DESIGNERS' GUIDES TO THE EUROCODES

DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994.2

EUROCODE 4: DESIGN OF STEEL AND
COMPOSITE STRUCTURES

PART 2: GENERAL RULES AND RULES FOR BRIDGES

Eurocode Designers' Guide Series
Des/gners' Guide to EN 1990. Eurocode Bosis of Structurul Desrbn. H. Gulvanessian, J.-A Calgaro and
M. Holickj. 0 7277 301| A. Published 2002.

Designers' Guide to EN 1994-l-1, Eurocode 4: Desigr of Composite Stee/ ord Conc.ete Stuctures. Port l l:
Generol Rules ond Rules for Suildings. R, P. Johnson and D. Anderson- 0 7277 3l5l 3. Published 2004.

Designeæ' Guide to EN 1997-1. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design -

Generul R!/es. R. Frank Bauduin, C
R. Driscoll, M. Kawadas, N. Krebs Ovesen, T. Orr ând B. Schuppener. 0 7277 3154 8. Published 2004.

Desigrerc'Guide to EN 1993-l-l. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structutes. Generdl Ru/es ond Ruies for Euildings.
L. Gardner and D- Nethercot- 0 7177 3163 7. Published 2004.

Desrgnen'Guide to EN 1992-l-! ond EN 1992-l-2, Euto.ode 2: Design of Concrete Stuclates' Generol Rules
ond Ru/es for 8ui/dings ond Struaurol Fire Desrgn. A.W, Beeby and R. S. Narayanan. 0 7277 3 105 X Published
2005.

Designen'Guide to EN 1998-l ond EN 1998-5. Eurocode 8: Design of Struaures for Eorthquoke Resistonce.
Generol Ruies, Seismic Act ons, Design Rules for Buildings, Foundotions ond Retoining Structures. M Fardis,
E. Carvalho. A. Elnashai. E- Faccioli. P- Pinto and A. Plumier.0 7277 3348 6. Published 2005.

Designers'Gûide to EN 1995-l-1. Eurocode 5: Design of Timber Struaures. Common Rules ond for Rules ond
8ui/dings. C. Yertem. 0 7277 3 162 9. Forthcoming: 2007 (provisional)-

Designefs' GulUe to EN 19914. Eurocode l: Aaions on Structures. Wind Actions. N. Cook 0 7277 3152 I

Forthcoming: 2007 (provisional).

Des(nen' 6uiUe m EN 1996. Eurocode 6: Pon l.l: Design of Masonry Stuctures. J- Morton. 0 7277 3 155 6-
Forthcoming: 2007 (provisional).

Desrgners'Guide to EN l99l-l-2, 1992-l-2, 1993-l-2 ond EN 19941-2. Eurocode l: Actions on Structures.

Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures. Eurocode 4: Design of Composhe Stee/ ond Concretc SÙucturcs- Firc
Er,gineering (Actions on Steel dnd Composrte 5tructures,). Y, Wang, C. Bailey, T- Lennon and D. Moore-
0 7277 3157 2- Forthcoming: 2007 (prôvisionâl).

Designers' Guide to EN 1992-2. Eutocode 2: Design of Concrete Struaures. 8n'dges. D. Smith and C. Hendy.
0 7277 3159 9. Forthcoming: 2007 (provisional).

Desigders'Gdide to EN 1993-2. Ëurocode 3: Desrln of Stee/ Structures, Eridges C. Murphy and C. Hendy.
0 7277 3l60 2. Fonhcoming: 2007 (provisional).

Designerc'Guide to EN I99l-2, l99l-l-1, l99l-l-3 and l99l-l-5 to l-7. Eurocode /i ActioDs ort Structufes.
Troffic Loods ond Other Aaions on Btidges. J.-A. Calgaro, lY. Tschumi, H. Gtrlvanessian and N. Shetty
0 7277 3156 4. Fonhcoming: 2007 (provisional)-

Designen'GuidemENIggl-t-l,EN!991-l-3ondl99l-l-5tol-T.Eurocodel:ActjonsonStructures.Genercl
Ru/es ond Actiors on Euiid,ngs (not Wind). H. Gulvanessian, J.-A. Calgaro, P- Formichi and G Harding.
0 7277 3158 0. Fonhcoming 2007 (provisional).

www.eurocodes.co.uk
DESIGNERS'GUIDES TO THE EUROCODES

DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994.2

EUROCODE 4: DESIGN OF STEEL AND
COMPOSITE STRUCTURES

PART 2: GENERAL RULES AND RULES

FOR BRIDGES

C. R. HENDY and R. P. JOHNSON

thomastelford
Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD
URL: www,thol11astelford.com

Distributors for Thonas Teiford books are

LISI: ASCE Press, 1801 Alexander Bell Dive, Reston. VA 20191-4400
Japû11.Mauzer, Co. Ltd, Book Depârtment. 3 10 Nihonbashi 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103
Austalia.DA Books and Journais. 648 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham 3132, Victoria

First pùblished 2006

Eurocodes Expert

Structurâl Eurocodes offer the opportunity of harmonized desigl standârds for the Eùropean
constiuclion market ând the rest of the rdorld. To âchieve this, the consftuction industry needs to
become acquainted with the Eùrocodes so that lhe maximum advantage cat b€ taken of these
opportunities

Eùocodes Expert is a new ICE ând Thomas T€lford initiative set up to assist in creâting a grcater
â\yâreness of the impact and implementation of the Eurocodes within the UK construction industry

Eurocodes Expert provides a range of products and services to aid ând support the transition to
Eurocodcs. For comprehensive and us€ful information on th€ âdoption of the Eurocodes and their
implementation process please visit où website or email [email protected]

A catalogue record for this book is avâilable from the Blitish Library

ISBN: 0 7277 3l61 0

(O The aùthors and Thomas Telfo|d Limited 2006

All rights, including translation, rese ed. Except as pcrmittcd by the Copliright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988, no part ofthis publicati{rn maybe reproduced, stored in â relfievaLsystem or transmiLled iû
any lbrm or by any mcans, clcctronic, ûrechanical, photocopying or olherwise, without the prior
written permission of the Publishing Director, Thomâs Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd,
I Heron Quay, London 814 4JD.

This book is published on the uûderstanding that the authors are solely responsibl€ for the statemeûts
made and opinions expressed in it and that its publicatio[ does not necessaily imply that such
statements aûd,/or opinions are or reilect the views or opinions of the publishers. While cvcry efforl
has been madc to eûsure that the statement! made and the opinions cxprcssed in this publicatiotl
provide a safe and accurale guide, no liability or responsibility can be accepted jo this fespect by thc
aùthors or pùblishers.

Typeset by Academic + Technical, Bristol

Printed and borLnd in Grcat Britain by MPG Books, Bodmin
Preface

EN 1994, also known as Eurocodc 4 or EC4, is one standard of the Eurocodc suitc and
describes the principles and requirements for safety, serviceability and durability of compo-
site steel and concrete structurcs. lt is subdivided into three parts:
. Part l.l: General Rules and Rules.for Buiklitrg.s
t Part l-2: Structural Fire Desigtl
. Ptrt 2: General Rules and Rules for Bridges.
It is used in conjunction with EN 1990. Bosis of Structurol Desrgz; EN 1991. Actions on
Slructures; and the other design Eurocodes.

Aims and objectives of this guide

The principal aim of this book is to provide the user with guidance on the interpretâtion ând
use of EN 1994-2 and to prcscnl worked examples. It covers topics that will be enoountered
in Lypical steel and conclete composite bridge dcsigns, and explains the relationship between
EN 1994-1- 1, EN 1994-2 and the other Eurocodes. It refers ertensively to EN 1992 (Design ol
Concrete Strucrures) and EN 1993 (Design of Steel Structures), and incJudcs the application
of their provisions in composite structures. Further guidance on these ând other Eurocodes
will be found in other Guides in this series.' ' This book also provides background
information and refèrences to enable users of Eurocode 4 to understand the origin and
objectives of its provisions.
The need lo use many Eurocode parts can initially make it a daunting task to louate
information in the sequence required for a real design. To assist with this process, flow
charts are provided for selected topics, They are not intended to give detailed procedural
information lbr a speciûc design.

Layout of this guide

EN 1994-2 has a lbreword, nine sections, and an annex. This guidc has an introduction which
coresponds to the foreword ofEN 1994-2, Chapters I to 9 which correspond to Sections I to
9 ofthe Eufocode, and Chapter 10 which refers to Annexes A and B ol EN 1994-l-1 and
covers lnne,x (l of EN 1994-2, Comnentary on Annexes A and B is giyen in the Guide by
Johnson and Anderson.5
The nunbet'ing and titles of the sections and secondlevel clauscs in this guide also corre-
spond to those of lhc clauses of EN 1994-2. Some thirdlevel clauses are also numbered (for
example. l.l.2). This implies corrcspondence with the sub-clause in EN 1994-2 of the samc
number. Their titlcs also correspond, There âre extensive references to lowerlevel clause and
paragraph numbers. The first significant relèrence is in àald italic type (e.g. dause 1,1 .1( 2)).
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994.2

These are in strict numericâl sequence throughout the book, to help readers ïind comments
on particular provisions of the code. Some comments on clauses are necessarily out of
sequence, but use ôf the index should enable these to be found.
All cross-references in this guide to sections, clauses, sub-clauses, paragraphs, annexes,
figures, tables and exprcssions of EN 1994-2 are rn italic type, ând do not include
'EN 1994-2', Italic is also used where text from a clause in EN 1994-2 has becn directly
rcproduced.
Cross-references to, and quotations and expressions from, other Eurocodes are in roman
type. Clause references include the EN number; for example, 'clause 3.1.4 of ÈN 1992- 1- l' (â
reference in ckrute 5.4.2.2(2)). All other quotatjons are in roman type. Expressions lepeated
from EN 1994-2 retâin their number. The authors' expressions have nun.rbers prefixed by D
(lor Dcsigners' Guide); for exan.rple, equation (D6.1) in Chaptcr 6.
Abbreviated terms are sometimes used for parts ofEurocodes (e.g. EC4-l-l for EN 1994-
1-1") and l'or limit states (e.g. ULS fbr ultimate limit state).

Acknowledgements
Thc trsL author would like to thank his wife, Wendy, and two boys, Peter Edwin Hendy and
Matthew Philip Hendy, for their paticncc and tolerance of his pleas to finish Just one more
paragraph'. He thanks his employer. Atkins, for providing both facilities and time for the
production of this guide, and the members ofBSI 8525/10 Working Group 2 who provided
comment on many of the Eurocode clauses-
The second author is deeply indebted to the other members of the project and editorial
teams for Eurocode 4 on which he has worked: David Anderson, Gerhard Hansrville,
Bernt Johansson. Basil Kolias, Jean-Paul Lebet. Henri Mathieu, Michel Mele. Jocl Raoul,
Karl-Hcinz Roik ar.rd Jan Stark: and also to the Liaison Engineers, National Technical
Conlâcts, and others who prepared nationâl cômments. He thânks the University of
Wanvick for facilities provided for Eurocode work, and, especially. his wife Diana for her
unfailing support.

Chris Hendy
Roger Johnson
Contents

Prefâce
Aims and objectives of this guide
Layout of this guide
Acknowledgements

Introduction I
Additional information specific to EN 1994-2 2

Chapter 1. Generâl 3
1.1. Scope 3
1.1. l.
Scope of Eurocode 4 3
1.1.2. Scope of Part L l of Eurocode 4 3
1.1.3. Scope ofPart 2 of Eurocode 4 4
1.2. Normative references 5
1.3. Assumptions 7
1.4. Distinction between principles and âpplication rules 1
1.5. Definitions 8
1.5.1- General 8
1.5,2. Additionâl terms and definitions 8
1 .6. Symbols 8

Chapter 2. Basis of design ll

2.1. Requirements 1l
2.2. Principles of limit slaLcs design t2
2.3. Basic variables t2
2.4. Verification by the partial làctor method t2
2.4-1. Design values t2
2.4.2. Combinâtion of actrons 15
2.4.3. Veriflcation of stâtic equilibrium (EQU) l5

Châpter 3. Materials t7
3.1. ConcrcLe l1
3.2. Reinforcing steel for bridges 19
3.3. Structural steel for bridges 2l
3.4. Connectingdevices 22
3.4.l. Generâl 22
3.4.2. Headed stud shear connectors 22
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Prestressing steel and devices 23

Tension components in steel 73

Chapter 4. Durability 25
4.1. General !J
4.2. Corrosion prôtection ât the steel--concrete inteface in bridges 27

Chapter 5. Structurâl ânâlysis 29

5.1. Structural modelling for analysis 29
5.1.1. Structural n.rodelling and basic assumptions 29
5.1,2. Joint modelling 30
5-1.3. Ground structure interaction 30
5.2. Structural stabilil), 30
5.2.1. EIIects of deformed geometry ofthe structure 31
5.2.2. Methods of analysis for bridges 33
5.3. Imperfections 34
5.3.1. Basis
5.3.2. Impcrfections for bridges 35
5.4.Calculation of âction effects 36
5.4- 1. Methods of global analysis 36
Example 5.1: effective widths ùf concrete flange for shear lag 4I
5.4.2. Linear elastic rnâLysis 42
Example 5.2: modular ratios for long-term loading and for shrinkage 53
Example 5.3: primâry effects of shrinkage
5.4.3. Non-linear global analysis for bridges 56
5.4.4. Combination of global and local action effects 56
5.5. Classification of cross-sections 51
Example 5.4: classification of composite beam section in hogging bending 60
Flow charts for global analysis 62

Chapter 6. tlltimâte limit states 67

6.1. Beams 67
6.1.1- tscams in bridges general 67
6.1.2. Effective width for verification of cross-sections 68
6.2. Resistances of cross-sections of beams 68
6.2.1. Bending resistance 69
Example 6.1: plâstic resistânce moment in sagging bending '72

Example 6-2: resistance to hogging bending at an internal support 13

Example 6.3: elastic bending resistance of a Class 4 cross-section '7'7

6.2-2. Resistance to vÊrtical shear 19

Example 6.4: resistance of a Class 4 secliùn lo hogging bending and
vcrtical shear 85
Example 6.5: addition of axial compression to a Class 4 cross-section 86
6.1- Filler beam decks 89
6.3.1. Scope 89
6.3.2. General 90
6.3.3. Bcndingn.roments 90
6.3.4. Vertical shear 9l
6.3.5. Resistânce ând stability of steel beams during execution 91
6.4. Lateral-torsional buckling of composite beams 91
6.4.1. General 91
6.4.2. Beams in bridges with uniform cross-sections in Class 1,2
and 3
 CONTENTS

6.4.3. General methods for buckling of members and frames 93

E:rample 6.6: bending and shear in a continuous composite beam 104
Example 6.7: stillness and required resistânce of cross-bracing 111
6.5. Transverse fbrces on webs 113
6.6. Shear connection l14
6.6.1. General l14
Example 6.8: shear l'esistance of a block connector with a hoop 116
6.6.2. Longitudinal shear force in beams for bridges 118
6-6.3. Headed stud conneclors in solid slabs and concrete
encasement l?l
6.6.4. Headed studs that cause splitting in the direction ôf the
slirb thickness 123
6.6.5. Detailing of lhe shear connection and influencc of
execution 124
6.6.6. Longitudinal shear in concrete slabs 127
Example 6.9: transverse reinforcement for longitudinal shear 130
Example 6.10: longitudinâl shear checks 131
Example 6,I 1: influence of in-plane shear in a compressed flangc on
bending rcsistances of a beam 134
6.7. Composite columns and composite compression members 136
6.7.1. General 136
6-?.2. General method of design l3'7
6.7.3. Simplilied n.rethod of design 138
6.7-4. Shcar connection and load introduction 144
6.7.5. Detailing provisions 145
Example 6.12: concrete-filled lube of circular cross-section 145
6.8. Fatigue 150
6,8.1. General 150
6.8.2- Partial factors for fatigue âssessment of bridges 151
6.8.3. Fatigue strength 152
6.8.4. Internal forces and fatigue loadings 152
6.8.5. Stresses 153
6.8.6, Stress ranges 155
Fatigue assessment based on nominal stress ranges
6.8.7. 156
Example 6.13: fatigue veriflcation olstuds and reinforcement 157
6.9. Tension nembers in composite bridges 161

Châpter 7. Serviceability limit states 163

7.1. General 163
7.2. Stresses 164
7-3. Deformatiôns in bridges 166
7.3.1. Deflections t66
7.3.2. Vibrations 166
7.4. Cracking of concrete t6'7
7.4.l. General t6l
7-4.2. Minimumreinforcement 168
7.4.3, Control of cracking due to direct loading 169
7.5. Filler beam decks 173
Example 7.1: checks on serviceability strcsses, and control of'
cracking 173

Châpter 8. Precâst concrete slabs in composite bridges t79

8.1. Gcncral t79
8.2. Actions 180
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994.2

8.3. Design, analysis and detailing of the bridge slab 180

8.4. Interface between steel beam and concrete slâb 181

Chapter 9, Composite plates in bridges 183

9.1, Generâl 183
9.2. Design for local effects 183
9.3. Design for global effects 184
9.4. Design of shear conncctors 185
Example 9.1: design of shear connection l'or global effects at the
serviceability limit state I li7

C'hapter 10. Annex C (informative). Headed studs thât cause splitting forces in
the direction of the slab thickness r89
C-1. I)esign resistânce and detailing 190
C.2. Fatigue strength l9l
Applicability ol Annex C l9l
Examplc 10.1:design of lying studs t92

References r95

lndex 201
lntroduction

The provisior.rs of EN 1994-2' are preceded by a foreword. most of which is common to all
Eurocodes. Tltrs Foreword contains clauses on:
. the bâckgroBnd to the Eurocode programme
. the status and field of application of the Eurocodes
. national standards implemcnting Eurocodcs
. links between Eurocodes and harmonized technical specilications for products
. additional inlormation specific to EN 1994-2
. National Annex for EN 1994-2.
Guidance on the common text is proyided in the introduction to th1o Designers'Gu[de lo
EN 1990. Eurocode; Basis of Structural Design,' and only background information relevant
to users of EN 1994-2 is given here.
It is the responsibilit,v of each national standârds body to in.rplemcnt each Eurocode part
as â national standard. This will comprise. wjthoul any alterations, the full text of the Euro-
code and its annexes as published b.v the Europeâ[ Committee for Standardisation,
CEN (from its title in French). This will usually be preceded by a National Title Page and
a National Foreword, and may be followed by a National Annex.
Each Eurocode recognizes the right of national regulatoq/ authorjties to determine values
related to safety mattcrs- Values, classes or methods to be chosen ôr determined at national
level are refen'ed to as Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs). Clauscs in which these
occur arc listcd in lhe Foreword.
NDPs ale also indicated by notes immediately after relevant clauses. Thcsc Notes give
recon.rmended values. Many of the values nr EN 1994-2 have bcen in the draft code lbr
over a decade. It is expected that most of thc 28 Member States of CEN (listed in thc Fore-
v|orrl) will specify the recommended values, as their use wâs assumed in the nrany calibration
studies done during drafting. They are used in this guide, as the National Annex for the UK
trls not available ar Lhe time of nriring.
Each National Annex will give or cross-refer to the NDPs to be used in the relevant
country. Otherwisc thc National Annex may contain only the following:lÛ
. decisions on the usc of informativc: anncxes. and
. refèrences to non-contradictory complementâry information to assist the user to âpply
the Eurocode.

Each national standards body that is a member of CEN is required, as a condition of mem-
bership, to withdraw all 'conflicting national standards' by a given date, that is at present M arch
2010. The Eurocodes will supersede the llritish briclge codc, BS 5400,1t which sl.rould therefore
be withdrawn. This rvill lead to extensive revision of many sets of supplementary design rules,
such as Lhose publislied by the Highways Agency in the UK. Some countties have aheady
adopted Eurocode methods for bridge design; for example, Germany in 200-l- -
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Additional information specific to EN | 994-2

The information specitc to EN 1994-2 emphasises that this standard is to be used with other
Eurocodes. The standard includes many cross-references to particuhr clauses in EN 1990, r l
EN 1991,r1 EN 199215 and EN 1993.16 Similarly', this guir.le is one ofa series on Eurocodes,
and is for use with other guides, particularly those for EN 1991,2 EN 1992-1-1,6 EN 1993-1-
l.' EN 1992-2' and EN 1993-2."
The Forevçordrefers to â differenae between EN 1994-2 and the'hridge'parts ofthe other
Eurocodes. In Eurocode 4, the 'general' provisions of Part l-l are repeated word for word in
Part 2, with identical numbering ol'clauses, paragraphs, cquations, etc- Such repetition
breaks a rule of CEN, and was pennitted, for this code only, to shôrten chains of cross-
refetences, mainly to Eurocodcs 2 and 3. This determined the numbering and location of
the provisions for bridges, and led to a lew gaps in the sequences of numbers.
The same policy has been followed in the guides on Eurocode 4. Where material in the
Designers' Guide to EN 1994-1-l' is as relevanl to bridges as to buildings. it is repealed
here, so Lhis guide is sell'-contained, in respect of composite bridges, as is EN 1994-2.
A very few 'General' clauses in EN 1994-1-1 are not applicable to bridges. They have
bccn replaced in EN 1994-2 by clearly labelled 'bridge' clauscs; for cxample, clause 3.2.
'Reinforcing sk:el .for bridges' .
The ,Foreword lists the I 5 clauses of EN 1994-2 in which narional choice is pernitted. Five
of these rclale to values for partial factors, three tô sheâr connection, and seven tô prôyisiôn
of'further guidance'. EJsewhere, there are cross-relèrences to clauses with NDPs in other
codes; for exarnple, partial factors for steel and concrete, and valucs that may depend on
climate, such as the free shrinkage of concrete.
Otherwise, the Normâtive rules in the code must be followed, if the design is to bc 'in
accordance with the Eurocodes'.
In EN 1994-2, Srectio,lr 1 to I are Normative. Only its lrure-r C is 'Informative', because it
is based on quite recent research. A National Annex may make it normative in the country
concerncd, aml is itself nolmative in thât country, but not elsewhere. The 'non-contrâdictory
complementâry information' referred to above could include, lbr example, reference to a
document based on provisions of BS 5400 on matters not trcatcd in the Eurocodes. Each
country can do this, so some aspects of the design of a bridge will continue to depend on
where it is to be built.
CHAPTER I

General

This chapter is concerned with the generâl âspects of EN 1994-2, Euntcode 1: Design of
Composite Steel ond Concrete Slructtres, Paft 2: General Rulet arul Rules for Bridges.lhe
materiaL described in this chapter is covered in Seclion I, in the fbllowing clauses:
. Scope Cluuse Ll
. Normative references Clause L2
. Assunptions Clau.ve L3
. Distinction between principles and application rules Clause LI
. Definitions Clau.;e 1.5
. Symbols Clquse 1.6

l.l. Scope
l.l. | . Scope of Eurocode 4
The scope ofEN 1994 (all three Parts) is outlined in clause 1.1.1. [t is to be used with EN 1990, Aouse I .l .l
Eurocode: Butit oJ Structttal De,llgr, which is the head document ofthe Eurocode suite, and
has an Annex A2, 'Application for bridges'. Clause 1,Ll(2) emphasizes that the Eurocodes Aouse I .l .l (2)
are concerned with structural behaviour and that other requirements, e.g. thermal and
acoustic insulation, are not considered-
The basis tbr verification ofsafety and serviceability is the partial factor method. EN 1990
recommends values for load iactors and gives various possibilities for combinations of
âctions. The values and choice of combinations ale set by the National Annex fbr the
country in rvhich the structure is to be constructed.
Eurocode 4 is also to be used in conjunction with EN 1991, Eurocode 1: Actions on
Structures'* and its National Annex, to determine characteristic or nominal loads. When
a composite structure is to be built in a seismic rcgion, account needs to bc taken of
EN 1998, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resîstaru:e.11
Clause 1,1.1(3 ), as a stat€ment ofintention, gives undatcd references, It supplements the Aouse L l.l (3)
normative rules on dated rel'erence standards, given in clause 1,2. wherc the distinction
between dâted and undated stândards is explained.
The Eurocodes are concerned with design and not execution, but minimum standards of
workmanship are required to ensure that the design assumptions are valid- For this reason,
clause 1.1.1(3) lists the European standards lbr the execution of steel structures and the
execution ofconcrete structures. The standard for steel structures includcs some requirements
for composite construction for example. for the testing of wclded stttd shear connectors.

1.1,2. Scope of Part l.l of Eurocode 4

The general rulcs referrcd to in claase 1.1.2(I) appeat also in EN 1994-2, so there is (in Clouse 1.1.2(l)
general) no need for it to cross-refer to Part l-1, though it does refer (n clause 6.6.3.1(4))
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994"2

Qouse l.l ,2(2) to Annex B of Part 1- l . Thc list of the titles of sections in clause 1.1.2(2 ) is identical to that
in cluuse I .l .3, except fbr those of Sections 8 and 9. In Sections I 7 of EN 1994-2, all 'f<rr
buildings' clauses of EN 1994-l-l are omitted, and'for bridges'clâuses âre âdded.

1.1.3. Scope o1 Part 2 of Eurocode 4

Clouse 1.1.3(t) Clausc 1.1.3(l) refers to the partial coverâge of design of cable-stayed bridges. This is the
only relèrence to them in EN 1994-2. It was considered here, and in EC2 and EC3, that
for this rapidly evolving type of bridge, it was prematurc to codify much more than thc
design of their components (e.g. cables, in EN 1993-1-11), âlthough EN 1993-1-ll does
contain sorne requirements for gJobal analysis. Composite construction is attractive for
câble-stayed hridges, because the concrete deck is well able to resist longitudinal com-
pression. There is an elegant example in central Johannesburg.'è
Clouse ll.3(2) Clause 1.1.3(2) lists the titles olthc sections ofPart2. Those for,lecrrons I Tarethesame
as in âll the other rnaterial-dependent Eurocodes. The contents of Scctions 1 and ? similarly
follow an agreed model.
The provisions of Part 2 cover the design of the following:
. beams in rvhich a steel scction acts compositely with concrete
. concrete-encased or concrete-filled composiLc columns
. compôsite plates (where the steel member is a flat steel plâte, not a profiled section)
. composite box girders
. tapered or non-unilbrm composite members
. structures that are prestressed by imposed deformations or by tendons.
Joints in composite beams ând between beams and stcel or composite columns appear in
clause 5.1 .2, .loint moclelling. whtch refers to EN 1993-1-8.1e There is little detailed coverage.
bccause the main clauses on joints in Part l-1 are'for buildings'.
Se(lion 5, Structui al analysis concerns connected members and framcs, both unbraced and
braced, The provisions dcfine their imperfections ând include the use of second-order global
analysis and prestress by imposed deformations.
The scope of Part 2 includes double composite action, and also steel sections that are par-
lially encased. The web ol thc steel section is encased by reinfbrced concrete, and shear con-
nection is provided between the concrete and the stccl. This is a well-eslablishcd form of
construction in buildings. The primary leason for its choice is improved resistance in fire,
Fully-cncased composite beams are not included because:
. no satisfactory model has been lbund tbl the ultirnate strength in longitudinâl shear ofa
beam without sheâr connectors
. it is not known to what extent some design rules (e-g. for momcnt shear interaction and
redistribution of moments) are applicable.
A fully-encased beam with sheâf connectors can usuall1, be dcsigncd as il partly encased
or uncased, provided that care is taken to plevent prematufe spalling of encasement in
Çompresslon.
Prestressing of composite members by tendons is rarely used, and is not treated in detail.
Transverse prestress of a deck slab is covered in EN 1992-2.'
The omission ofapplication rules for â type of member or structure should not prevent its
use, where appropriate. Some omissions are deliberat€, to encourage the use of innovative
design, based on specialised literature, the properties of materials, and the fundamentals
of equilibriurn and compaLibility. Horvever, the principles given in the relevânt Eurocodes
must still be lbllowed. This applics, for example, to:
. members of non-unifornl section, or curved in plan
. types of shear connector olher than welded headed studs.
EN 1994-2 has a single Inlbrmative annex, considered in Chaptcr I0 ol this book.
The three annexes in EN 1994-1-l were not copied into EN 1994-2 becâuse they are
'Informative' and, except for tests on shcar connectors, are for buildings. They are.
 CHAPTER I. GENEML

. Aûnex A, Stiffness ofjoint components in buildings

. Annex B, Standard tests (for shear conncclors and lor composite slabs)
. Annex C, Shrinkage of concrete for composite structures fbr buildings.
In ENV 1994- I - I ,20 design rules for many types of shear conncctor were given, AII except
those for welded headed studs were omitted, c/az.re /./..tfJl, mainly in response to requcsts Aouse l.l.3(3)
for a shorter code. The Note to this clause enables national annexes lo rcler to rules for any
tlpe of shear connector. In thc UK, tbis is being done for block connectors with hoops and
for channels, and in France for angle cônnectors, based on the rules in ENV 1994-1-1.
25
Research on older types ofconnector ancl the development ofnew connectors continues.2l

1.2. Normative references

Rcfercnces are given only to other European standards, all of which are intended to be used
as a package. Formally, the Standards ofthe International Organization for Standardizalion
(ISO) apply only ifgiven an EN ISO designation. National standards for design and for pro-
ducts do not apply if they conflict with a relevant EN standard.
As Eurocodes may not cross-refer to nâtional stândards, replacement of natjonal stan-
dards for products by EN or lS0 standards is in progress, with a timescale similar to that
for the Eurocodes.
During the period of changeover to Eulocodes and EN standards iL is possible that ân
EN rcfcrrcd Lo, or its national annex, nray not be complele. I)esigners who then seek
guidance from national standards shor d take account of differences between the design phi-
losophies and safety factors in the two sets of docunents.
The lists in clause 1.2 are limited to standards referred to in the text of EN 1994-l-l or Clouse 1.2
1994-2, The distinction betlveen dâted and r:ndated references should be noled- Any relevant
provision of the general reference standards, clause 1.2.1, should be assumed to apply. Aouse I .2.1
EN 1994-2 is based on the concept ofthe injtial ersction ofstructurâl steel meÛrbers, which
n.ray include prefabricated concrete-encased members. The placing offormwork (which may
or may not becomc parL of the finished structure) follows. Thc addition of reinforcement and
l Jiru concrete completes the composite structure. The presentation and content of EN 1994-
2 thcrefore relale more closely to EN 1993 than to EN 1992. This may explain why this list
includes execution ofsteel structures. but not EN 13670, on execution ofconcrete shucLures,
which is listed in clause l.l .l .
Tabfe f.l. References to EN 1992, Eutocode 2: Design ofConcæte Stuaures

Title of Part Subjects referred to from EN 1994-2

EN t992- t- I, Properties of concrele, reinforcement, and tendons

Generol Rules ond Rules for Buildings General design of reinforced ând prestressed concrete
Partial factors 1M, including values for fatigue
Resistance of reinforced concrete cross-sections to bending and shear
Bond, anchorate, cover, and detâiling of Teinforcement
Minimum areas of reinforcement crack widths in concrete
Limiting stresses in concrete, reinforcement and tendons
Combination of ac[ions for global analysis for lâtigue
Fatigue strengths of concrete, reinforcement and tendons
Reinforced concrete and composite tension members
Transverse reinforcement in composite columns
Vertical shear and second-order effects in composite plates
Effective area! for load introduction into concrete
EN t992-2, Mâny subjects with references âlso to EN 1992-l-l (above)
Ruies for Bridges Environmental classesr exoosure classes
Limitation of crack widths
Vertical shear in a concrete flange
Exemptions from âtigue assessment for reinforcement and concrete
Verification for fâtigue; damage equivalent factors
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Qouse I .2.2 The 'ot her re.ference standards' tn clause 1.2.2 receive both generâl references, as in clause
2.3.2(l) (to EN 1992-1-115), and specific references to clauses, as in clause 3.1(l),which,
refers to EN 1992-1-1,3.1. For composite bridges, further stândârds, of either type, are
Clouse 1.2.3 lisled. rn clause 1.2.3.
For actions. the main reference is rn cluu.re 2.3.1( I ), to 'the relevtnt parls of EN 1991'.
which include lhose for unit weights of mâtelials, wind loads, snow loads, thermal
actions. and âctions dudng execulion. The only references in clause 1.2 are to EN 1991-2,
'Trafllc loads on bridges',26 and to Annex A2 of EN 1990, which gives combination rules
and recommended valucs for partial factors and combination factors for actions for
bridges. EN 1990 is also referred to for modelling of sLructures for analysis, and general
provisions on serviceability limit stâtes ând their veriflcation.

Cross-references from EN 19942 to EN 1992 ond EN 1993

The parts ofEN 1992 and EN 1993 mosl likely to be relerred to in the design ofa steel and
concrete composite bridge are listed in Tâbles 1.I and 1.2, with the relevant aspects ofdesign.

