Concrete Structures

& Eurocodes

Introduction

Kenny Arnott
February 2009

© CSC (UK) Ltd. 2009

1
 2

Introduction
“Effective Design to Eurocodes?”
Guidance on this will only come with
experience.
Who has this experience?
Can anyone claim to be an expert on the
practical application of Eurocodes to real
buildings?

2
 3

Introduction
At CSC we are now working on Eurocode releases of
our software.
Experts?
We might have some people that are amongst the closest
thing to experts which exist.
Interpretation?
But when we find something where it is unclear how the
engineering community might interpret the code, who do
we ask?
This is quite a different situation than has existed in
any previous phase of software development for
structural engineers.
Of course, we will make the best judgements we can.

3
 4

Introduction
But – Eurocodes are coming.
Aim for today – an overview of:
What we are doing.
What we have been finding.
What we expect the difficulties might be.
Update you on the state of adoption of Eurocode
design in the UK market.

4
 5

Content
Design Process (& Required Documents)
Loading
Load Combinations
Basic Section Design - the “Economy” Debate
Building Analysis and Stability
Member Design in TEDDS
Timing
Final comments
Added discussion (If time allows)
Serviceability Checks for slabs.

5
 6

Design Process
To design anything an engineer needs to consider:
Loads:
Dead
Live
Wind
Load Combinations
Design Criteria:
Ultimate Limit State
Imperfections
Sway / Buckling
Strength Checks
Serviceability Checks

Principles are Unchanged.

6
 7

Required Documents
There are 10 Eurocodes - Split into 58 parts
More docs are needed
Typical Eurocode and NA requirement
Loading
EC 0 (BS EN1990)
Basis of structural design – Combination factors
EC 1 (BS EN1991)
Part 1 – Actions on Structures - Densities, self weight and imposed loads
Part 3 – Actions on Structures - Snow loading
Part 4 – Actions on Structures - Wind loading
Design
Concrete - EC2 (BS EN1992)
1.1 - Design of concrete structures - Common rules for buildings and civil engineering
structures
BS EN1993 1.1 - Design of steel structures - General rules
BS EN1993 1.8 - Design of steel structures - Design of joints
BS EN1994 1.1 - Design of composite steel and concrete structures - General – common rules
BS EN1997 1 - Geotechnical design – General rules

7
 8

Required Documents
National Annex’s
Country Specific National Choices (NDP):
National Annex Status:
UK – almost all available now.
Ireland – trailing behind
The Base Eurocode
Some people may be under a misapprehension that the code
defaults could be adopted throughout and that use of National
Annex values is somehow optional – INCORRECT.
HOWEVER – a Base Eurocode version is something that may
have value in some countries who choose to adopt Eurocodes
but do not invest in a national annex and simply state that the
code defaults should be adopted throughout.
This will probably be an Orion option.

8
 9

Required Documents
NCCI
Non conflicting complimentary information.
“Design Guides” – Country Specific
Using design guides is probably going to be
the easiest way for most engineers to begin
use of the Eurocodes.

9
 10

Required Documents
NCCI
UK – Steel – Still a good deal to be written and published
UK – Concrete – Largely completed now – e.g.
Concrete Centre (www.concretecentre.com) :
“How To” series
Concise Eurocode
Spreadsheets
IStructE – Manual for the Design of Concrete Buildings to EC2
Designers guide to EC2, by Narayanan & Beeby
UK – Loading – Nobody “owns” it – who will write it?
AND - Non Conflicting?
Actually these guides often present differing conservative
interpretations which can appear to contradict each other.

10
 11

Required Documents
Summary – UK Perspective
To a great extent the required documentation and
backup guidance is all there now – more
especially for concrete buildings.
There will be plenty to learn – all takes time.
Timing?
Does this mean that the whole industry will start rushing
to change now? (later discussion)

11
 12

Content
Design Process (& Required Documents)
Loading
Load Combinations
Basic Section Design - the “Economy” Debate
Building Analysis and Stability
Member Design in TEDDS
Timing
Final comments

12
 13

Loading
Dead Loads & Imposed Loads
Basically the same (difference is in combination factors –
see later).
Weight of reinforced concrete now 25kN/m3
25/24 = 1.04 – bigger design forces?

Notional Loads
Very different to BS8110’s Minimum Lateral Loads
You must make allowance for imperfections in every design
combination (more like BS5950).
Dependent on No of floors and columns and IL reduction
factors….

