A Summary of Essential Differences Between EC2 and BS8110 Code (2014 10 07)

1.
A summary of essential
differences between EC2 and
BS8110
Prof Tan Kang Hai

Email: D-PTRC@ntu.edu.sg
Director of Protective Technology Research Centre (PTRC)

School of Civil & Environmental Engineering
All the rights of 11 lecture materials belong to Tan Kang Hai
1
QUIZ
• Which is the most challenging hurdle in migration from

BS8110 to EC2?
• What is the highest grade of concrete in EC2?
• How are notional horizontal loads represented in EC2?
• What are the essential differences in shear design

between BS 8110 and EC2?
• What is the main difference in column design in EC2?
2
Outline
 Similarities and differences of BS8110 and EC2
 Influence of material behaviour
 Basis of design and load combination
 Global geometric imperfections
 Nonlinear versus linear elastic analysis
 Shear design of beams and slabs
 Design of columns
 Detailing of members
3
Outline
4
Similarities
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
of BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour
- Ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state
Basis of design - Permanent actions, imposed loads and wind loads
and load
combination - Plane strain assumption for design of beams,
Global geometric slabs, columns, and walls
imperfections
- Linear elastic analysis
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic - Linear elastic analysis with limited distribution
analysis
- Plastic analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs
Design of columns
Detailing of
members
5
Differences
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
between BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour • EC2 is phenomenon-based code unlike the BS8110
Basis of design • Entire code is based on reliability index
and load
combination • Based on Model Concrete Code 1978 and 1990
Global geometric
imperfections 1. Influence of material behaviour (Concrete grade
Nonlinear versus 90/105)
linear elastic
analysis 2. Basis of design and load combination
Shear design of
3. Global geometric imperfections
beams and slabs 4. Nonlinear versus linear elastic analysis
Design of columns 5. Shear design of beams and slabs
Detailing of 6. Design of columns
members
7. Detailing of members
6
Outline
7
Similarities and
EC2 stress-strain relationships of
differences of
BS8110 and EC2 concrete under compression
Influence of max stress level for idealized curve must be below the max stress
material behaviour
of the schematic diagram for the same area under the curve
Basis of design
and load
combination
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs
The design value of concrete compressive strength fcd is given by:
 f
Design of columns
0.85fck
fcd  cc ck   0.567fck (3.15)
Detailing of c 1.5
members
Where the factor allows for the difference between the
bending strength and the cylinder crushing strength of concrete,
and  c  1.5 is the concrete material partial safety factor. 8
Table 3.1 Strength and deformation
Similarities and
differences of characteristics for concrete
BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour
Basis of design
and load
combination
Class 3
Class 1 Class 2
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs
Design of columns
Detailing of
members
9
Similarities and
EC2 stress-strain relationships of
differences of
BS8110 and EC2 reinforcing steel
Influence of k=ft/fy indicates ductility; the greater the k value, the longer is the
material behaviour
plateau or the plastic zone uk.
Basis of design
and load
combination
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs The design value of the modulus of elastic Es is 200 GPa. In
Design of columns the ultimate limit state calculation, by taking a partial safety
factor of  s  1.15 , design values of yield strength fyd and
yield strain  y of reinforcing steel are respectively computed as:
Detailing of
members
fyk fyk 500  103