Table 1,2. References to EN 1993, Eurocode 3; Design of Steel Structures

Subjects refeffed to frôm EN 1994-2

EN t993- r- r, Stress-strain properties of steel; a/M for steel

Cene.d, Rules ond Ru/es fot Buildings General design of unstiffened steelwork
Classification of cross-sections
Resistânce of compôsite sections to vertical sheâr
Buckling of members and fmmes; column buckling curves

EN r993-r-s, Design of cross-sections in slenderness Class 3 or 4

Ploted Sttucturol Hements Effects of shear lag in steel plate elements
Design of beams before a concrete flange hardens
Design where transverse, longitudinal, or beâring stiffeners are present
Transverse distribution of stresses in à wide flange
Sheer bucklint; flante-induced web buckling
In-plane transverse forces on webs

EN t993-t-8, Modelling of flexible ioints in analysis

Design of Jôints Design of joints and splice! in steel ând composite members
Design using structural hollow sections
Fâsteners end welding consumâbles

EN t993- t-9, Fâtigue loadint

Fotigue Sren8û of Steel Structufes Classification of derails into fatigue categories
LimitinE sirêss ranges for dâmate-equivalent stress verification
Fatigue verification in welds and connectors

EN t993-t-t0, For selection of steel grade (Charyy resr, and Z qualicy)

Materiol Toughness ond
Ïhroûgh-thjckness Propertjes

EN t993-t-t I, Design of bridges with external prestressing or cable support, such as

Design of Stuaures with Tension cable-stayêd bridtês
Camponents

EN t993-2, Global ânalysis; imperfections

Ruies for Eridges Buckling of members and frames
Design of beams before a concrete flanSe hardens
Limiting slenderness of web plates
Distortion in box girders
1l, fôr âtigue ltrentth; 1F for fatigue loading
Damage equivalent factors
Limiting stresses in steel; fatigue in structural steel
Limits to defôrmetions
Vibmtion
 CHAPTER I. GENEML

Many relerences to EN 1992-22r and EN 1993-228 lead to relerences fron them to

EN 1992-l-l and EN 1993-1-1, respectively. Unl'ortunatcly, the method of drafting of
these two bridge parts was not harmonised. For many subjects, some of the clauses
needed are 'general' and so âfe locâted in Part 1-1, and others are 'for b dges' and will be
found in Part 2. Therc are examples rn clauses 3.2( l),7.2.2(2) and 7.4.1(1).
Other Eurocode pârts that may bc applicable are:

EN 1993-l-7 Strength and Stabilitt) ol Planar Pl.tted Structures Transtersely Loaded

EN 1993-l-12 Supplementary Rulet fir High Strength Steel
EN 1997 Geotechnical Design, Parts 1 and 2
EN 1998 Des[gn o-f Structures.for Eatthquake Resistqtlce
EN 1999 Design o.f Aluminium Structures.

1.3. Assumptions
It is assumed in EN 1994-2 that the general assumptions of ENs I 990. 1992, and 1993 will be
fbllowed. Commentary on lhem will be found in the relevant Guides of this series.
Various clauses in EN 1994-2 assume thaL EN 1090 will be followed in the fabrication and
erection of the steelwork. This is important for the design of slender elements, where the
methods of anâlysis and buckling resistance formulae rely on imperfections from fabrication
and erection being limited to the levels in EN 1090. EN 1994-2 should thereforc not bc uscd
for design of bridges that will be fabricated or erected to speciûcations other thân EN 1090,
without careful comparison of the respective requirements for tolerances atrd worknanship.
Similarly, the requirements ofEN 13670 for exccution ofconcrete structures should be com-
plied with in the construction ol reinfbrced or presûessed conctete elements.

1.4. Distinction between principles and application rules

Clauses in the Eurocodes are set out as either Principles or Application Rules. As defined by
EN 1990:

. 'Principles comprise general stâtements for which there is no altemaLivc and require-
ments and analytical models for which no alternative is permitted unless specifically
stated.'
. 'Principles are distinguished by the letter
"P" following the paragraph number.'
. 'Application Rules are generally recognised rules which comply with the principles and
satisli their requirements.'
There may be other ways to comply with the Principles, that are at least equivalent to the
Application Rulcs in respect of safety, serviceability, and durability. Hôwever, if these are
substituted, the design cannot bc deened to be fully in accordance with the Eurocodes.
Eurocodes 2. 3 and 4 are consistent in using the vcrbal form'shal1'only for a Principle.
Application rules generally use 'should' or 'may', but this is not fully consistent.
There are relatively few Principles in Parts 1.1 antl 2 of ENs 1992 and 1994. Almost all of
those in EN 1993-l-l and EN 1991-2 were replaced by Applicarion Rules at a late stâge of
drafting.
It has been recognized that â requirement or analytical model lbr which'no alLcrnatjvc is
permitted unless specifically siated'can rarely include a numerical value, becâuse most vâlues
are influenced by research andTor experience, and nay change over the years. (Evcn thc
specified elastic modulus for structural steel is ân approximate vâlue.) Furthermore, a
clause cannot be a PrincipJe if it requires the use of another clause that is an Application
Rule; etlcctiveJy that clause also would become a Principlc.
It fbllows that, ideally, the Principles in all the codes should form a consistent set, relèrdng
only to each other, and intelligible if all the Application Rules were dclctcd- This overriding
principle strongly influcnced the dralting of EN 1994.
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

1.5. Definitions
|.5.l. General
In accordance with the model specified for Section l, reference is made to the deflnitions
given in clauses 1.5 of EN 1990, EN 1992-l-1, and EN 1993-l-1. Mâny types of analysis
arc defired in clause 1-5.6 ofEN lqg0- It should be nôted that an analysis based on the
deformed geometry of a structure or element under load is termed 'second-order', rather
than 'nonlinear'. The latter term ref'ers to the treatmeût of material properties in structural
analysis. Thus, according to EN 1990, 'non-linear analysis' includes 'rigid-plastic'. This con-
vention is not followed in EN 1994-2, where the heading 'Non-linear global analysis for
bridges'(c/azse 5.4.3) does not include'rigid-plastic global analysis', There is no provision
for use of the latter in bridges, so relevant rules are lbund in the 'buildings' clause 5.4.5 of
EN 1994-1-L
Clouse I .5.1( l) Relcrenccs lrom clause /.5./t//] include clause 1.5.2 of EN 1992-l-1, which defines pre-
stress âs an âction câused by the stressing of tendons. This is not sullicientfor EN 1994-2.
because prestress by iacking at supports, which is outside the scope of EN 1992-1-1, is
within the scope of EN 1994-2.
The delinitions in clauses 1,5.1 to l.5.9 ofEN 1993-1- l apply where they occur in clauses in
EN 1993 to which EN 1994 refers. Nonc ofthem nses the word'steel'.

1.5.2, Additional terms and definitions

Qause [ .5.2 Most of the 15 definitions in clause 1.5.2 include the rvord 'composite'. The definition of
'shear connaclion' does not require the absence of separation or slip at the intelface
between steel and concrete, Separation is always assumcd to be negligible, but explicit allow-
ance may need to bc madc for cffects of slip, for example fi clauses 5.4.3,6.6.2.3 ar'd 7.2.1.
The definition of'composite frame' is relevant to the use of Se<tion 5. Where the behaviour
is essenlially lhat of a reinforced or prestrcssed concrete structure, with only a few composite
members, global analysis should be generally in accordance with EN 1992.
These lists of detnitions are not exhaustive, because all Lhe codes use terms with precise
meanings thaL can be inferred from lheir contexts.
Concerning use of words generally, there are significant diI1èrenccs l'rom British codes.
These arose fuom the use of English as the base language for the drâfting process, and lhc
resulting need to improve precision of meaning, to facilitate translation into other European
languages. In particular:

. 'action' means a load andior an imposed deformation

. 'action elTèct' (clause 5.47 and 'ellect ofaction'havc thlr same meaning: any deformation
or internal force or moment that results from ân âction,

1.6. Symbols
The s1'mbols in the Eurocodes are all based on ISO standârd 3898,2e Each co<le has its own
list, applicable within thât code. Some symbols have nore than one meaning, the palticular
mcaning being stated ir the clause. A few rarell,-used slmbols are defined only in clauses
where they âppeâr (e.g. A,."n in 7 .5.3 ( l )).
There are a lew important changes from prcvjous practice in the UK. For example, an x x
axis is along a member, a 1-y axis is parallel to the flanges of a steel section (clause 1.7(2)
of EN 1993-l-l), and a sÊction modulus is I4l, wilh subscripts to denote elastic or plastic
behaviour-
This convention 1br membel axes is more compatible with most commercially available
analysis packages than that used in previous British bridge codes, The 1 -1, axis generally
lepresents the major principal axis, as shown in Fig, l.l(a) and ft). Where this is not a
principal axis, the majol and minor principal axes are denoled u u and. r-t, as shown in
Fig. l.l(c). It is possibJe for the major axis of a composite cross-section to bc lhe minor
axis of its structurâl steel component.
 CHAPTER I. GENERAL

(a) (b)

Fig. l. | . Sign convention for âxe! of members

Wherevcr possible, definitions in EN 1994-2 have been aligned with those in ENs 1990,
1992 and 1993: but rhis should not be assumed rvithouL checking the list in clause 1.6. Aouse I .6
Somc quiLe minor differences are significant.
The symboll, has dillèrent meanings in ENs 1992 and 1993. It is retaincd in EN I994-2 for
lhe nominal yield strength of structural steel, though the generic subscript fôr thât mâteriâl
is 'a'. bascd on the French word for steel- 'acier'. Subscript'a'is not used in EN 1993, where
the partial factor for stcel is not 1A, but 1a. The symhol ^1y is also used in EN 1994-2. The
characteristic yield strength of reinforcement isf,ç. with partiâl factor 15.
The use of upper-case subscripts for 7 lactors for materials implics Lhat the values givcn
allow lbr two types of unccrlainty: in the properties of the material ând in the resistânce
model uscd.
CHAPIER 2

Basis of design

The material described in this chapter is covered in ,lecrror? 2 of EN 1994-2. tn the following
clauses:

. Requirements Clawe 2.I

. Principlei ol limit stales desigr. Clause 2.2
. Basic variables Clatue 2.3
. Verification by the pârtial factor method Clause 2.4

The sequence follows that of EN 1990, Sections 2 to 4 and 6-

2.L Requirements
Design is to be in accordance with the general requirements of EN 1990. The purpose of
Section 2 is to give supplementary provisions for composite structures.
Claase 2.1(3) reminds the user again thât design is based on actions in accordancc with Aause 2.1(j)
EN 1991. combinations ofacLions an<l load factors at the various limit states in accotdance
with EN 1990 (Annex A2), and the resistances, durability and serviceability provisions of
ËN 1994 (through extensive references to EC2 ând EC3).
The use of partial sâfety factors l'or acLions and resistances (rhe 'partial fâctor method')
is expected but is not a requirement of Eurocodes. The method is presented in Section 6
of EN 1990 âs one way of sarisfying lhe basic requirenents sct out in Section 2 of that
standard. This is why use of the pârtiâl fâctor method is given 'deemed to satisfy' status in
clause 2.1(3 ). To establish that a design was in accordance with the Eurocodes, the user
of any other method would normally have to denonstrate, to the satisfâctiôn of the
regulatory authority and,/or the client, thât the method satisfied the basic requirements of
EN 1990.
The design working life for bridges and componcnts of bridges is also given in EN 1990.
This predominantly allècts calculations on fâtigue- Temporâry structures (that will not bc
dismântled and reused) havc an indicative design life of 10 years, while bearings have a
life of 10 25 years arul â permânent bridge has an indicative design life of 100 years. The
design lives of temporary bridges and permanent bridges can bc varied in project speci-
lications and the National Annex respectively. For political reasons, the design IiIè for per-
manent bridges in thc UK may be rraintained at 120 years.
To achieve the design working life, bridges and bridge components should be designed
against corrosion, fatigue and wear and should be regulady inspected antl mainlaincd.
Where components cannoL be designed for the full working lile of the bridge, they need to
be replaceable. Further detail is given in Châpter 4 of this guide.
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

2.2. Principles of limit states design

The clause provides a reminder that it is important to check strength and stability through-
out all stages of conshuclion in addition to the final condilion. The strength of bare steel
beams during pouring ofthe deck slab must be checked, as the restrâint to the top flange pro-
vidcd by the completed deck slab is absent in this condition.
A beâm that is in Class I or 2 whcn complctcd may be in Class 3 or 4 during construction,
ifa greater depth ofweb is in compression. Its stresses must then be built up allowing for lhc
construction history. I.'or cross-sections that arc in Class I or 2 when cornpleted, flnal
veritcations of resistances can be based on âccumulation of bending moments and shear
lorces, rather than stress€s. as plastic bending resistances can be used. Thc serviceability
checks would still necessitate consideraLion of the staged construction.
All resistance fonnulae lbr composite membels assume that the specilied requircmcnts for
materials, such as ducLility, fracture toughness and through-Lhickncss properties, âre met.

2.3. Basic variables

Llouse 13- l Clause 2.3.1 on actions rclers only to EN 1991. Its Part 2, 'Trallic loads on bridges', defines
load patterns and leaves clients, or designers, much choice over intensity of loading. Loads
during construction are specified in EN l99l-l-6,'Actions during exeoution'."'
Actions include imposed deformations, srLch as settlement or jacking of supports, and
effects of temperature and shrinkage. Further infblmation is given in comments on <:lause
2.3.3.
Clouse 2.3.2(l) Clause 2,3.2 ( I ) refers to EN 1992- I - I for shrinkage and creep of concrete, where detailed
and quite compJcx rules are given for prediction of free shrinkage strain and creep
coefficients. These are discusscd jn comments on clausc,y 3.1 and 5.4.2.2. Effects of creep of
conorete are not normally treated âs imposed defbrmations. An exception arises in r:/a!se
s .4.2.2 (6 ) .

Qouse 2.3.3 The classiflcation of effects of shrinkage and temperature rn cls.use 2.3.3 into 'primary' and
'se<:orulary' will be familiar to designers of continuous beans. Secondary effccts are to be
ueated as 'indirect actions', which are'scts o[ imposed deformations' (clause 1.5.3,1 of
EN 1990), not as âction effects. This distinction is relevant rn clause 5.4.2.2(7). where
indirect actions may bc ncglected in analyses for somc vsrifLcations of composite members
with all cross-sections in Class 1 or 2. This is because resistances are based on plastic
analysis and there is lhcrcfore adequate rotatjon capacity Lo permit the effects of imposed
defbmrations to be released.

2,4. Yerilication by the partial factor method

2.4,l. Design values
Aouse 2.4.1 Clause 2.1.1 illuslrates the treatment of partial factors. Recommended values are given in
Notes, in the hope of eventual convergence between the values for each partial lâctor that
will be specified in the national annexes. This process was adopted because lhe regulatory
bodies in the member slaLcs ol CEN, rather than CEN itself, are responsible for setting
safety levels. The Notes are informative, not normative (i,e. not part ol the preceding
ptovision), so that there are no numcrical values in the principles, as explained earlier.
Aouse 2.4.1 .l(l) The Note below c/ause 2.4.1,1(I) recommends i,?: 1.0 (where subscript'P' represents
prestress) for controlled imposed deformations- Examplcs of these include jacking r.lp at
supports or jâcking down by the removal of packing plates. The lâtter might be don€ to
increase the reaction at an adjacent end support where there is a risk of uplilt occurring.
Aouse 2.4.1 .2 The Notes to c/ar.rz 2.4.1 .2link tbe partial factors for concrete, reinforcing steel ând struc-
tural steel to those recommended in EN 1992-1-1 and EN 1993. Design woulcl be more
dimcult il'thc lactors for these materials in con.rposite structures differed lrom the values
in reinlbrced concrete and steel structures. The reference to EN 1993, as distinct from
EN 1993-1-1, is required because some 1M lactors differ for bridges and buildings.
 CHAPTER 2. BASIS OF DESIGN

0.8srôk4,c

sirain Ël"isJ; ''i',î:.5i,';i?

Fig. 2. | . Rectangular stress block for concrete in compression ar ultimate limit states

The remainder ofEN 1994-2 normally refers to design strengths, rather than to character-
istic or nôminal values with partial faclors. Characteristic values are 5DZ lower fractiles for
an infinite test series, predicted from experience and a smaller number of tests. Nominal
values (e.g- the yield strcngth of structulal steel) are used where distributions of test
results cannot be predicted stâtistically. They arc chosen to correspond to châracteristic
values.
The design sûength for concrcte is given by:
.l : 1,x ltc (2.1)
"d
where/"1 is the characteristic cylinder strength. This definition is stated algebraically because
it differs lrom that of EN 1992-2. in which an additional coeflicient cr". is applied:
J.a = a*.f* l^tc: (D2.1)
The coelïicient is explained in EN 1992-2 as taking account of long-term effects ând of
unfavourablc effects resulting liom the way the load is applied. The value for rr"" is to be
given in nationâl annexes to EN 1992-2, and 'should lie between 0.80 and 1.00'. The value
1.00 has been used in EN 1994-2, without permitting national choice, for several reasons:
. The plastic slress block for use in resistânce of composite sections, delined in c/azse
6,2..1.2, consists of a stress 0.85./16 extending to the neutral axis, as shown in Fig. 2.1.
The depth of the stress block in EN 1992-2 is only 80% of this distance, The fàctor
0.85 is not fully equivalcnt to r""; it allows also lbr the dilïerence betwccn the stress
blocks.
. Predictions using the stress block of EN 1994 have been vedlied against test resulls for
composite membets conducted independently lrom verifications for concrete bridges.
. The EN 1994 block is easier to apply. The Eurocode 2 rule was not used in Eurocode 4
because resistancc formulae become compler where the neutral axis is close to or wilhin
the steel flânge âdjacent to the concretc slab.
. Resislance formulae for composite elements given in EN 1994 are based on calibrations
using its stress block, with ,"* : 1.0-

The detnition of I d in equ.ttion / 2. /l is applicable to ver ifioations o I all composite cross-

scclions, but not where the section is reinforced concrete only; for example, in-plane shear in
â concrete flânge ofa composite beam. For reinforced concrete, EN 1992-2 applics, with tr."
in equation (D2.1) as given in the National Annex- It is expected that the rules in the UK's
Annex will includc:
n"":0.85 for flexure and axial compression
This is consistcnt with EN 1994-2. as the coefficient 0.85 appears in the resistance fornulae
in clauses 6.2.1.2 and 6.7.3.2. In these cascs, the values 0.85/",1 in EN 1994-2 and f,6 in
EN 1992-2 are equal, so the values of symbols /16 âre not equal. There is a risk of error
when srvitching between calculations lor composite sections and for reinforced concrete
elcments such as a deck slab both for this reason and because of the different depth of
stress block-

t3
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Table 2.1. Pârtial factors from EN 1992-2 for materials, for ultimâte limit slates
De5i8n situations 1c, for concrete 1s, reinforcing steel ?s, Prestrêssin8 steel

Persistent and trânsient t. t5 Ll5

Accidental t.2 t.0 t.0

Care is needed also with symbols for steels. The design strengths in EN 1994 are.f,6 for
structural steel andf,6 lbr reinforcement. but reinlbrcement in EN 1992 hasl,.,1, not16.
The recommended partial factors given in EN 1992-2 (referring to EN 1992-l-l) fbr
materials fbr ultimâte limit states other than fâtigue âre repeated in Table 2.1. For setvice-
ability fimit statcs, the recommended value is generally 1.0, from clause 2.4.2.4(2).
The 1y values for structural steel are denoted fM6 to 1M7 in clause 6.1 of EN 1993-2. Those
for ultimate limit states other than fatigue are given in Table 2.2. Further values are given in
clauses on fatigue. No distinction is madc between persistent, trânsient, and accidental
design situations, though it cor.rld be, in a nalional annex.
For simplicity, 11"r for resistances ol shear connecLors (dcnoted 1y), given in â Note to
clause 6.6.3.1(I), wàs standardised at 1.25, becâuse this is the recommended value for
most joints in steelwork. Whele calibration led to a different value, a cocllcient in the resis-
tânce formula was modificd to enable 1.25 to bc used.
Clouse 2.4. Li Clause 2.4.1.3 refers to 'product standards hEN'and to 'nominal values'. The'h' stands
for 'harmonised'. This term from lhe Constructîon Products Directivett is explained in the
Designers' Guide to EN 1990.1
Generally, global analysis and resistances of cross-sections may be based on the'nominal'
values of dimcnsions, which are given on the project drawings or quoted in product stan-
dârds. Geômetricâl tolerances as well as struilturâl imperfections (such as welding residual
stresses) are accounted for in the methods specified for global analyses and for buckling
checks of individual structural elements. These subjects are discussed further in sections
5.2 and 5.3, respectivelyJ of this guide.
Clouse 2.4.1 .4 Clause 2.4,1.4, on design resistances to particular action eflects, refers to expressions (6.6a)
and (6.6c) given in clause 6.3.5 ofEN 1990. Resistânces in EN 1994-2 oftÊn need nrore than
one partial faclor. and so use expression (6.6a) which is:
R3: À{(4Xç.;/1y,1);a,1} l> I (D2.2)

.ra:ble
2.2. Partial factors from EN 1993-2 for materials, for ultimate limit stâtes

Recommended
Resistance type

Resistance of members and cross-sections

. Resistance of cross-sêctions to excessive yielding including local buckling tMo 1.00
. Resistance of members to instability âlsessed by member checks .lv,t l.l0
. Resistance to fracture of cross-section s in tension 'lM2 1.25

Resistânce of joints
. Resistance of bolts, rivets, pins ând welds 'ft42 1.25
. Resistânce of plates in bearing 'lM? 1.25
. Slip resistance:
-at an ultimate limit sta(e ')M3 1 25
-ac â servicêâbility limit stete ?vr,,er l l0
. Bearing resistânce of an injection bolt "hr+ l.l0
. Resistance ofioints in hollow section lattice girders JM5 l.l0
. Resistance of pins at serviceabiliry limit stâte Jva,,". 100
. Preload of high-strength bol(s 'YM7 ll0

t1
 CHAPTER 2. BASIS OF DESIGN

For example, clause 6.7.J.2(l) gives the plastic resistance to compression ofa cross-
section as the sum of terms for the strustural steel. côncrete and reinlbrcement:

N,. no -- .4u"/," -r 0.85.4. /.1 - a. {,. (6.30)

In thiscase, there is no separate term dd for the influence of geometrical data on resistance,
because uncertainties in areas of cross-sections are allowed for in the'Iv factors.
In terms of characteristic strengths, from clause 2.1.1.2, equation f6.30) becomes:
Àir,ra - .a"d/1',r + 0.85,4cÂkhc + -'1.Ârlrs (D2.3)

where:

fhe characterislic mâterial strengths Xç,i are.f",.f"y and f"y;

- the conversion factors, r7i in EN 1990, are 1.0 for steel and reinforcement and 0.85 for
concrete. These factors enable allowance to be made for the difference between the
material propcrty obtaincd from tests and its in rila contribution to the particular
resistance considered. In general, it is also permissible to allow lor this effect in th€
values of 1y,;;
- the pârtiâl factors 14.1 are written 1y, 1ç and 15 in EN 1994-2

Erprer.ion (h.6c) of EN 1990 i:,.

Ra : Rr./tr,r

It applies where characteristic properties and a single partial factor can be used; lbr example,
in expressions for the shear resistance of a headed stud (c/ause 6.6.3.1). ll is widely used in
EN 1993, where only one material, steel, contributes to a resislance

2.4.2. Combination of actions

Clause 2.4.2 refers to the combinâtions ofactions given in EN 1990. As jn current prâctice, Clouse 2.4.2
variable actions are included in a combination only in regions where they contribute to the
total action effect considered.
For permanent actions and ultimate limit states, the situation is more complex, Normally
Lhc samc factor 1p (favourable or unfavourable as appropriâte) is applied throughout the
structure, irrespective of whether both favourable and unlàvourable loading regions exist.
Additionally, the characteristic action is a mean (50% fractile) value. Exceptions arc
covered by clause 6.4.3.1(4)P of EN 1990:

'Where the r€sults ofa verification are very sensitive to variations ofthe magnitude ofa pemanent
actioû from place to place il1 the structure, the unfavourable and the favourable parts of this
aÇtion shall be considered as individual actions.'

A design pemanent action is then 1p6.inGç..;n in a 'favourable' region, and 1na,."*Gr,,"u'

in an 'unfavourable' region. Recommendations on the choice of these values ând the
application of this principle are given in EN 1990, with guidance ir rhe Designers' Guide
to EN 1990.'

2.4.3. Verification of static equilibrium (EQU)

The preceding quotation from EN 1990 evidently applies to checks on static equilibrium,
clause 2.4.3(1).It draws attention to the role of anchors and bearings in ensuring static Clouse 2.4.3(l)
equilibrium.
The abbreviation EQU in this clause comes from EN 1990, where four types of ultimate
limit statÊ are defined in clause 6.4.1:
. EQU for loss of static equilibrium
. FAT for fatiguc failure

t5
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

. GEO for failure or ercessive delbrmation of the ground

. STR lbr internal failure or excessive defomtation of the structure.
As explained above, the main feature of EQU is that. unlike STR, the parLial factor 1F for
pemânent actions is not uniform over the whole structure. It is higher for destabilizing
actions than for those relied on for stability. This guide mainly covers ultimate limit states
of typcs STR and FAT. Use of type GEO arises in design of foun<lations Lo ËN 1997.31

l6
CHAPTER 3

Materials

This chapter concerns the properties of matcrials nccded for the design of compositc
structures. It correspolds lo Section J, which has the following clauses:

. Concrete Clause 3-l

. Reinlbrcing steel fbr bridges Cknse 3.2
. Structural stcel for bridges Clause 3.3
. Connecting devices Clause 3-4
. Prestressing steel and devices Clause 3.5
. Tension components in slccl Clause 3.6

Rather than lepeating infbrmation given elsewhere, Section 3 consists mainly of

cross-references to othcr Eurocodes and EN standards. Thc followine comments relate to
provisions of particulâr signiûcance for composite structures.

3.l. Concrete
Clause 3.1( 1) relèrs to EN 1992- l-l fbr the propefiies ofconcrete. For Iightweight-âggregâte Clouse 3.1(l)
concrelc, scvcral properties are dependent on the oven-dry density, relatire to 2200 kgim'.
Comprehensive sets ol time-dependent properties are given in its clause 3.1 for normal
cor.rcrete and clause ll.3 lbr lightweight-aggregate corrcrete. For composite structures built
unpropped, with several stases of construction, simplification may be needed. A simplifica-
tion fbr considerations of creep is provided in clause 5.4.2.2(2J. Specific propcrries are now
discussed. (For thernal expansior.r, see Section 3.3 below.)

Compressive strengh
Strength and deformation characLcristics arc summarizcd in EN 1992-1-1, Table 3.1 lor
normal concrete and Table I 1.3.1 for lightweight-aggregate concrete.
Strength classcs for normal concrele are defined as-Cxp. whcre ,r: and 1 are respectively the
cylinder and cube compressive strengths in Nimm' units, determined ai age 28 days. All
compressive strengths in design rules in Eurocodes are cylinder strengths, so an unsafe
error occurs if a speciôed cubc strcngth is used in calculations- It should be replaced at the
outset by the equivalent cylinder strength, using the relationships given by thc strcngth
classes-
Most cube strengths in Tâble 3.1 are rounded to 5Nrmm2. The ratios l"ç//lç."ùbc range
lron 0.78 to 0.83, for grades up to C70/85.
Classes for lightweight concrete are designated LC-r,/.y- The relationships between cylindcr
and cube strengths differ from those of nolmal concrete; Tor exan.rple. C40/50 and LC40/44.
The ratios./ly//1p."u6. for the LC grades rangc lrom 0.89 to 0.92. Thr.rs, cylinder strengths are
about 80% of cube strengths fbr normal-weight concrete and 90% lor Jightweight concrete.
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994.2

Comment on the design comprcssive strength,.Âd - I'.llc. is given at clause 2.4.1 .2.

fensile strength
EN 1992 defines concrete tensile strength as the highest stress reached under concentric
tensile loading- Values for the mean axial tensile strength of normal-weight concrete at 28
days,l",-, are giveninTable 3.1 ofEN 1992-1-1. They are basedon the following formulae,
in Ni mmr units:
,4*, - o.3o(Âr)'?/3, l;k < c5o/60 (D3.1)
4r. : 2.12lnll + (/;-/10)1. Ik > C50/60 (D3.2)
This table also gives the 5% and 95% lractile values for tensile strength. Thc aFpropriate
fractilc value should be used in any limit stâte verificâtiôn thât relies on either an adverse or
beneficial effect of the tcnsile strength ofconcrete. Tensile strengths for lightweight concrete
are given in Table 11.3.1 ofEN 1992-l-1.
Mean tensile stress, [,,., is used in several places in EN 1994-2 where the effects of tension
stiffenilg are considered to be important. These include:
. clause 5.4.2.3(2): rules on allowing for cracking in global analysrs
. cluuse 5 .4.2 .8 ( 6, : calculation ofinternâl forces in concrete tension members in bowstring
arches
. clause 5,5.1/51: minimum area of reinforcement requircd in concrcte tension flanges of
composltc bcams
. clause 7.4.2( I ): rules on minimum reinforcement to ensure that cracking does not cause
yielding of reinforcement in the cracked region
. clause 7.4.3/3): rules on crack u.idth calculation to allow Ibr the increase in stress in re-
inlbrcement caused by tension stiffening.

Elostic deformotion
Al1 properties of concrete are influenced by its composition. The values for the meân shoft-
term môdulus of elasticity in Tables 3.1 and ll,3.l olEN 1992-l-l are given with a warning
that they are 'indicâtive' and 'should be specilicalJy assessecl if the struclurc is likely to be
sensitive to deviations from these general values'.
The values are for concrete with quartzite aggregates. Corrections for other types of
aggregate are given in EN 1992-1-1, clause 3.1.3(2). All these are secant values; typically,
0.4jl.i(strain at 0.4./1,"), and so are slightly lower than the initial tangent modulus,
because stress strâin curves for concrcle are nonlinear from lhe origin.
Tablc 3.1 in EN 1992-l-t gives the anâlyticâl relâtion:

E.:221(Lk+8)/1Olo']
with ,'",, in GPa or kNimm2 units, and/lp in N,/mm2. For/lu :30. this gives E" :32.8
kN/mm2, whereas thc cnLry in the table is rounded to 33 kN7urm2,
A lbrmula for the increase of 8",. wilh time, in clause 3.1.3(3) ofEN 1992-1-1, gives rhe
two-year value as 67o above tcn' at 28 days. The influence in a composite structure of so
small a change is likely to be negligible compared with the uncertainties in the modelling
ol- creep.
Qouse 3. I (2) Clnuse 3.1(2) ljrniLs Lhe scope of EN 1994-2 to the strength range C20i25 to C60175
for normal concrete ând from LC20l22 to LC60/66 for lightweight concrete. The upper
limits to these ranges are lorver than thât given in EN 1992-2 (C70/85) because there is
limited knowledge and experience ol the behavioul of conposite members with very
s|rong concrete. This applies, for example, to the load,/slip properties of shear connectors,
the redistribution of moments in continuous beams and the resistance of columns. The use
of rectangular stress blocks for resistance to bending (.ckuse 6.2.1.2(d)'1 relies on the
strain capacity oi' the naterials. The relevant property of concrete in compression, ;.u-! in
Table 3.1 of EN 1992-1-1, is 0.0035 for classes up to C50/60, but then falls, and is only
0.0026 lbr class C90i 105.

t8
 CHAPTER 3. MATERIALS

Shrinkoge
The shrinkage of concrete referred to in clause 3.1(3) is (presumably) both the drying Clause 3.1(3)
shrinkage that occurs after setting and the autogcnous shrinkage, but not the plastic
sbrinkage that precedes setting.
Drying shrinkage is associâted with movement oi water through and ôut of the concretc
and thelelore depends on relative humidity and elÎcctive section thickness as well as on
the concrete mix. It takes several years to be substantially complcte. The mean drying
shrinkage strain (fbr unreinforced concrete) is given in clausc 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-l-1 as a
function of grade of concreLe, ambicnt rclativc humidity, eflective thickness of the concrete
cross-section, and elapsed time since the end of curing. It is stated lhat actuâl vâlues have a
coeflicient ofvariation ofabout 30%. This implies a l6% probability that the shrinkage will
excccd thc prediction by at least 30%.
A slightly better predictor is given in Annex B of EN 1992-1-1, as the type ol cen-tent is
included as an additional pararneter.
Autogcnous shrinkage develops during the hydration ând hardening ofconcrete. It is that
which occurs in enclosed or sealed concrete, as in a concrete-fillcd steel tube, where no loss of
moisture occurs. This shrinkage slrain depcnds only on the strength of the concrete, ând is
suhstantially complete in a few months. It is given in clause 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-l-l as a
functio[ of concrcie grade and the age of the concrete in days. The time coefficient given
is ll exp( 0.2t"')1, so this shrinkage should be 907o complete at age 19 weeks. The
90.lo shrinkage strain for a grade C40/50 concrete is given as 67 z 10-6. It has little influcnce
on cracking due to direct loading, and the rules for minimum reinfbrcenent (clause 7.4.2)
take account of its effects.
The rr.rles in EN 1992-l-l become less accurate at high concrete strengths, especially ifthe
mix includes silica fumc. Data for shrinkage for concrete grâdes C55,i67 and above are given
in informative Annex B of EN 1992-2.
Section I I of EN 1992-2 gives supplementary rcquirements for lightweight concretes
The shrinkage of reinforced concrete is lower than the 'fiee' shrinkage, to an extent thaL
depends on the reinforcement ratio. The dilTerence is easily calculated by elastic theory, if
the concrete is in compression. ln steel concrete composite bridges, reslraint of reinforced
concrete shrinkage by the structural steel leads to locked-in stresses in the composite
section. In indeterminate bridges. secondary rnomenls and forces from restraint to the free
deflecLions also occur. Shrinkage, being a permanent action, occurs in every combination
of actions. It increases hogging moments at internal supports, often a critical region, and
so can influence design.
The specified shrinkage strains will typically be found to be greater than that used in
previous UK practice, but the recornmended partial load fâctor, in clausc 2.4.2.1 of
EN 1992-1-1, is 1'qr : 1.9, lower ihan the value of 1.2 used in BS 5400.
There is further comment on shrinkaee in Chapter 5.