13
 14

Loading
Notional Loads Comparison
Can be around 25% of BS8110 lateral load.

14
 15

Loading
Wind Loads
Following calibration of the UK NA for Wind – some
significant differences between BS6399 Pt 2 and EN 1991 1-
4.
UK committee gone back to CEN to ask for amendment to
EN1991 1-4 and to permit UK Cpe to be used in UK.
Amendment to EN 1991 1-4 being prepared – “do not hold
your breath!”
In short term – UK NA now allows use BS6399 Cpe !!

How will this be handled here?

15
 16

Content
Design Process (& Required Documents)
Loading
Load Combinations
Basic Section Design - the “Economy” Debate
Building Analysis and Stability
Member Design in TEDDS
Timing
Final comments

16
 17

Load Combinations
Code itself appears much more complex.
NCCI present it more simply - For members
supporting one variable action (gravity loads) the
ULS combination can normally be taken as
1.25 Gk + 1.5 Qk
(derived from Exp. (6.10b), Eurocode)
Applies provided the permanent actions are not greater
than 4.5 times the variable actions (except for storage
loads).
If unsure just use 1.35 Gk + 1.5 Qk
Clearly this is lower (5-10%) than BS8110 factored
load (1.4 Gk + 1.6 Qk) and hence the “Economy”
debate (discussed later).

17
 18

Load Combinations
Pattern Loading
Same patterns for
imposed load.
No requirement to pattern
the load factor for dead
loads.
Once again potentially
slightly increased
economy.

18
 19

Load Combinations
For a building however lateral loads need to
be considered and there are important
differences:
Notional Loads must be applied in every
combination.
Therefore combinations of notional loads + wind
loads are required.
In addition there is a new concept of leading
loads and accompanying loads which means that
more combinations must be checked.
Example….

19
 20

Load Combinations
Sway Resisting Structure
BS8110 load combinations:
1. 1.4 Gk + 1.6 Qk
2. 1.2 Gk + 1.2 Qk + 1.2 Wk
Where Wk = min lat load if greater than wind.
EC2 options:
1. 1.25 Gk + 1.5 Qk + NHF
2. 1.25 Gk + 1.5 Qk + 0.75 Wk + NHF
3. 1.35 Gk + 1.05 Qk + 0.75 Wk + NHF
4. 1.25 Gk + 1.05 Qk + 1.5 Wk + NHF
Case 2 (in one direction or another) is guaranteed to be
more critical than the gravity load case!

20
 21

Load Combinations
Wind Loading
It can never be dismissed “by inspection” as
“not critical”.
For economy, there may be an increased need
to be rigorous in this regard.

21
 22

Content
Design Process (& Required Documents)
Loading
Load Combinations
Basic Section Design - the “Economy” Debate
Building Analysis and Stability
Member Design in TEDDS
Timing
Final comments

22
 23

Basic Section Design

Materials:
Steel Strength:
Still Grade 500, and partial safety factor is 1.15 – same
as BS8110 design.

Concrete:
Design is based on cylinder strength not cube strength.
In UK a dual referencing system is already used and
will continue to be used:
C40/50 has cylinder strength of 40 and cube
strength of 50.
Can compare stresses allowed for this grade…

23
 24

Basic Section Design

C40/50 Design Strength:

BS8110
= 0.67 fcu /gamma-m
= 0.67*50/1.5
= 22.33

EC2
= η fcd
(if grade < C50/60 η = 1.0)
fcd = αcc fck / γc
αcc = 0.85 (UK NDP)
γc = 1.5
= 0.85*40/1.5
= 22.66

24
 25

Basic Section Design

Design Equations
Eurocode does not give them! It gives the
stress blocks and the equations derived from
that are up to you.
NCCI gives the derived equations for common
situations.
Actually the Eurocode gives 3 optional
idealisations for the stress block. The simplest
of these (shown on previous slide) is very similar
in form to BS8110.
Therefore – the derived equations are of almost
identical form to those in BS8110.

