Scribd
Upload
85 views

Eurocode 2 Faqs: 2 Min Cdev

This document provides summaries of questions and issues that have arisen regarding the interpretation and application of Eurocode 2 (EN 1992-1-1). It discusses topics such as minimum cover requirements for bars, design moments for columns, definitions of beams and columns, shear design of circular sections, layout of punching shear reinforcement, requirements for torsional reinforcement, lap lengths of bars, starter bars in large foundations, staggered lap configurations, dimensioning rules for transverse reinforcement near laps, and the amount of transverse reinforcement required. The document aims to clarify these issues and justify traditional UK practice within the spirit of Eurocode 2. The comments have been reviewed by UK experts and will be considered for inclusion in future revisions of Eurocode 2.

Uploaded by

krishnakumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
85 views

Eurocode 2 Faqs: 2 Min Cdev

This document provides summaries of questions and issues that have arisen regarding the interpretation and application of Eurocode 2 (EN 1992-1-1). It discusses topics such as minimum cover requirements for bars, design moments for columns, definitions of beams and columns, shear design of circular sections, layout of punching shear reinforcement, requirements for torsional reinforcement, lap lengths of bars, starter bars in large foundations, staggered lap configurations, dimensioning rules for transverse reinforcement near laps, and the amount of transverse reinforcement required. The document aims to clarify these issues and justify traditional UK practice within the spirit of Eurocode 2. The comments have been reviewed by UK experts and will be considered for inclusion in future revisions of Eurocode 2.

Uploaded by

krishnakumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Eurocode 2 FAQs

The Concrete Centre’s Helpdesk has over the years answered many questions on Eurocode
2. The answers given are our best advice based on our involvement with the standards and
concrete ‘experts’. The examples shown below have been asked several times and the
answers are interpretations intended to clarify the issues and often to justify ‘traditional’
practice within the spirit of Eurocode 2 but not necessarily to the letter of Eurocode 2. The
comments below have been looked at and acknowledged by UK experts and have been
passed on to the relevant European committee for consideration in revising EN 1992-1-1 in
approximately 2018. They constitute The Concrete Centre’s advice with regards to the issue
and clauses quoted. Until higher authority is sought and gained, individual users must decide
the appropriateness of this advice for themselves.

Cover to bars in flat slabs


4.4.1.2(3) Table 4.2
The requirement to add tolerance to the cover required for bond is a change in practice in the UK
and can affect overall member dimensions. This could be mitigated by allowing smaller minimum
covers for bond.
The background to expression 6.1-12 of the draft MC2010, which allows covers down to f/2,
should be considered. This would require the cover term in EN 1992-1-1 Table 8.2 to be reviewed
as well. By extrapolating the formula in Table 8.2 a maximum value of α2 =1.075 may be
determined for cmin = f/2 [MC 2010 Exp 6-1-19 suggests factor might need to be 1.15 for f/2 cover.
As minimum nominal cover will be f/2 + Dcdev , we suggest that the existing formula is OK].
Advice:
Allow min cover to be f/2 + Dcdev
In Table 8.2, replace limits for α2 to:
≥0.7
£1.075

Design moments for columns


5.8.8.2(1), Exp (5.31)
It is not clear what the intention of the current clause is. Certainly it is not clear whether M0Ed is
meant to include for moments occurring either end of the member.
From the notes it may be that the Engineer is expected to work out the other possible cases from
first principles. This however has caused problems with interpretation in the UK and lead to the
need for greater clarity in this area.
This clause is about second order effects but this may not lead to the largest design moment in the
section. The designer should be helped by defining the design moment, MEd for the section as:
§ For braced structures:
MEd = maximum of M0e + eiNEd + M2; M02 + eiNEd ; (M01 + eiNEd +0.5M2) and eoNEd
i.e. for non-slender sections:
MEd = M02 + eiNEd,
§ For unbraced structures:
MEd = maximum of M02 + M2 and eoNEd
Where
st
M0e = 1 order moment at about mid-height see 5.8.8.2(2)
ei = eccentricity due to imperfections determined from 5.2.7

1
NEd = design axial force
M2 = nominal 2nd order moment, see 5.8.8.2(3). For non-slender sections M2 may be taken as
0. If M2 < 0.1 M02 then M2 may be ignored, see 5.8.2(6).
eo = minimum eccentricity due to imperfections determined from 6.1.4
st
M01, M02 = 1 order end moments where │M02│≥ │M01│

When is a beam a column?


6.1, 9.2.1
For the purposes of design and fire there needs to be some definition of when a beam becomes a
column. It is suggested that when NEd/Ac < 0.15fck (judged from column charts) then the section
should be treated as a beam.

Shear in circular sections


6.2.1
Refer to
· Shear in reinforced concrete piles and circular columns Ian Feltham– The Structural
Engineer 2 June 2004
· Shear design of circular concrete sections using the Eurocode 2 truss model J. J. Orr, et al,
The Structural Engineer 88 (23/24) 7 December 2010

Layout of punching shear links


6.2.2(4), Figure 6.22B
Figure 6.22B has been drawn incorrectly. See recommendations below.
With thanks to Robin whittle, Ian Feltham (Arup) and Richard Kent (Arup).

2
Torsion links
6.3.2
There is no information on the required area for torsional links in sections that require to be
reinforced. It is therefore impossible to determine TRds(?) for reinforced sections or verify a section
subject to torsion and shear where TRd,c < TEd < TRdc,max.
ENV 1992-1-1 Exp (4.43) would imply:
TRd,s(?) = 2Akf yw,d cot q Asw/s

Revert to ENV 1992-1-1 Exp (4.43).