Creep
In EN 1994-2, the effects of creep are generally accounted for using an effective modulus of
elasticity for the concrete, rather Lhan by explicit calculation ofcreep de1'ormation. However,
it is still necessary to determine the creep coeffcient {(1, te) (denoted /t in EN 1994) lrom
clause 3.1,4 ofEN 1992-l-1. Guidance ou deriving modular ratios is given in sectiôn 5 4.2
of this guide.

3.2. Reinforcing steel for bridges

For propcrties ol reinlorcement. clause 3.2(1) refers to clause 3.2 of EN 1992-I-l. whiqh in Clouse 3.2(l )
turn lefers to its normative Annex C for bond characteristics- EN 1992 allows the use ofbars,
de-coiled rods and welded fabric as suiLablc rcinforcement. Its rules arc applicâble to dbbed
and weldable reinforcement only, and therefore cannot be uscd for plain round bars. The
rules are valid for characteristic yield strengths betwcen 400 N/mm2 and 600 NTmm2 Wire
fabrics with nominal bar size 5mm and above are included. Exceptions to the rulcs for

t9
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Table 3.1. Ductility classes for reinforcement

Characteristic strâin at Minimum value

maximum force, e,p (7o) of k: (ft/f)k
>2.s > r_0s
> t.08
)t.s > t. t5, < t.35

fatigue of reinforcement may be given in the Natiônal Annex, and could reler to the use of
wire fabric,
In this section 3.2, symbols/;k andd6 arc used for the yield strengths of reinforcen-lent. as
in EN 1992, although.{1 and lg are used in EN 1994, to distinguish reinforcement from
structural steel.
The grade of reinfbrcement denotes the specilied characteristic yield strength, [1. This
is obtained by dividing the characteristic yield load by the nominâl cross-sectionâl âreâ of
the bar. Altematively. for products without a pronounced yield stress, the 0.2% proof
stress,. 2k may bc used in place of the yield stress.

Elostjc deformoûon
Aouse 3.2(2) For simplicitl', c/ause J.2(2) p€r[1its the modulus ôfelâsticity ofreinforcement to be taken as
210 kN7/mmr, the vâlue given in EN 1993-1-t for structural steel, rather than 200kN/mm2,
the valuc inEN 1992-l-1. This simpliflcation means tbat it is not necessary to 'transform'
reinfbrcement into sLruclural steel or vice versa tvhen calculating crâcked section properties
of composite beams.

Ductihty
Clause 3.2(3) Clause 3.2( 3 ) refers to clause 3.2.4 of EN 1992-2; buL provisiors on ductility in Anner C of
EN 1992-1-1 also apply. Reinforcement shall hâve âdequâte ductility, defined by the râtio of
tensile strength to the yield stress. (1,/d,)q. and the strain at maximum lbrce, euç. The
requiremenls for the three clâsses for ductility are givcn in Table 3.1, lrom EN 1992-l-1.
Clause 3.2.4(101)P of EN 1992-2 recommends thât Clâss A reinforcement is not used for
bridges, although this is subject to variation in Lhe National Annex. The reason is that high
strâin cân occur in reinforcement in â reinforced concrete section in flexure before the
concrete crushes. Clause 5.5.1(51 prohibits the use of Class A reinlbrcement in composite
beams which are designed as either Clâss I or 2 for a simjlar reason: namel)', that very high
strains in reinforcement are possible due to plastilication of the whole composite section.
Class 3 and 4 sections are limited to first yield in the structural steel and so the reinforce-
ment strain is limiled to a l'elatively low value. The recommendations of EN 1992 ancl
EN 1994lead to some ambiguity with respect to ductility requirements for bals in reinforced
concrete deck slabs formir.rg part of a colnposite bridge with Class 3 or 4 beams. Where main
longitudinal bars in the deck slab of a composite section are significantly stresse<l by local
loading. it would be advisable to follow the recommendations of EN 1992 and not to use
Class A reinforcement.

Stress-stroi,r curyes
The characteristic stress strain diagram and the two alternative design diâgrams defined in
clause 3.2.7 ol EN 1992-l - 1 are shown in Fig. 3.1- The design diagrams (labelled B in Fig. 3.1)
have:

(a) an inclined top branqh with a strain limit of .,,d and a maximum stress of Àflkhs ât Éuk
(for symbols k and eu1, see Table 3.1), and
(b) a horizontal top brarch without strain litnit,
A value for eu6 may be found in the National Annex to EN 1992-l-1, and is recommended as
0.9e,ç.

20
 CHAPTER 3. MATERIALS

fr-
f\d = fyN/ys

tyl Es

Fig. 3.l. Characteristic and design stress strain diagrams for reinforcemem (tension and compression)

From claasc 6-2.1.4, rcinforcement diagram (a) is only relevant when the non-linear
method for bending resistânce is used. Elastic and plastic bending resistances assume thaL
the rcinforcement stress is limited to the design yield stl'ength.
The minimum ductility properties of wirc fabric givcn in Table C.1 ofEN 1992-1-l may
not be sulïcient to satisfy c/auie 5.i../ f6;, as this requires demonstration of sumcicnL ducti
lity to avoid fracturc when built inLo a concrete slab. It has been found in tests on continuous
composite beams with fabric in tension thât the cross-wires initiate cracks in concrete, so Lhat
tcnsile strain becomes concentrated at the locations of the welds in the [abric.]3

3.3. Structural steel for bridges

Claase 3,3( I ) refers to EN 1993-2, which in turn refers to EN 1993- l-1. This lists in its Table Aause 3.3(l )
3.1 steel grâdes with nominal yield strcngrhs up to 460Nimm2. and allows other steel
products to be included in national annexes. The nominal values of material propcrties
have to be adoptcd as characleristic values in all design calculationr-
Two options for selecting mâteriâl strength are provided. Either the yield strength and
ultimate strength should be obtained from the relevânt product standard or the simplified
values provided in Tablc 3.1 of EN 1993-1-1 should be used. The Natiônal Anrex for
EC3-l-l may make this choice. In either case, the strength varies with tlickness, and thc
appropriate lhickness must be used when determining the strength.
The elâstic constants for steel, givcn ir clause 3.2.6 oi EN 1993-l-1, are familiar values. In
the notation ofEN 1994, they âre: Eâ :2l0kN/mm2, Go 81kN/mm2, and /a - 0.3.:
Moduli ol elasticity for tension rods and cables of different types are not covered by this
clause and are given in EN 1993-l-11.
Clau;e 3.3(2) sets the sarne upper limit to nominal yield strength as jn EN 1993-1-1, Clouse 3.3(2)
namely 460N7'mm', for use in compositc bridges. EN 19q3-1-12 covers steels-up to grade
5700. A comprehensive report on high-performânce steels appeared in 2005.'" and there
has been extensive rcscarch on the use in composite menbers ol structural steels with
yield strengths exceeding 355 N1mm2.35-37 It was founrl that some design rules need modifi-
cation for use with steel grades higher thân 5355, to avoid premature crushing of conctcte-
This applies to:
. plâstic resistance momcnL (c/aase 6.2.1.2(2)), and
. resistirnce of columns (clause 6.7.3 .6( I )).

Ductilîty
Many design clauses in EN 1994 rely on the ductile behaviour of structural steel after yield.
Ductility is covered by the references rn cknse 3.3( 11 to EN 1993.
Thc ductility characteristics required by clause 3,2.2 of EN 1993-l-l are for a minimum
ràriô of the specified valucs; a minimum elongation; and a minimum strain ât the
^lIy
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

speciûed ultimate tensilc strength, Â. Recommended values are given, all of which can be
nodilied in the National Annex. The steel grades in Table 3.1 of EN 1993-1-1 all provide
the recommendsd level of ductility, It fbllows that the drafting of this part of a national
annex to EN 1993-1-l should consider both steeL and composite structures.

Thermal expansion
For the coefficient of linear thermal expansion of steel, clâuse 3.2.6 of EN 1993-.1-l gives a
value of 12 x 10-6 'per'C' (also written in Eurocodes as iK or K r1. This is followed by
a Note that for calculating thc 'struclural effecLs of unequal tempcratures' in composite
struqtures, the coefiicient mây be tâken as l0 x l0 6 per "C, which is the value given lbr
normâl-weight concrele in clause 3.1.3(5) ofEN 1992-l-1. This avoids the need to calculate
the internal restraint sftesses from uniform temperature change, which would result from
different coefllcients of thermal expansion for steel and concrete. Movement due to
change of uniform temperature (or forcc due to rcstraint ol'rnovcment) should however
be calculated using a: 12x l0 6 per'C for all the structural mâte rials (clause 5.4.2.5(3)).
Thermal expansion of reinforcement is not mentioned in EN 1992-l-1, presumably
because it is assumed to be the same as that of normal-weight concrete. For reinforcement
in composite men-rbers the coemcient should be tâken as 10 x 10 6 per "C. This is not in
EN 1994.
Coefficients of thermal expansion for lightweightaggregâte côncretes can range from
4 x l0 " to 14 x l0 o per 'C. Clause I1,3.2(2) of EN l992-l-l states that: 'The differences
between the coefficients of thermal cxpansion of stecl and lightweight aggregâte concrete
need not be considered in deslgn', but'steel'here means reinfôrcement, not structural
steel. The effects ofthe diflcrence from I0 . 10 per C should be considered in design of
6

composite members for situâtiôns where the temperatures of the concrete ând the structural
steel could differ significantiy.

3.4. Connecting devices

3.4.l. General
Reference is made to EN 1993, Eurocode 3. De.rign oJ Steel Structuret, Part 1-8: Design of
for information relating to fasteners, such as bolts, and welding consumables. Provi-
"/ofut,s19
sions for 'other types of meshanical fastcner' are givcn in clause 3.3 of EN 1993-l-3.'"

Composite Jbi,ats
Compositejoints are delined in c/aase 1.5.2.B. In bridges, they âre essentiâlly steelworkjoints
across which a reinforced or prestressed concrete slab is continuous, and cannol be ignored.
Conposite joints are covered in Section 8 and Annex A of EN 1994-1-1, with extensive
reference to EN 1993-1-8. These clauses are wlitten'for buildings', and so are not copied
into EN 1994-2, though many of them are relevant. Commentary on Lhem will be found
in Chapters 8 and l0 of the Designers' Guùle to EN 1994-l '1 .'
The joints classifled as 'rigid' or 'full-strength' occur also in bridge construction. Where
bending resistances of beams in Class 1 or 2 are determined by plastic theory, joints in
regions of high bending moment must either have suffcient rotation capacity, or be stronger
than the weaker of the members.joincd. The rolation capacity needed in bridges, where
elastic global analvsis is always used, is lorver than in buildings-
Tests, mâinly on beam-to-column joints. have fbund that reinforcing bars of diameter up
to l2mm may liacture. Clquse 5.5.I gives rules for minimum reinforcement that apply âlso
to joints, but does not exclude small-dianeter bars.

3.4.2. Headed stud shear connectors

Heâded studs arc the only type of shear connector for which detailed provisions are given in
EN 1994-2. throughôut cltuse 6.6. Their use is referred to else$'here; for example, in c/au.ie
6.7.1.2(4). Their performance has been validated for diameters up to 25mm.'" Research on
 CHAPTER 3, I'4ATERIALS

larger studs is in progress. Studs âttâched to steel top flanges present a hazard during
cônstruction, and other types of connector âre sometimes used." These must satisfy
clause 6.6.1.1, which gives the basis of design for shear connection. Research on perlorated
plate connectors (known initially as'Perfobond') of 5355 and 5460 steel in grade C50i60
concrete has lund slip capacities from 8 15 mm, u,hich is better lhan the 6 mm found for
22-mn studs." The use of adhesives on a steel flange is unlikely to bc suitabLe. See also
the comment on clause 1 .1 ,3 ( 3 ) .
Claase 3.4.2 refers to EN 13918 ltrrelding Studs and Ceramfu Ferrules for Arc Stud Clouse 3.4.2
lltelding.a0 This gives minimum dimensions for wekl collars. Othcr methods of attaching
studs, srLch as spinning, may not provide rveld collars large enough for the resistances of
studs given rn claute 6.6.3.1 (l / to bc applicable.
Shear connection between steel and concrete by bond or j'riction is permitted only in accor-
dance with t:luuse 6.7.4. for colun.rns.

3.5. Prestressing steel and deyices

Properties of materiàls for prestressing tendons ând requitements for anchorage and cou-
pling of tendons are covered in clauses 3.3 and 3.4, respectively, of EN 1992- I - I . Prcstrcssing
by tendons is rarely used for steel ând concrete composite members ând is not discussed
further,

3.6. Tension components in steel

The scope of EN I 993-l - 1 I is limited io bridges with ad.justable and replaceable steel tension

components. It identifies three generic groups; tension rod syslems, ropes, and bundles of
parallel wires or strands; and provides informâtion on stiflness and other matedal prop€rties.
The analysis of cable-supported bridges, including treatment of load combinations and ûon-
linear effècts. is also covered. These are not discusscd furthcr hcre but some discussion can be
found in thc Desipnen Guide to E''1 1993).'
CHAPTER 4

Durability

This chapter corresponds to Section 4. which has the following clauses:

. General C lause 4.l
. Corrosion protection at the stecl concrete interfâce in bridges Clause 4.2

4. 1. General
Almost all âspects of the durability of composite structures are covered by cross-references
in clause 4.1(1) to ENs 1990, 1992 and 1993. Bridges must be sufficiently durable to remain Clouse 4.1(l)
serviceable throughoul their design life, Clause 2.4 of EN 1990 lists ten factors to be taken
inlo aocount, and gives the following gencral requirelnent:
'The structLùe shall be designed such that deterioratioll ovcr its dcsign working lilè does ûot
impair the performaûce ofthe slructure bclow that intended, having due regard to its cnvironment
and the aûticipaled level of naintenance.'

The specilic provisions given in EN 1992 and EN 1993 lbcus on corrosior.r protcction to re-
inforcemcnt, tendons and structurâl steel.

Reinforced conuete
The main durability provision in EN 1992 is the speciflcâtion ôf concrete cover as a defence
against corrosion ofreinforcement and tendons. The following outline ofthe procedure is for
reinforcemenl ouly. In addition to the durability aspect, adequate concrete cover is essentiâl
fbr the trânsmission of bond forces and lbr providing sumcient fire resistance (which is of
less significance for bridge design). The minimun cover cmin to satisfy the durabilitl'
requirements is dcllned in clause 4.4.1.2 ofEN 1992-1-l by the follou'ing expression:

- mâx tcmin,b; c,,;n ,1u, { 4c6,,.,-, - Ara-.,, Ac,i,,,,,,.16; 10 rnrn}

cnin (D4.1)

where: c*;n,6 is the minimur cover due to bond requirements and is defined in Table 4.2
of EN 1992-1-1. For aggregate sizes up to 32mm it is equal Lo thc bar
diameter (oI equir'alent bar diameter for bundled bars),
c-1n,4u. is the minimum cover requiled lbr the environmental conditions,
Àc6.,,^. is an additional safety element which EC2 recommends to be 0 mm,
Ac6u.,, is a reduction of minimum cover for the use ôf stainless steel, which, if
adopted, should be applied to alJ design calculations, including bond. The
recomncnded value in EC2 without further specification is 0 rnm,
Àc,1,,.,,31 is a reduction of minimum cover for the use of addjtional proLection. This
could covel'coatings to the concrete surface or reinfôrcement (such as
epoxy coating). EC2 recommends taking a value of 0 mûr.
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Tablê 4.l. Minimum cover cmin.d,, for reinforcement. (Source: based on Table 4.4N of EN 1992-l-ll5)

Environmental Requirements for c-;n (mm)

Exposure Class (from Table 4.1 of EN 1992-l-l)

Structurâl Class xcl xcz/xc3 XD I/XS I XD2/X52 XD3/XS3

I t0 t0 t0 l5 20 30
2 t0 t0 t5 20 25 30
3 t0 t0 20 30 1( 40
4 t0 t5 25 30 40 45
5 t5 20 30 35 40 45 50
6 20 35 40 45 50 55

The minimum cover for durability requirements, cn'in drL. depends on the relevanl
'exposure class'taken from Table 4.1 ofEN 1992-1-1,
There arc l8 cxposure classes. ranging lrom X0, 'no risk ol'corrosion', to XA3, 'highly
agglessive chemical environment'. It should be noted thât a particular elenenl may have
more than one exposul'e class, e.g, XD3 and XF4. The XF and XA designations âffect the
minimum requircd concrete grade (via EN 1992-1-1 Annex E) and the chemical composition
of the concrete. The XC and XD designations affect minimum cover and crack width
requirements, and XD, XF and XS affect a stress limiL for concrete under the charâcteristic
combination, from clause 7.2(102) of EN 1992-2. The exposure classes most likely to be
appropriate lbr composite bridge decks are:
. XC3 for a deck slab protected by waterproofing (recommended in ctause 4-2(105) of
EN 1992-2)
. XC3 tbr a d€ck slab sont protected from the rain by adjacent girders
. XC4 for olher parts of the deck slab exposed to cyclic wetting and drying
. XD3 for pârâpet edge beams in the splash zone ofwater contâminated with de-icing salts;
and also XF2 or XF4 ifexposed to both freeze tha\v and de-icing agents (recommended
in clause 4.2(106) of EN 1992-2).
Informative Annex E of EN 1992-l-1 gives 'indicative strength clâsses' (e.g, C30/37) for
each exposure class, Ibr corrosion of reinforcement and fbr damage to concrete.
The cover c,o6.3u, is givcn in Table 4.4N ofEN 1992-1-l in terms ofthe exposure class and
the structural class, and the structurâl class is found from Table 4.3N. These are reproduced
here as Tables 4.1 and 4.2, respectively. Table 4.2 gives modifications to the initial structurâl
class. which is recommended (in a Note to clause 4.4.1.2(5) of EN 1992-l-1) to be class 4,
assuming a service life of 50 years ând conclete of the indicative strength.
Taking exposure class XC4 as an example, thc indicalivc strength class is C30/37. Starting
wilh Structural Class 4. and using Tâbles 4.1 and 4.2:
. for 100-year life, increase by 2 to Class 6
. for use of C40i 50 concrete, reduc€ by I to Class 5
. where the position ofthe reinforcement is not âffected by the construction process. reduce
b)' I to Class 4.
'Special quality control' (Tablc 4.2) is not dcfincd, but clues are given in the Notes to Table
4.3N of EN 1992-1-1. Assuming thâr it will not be provided, the Class is 4, and Table 4.1
gives cmindur :30mm. Using the recomn.rendations that follow equation (D4.1),
.*tn : 30 mrn
The cover to bc specified on the drawings, cnon, shall include a further allowance for devia-
tion (4c1",) âccording to clause 4.4.1 .3(l )P of EN 1992- I -1, such that:

.ion=cmin+Acdev
 CHAPTER 4. DURABILITY

rs)
Table 4.2. Recommended stru.tural classification. (Source: based on Table 4.3N of EN 1992- l- |

Structurâl Clâss

Exposure Class (from Table 4. I of EN 1992-l- l)

Criterion XO xcl xc2/xc3 xc4 XDI XDZXSI XD3/XS2/XS3

SerYice life of 100 yêârs Increase Increase lncrease lncrease lncrease lncrease Incrêâse
class by 2 class by 2 class by 2 class by 2 class by 2 class by 2 class by 2

Strength Class (see >c30t37 >c30t37 >c35t45 >c40/50 >c40/s0 >c40/50 >c45/55
notes | ând 2) Reduce Reduce Reduce Reduce Reduce Reduce Reduce
class by I class by I class by I class by I class by I class by I class by I

Member with slab Reduce Reduce Reduce Reduce Reduce Reduce Reduce
têometD/ (position of class by I class by I class by I class by I class by I clâss by I class by I

reinforcement not
affected by construction
process)

Speciâl Quality Control Reduce Reduce Reduce Reduce Reduce Reduce Reduce
of the concrete ensured .lass by I clâss by I class by I class by I class by I class by I class by I

Nôte l: The strenSth clâss ând water/€€mÊnt râtio are €onsidered to be related values. The relationship is subiect to â
national code. A special compôsitjôn (cype of cement, c vâlue, finê fillers) with rhe inteft ro produce low pêrmÊability may

Note 2: The limit may be reduced by one strength clârs if âir enrâinment of more thân 4% is âpplied.

Thc value of Ac6"u fol buildings and bridges is deflned in the National Annex and is
recommended in ctause 4.4.1-3(2) of EN 1992-1-l to be taken as l0mm. This value ma1,
be reduced in situâtions \rr'here âccurate measurements of cover achieved cân be taken and
non-conforming elements rejected. This could âpply to precâst units.
Almost all the provisions on cover, bul not the process Lo bc followed, cân be modiûed in
thc Naliolal Annex to EN 1992-l-1.

Structutol steel
The rules in Section 4 of EN 1993-l-1 cov€r the need for access lbr in-servicc inspection,
maintenance, and possible reconstruction of parls susÇeptible to corrosion, weâr or
latigue. Further provisions relevânt to fatigue are given in Section 4 of EN 1993-2, and a
list is given of parts that may neer:l to be replaceable. Corrosion allowances for inaccessible
sudhces may be given in the National Annsx. Furthcr discussion on druability ofstructural
stccl i' prcserrterl in the Des4nerr'Guide to EN lQgJ-2.4
Access to shear connectors is noL possible, so they must be proLccted from corrosion.
Claase 4.1(2) refefs to c/dr.l.rc 6.6-J, which includcs rclcvant detailing rules, for cover and Aouse 4.l(2)
for haunches.

4,2. Corrosion protection at the steel-concrete interface

in bridges
Thc side cover to stud connectors must be at least 50mm (c/akre 6,6.5.4(2)). Clause 4.2(I) Aouse 4.2(l)
requires provision of a minimum of 50 mm of corrosion proLcction to eâch edge of a steel
flangc at an interface with concrete. This does not imply thât the connectors must be pro-
tected.
For precast deck slabs, the reference to Saction 8 is tr: clause 8.4.2,which requires greater
corrosiôn protection to a stccl flange Lhat suppofts a precast slab without bedding. Normal
UK practice when using 'Omnia' planks has been to extend the corrosion protection il
minimum of 25mm beyond the plank edge and its seating rraterial, with duc allowance
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

for placing tolerance. The connectors are not mentioned. They are usually surrounded by
in ,\itu coocrete, whethcr bedding is used (as is usual) or not. Corrosion protection to the
connectors is not normally required. It is possible that â thick coating could reduce thcir
stiffness in shcar.

28
CHAPTER 5

Structural analysis

This chapter corresponds to Section 5 of EN 1994'2, which has the following clauses;
. StrucLurâl mo<lelling lbr analysrs C lau.ve 5 .1
. Structurâl stâbility Cleuse 5.2
. lmperlections Clause 5.3
. Calculation of aclion effects ([Llutt ).4
. Classilicatlonofcross-sections Clause 5.5
Structural analysis is performed at three levels: global analysis, member analysis and local
analysis. Sccllor i of EN 1994-2 covcrs the sLructural idealization of bridges and the methods
of global analysis required in different situatiôns to determine deformations and internal
forces and moments. It also covers classification of cross-sections of members, for use in
detennining resistances by methods given in Sections 6 of EN 1993-2 and EN 1994-2.
Much relerence has to be made to other parts of EC3, especially EN 1993-1-5'' for the
effects of sheâr lag and plate buckling.
Wherever possible" analyses tbr serviceability and ultimate limit stales use the samc
methods- It is thereforc more convenient to specify them in a single section, rather thân to
include them in Sectlons 6 and 7.
The division of material between Ser/irn 5 and Section 6 (Ultimate limit states) is not
always obvious. Calculation of vertical shear is clearly 'analysis', but longitudinal shear is
rn Section 6. For composite columns, 'Methods of analysis and member imperfeclions' is
rn clausa 6.7.3.1. This separation of imperfections in frames from those in columns requires
care, and receives detailed explanation rn the Designers'Gui.le to EN 1991-l-1.'
Two flow charts for global analysis, Figs 5.15 and 5.16, are given, with comments, at the
end of this châpter. They include rclcvant provisions from Section 6.

5. | . Structural modelling for analysis

5. | . l.
Structural modelling and basic assumptions
Tlre clause of EN 1990 referred to in clause 5.1.1(1)P says, in eflect, that models shall Qouse 5.1.1(l)P
bÊ appropriate ancl based on established theory and prâctice and that the variables shall
be relevant.
The basic requirement is that analysis should realistically model the expected behaviour of
the bridge and its constituent clements. For composite bridges, important factors in ânâlysis
are the effects on stiffness of shear lag ând concrete cracking. For composite members,
diflerent rulcs for shear lag apply lbr concrete flanges and for the steel parts. The former
is dealt with in clause 5.4.l .2 and the latter in Section 3 of EN 1993- 1-5. They are discussed
in this Guide und,er clause 5.4.1.2.
The effects of cracking of concrete can be Laken inLo account either by using cracked
secfion properties in accordance rvith c/aase 5.4.2.3 or, for {iller-bean] decks only, by
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

redistributing the moments determined from an uncracked analysis away from the cracked
sections in accordance with c/oase 5.4.2.9. For Class 4 sections, plate buckling effects, which
have to be considcred in accordance with clause ?.2 ofEN 1993-l-5, can also lead to a reduc-
tion in stiflness of cross-sections. This is discussed in this Guide tnder clause 5.4.1.1 .

Global analysis can be signilicantly aflected by flexibility at connections and by interaction

of the bridge structure with the soil, particularly in fully' integral bridges. Guidance on
n.rodelling joints and ground-structure interâction are given in clauses 5.1.2 and 5.1.3,
respectivell'.
Composite members and joints are commonly used in conjunction with others of str-tlctulal
Qouse 5.1 .l (2) steel. Clause 5.1.1(2) makes clear that this is the type of construction envisaged it Section 5.
Signiflcant differenccs bctween Sections 5 of EC3 and EC4 arc rcferred to in this chapter.

5. | .2. loint modelling

In analysis of bridges, it is generally possible to treat ioints as either rigid or pinned, as
Qouse 5.1.2( l ) appropriate. Claase 5.1.2(1) refers to 'semi-continuous' joints as an exception. They are
ncithcr 'rigid' nor 'pinned', and have sufficient flexibility to influence the bending moment
trânsmitted. This could occur. for example, from the flexurc of thin end-plates in a bolted
end-plate connection.
Aouse 5.1 .2(2) The three simplified joint nodels listed in clause 5.1.2(2) sinple, continuous and semi-
continuous a-re those given in EN 1993- Joints in steelwork hâve their own Eurocod€ part,
EN 1993-l-8.'' Its design methods âre for joints 'subjected to predominantly static loading'
(its clause 1.1(1)). Resistance to fatigue is covered in EN 1993-1-9"' and tn clause 6.8.
Qouse 5.1.2(3) Clause 5.1.2(3) prohibits the use of semi-contin\ous composite joints (defined in tlause
1.5-2.8) in bridges. An example of such a prohibited joint might be a composite main
beam joined tôgether through end-plate connections- Semi-continuous non-composite
joints should also be avoided where possible, so that fatigùe can be assessed using the
detail categories in EN 1993-1-9.
Semi-continuous joints may. in some situations, be unavoidable, such as end-plate connec-
Lions between composite cross-beams and mâin beam webs in some U-frame bridges, but
these would not be composiLe joints due to the lack of continuity of the slab reinforcement.
The flexibility of such a .joint would have to be considered in deriving the restraint provided
to the compression flange by the U-frame. Design rules are given in EN 1993-1-8 and in
EN 1994- I - 1.
Another apparent erception to the above rule concerns the slip of bolts. This is discussed
under c/aa.rz 5.4.1.1 (7 ).

5.1.3. Ground-structure interaction

Clause 5.1 .3(l)P Clause 5.1.3(1)P refers to 'dcformation of supports', so the stiffness of the bearings, piers,
abutments and ground have to be tâken into account in analysis. This also includes consid-
eration of stilTncss in determining eflèctive lengths for bucklir.rg or resistance to buckling by
analysis. For further guidance on this- see Section 5.2 below.
Thc effeots of diflèrential settlement must also be included in analysis, although from
Aouse 5.1.3(j) clause 5.1.3(3) they may be neglectcd in ultimate [imit state checks- Similar considerations
apply to other indirect actions, sr:ch as differential temperature and differential creep.
They are discussed in this Guide utder clause 5.4.2.2(6).

5.2. Structural stability

The tbllowing comments refer to both entire bridges and isolated members. They assume
that the global analyses will be based on elastic theory, The exception rn clause 5.4.3 is
discussed later. All design nethods must take account of:

. errols in the initial positions ofjoints (global geometric imperfections) and in the initial
geomeLry ol members (member geometric imperfections)

30
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTUML ANALYSIS

. the effects of cracking of concrete and of any semi-rigid or nominally pinned joints
. residual stresses in comprcssion members (structural impefections).
The stâge at which each of these is considered or allowed for can be selected by lhe
designer, which leads to some complexity in clauses 5.2 to 5.4.