25
 26

Basic Section Design

Compare calculation of As req’d for beams and
slabs without compression steel.
Consider a 300 thick slab with design moment of
200kNm/m and effective depth set at 270mm (H20
with 20mm cover)
BS8110
As required = 1822mm2/m
EC2
As required = 1821mm2/m

BUT – Applied moment would be less using EC2

factors – hence the “Economy” debate…

26
 27

EC2 - Economy
Let’s extend the comparison for the 300 thick slab
and consider the differences that also arise.
Reduced Design Moment
The lower combination factors typically mean that EC2
design moments would be a little over 90% of the BS8110
moment – so design for 180kNm
Cover
EC2 requirements tend to mean that nominal cover is
increased – 20dia bars in a slab require 30mm cover.
EC2
Adjusted As required = 1697 (was1821mm2/m)
Potentially a 6% reinforcement saving, however…

27
 28

EC2 - Economy
The more common “economy” argument is
that slab thicknesses can be reduced
resulting in savings all the way through the
structure and its foundations.
This leads to a bigger debate about
serviceability concerns, more on this later..
Ignoring serviceability, lets consider the
impact of reducing the slab to 260mm thick:

28
 29

EC2 - Economy
Consider reduced 260mm thick slab in EC2 design
compared to 300 thick slab in BS8110
Reduced Design Moment
The reduced weight plus combination factors mean that EC2
design moments might be about 85% of the BS8110
moment – so design for 170kNm
EC2
Adjusted As required = 2200 (was1821mm2/m)
Therefore big slab thickness reductions are only achieved
along with an increase in reinforcement requirements.

In practice you can probably only reduce the slab

from 300 to about 280mm thick before you start
increasing the reinforcement requirement as
compared with the BS8110 design.

29
 30

EC2 - Economy
Therefore, apparently there is a potentially “free”
saving of around 5% (definitely less than 10%) in
slab depth before this starts being offset by
increased reinforcement costs.
This definitely does NOT translate into a 5%
reduction in construction cost:
Less concrete
BUT:
Same reinforcement
Same formwork, fixing, finishing costs
Guess (yours is as good as mine!)
Maybe 1% saving in slabs?
Plus possibly some saving in foundations and columns

30
 31

EC2 - Economy
Early reviews of EC2 may have encouraged
a belief within the industry that bigger slab
depth reductions are available (particularly
in flat slabs).
Ignores main reinforcement increase?
Ignores punching shear reinforcement
increases?
Means that deflection is much more likely to be
a design consideration.
(10% reduction in slab depth means that stiffness is
reduced by something in excess of 25%)

31
 32

EC2 - Economy
Summary
Gravity load members
yes there are small savings to be made.

Lateral load members

Sway cases will always dominate design.
Designs will be more complex and probably more
onerous than BS8110.

32
 33

EC2 - Economy
A note on Steel Structures
Same advantages/disadvantages apply
Gravity load members
yes there are small savings to be made.
Lateral load members
Sway cases will always dominate design.

The loadings changes do not introduce factors

that inherently favour concrete or steel
construction.

33
 34

Content
Design Process (& Required Documents)
Loading
Load Combinations
Basic Section Design - the “Economy” Debate
Building Analysis and Stability
Member Design in TEDDS
Timing
Final comments

34
 35

Building Analysis
Sway Sensitivity - This is very different from
BS8110.
A user defined categorisation of members as
braced or bracing is required.
Braced members are assumed not to contribute
to sway stability:
The design procedure for braced members is quite
similar to that used for a braced structure in BS8110:
Add imperfections moments.
Classify as short or slender.
If slender check for amplified design forces.
Perform section design.

35
 36

Building Analysis
Bracing Members
Are the members which form the bracing system
providing lateral stability to the structure.
Shear walls and core wall systems
and/or moment frames

Are considered as potentially susceptible to big

P-delta effects and sway sensitivity must be
assessed….

36
 37

Building Analysis
Bracing Members
For bracing members the requirements are
similar in principle to those in BS5950 (steel
design) which we are increasingly familiar with:
Test sway sensitivity
If non-sway then ok (treat as a braced member)
If sway sensitive then either
use some sort of force amplification technique
or use P-Delta analysis
(P-Delta for concrete frames is a bigger challenge
than for steel)

37
 38

Building Analysis
Testing Sway Sensitivity
NCCI Limitation:
It seems to have been generally assumed that concrete
buildings are non-sway.
EC2 cl 5.8.3.3 provides a relatively simple equation that
can be applied to determine whether or not global second
order effects can be ignored.
Note: Applying this test requires some degree of judgment
as regards interpretation.
What we are finding is that this test appears to show that
many more buildings than expected could get classified as
sway sensitive – (NCCI assumption is wrong)

38
 39

Building Analysis
When does a building become sway sensitive building?
600m2 plan area per floor G=7, Q=2.5
3.0m floor to floor
Shear walls 3m long and 200mm thick
How many floors before P-delta effects can no longer be
ignored?