Lap lengths
8.4.4(1), 8.7.3(1), Table 8.2:a2
According to Eligehuasen & Vliet (fib Bulletin 52 p 319), the lap lengths in MC90 (and therefore
Eurocode 2) are based on a clear distance between splices of 2 diameters in a 2 bar beam system.
Thus 8.7.2(3) 3rd bullet: “The clear transverse spacing of neighbouring splices should be not less
than 2f and at least 20 mm (this spacing is assumed in determination of required splice lengths).”
Work by Eligehuasen (1979: as shown in fib Bulletin 52 pp 314-320) shows a clear relationship
between clear spacing between bars and a factor for required splice length. For more usual bar
spacings, down to 6 diameters (4 diameters gap) in slabs and 10 diameters in (two-bar) beams a
factor of approximately 0.63 should be applied to the length of splice currently calculated.
This reduction should be available to designers and detailers. Current lap lengths are causing
general consternation and are unwarranted.
Suggested workaround:
Introduce new factor a7 into Expressions (8.4) and (8.10) and Table 8.2
where
influencing factor = Spacing of bars
Type of anchorage = All types
In tension a7 = 1.00 at 4f centres (2f gaps at laps),
0.63 at ≥ 6f centres in slabs and at ≥ 10f centres in 2-bar beams. Intermediate
values may be interpolated.

Starter bars in large bases, etc.


8.4.4(1) Table 8.2 a1 , a2
a2=1.0 is considered too onerous for starter bars in large bases. Evidence from University of
Durham suggests a factor of 0.7 might be appropriate.
“The tests carried out suggest that the value of the α2 coefficient for column bars in a foundation
could safely be reduced to 0.7 (as for tension anchorage).” However work required on large bars
and on bends in foundations
For bars in axial compression, it is recognised that there are benefits from end bearing.
Compression anchorages are equivalent to a hooked bar in tension. The 0.7 was used in the UK
in the days of 460 MPa steel. Model Code 2010 recognises that confinement helps. It is therefore
recommended that a2 for compression should be the same as a2 for tension
With the caveat that a2=1.0 if the bar in end bearing terminates close (i.e. say ???) to a face (the
distance measured parallel to the bar axis)
Starter bars in large bases, etc.

3
8.4.4(1) Table 8.2 a5
The value for α5 for bars in compression should be stated presumably this is 1.0.

Staggered laps
8.7.2(3), Fig 8.7, Fig 8.8
The requirement for a 0.3l o gap between laps is very onerous and appears to be conservative
especially when the lap lengths themselves are based on a clear spacing of 2d.
Staggered laps are now known to reduce strength at ULS. So they should be discouraged. The
decision is then really one for the SLS where the concentration of stresses at ends of bars leads to
the possibility of cracking at the ends of laps, which may be an issue. We understand that a
forthcoming fib bulletin confirms this statement.
Tentatively, we understand that 0.5 lo centre would be fine (as per traditional practice in UK).
Figures 8.7 and 8.8 are considered to be unhelpful should be ignored in this regard.

Dimension a
8.7.2(3), Fig 8.7 8.7.4.1 para 2
The explanation of ‘a’ should be in or adjacent to Figure 8.7 not as far away as 8.7.4.1(3) para 2.
Given the comments on cl 8.7.4.1(4) & 8.7.4.2(1) the requirement for transverse bars to be formed
by links or U-bars anchored into the body of the section is considered unwarranted.

Factor a6
8.7.3(1) Table 8.3 a6
a6 should always be 1.5.
“a6 needs to be fundamentally reassessed”.: We understand that a forthcoming fib bulletin confirms
this statement. Bond is a brittle mode of failure. Laps can ‘unzip’.
This position statement goes hand-in-hand with the fact that wider spacing than that the clear 2 f
assumed should be recognised. (See comment on 8.4.4(1) and proposed a7)

Sufficiency of transverse bars


8.7.4.1(2)
According to UK practice, the limits of 20 mm and 25% are exceedingly onerous and should be
NDPs.
It has been suggested that this clause be omitted.

Transverse steel.
8.7.4.1(4) & 8.7.4.2(1) Fig 8.9a) and b)
Corrigenda 2, which removed the words requiring transverse bars to be between the lap and the
surface, has negated the major issue..
However, according to a forthcoming fib bulletin on bond, only 1 bar is required within 3 diameters
of end of bar. This bar is intended to deal with the stress in the tensile ring around the end of a
lapping bar or anchorage, which is approx. 50 to 100% greater than in the body of the lap or
anchorage.
From the detailing and construction points of view, there are difficulties of in ensuring that links or
transverse bars will be placed in this location. It is understood that having no transverse bar in this
location would reduce capacity of the lap by 10 to 15%. This would appear to be the sounder

4
presumption and some leeway could be given if the location of transverse bars or links with
respect to the end of the lapped bar can be guaranteed.
We suggest adding a factor a8 = 1.1 for the general condition but allowing a8 = 1.0 if
links/transverse bar can be guaranteed to be placed within 3f of the end of a lap.

Transverse steel, Ast


8.7.4.1(4) & 8.7.4.2(1), Fig 8.9a) and b)
Ast is not supplementary to steel required for other purposes.
Given the comments on cl 8.7.4.1(4) & 8.7.4.2(1) these requirements for Ast is considered
unwarranted.

eof

You might also like