5.2.l. Effects of deformed geometry ofthe structure

In its clause 1.5.6, EN 1990 defines types of analysis. 'First-ôrder'analysis is perlormed on
the initial geometry of the structure. 'Second-order' ânalysis takes accounL of the deforma-
tions of thc structure, which are a function of its loading. ClearJy, second-order analysis may
always be applied. With appropriate software increasingly available, second-order analysis is
now relatively straightforward to peform, The criteria tbr neglect of second-order eflects
given in c/anses 5.? .I (2) P arrd 5.?. / f-tJ need not then be considered. The analysis allowing Qause 5.2. | (2)P
for second-order effects will usually be iterâtive but normâlly the iteration will take place Clause 5'2'l(3)
wirhin the software. Methods for second-order analysis are described in text books such
, ,11
as tnat ov I ranâ,tf cI atl.'
A disaivantage of second-order analysis is that the principle of superposition does not
apply and entire load combinations must be applied to the bridge model. In this case, the
critical load combinations can still first be estimated using flrst-order analysis, influcnce
lines (or surfaccs) and superposition of load cases.
Second-order eflects âpply to both in-plane and out-of-plane modes ofbuckling, including
lateral torsional buckling. The latter behaviour is more complex and requires a flnite-
element analysis using shell elements to lnodel properly second-order effects and instability.
A method of checking beams for out-of-plane instability while modelling only in-plane
second-order effects is given in clause 6,3.4 of EN 1993-l-l and discusscd in section 6.4.3
of this guide. Out-of-planc sccond-order effects can onJy be neglected in bridge beams
where there is sumcient lâterâl bracing present. In-plâne second-order effects in thc beams
will usually bc negligible ard lateral torsional buckling may bc checked using one of the
simplifled methods permitted. in clausc 6-1. Integral bridges, rvith high axial load in thc
bean.rs caused by earth pressure, may be an exception.
Clause 5.2.1 (3 ) provides a basis for the use of first-order analysis. The check is done lbr a
particular load combination and âffângement. The provisions in this clause are similar to
Lhosc for elastic analysis in the corresponding clause in EN 1993-2. Clausc 5.2.1(j) is not
just for a sway mode. This is because clause 5.2.1 is relevant nôt only to complete frames
but also to the design of individual columns (see clqa:e 6,7.3.4 for composite columns,
and comments on ir). Such members may be hekl in position against swây but still be
subject to significânt second-order effects due to bowing. Second-ordel ellècts in local and
global modes are illustrated in Fig. 5. L
In an elastic frame, second-order effecls are dependent on Lhe proximity ofthe design loads
to the elastic critical buckling load. This is the basis lor expressiott f5.11, in which a". is
to cause elastic instability' . This may be taken as the loâd fâctor at
defined as 'the .fat:tor ...
which bifurcation of equilibrium occurs. For a column or frame, it is assumed that lhere
are no member imperfections, and thât only vertical loads are present, usually at their
maximum design values- Thesc arc rcplaced by a seL of loads that produce the same set oI'
member axial lblces without any bending. An eigenvalue analysis then gives the iactor

Fig.5.l. Examples of localand global instability: (a) local second-order effects; (b) global second-order
effecrs

3l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

acf, applied to the whole of the lôading, ât which the system stiffness vanishes and elastic
instability occurs.
To sulicient âccurâcy, o.. may also be determined by a second-order load-deflection
analysis. The nonlinear load deflection response approaches asymptotically to the elastic
critical vâlue. This may be useful as somc software will perform this analysis but nôt ân
clastic critical buckling analysis.
The use of e:rpre.r.sion (5.1) is one way of determining if first-order analysis will sumce.
Clause 5.2.1( 3) also states that second-order effÊcts may be ignored where the increases in
internal aclions due to the deformâtions from first-order ânalysis are less than 10%.
Hence, for members braccd against lateral buckling:
MllaMr > t0 (D5.1)
where M1 is the moment from first-order analysis, including the effects of initial imperfec-
tions, and AMl is the increasc in bending moments calculated lrom Lhc deflections ôbtâined
from first-order analysis (the P-4 moments). By convention, the symbols 4 or ô are used for
deformations- Thcy shoukl not be confused with A. as used here in AM1.
Application of this criterion, in principle, avoids the need for elastic critical buckling
analysis bul its use has some problems as discussed below. For the case of a pin-ended
strut with sinusoidâl bow of magnitude 40, cxprcssion (D5-1) is the same âs e-xpfe.r-ron
/5.1,. This can be shown âs follows.
The extra dcflection from a first-order analysis can easily be shown to be given by:
La : aoFulFu (D5.2)
where Fp1 is the applied axial load and -Q. is the elastic criticâl buckling load, It fbllows that
the extra moment lrom lhe first-order deflection is:
AMt - Fe,,(.aoFr,t / F.,') (Ds.3)
Putting equatiôn (D5.3) into equation (D5.1) g1,es expression (5 .I )
t4tllrt . f= ,F*no,= , ..f - -,r,, t
Fdl.r0fEJ/ rLrJ f r.,l ',,
This direct equivalence is only valid for a pin-ended strut with â sinusoidal bow and hence
sinusoidal curvature but it generally remains sufliciently accurate. (Note: lt is found for a
strut with equal end moments that:
I /F,,\
Mr/LMt ---,
r" |\ftt/
-
I

For anything other than a pin-ended strut or stâticâlly determinâte sructure, it will not be
eâsy to determine AM1 from the deflections found by first-order analysis. This is because in
indeterminâte structurcs, the extra monent cannot be calculated at all sections directly from
the local 'P :1' because of the need to maintâin compâtibility.
In the example shown in Fig. 5.2, it would be conservative to assume that at mid-height,
AM, : 1g 4. (This is similar to secôndary efects of prestressing in prestressed structures.) A
more accuratc value could be lound from a further first-order analysis that models the flrst-
order deflected shâpe fôund b)' the previous analysis- To avoid the problem thât low ratios
M|lA,M1 czLn be obtained near points of contrâflexure, the condition Ml/AMr à l0 should
be applied only at the peak moment positions between each adjacent point ofcontraflexure-
The maxûr.rum P 4 bending moment in the member cân âgain be used as a conservative
estimâte of I.
Ckuse 5.2.1 (4)P ^& 4) P is a reminder thât the ânalysis shall âccount for the reductions in stiffiress
Clause 5.2.1(
ârising from cracking and creep of concrete and from possible non-linear behaviour ol
the joints. In general, such cffects are dependenl on the internal momenls and forces, so
calculation is iterative. Simpliûed methods are therefore given in c/arses 5.4.2.2 ar'd
J.4.2.-1, where furthcr comment is given.
Manual intervention mây be needed, to adjust stiffness values before repeating an analysis,
It is exnectedhowever that advanced software will be written lbr EN 1994 to account

32
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

I' I'
{.
\

1'
L0l
I n

I'
Fig. 5.2. Extra bending moments from deflection: (a) first-order moment due !o imperfection!; (b) fifst-
order deflectjon; (c) additional moment from deflection

automatically for these effects. The designer may ofcourse mâke âssumptions. although carc
is needed to ensure these are conservative. For example, assuming that joints have zero
rotâtional stiflness (resulting in simply-supported con.rpositc beams) could lead to neglect
of the l'eduction in beam stiffness due to crâcking. The overall lateral stiffness would
probably be a conservative value, but this is not certain,
Clause 6.7.3.4(2) gives an effective flexural stillncss lor doubly symmetric columns which
may be used to determine a., (clause 6.7.3.4 ( 31) and wbich makes allowance for thc stiffness
of the concrete, including thc cflec|s of cracking, and the rcinforcement. The use of this
stiffness in checking composite columns is discussed in section 6.7.3 of this guide-
For asymmetrjc composite compression members in general, such as a composite bridge
deck beam in an integral bridge. the effective stifIness usually depends on the direction of
bowing of the rrember. This is influenced by the initial camber aûd by the deflection
under the loading considcrcd. Thc deflection under design ultimate load and after creep
usually exceeds the initial câmber. The direction of bow is then downwards.
A conscrvative possibility for detenlining cr", is to ignore complelcly the contribution of
the concrete to the flexural stiffness, including reinforcement only; this is done in Example 6.6
to determine the elastic critical buckling load under axial lbrce. An evcn nrore conseryative
possibility is to base the flexural sLiflness on the steel section alone. Ifsecond-order analysis is
necessary, this simpliflcation will not usually be sâtisfâctory âs the use of cracked properLics
throughout the structure, irrespective ofthe sign ofthe axial force in Lhe concrete, would not
satisfy the requirements ôf clau.te 5.4.2.3 regarding cracking. Generally the results of a first-
order analysis can be used to deteflnine which areas of the structure arc cracked and the
section properties for second-ordcr analysis can then bc modited as necessâry. Th€ stiffness
of cracked areas can be based on the above simplification. The procedure can bc iterative if
the extent of cracked zones is significantly altered by the second-order analysis. An effectiv€
modulus of elâsticity for compressed concrete is also required to calculate the flexural
stiffness ol uncracked areas, Clause 6,7.3.3(4) nrovides a formula,

5,2.2. Methods of analysis for bridges

Where it is necessary to take second-order effects and imperfections into account. EN 1993-2
clause 5.2.2 provides Lhe following three alternative methods by rcfcrence to EN 1993-1-1
clause 5,2.2(3).
. Use of second-order analysis including both 'globâI" system impeÉèctions and 'local'
member impcrfcctions as discussed in section 5.3 below. lf this method is followed, no
individual checks of member stability are required and members are checked for cross-
section resistancc only. An alternative method for bare steel mcmbers is discussed under
ckuse 5 .3.1 (2 ) . For each composite membcr, it is ncccssary to use ân âppropriate flexural
stilïness covering the ellects olcrâcking and creep as discussed in section 5.2.1 above.

33
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

If lateral torsional buckling is Lo bc covercd rotally by second-order analysis,

appropriate finite-element analysis capable of modelling the behaviour will be required.
. Use ofsecond-order analysis including 'global' system irrperlèctions only. For individual
bare steel members, stability checks are then required according to EN 1993-2 clause 6.3.
Sincc the member end lbrces and moments include second-order e{lects from global
behaviour, the effectivc length of individual members is then based on the member
length, rather than a greâter effective length that inoludes the effects of global sway
deformations. Note that when clause 6.3.3 of EN 1993-l-l is used for member checks
of bare steel members, the member moments will be further amplified by the 'À1' par-
amcters. Sinc€ the second-order analysis will already have amplified these lrrolrrents.
providing sulïcient nodes have been included along the nember in the analysis model,
this is conservative and it would be permissible to set the 'ki;' parameters equal to
unity whcrc they exoeed unity. However, the imperlèctions within the members have
not been considered or amplified by the second-order analysis- Thcse are included via
the first temr in the equations in this clâuse:
lvEl
xÀarhv L

For composite nlembers in compression and bending, buckling reslstance curves cannot
be used. and the momcûts from menlber imperfections in the member lcngth should be
added. Second-order effects within the member are accounted for by magnifying the
resulting momcnts fron the local imperfections within the length of the menber according
to clauses 6.7.3.4 (4 ) and 6.7.3.4( 5 ) using an effective length based on the member length,
and Lhcn checking the resistance of cross-sections, Only the local member imperfections
need to be amplified if sulTcicnI nodes have been included along the member in the analysis
nodel, as all other moments will then have been amplified by the second-order global
analysis- F-urther cornment and a flow chan are given under tlause 6,7.3.4.
. Use ôfflrst-order analysis without modelled imperfections. For barc steel members. the
verification can be made using clause 6.3 of EN 1993-2 with âppropriate effective lengths.
All second-ordcr effects are then included in the relevant resistance lormulae. This latlcr
method will be most familiar to bridgc cngineers in the UK, as tables ofefective lengths
for members rvith varying end conditions of rotational and positional fixity have
commonly been used- Thc use of effeclive lenglhs for this meLhod is discussed in the
Designers' Guide to EN 1993-2.4
For composite compression men.rbers. this approach is generally nol appropriate. The
method of c/aasc, 6.7.-l is based on calculation of second-order effects within members,
followed by checks on resistance of closs-sections. No buckling resistance curves are
provided. Composite beams in ber.rding alone can however be chccked for lateral-
torsional buckling satisfâctôrily following this methôd.
Sccond-order analysis itself can be done either by direct computer analysis that accounts
for the deformed geometry or by amplification of Lhe moments from a firsCorder analysis
(including the efiècts of imperfections) using clause 5.2.2(5) of EN 1993-2. Wrere either
approach is used, it should only be performed by experienced engineers because the guidancc
on the use of imperfections in terms of shapes, combinaLions and dirccLions of application is
not comprehcnsive in EC3 and EC4 and judgement must be exercised.

5.3. lmperfections
5.3. | . Basis
Aouse 5.3.1(l)P Clsuse 5.3.1(1)P lists possib)e sources of imperfection. Subsequent clauses (and also
claute 5.2) describe how these should be allowed for. This may be by inclusion in the
global analyses or in methods of checking resistanoe, as explained above.
lmperlèctions comprise geometric imperfections and residual stresses. The term'geometric
imperfection' is uscd to describe departures from the intended centreline setling-out

34
 CHAPTER 5- STRUCTUML ANALYSIS

dimensions found on drawings, which occur during fabrication ând erection. This is
inevitable âs construction work can only be executed to certâin tolerances. Gcometric
imperfections include lack oî verticality, lack of straightness, lack of lit and minor joint
eccentricities. Thc bcbaviour of members urcler load is also aflected by residual stresses
ïvithin the members. Residual stresses can lead to yielding of steel occurring locally at
lower applied external load than predicted fiom stress analysis ignoring such effects. The
effects of residual strcsscs can bc modelled by additional geomelric imperlections. The
equivâlent geometric impefections given in EC3 and EC4 cover both geometric imperfec-
tions and residual stlesses.
Clause 5.3.1 ( 2 ) rcquircs jnrperfecLions to be in the mosl unfavourable direction and form. Aause 5.3. | (2)
The most unfàvourable geomeûic imperfection normally has the same shape as the lowest
buckling mode. This can son.retimes be diflicult to find, but it car be assumed that this condi-
tion is satisfied by the Eurocode methods lor checking resistance that include effccts of
member imperfèctions (see comments on clause 5.2.2). Clause 5.3.2(ll) of EN 1993-1-l
covers the use ofa unique global and local system imperfection based on the lowest buckling
mode. This can generally only be used for barc steel members âs the imperfèction parameter
a is lequired and this is not provided for composite members. The method is discussed in the
Designer,s' Guide to EN 1993-2."

5.3,2. lmperfections for bridges

Generally, an explicit treatment ofgeometric imperfections is required for composite frames,
ln both EN 1993- 1-l and EN 1994- l-l the values are €quivalenL rather than measured values
(clause 5.j.2(I)) because they' allow lor ellects such as residual stresses, in addition to Aouse 5 .3 .2( | )
imperfections of shape.
Clause 5.3.2(2) covers bracing design. In composite bridges, the deck slab acts as plan Aouse 5 .3 .2(2)
bracing. Compression flanges that rcquirc bracing occur in hogging regions of bcam-and-
slab bridges and in sagging regions of half-through bridges, bowstring arches ând similar
structures. The bracing of compression flanges in sagging regions differs little from that in
all-steel bridges, and is discussed in the Dc.vgners' Guide to EN 1993-2.4
Steel bottom flanges in hogging regions of composite bridges are usually restrained
laterally by continuous or discrete transvcrse frames. For deep main beams, plan bracing
at bottom-flange level may also be used. Where the main beans are rolled l-sections, their
wcbs may be sliff enough to serve as the vertical members of continuous inverted-U
frames, which are completed by the shear connection and the deck slab. These systems are
discussed under clause 6.4.2,
Discrete U-frame bracing can bc providcd at thc location of vertical web stiffeners- These
fiames need transverse steel members. If these are provided just below the concrete deck,
they should be designed as composite. Othelwise, design for shrinkage and temperaturc
effects in the transverse direction becomes dimcult. This problem is often avoided by
placing the steel cross-member ât lower level, so creating an H-frame. Both lypes of frame
provide elaslic laleral restraint at bottom-flange level, with a spring stiflness that is casily
câlculâted.
The design transverse forces for these frames, or for plan bracing, arise liom latcral
imperfections in thc comprcsscd flanges. F-or lhcse imperfections. dause 5.3.2(2) rcfers to
EN 1993-2, which in turn refers to clauses 5,3.2 to 5.3.4 of EN l9q3-1-1. The design trans-
vcrse forces, Fp,1, and a design method are given in clause 6-3.4.2 of EN 1993-2, though it
refers speciflcally only-to U-frame restraints. Comments on these clauses are in the relevant
Guides in this series."'
The relevant imperfections for anal.vsis of the bracing system are not neccssadly the same
as those fbr the bridge beams themselves.
In hogging regions of continuous bcanr-and-slab bridges, distortional lateral buckling is
usually the critical mode. It should not be âssumed that a point of contraflexure is a
lateral restraint, for the buckling half-wavelength can cxceed the length of llange in
comptession.oo

35
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Where thc restraint forces are to be transmitted to end supports by a system of plan
bracing, this system should bc designed to resist the more onerous ol the transverse forces
.Fs6 from each restraint u,ithin â length equal to the half u.avelength of buckling, and the
forces generated by an ovcrall flange bow in each flange according to clause 5-3.3 of
EN 1993-l-1.
For the latlcr case. the overall bow is given as e0:.rnl/500, whel€ an' is the reduction
thctor fbr the number of interconnected beams (o,, :0.866 for lwo beams), and L is the
span. The plan bracing may be designed for an equivalent uniformly-distributed force per
beam of SNsa(e6 f 6o)/2, whele ôu is the deflection of the bl'acing, and Np6 is the
maximum compressive force in Lhe flange-
For very stifl bracing, the totâl design lateral force for the bracing is:
(af v,.7r )1o
"
Ltto}) -f ,v,
",,.70:.
s

Clause 5.3.2(2) should also be used for system imperfectiôns for composite columns,
although its scopc is given as'stabilizing transterse Jiames'.Its ref'erence to olause 5.3 of
EN 1993-2 leads to relevant clauscs in EN 1993-1-1. as follows.
Inilial out-of-plumb of a column is given in clause 5.3.2(3) ofEN 1993-1- 1 which, although
worded for 'frames', is applicable to a single column or row of colun.rns. Where a stcel
oolumu is very slender and has a momen t-resisting joint at one or both ends, clause
5-3.2(6) of EN 1993-1-l requires its local bow imperfèction to be included in the second-
order global analysis used to determine the action effects aL its ends. 'Very slender' is
defined as:

À>0.5 AJt/NBa
It is aclvised that this rule should be used also for composite columns, in the form cr.. < 4,
with cy". as deflned in clause 5.2.1( 3). This is obtained by replacing,41" by N6.
Clouse 5 .3 .2(3) Clause 5.J.2(3) covers imperfections in composite columns and compression members
(e.g. in trusses), which must be considered explicitly. It ref'ers to material in clause 6.7.3.
which appeârs to be limitcd, by r:huse 6.7.3 ( 1), to uniform members of doubly symmetrical
cross-section. Clause 6.7.2(9). which is of general applicability, also refers to Table 6.5 oï
clausc 6.7.3 for menber imperfections; but the table only covers tlpical cross-sections
of columns. Impefections in compresscd beams, which occur in integral bridges, appear
to be ouLside lhe scope of EN 1994.
The imperfections for buckling curve d in Tablc 5. I of ËN 1993-l-1 could consÊrvâtively
be used for second-order effects in the plane of bending. For composite bridges with the deck
slab on top of the main bcams, lateral buckling effects can subsequently bc included by a
check ol the compression flange using the member resistance formulae in clause 6,3 of
EN 1993-l-1- Guidance on verifying beams in integral bridges in bending and axial load is
discussed in section 6.4 of this guidc-
Qouse 5.3.2(4) Clause 5.3.2(4) covers global and local imperfections in steel compression members, by
reference to EN 1993-2. Imperlèctions lbr arches are covered in Annex D of EN 1993-2.

5.4. Calculation of action effects

5.4.l. Hethods of global analysis
EN 1990 tlefines several types of analysis thât mây be appropriate for ultimate limit states.
For global analysis ofbridges, EN 1994-2 gives three nethods: linear elastic analysis, with or
without corrections for cracking ofconcrete, and non-linear analysis- The lattef is discussed
in section 5.4.3 below, and is ralely used in praclice.
Qouse 5.4.1.1(t ) Clause 5.4.1.1( 1) permits thc usc of elasLic global analysis evcn whcrc plastic (rectangular-
stress-b1ock) theory is used fbr checking resistances of cross-sections, For resistance to
flexure, these sections are in Class I or 2, and comrlonly occur in mid-span regions.
There are several reasons4s-4'- why the apparent incompatibility between the methods used
for analysis and for resistance is accepted. It is essentially consistent with UK practice, but

36
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Ivlornenls with bending

^ _
moment at c reduced to Màrc
,'t,,.,a/

D
lvloments from elastic analysis

Fig. 5.3. Effect of m*,* **." .ethod for checking bending momênts at
internal supports "".."., "#in "oo.o*,.r."

care should be taken with ldxing section classes within a bridge when elastic analysis is used.
An example is a continuous bridge. with a mid-span section dcsigned in bending as Class 2
and the section at an internâl support as Class 3- The Clâss 3 section may become over-
stressed by the elastic moments shed fiom mid-span while the plastic section resistânce
develops there and stiffness is lost
There is no such incompatibility for Clâss 3 or 4 sections, as resistance is based on elastic
models.
Mixed-class design has rarely been found to be a problem, as the load cases producing
maximurn rnoment at mid-span atrd at a suppofi rarely coexist, txcept where âdjâcent
spâns âre very short compared to thc spaû considered. A relevant design rule is given in
tlause 6.2.1.3(2).
If rcdjstribution is re<;uired to be checked, the conservative n.rethod illustrated in Fig. 5.3
may be used. ln this example there is a Class 2 section at mid-spân of the central span, and
the support sections are Class 3. A simpliûed load case that produccs maximun sagging
moment is shown. ElasLic analysis for the load P gives a bending moment ât cross-section
C that exceeds the elâstic resistance moment, MeLC. The excess moment is redistributed
from section C. giving the distribution shown by the dashed line. ln rcality, the moment
at C continues to increase. at a reduccd rate, after the elastic value M"1.ç is reached, so the
true distribution lies between those shown in Fig. 5.3. The upper distribution therefore
provides a safc eslimale of the moments at supports B and D, and can be used to check
that the elastic resistânce môment is not exceeded at these points.
Elastic global analysis is required fbr serviceability limit states (c/arrre -t.4,I .l ( 2 )) to er.àble Qouse 5.4.1 .l (2)
yielding of steel to bc avoided. Linear elastic analysis is based on linear stress-strain laws, so
fbr composite structures, 'appropriate corrcctiont ïor . . . cracking oJ concrete' are required-
Thcse are given in clause 5.4.2.3. and apply also Ibr ultimate limit stalcs.
Clause 5.4.1.1( 3 ) requires clastic analysis for fatigue, to cnable realistic ranges of fatigue Clause 5.4.1.l(3)
stress to be predicted,
Thc c{Iccts of shear lag, local buckling of steel elements and slip of bolts must âlso be
considered where they signiflcantLy inlluencc thc global analysis. Shear lag and local buckling
ellècts can reduce membel stiffness, while slip in bolt holes causes a localized loss olstillness.
Shear lag is discusscd under c/aase 5.4.1.2, and plate buckling and bolt slip are discussed
below,
Mcthods for satislying the principle of cbuse 5.4,1J(l)P are given lor local buckling in Aouse 5.4.1.1(4)P
clauses 5.,1.1.1( 5 ) and f6). These reler to thc classilicaLion of cross-sections, the established Aouse 5.4.1.1(5)
nethod ofallowing for local buckling ofsteel flânges ând webs in compression. Il dctcrmines Qouse 5.4.1 .l (6)
thc available methods of global analysis and the basis for resistance to bending. The
classilication system is defined in chuse 5.5.

Plote bucUing
In Class 4 sections (those in which local buckling will occur before the attainmenL of yield),
plate buckling can lead to a reduction of stiffness. The in-plane stiffncss ofperfectly flât plates
suddenly reduces when the elastic critical buckling load is reached. In'real'plates that have
imperfections, there is an immediate reduction in stiffness from that expccted ftom the gross

37
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Fig, 5.4, Stress disffibuùon across width of slender plate

plate area because of the growth of the bow imperfections under loâd. This stiffness
continues to reducc wilh increasing load. This arises because non-uniform stress develops
across the width ôf the plate as shown in lrig- 5.4. The non-uniform stress arjses because
the development ol the buckle along the centre of the plâte leâds to â greâter developed
length of the plate along i1s centreline than along its edges. Thus the shortening due to
membrane stress, and hence the membrane stress itself, is lcss along the centreline of the
plâte.
This loss of stiffness must be considered in the global analysis where significant. It can
be represented by an effective area or width of plate, determined from clause 2.2 of
EN 1993-1-5. This area or width is greater than thât used for resistânce, which is given in
clause 4.3 of EN 1993-l-5.
The loss o[ stiffness may be ignored when the ratio ôf effective âreâ tô gross cross-sectional
area exceeds a certâin value. This ratio may be given in the National Annex. The recommended
valuc, given in a Note to clause 2.2(5) of EN 1993-l-5, is 0.5. Tbis should ensure that plâte
buckling effects rarely need to be considered in the global ânalysis. It is only likely to be of
relevance fbr the determination of pre-camber of box girders under self-weight and ret
concrete loads. After the deck slab hâs been câst, buckling of the steel flange plâte will be
prevented by its connection to the concrete flange via the shear connection.

Efleas of sûp ot bolt holes ond sheor connectors

Aouse 5.4.1.1(7) Clquse 5.4.1.1(7) requires considcration of 's/rp în bolt holes and similar deformations of
connecling deyices'. This applies to both fust- and second-order analyses. There is a
similar rule in clâuse 5.2.1(6) of EN 1993-1-1. No specific guidance is given in EN 1993-2
or EN 1994-2. Generally, bolt slip will have little effect in global analysis. It has often
been practice in the UK to design bolts in main beam splices to slip at ultimate limit
stâtes (Category B to clause 3.4.1 of EN 1993-1-8). Although slip could alter the moment
distribution in the beam. this is justifiable. Splices are usually neâr to the point of contra-
flexure, so that slip will not significantly altcr Lhe distribution of bending moment. Also,
the loading that gives n.raximum moment ât the splice will nor bc fully cocxistent with Lhat
for either the maximum hogging moment or maximum sagging moment in adjacent regions.
It is adviscd that bolt slip should be taken into account for bracing members in the analysis
of braced systems- This is because a sudden loss of stiffness arising from bolt slip gives an
increasc in <leflection of the mâin member and an increasetl force on the bracing member,
which could lead to overall failure. Ideally, therefore, bolts in bracing members should be
designed as non-slip at ulrimatc linit state (Category C to EN 1993-1-8).
The'similar dcformations' quoted âbove could refer to slip at an inlcrfacc betwcen stecl
aûd concrete, caused by the flexibility of shear connectors. The provisions on shear connec-
tion in EN 1994 are intended to ensure thât slip is too small Lo affect thc results of elastic
Qouse 5.4.l .l (8) global analysis or the resistance of cross-sections, Clause 5.4.1.1(8) therefôre permits

38
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

internal moments and forces to be determined assuming full interaction where shear con-
nection is provided in accordance with EN I994.
Slip of shear connectors can also affect the flexural stiffness of a conposite joint. A
relevant design method is givcn in clause A.3 of EN 1994-l-1. lt is mainly applicable to
semi-continuous joints, ând sô is not included in EN 1994-2.
An cxccption to the rules on allowing for cracking ofconcrete is given in c/.ruse 5.4.1.1(9), Clouse 5.4.1.1(9)
fol the analysis of trânsient situations during crcclion stages. This permits uncracked global
analysis to be used, Ibr simplicity.

Effective width of flonges for sheor log

Shear lag is defined in clause 5.4.L2(1,) with reference to the 'flexibility' of flanges due to Clouse 5.4.1.2(l)
in-plane shear. Shcar lag in wide flanges causes the longitudinal berding stress adjacent
to the web to exceed thât expected from analysis with gross cross-sectiôns, while the stress
in the flange remote tiom the web is much lôwer thân expected. This shear lag also leads
to an apparent loss of sliffness of a section il1 bending which can be important in determining
realistic distributions of moments in analysis. The determination ofthe âctual distribution of
stress is a complex problem.
The Eurocodes account for both thc loss of stiffness and localized increase in flange
stresses by the use of an effective width of flânge which is less than the actual avâilablc
flange width. The effcctivc flange width concept is artificial but, whcn used rvith engineering
bending theory, leads to uniform stresses across the whole reduced flange width that are
equivalent lo the peak values adjacent to the webs in the true situation.
The rules that follow provide effective wiclths for resistance of cross-sections, ând simpler
values lbr use in global ânâlyses. The rules use the word 'may' because r/aase 5.4.1.2(1)
permits 'rigorous analysis' as an alternative. This is not defined. bul should take account
of the mâny relevânt influences, such as thc cracking ol concrete.

Steel flonges
For 'steel plate elemeîts' clsusc 5.4.1.2 (?) refers to EN 1993- 1- L This perniits shear lag to be Qouse 5.4.1 .2(2)
neglected in rolled sections and u'elded sections'with similar dimensions', and refers tô
EN 1993-1-5 for more slender flanges. In thcsc, thc strcss dist bution depends on the stif-
fening to the flanges and an), plasticity occurring for ultimate limit state behaviour. The
elastic stress distribution can be modelled using finite-elemeut analysis with appropriate
shell elements.
The rules in EN 1993-l-5 are not discussed further in this guide but âre covered jn the
Designers' Guide to EN 199-l-2.1 Different values of cflccLive width apply for cross-section
design for serviceability and ultimâte limit stâtes, ând the vâlue appropriate to the location
of the section along the bean should be used. Simplified ellèctive widths, taken as constânt
throughout a span, âre allowed in the global analysis.

ConÎete flonges
Effective width ofconcrete flanges is côvered in c/crrsss 5.4.1.2(3) to (7).The behaviour is Qouses 5.4.1.2(3)
complex, bcing inliuenced by the loading configuration, and by th€ extcnt olcracking and of to (7)
yielding olthe longitudinâl reinforcement, both ofwhich help to redistribute the stress across
the cross-section. The ability of the transverse reinfbrcement to distribule thir l'orces is also
relevânt. The ultimate behaviour in shcar o[ wide flanges is modelled by â truss analogy
similar to thât for the web of a deep conarete beam.
The values for effective width given in this clause are simpler than thosc in BS 5400:Part 5,
and similar to those in BS 5950:Part 3.1:1990.4E The effective width ât mid-span and internal
supports is glen lsy equation (5.31,

ô.n: ào + Iô"; (.r -r)

rvhere ô6 is the distance betu,een the outer shear connectors and à"i is either ô"t or ,c2. as
shown in Fig. 5.5, or Lhc available width ô1 or ô3, if lower.

39
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

-1

Fig. 5.5. Symbols and eq uivalent spans, for effective width of concrete flange (Source: based on Fig. 5. I of
EN t994-2)

Each width ô.; is limited to I*/8, where L. is the assumed distânce between points of zero
bending moment. It depends on the region of the beam considered and on whelher thc
bending moment is hogging or sagging. This is shown in Fig. 5.5, which is based on -Frg.5..1.
Thc values are generally Iowel than those in EN 1992-l-l for reinforced concrete T-beams.
To adopt those rvould oftcn inorease the number of shear connectors. Without evidence that
the greater effective }vidths are any more accurate, the established values for composite
beams have mainly been retained.
In EN 1992- 1- l, the sum of the lcnglhs Lc l-or sagging and hogging regions equâls the span
of the beam. In reality, points of contrâflexure are dependent on the load arrangement.
EN 1994, like EN 1993, therefore gives a larger effective width at an inLcrnal support. In
sagging regions, the assumed distances between points of contraflexure âre the sâme in all
three codes.
Although there âre significant dillerences between effestive widths for supports and mid-
span regions. it is possible to ignore this in elastic global analysis (c/arise 5.4.1.2(4)).Thisis
because shear lâg hâs limited influcncc on the results. There can however be some smâll
âdvantage to be gained by modelling in analysis the distribution of effective width along
the members given in Fig. 5-5 or.Frg.5.1, as this will tend to shed some moment from the
hogging regions into the span. It would also be appropriate to model the distribution of
effectivc ùidths more accurately in cable-stayed structuresJ but FA. 5.1 does not cover
these. Example 5.1 below illustrates the calculation of effective width-
Some limitations on span length ratios when using F/g. J.-l should be made so that tl.re
bending-moment distribution within a span confornls with the assumptions in the figure.
It is suggested that the limitâtions given in EN 1992 and EN 1993 âre adopted. These
limit the use to cases where adjacent spans do not difler by mol€ than 50o ol the shorter
span and a cantilever is not longer than hall thc adjacent span. For other span ratios or
moment disl.ributions, the distance between points of zero bending mom€rlt! Ze, should be
calculated fiom the moment disLribution found lrom an iniLial analysis.
Where it is nccessary to determine a more realistic distribution oflongitudinal stress across
Qouse 5.4.1.2(8) the width of the flânge, clause 5,4.1,2( 8) rcfers to clause 3.2.2 of EN 1993- l-5. This might be
necessary, for example, in checking a deck slab at a transverse diaphragm between main

40
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTUML ANALYSIS

beams at a support, where the deck slab is in tension under global bending and also subjected
to a Iocal hogging monent from wheel loads. The use of EN I 991-1-5 can be beneficial here,
as often the greatest local effects in a slab occur in the middle of the slab between webs \À'here
thc gJobal longitudinal stlesses âre lowest-

Composite plote flanges

Clou.sc 5.4.1.2(8) recommends the use of its stress distribution lor both concrete trnd steel
flanges. Where the flangc is a con.rposite plate, sheâr cônnection is usually concentrated
near the webs, so this stress distribution is applicable. Effective widths of compositc
plates in bridges are based on clause 5.4.l.2.btrt with a dillerent detnition of ,0, givenin
clattse 9.1(3 ).

Composite trusses
Clause 5.4.1.2(9) applies wherc a longitudinal courposite beam is also a componcnl of a Clouse 5.4.1.2(9)
Iargcr structural svstem, such as a composite truss. For loading applied to it. the beâm is
continuous over spans cqual to the spacing of the nodes of the truss. For the axial lbrce
in the bean. the releyânt sDan is thal of the truss.

ô1 : 1.875m,à2:1.425m.