39
 40

Building Analysis
Testing Sway Sensitivity (cl.5.8.3.3)

40
 41

Building Analysis
Testing Sway Sensitivity
Cl.5.8.3.3 test:
It is not something that can be applied in a general
modelling environment like Orion.
A large proportion of buildings would fail this test.
For failed buildings what is the analysis/design route?
Annex H:
A more complex test based on this guidance is being
investigated.
This may not affect the proportion of buildings that get
classified as sway sensitive, but it should provide us
with a route for designing the buildings that are.

41
 42

Building Analysis
Designing a Sway Sensitive Structure.
EC2 provides a lot of theory, but there is no NCCI helping
with this.
P-Delta Analysis?
Commonly assumed that a P-Delta analysis resolves the
issue.
True if you can do a “correct” p-delta analysis.
Demands correct properties – what is correct stiffness of a
concrete section taking account of creep and cracking?
Moment Amplification
Annex H categorisation should also lead to amplification
factors – a solution very like the BS5950 “K-amp” approach
that many are familiar with.

42
 43

Building Analysis
Sway Sensitivity – Summary
This is very different from BS8110.
Seems that concrete frame designers are going
to be grappling with implications of second order
effects in many more structures.
As a minimum this is going to complicate the
design process.
“Economy Debate” - This may negate some
proportion of savings that are being anticipated
elsewhere.

43
 44

Content
Design Process (& Required Documents)
Loading
Load Combinations
Basic Section Design - the “Economy” Debate
Building Analysis and Stability
Member Design in TEDDS
Timing
Final comments

44
 45

TEDDS Calcs
Much of the complication introduced by Eurocodes affects the
process by which we arrive at the design loads/forces
applicable to an individual member design.
TEDDS focus is on the member design and hence largely
avoids this complication.

USING EUROCODES FOR THE FIRST TIME?

Eurocode design often requires input that is additional and
more detailed than calculations based on British
standards.
On first use some of the required input cannot be given
confidently without some familiarity or training relating to
the Eurocode.
Have some NCCI (design guides) to hand.

45
 46

TEDDS Calcs
TEDDS – Live Examples

46
 47

TEDDS Calcs
TEDDS – Columns – To Note
Lots of options for determining effective length
EC2 is much more complex in this regard.
Simple and conservative for Braced Columns:
Use “Set Length Factor” and set to 1.0
Design Moments - More important to set moment profile
(affects slenderness check)
Slender Columns
Will many more columns be classified as slender potentially
leading to less economy?
If slender – no way to avoid defining creep related
information.

47
 48

Content
Design Process (& Required Documents)
Loading
Load Combinations
Basic Section Design - the “Economy” Debate
Building Analysis and Stability
Member Design in TEDDS
Timing
Final comments

48
 49

Timing
Perhaps not CSC’s place to comment?
When we start talking about EC2 we all often end up
feeling that the changeover is just around the
corner.
Some key points in the development of Eurocodes
have been:
Every latest possible anticipated transition date is passed.
(At CSC seminars in 2004, the most pessimistic prediction
was that changeover would be largely completed in 2008)
But - only now are we getting to the point where all
essential documents exist.
And the NCCI has a reasonable way to go in some areas.

49
 50

Timing
Does anyone predict a mad rush where everyone
transitions to Eurocodes during 2009?
Remember how long transition from old to new codes has
taken in the past (BS449 to BS5950!).
Costs in Current Economic Climate
Estimate cost of transitioning for a medium consultancy is
£0.25Million!!

While any excuse exists (wind load, inadequate NCCI, etc ?)

or while there is no requirement in law, some proportion (a
large proportion?) of our industry will procrastinate.

What is realistic – what will actually happen?

50
 51

Timing
Enforced Transition Dates?
Currently it is planned that all BS will be
withdrawn and that Building Regs will be
amended to refer only to EC in October 2010.
Will this be regarded as the end of the transition
period?
Or will some regard this as the start date for a
transition?
Will there be a legally enforced transition in
Singapore or Malaysia?

