Development of new design codes –

The Structural Eurocodes

Structural Eurocodes

Introduction

• Introduction to Eurocodes and their impacts

• Some comparisons with BS5400
• Increasing use of finite element analysis in design
• New codified topics
Introduction to the Eurocodes and their impacts
Eurocodes and programme for introduction

“The structural Eurocodes are a European suite of codes for

structural design … developed over … twenty-five years”

“By 2010 they will have effectively replaced the current British
Standards as the primary basis for designing buildings and civil
engineering structures in the UK”

„ National Strategy for Implementation of the Structural Eurocodes:

Design Guidance, IStructE (April 2004)
 Eurocodes and programme for introduction

The European
Committee for
Standardisation
(CEN) is
responsible for
overseeing
production

Other countries
outside EU will
also be
adopting e.g.
Malaysia,
Vietnam,
Singapore and
probably
Australia, S.
Africa, Hong
Kong
Eurocodes and programme for introduction

EN 1990 Eurocode 0 Basis of structural design

EN 1991 Eurocode 1 Actions on structures

EN 1992 Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures

EN 1993 Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures

EN 1994 Eurocode 4 Design of composite steel and concrete

structures

EN 1995 Eurocode 5 Design of timber structures

EN 1996 Eurocode 6 Design of masonry structures

EN 1997 Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design

EN 1998 Eurocode 8 Design of structures for earthquake

resistance

EN 1999 Eurocode 9 Design of aluminium alloy structures

Eurocodes and programme for introduction

Eurocode Equivalent
BS5400
EN 1990 Basis of structural design BS5400 Part 1 and 2

ACTIONS

EN 1991-1-1 Densities, self weight and imposed loads

EN 1991-1-2 Actions on structures exposed to fire
EN 1991-1-3 Snow loads
EN 1991-1-4 Wind loads BS5400 Part 2
EN 1991-1-5 Thermal loads
EN 1991-1-6 Actions during execution
EN 1991-1-7 Accidental actions
EN 1991-2 Traffic loads on bridges

CONCRETE
EN 1992-1-1 General rules and rules for buildings BS 5400 Part 4
EN 1992-2 Bridges
Eurocodes and programme for introduction

Eurocode Equivalent
BS5400

STEEL
EN 1993-1-1 General rules and rules for buildings
EN 1993-1-5 Plated structural elements
EN 1993-1-7 Strength of planar plated structures
loaded transversely
EN 1993-1-8 Design of joints BS5400 Part 3
EN 1993-1-9 Fatigue
EN 1993-1-10 Brittle fracture
EN 1993-1-11 Cables
EN 1993-2 Bridges

STEEL-CONCRETE COMPOSITE

EN 1994-1-1 General rules and rules for buildings

BS 5400 Part 5
EN 1994-2 General rules and rules for bridges
Eurocodes and programme for introduction

• Each Eurocode part will be published with a

National Annex (by BSI in UK)
• National Annex gives Nationally Determined
Parameters (NDPs) e.g. material factors
• NAs will eventually be removed, thus requiring
pan-European agreement on parameters
• Member states must accept solutions to
Eurocodes for all public works contracts
Impact for designers

„ No consensus amongst members as to what a

design code should contain – opposing views
„ Sometimes neither view catered for
satisfactorily!
„ Some cultural change required?
- greater use of 1st principles
- greater use of finite element modelling
- better knowledge of mathematics
„ Changes to technical approval – record choices
„ Greater scope for innovation and economy
Impact for designers

Euro-speak
„ “Action”
- force or imposed displacement

„ “Verification”
- check

„ “Resistance”
- capacity

„ “Execution”
- construction / fabrication

„ “Isostatic”
- primary

„ “Characteristic, frequent, quasi-permanent”

Impact for designers

Notation

„ Member sign convention more compatible

with analysis packages i.e. x-x along member

z z
v
z
y y
u
y y
y y
u

z z z v
Impact for designers

Notation

Extensive use of subscripts – sometimes helpful:

„ “Ed” = design internal effect
e.g. NEd = design axial force
„ “Rd” = design resistance
e.g. NRd = design resistance to axial force

Extensive use of subscripts – sometimes tedious:

„ E.g. Ac,eff,loc = effective compression area due to
plate sub-panel local buckling
Impact for designers

„ Principles [§1.4(2) and (3)]

„ General statements and definitions for which there is no
alternative
„ Requirements and analytical models for which no alternative
is permitted unless specifically stated
„ Principles are identified by the letter P following their
paragraph number e.g. clause 3.1(1)P
„ Verb used is “shall”

„ Application Rules [§1.4(4)]