Table 5. | . Effective width of concrete flange of composite T-beam

External bêam Internal beam

Region BC CD DE BC CD DE

/ /-r |4t( |1E^ 21.70 16.15 12.50 21.70

L/8{.) 2.019 1.s63 2]t2 ?.01e 1.s63 2.71L
A -rm\ lÊ(n 1110 ? rô^

4l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

5.4.2. Linear elastic analysis

Cracking, creep, shrinkage, sequence of construction, and prcsLressing. listed in c/arse
Clouse 5.4.2.1( I) 5.1.2.1(1), can all affect the distribution of âction affects in continuous beams and frames.
This is always importani fbr serviceability lildt states, but can in some situations be
ignored ât ultimâte limit statcs, as discusscd under r:1ar,se 5 .4.2.2 ( 6 ) . Cracking of concrete
is covererl rn clause 5,4,2,3.

Creep ond shrinkoge of conÛete

Clouse 5.4.2.2 The rules provided in clause 5.4.2.2 allow creep to be taken into account using a modular
ratiô ,L, that depcnds on the type of loading, and on the concrele composition and âge ât
loading. This modular ratio is used both for global analysis and for elastic section analysis.
Clouse 5.4.2.2(2) It is dellned in clsuse 5.4.2.2(2 ) bv;
n1 : nn(l + VLô(t, tô)) (,5 6)

where ir6 is the nodular ratio lbl short-tenn loading, E"/E

-, The concrete modulus À",,, is
obtâined from EN I992 as discussed in section 3.1 of this guide. The crccp coefficieît (bU, to)
is also obtained from EN 1992.
The creep multiplier dL takes account of the type of loading. Its values are given in c1ar.!z
5.4.2.2(2)âs fôllows:
. for permanent loâd, ,uL : 1.1
. for the primary and secondary eflects of shlinkage (and also the secondary effects ol'
creep, claase 5.4.2.2(6)), lrr - 0.55
. for imposed defonnations, d,r_ : 1.5.
The reason for the factor ur is illustrated in Fig, 5.7. This shows three scherratic curves of
the change of cômpressive stress in concrctc with timc- Thc top one. labelled S. is typicâl ôf
strcss caused by the increase of shrinkâge with time. Concrete is more susceptible to creep
when young, so thcre is less creep (pr_ :0.55) than lbr the more unilorm slress causcd by
permanent loads (line P). The elTects of imposed deformations can be significantly reduced
by creep rvhen thc conorete is 1,oung. so the curve is of type ID, with 1L - 1.5. The value
fbr permanent loading on reinforced concrete is 1.0. [L is incrcased to l-l for composite

1.0

Time

Fig. 5.7. Time-dependent comprêssivê stress in concrete, for three types of loading

42
 CHAPTER 5- STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Table 5.2. Valuesofaio: cr(c!,to) and modular ratio n1

ho : 250 mm ho : 500 mm

2.48,23.7 2.30,22.4
b : 28 days | .90, t9.6 t.78, t8.8

members because the steel component does not creep. Stress in concrete is reduced by crccp
less than it would be in a reinforced memtrer, so there is more creep.
These vaLues are bascd mainly on cxtensive theoretical work on composite beâms ofmany
sizes and proportions.ae
The factor 4!1 perlorrrs a similar function to the ageing coelicient found in Annex KK of
EN 1992-2 and in thc calculation for loss of prestress in clause 5.10-6 ofEN 1992-1-1.
The creep factor c,(t, lç) depends on the age ofthe concrete, /, ât which the modular ratio is
being calculated (usually taken as infinity) and the age ofthe concrete at first loading, 10. For'
age tç. clauses 5.4.2.2( 3 ) and a4l make recommcndations for permanent load and shrinkage, Clouse 5.4.2.2(3)
respectively. Since mosi blidges rvill follow a concrete pour sequÊnce rather than have all
the concrete placed in onc go, this iige at first loading couJd vary throughôut the bridge.
Clause 5 .4.2.2 ( 3 ) permits an assumed 'mean' value of t6 to be used throughout. This simpli-
fication is almost a necessity as it is fare for the designer to have suflicicnL knowledge of the
cônstruction phasing at the dcsign stagc to be morc accurate than this, but some estimate of
the erpected timings is still required.
'First loading' could occur at an age as low as a week, for examplc. lrom erection of
precast parâpets, but the meân age for a multi-span hridge is unlikely to be less than a monlh-
The creep coefiicient depends also on the effective thickness of the concrete elcmcnt consid-
ered, i6. There is no nroisturc loss through sealed surfaces. so thcsc are assumed to be at mid-
thickness of the member. After striking ol formwork, a deck slab of thickness. say, 250 mm,
has two frec surfaces. and an effective thickness of 250 rrm. The applicaLion of waterproofing
to the top surface increases this thickncss to 500 mnr, which reduces subsequent creep. The
designer will not know the age(s) ofthe deck when waterproofed, and so must nake assump-
tions on the salc sidc.
Fortunately, the modular ratiô is nôt sensitive to either the âge of loading or thc efl'cclive
lhickncss. As resistances are checked for the structure at an early age, iL is on the safe side for
the long-term checks to overestimate crecp.
As an example, let us suppose thât the short-term modulâr râtio is 7,0 : 6.36 (as found in a
subsequcnt cxample), and that a concrete deck slab has a mean thickness of 250 mm. lvith
waterproofing on one surface. The long-term modular ratio is calculated 1br rç :7 dlys
and 28 days, and 1br /rn:250nlm and 500mm. For 'outdoor' conditions with relâtive
humidity'70o , the valucs of{(cc.16) given by Annex B of EN 1992-1-1 $'ith {,L: 1.1 are
as shown in Table 5.2.
The rcsulting range of values of the modular ratio rr1 is from 18.8 to 23.7. A diflerence of
this size has little effect on the results ofa global analysis ofcontinuous beams rvith all spans
composite, and far less than the eilect of the difference between /'l : 6.4 for imposed load and
around 20 for permanent load-
Fol' stresses at cross-sections of slâb-on-top decks, the modulâr ratio has no influcnce in
rcgions where the slab is in tension. In mid-span regions, compression in concrete is rârely
critical, and maximum valucs occur at a low agc, wherc creep is inelevaut. In steel,
bottom-flange tension is the importânt outcome, ând is increased by creep. From Table
5-2, Àç has little effect. and thc choicc of Lhe low valuc of 7 days for age at lirst loading is
on the saf'e side.
Modular ratios are calculated in Example 5.2 below.

Shrinkoge modified by creep

For shrinkage, the advice in claure 5.,L2.2/4,) to assumc 1o : I day rarely leads to a nodular Aouse 5.4.2.2(4)
ratio higher than that for permanent actions, becâuse of the lactor r-rr- :0.55. Both the

43
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Table 5.3. Effects of shrinkase

ho (mm) RH (%) l0oe,6

70 140 t8.8
s00 70 304 r8_0
250 75 30s t9.2

long-term shrinkage strain and the creep coelTicient are influenced by the assumed effective
thickness lre.
For thc preceding example. the l-day rule gives the vâlues in rôws 1 and 2 of Table 5.3. It
shows thât doubling â6 has negligible effect on n1 , but reduces shrinkage strain by 10%.
lncreasing the assumed mean relâtive humidity (RH) by on1"v 5% has the same effect on
shrinkage strain as doubling 16, and negligible eflect on rL. The error in an assumed RH
may well exceed 57o.
For this cxâmple, the 'safe' choices for shrinkâge effects âre l0 : 250 mm, and an estimate
lbr RH on the lorv side. As thc concessron in clause 5.4.2.2f3) (the use of a single time 16 for
all creep coeflicients) refers to 'loads', not to 'actions', it is not clear if shrinkage may be
included- It is qonsel\ative to do so, becâuse when t0 is assumed to exceed 1 day, the relief
of shrinkage effects by creep is rcduced. Hence, a single value of 11(cc, rn) may usually bc
used in analyses lbr permanent âctions. except perhaps in speciâl situatiôns, to which
Clouse 5.4.2.2(5) tlause 5.4.2.2( 5 ) rc|us.

Secondory effects of creep

Where creep deflections causc a change in the support reactious, this leads to tht:
developmenl of secondary moments. This might occur, for exâmple, where there âre
mixtures of reinforced concrete and steel composite spans in a continuous structure. The
rcdistdbution arises becâuse the'lree'creep deflectjons are not proportional everywhere 1o
the initial elasLic deflections and therefore the 'fiee' creep deflection would lead to some
non-zero deflection at the supports. Other construction sequences could produce a similar
cffeot but this does not âffect normal steel-composite bridges to any significant extent-
Aouse 5.4.2.2(6) Clause 5.4.2.2(6) is however a prompt that the elfects should be considered in the more
unusual situations.
Calculation of creep redistribution is n1ore complex than fbr purely concrete structures,
and is explained, with an example, in Rcf. 50- The redistribution effccts develop slowly
with time, so CL - 0.55.

Cross-sections in Qoss I or 2
Cleuse 5.4.2.2(6) is onc of several places in EN 1994-2 v'hele, in certain global analyses.
various "indirect actions'. that impose displacements and,ior rotations, are perrnitted to be
ignored where all cross-sections are either Class I or 2. Large plastic strains are possible
for beams where cross-sections are Class l. Class 2 sections exhibit sufficient plastic strain
to attain the plastic section câpâcity but have limited rotation capacity beyond this point.
This is however normally considered adequate to relieve the Êlïects of imposed deformations
derivcd from elastic analysis, and EN 1994 therefore permits such relief to be taken. The
correspônding clausc 5.4.2(2) in EN 1993-2 only permits the effects ofimposed delbrmations
to be ignored where âll sections are Class I, so thcre is an inconsistency aL prescnt.
in EN 1994, the effects which can be neglected in analyses fôr ultimate limit states other
than fatigue. provided thaL all sections are Class I or 2, are as follows;
. ditlèrential settlement: cknse 5.1 .3(31
. secondâry creep rcdisl bution ofmoments: clause 5,1,2,2(6)
. primary and secondary shrinkage and creep: cluure 5.4.2.2(7)
. effects of staged construclion: clause 5.1-2.412)
. differential tcmperature: clause 5.4.2.5 (2
).

44
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

The tÏrther condition that there should not be any reduction of resislance due to lateral
forsional buckling is imposed in all of these clauscs, and is discussed under clattse 6.4.2(l ).

Primory ond secondary effects of ueep ond shinkoge

Clause 5.4.2.2(7) requires 'appropriâte' account to bc takcn of both the primary and Clouse 5.4.2.2(7)
secondary effects of creep and shrinkage of the concrete. The recommended partial
factor lbr shrinkage effects at ultimatc limit states is fqH : I, irom clausc 2.4-2.1 of
EN 1992- 1-1.
In a fully-restrained member with the slab above the steel beam, shrinkage effects can be
split into a hogging bending moment, an axial tensilc forcc, and a set of self-equilibrated
longitudinal stresses, as shown in Example 5.3 below.
Where bearings permit âxial shortening, there is no tensile force. In a statically deter-
minatc system, the hogging bending moment is released, causing sagging curvâture. These,
with the locked-in sLresses, are the primary effects. They âre reduced almost to zero where
th€ concr€te slab is crâcked througb its Lhickness.
In a sLatically indeterminate system, such âs a continuous beam, the primâfy shrinkage
culvature is incompatiblc u'ith the levels of the supports. It is counteracted by bending
moments caused by chânges in the support reactions, which increase at intemal supports
ând reduce at end supports. The moments ând the âssôciâted sheâr forces are the secondtry
efacrs of shrinkage.
Claute 5.4.2.2(7) permits both types ofeffect to be neglected in some checks for ultimate
limit stâtes. This is discusscd utder c:huse 5.4.2.2(6 ).
Claase.5.4.2.2(8 ) allows the option ofneglecting primary shrinkage curvature in cracked Clouse 5.4.2.2(8)
regiôns.rr It would be reasonable to base this crâcked zône on the same l5lo of the span
allowed by clause 5.4.2.3(3), wherc this is applicable. The use of this option rcduccs the
secondary hogging bending at suppôrts. These moments, being a permanent effect. enter
into all load combinations, and may influence design of what is often a critical region.
The long-term eflects of shrinkage are significanlly reduced by creep, as illustrated in
clausc 5.4.2.2(4). Where it is necessary to consider shrinkâge effects within the first year
or so after casting, a value for the relevant free shrinkage strain can be obtained from
clausc 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1.
Primary ellects ol shrinkage are calculated in Example 5.3 below.
The influence of shrinkage on serviceability vcrifications is dealt with in Chapter 7.
For creep in cofumns, clause 5.4.2.2(9) Telers lo clqure 6.7.3.4(2),wI:'ich in turn refers to Clouse 5.4.2.2(9)
an ell-ective modulus for concrete given in clause 6.7.3.3(4J. If separatc analyses are to be
made for long-term and short-term effects, cldrse 6.7.3-3(4) cân be used assuming ratios
of permanent to totâl load ol I -0 and zero, respectively.
Shrinkage efl'ects in columns âre unimportant. except in very tall structures.
Clause 5.4,2,2(10) excludes the use of the preceding simplifled methods for members C/ouse 5-4-2-2(10)
with both flanges composite and uncracked. The 'uncracked' condition is omiLted from
clause 5.4.2.2(21, which is probably an oversight. This exclusion is not very restrictive, âs
new designs of this type are unusual in the UK. It may occur in strengthening schemes
where the resistance of the compression tange is increased by making it composite over a
short length-

ïorsionol stifliress of box girderc

For box girders with a composite top flange or with a concrete flange closing the top of an
open U-section, the torsional stiffness is usually calculated by reducing the thickness of the
gross côncrete flangc on lhe basis of the appropriâte long- or short-term modular ratio, and
rraintaining the centrôid of the transformed flange in the same position as that of thc gross
concrcte flange. Ft'om c/arse 5.4.2.2(11). the short-term modular ratio should be based on C/ouse 5.4.2.2(l l)
the ratio of shear moduli, nrt.c: G^|G.,". whele for steel, Gn : 81.0kN/mnrr fronr clausc
3.2.6 of EN 1993-l-l and, for conffete:

ccm:É;n/12(r +
'/")l

45
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Transf orm€d thicknessl

uncracked: h"/rLG
=!I /r
t'--cracked:0.5h. ,-

Torsional perimeter

Fig, 5.8. Torsional stiffness of cômposite bôx girder

EN 1992- 1-1 gives Poisson's ratio (2") as 0.2 or zero, depending on whether
Cilause 3.1.3(4) of
the concretc is uncracked or cracked. For this application it is accurate enough to assume
% : 0.2 ever)'where. The method of clausc 5.4.2.2(27 should be used for the modular ratio:
r;,6 : nn.6(1 +.ù/Ld(/, lo))

The calculation of the torsional second moment of area (in 'steel' units) then follows the
usual procedure such that:
,t tl
-' I ds
ï r(s)
where 16 is the area enclosed by the torsionâl perimeter running thl'ough the centrcline of
the box walls. This is shown in Fig, 5.8. For closed steel boxes, the location of the centroid
of the composite flange can, for simplicity, be Located on the basis of ûrst moment of area.
The integral $(ds/t(s)) is the summâtion of the lengths of each part of the perimeter divided
by their rcspective thicknesses. It is usual to treat the parts of the web projection into the
flange as having the thickness of the steel web.
Thc torsional stiffness is also influenced by flexural cracking, which can cause a significant
reduction in the in-plane shear stillness of the concrete flânge. To allow for this in regions
where the slab is assumed to be crâcked. clqltse 5.4.2.3(6)rccommends a 50D/o reduction
in the effective thickness of thc flanqc.

Effects of cracking of contete

Qouse 5.4.2.3 Cltuse 5.4.2.3 rs applicable to beams, at both serviceability and ultimate limit states. The flow
cl.rart olFig. 5.15 belorv illustrates the procedure.
In conventional composile beans rvith thc slab above the steel section, cracking of'
concrete reduces the flexurâl stiffness in hogging moment legions, but not in saggrng
rcgions. The change in relative stilïness needs to be taken into account in elastic global
analysis. This is unlike analysis of reinforced concrete beâms, where cracking occurs jn
both hogging and sagging bending, and uncracked cross-scctions can be assumed
throughout.
A draft of EN 1994-2 permitted allowance for cracking by redistribution of hogging
moments from 'uncrackcd'analysis by up lo 10%- Following detâiled examination ol its
efl'ects," this provision rvas deleted-
Clouse 5.4.2.312) Clause 5.4.2.3(2) provides a general method. This is lbllowed in clau.se 5.4.2.3( j) by a
simplified approach of limitcd application. Both methods refer tô the 'uncracked' and
'cracked' flexural stillnesses E^Ir and E^12, which are defined in clause 1.5.2. The flexural
dgidity Zult can usually be based on the gross concrctc area excluding reinforcement with
acceptable acculacy. In the general method, the trst step is to determine the expccLed
extenl of cracking in beams, The envelope of moments and shears is calculated for charac-
teristic combinations of actions, assuming uncracked sections ând including long-term
cllccts. The section is assumed to crack if the extreme-fibre tensile stress in concrete
erceeds twice the meân value of the axial tensile strensth si\en bv EN 1992-l-1.

46
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

The reasons for'lwice'in this assumption are as follows:

. The concrete is likely to be stronger than specified, although this is partly catered fbr by
the use of a mean rather than characteristic tensile strength.
. Test results fbr tensile strength show â wide scatter when plotted against compressive
s|Iength.
. Reaching.[,* at the surface may not cause the slab to crâck right through, and even if it
does, the elTects of tension stiffening âre significant at the stage of initial cracking.
. l-Jntil aftcr yieldiug of the reinfbrcement, the sLiffncss of a cracked region is greater than
,6â12, because of tension stifiening between the cracks.
. The calculation uses an envelope of monents, lbr which regions of slab in tension are
morc cxtcnsivc Lhan thcy are for any particular Joading.
The global model is then modificd to rcducc thc heam stiffness to the cracked flexural
rigidity, 4,12, over this region, and the structure is reanalysed.
Clause 5,4,2.3 ( 3 ) provides a non-iterative method, but one that is applicable only to some Clouse 5.4.2.j(3)
situations. These include conventional continuous composite beams, and beams in braced
liames. The cracked regions could difler signilicantly fiom the assumed values in a bridge
\.\'ith highly uncqual span lelgths. Where the conditions are not sâtisfied, the general
method of c/arsp 5.4.2.3fZJ should be used.
The influence ofcracking on the analysis ofbraced and unbraced frames is discussed in the
Designars' Guitlc to EN 1991-l-l.t
For composite columns, c/aase 5.1.2.3(4) makes refèrence to clau.ve 6.7.31 fôr the Aouse 5.4.2.3(4)
calculatiou ofcracked stiffness. The scope of the latter clause is limited (to double syrnnetry,
elc.'1by clause 6.7.3.1 ( I ) , where further comment is given. The reduced value of E/ relerred
to here is intended for verilications l'ol ultimate limit states, and may be inappropriate lbr
analyses for serviceability'.
For column cross-sections without double symmetry, cracking and tension in columns are
referred to in c/ause 6.7.2 ( I ) P and clause 6.7.2 ( 5 )P, respectivcly; but there is no guidance on
the extent of cracking to be assumed in global analysis.
Tlre assumption in clause 5.4,2.3(5), that effects of cracking in transverse composite Aouse 5.4.2.3(5)
members may bc ncglcctcd, does noL exlend to dccks with only tno main beaus. Their
behaviour is influenced by the length of cântilever cross-beams, if any, and the torsionâl
stiffness ofthe main beans. The n.rethod of cfuuse 5.4.2.3(27 is applicable.
Clause 5.4.2.3 (6) supplements clau.te 5.4.2.2( I 1 ) , where comment oït clûuse 5.4.2.3 (6 ) rs Aouse 5.4.2.3(6)
given.
For lhe effeqts of cracking on the design longitudinal shear lor the sheâr connection at
ultimâte limit stâtes, c/case 5.4.2.3(7) refers to c/a,sc 6.6.2.1(2), This requircs uncracked Clouse 5.4.2.3(7)
section properties to be used for uncracked members and for members assumed to be
cracked in flexure where thc cllccts ol tcnsion sLillcning have been ignored in global analysis.
Where tension stiffening and possible over-strength ofthe concrete (using upper character-
istic values of the tensile strength) have been explicitll, considercd in the global analysis, then
the sâme âssumptions may be made in the determination of longitudinal shear flow. The
reason for this is that tension stifletring can lead to a greater force being attrâcted to the
shear connection than would bc found from a fully crackcd section ânâlysis,
The simplest and most conservâtive wây to consider this eflect is to delermine the longi-
tudilal shear with an uncracked conclete flange. The sane approach is required lbr
fatigue where tension stiffening could again clcvate faLigue loâds on the studs accortling to
) and 6.8,5.5 ( 2 ).
clauses 6.8.5.4 ( I
For longitndinal shear at scrviccability limit statcs, dause 5.4.2.j(8) gives, in effect, the Clause 5.4.2.3(8)
same rules as tbr ultimate limit states. exDlained above.

Stoges ond seguence of construction

The need to consider staged construction is discussed in section 2.2 of this guide. The reason
for allowing staged construction to be ignored at the ultimate limit state, ifthe corditions of
clause 5.4,2,4(2) are metj is discussed under c/arse 5.4.2.2(6). However. it would nôt be Clouse 5.4.2.4(2)

47
DESIGNERS' GUIDÊ TO EN I994.2

common to do this, as a separate analysis considering the stâged construction would then be
required for the serviceability limit staLe.

femperoture eflects
Clouse 5.4.2.5(l) Clause 5,4.2.5(1) relèrs to EN l99l-l-5" for temperature actions- These are uniform
temperâture change and tenpelature gradient through â beam, often referred to as difieren-
tial temperature. Differential tempcrature produccs pdmary ald secondary cflccls in a
similar way to shrinkage. The reason for allowing temperâture to be ignored ât the ultimate
Aouse 5.4.2.5(2) limit state, if the conditions of c/ause 5.4.2.5(2) ate met, is discussed lnder clûuse 5.4.2.2 (6 ).
Recommended combinâtiôn factors for temperaLure cllccts arc givcn in Tables 42.1 to
42.4 of Annex A2 of EN 1990. If they are confirmed ir the Nâtional Annex (as the
further comments âssume), tempcrature will be included in all combinations of aclions for
persistenL and transiert design situations. In this respect, design to Eurocodes will differ
fiom previous practicc in the UK. However, the tables for road bridges and lbotbridges
have a Note which recommends that !rû for thermal actions'may in most cases be reduced
to zero for ultinate linit states EQU, STR and GEO'. Only FAT (fatigue) is omitted. It
is unlikely thât temFerature will have much influence on làtigue life. The table for railway
bridgcs relers to EN l99l-1-5. The purpose may be to draw attention to its rules for
simultaneity of uniform and tenperature difference components, and the need to consider
differences of ternperâture betwcen the deck and the rails.
With ?r0 = 0, temperatule effects âppear i the ultimate ând chârâcteristic combinalions
only where temperaturc is the leading variable action. It will usually be evident which
mcmbers and cross-sections need to be checked for these combinaLions.
The factors xrl and 1r? are required lbr the frequent and quasi-perinanent combinations
used lbr certain seniceability verifications. The recommended values are fil :0.6,
'É::0.5. Temperature will rarely be the leading variable action, as the following example
shows.
For the effects of diflerential temperature, EN 1991- l-5 gives two approaches, from which
the Nâtional Anncx can select. The'Normal Procedure'in Approach 2 is equivalent to the
procedure in BS 5400.rr If this is used. both heating an<l cooling differential tempcraLurc
cases [cnd to produce secondary sâgging môments ât internâl supports where crâck widths
are checked in continuous beams. These ellects of temperature will not nornally add to
othcr effects.

Combinotions of actions thot involve tempemturc

A cross-section is consiclered where the characteristic temperature action eflect is Ik, aud the
action efiect from trâffic load model I (LMl) for road bridges is Qp. The recommended
combinatjon factors are given in Table 5.4.
The frequent combinations of variable action effects are:
. witlr load model 1 leading: littQk+ V2Tk: (0.75 or 0.40)0k + 0.5fk
. with temperature leading: utTy + Etq, : 9.67u
The second of thcse governs only where 0.1 Zk >(0.75 or 0.4)Ck.
Thus, temperature should be taken as the leading variable action only where its action
effect is at least 7.5 tirres (for TS) or 4 times (for UD) that from trafTic load model l.

Table 5.4. Recommended combination factors for traffic load and

temperature according to EN 1990 Annex A2

Action effect from:

Tandem system (TS), from LM I 0.75 0-75 0

Uniform loading (UD), from Ll.4 | 0.40 0.40 0
Temperature (non-fire) 0.6 or zero 0.6 0.5

48
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

The uncertainty about which variable âction leads does not adse in quasipermancnt
combinations, bccause the combination factol is always di2. Temperature and construction
loads are the only variâble âÇtions for which r!2 > 0 is rccommended. Both the i/ values
and the combination to be used can be changed in the National Annex.

Prestressing by controlled imposed deformations

As a principle, clause 5.1,2.6(1) requires that possible deviations from the intended amouîl Clouse 5.4.2.6(l)
of imposed deflection be considered. such as might oocur duc to the tolerânce âchievable with
the specified jacking equipment. The effect of variatiôns in mâterial properties on the action
effects developed nrust also be considered. However', c/ar se 5.4.2.6(2) permits these effects to Clouse 5.4.2.6(2)
be determined using charâctedstic or nominal values, 'il ùe imposed deJormations are
utnîolletl. The nature of the control required is not specified. It should take account of
the sensitivity of the structurc to any error in the defonnation.
At the ultimate limit state, clattse 2.4.1.1 recommends a load factor of 1.0 fbr imposed
deformations, regarclless of whether ell'ects are favourable oI unfavourable. lt is rccom-
mended here thât where a structure is Farlicularly sensitive lo departures from the intended
amount of in.rposed deformation, tolerances should be determined for the proposed method
ofapplying these delormations and upper and lower bound values considercd in the analysis.

Prestressing by tendons
Prestressing composite bridges of steel and concrete is uncommon in the UK ând is therefore
nof covered in rletail here, Clause 5.4.2.6f-1, refers to EN 1992 for the treatment oiprestress
forces in analysis. This is generally sufficient, although EN 1994 itscll emphasises, in
tlause 5.4.2.6(2), the distinction between bonded and Lrnbonded tendons. Essentially, this
is that while the force in bonded tendons increases everywhere in propofiion to the local
increase of strain in the adjacent concrete, the fbrce in unbonded lendons changes in accor-
dance with the overall deformâtion of the structure; that is, the chânge of strain in the adja-
cent côncrete averaged ovcr the length of the tendon.

ïensirn rnembers in composite bridges

Tlre purpose ofthe deûnitions (a) and (b) tn clause 5.4.2.8(1.) is to distinguish between the Clouse 5.4.2.8(l)
two typcs of slructure shown in Fig. 5.9, and to define the terms in italic pdnt.
In Fig. 5.9(a), the (onuete te sion member AB is shear-connected Lo Lhe steel structure,
represented by member CD, only at its ends ('Kncrete' here means reinforced concrete).
No design rules are given 1br a concrete member where cracking is prevented by preslressing.
Figure 5.9(b) shows a coz2osl1e tension member, which has normal sheâr connection. Its
concrete flange rs lhe conûete tension member.In both cases, there is a tensile force N from
the rest of thÊ structurc. shared between the concrete and steel components.
A member spanning between nodes in a sagging region ofa composite truss with a deck at
bottom-chord level could be of either type, The difference between members of types (a) and
(b) is similar to thât between unbonded and bonded tendons in prestressed concrete.
Clause 5.4.2.8(2) lists the properties ôf concrete that should be considered in global Clause 5.4.2.8(2)
ânâlyses. These inlluence the stiffness of the concrete component, and hence lhc magnitude

rlt:r: r-r

Fig. 5.9. Two types of tension member, and forces in rhe stêel and concrete parts: (a) concrete tension
member; (b) composite tension member; (c) action effects equivalent to N and M

49
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

ol the lbrce,Ày', ând the prôportions ofit resisted by the two components. Force Nis assumed
to be a significant action ellèct. There rvill normally be others, arising liom transverse loading
on the member-
The distribution of tension between the steel ând conclete parts is greatly influenced by
tension stiffening in thc concrete (which is in turn affected by over-strength of thc concrete)-
It is therelbre important thât ân accurate representation of stiffness is made. This clause
allows a rigorous non-linear method to be used, It could be based on Annex L of ENV
1994-2, 'Effects of tension stiflcning in eompositc bridges'.54 This anncx was omitted from
EN 1994-2" as being 'text-book material'- Further information on the theôry of tension
stiffening and its basis in tests is given in Ref. 55, in its refèrences, and below.
The effects ol over-strength of concrete in tension can in principle be allowed for by using
thc upper 5olo lractile of tensile strength,Itk.1 e5. This is given in Table 3.I of EN 1992- l- I as
30% above the mean va1ue, /1,-. However. tension is caused by shrinkagc, transverse
loading, etc., as well âs by force N, so simplified rules are given in claases 5.4.2.8(5) lo (7).
Aouse 5.4.2.8(3) Clause 5.1.2,8(3) requires ellècts of shrinkage to be included in 'calculations of the
internal fbrces ând moments' in a cracked concrete tension member- This meâns the axiâl
lorce and bending moment, which âre shown âs Ns ând,Us in Fig. 5.9(c). The simplification
given here overcstimates the nean shrinkage strain, and'should be used'for the secondary
eïIects. This clause is ân exception to <:lttuse 5.4.2.2(lll, which permits shrinkage in cracked
regions to be ignored.
Qouse 5.4.2.8(4) Clause 5.4.2.8(4) relers to simplified methods. The simplcsl of Lhesc, clause 5.4.2.8(5),
Qouse 5.4.2.8(5) which requires both 'uncracked' and 'cracked' global analyses, can be quite conservative.
Aouse 5.4.2.8(6) Clause 5.4.2,8(6) gives a mole accurate method fbr members of type (a) in Fig. 5.9. The
longitudinal stiffness of the concrctc lension mcmbcr for usc in global analysis is given by
eauatîon (5.6-l ):
(E/.)"n: ,.1./ll - 0.35/(l + rop,)l (5.6-t)
where: l. is the reinfbrcement in the tension membef ,
,4" is Lhe effective cross-sectional area of the concrete, ps : A"lA". and
l,ô is the short-term modular ratio.

This equation is derived from the model of Annex L of ENV 1994-2 for tension stiffening,
shown in Fig. 5.10. The ligure relates mean tensile strain, €, to tensile force N, in a concrete
tension member with propertics A., A", p" and 116, dcfined abovc. Lines 0A and 0B represent
uncracked and fully cracked behaviour, respectively.
Cracking ilrst occurs at force N".",, when the strain is e.,.t. The strain at Lhc crack at
once incteases to €s.2, but the mean strain hardly changes. As further crâcks occur, the
mean strain follows the line CD. If the local valiations in the tensile strength of concrctc
are neglected, this becomes line CE. The effective stiffness within this 'stâge of single
crackins'is the slope ofa line from 0 to some point within CE. After cracking has stabilized,
the stifiness is given by a linc such as 0F. The strain difference BAe., remains constânt until

Fig. 5. 10. Normal force and mean strain for a reinforced concrete tension member

50
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

the reinforcement yields. It rcprescnLs lension stiffeuing, thc term used for the stiffnËss ofthe
concrete between the clâcks.
IL has been found that in bridges, the post-cracking stiffness is given with sufficient
accuracy by the slope of line 0E, with pc 0,15. This slôpe, equtttion (5.6-l), can be
derired using Fig. 5.10. as follow'.
At a force of ,V".". the lbllowing stlains are obtained:
fully cracked strain: e*2 : À'".*/E ,4,
uncracked strain: e,.1 - N"..,/(U,,a, +-O"1.)
lntroducing p" - A,lA. and the short-tetm modular ratio a0 gives:

E"r : N",*rop*/lE-1.(1 +16p,,)l

From Fig. 5. 10. the strain ât point E is:
'l

i,-i' r.,,-\1,r,/lt -( . / nop, \')

/ N.., \ [, ,lt
'(.,) \rr_,* ,/J]
This can also be expressed in terms of e1lèctive stiffness as
e". =
^'.,./(4.a,)"n
Eliminating e". from the last two equations and dividing by N",". gives:
1I@"À,),il : r/(Às,4s) -,411 nnp"l(t +nnfi)l@"A")
: ll - 0.35/(1 + nxfu;lt,.E"A")
,Nhrch ts equqtion ( 5.6- I .
)
In Ref. 56, a study was made ofthe fbrces predicted in the tension mcmbers ofa truss using
a very similar factor to that in equation /-5.6-11. Comparison was made agâinst predictions
fiom a nonlinear anâlysis using the tension field model proposed in Annex L of ENV 1994-
2.'* The two methods generallv gave good agreement, with most results being closer to those
from a fully cracked analysis than from an uncrackcd analysis-
The forces given by global analysis using stiffness (-cls)"ff ale used for the design of the
steel structurc, buL not the concrete tension member. The tcnsion in the latter is usually
highest just before cracking. For an axially loaded member it is, in theory:
Ne6 : l./1,,"p(1 + n6p") (D5.4)

with l;r."if being the tensile strength of the concrete when it cracks itnd othcr notation as
above. Usually. there is also iensile stress in the member from local loading or shrinkage.
This is allowed for by the assumption thal /11,:ç:0.7ir.,, given in c/aase 5.4.2.8(6).
Equation (D5.4) is given in this clause with partial fâctors Ll5 and 1.45 for serr.iceability
and ultimate limit statcs, respectively. These allow for approximations in ihe method.
Thus, for ultimate limit stâtes:
NEr,uit : 1.45.4c(0.7"4*, )( 1 +nop,) :1.02Â,,ll" +(8,IE")A") (Ds.5)

which is the design tensile force at cracking at stress iin'.