  0.87fyk  y    0.00217
 s Es 1.15200  10 
fyd 6
1.15
10
Table C.1: Properties of reinforcement
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2 Product form Bars and de-coiled Wire Fabrics Requirement or
rods quantile value (%)
Influence of Class A B C A B C -
material behaviour Characteristic yield
strength fyk or f0.2k (MPa) 400 to 600 5.0
Basis of design
and load Minimum value of
combination k = (ft/fy)k ≥1.05 ≥1.08 ≥1.15 ≥1.05 ≥1.08 ≥1.15 10.0
<1.35 <1.35
Global geometric
imperfections
Characteristic strain at ≥2.5 ≥5.0 ≥7.5 ≥2.5 ≥5.0 ≥7.5 10.0
Nonlinear versus
maximum force, (%)
linear elastic
Bendability Bend/Rebend test -
analysis
Shear strength - 0.3 A fyk (A is area of wire) Minimum
Shear design of
beams and slabs Maximum Nominal
deviation bar size ± 6.0 5.0
Design of columns from nominal (mm) ± 4.5
mass ≤8
Detailing of (individual >8
members bar of wire)
(%)
11
7.2.3 Tensile properties BS 4449:2005
Similarities and
differences of
+A2:2009
BS8110 and EC2 The specified values for the tensile properties
Influence of
are given in Table 4.
material behaviour
Table 4 – Characteristic tensile properties
Basis of design
and load Yield strength, Tensile/yield strength ratio, Total elongation at
combination Re Rm/Re maximum force, Agt
MPa %
Global geometric
imperfections B500A 500 1.05a 2.5b
B500B 500 1.08 5.0
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
B500C 500 ≥1.15,<1.35 7.5
analysis a Rm/Re characteristics is 1.02 for sizes below 8mm.
b A characteristics is 1.0% for sizes below 8mm.
gt
Shear design of
Values of Re specified are characteristic with p = 0.95.
beams and slabs
Values of Rm/Re and Agt specified are characteristic with p = 0.90.
Design of columns Calculate the values of Rm and Re using the nominal cross sectional area.
Detailing of The absolute maximum permissible value of yield strength is 650 MPa.
members
12
7.2.3 Tensile properties
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour
Basis of design
and load
combination
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs BS 8666:2005 - Scheduling, dimensioning, bending and cutting of steel
Design of columns reinforcement for concrete — Specification has been revised to incorporate:
(i) Shape codes available under BS EN ISO 3766:2003; (ii) Revised
Detailing of notation in accordance with BS 4449:2005 and BS EN 10080:2005; (iii)
members
Revisions to BS 4449:2005 (including the omission of grade 250 and grade
460 reinforcement) (iv) The provisions of BS EN 1992-1-1 (including the
preclusion of wire to BS 4482:2004 for structural purpose).
13
.
Similar to BS specification
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour
Basis of design
and load
combination
BS system:
Global geometric
imperfections
notation is T
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs
Design of columns
Detailing of
members
14
Outline
15
Load combinations
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
according to EC0
Influence of
material behaviour Leading variable action and accompanying variable action:
Basis of design
and load
combination (6.10)
Global geometric
imperfections
Comparison of partial factors for loading
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic Design situations BS 8110 EC2
analysis With one variable action
1.4DL + 1.6LL 1.35Gk + 1.5Qk
(Live load)
Shear design of With one variable action
beams and slabs 1.4DL + 1.6W 1.35Gk + 1.5Wk
(Wind load)
Design of columns With two variable
actions
Detailing of 1.2DL + 1.2LL + 1.35 Gk + 1.5 Qk + 0.75Wk
members (leading and
1.2W Or 1.35 Gk + 1.05 Qk + 1.5Wk
accompanying)
(Wind & live loads)
0.7x1.5Qk for office or 0.5x1.5Wk
residential buildings 16
Load combinations
Similarities and To be applied together
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
according to EC0
Influence of
material behaviour
Basis of design
(6.10a)
and load
combination
(6.10b)
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus Ultimate states Combinations of actions

linear elastic
analysis Eq. (6.10)
1.35 Gk + 1.5 Qk + 1.5*0.5Wk
For EQU, STR,
Shear design of Or 1.35 Gk + 1.05 Qk + 1.5Wk
beams and slabs
GEO
Eq. (6.10a) 1.35 Gk + 1.5*0.5Wk +1.5*0.7 Qk
Design of columns
For STR, GEO 1.35 Gk + 1.5*0.5Wk
Detailing of
members
Eq. (6.10b) 0.925*1.35Gk + 1.5Wk +1.5*0.7 Qk
For unfavourable
For STR, GEO Or 0.925*1.35 Gk + 1.5Wk permanent
actions – single
source principle
in EC0 - Table
17
A1.2 (B) Set B
Load combinations
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
according to EC0
Influence of
material behaviour
Basis of design
and load
combination
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs
Design of columns
Detailing of
members
18
Load combinations
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
according to EC2 Cl 5.1.3
Influence of
material behaviour
Single source for Gk
Basis of design
and load
combination
Global geometric
1.35Gk + 1.5Qk
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
1.35Gk + 1.5Qk 1.35Gk + 1.5Qk 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk
Shear design of 1.35Gk 1.0Gk
beams and slabs
Design of columns
1.35Gk + 1.5Qk 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk
Detailing of 1.35Gk 1.35Gk
1.0Gk 1.0Gk
members
19
Outline
20
When to consider
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
geometric imperfections?
Influence of
material behaviour • In EC2, there is no notional
Basis of design
horizontal load.
and load
combination • Global geometric imperfections due
Global geometric to out-of-plumbness of vertical
imperfections
elements must be modelled by
Nonlinear versus equivalent loads in two design
linear elastic
analysis situations:
Shear design of
beams and slabs
 Persistent design situations:
Possible extreme loading condition
Design of columns
of wind, imposed loads.
Detailing of
members
 Accidental design situations: fire,
impact.
21
When to consider
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour • Imperfection loads are quantified by three considerations:
Basis of design
and load  Global analysis of building structures.
combination
Global geometric
 Analysis of isolated vertical members.
imperfections
 Analysis of floor diaphragms as horizontal elements
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic transferring forces to bracing members.
analysis
Only imperfection loads in global analysis are similar to
Shear design of
beams and slabs notional horizontal loads, although they are very different in
Design of columns the way to be considered.
Detailing of • Imperfections need not be considered for serviceability limit
members
states.
22
How to consider
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour • The structure is assumed with inclination θl, given by:
Basis of design
and load
combination
where: θ0 is the basic value (θ0 = 1/200)
Global geometric
imperfections • αh is the reduction factor for height
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs • αm is the reduction factor for number of members:
Design of columns
Detailing of
members
where m is the number of vertically continuous members