„ Examples of generally recognised rules, which follow the
Principles and satisfy their requirements
„ Verbs used are “should”, “may”, “can”, etc.
„ Alternative rules are allowed provided they give equivalent
structural safety, serviceability and durability (or better)
Some comparisons with BS 5400
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1990

EN 1990 – Basis of structural design

„ Deals with definitions and requirements for

limit states, analysis and load combinations
„ Combinations of actions identified as
difficult to perform
„ Different serviceability combinations:
- Characteristic, frequent, quasi-permanent

e.g. stress e.g. cable e.g. crack width

checks removal/ checks
replacement
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1990

EN 1990 – Basis of structural design

„ No load combination tables…………

ULS : E(ΣγG,j . Gk,j + γp . P + γQ,1 . Qk,1 + ΣγQ,i .ψ0,i . Qk,i)

permanent prestress leading other actions in

loads action combination
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1991

EN 1991 – Actions on structures

„ EN 1991 in many parts, unlike BS 5400 Part 2
„ Traffic actions in EN 1991-2
„ Highway loads simpler. Equivalent to HA is:
- relatively light UDL (constant)
- relatively heavy pairs of axles (Tandem System)
„ Resulting effects similar in magnitude to old BS
loading

2.0 m
Direction of travel
(300kN axles)
1.2 m
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1992

EN1992 – Design of concrete structures

Material properties

„ Concrete calculations use cylinder

strength ~ 0.8 × cube strength
„ Concrete specification uses both:
C40/50 has 40 MPa cylinder strength and
50 MPa cube strength
„ Covers concrete grades up to C70/85 for
bridges and C90/105 for buildings
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1992

σ A
kfyk kfyk

fyk

fyd = fyk / γs

k = (ft / fy)k

A – Idealised
B – Design

0 fyd / Es εud εuk ε

Two alternative design curves for reinforcement

- Rising branch brings economy
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1992

Compressive stress blocks for

bending and axial force

• Possible blocks are: fcd fcd fcd

- rectangular λx
(λ=0.8) x
- bilinear
- parabola-rectangle
• All have same maximum
stress so rectangular gives
greater bending resistance
• Minimal difference to BS
5400 Strain
Stress (for fck < 50 MPa)
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1992

Web shear design

• Beams without links - compression chord (concrete in
stirrups
similar treatment to BS compression zone)

5400
• Beams with links – s

variable angle truss

α θ
(not limited to 45
degrees) but cannot tension chord (tensile typical web
reinforcement) compression strut
add concrete term
• Can increase strength
based on links and
concrete crushing –
designer to choose
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1992

Example 1000 mm

„ C35/45 concrete
„ B500B reinforcement
„ Shear links 16mm diameter 1500
@ 200 mm centres - vertical mm

50 mm
7 No. 20 diameter bars
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1992

Summary of shear resistances for simple beam to

BS5400 Part 4 and EN 1992-2

BS 5400 EC2 - 45º truss EC2 – 21.8º truss

Shear Crushing Shear Crushing Shear Crushing
resistance resistance - resistance resistance resistance resistance
(kN) Vmax (kN) (kN) VRd,max (kN) (kN) VRd,max (kN)
1100(1259)1 6840 1238 8524 3095 5878
1. Ignoring BS5400 “0.4” term
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1992

2d 2d 2d
u1 u1
u1
2d
bz
VEd
vEd = β
V Ed
v Ed = β
uid
ui d
by

„ Basic perimeter u1 at 2d chosen so that same shear

stress formula as that for flexural shear can be used
„ Also check perimeter u0 at face of load against
maximum shear stress
„ Other perimeters may need to be considered if
opposing loads present within basic perimeter e.g.
bases
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1992

„ Where there is moment transferred, so shear is not uniform

around perimeter, shear stress is increased:

V 2d
v Ed = β Ed
ui d c1

M Ed u1
β = 1+ k
V Ed W1
c2 2d

„ For a square column / loaded area:

2
c
W1 = 1 + c1c 2 + 4c 2 d + 16d 2 + 2πdc1
2
c1/c2 ≤ 0,5 1,0 2,0 ≥ 3,0
k 0,45 0,60 0,70 0,80
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1992

Crack width checks

Options are either:
a) Check reinforcement stress from a fully cracked
analysis is less than allowable for given bar
diameter or bar spacing, or
b) Perform direct calculation of crack width

„ Option a) is usually satisfactory and is simple

„ SLS crack widths will rarely govern RC design;
opposite of BS 5400
„ Eurocodes regard good cover as more important
than crack width
 Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1992