Clause 5.4.2.8(7) covers composite members of type (b) ir Fig. 5.9. The crôss-section Qouse 5.4.2.8(7)
properties are found vsing equation (5.6-l ) îor the stiflncss of the cracked concrete flange,
and are used in global analyses. As an example, it is âssumed that an analysis for an ultimate
limit state gives a tensilc force N and a sagging moment M, as shown in Fig. 5,9(b). These are
equivalent to action effects ând Ma in the steel component plus and M" in the concrete
componcnt. as shown. This^L clause requires the norn.ral force N" to^'sbe câlculated.
Equations for this de-composition of N and M can be derived from elastic scction analysis,
neglccting slip. as follows.
The crosses in Fig. 5.9(b) indicate the centres of area of thc cross-sections of the concretc
flange (or the reinforcement, for a cracked flange) and the structural steel section. Let t,

5l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

za and d be âs shown in Fig. 5.9(c) and | 1" and 1" be the second moments of area of thc
composite section, the steel component. and the concrete flange, respectively.
For M - 0,Na.N+À:,N:N, ând N,.N:,: Nn,N:,, whenceN,p: N(,2^ld'1 (a)

For N : 0, ir', r,r : N",u (b)

Equating curvatures, M lf : M"lI" : M"l I" (c)

For equilibrium, M : Ms+ Ma * À'u,yzu -,\,y2, (d)

From equations (b) to (d), wjth zn + z. : d,
M: M(r"lI +I^11) - Ns.Md. wherce Àr.,yd: M(1"+ L DII (c)

For À- and M togelher, from equations (a), (c) and (e):

N": N(z^ld) Mu r"- L)lrd (Ds.6)

Ms- Mr,lr (D5.7)

In practice, 1, << 1,,, so 1.', and hcncc M", can oftcn be taken as zero. The arca of reinforce-
ment in the concrete tension member (1,. not ,4, must be sumcient to resist the gfeater of
Ibrce N, (plus M., if not negligible) and the force"ç)Ns4 given by equation (D5.5).

Filler beom decks for bndges

There are a great number ofgeometric, matcrial and workmanship-relalcd rest ctions which
have to be met in order to use the âpplicâtiôn rules for the design of filler beams. These
restrictions are discussed in secLion 6.3, which deals with the resistances of filler beams,
and are necessary because these clauscs are based mainly in exisLing practice in the UK.
Therc is very little relevant research.
Qouse 5.4.2.9(l ) The sâme restrictions apply in the use of clause 5.4.2.9(1), u'hich allows tl.re effects of slip
at the concrete{teel interface and shcar lag to be neglected in g1oba1 analysis only if these
conditions are met. One signiflcânt difference from previous prâctice in the UK is that
fully-encased filler beams are not covered by EN 1994. This is because thcrc are no widely
acccpted design rules for longitudinal shear in fully-encased beams without shear connectors.
Clouse 5.4.2.9(2) Clause 5.4.2.9(2) covers the lransverse distribution of imposed loading. Its option of
assuming rigid behaviour in the transverse direction ma1' be applicable to â small single-
Clouse 5.4.2.9(3) trâck failway bridgc, but generalll,, one of the methods of clause 5.4,2.9(3) will be usetl.
These assume that there âre no transverse steel members within the span. It is therefore
essential that continuous transverse reinforcement in bolh top and bottom faces of the
concrete is provided in acoordance with the requiremeîts of tlûuse 6.3.
Clau,se 5.4.2.9(3) permits global analysis by non-linear methods to clattse 5.4.3, but
normâlly orthotropic plate or grillage analysis rvill be used. Fo[ the longitudinal flexural
stiflness. 'smearing of the steel beams' involves calculating Lhe stillness of the whole width
of the deck, and hence finding a mean stiffness per r.lnit width. It is infèrred from clause
Clouse 5.4.2.9(4) 5,4.2.9(4) thât crâcking may bc neglected. lhough clause 5.4.2.9f7l provides an alternative
for sone analyses for serviceability.
The flexural stiffness per unit width in the transverse direction is calculated for the
uncracked concrete slâb, neglecting rcinforcemenl. Thc rcsulL is a plate with diflerent
ploperties in orthogoDal directions, i.e. orthogonally anisotlopic or orthotropic for short.
For grillage analysis^ uncracked section properties should generally be used (as required by
clause 5.4.2.9 (4 )) but it is perrnissible to account fbr the loss of stiffness in the transverse
direction caused by cracking, by reducing the torsional and llexural stillnesses of the
transverse concrete members by 50%. This can be advantageous. as it reduccs the transverse
moments. and hence the stresses in the reinforcement.
The longitudinâl moments obtained lrom elastic analysis of an orthotropic slab or grillage
may not be redistributed to allow for cracking- This is because cracking can occur in both
hogging and sagging rcgions, and there is insulTcient test evidence on which to basc

52
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTUML ANALYSIS

design n:les. However. clause 5,4.2,9( 5) pern.rits, for sone analyses, up Lo 15 % rcdistribution Clause 5.4.2.9(5)
ofhogging moments for beâms in Class I at intcrnal supports. This is less liberal than it may
appear. becausc c/case 5.-5.J, which covers clâssificâtion, dôes not relax the nonnal rules for
Class I webs or flanges to allow for reslraint from encasement. The concrete docs, howcvcr,
rcduee the depth of web in cornpres'ion.
There are no provisions for creep of concrete at ultimâte limit states, so clause 5.1.2.2
applies in the longitudinâl direction. In the hansverse direction, clausc 3.1 of EN 1992-l-1
presumably applies. The modular râtios in the two directions may be found to be different,
because ofthe /1 factors in EN 1994.
These comments on creep aLso apply for deforn.rations, from cluuse 5,4.2,9(6). Shrinkage Aouse 5.4.2.9(6)
can bc ncglected, because it causes little curvature rvhere there is little difference between the
levels of the centroids of the sleel and concrete cross-sections.
Clause 5.4.2.9(7 ) gives â simplified rulc for the effects of cracking of concrete on deflec- Aouse 5.4.2.9(7)
tions and camber. C/aase 5.4,2,9(8) permits temperature effects to be ignored, except in Clouse 5.4.2.9(8)
certain railwâv bridses-

53
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Exâmple 5.3r primary effects of shrinkage

For the bridge in Example 5.1 (Hg. 5.6) Lhe plate thicknesses ofan internal beâm ât mid-
span of the main span are as shown in Fig. 5.1L The primary effects of shdnkage at this
cross-section âre calculated- The deck concrete is grade C30i37 and the relative humidity
is 70%,
It is asslrmed that, for the majority of the shrinkâge, the length ofcontinuous concrete
deck is such that shear lag effects arc ncgligible. The ellective area of the concrete flânge is
taken as the actual area, for both the shrinkage and its primary effects. The secondary
effects arise from changes in the reactions at the supports. For these, lhe effecrir.e
widths should be those used for the other permânent actions.
The frec shrinkage strain is found lirst, liom clause 3.1.4 of EN 1992-1-1, By inter-
polation, Table 3.2 of EN 1992-1-l gives the drying shrinkage as €cdo 352 x l0-'.-

54
CHAPTER 5. STRUCTUML ANALYSIS

55
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

5.4.3. Non-linear global analysis for bridges

The provisions ol EN 1992 and EN 1993 on nonlinear analysis are clearly relevant, but are
Aause 5.4.3 not rel'erred to from clnuse 5.4.3. It gives Principles, but no Application Rules. It is stated in
EN 1992-2 rhat clause 5.7(4)P of EN 1992- I - I applies, It requires stiffnesses to be represented
'in a realistic way' taking account ol thc 'uncertainties of failure', and concludes 'Only those
design formats which are valid within the releyant fields of application shall be used'.
Clause 5.7 of EN 1992-2, 'Nonlinear anal.vsis', consists mainly of Notes that give
recommendations to national annexes. The majority of the provisions can be varied in the
Nalional Annex as agreÊrnent could not be obtained at the time of drafting over Lhe use
of the safety format proposcd- The propertics of matcrials specified in the Notes have
been derived so that a single sâfety fâctor cân be applied to all materials in the verification-
Further comment is given under clause 6.7.2.8,
Clause 5.4.1 ôf EN 1993-2 rcquircs Lhc usc of an elastic analysis for 'âll persistent and
Lransient design situations'. It hâs â Note that refers to the use of'plastic global analysis'
for accidental dcsign situations. and to the relevant provisions o[ EN 1993-l-1. These
include clause 5.4, which defines three types of nonJinear analysis, all of which refer to
'plaslic' behaviour, One of them, 'rigid-plastic analysis', should not be consiclered lor
composite bddge strucLures. This is evident from the omission frorn EN 1994-2 of a clause
corresponding to clause 5.4.5 of EN 1994-1-1, 'Rigid plastic global analysis for buildings'.
This method of drafting arises fron.r Notes to clauses L 5.6.6 and 1.5.6.7 of EN 1990, which
make clear thât âll ôf the methods of global analysis defined in clauses 1 .5.6.6 to I ,5.6. I I
(rvhich include 'plastic' methods) are 'nonlineal' in Eurocode tenninology. 'Non-lincar' in
these clauses of EN 1990 rcfers to the deformation propertics of the materials, ând not to
geonetdcal nonJinearity (second-order effects), although these have to be considered
when significant, as discussed in section 5.2 above,
Non-linear analysis must satisfy botb equilibrium and compatibility ofdeformations when
using non-linear material properties. These broad requirements are given to enable methods
more advanced than lincar-elastic analysis Lo be dcveloped and uscd rvithin the scope ôf the
Eurocodes.
Unlike clausc 5.4.1 of EN 1993-2, EN 1994-2 makes no reference to lhe usc of plastic
analysis for accidentâl situations, such as vehicular impact on a bridge pier or impact on a
parapet. The National Annex to EN 1993-2 will give guidance. It is recomnrended that
this be lbllowed also for composite design.
Further guidance on nonlinear analysis is given in EN 1993-l-5, Annex C. on finite-
element modelling of steel FlaLcs.

5.4.4. Combination of global and local action effects

A typical local action is a wheel load on a highway bridge. It is expected thât the National
Annex for the UK will require the efiects of such loads to be combined with the global
eflects of coexisting actions lor serviceability vcrilicatjons, bul not lor checks for ultimate
limit sLatci. This is consiçtenr uith current pracrice ro BS 5400. I
Aouse 5.4.4(l ) The Note to clause 5.4.4(1) retèrs to Normative Annex E of EN 1993-2. This annex was
written for all-steel decks, where Iocal slrcsscs in wclds can he significant and where local and
global stresscs always combine unfàvourably. It recommends a combination factor I for
local and global effects that depends on the span and ranges lrom 0-7 to 1.0. The âpplicâtion

56
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

of this rule to roinforced concrete decks that satisfy the serviceability requirements fbr the
combined effects is belicved to be over-co[servativc, hccause of thc hcncficial local cffccts
of membrane and arching action. lly conirast, if the EN 1993 rules are adopted, global
compression in Lhe slab is usually favourable so consideration of 70% of the maximum
compressive global strcss when checking local effects may actually bc unconservatiye.

5.5. Classification of cross-sections

The classitcation of cross-scotions of composite beams is the established method of taking
âccount in design of local buckling of plane steel elements in compression. It determines the
available methods of global analysis and the basis l'or resistance to bending, in the same way
as for steel membeLs. Unlike thc method in EN 1993-1-1, it does not âpply tô côlumns- The
Class of a stcel element (a flange or a wcb) depends on its edge support conditions, ôi I ratio.
distribution ôf longiLudinal stress across its width. yield strength, ancl in composile sections,
thc rcslraint provided against buckling by any attâched concrete or concrete enaasement.
A flow diagram for the provisions of clause -5.-5 is given in Fig. 5.12. The clause numbers C/ouse 5.5
given are from EN 1994-2, unless noted otherwise.

ls steelcompression ls the section a iiller

llânge reslrained by beam to c/ause 6.@
shear connecl0fs 1o
clause 5.5.2(l )?
Frcm clause 5.5.2(2), classit
flange to Table 5.2 oi EC3-1.1

Locale the plastic neulrâl axis, using gross Locâte the elaslic neutralaxis, taking
web and etfective llanges, to clause 5.5.1(4) accounl of sequence of construciion,
creep, and shrjnkage, to clause 5-5.1(4)

Ftom clause 5.5.2(2), .lassity the web

using the pjastic stress dislribution, to Frcm clause 5.5.2(2), classily lhe wêb using thê
Tâble 5.2 0f EC3-1-1 elastic stress distribulion, lo Tab e 5.2 ot EC3-1-1

ls web encâsed to c/ause 5_5.3(2J? ls the compression llange

in Clâss 1 or 2?
Replace web by elfectivê web
ir Class 2,lo clâuse 5.5.2(3)?

ls the compression
llange in Class 3?

ls the llange in Class 1?

Fig. 5. | 2. Classification of a cross-secrion of a composite beam

57
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Typicalcurve

Mpt

Class 3 class 4 l)

Fig. 5.13, ldealized moment-rotation relationships for secrions in Clâsses I to 4

Aouse 5.5.l(l)P Clause 5.5.1/IIP refers to EN 1993-1-1 for delinitions of thc four Classes and the
slenderflesses that define the Class boundaries. Classcs 1 to 4 correspond respectively to
the terms 'plastic'. "oompact', 'semi-compact' and 'slender' that were formerly used in
BS 5950.18 The classifications are done separately for steel ilanges in compression and
steel webs, The Class of the cross-section is thc lcss favourable of the Classes so l'ound.
Clouse 5.5.I (2) clause 5.5.1(2), with onc exception: the 'hole-in-web' oplion oÏ clouse 5.5.2(3).
Idealized moment rotâtion cuffes for tlrembers in thc four Classes are shown in Fig. 5.1 3.
ln reality, curves for sections in Class 1 or 2 depart from linearity as soon as (or even before)
the yield moment is reached, and strain-hardening leads to a peak bending moment higher
than rUpL, as shown.
The followir.rg noLcs supplement lhc delinitions given in clause 5.5.2(1) of EN 1993-1-l:
. Cla,s.g I cross-scctions can form a plastic hinge and tolerate a large plastic rotation
without loss of resistance. It is a requirement ùf EN 1993-l-1 for the use of rigid-
plastic global analysis that the cross-sectiôns at all plastic hinges are in Class 1. For
composite bridges. EN 1994-2 does not pennit rigid-plastic analysis. A Note to clause
5.4.1(l) of EN 1993-2 enables ils usc [o be permitted, in a National Anncx, for certain
accidental design situations lor steel bridges.
. Clqss 2 cross-sections can develop their plastic moment resistance, Mpt,Rd, but have
limited rotation capacity aftcr reaching it because ol local buckling. Regions of
sâgging bending in composite beams are usually in Class 1 or 2. The resistance M6,na
exceeds the resistance at first yield, M"r.na, by between 2070 and 40%. compared with
about 159o for steel beams. Some restrictions are necessary on the use of Mpy.116 in combi-
nation with elastic global ânalysis, to linit the post-yield shedding ofbending rnomenl to
adjacenf cross-scctions in Class 3 or 4. These âre given in clau.ses 6.2.1.2(2) ànd
6.2.1.3(2 ).
. C1a.ss J cross-scctions hecome susceptible to local buckling befcrre development of the
plastic moment of resistance. In dause 6.2.1 .5 ( 2; their bending resistance is defined as
tbe 'elastic resistance', governed by sLress limits for all three materials. A Jimit rnay be
reachcd whcn Lhe comprcssive stress in all restrained steel elemenls is below yield.
Sôme rôtâtion capacity then remains, but it is impracticable to take âdvântage of it in
tlesign.
. C/asr 4 cross-sections are those in which local buckling will occur before the attainment
of yield stress in one oI rnore parts of the cross-section. This is assumed in EN 1993 and
EN 1994 to be an uLtimate limit stâte. The eflective cross-seclion should be derived in
accordance with EN 1993-1-5. Guidance is given in comments on clause 6.2.1.5(7),
which defines tlre procedure, ard in Lhe Deiigners'Guitle to EN 1993-).4

58
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

The Class of a cross-section is determined ftom the width-tô-thickness ratios given in

Table 5.2 of EN 1993-l - I lor rvebs and flanges in compression. The numbers appear differenL
fiom those in BS 5400:Parr 3:2000" because the coellicient thaL takes account of yield
sLrcngth, €, is defined as .v/(,235|Jy) in the Eurocodes, and as /(355/lr) in BS 5400. After
allowing for this, thc limits for rvebs at the Class 2i3 boundary agree closely with those in
BS 5400, but there are differences l'or 11angcs. For outstand flanges, EN 1993 is more
liberal at the Class 2i 3 boundary, and slightly more severe ât the Class 314 boundary. For
internal flânges of boxes. EN 1993 is considerably more liberal 1br all Classcs.
Relerence is sometimes mâde to a beam in a certain Class. This may imply a certain
distribution of bending n.roment. Cl.arrse 5.5.-l f2l warns thât the Class of a compositc
section depends on the sign of Lhe bending moment (sagging or hogging), as it does for a
steel section that is not symmetricâl âbôut its neutral axis for bending.
Clause 5.5.1(3) pcrmiLs account to be iaken of restraint fiom concreLe in delcrmining the Clouse 5.5.1(3)
classitcation of elements, providing that thc ben€lit has beeu esLablished. Further comment
is given at clause 5.5.2( 1 ) on spacing of sheâr connectors,
Since the Class of a wcb depeDds on the level of the neutral axis, whjch is different for
elastic and plâstic bending, it may not bc obvious which strcss distribution shôuld be used
for a scctior near the boundary between Classes 2 lind 3. Clause 5,5.1(4) provides the Clause 5.5.1 (4)
ânswer: the plastic distribuLion. This is because the use of the elastic distribution could
place a section in Class 2, fol which the bending resistance would be based on the plastic
distribution. rvhich in turn could plaoe the section in Class 3.
Elastic stress distributions should be huilt up by taking the construction sequence into
accounL, togelher with the eIîects of creep (generâlly thrôugh the use of differenL modular
r'âtios fof the dilïerent load typcs) ard shrinkage.
Where a steel element is longitudinallv stiffened, it should be placed in Class 4 unless it can
be classificd in a higher Class by ignoring the longitudinal stiffeners.
Wrere both axial load and nromcnt are present, tl.rese should bc combined when deriving
the plaslic stress block. Altelnatively. the web Class can conservâtiyely be determined on th()
basis of compressivc axial load alone.
Clause 5.5.1(5), on the minimum area ol rcinforccment for a concrete flange, appears Aouse 5.5. t (5)
here. rather than in Secrior 6, because it gives â further côndition fbr a cross-section to bc
plâced in Class I or 2. The rcason is that these sections rnust maintain their bending
rcsisLance, without li'acture of the reinforcement, while sub.jected to higher rotation than
those in Class 3 or 4. 'Ihis is ensured by disallowing the use of bars in ductility Class A
(the lowest), and by fequiring a minimum cross-scctional area, which depends ou the
tensile forcc in the slab just before it cracks.s' Clqusc 5.5.1(6), on weldcd mcsh. has Clouse 5.5.1(6)
the sâme objective- Clause 3.2-4 of F.N 1992-2 does not reconmend the use of Class A re-
inlorcement lbr bridges in any case, but this recommendation can be modified in a National
Annex.
During the construction ofa conposite bridge, it is quite likely thaL a beam will change its
section (ilass, because the addition of the deck slab both prevents local buckling of the top
flange and significantly shifts the neutral itxis of the section, Typically, a mid-span section
could be in Class I or 2 after casLing rhc slab but in Class 3 or 4 prior To thts. Cla se Clause 5.5.1(7)
5.5.//7,) rcquires strength checks at intermediâte stâges of construction to be bascd on the
relevânt classification at the stagc bciug cJrecked.
The words 'wiîhout concrete encqsement in the title ctf clsuse 5.5.2 are there because qouse 5.5.2
this clause is copicd from EN 1994-1-1, where it is followed by a olausç on beams rvith
web encasement. These are outside the scopc of EN 1994-2.
Clause 5,5,2(1) is an application of clause 5.5.) (31. The spacing rules to which il rcfcrs Clouse 5.5.2(l )
may be festdctive l'here full-thickncss precast deck slabs are uscd. C/azsz 5.5.2(?/ adds Clouse 5.5.2(2)
little to ciame 5.J.1.

The hole-in-web method

This useful dcvice first appeared in BS 5950-3-1.4E It is now ir clause 6.2.2.4 of EN 1993-l-1,
which is referred to from clause 5.5,2(3). Clouse 5.5.2(3)

\c
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

In bearns subjected to hogging bending, it often hâppens thât the bottom flange is in Class
1 or 2, and the web is in Class 3. The initial eflèct of local buckling of the web would be a
smâll reductiôn in the bending rcsistance of the section. The assumption thât a delined
dcpth ofweb, the'hole', is not effective in bending enables the reduc.ed section Lo be upgraded
from Clâss 3 to Class 2- and rcmoves the suddcn changc in the bending resistânce that lvould
otherwise occur. The method is analogous to the use ofeffective areas fbr Class 4 sectiors, to
allow for local buckling.
There is a limitation to its scope that is not evident in the following wording, tion1
EN 1993- 1-1:

The proportion of the web in compression should be replaced by a part of 20€/," adidcent lo the
coûrprcssion flange, with another part of 20.1ç adjacent to the plastic neutral axis of thc ciïcctivc
cross-sectron_

It folLows that for a design yield strength.^,1, the compressive lbrce ir.r thc rve b is limited
to 40€/*/d. For a composite beam in hogging bending, the tensile force in the longitudinal
rcinforcement in tl.re slab can exceed lhis value, especially where {,1 is reduced to allow for
verticâl sheâr. The method is thcn not applicable, because the second 'element of 20€l,"' is
not adjatettt to the plastic neutrâl axis, which lies within the top flange. The l.rethod, and
this limitation, are illustraled in Exanples in the Desrgrers' Guide xt EN 1994-I-1.'
It should be noted thât if a Class 3 cross-section is treâted âs ân equivalent Class 2 cross-
scctjon for section design" it should still be treated as Class 3 when considering lhe actions to
consider in its dcsign. lndirect actions. such as differential seltlemcnt, which may be
neglected fbr true Class 2 sections, should not be ignored fôr effective Class 2 sections.
The primarv sclf-equilibrating stlesses could reasonably be neglected, bul not the secondary
effects.
Qouse 5.5.3(2) Clause 5.5.3(2) and Table 5.2 gtye àllowâble width-to-thickness ratios for the outstands ol
exposed flanges of fillcr beams. Those for Class 2 and 3 are greaLer than those from Table 5.2
of EN 1993-l-1. This is because even though â flânge outstand can bucklô away from
the concrcle. rolation of the flange at the junction rvith the web is prevenLed (or at least
the rotâtionâl stiffness is greatly incrcascd) by Lhe presence ol the concrete.

Fig. 5.14. Cross-section of beam for Example 5.4

60
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

From Table 5.2 of EN

Steel web
fo rt if the web is in Class I or 2, the plastic neutral axis mxst be determined, using
design""t
material strengths.
The total area of reinforccment is:

all stresses are applied io ttr. .o"rio"ir. àt1"" irr"-e*"r.ri a.pih *.b
"."ihi, ei"* "r

composite sestion. There is no nied to use a modular ratio for re-

inforcemenr as its modulus uray be taken equal ro that lor \tructural srcet. acuortling ro
clause 3.2ç21. The usual 'lirst moment of area' calcularion flnds the neurra.l axis ro be
as shown in Fig. 5.14, so the depth ofweb in compression

6l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Flow charts for global analysis

Thc Êow charts given in Figs 5.15 a[d 5.16 are for a bridge with the general layout shown in
Fig. 5.1. Figure 5.15, for the superstructure, provides design forces and displacements for thÊ
beans and at the four sets ofbearings shown. Figurc 5.16, for the columns, takes account of
system instability shorvn in Fig. 5- l (b). Instâbility of mentbers in conpression is covered in
coml'nents on clause 6.7.3.4.
For simplicity. the scope of these charts is limited by âssumptions, as fbllows:
. Fatigue, vibration, ând settlement are excluded.
. Axial force in the superstructure (e.g. fronr ftiction at bearings) is negligible.
. The main imposed loading is traflic Load Model 1, fiom EN 1991-2.
. Only persistent design situations are included.
. The limit states considered are ULS (STR) and SLS (deformation and crack width).
. The superstructure consists of several parallel continuous nofl-hybrid plâte girders
without longitudinal stifl'eners, composite wiLh a rcinforced normal-density-concrele
deck slab.
. There are no stfl.lctural steel transvelse members at deck-slab lcvel-
. The or.rly steel cross-sections that may be in Class 4 are the webs near internal supports.
The depth of rveb in compression is influenced by the latio of non-composite tô compo-
site bending moment ând the area of reinforcement ill thc slab. The Class is therefore
difficult to predict until son.re analyses havc been done-
. The deck is constructed unpropped, and all structural deck concrelc is assumed to be in
place belbre any of the members become composiLc-
. The formwork is structurally participating precast concrete planks. They are assumed
(for simplicity here) to have the sâme creep and shrinkage properties às the in situ
concrete of the deck.
. All joints except hearings are assumed to be continuôus (clause 5.1.2).
. Bearings are 'simple' joints, with or without longiturlinal sliding, as shown in Fig. 5.1.
Transverse sliding cannol occur.
In the chârts.
creep and shrinkage effects are considered only as 'long-term' values
(l + cc). The values of all Nationally Determincd Parameters, such as 1 and ? factors,
are assumed to be those recommended in the Notes in the Eurocodes.
The fbllowing data are assumed to be available, based on preliminâry ânalyses and lhe
strengths of Lhc matcrials to bc uscd. 1,,/lç andlk (converted from an assumed/"u):
. dimensions of the flanges and webs of the plate girders
. dimensions of the cross-sections ofthe concrcte deck and the two supporting systems, BE
and CF in Fig. 5.1(a)
. details and weight of the superimposed dead load (llnishes, Farâpets, etc.)
. estimated areas of Jongitr-Ldinal slab reinforcement âbove internal supports.
AssumpLions relevant to out-of-lllane sysLem instability are as follows, The deck transmjts
most of the lâterâl rvind loading to supports A and D. with negligible rcstraint from the two
sets of inlemal supports. The lateral deflections of nodes B and C influence the design of the
columns, but stillnesses are such lhat wind-induced system instability is not possiblc.
The following âbbreviations are used:
. 'EC2'means EN 1992-l-l ândior EN 1992-2; similarly for'EC3'
. A clause in EN 1994-2 is relerred to as, lor cxample , ' 5 .4 -2 .2' .
. Symbols g11 and g12 are used for chârâcteristic dead loads on the stcelwork, and on
composite members. respectively. Superimposed dcad load is gp3. Shrinkage is g.;.
. CharacLcristic imposed loads are dcnoted 41 (traffic), w1 (wind) and tk (temperature).
There is not spâce to list on Fig. 5- 15 the combinations of aciions requircd. The notâtion in
the lists that follow is that each synbol, such as gk2, rcpresents the sets ofaction effects (Ms6.
I'g3, deformations, etc.) resulting from the âpplication of lhe arrangement of the âction gk2
that is most adverse for the action e11èct considered.

b2
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Determine elaslic plopertiês of mate als: Ea,Es (taken as Ea), E"., etc., from 3.1to 3.3.
Assume a mean value to for permanent actions,1o 5.4.2.2(3).
Determine creep coelficients É(æ, lo); hence find modular raiios ro, r,1", and nLp for
short-term, shrinkage, and permanênt aclions, respeclively (5.4.2.2(2)).
Determine lree shrinkage slrain, s.s(-, 1 day),lo 3.1(3) and 5.4.2.2(4)

Selecl exposure (environmenlal) class(es) lor concrete sudaces, to z /{3). Hence find minimum
covers to concrele from ECZ4.4, and lhe locations of main tensile reinforcement in composile
beams. Thêsê arê requked for cracked section properlies

Determine shear lag eifective widths for globalanalyses:

- for concrete llanges. at mid-span and internal srppotls,1o 5.4.1.2
- for steel flanges, find bê( for SLS and ULS, 10 EC3-1-5/3.1 to 3.3

Eslimate distributions of longitudinal stress in steelwebs at internalsupports, and clâssify

them, lo 5.5. lf anv are in Class 4. thicken them or find eflective orooerties to EC3-1-5/2.2

Flexuêl stjllnesses ol ctoss-secûons. Delermine Eâl for all uncracked composite and
concrete seclions, for modular ratios no, nl,s and l71,p, u6ing eifeclive widths al mid-span, or
at supporls for caniileverc \1.5.2.11). Reinïorcemenl may be included or omitted.
Delermine E /2 for cracked reinforced longiiudinal composite sections in hogging bending, with
etfective widlhs as above \1.5.2.12). Bepresent bearings by appropriaie degrees of lreedom

lmpeiecions. Delermine system jmperfeclions to 5.3.2f7). Out-of-plumb ol supports BE and

CF are relevani for these members. bul are assumed not to atiect this flow chart.
For impedections of column members, see flow chart ot Fig. 6.44

Sfablfy. If no buckling rnode can be envisaged, as here for the superstructure, then
dc,: 10 can be assumed, and global analyses can be first-order, to 5.2 7f3)

Global an. //sês- Are 5.4.2.3(2) applies. Use uncrâcked stifinesses and modular
a|| span ra ratios ft, nLs and rl.o. Anêlyse for load cases: gk2, 9$, gËh.
Find momenl and shear envelopes for qk and lk.
Find the highest exheme-fibrê tensile stresses in concrete,
f"r..*, ior the combinations listed in expression D(5.8),
Use stiffner tses to wiih eftective widths to 5.4.1.2f7)
5.4.2.s(3)( '15%'rule) Find regions o,longitudinal members where fd,max > 2fa.,
for global a nalyses and reduce stitfnesses of lhese regions to Ea12

Do global ânalyses for the load cases gt1 (on the steel skucture), 9k2, grc, gsh, qk, wk and d
usinq both short-tem and long-term modular ratios forthe variable actions and for gk2, gk3
and long-term for gsh. Refer to expressions (D5.9) etc., Tor ihe combinations required. (END)

Fig.5.l5. Flow chart for global analysis for supërstructure of three-spân bridge

For the variable actions qk and wk, dillercnt arrangcments goyern ât different cross-
sections, so cnvelopes are required. This may apply also fol tk, as sevelal sets of temperaLure
actions are specifled.
For lrnding the 'cracked' regions of longitudinal members, it is assumed thal the short-
term vâlues are critical, becausc crccp may reduce tensile strcss in concrete more thân

63
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

shrinkâge increâses it. From cldrre 5.4.2.3 (2 ) , the following characteristic cômbinations are
required for finding 'cracked' regions:
. with trafnc leading: 8k2+gk3+4k+to.wwk
. with u,ind leading: gnl gn *do,q4r *tr'r
. with temperature leading: grr * gr: * dc.oqr + u0 \,/nk + t[ (D5.8)

In practice, of course, it rvill usualll, be evident which combination govcms. Then, only
regions in tension coresponding to that combination need be determined.
F-or finding the most adverse âction effects for the limit state ULS (STR), all combinations
include the design pcrman€nt action effects:
1c (gt r * gr: * 8n ) -l- g,r,

using the more adverse ofthe long-term or shoft-term values. To these are added, in turn, the
followins combinations of variable action effects:
. with traflic leading: 1.354ç I 1.516 *n ç
. with wind leading: 1.35r,r3.n4p * 1.5u,1
. with tcmperature leading: l.35ri,6,u4e + 1.s(?rr0,*nk + () (Ds.e)
For serviceability limit states, defonnation is checked for frequent combinations. The
combination for crack width is for national choice, and'frequent'is assumed here. These
combinations all include the perinanent âction effects as lbllows, again using the more
âdverse of short-tcrm and long-tem values:
gkr+gk2+8k3+g.r
To these are added, in turn, the following combinâtions of variable action ellècts:
. with tralïc leading: ,û1,u41 t du rtr because d2,. : 0
. with wind leading: il1,*wç t qi2.1/1 bccausc rfr,o : Q
. with temperature leading: .{r.trr (D5.10)
As belbre, it will usuâlly be evident, for eâch âction eflect and location, which combination
governs,

Flow chort fot suqqorûing systems ot internol supports

At each of points B and C in Fig. 5.1 , it is assumed that the Flate girders are supported on at
least two bearings, mounted on a cross-head thât is supported by a composite frame or by
two or more composite columns, fixed at points E and F. Each bearing acts âs â spherical
pjn. Design action elïects and displacements (six per bearing) are known, for each limjt
state, ffom analyses of the supcrstruclure.
Preliminary cross-sections for âll the members have been chosen. Composite colun.rns are
assumed to be rviLhjn Lhe scope of c/aale 6.7.J (doubly symmelrical, uniform, etc.). The flow
chart of Fig. 5.16 is for a singlc composite column, and is applicable to composite columns
generally. For uliimate limit stâtes, only long-term behaviour is considered, as this usually
governs.

