6 mm
( 1/ r1 and 1/ r2 are the radii of curvature for the uncracked and cracked sections)

3 Biaxially-loaded Slender Columns

This second part of the paper introduces a recent experimental programme conducted at
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, to obtain actual structural responses and axial
resistances of reinforced concrete (RC) slender columns subjected to biaxial bending. Test
results were compared to those determined according to a number of design codes for
concrete structures, finite element analysis (FEA) using software SAFIR [4], as well as a
direct sectional analysis based on inclined neutral axes that was proposed by the authors [5].
3.3 Experimental Programme
This experimental programme involved a series of three full-scale RC columns, namely,
Ca-1-25, Ca-2-40, and Ca-3-60, which were designed with three levels of equal biaxial
eccentricities, i.e., (25, 25), (40, 40), and (60, 60 mm), respectively. The specimens were cast
from concrete with a mean cylinder compressive strength of 28.4 MPa and reinforced with
four 25 mm-diameter longitudinal rebars (4T25) which had a mean yield strength of 554 MPa.
Details of specimens and test set-up are shown in Fig. 2.
As shown in Fig. 2, all the test specimens had a nominal height of 3.3 m and a cross-section
of 300 mm square. Two concrete blocks with dimensions of 500500300 (in mm) were
designed at both ends of the specimens. Equal biaxial eccentricities (ey=ez) were produced by
adjusting the centroids of these blocks (where the test load was applied) relative to the
centroid of the column cross-section (Fig. 2(b)). A total of sixteen strain gauges were bonded
to longitudinal bars (M1 to M4), stirrups (L1 to L4), and concrete surfaces (C1 to C8) at the
column mid-height cross section (Fig. 2(c)). Fourteen linear variable differential transformers

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

Third International Workshop Vienna, September 20-21, 2012

(LVDTs) including every four LVDTs at two ends (Fig. 2(e)) and mid-height of the test
specimen (Fig. 2(d)), and the remaining two LVTS at quarters, were instrumented to measure
axial deformation and lateral deflection.

Fig. 2. Test specimen and test set-up (a) Column elevation; (b) Biaxial eccentricities; (c) Strain gauge arrangement; (d)
LVDT arrangement at column mid-height; (e) Measurement of end displacement; (f) Determination of axial deformation.

All the columns were tested in pinned and pinned-on-roller end conditions. Test load was
applied from a 5000 kN servo-hydraulic actuator in a displacement-controlled mode at a
constant rate of 0.5 mm/min until the applied load could not be sustained by the specimen.
The maximum loads recorded were the experimental column axial resistances.
3.4 Predictions of Axial Resistance
The EC2 axial resistances for biaxial bending of all the column specimens were predicted
based on the equivalent rectangular stress blocks for concrete compression zone, a limit strain
of 0.0035 in the concrete at extreme fibers, and biaxial moment interaction equation according
to EC2 Eq. (5.39). The columns were all slender with calculated slenderness ratios of
y=z=40.9 that were higher than the limit slenderness of lim=29.6. Hence, the methods of
nominal curvature (MNC) and nominal stiffness (MNS) in accordance with EC2 Pt.1.1 Clause
5.8 for second-order effects, were both incorporated into the calculation. BS 8110 and ACI
318 were also used for the failure load prediction.
Computer software SAFIR [4] developed at the University of Liege was used for numerical
analyses. This software is basically meant for thermal and structural analyses of structures at
elevated temperatures. In this study, mechanical properties specified in EC2 Pt.1.2 at 20 oC
were adopted. Initial geometric imperfection was assumed as a half-sine curve with a defined
crookedness at column mid-height of Lc/400, which was in accordance with EC2 Pt.1.1,
where Lc (3540 mm) is the column length between the pins as shown in Fig. 1(a).
An analytical model for fire resistance analysis of RC columns proposed by the authors [5],
namely, FRC model, was also used to perform direct sectional analysis based on inclined
neutral axes at a ambient condition of T=20 oC as a specific case.
3.5 Test Results and Discussions
The relationships between axial load - axial deformation, and load-moment curves obtained
from experiment and predicted by FEA are depicted in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b), respectively.

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

Third International Workshop Vienna, September 20-21, 2012

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3. (a) Axial load vs. Axial deformation; (b) Axial load vs. Mid-height bending moment.