Moment
redistribution
• Worthwhile at ULS
when crack widths not
critical
δ ≥ k1 + k 2 x u / d ≥ k 5
k1 = 0.44
k 2 = 1.25(0.6 + 0.0014 / ε cu 2 )
k 5 = 0.85

Concrete
εcu
xu
0.113WL
d

εuk Reinforcement 0.076WL

Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1992

Strut and tie A B C

analysis 19 MN
D
19 MN
20 MN
• BS5400 Part 4 did not 29 MN 29 MN
specifically cover strut
and tie analysis so
approach was not
consistent between
designers
• EC2 provides detailed
rules on the design of
struts, ties and nodes
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1993

Material properties

„ Yield strength varies with thickness as

BS 5400 Part 3 : 2000
„ Rules for maximum thickness allowed to
prevent brittle fracture covered in EC3-1-
10 – gives similar results to BS5400 Part
3
„ Rules for through thickness ductility
(“Z” quality steel) now given in EC3-1-10
 Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1993

Section classification
„ Class 1
M M
- plastic global analysis
Mpl
Mpl
Mel
„ Class 2 Mel

- plastic section analysis but

θ
Class 1 limited rotation capacity Class 2
θ

„ Class 3
M M
Mpl - achieves first yield but local Mpl
Mel
Mel
buckling prevents further load
increase

Class 3
θ „ Class 4 Class 4
θ

- local buckling prevents

attainment of yield
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1993

Combined bending
and shear
V
• Shear interacts only with
moment cross section
Vbw ,Rd
resistance, not LTB
• Shape of interaction in
EC3 is curved – linear in Vbw ,Rd
BS5400 Part 3 2

• Interaction can use

plastic bending
M f ,Rd M pl ,Rd M
resistance even if section
is Class 3 or 4
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1993

Combined bending
and shear
V
• Shear interacts only with
moment cross section
Vbw ,Rd
resistance, not LTB
• Shape of interaction in
EC3 is curved – linear in Vbw ,Rd

BS5400 Part 3 2

• Interaction can use

plastic bending
M f ,Rd M el ,Rd M
resistance even if section
is Class 3 or 4
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1993

Lateral torsional
fy
M b , Rd = χ LT W y
buckling γ M1

1
• BS5400 Part 3 has χ LT =
Φ LT + Φ LT − λ LT
2 2

extensive guidance
• EC3 tends to
compel the user to
use finite element
modelling or
simplified “flange λ LT =
Wy f y
[
Φ LT = 0.5 1 + α LT (λ LT − 0.2 ) + λ LT
2
]
M cr
strut models” ⎧ 0.5
⎫
π 2 EI z ⎪⎡⎛ k ⎞ I w ⎤
2
(kL) 2 GI T
M cr = C1 ⎨ ⎢⎜ ⎟ + + (C z − C z )2
⎥ − (C 2 z g − C 3 z j )⎬
⎪
(kL) 2 ⎪⎢⎜⎝ k w ⎟⎠ I z
2 g 3 j
π 2
EI z ⎥⎦ ⎪⎭
⎩⎣
Some comparisons with BS 5400 – EN 1993

Other topics
• Material factors – differ in places
• Shear resistance – similar but higher for stocky webs
• Flexural buckling – same basis
• Flexural-torsional buckling – additional check
• Transverse stiffeners – similar methods but less onerous
• Bracing – similar method but less guidance (simpler)
• Bending and axial – more complex (not linear interaction)
Increasing use of shell FE analysis and
codification of more complex topics
 Why will FE become more common?

• Advanced global analysis modelling techniques readily

applicable with the Eurocodes
• Computer programs readily available and increasingly
“easy” to use
• Possible to analyse structures that can’t be “codified”
• More economic designs result – main driver for use
• Appropriate analysis can get very close to true resistance
- Elastic critical FE
- Non-linear
• Atkins has adapted analysis techniques to suit
 Why will FE become more common?

Codes written to facilitate using FE results

„ Particularly useful for steel design
„ Eurocodes give fewer formulae for buckling problems
„ But presentation is more general, allowing results from
computer analyses to be used more easily e.g.:
le σy
Af y Buckling in compression λ=
λ = r 355
N cr

le
λ LT =
Wf y
Buckling in bending λLT = k 4ην
M cr r

τy d we σ yw
λτ = Buckling in shear λ=
τ cr t w 355
 Types of FE analysis

1. Elastic critical buckling analysis – plate girders

„ Steel-concrete composite girders during concreting is an example
„ In BS5400 Part 3, calculation is lengthy and conservative
„ In Eurocode 3, computer is required but more economic
„ Eurocode slenderness:
moment for cross section
M Rk
λ LT = failure
M cr
moment for elastic buckling
 Types of FE analysis