Notes on Frg. 5. 16
(l) For the elâstic crilicâl buskling force Ncr, the effective length for an unbrâced column, as
in Fig. 5.1(b), is at least 2-L, where Z is the actual length. If the foundation cannot be
assumed to be 'rigid', its rotational stiffness should bc included in an elastic critical
analysis, as the elTective length then exceeds 22.
In many cases, À will be much less than 2, and o". will lar exceed 10- These checks can
then be done approximâtely, by simple hand calculation. Other methods of checking if
second-order global analysis is required are discussed un<ler clause 5.2.1.
Here, it is assumed that for the lrarsverse direction, o", > 10. No assumption is made
tbr the plane shown in Fig. 5.1. The flow chârt of Fig. 5.16, which is for a single column,
includes second-order s)'stem effects in this plane.

64
 CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Determine elastic properties of mâterials, mean value 6, creep coefticiênts p{æ, 6),
modulâr ralios no, rL,s and r,Lp, and shrinkage strain, e.s(-, 1 day), as in Fig. 5.15.
Select exposure class(es) Ior concrête, and lind minimum covers, all âs in Fig. 5.15.
All ef{ective widths are assumed to be actual widths. Check lhat concrete covers salisfy
6.25. /, and reinforcement satislies 6.25.2 lvodily if necessâry

For a concrete-encâsed seclion, Iiôd concrete cross-section for use in calculations from
6.7.3.1 (2) on excessive cover. Check that ô23. /(3/ on longitudinal reinforcemenl and
6.7.3.1(4)on shape ol section are satisfied

Find Npr,Rd from e4 (6-30l, steel contribution lnri.' urtith'id;;, b't";),

ratio d from eg. (6.38]. and check that I thê chan is to( both y and z
o.2 to 6.7.1(4). Find Npt,Rklo 6.7.3.3(2) I planes, separately, aîdgiven
the
=6to.9, y orz subscàpt is nol
I

Eslimate ratio of permanent to total design normal force (axial compression) at ULS
Hence find E" from eq. (6.41), to allow tor creep. Find the charâcteristic and design
"n
flexural stittnessês, (E/ )en and (E/)€n r , from eqs (6.40) and (6.42)

Estimate mê xtmum
D€termine Nc, and then l,lo 6.7.3.3(2). Check design axial
lhal 6.7.3.1(1). See Note 1 in mâin lêxt
^:2,1o
l! Yes

)s N o

lJs€ second-order global analysis, Use mêthod (i) or (ii) Firct-order global
including both system and member (see commenl on analysis permitled
imperlections clause 5.2.41o1 by 5.2.1 (s), wiTh
s.s.2(2) -ECa-z - EC3-1 -115.3.2(6) global analysis syslern imperfêctions

Find systêm imperfeclion d to EC3-1-1/5.3.2(3) and hence notional lransverse lorces

NEdo al ends of column, and add to coexisting transvêrse forcês (e.9. from wind loading)
See Notê 2 in lhe main lext

Perlom globâl analysis, to Iind Repeat for the other plane of bending. lnclude
action eflects NEd. MËd and VEd member imperfection only in lhe plane where
at each end of column its effect is more adverse; 6.7.3.41) (END)

Note: For vedticaùon ol thê cotuûn lêngth, sêe now chatl ol Fig. 6.44

Fig.5.l6. FIow chart for global analysis ofa composite column

(2) Out-of-plumb of columns. a system impefection, should be allowed for as follows.

Figure 5.17(a) shorvs a nominally verticâl column of length Z, $'ith design action
effects M, N and lr from a preliminary global analysis, The top-end noment M could
represent an off-centre bearing. The design out-ol-plumb angle for the column, o, is
found from clause 5.3.2(3) of EN 1993-l-1. Notional horizontal forces Nd are
applied. as shown in Fig. 5.l7(b).
Second-order global analysis fbl the whole structure, including base flexibility, ifany.
then gives the deformations of thc cnds of the column and thc action ellects NEd. ets.,

65
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

tal (ol (cl

Fig. 5.1 7. System imperfection ând global analysis for â column

needed for verificationof the colunu length. In Fig. 5-17(c), o6 is the rotation of the
column base, and nEd represents the trânsverse loading, which may be negligible. For
the dctcrmination of the bending noments within a column length and its verificatiôn,
reference should be made to Lhc flow chart of Fie. 6.36 of Ref, 5.
CHAPTER 6

Ultimate limit states

This chapter corresponds to Section 6 of EN 1994-2, which has the following clauses:
. Beams Clause 6.1
. Resistances of cross-sections of beâms Clouse 6.2
. Filler beam decks Clause 6.3
. Lateral torsional buckling of composite beams Clause 6.4
. Transverse forces on webs Clause 6.5
. Shear connection Clause 6.6
. Composite columns and composite compression members Clause 6.7
. Fatiguc Clause 6.8
. Tension members in composite bridges C lause 6 .9

Clau,ves 6.1 Lo 6.7 define resistances ofcross-sections to static loading, for comparison with
action efTects determined by the methods o1 Section 5. Thc ultimate limit state considered is
STR, dcfined il clause 6.4.1(l) ofEN 1990 as:
Internal failure or excessive deformatior of ths stnlcture or slructùral members. .. \ahere the
strength of constrùclional materials oi thc structùre governs.

The self-contained claute 6.8, Fatigue, covers steel, concrete, and reinforcement by cross-
reierence to Eurocodes 2 and 3. Requirements arc givcn for shear connection.
Cluttse 6.9 does not appear in EN 1994-l-1 and has been added in EN 1994-2 to cover
concrete and composite tension members such as n.ray be found in tied arch bridges and
truss bridges.

6. l. Beams
6.l.l. Beams in bridges - general
Clause 6.IJ(1) serves as a summary of the checks that should be performed on the beams Qouse 6.l.l(l )
thcmselvcs (excluding related elements such as bracing and diaphragms), The checks listed
are as follows:
. Resistânce of cross-scctions to bending and shear clauses 6.2 ani6.3. In the Eurosodes,
local buckling in Class 4 members, due to dircct stress, is covered under the heading of
'cross-section' resistance, even though this buckling resistance is derived considcring a
finite length of the beam. In Eurocode 3. shear buckling is similarly covered under the
hcading of'cross-section' resistance, but this is sepârâtely itemized below. A check of
the intefaction between shear and bending is required in clause 6.2.2.4.
. Rcsislance to lateral torsional buckling - c/aase 6.4. For lâterâl torsional buckling, the
resistânce is influenced b1' thc properties of the whole member. Thc rules of Eurocode 4
assume Lhat the rlember is of uniform crôss-section, apârt from variations arising from
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

cracking of conorete and from detailing. The resistance of non-unjform members is

covered in clâuse 6.3.4 of EN 1993-2.
. Resistance to shear buckling and in-plane forces applied to webs c/..?user 6.2-2 and 6.5
respectively. As discusscd above, shear buckling rcsisLancs is treated as â property of â
cross-section.
. Resistancc l.o longitudinal sheaj clûuse 6.6. Accotdingto clause 1.1.3/3), provisions for
shear connection are given only for wclded headed studs. This is misleâding, for much of
claase 6.6 is n.rore widely applicable, âs discussed ùnder clause 6.6.1 ,

. Resistancc to fatigue clause 6.3.

Thc above checks are not exhaustive. Further checks that may be required include the
following:
. Interaction with axial force. Axial force is not included in the checks àbo\te as clûuse
/-5.2.4 defines a composite beam as 'a compôsite member subjected ntainly to -bending'.
Axial force does howcvcr occur in the beams of composite integral bridges.'' This is
discussed in section 6.4 of this guide.
. Addition ofstresses in webs and flanges generated frorr plan ourvature" although this is
identified rn claare 6.2. | .l ( 5J. No mcLhod of combining (or calculating) these eflects is
provided in Eurocodes 3 or 4. The Designers' Guide to EN -/993-2* provides son.re
guidance. as do the con-rments on clause 6.2.1.1(5).
. Flange-induced buckling of the weh cloutie 6.i-2 refers.
. Torsion in box girders, which âdds to the shear in the webs and necessitates a furlher
check on the llangc SeclionTofEN 1993-l-5refers. The need to consider combinâlions
of torsion ând bending is mentioned in clausa 6.2.1.3(11.
. Djstortion of box girders, which causes both in-plane and out-of-plane bcnding in the
box walls - clause 6.2.7 of EN 1993-2 refers and. th.e Detsigners' Guide to EN 1993-2 pro-
vides son.re guidance.
. Torsion of bare sleel beams during construction, which oflcn arjses with the use of
cantilever fbrms to construct the deck edge cântilevers. This usually involves a considera-
tion of both St Venant torsion and warping torsion,
. Design of transvcrsc stiffeners Seotion 9 of EN 1993-1-5 rcfers

Steel cross-sections may be rolled l- or H-section or doubly-symmetrical ôr mono-

synm€trical plate girders. Other possible types include any of those shown in sheet I of
Tablc 5.2 of EN 1993-1-1; this includes box girders. Channel and angle scctions should
not be used unless the shear connection is designed to provide torsional restrâint or there
is adcquate torsional bracing between beams.

6. | .2, Effective width for verification of cross-sections

EIIccLive widths for shear lag are discussed in section 5.4,1.2 of this guide. Unlike in global
analysis. the cffcctive width appropriate to the cross-section under consideration must be
used in calculation ol rcsislance to bending. f)istributions of effective width along a span
are given in Figure 5.1.

6.2. Resistances of cross-sections of beams

This clause is lbr beams withorit partiâl or full encâsement in concrete, Fillel beams with
pâfiial encasemcnt are lreated in clause 6.J. Full encasemqnt is outside the scope of
EN 1994.
No guidance is givcn in EN 1994, or in EN 1993, on lhe treatment of large holes in steel
webs without recoulse to finite-element modelling (following the requirements ofEN 1993-l-
5), but specialized literature is available.5s 5e Bolt holes in steelwork should be treated in
accordance with EN 1993-l-1, particularly clauses 6.2.2 to 6.2.6.

68
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

6.2,1. Bending resistance

6.2.1.l. Cenerol
ht ckuse 6.2.1.1, three different approachcs are given, based on rigid-plastic theôry, non-
linear theory. and elastic theory. The 'nonlinear theory' is that given rn clause 6.2.1.1.
This is not a reference to nonlinear global analysis.
Claase 6.2.1J(I) only permits rigid-plastic thcory to bc used where cross-sections are in Aouse 6.2.1 .t (l )
Class I or 2 and rvhere prestressing by tendons is not used- This is because no explicit
check of yielding of bonded tendons is given and therefble non-linear resisLancc calculation
is more appropriate. Comment on this usc of plastic rcsislance with elastic ânâlysis is given
under clause 5.4.1.1( I ) .
Clause 6.2.1.1(2) permils non-linear theoq/ and elastic theory to be used for all cross- Aouse 6.2. t.l (2)
sections. If unbonded tendons are used, the tendon forccs used in section analysis should
however be dcrived in accordance with ckrute 5 ,1.2.7 ( 2 ) .
The âssumption that composite cross-sçctions remain plane is always permitted by c/aase Clouse 6.2.1.1(3)
6,2,1.1(3) where elastic and nonlinear theory âre used, because the conditions set will be
satisfied if the design is in accordance with EN 1994, The implication is that longitudinal
slip is negligible.
Therc is no requirement for slip to be determined. This would be diflicult because the
stiffness ôf shear connectors is nol known accurately, especially rvhere thc slab is cracked.
Wherever slip may not be negligible, the design methods of EN 1994-2 âre intended to
allow lor its elTccts-
Fol beams with curvâture in plan, dause 6.2,1,1( 5 ) gives lo guidance on how to âllôw for Aouse 6.2.1.1(5)
the torsional moments induced or how to assess their signiflcance. Nomal practice is to treat
the changing direction of the longitudinal force in a flange (and a web, il significant) as a
transverse load applied to that flânge, which is then designed as a horizontâl beâm spanning
between transvcrse restraints. It is common to use elastic section resistance in such circum-
stances to âvoid the complexity ofproducing a plastic stress bloqk for the combined local and
global loading. The shear connection and bracing system should be designed fbr the addi-
tional transverse forccs.
Similar calculation should be carricd oul where curvature is achieved using a series of
straight sectiors, except that the trânsyerse forces will be concentrated at the splices
between âdjacent lengths. Particular care is needed $'ith detailing the spliccs- Transverse
stiffeners and bracing will usuâlly be needed closc to cach splice to limit the bending in the
flange. In box girders, the torsion liom curr,âture will âlso tend to produce distortion of
the box. This must be consjdered in the desiglr of both the cross-sccLion of the box and its
internal restraints.
Bending in transverse planes can also be induced in flanges by curvature ol the flange in a
vertical plane, and should be considercd. (-'laase 6.5 covers the transverse forces on webs that
this causes, but not the transverse bending in the flange. The latter is covered in the
Designers' Guide to EN 1993-2."

6.2.1.2. Plostic resistonce moment /V1pl.Rd oFo cornpos/te c/oss-section

'Full interâction' h clause 6.2.1.2(1)(a) means that ro account need bc taken of slip or Aouse
separation at the steel concrete interfâce- 6.2. t .2(t )(o)
'Full interaction' shoukl not be confused with 'full shear connection'. That concept is uscd
only in the rules for buildings, and is cxplained in olause 6.1.1(?)P of EN 1994-l-l âs
follows:
A span of a beam . . . has full shear connection when increase in the number of sheaa col1llcctors
would not iûcrcase the desigtl bending resistance of the member.

This link of shear connection to bending rcsistance differs ftom the method of EN 1994-2,
where shear connection is rclated to action effects, bôth static ând fàtigue, Shear connection
to Part 2 is not necessarily'ful1' according to the above detnition (which sbould strictly read
'- - - number ofshear connectors \rithin â criticâl length . . .')- It would be confusing to refer to
it as'nartial'. so lhis term is never used in Part 2.

69
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Reinforcement in compression
Clouse Itis usual to negfect slab reinforcement in comprcssion (tlaure 6.2.1.2(1)(c)). Its effect on
6.2. t .2(t )(c) the bending resistânce of the cômposite section is negligible unless the slab is unusually
small- Ifit is included, and the concrete cover is little greater than the bar diameter, consid-
eration should be given to possib!e buckling of the bars-
Guidance on detailing is given in clauses 9,5.3(6) and 9,6.3(l) of EN 1992-l-l for
reinforcement in concrcte columns and walls respectively- Tbc lormer requires thât no bâr
within a compression zone should be further thân 150mm from a 'restrained' bar, but
'restrained'is not defined. This could be interpretetl as requiring all compression bars in
ân outer lâyer to be within 150mm of a bar held in place by trânsverse reinlbrcement.
This would usually.require link reinfbrcement in the flange. This interpretation was used
in BS 5400 Part 4" for compression bars assumed Lo contributc to the resistânce of the
section. If the compression flange is classed as a wall, clause 9.6.3 of EN 1992-1-l requires
only that Lhe longitudinal bars are placed inside horizontal (i.e. transverse) rcinforcement
unless the reinforcement in compression cxcccds 27o of the gross concrete area. In the
latter case, transverse reinforcement must be provided in accordance with the column rules.

Stress/stroln prcperties for aoncrete

Thc design compressive strength of concrete, .1"d, is delined in clause 3.1.6(1)P ofEN 1992- 1-l
âs:

J.a - ,rnlultc
where:
'c1." is the coeffcient taking account oflong lcrm elTects on the compressive strength ând of
unfâvourable efiects resulting from the way the load is applied.
'Note: The value of a"" for use in a country should lie between 0.8 and 1.0 and may be
found in its National Annex. Tbe recommendcd valuc is l.'
The reference in clttuse 3.1(l)to EN 1992-l-l lor properties of concrete begins'ar/ess
otherwise giNen by Eurocode /'. Resistances of composite members given in EN 1994-2 are
based on cxlensive calibration studies (e.g. Refs 60, 6l). The numerical coefficients given
in resistance formulae are consistent with the value rcc : 1.0 and the use of either elastic
theory or the slress block defined in clause 6,2.1.2. Therefbre, there is no rellerence in
EN 1994-2 to a coemcient.r.c or to a choice to be made in a National Annex. The symbol
/16 always means /lç/1rç, and lbr beams and most columns is used with the coefficient
0.85, as in equation (6.30) in dause 6.7.3.2( I r. An cxccption, in that clause, is thât the
0.115 is replaced by 1.0 for concrete-filled column sections, bâsed on câlibrâtion.
The approximation made to the shape of the stress strain curve is also relevant. Those
given in clause 3.1 ofEN 1992-l-1 arc mainly curved or bilinear, but in clause 3.1.7(3)
lhere is a simpler rectangular stress distribution, similar to the stress block given in the
British Standard for the structural use of concrete. BS 81 l0-" lLs sbape, for concrete strength
classcs up to C50i 60, and the corresponding strain distribution are shown in Fig. 6.I below.
This stress block is inconvenient for use with composite cross-sections, becausc the region
near the neutral axis assumed to be unstressed is often occupied by â steel flange, and
algebraic expressions for resistance to bending become complex.

rrl-
rtl
r
i-/
EN 1S92-1-1:
f"a = a*f"*lYc

7T
L L._._t_._.
I eru rega-r-r,
0-85f6a, wilh f"1 = f"ç/7ç

/.7
.tt
Plasric I
I 0 0.0035 0

Compr€ssivesirain Compresslveslress

Fig. 6,l. Stress blocks for concrete at ultimate limir stares

70
 CHAPTER 6. ULTII.4ATE LI14IÏ STATES

In composite sections, the contribution ùom the steel seqlion to the.bcnding resistance
reduces the significance of that fiom the côncrete. It is thus possibleo' for EN 1994 to
allow the use ofa rectangular strcss block extending to the ner.ltral axis, as shown in Fig. 6.1.
For a member of unit uidth, the moment about the neutral axis of the EN 1992 stress
block ranges from 0-38711,12/16 to 0.48/"1-rr/1,,6, depending on the yalue chosen for o"".
The value for beams in EN 1994-2 is 0.425/lp"rr/7ç. Calibration studies have shown that
this overcstimates the bending resistance of cross-sections of columns. so â côrrection
lâctor cry is given in ckuse 6.7.3.6( I ). See also the comments on clquse 6.7.3.6.

Smoll contete flonges

Where the côncrete slab is in compression. the method of clause 6.2.1.2 is based on the
assumption that the whole effective areas of steel and ooncrete can rcach their design
strengths bcforc the ooncrete begins to crush. This may not be so if the concrete flange is
small compared with the slccl section. This lowers the plastic neutral axis, and so increases
the maximum compressiye strain at the top ol the slab, for a given tensile strain in thc stccl
bortom llange.
A detailed study of the problem has been reported.o* Labol'atory tests on beans show
that strain hardening of steel usually occurs before crushing of concrete. The effect of this,
and the low probâbilitl' that the slrength oi both the steel and the concrete will be only at
the dcsign level, led to the conclusion that prematurc crushing can he neglected unless the
grâde olthe struclural sleel is higher than 5355. Clsuse 6.2.1.2(2) speci{ies â reduction Clouse 6.2.1.2(2)
in Moy 51.1 where the steel gradc is 5420 or 5460 and the depth of the plastio neutral axis
is high.
For composite columns, the risk ofpremature crushing led to a reduction in the factor aM,
glen in clause 6.7.3.6( I ), for 5420 and 5460 steels.

Ductiw of rcinforcement
Reinforcement with insulTicient ductility to satisfy c1aa,r e 5.5.1 ( 5 1, and welded mesh, should
not be included within thc cffective section ofbeams in Class I or 2 (clause 6,2,1.2(3)).Thrsrs Clouse 6.2.1.2(3)
because laboratory tests on hogging momcnt regions have sl.rorvnl3 that some reinforcing
bars, and most welded meshes, fracture before the moment-rotâtion curve for a t]'pical
double-cantilever specimen reachcs a plaleau. The problem with rvelded mesh is explaincd
in commer.rts on clause 3,2(31.

6.2.1.3. Additionol ru/es for beorns in bndges

Clause 6.2.1.3(I) is a reminder that composite beams need to be checked for possible com- Aouse 6,2.1.3(l)
binations of internal actions that are not specilically covered in EN 1994. The oonbinations
given are biaxial bending, bending ând torsion and local and global eflects, with a reference
to clause 6.2.1(5) ol EN 1993-l-1.
Significant bending âbout a vertical axis is rare in composite britlges so biaxial bcnding is
rarcly a concern. Despite the reference tô EN 1993-1-1, there is little of direct relevance for
biaxial bending in compositc beams therein. For Class I and 2 cross-sections. the interaction
of EN 1993-l-l expression (6.2) could be used for resistance of cross-sections. Rather than
computing the resultant plastic stress block lbr axial load and biaxial bending, a linear inier-
action is provided:
,v,, M. .., ÀI- ".,
Nna ,Vr Rtt M, pa -
whcre Ns6, ,Mr.Rd and M.,Rd are the design resistances for each effect acting individually,
with reduÇtions for shear where the shear lbrce is su{iciently lalge. In theor1,. it is still
necessary to derive the resultânt plâstic stress block to check',r,hcther the cross-section is
either Class I or 2. This complexity can be âvoided b,v performing the clâssification under
axial compression only. The same exprcssiolr can be applied to Cllass 3 and 4 cross-sccLions
or thc strcsscs can be sumned using elastic section ânâlysis. Care is needed where the sign of
the stless in the slab is different for cach constituent action.

7l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

In hogging zones of integral bridges. where theril is usually a moderate coexistent axial
load induced by temperature or soil pressure, it is common to do calculations on the basis
of the fully cracked section. The nonlinear methocl ol clause 6.2.1.4 could also be used
but this is likely to require the use of computer software. Buckling needs lo be checked
separatel], see section 6.4.
Signihcant torsion is unlikely to be encountercd in most composite I-girder bridges due to
the low St Venant torsional stillness ofthe steel beâms. There are some exceptions including;
. torslon in cun'ed beams as discussed in comments ot clause 6.2.1.1(5)
. torsion in skew decks at end tlimmers
. torsion of bare steel beams whcrc lormwork for deck cantilevers is clamped to the outcr
girders.

EN 1993- l-l clause 6.2,7(7) permits St Venant torsion to be igrored at ultimate limit states
provided that all thc torsion is carried by rcsistance to warping- This is usually the mosl
eiicient model and avoids â further interâction with shear stless fron.r verlical shear in the
wcb. If the torque is resisted by opposing bending in thc flanges, they can be designed lbr
this bending combined with their axial force. If the length between restraints should be
long, then the warping bending stresses would become large an<l the scction would try to
rcsisl the torsion predominantly through St Venant shcar flow. In thât case it night be
better to defive the separate contributions frôm St Venant and warping torsion. Further
guidance on shear, torsion and bending is provided in the De.rlgners' Guide to LN l99J).4
Pure torsion in box bcams is treated sirnply by a modification to the shear stress in the
webs and flanges, and the design is checked using clause 7.1 of EN 1993-1-5- Pure torsion
is however rare and nost boxes will also suffer sorre distorlion. This leads to both itr-
plane warping and out<rf-planc bcnding of the box walls as discussed in Ref. 4.
The lefelence in clsuse 6.2.1.3( 1) to combined local and global eflccts relates to the steel
beam only, bccause this combination in a concrctc dcck is a matter for Eurocode 2, unless the
deck is a composite plate, when c/aa.re 9.3 applies. Such combinations include bcnding, shear
and transverse load (fiom wheel loads) according to clause 6.2.8(6) ofEN 1993-1-l and other
combinations of local and global load. The Von Mises equivâlent stress critelion of EN 1993-
l-l expression (6.1) should be used in the âbsence of test-based interaclion cquations for
rt:sistances.
Aouse 6.2.1.3(2) Clsuse 6.2.1.1(2) relates to the use of plastic resistances in bending, which implies
shetlding of bending moments, typically from mid-span rcgions Lo adjacent suppol'ts.
Non-linear global analysis allorvs for Lhjs. but linear-elastic ânâlysis does not. The reasons
fol permitting lineâr ânalysis, and for the limitations given in the prcsent clause. are
explaincd in comnr ents on clause 5.4.1.1_/ /J - A mcLhod for making use ofthe limited ductility
of support regions has been proposed.o'

For the bridge iL Ëxample 5.1 (Fig. 5.6), the resistanË mËment foian internal
mid-span with the cross-section in Fig. 5.ll is determined. The deck cor

EN 10025 for
har'e been used.
CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

73
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

From Example 5-4:

.4.: 19 480mm2. and E:

44ô x 25

Plâstic NA

6.2.1.4. Non-lineor resistonce to bending

There are two approaches, described rn clause 6.2. L4. With both, the calculations should be
donc aL thc critical scctions lor the dcsign bÊnding moments. The first approach. given in
Aouse 6.2.1.4(l) clause 6.2.1.4(1) to (5), enâbles the resistance of a sectiou to be determined iteratively
to (5) llrom the stress strain rclationships of the materials.

74
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

0 N"" /N"r 1.0

Fig.6.4. NonJinear resistance to bending for Class I and 2 cross-secdons

A curvalure (strain gradicùt) and neutral-axis position âre assumed, the stresses deter-
mined from the strains, and the neutral axis nrovecl until the slrcsscs corespond to the
external lôngitudinal ftrrce, if any. The assumed strâin distributions should allow for the
shrinkage strain of the concrete and auy strain and,/or dillèrence of curvature between
steel and concrete caused by temperâture. The bcnding resistancc is calculated from this
stress distribution. If it excccds the external moment MEd, the câlculation is terminated. If
not, the assuned cLrrvature is increased and lhe process repeated unlil a valuc MRd is
found thât exceeds MEd. If one of the ultimâte strains given in EN 1992-1-1 for concrete
and reiulbrcement is reached first. the cross-section has insulTicient resistance. For Class 3
cross-scctions or Class 4 effectiye cross-sections, the eompressive strain in thc structural
steel must nôt exceed that ar lirst yield.
Clearly, iu practice this procedure rcquires the use of sof'tware. For sections in Cllass I or
2. a simplified approach is given in clause 6.2.1.4(6). This is based on three points ôn Clouse 6.2.1 .4(6)
the curve relating longitudinal lorcc in the slab. N., to design bending moment Mp,j
that are casily determined. With reference to Fig. 6.4. which is based on t)g. 6.6, these
polnts are:
. A, where the composite member resists no moment, so Nc:0
. B, which is defined by the resu)ts of an elastic analysis of the section, and
. C, based on plastic analysis of the section.
Accurate calculaLion shows BC to be a convex-upwards curve, so the strâight line BC is â
conservative approximation. Clause 6.2.1.4(6) thus enables hand calculation to be used.
The elastic analysis gives the resistânce ,tr1.1p6, which is calcuLated according to eqaation
(6.4).The moment acting on the composite section will generâlly comprise both short-
term and permanent actions and in calculating the stresses from Lhese, appropriatc
modular ratios slrould be used in accordance with clause 5.4.2.2(2)
Clause 6.2.1.4(7) makes refcrcnce to EN 1993-l-l lbf the stress strain relationship to be Aouse 6.2.1.4(7)
used lor prestressing steel. The prestrain (which is Lhe initial tendon strain after all losses,
calculâted in accordance with EN 1992-1-1 clause 5.10-8) must be tâken into account in
the seciion design. For bonded tcrdons, this can be done by displacing the origin of tl.re
stress-strain curve along the strain axis by an amount cqual to the design prestrain and
assuming that the strâin changc in the tendon is the same as that in the sur'l'ounding concrete.
For unbonded tendons, the prestress should be treated as a constant forcc cqrLal to thc
âpplied force aftcr all losses. The generâl method of section analysis for composite
cofumns in clause 6,7.2 would then be more appropriate.

6.2.1.5. Elcstic resistonce to bending

Claure 6.2.1 .4 (61 includes, almost incidentally, a dcÊniLion o[ M"1 p6 that may seem strange.
It is a peculiaritv of composite structures that when unpropped constl'uction is used, the
clasLic resistance to bending depends on thc proportion of Lhe Lotal load that is applied
before the membcr becomes composite. Let Mâ.Ed and M" ft be the design bending

75
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

lrlolrents for the steel rnd composite sections, respectively, for a scction in Class 3. Their
total is typically less than thc clastic rcsistance to bending, so to find M.l.Rd. one or both
Clouse 6.2.1.5(2) ofthem must be increased until one or more ofthe limiting stresses h clause 6.2.1.5(2) is
rcachcd. To enable a unique result to be obtaincd, clause 6.2.1.4(6) sâys thât M.,Ed is to
be increased, and Mu.sa left unchanged. This is because Mn.g6 is mainly from permanent
actions, which ale less uncertâin than the variable actions whose elTccts comprise most of
Mc.E<t-
Unpropped construction normally proceeds by stages, which may have to be considered
individually in bridge design. While the sequence of erection of the beams is often known
in the design stage, the concrete pour sequence is rarely known. T).pically, either a range
of possible poul sequences is considered or it is assumed that the wholc ol- the wet concrete
is placed simultaneously on the harc stcelwork, and the resulting design is rechecked when
the pour sequence is known.
Thc weight of tbrmwork is, in reality, applied to thc sLccl structure and rernoved from the
composite structure. This process leaves self-equilibrated residual stresses in composite
cross-sections, Whether or not this is considered in the final situation is a matter for judge-
mcnt. dcpcnding on the significance of the weighr of thc formwork.
Clouse 6.2.1.5(5) One permanent actiôn thât influences M"1,pa is shrinkage of concrete. Claase 6.2.1.5(5)
enables lhe primary stresses to be neglected in cracked concrctc, but the inr.plication is
that they should be included where the slab is in compression. This provision should not
be conlused wilh clause 5.4.2.2(8), although it is consistent with it. Thc self-equilibrating
stresses from thc primary effects of shrinkagc do not cause any moment but they crn gire
rise to stress- In checking the beam section, if these stresses are adverse, they should be
added to those fronl Mn,B,1 and M",s,1 when verifying stresses against the limits in c/ar6e
6.2.1.5(2 ).If it is necessary lo dclcrminc the actual elastic resistânce moment, MelRd, the
shrinkage stresses should be added to the stresses fl'om M,,.sd and.tM".96 when determining
/r and hence M"t,Rd. If this addilion increases M"t,na, iL could be ornitted, but this is not a
requirement, because shrinkage is classified âs â permanent action.
Clouse 6.2.1.5(6) Clause 6.2.1.5(6) is a reminder that lateral torsional buckling should also be checked,
which applies equally to the oLher methods of cross-section design. The calculation of
M"1.p1 is relevant for Class 3 cross-sections if the rnethod of chuse 6.4.2 js used, but the
abovc problem with shrinkage does not occur as thc slab will be in tension in the critical
feglon.
AddiLional guidance is required for Class 4 cross-sections since the effectiveness of the
Class 4 elements (Ùsually only thc wcb lor composite I-beams) depends on the stress distri-
butions within then. The loss of effectiveness for local buckling is dealt with by the use of
effective widths according to EN 1993-1-5. For staged constructiôn, there is the additional
problem that the stress disûibution changes during construction and therefore the size
and locatio[ of the el1èctive part of the element also change at each stage.
Aouse 6.2.1.5(7) To avoid the complexity of summing stresses from different effective cross-sections, É/arr.re
6,2.1.5(7) provides a simplified pragmatic lule. This requires that the stress distribution âr
any stage is built up using gross-scction properties. The reference to 'gross' sections is not
intended to mean that shear lag can be neglected; it refers only to thc neglect of plâte
buckling. The stress distribution so derived is used to determine ân efTective web which is
then used to determine section properties and stresses at all stages up to the one consideted.
Thc Note lo clause 4.4(3) of EN 1993-l-5 provides almost identical guidânce, but clarifies
thât ân effective flange should bc uscd togcther rvith the gross web to determine the initial
stress distribution, 'Effective' in this sense includes the ellects of both shear Jag and plate
buckling. PJate buckling for flanges is likcly to be relevant only for box girders, Example
6.3 illustrates the method.
Clause 6.2. I .5 ( 7 ) refers to son.re clauses in EN 1993- I - 5 that pcrmit mid-plâne stresses ln
steel plates to be used in verificâtions. For compression pârts in Class 3, EN 1993-2 follows
clause 6.2.1(9) of EN 1993-l-1. This says:

Clompressive stresses should be limited 1c) the yield strength ar the extreme fibres.