in the storey contributing to total horizontal forces on the
floor. 23
How to consider
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour
Basis of design
and load
combination
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs To design for slab
(member transferring
Design of columns forces to bracing
elements)
Detailing of
members • The imperfection on each floor may be represented by a
force acting on the floor where Na and Nb are the factored
axial forces above and below the floor considered. (see
EC3 Figure 5.3) 24
How to consider
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour
Lateral load case: in BS 8110: Hdesign = Max(HN, 1.2Wk)
However, in EC 2: Hdesign = 1.0 Hi + FWk
Basis of design
and load
combination
where Hi is horizontal loads for geometric imperfection
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs
Design of columns
Detailing of
members
25
Outline
26
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Different types of analysis
Influence of
material behaviour  First order elastic analysis: represents conditions at
Basis of design normal service loads very well (Section 5.4)
and load
combination  First order elastic analysis with limited redistribution:
Global geometric
excluded nonlinearity, represents conditions at normal
imperfections service loads very well (Section 5.5)
Nonlinear versus  First order inelastic analysis: Plastic analysis with no
linear elastic
analysis geometrical nonlinearity (Section 5.6)
Shear design of  Second order elastic analysis: Effects of finite
beams and slabs
deformation considered. Good representation of P- effect
Design of columns (Section 5.7)
Detailing of
members
 Second order inelastic analysis: Both geometrical and
material nonlinearities are considered. Model can faithfully
reflect the behavior of structures up to ultimate limit state
27
Similarities and
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Different types of analysis
Influence of
material behaviour
Basis of design
and load
combination
 e
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs
Design of columns
Detailing of
members
Source: Fig. 8.1 of Matrix Structural Analysis, Second Edition, William

McGuire, Richard H. Gallagher and Ronald D. Ziemian, John Wiley & Sons, Inc,
2000, ISBN 0-471-12918-6
28
Outline
29
Similarities and Methodology
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
• EC2 uses The Variable Strut Inclination Method for shear
material behaviour design.
Basis of design • BS 8110 uses Truss Analogy with truss angle  = 450
and load
combination
DC : the concrete acts as the
Global geometric
imperfections diagonal struts;
Nonlinear versus VT: the stirrups act as the
linear elastic vertical ties;
analysis
BT: the tension reinforcement
Shear design of
beams and slabs
forms the bottom chord;
Design of columns
TC: the compression
steel/concrete forms the top
Detailing of chord.
members
(a) Beam and reinforcement  = 21.80 ÷ 450 (strut angle)
(b) Analogous truss
(EC2 6.2.3(2))
30
Similarities and Comparison of shear design
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour • BS 8110 • EC2
Basis of design 1.  = 45o 1.  = 21.8o ÷ 45o
and load
combination 2. BS 8110 compares shear 2. EC 2 compares shear forces.
Global geometric
stresses. 3. The maximum shear capacity
imperfections 3. The maximum shear of concrete VRd,max cannot be
Nonlinear versus stress is limited to 5 exceeded.
linear elastic
analysis
N/mm2 or 0.8fcu, 4. Where the applied shear
whichever is the lesser. exceeds the min shear
Shear design of
beams and slabs 4. The design shear force resistance of concrete VRd,c,
must be less than the the shear reinforcement
Design of columns
sum of the shear should be capable of resisting
Detailing of resistance of concrete all the shear forces.
members
plus shear links.
31
Similarities and Punching shear design of slabs
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Control perimeters
Influence of
material behaviour
Basic control perimeter u1:
Basis of design
and load
combination
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs
Design of columns
Detailing of
members
32
Outline
33
Similarities and Differences in symbols
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour
Basis of design
and load
combination
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs
Design of columns
Detailing of
members
34
Similarities and Differences in symbols
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour
Basis of design
and load
combination
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs
Design of columns
Detailing of
members
35
Similarities and Differences in design
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour
Basis of design
and load
combination
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs
Design of columns
Detailing of
members
36
Similarities and Differences in design
differences of
BS8110 and EC2
Influence of
material behaviour
Basis of design
and load
combination
Global geometric
imperfections
Nonlinear versus
linear elastic
analysis
Shear design of
beams and slabs
Design of columns
Detailing of
members
37
Outline
38
Detailing of members
DESIGN ANCHORAGE LENGTH
For the effect of the form of the