Relatively good agreement between the test and the FEA results, which were respectively
plotted in continuous and hidden lines, can be observed from Fig. 3. The test and the FEA
curves were especially close to each other at the beginning of loading. At about 70% of failure
load, deviation between the curves occurred since the numerical model did not take concrete
cracking effect into consideration.
Fig. 3(a) also shows that when biaxial eccentricity increased, the column axial stiffness and
the axial resistance decreased. The axial resistances recorded in the tests of Ca-1-25, Ca-2-40,
and Ca-3-60 were 1609, 1370, and 1042 kN, respectively.
At failure, reasonably plane strain distributions through a 45 degree-inclined neutral axis at
mid-height cross-section of Ca-2-40 can be observed from Figs. 4(a) and 4(b). Compressive
concrete strain at extreme fiber was confirmed to be close to the limit strain of 0.0035
specified in EC2 Pt.1.1. Fig. 4(c) shows severe crushing occurred at the compression zone
whereas cracks developed at the tension zone to the neutral axis position. Comparison
between axial resistances recorded in the tests and the predicted values obtained from the
aforementioned methods are listed in Table 4. The calculated axial resistance based on the
EC2 method of nominal stiffness (MNS) for Ca-1-25 was 1729.9 kN, whereas the
experimental failure load was 1609 kN. Hence, the agreement between the results obtained
from the EC2 (MNS) and testing was 1.08. Similar comparisons were conducted for other
methods including EC2 (MNC), BS, ACI, FEA, and FRC (Table 4). It can be seen that the
EC2 (MNC) provided more conservative predictions with a mean value of 0.92 and a
coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.04. Applying the EC2 (MNS), good predictions were
obtained for Ca-2-40 and Ca-3-60 with the respective mean ratios of 0.98 and 0.99. However,
this method overestimated the axial resistance of Ca-1-25 by 8%. On the other hand, it is
shown that BS, ACI, and FEA also over-predicted the axial resistances of all specimens with
mean ratios of 1.13, 1.03, and 1.12, respectively. Besides, the analytical FRC model provided
a relatively good and conservative result with a mean ratio of 0.93 and a COV of 0.02.
Similar to EC2 (MNC), the BS method uses the effective length and an estimated maximum
curvature to determine the second-order deflection. However, BS method specifies the test
specimens as short columns. Besides, although minimum eccentricity is considered, no
geometric imperfection is taken into account into the BS method. This led to overpredictions
in the axial resistances of the test columns when BS code was used. The FRC and ACI
method are basically similar to the EC2 (MNS), which use nominal flexural stiffness
accounting for the effects of cracking, creep, material nonlinearity to determine moment
magnificent factor and magnified design moment. Hence, relatively good agreement obtained
from the EC2 (MNS), ACI, and FRC show that the EC2 MNS is also reliable.

Design of Concrete Structures Using Eurocodes

Third International Workshop Vienna, September 20-21, 2012

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 4. (a) and (b) Plane strain distribution through 45 degree-inclined neutral axis (c) Image of failure

Table 4. Comparison in axial resistance between prediction methods with experiment (NPrediction/NTest)

Specimens
Ca-1-25
Ca-2-40
Ca-3-60
Mean
COV

EC2 (MNS)
1.08
0.98
0.99
1.01
0.04

EC2 (MNC)
0.97
0.88
0.89
0.91
0.04

BS
1.17
1.12
1.08
1.13
0.04

ACI
1.08
1.00
1.02
1.03
0.03

FEA
1.12
1.10
1.14
1.12
0.02

FRC
0.96
0.90
0.92
0.93
0.02

4 Conclusions
It can be concluded that SLS requirements in EC2 is more complicated than those in BS
8110. For prestressed concrete structures, the verification of stresses must be conducted with
rare load and frequent load combinations. In terms of deflection calculation, EC2 does not
differentiate the long and short term deflections as in BS 8110, but requires calculating the
average curvature of the uncracked and cracked sections using quasi-permanent load
combination. Even though more complicated provisions are stipulated, EC2 provisions have
been proved as an advanced design code which encourages engineers to use innovative design
methods.
Compared to the test results and the direct analytical model, both EC2 design methods
provided relatively good and conservative predictions of axial resistance of columns. For
future research works, more experiments should be conducted on RC columns with different
shapes (rectangular, T- and L-shaped, etc.), different slenderness, and subjected to unequal
biaxial eccentricities.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

Moss, R., Webster, R.: EC2 and BS 8110 compared. Structural Engineer. 2004;82:33-8.
Hawileh, R.A., Malhas, F.A., Rahman, A.: Comparison between ACI 318-05 and Eurocode 2 (EC2-94) in
flexural concrete design. Structural Engineering and Mechanics. 2009;32:705-24.
Vollum, R.L.: Comparison of deflection calculations and span-to-depth ratios in BS 8110 and Eurocode 2.
Magazine of Concrete Research. 2009;61:465-76.
Frassen, J.M. SAFIR. A Thermal/Structural Program Modelling Structures under Fire. Engineering Journal,
A.I.S.C., Vol 42, (2005) 3: 143-158.
Nguyen T.T, Tan, K.H.: A Rational Approach to Fire Resistance Analysis of RC Columns Subjected to
Uniaxial/Biaxial Bending. Proceeding of International Conference of Application of Structural Fire
Engineering, Prague (2011) 115-121.