1. Elastic critical buckling analysis – plate girders

„ Example: finite element analysis of typical paired girders in two span
bridge
„ Thick shell elements for webs, flanges and stiffeners; beam elements
for bracing members
„ Ultimate moment resistance determined using above approach
 Types of FE analysis

1. Elastic critical buckling analysis – plate girders

„ First determine Mcr, but how recognise correct mode?
„ Global mode is the correct one; in this case mode 20
 Types of FE analysis

1. Elastic critical buckling analysis – plate girders

„ Factors obtained from BS 5400 and elastic FE approach (with
Eurocode 3 compared):
Calculation method Load factor
a) BS 5400 Part 3 1.00
b) Elastic FE and EN 1993-1-1 1.53

„ Significant benefit in determining elastic buckling moment from

computer
 Types of FE analysis

• Non-linear finite element analysis is increasingly being

used to gain economy in the assessment of existing
structures and, to a lesser extent, in new design.
• Applications to new design tend to be limited to the design
of:
- slender concrete piers and pylons
- complicated local elements
- prestressed concrete structures with unbonded tendons
- parts of structures or whole parts of structures where the preliminary
design was incorrect!
 Types of FE analysis
1. Non-linear analysis of Medway Bridge piers

• Viaduct approaches (spans up to 83 m) constructed span-by-span

• Supported on slender twin hollow piers
• Mixture of fixed and guided bearings
• Superstructure monolithic with the river piers

31867 kN
1366 kN

L = 27.03 m
 Types of FE analysis

1. Non-linear analysis of Medway Bridge piers

• Analysis done for T32 and T40 reinforcement

2nd order,
T40, non-linear
uncracked
analysis
1st order, T32, non-linear
uncracked analysis

Model Deflections
 Types of FE analysis

1. Non-linear analysis of Medway Bridge piers

• Lateral deflections and moments reduced
• Saving of reinforcement of approximately 60% compared to
the UK design code

T32 reinforcement T40 reinforcement

Analysis Design Adequacy Design Adequacy

method moment factor moment factor
(kNm) (kNm)
BS 5400 58350 0.91 58350 0.98
method
Non-linear 51099 1.03 48534 1.13
analysis
New codified topics
 Sandwich model

RC Design using shell FE

„ Un-cracked linear elastic FE
shell models increasingly
common where complex
geometries encountered
„ Interpretation of results causes
problems as results are in
terms of stresses, not stress
resultants
„ EN 1992 sandwich model
allows reinforcement to be 1700mm
designed and concrete stresses
checked
„ Redistribution between
elements not accounted for so
codified member rules may be
more efficient 240mm
 Sandwich model

RC Design using shell FE

„ Un-cracked linear elastic FE
shell models increasingly
common where complex
geometries encountered 1 1
h
„ Interpretation of results causes
problems as results are in
terms of stresses, not stress
y x
resultants vEdx
z
vEdy

„ EN 1992 sandwich model nEdx

nEdyx nEdxy
nEdy
mEdx
allows reinforcement to be
mEdx mEdxy
designed and concrete stresses mEdxy

checked
„ Redistribution between
elements not accounted for so
codified member rules may be
more efficient
 Sandwich model

σEdy
h
τEdxy 1 1
τEdxy

yyxs yxys
zyx z
σEdx σEdx yyxi yxyi xy
z nEdxys
nEdyxs
τEdxy
nEdyx nEdyxi nEdxyi nEdxy
τEdxy mEdyx y x mEdxy
σEdy

ρ xσ sx = τ Edxy cot θ + σ Edx ≤ ρ x f yd , x

h ρ yσ sy = τ Edxy tan θ + σ Edy ≤ ρ y f yd , y
1 1
σ cd = − τ Edxy (tan θ + cot θ ) ≤ σ cd ,max

yxs yys ρ is the reinforcement ratio

zx zy
yxi yyi
z
nEdxs nEdys
mEdx mEdy
nEdx y
nEdxi x nEdyi
nEdy
 Sandwich model

More general case with skew reinforcement

„ More general formulae with skew reinforcement can be

derived e.g. Designers’ Guide to EN 1992-2 by Thomas
Telford
 Conclusion

„ Eurocode advanced analysis techniques give economy –

increasingly will be used for sustainability and D&B
„ Elastic critical buckling analysis will become common place –
more industry guidance needed
„ Non-linear FE is probably the future
- Potentially produces almost “real answer” with appropriate analysis
- Eurocode rules have been developed in many cases from non-
linear studies
„ Improved rules have some implications for specification
„ Positive for the industry – improved sustainability