bars assuming adequate cover
1=0.7~1.0 (in comp. is 1.0) Basic anchorage length
For the effect of concrete minimum

Design stress of the bar:
cover 2=0.7~1.0 (in comp. is 1.0)
For the effect of confinement by tied Design ultimate stress:

transverse bars along the design anc.
length 3=0.7~1.0 (in comp. is 1.0)
For the quality of bond condition 1=0.7
For the effect of confinement by welded (poor) - 1=1.0 (good)
transverse bars along the design anc. length
4=0.7 For the bar diameter 2=1.0 for ≤32mm
2=(132-)/100 for  >32mm
For the effect of confinement by transverse

The design concrete tensile strength (<C60/75)
pressure along the design anc. length 5=0.7
fctd=fctk,0.05/c
39
Detailing of members
DESIGN ANCHORAGE LENGTH lbd
40
SUMMARY on Differences between BS and EC
• Complex load combinations due to leading and accompanying
variable load cases;
• In EC0 - Eq 6.10 compared with Eq 6.10(a) and Eq 6.10(b).
• Definition of member types and the choice of suitable elements;
• Represent global geometrical imperfection load by horizontal
loads and consider in all ULS;
• Need to consider global second order effect unless structure
satisfies Clause 5.8.3.3;
• Calculation model should reflect realistic global and local
behaviour of the designed RC structure
• High strength concrete is permitted (above 50 MPa till 90 MPa);
• Mild steel 250 MPa is no longer allowed.
41
QUIZ
• Which is the most challenging hurdle in migration from

BS8110 to EC2?
• What is the highest grade of concrete in EC2?
• How are notional horizontal loads represented in EC2?
• What are the essential differences in shear design

between BS 8110 and EC2?
• What is the main difference in column design in EC2?
42
Thank You!
43

A Summary of Essential Differences Between EC2 and BS8110 Code (2014 10 07)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A Summary of Essential Differences Between EC2 and BS8110 Code (2014 10 07)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Summary of Essential Differences Between EC2 and BS8110 Code (2014 10 07)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.

Prof Tan Kang Hai

Director of Protective Technology Research Centre (PTRC)

• Which is the most challenging hurdle in migration from

• What is the highest grade of concrete in EC2?

• How are notional horizontal loads represented in EC2?

• What are the essential differences in shear design

• What is the main difference in column design in EC2?

 Influence of material behaviour

 Basis of design and load combination

 Global geometric imperfections

 Nonlinear versus linear elastic analysis

 Shear design of beams and slabs

 Influence of material behaviour

 Basis of design and load combination

 Global geometric imperfections

 Nonlinear versus linear elastic analysis

 Shear design of beams and slabs

 Influence of material behaviour

 Basis of design and load combination

 Global geometric imperfections

 Nonlinear versus linear elastic analysis

 Shear design of beams and slabs

fyk fyk 500  103

 Influence of material behaviour

 Basis of design and load combination

 Global geometric imperfections

 Nonlinear versus linear elastic analysis

 Shear design of beams and slabs

Nonlinear versus Ultimate states Combinations of actions

 Influence of material behaviour

 Basis of design and load combination

 Global geometric imperfections

 Nonlinear versus linear elastic analysis

 Shear design of beams and slabs

where m is the number of vertically continuous members

 Influence of material behaviour

 Basis of design and load combination

 Global geometric imperfections

 Nonlinear versus linear elastic analysis

 Shear design of beams and slabs

Source: Fig. 8.1 of Matrix Structural Analysis, Second Edition, William

 Influence of material behaviour

 Basis of design and load combination

 Global geometric imperfections

 Nonlinear versus linear elastic analysis

 Shear design of beams and slabs

 Influence of material behaviour

 Basis of design and load combination

 Global geometric imperfections

 Nonlinear versus linear elastic analysis

 Shear design of beams and slabs

 Influence of material behaviour

 Basis of design and load combination

 Global geometric imperfections

 Nonlinear versus linear elastic analysis

 Shear design of beams and slabs

For the effect of the form of the