51
 52

Content
Design Process (& Required Documents)
Loading
Load Combinations
Basic Section Design - the “Economy” Debate
Building Analysis and Stability
Member Design in TEDDS
Timing
Final comments

52
 53

Final Comments
Changing to EC design requires investment.
Design using EC will be more complex.
Claims that there are potentially significant
construction cost savings are at best
unproven, and possibly (in our opinion) quite
mis-leading.
The time at which a majority of the UK
industry transitions to EC design is getting
closer, but we still do not know when it will
really happen.

53
 54

Content
Design Process (& Required Documents)
Loading
Load Combinations
Basic Section Design - the “Economy” Debate
Building Analysis and Stability
Member Design in TEDDS
Timing
Final comments
Added discussion (If time allows)
Serviceability Checks for slabs.

54
 55

Slab Serviceability
Options for checking slab serviceability:
Determine slab thickness from “span/effective depth rules”
Deflection limits (span/360 & span/250) automatically deemed OK
Only applicable to regular slabs
BS8110 and EC2 both provide methods
Simple FE method (available in Orion now)
Use a multiplier on E in analysis (typically E28/6 < E < E28/4)
Applicable to irregular slabs and slabs with openings
Perceived “Accurate” methods – should take account of
Concrete strength with age
Load history (magnitude and duration)
Cracking (including tension stiffening)
Creep
Shrinkage

55
 56

Slab Serviceability
BS8110 span/effective depth rules
Concrete grade does not affect the limit.
Loading type does not affect the limit.
The limit can be influenced by introduction of
more reinforcement.
EC2 span/effective depth rules
Concrete grade does affect the limit.
Loading type does affect the limit.
The limit can be influenced by introduction of
more reinforcement.

56
 57

Slab Serviceability
Comparisons of span/effective depth limits
Use a simple example:
Span 6m (simply supported – single span)
DL – Selfweight + 1.5kN/m2
IL – 5.0kN/m2 (including 1.0kN/m2 for partitions)
Concrete Grade:
Case 1 – C20/25 concrete is used in order to review
compatibility of code span/effective depth limits for lower
grade concrete. (Cube Strength 25N/mm2, Cylinder
Strength 20N/mm2)
Case 2 – C35/45 is used to review the extent to which the
EC2 approach recognises advantage from higher grades.
(Cube Strength 45N/mm2, Cylinder Strength 35N/mm2)

57
 58

Slab Serviceability
Comparisons of span/effective depth limits
Determine Min Depth before reinforcement needs to be
added to control deflection
BS8110 (C20/25)
290mm
EC2 (C20/25)
290mm for storage condition
270mm for office loading condition.
If stiffness is assumed proportional to the depth3, then
20mm depth reduction = 20% stiffness reduction.
EC2 rigorous method will not justify the above slab
thicknesses without increasing reinforcement. For the
270mm slab thickness the reinforcement must be nearly
doubled.

58
 59

Slab Serviceability
Comparisons of span/effective depth limits
Determine Min Depth before reinforcement needs to be
added to control deflection
BS8110 (C35/45)
290mm (unchanged)
EC2 (C35/45)
260mm for storage condition
240mm for office loading condition.
If stiffness is assumed proportional to the depth3, then
50mm depth reduction = 45% stiffness reduction.
Again, the EC2 rigorous method will not justify the above
slab thicknesses without increasing reinforcement. For the
240mm slab thickness the reinforcement must be nearly
doubled.

59
 60

Slab Serviceability
Rigorous Deflection Estimation
Not the focus of this presentation
A big topic worthy of a long presentation in it’s own
right.
There are occasions when it is important.
It is not a way to introduce general efficiencies and cost
savings. In fact it is likely to achieve just the reverse.

60
 61

Slab Serviceability
Main Points
The span/eff-depth limit checks of BS8110 and EC2 are
quite closely correlated for a low grade concrete.
EC2 span/eff-depth checks account for concrete grade
and loading types and offer a significant advantage over
BS8110 checks for concrete grades more commonly in
use today.
The EC2 rigorous method is much more conservative
than the EC2 span/eff-depth method and is generally
more conservative than the BS8110 method.
The degree of the advantage that EC2 offers is so
substantial that questions are being raised about it. It is
possible that changes will be introduced on this topic.

61
Concrete Structures
& Eurocodes

Thank You

© CSC (UK) Ltd. 2009

62