76
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIIYATE LII.,,IIT STATES

It is lollowed by the Note:

The extreme ûbres may bc assuned at the midplâne 01'the llanges for ULS checks. For 1àliguc scc
ltN 1993-l-9.

This concession can be assumed to apply also to conposite beams.

An assumption in thc effeotive section method is that thcrc is sufllcient postbuckling
strength to achieve the necessâry redisLribution of stress to allow all components to be
stressed to their individual resistances. This approach is therefore not permilted (and is
not appropriate) in a numbcr of situations where there may not be sufficient post-buckling
strength or where the geometry of the member is outside prescribed limits. These exceptions
are given in EN 1993-1-5, clause 2.3(l).
Where prestressing is vtsed, clause 6,2.1.5t8,1 limits the stress in tendons to the elâstic rânge Aouse 6.2.1.5(8)
and makes rclerence to clause 5.10.8 ol EN 1992-l-1 for. guidance on initial prestrain. The
lattÊr covers both bondcd and unbonded prestress.
Clause 6,2.1.5(9) provides an altcrnative method of treating Clâss 4 cross-sections using Clause 6.2.!.5(9)
Section l0 of EN 1993-l-5. This method can be used where the conditions of EN 1993-l-5
clause 2.3(l) are not met. Scction 10 requires that all stresses are calculated on gross sections
and buckling checks are then carried ouL on the component plates ofthe cross-section. Thele
is usually economic disadvantage in using this method bccausc thc bcnelicial load shedding
of strcss around the cross-section irnplicit in the effective section method does not occut.
Additionally, thc benefit of-using test-based intcractions between shear and bending is lost.
If the whole member is prone to overall buckling instability, such as flexural or lateral
torsional buckling, these effects must cithcr be calculated by second-order analysis and the
additionâl stresses included when checking panels or by using a limiLing strcss o1;,n;, in
member buckling checks. For flexural buckling, rlimil can be câlculâted based on the
lowest comprcssive value of axial stress ox Ed acting on its own" required to cause buckling
failure in the weâkest sub-panel or an entire panel. according to the verification formula
in Section 10 of EN 1993-1-5. This value of o1;,nu is then used to replace /; in the member
buckling check. It is conservative, pârticularly whcn the oritical panel used to determine
ornir is not at the exfeme comprcssion fibre of the section where the greatest stress increase
during buckling occurs. For lateral-torsional buckling, rrtjûjjr can be determiuecl as the
bending stress at the extremc compression fibre needed to cause buckling in the weakest
panel. This rvould however again be very conservative where otinir was determined fiom
buckling of a web pancl which was not ât the extremc librc. as the direct strcss in a wcb
panel would not incleâse much during lateral torsional buckling.
A detailed discussion of the use of Section 10 of EN 1993-l-5 is given in the Designers'
Guide trt EN 1993-2.4
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

4155 mm?\ 4155 mm2

-__l-.'--7--|=
l u,

_^^_l| ','u 'r

, u
--fl
lt .+-'-.I,r/
àtrlï'lillïËË*l *"-
t.z3 |
I ll l38s
IInl- Tqz
I 4oo.3o - _- ll lzet
Fig. 6.5. Effective section and reinforcement for Example 6.3

)æct
5teel rrouqr,,
Donom lr(Jotc
llonge
Ignoring the *Èb-t.r-flung* $'elds, the flànge outstand c: (400 - 12.5)12:193.8mm.
From Table 5.? ofEN 1993-l-1, the condition for Class I is:
cft <gt =9 x 0.825 = 7.43
For the flânge, c/l :193.8I30 - 6.46. so the flange is Cluss l

Steel web
The area of each layer of reinforcement is l" :
tr x 64 x 3100/150 4155 mm'. It would :
be conservative to assume that all strcsses are applied to the composite section as this gives
the greâtest depth of web in compression. Thi stresses below are however based on the
built-up elastic stresses. The elastic modulus lor the reinforcement is taken as equal to
Clouse 3 .2(2) that for structural steel, from clause 3.2(2).
of

heigh! of neutral axis above bottom of section

78
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LII4IT STATES

derived for the web in accordance with clause 6.2.1-5(7) using the built-up stresses
calculatetl on thc gross cross-section above,
From Table 4.1;f EN 1993-1-5: r

Â;:;.St - 6.294, +9.7811" = 18.4 for dr: -0.768.

From clause 4.4(2) of EN 1993-1-5:

-
À,...------i
Att _
Il75lI2.5
' 28.4: 1/ k
" 28.4 r 0.825 v t/ 18.4
so the reduction factor is:
\ ,'-nn(\/?r -/ =- ools.
---=,- 'i,\ -.,-_
"_::: u.ulllj -. j:i23)
-_:r:::t:_ u./t6) _0-g2g
o=
^-
' _t___ _________
\-
________
0.e35r -- ç.929
-nqro
4
b"ff: p6lû- C) :617mm, âer :0.4 x 617 :247 mm, b"z:0.6 ) 6tl : :iomm.
Including the 'hole'. rhe depth of web in compression is ô"6/p. which rs 664 rrm. so thc
width of the hole is 664 - 617 : 47 nim. The stress ratio for the w-eb now differs from that
fôr the gross sectiôn, but the effect of this on the properties of thc àet section can b€
negJected. lt
is clear lrorr clause 4.4t3) of EN 1993-l-5 lhat rrr (and hence p and à"6)
need nol be rccalculaled. The level of the elastis neutral axis for rhis net section is
found to be as shown in Table 6.ll consequently. lhe deplh â"; is in fact 389mm, Dol
.170 mm. The new section moduli arc given in rows 2 and 4 of Table 6. | .

The effective sèctiôn is as showa in Fig. 6.5. The final stresses ar.e as follows:
calop:
do,top - IJV/ |t.>U + ZgW/Z).:t+:
150/12.90 Irt.ô1\/mm
260t 125.94: 111.8 Nlmm' lgnsr!}n < 345N/mml
iensiotr <.l+Jr\,/rrrur
o^,a"t: 150115.'1'1 + 2600/18.63: 149' l Nlmm: compression < 345N/mm2

6.2.2. Resistance to vertical shear

Clause 6.2.2 is for beams l.ithout rveb encasement. The whole of the vcrtical sheâr is usually Clouse 6.2.2
assumed to be resisted by the steel section, as in previous codcs l'or composite beams. This
enables the design rules of EN 1993-1-l and EN 1993-1-5 to be used. The assumption can
be conservative l.here the slab is in compression. Even where it is in tension and cracked
in flexure, consideration of equilibriun shows that the slab must make some contribution
tù shcar rcsistancc, cxcepL where the reinforcement has yielded. For solicl slabs, the effect
is significant lvhere the depth of the steel beam is only twice that ofthe slâb," but diminishes
as tbis ralio incrcascs.
In composite plate girders with vertic,al stiffeners, the concrete slab can contribute to the
anchorage of a tension field in the web,n' but the shcar connectors must then be designed for
vertical forces (c1ar se 6.2.2.3( 2 ))-The tension fleld model used in EN 1993- l -5 is discussed in Aouse 6.2.2.3(2)
the Designers' Guùle to EN 199J-2.4 Sirce the additional tcnsion fleld supported by the
flangcs must be anchored at both upper and lower surfaces of the web, the weaker flange

79
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

0 Svbw,Fd

Fig. 6.6. Shear moment interaction for Class I and 2 cross-secrions (â) with shear buckling and
(b) wirhour shear buckling

will govern the conlribution ofthe flanges. I/61.p6, to shear resistancc. Comment given lalcr
on clause 6.2.2.5( 1) is relevant here.

Bending and vefticol sheor - beoms in Closs I or 2

ShÊar stress does not significantly reduce bending resistance unless the shear is quite high.
For this reason, lhe interaction mây be neglected until the shear force exceeds half the
Clouse 6.2.2.4() | shear resistance (.clause 6.2.2.1( 1 )).
Çlause 6.2.2.4(2) Both EN 1993-l-l and EN 1994-2 use a parabolic jnteraction çurye. Clause 6.?.2.4(2)
covers the case of Class 1 or 2 cross-sections where the reduction factor lor the design
yield strength of the web is (1 - p), where:
p: l(2Vy,1lVsa) - 112 (6 r)
and I/Rd is the resislance in shear (which is either the plastic shear resisLance or Lhe shear
buckling tesistance if lowcr)- The interactions tbr Class 1 and 2 cross-sections with and
without shear buckling are shown in Fig- 6.6.
For a web where the shear buckling resistânce is less than the plastic shear rssistance and
Ms,1 < Mç q,t, the flanges may make a conlribution tr/bt R,t to the shear resistance according to
EN 1993-1-5 clause 5.4(l). For moments exceeding Mina fth" plastic bending resistance
ignoriug the web), this contribution is zero as at least on€ flange is lully utilized for
bending. I,p,1 is then equal to I/6.,s3. For moments less than Mrna, lrna is equal to
l'l',na - /ur.nl.
This dcfinition of Zp,1 leads to some inconsisLency rn douse 6.2.2.4/2/ as the resistance in
bending produced therein can never be less thân M1s6. Where there is shear buckling there-
fore, it is best to consider that the inleraction with bending and shear according to c/,r6e
6.2.2.4(2) is valid for moments in excess of Mlqd only. For lower moments. the interaction
r-ith shear is covered entirely by the shear check to EN 1993-l-5 clause 5.4(l).
Where a Class 3 cross-section is treâted as an equivalent Class 2 scction and Lhe design
yield stlength of the web is reduced to allo\.v for vertical shear- the effect on a section in
hogging bending is to increâse the dcpth of web in con.rpression. If the change is small, the
hole-in-web model can slill be used, For a higher shear force, the new plastic neulral axis
may be within the top flange, and the hole-in-web method is inapplicable. The sectiôn
should then be treated as a Class 3 section.

Bending ond venicol shedr - bedms in Closs 3 or 4

Qouse 6.2.2.4(3) If the cross-section is eiLher Class 3 or Class 4,lben clause 6.2.2.4(3) applics and thc inter-
action should be checked using EN 1993- I -5 clause 7.1. This clause is similar to that for Class
I and 2sectiôns but an interaction equation is provided. This allows the designer to ncglect
the interaction between shear and bending moment when the design shear force is less than
50% of the shear buckling resistance based on the web contribution alone. Where the design

80
 CHAPTER 6, ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

(1834)

Fig. 6.7. Shear-moment imeraction for Class 3 and 4 cross-sections to clause 7. I of EN 1993- l-5

shear lbrce exceeds this vâlue and Mn 2 Mr}.a, the condition to be satisfied is:

l, + [r -Ir3qj (2r3 - r)2< r o (7.1) in EN 1993-1-5

whe.re t3 is the râtio Veaf l/,o*.p6 and 4' is a usage factor for bclding, Mp6f Mp1.s, based on
the plastic rnoment resistance of the section. M;ps is the design plastic bending resistance
based on a section comprising the flanges only. The definition of M6.p6 is discussed under
clause 6.2.2.5 ( 21 below.
For Class 4 sections, the calculalion of M1p1 and Mo1.p,1 must consider effective widths for
flanges, allowing for platc buckling. Mn1.qd is however calculated using Lhe gross web, regard-
less of any reduction rhât might be required for locaL buckling under direct stress. If axial
force is prescnt, EN 1993-l'5 clause 7.1(4) requires âppropriate reduction lo be made to
M1,p,1 and Mo1,p6. Discussion of axial force is given before Example 6.4.
The interactiolr for Class 3 and 4 beans is illustrâted in Fig. 6.7. The full contribution to
the sheâr resistânce lrom the web, I/b*,Rd, js obtained at a moment of M;p6. For smaller
moments, the coexisting shear can increâse further due to the flange shear contribution,
I/s1p6, from clause 5.4 of EN 1993-1-5. provided that the web conlribution is less thân the
plâstic resistânce. The applied bending momcnl must additionall), not exceed the elastic
bending resistance; that is, the accumulâted sûess must not exceed one of the limils in
clattse 6.2.1.5(2). This truncates the interaction diagram in Fig. 6.'7 àt a moment ôf
M"1p1. The ûroment must also not exceed that for Iateral-torsionâl buckling,
The value ol Ms6 for use in the interaction with Class 3 and 4 cross-sections is not clearly
defined. C/oilse 6.2.2.4(3) states only thar EN l99l-l-5 clause 7.1 is applicable 'using the
calculated stresses ol the composite sectlor". These stresses âre dependent on the sequence
of construction and can includc sclf-equilibrating stresses such as those from shrinkâge
which contribute no net moment. There was no problem with interpretation in earlier
drafts as 41. Lhc accumulated stress divided by the appropdate stress limit, was used in the
interaction r'âther thân t, .
For compatibility lvith the use of MDl.R,l in the interâction expression (based on the cross-
section at the time considered) it is recommended here that MF,t is taken as the greatest value
of (Io1) try'2, u'here Xo; is the total accumulated stress at an extreme fibre ând I{/ is the elastic
modulus of the effeqtive section at the same fibre at the time considered- This bending
momentJ when applied to the cross-section at thc time considered, produces stresses at the
extrcme fibres which are ai least as great as those âccumulâted.
The reason for the use ofplastic hending properties il the irtcraction for Class 3 and Class
4 beams needs sorne explanation. Test results on symmetric bare steel beams with Class 3 and
Class 4 websoo and also computer simulàtions on composite bridge beams with unequal
flanges" showed very weak interâction with shear. The former physical tests showed

8l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994.2

virtually no interaction at all and the latter typically shorved sone minor interaction only
after 80% of the sheâr resistance had been reached. The use of a plastic resistance
moment in the interaotion helps to force this observed behavioul as seen in Fig. 6.7.
No distinction is made for beams witb longjtudinally stiffcncd webs, which can have less
post-buckling strength when overall rveb panel buckling is critical. There are limited test
results for such beams and the approach leads to an interaction with shear only at very
high percentages of the web shear resistance. A safe option is to replace r71 by 41 in the
interaction expression. For composite beams with longitudinally stiffened webs, 171 can be
interpreted âs the usage faclor based on accumulated stress and the stress limits in c/a&re
6.2.1.5(2).
Various thcories for oost-critical behaviour in shear of rvebs in Class 3 or 4 under conl-
bined brnding ând vertical shear have bccn comparcd with 22 test rcsults from composite
beams.n' [t was found that the methôd of EN 1993-l-5 gives good predictions for web
panels of width/depth ratio exceeding 1.5, and is conservative for shorter panels.
Checks of barc steel flanges of box girders are covered in the Designcrs' Guide tc., EN 1993-2."
For open steel boxes, clause 7.1(5) of EN 1993-l-5 clearly does not apply to the reinforced
concrcte top flange. For composite flangcs, this clause should bc applied to the steel part of
the composile flange, but the efiective âreâ of the steel pârt may be tâken as the gross area
(reduced for shear lag if applicable) for all loads applied afler the concrete flange has been
cast, provided thât the sheâr connectors are spaced in accordance wrth Tahb 9.,1. Shear
buckling need not be considered in the calculation of tr. Since most continuous box-girder
bridges will be in Class 3 or 4 at supports, the restriction to elastic bending resistance forced
by clause 7.1(5) ofEN 1993-l-5 should not be unduly conservative. The use ofelastic analysis
also facilitates addition of any distortional warping and transverse distortional bending
stresses developed.

Bending ond verticol sheor - oli Closses

Qouse 6.2.2.4(4) Clquse 6.2.2.4(4) confirms thât when the depth ofweb in compression is increased to allow
for shear, the resulling change in the plastic neutral axis should be ignored u'hen classifying
the web. The reduction ofsteel strength to represent the effect on bending rcsistance ofshear
is only a model to match test results- To add the sophistication of reclassifying the cross-
section would be an unjustified complexity, The scatter of data for section classification
further makes reclâssiflcation unjustited- The issue of reclassification does not ârise when
using EN 1993-1-5 clause 7.1 as th€ interaction with shear is given by an interacdon expres-
sion, The môvement of the ncutral aris is never determinerl.
Clause 6.2.2.5(l ) Clause 6.2,2.5 ( 1) refers to the contribution of flânges to the resistânce of the $€b to buck-
ling in shear. It permits thc contribution of the flange in EN 1993-1-5 ulausc 5-4(1) to be
based on the bare steel flange even if it has the larger plastic moment resistânce. It implies
that where this is done, the weaker flange is being assisted by the concrete slab in anchoring
the tension field. From claute 6.2.2.3(2), thc sbear connection should then be designed for
the relevant vertical force. This additional check can be avoided by neglecting the ooncrete
contribution in calculâting tr/brRd.
Clause 6.2.2.5(2) The plastic bending resistânce of the fianges, M6.pa, is detned 1n cluse 6.2.2.5(2) for
composite sections as the design plastic resistance of the ellective section excludirg the
ste€l web. This implies a plastic neutral axis within the stronger flange (usually the composite
one). Clausc 7.1(3) ofEN 1993-l-5 allows M1q,j to be taken as the product ofthe strength of
the weaker flange and 'the distance between the centroids of the flanges'. This givcs a slightly
lower result tbr a composite beam than application ofthe rule in EN 1994-2. The deflnition in
EN 1994-2 is in faqt also used in EN 1993-l-5, clauses 5,4(2) and 7.1(l).
It is stated in clâuse 7.1(1) ofEN 1993-l-5 Lhat thc intcraction cxprcssion for bending and
shear is vafid only rvhere 4t Z Mr R,tlM"r.s,t From the definition of tr, this condition is
Mra ) Mrta. Where it is nôt satisfied 1as in Exampte 6.5). the hending moment MEd cân
be resisted entirely by the flanges of the section. The web is not involved, so there is no
interaction between bending and shear unless the sl.rear resistance is to be enhanced by the
flange contribution in EN 1993-l-5, clause 5.4- In such cases, Lhe check on interaction

82
 CHAPTER 6. ULÎIMATE LIIYIT STATES

between bending ând shear is effectively carried out using thât clâuse as illustrated in Figs 6.6
and 6.7, No such condition is stated for 41. so it should not be applied when 41 is replaced by
41 whcn required by clause 7.1(5) of EN 1993-1-5.

Effea of compressive oxiol force

CLuse 6.2.2.5( I ) makcs clear that 'axial force' means a forcc NEd acting on the composite
cross-section, or an axial force Nu.ç6 applied to the steel element before the member
becomes composite. It is not the axial force in the steel element that contdbutes to the
bending resistance of a composite beam.
For Class 1 or 2 cross-sections, the resistânce tô bending, shear and axial forcc should be
delermined by first reducing the design yield strength of the web in accordance wrth cleuse
6.2.2.4(2)and then checking the resùlting cross-section under bending and a-rial lbrce-
For Class 3 or 4 cross-sections. clause 7.1(4) of EN 1993-l-5 is also relevant. This
cflectively requires the plastic bending resistance Mol.pa in lhe interâction expression of
EN 1993-l-5 clause 7.1(l) to be reduced to MoLu,na (using the notatiorr oï clause 6.7.3.û
where axial force is present, The resistance Mçp1 should be reduced by the factor in clause
5.4(2) ofEN 1993-1-5. which is as follows:
Nea
(s.9) in EN 1993- 1-5
['- (A + AD).frr/-yN1}
This is written for bare steel beams and lfl ând lD are the areas of the steel flanges. These are
assumed herc to bc resisting the whole of the force Ns,l, presumably because in this tension-
teld model, the web is fully used already.
For oomposite beams in hogging zones, equation (5,9) above could be replaced by:
Nuo
fr- (Ail + An)flrlt.'vlo l (D6.2)
l- + A"f"a)
where ,4, is the âreâ of the lôngitudinal reinforcement in the top slab.
For sagging bending, the shear force is unlikely to be high enough to reduce the resistance
to axial force and bcnding. On the assumplion thal Lhe axial force is applied only to the
composite section, the value of Mpl tô use in the interaction expression can be derived
from the accumulated stresses as suggested above for checking combined bending and
sheâr, but the uniform stress component lrom the axial force should not be considered in
calculating Eo,. If the axial force, determined as acting at the elasLic centroid of the compo-
site section, acts at another level in thc model used for the resistânce, the moment arjslng
from this change in its line of actiôn shôuld be included in Mp6. This is illustrâted in
Exan.role 6.5.
Clause 7.1(4) and (5) of EN 1993-1-5 rcquires lhat where axial force is plesent such that the
whole web is in compression, .rtr41p,1 should be taken as zero in the interaction expression, and
41 should bc replaced by 41 (which is defined in EN 1993-1-5 clause 4.6), This leads to the
interaction diâgrâm shown in Fig. 6.8. The limit 41 > M;pa/Mo1.p1 for validity of expression

Fig. 6.8. Shear-moment interaction for Class 3 and 4 cross-sections with webs fully in compression

83
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994.2

(7.1) given in EN 1993-l-5 clause 7.1(l) is not applicable in this case. The expression is
applicable where 11 ) 0.
The application of this requirement is unclear lor heams built in stagcs. These could have
axial load applied scparately to the bare steel section and to the composite section. A sal'e
interpretation, given the relatively small anrouut of tcsting on asymmetric scclions, would
be to take MtRd as z€ro wherever the \ryhole web is in compression under the built-up stresses.
For composite bddges,4l calr be interpreted as ihe usage làctor based on accunulated stress
and the stress limits in c/aasc 6.2.1-5(2). However, this is 1ike1y' to be conservative at high
shear, given thc n'eak interaction between bending and sheâr found in the tests on composite
beams discussed above.

Vertical sheor in o concrete flonge

Clouse 6.2.2.5(3) Claase 6.2,2.5(3) gives the resistancc to vcrticàl sbcar in a concrete flange of a compositc
beâm (reprcsented here by a design shear strength, uRd.c) by reference to clause 6.2.2 of
EN 1992-2. That clause is inlended mainly to enable higher shear strengths to be used in
the presence of in-plane prestress. A Note in EN 1992-2 recommends values for its three
nationally detcrmined pararreters (NDPs). Where the flânge is in tension, as in a continuous
composite beam, the reduced strcngths obtained can be over-conservative. In EN 1994-2, the
Note rccommends dillerent NDPs. based on recent research.T0 With these !âlues. and for
efl'ective slâb depths d ol' at least 200 mm and 7c : 1.5, the rules are:

,Eoo\ (100p/f1)rË
'na,":OrO(r+ 'l o) * 0.l2o"o (a)

and
3/2
i,na." > O.O:: (t + f|1' + o.tzo", (b)

where: p: Allbd <0.02

o,, : N;61A" < 0 2J",r (compression positive) (c)

and ly'gd is the in-plane axial force (negative iftensile) in the slab ofbreadth ô and with tensile
reinforcenent 1,, and./11 is in N,immr units.
It can be inlcrred lrom Fig. 6.3 in EN 1992-2 that,4. is the reinforcement in tension under
the loading 'which prôduces the shear torce considered' (a wording that is used in clause 5.3-3.2
of BS 5400-4). Thus, 1br shear from a wheel load, only one layer of reinfôrcement (top or
botlom^ as âppropdate) is rclevant. even though both layers may be resisting global tension.
Il Lhus appears from equâtion (a) that the shear strength dcpends on the tensile force in the
slab. This awkward interaction is usually avoided, because EN 1994-2 gives a further
research-based recommendation, thaL where o"o is tensile, it should not be taken as
greater than 1.85N/rmri2. The effect of this is now illustrâted, with d:200mm.
Let the reinforccment ratios be p, : q.919 lbr the'tensile reinforcement', Êz :0.005 for
Lhe other layer, with/11 - 40N/mm2- antl a*: -l-R5N/mmr. From equation (a) above:

oi,1,.:0.1 x 2(1.0 x40)ri3 - 0.12 x 1.85:0.68 0.22 - 0-46 N/mn.r2

and equation (b) does not govern. From equation (c) with values ofa"o, Nsl andl âll negâtive:
o* : Np1/1" : t( f,A") I A, :i(0.0 I + 0 005)àd I bh : o.}tsf.d Ih
where the summation is tbr both layers of reinforcement, becâuse a.o is the mean tensile
stress in the slab if uncracked and unreinforced-
For /z : 250 mm, the stress ocp then reaches I .85 N1mmz when the meân tensile stress in
the reinforcement is l54N/mm2, which is a low value in practice. At higher values, up,1." is
indepcndent of the tensilÊ force in the sJab. though the resulting shear strength is usually
lower than that fron.r BS 5400-4.
In the transverse direction, Ms6 is zero unless there is composite action in both directions,
so for checking punching shear, two different shear strengths may be relevant.

84
CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

be used as a conservative approach.

'.1
Stresses from oxÀai comÈression
Forthegrosscrackedcross.section'l:43000mm2,so:
o^: 48A0143.0 = I l2N/mmz compression
compresslon

From Table 4.1 in EN I ).

rP I and k" 4.0
= 1^^Â1. ÀA

From Example 6.J. for Lhe web. Lt.

E1t - ^/,
c1t : e+

Assuming/y 345 Nimm). as in Example 6. l, lhen 5 - 0.825.

From EN 1991-l-5 clause 4.4(2) and Table4.l:
, .

i/,
-i"
:-
À":
' 28.4e 1/ k, 28.4

À-" : 261 mm
 CHAPTÊR 6. ULTII'4ATE LIMIT STATES

on,hol : +(9.5 + 82.4) + I38 : 230 N/mm2

Interoction with vertial sheor

The whole of the il.eb is in compression. so from clause 7.1(51 ofEN 1993-l-5, MrRd :0
and 41, not r;1, is used. For the steel botton flange, which governs,

nt :2301345 : A.67

Flom equatior (7.1) of EN 1993-l-5, with ?3 = 0.60 ând ,tr{f Rd : 0.

r11 * (2ù - l)'- u.67 I 0.04 - 0,71

This is less than 1.0, so the cross-section is verifietl.

87
 CHAPTER 6, ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

6.3. Filler beam decks

6.3.l. Scope
The encâsement of stccl bridge beams in concrctc provides several advantages for design:
. It enables a Class I wcb to be upgraded to Class 2, and the slenderness limit for a Class 2
comprcssion flange to be increased by 40o/o (cktuse 5.5.3).
. It pleyents lateral torsional buckling.
. It prevents shear buckling (r:luuse 6-3.4( l )).
. It greatly increases the resistânce ofthc bridge deck to vehicular impact or terrorist âttack.
These design advantages may not howevcr leatl to the most economic solution. The use of
longitudinal flller beams in new constructiôn is not common at presenL.
Thcrc are a gleat number of gcometric, natelial ând workmanship-related restrictions
given in c/ca.ic.r 6.3.1(l) to /4) which have to be met in order to use the application rules
for the design of filler beams. These are necessâry because the rules derive mainlv front
existing practice in the UK and from clause 8 of BS 5400:Part 5." No explicit check of
the sheal connection bctween steel beams and concrete (provided by friction and bond
only) is required.
Clause 6.3.1(l) cxcludes lully-encased fillcr bcams frorr the scope of c/aus? 6.J. This is Qouse 6.3.1(l )
bccause there are no widely-accepted design rules for longitudinal shear in fully-cncascd
beams without shear connectors.
Clause 6.3.1(2) requires the beams to be ofuniform cross-seotion and to have a rveb depth Aouse 6.3.1(2)
and flange width rvithin the ranges found lbr rolled H- or I-sections. This is due to thc lack of
existing examplcs of filler beams rvith cross-sections other than these. There is no require-
ment lbr the beâms to bc H- or I-sections, but hollow sections would be outsicle the scope
of clau.se 6.3.
Clause 6.3.1(3) pcrmits spans to be either simply suppoded or continuous with square or Clause 6.3.1(3)
skcw supports. This clarilication is based on existing practicc, and takes accounL ofthc nlany
other restrictions.
Clause 6.3.1(4) contains Lhe majority of the rÊstrictions which relaLe mainly Lo ensuring Aause 6.3.1(4)
the adcquacy of the bond between stcel beam and concrete. as follows.
. Steel bcams should not be curved in plan. This is because the torsion produced would
lead to additional bond stresses between thc shuctural steel and concrete, for.which no
application rules are available.
. The dcck sker,i' should not exceed 30'. This limits the magnitude ôf torsionâl moments,
which can become large with high skew.
. Thc nominal depth, /r, of thc beam should lie between 2l0mm and ll00mm. This is
because ânything lcss Lhan 210 mm should be trcated as reinforoed conorete, and there
could in future be rolled sections deeper than 1100mm.
. A maximum spacing of the steel beams is set: the lesser of /r/3 + 600 mm and 750 mm.
This reflects existing pracrice and limits the longitudinal sbcar flow (and bond stresses)
betwccn Lhe concrete and the stccl beam.
. The minimum concrete cover to the top ofthe stccl beams is restricted to 70 mm. A larger
valuc may howeler be necessary to provide âdequâte Çover to the reinforcement- The

89
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

maximrLm covcr is linitcd to Lhc lcsscr of 150 mm and /ri 3, based on existing practice and
to limit the longitudinal shear stress developed.
A further restriclion is given such thal lhc plastic neutral axis for sagging bending
remains below the level of the bottom of the top flânge, since cracking of thc concrete
in the vicinity of the top flange could reduce the bond stress developed. This rule could
only govcrn wherc tht) steel beams werc unusualLv small. The side cover to the lop
flange should be ât leâst 80 mm.
The clear distance betweer top flanges should not be lcss than l50mm so that the
concrete can be adeqrLaLcly compacted. This is essential to ensure tlat the required
bond to the steel is obtâined.
Botton'l transvcrsc rcinforcement should be provided (through holes in thÊ beam webs)
such that transverse moments developed can be carried. A minimum bar size and
nraximun.r spacing are specified. Minimum reinforccmcnt, here and elsewhere, should
also satisfy the requirements ol EN 1992.
Normal-density concrete shor.rld be used, This is because thers is little experience of
tllcr-bcam conslruotion with concrete olhcr than normal-density, where the bond
characteristics could be affected.
The flange should be de-scaled. This again is to ensure good bond hetween the concrete
and the steel bcam.
For road and railwal, bridges the holes in steel webs should be drilled- This is discussed
under clause 6.3.2( 2 ).

6.3.2. General
Clouse 6.3.2(l ) Clause 6,3.2(1) lefels to other clauses for the cross-section checks, which should be
conducted at ultimate and serviceability limit statcs- Thcse references do not require a
check of torsion as discussed below.
Clouse 6.3.2(2) Clause 6,3,2(2) requires beams rvith bolted connections or welding Lo be checked âgâinst
l'atiguc. Thc implicalion is that filler beams wjthout thcse need not be checked lbr latigue,
even though they will contain stress-raising holes through rvhich the transverse reinforce-
ment passes. For road and lailway bddges. where fatigue loading is significant, c/ause
6.3.1/4; requires that all holcs in çcbs are drilled (rather thân punched), which in.tproves
the latigue category of the detail.
Clouse 6.3.2(3) Claase 6.3,2(3) is a reminder lo refer tù thc relaxations for crôss-section Class in c/aase

Clouse 6.3 .2(4) îcchanical sl.rear connection need not beprovidcd for liller tnams (clluse 6.3,2(4)). 'Ihrs
reliance on bond improves the relative economy of tller-beam construction but leads to
many of the restrictions noted above :.lndet douse 6.-l.l.

6.3.3. Bending moments

Aause 6.j.3(l ) The resistânce of cross-sections to 6endrng, clause 6.3.3(1), is determined in the same way as
for uncased sections of the same Class, with Class determined in accordance wrth clause
-5.5.-î. The relaxations rn cluute 5.5.3 should generally ensure that beams can be designed
plastically and thus inposed deformâtions generally need not be considered at ultimâte
limit states (the commcnts madc undcr tlau;e 5.4.2.2(6) rcfer).
Laterâl torsiônâl buckling is not mentioned n clause 6.3.3(l )because a filler-beam deck
is inherently stable against lateral torsional buckling in iLs complctcd state due to its large
trânsverse stiffness. The steel beams are likely to be susceptible during construction and
thc title of r/urr:r ô.J.i pfovides a warning.
For the influence ol'vertical shcar on resistance to bending, reference is made to the rules
lbr uncased beams. The shear resistance of filler-beirm decks is high, so interaction is
unlilely. hut it should bc eheeked for conLinuous \pirn\-
Aause 6.3.3(2) In the transverse direction- a filler-beam deck behaves as a reinforced concrete slab. C/ause
6.-3.3(2) therefbre makes lefèr'ence to EN 1992-2 for the bending resistance in the transverse

90
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

direcLion. A Note to clause 9.1( 103) of EN t992-2 makes minimum reinlbrcement a

nâtionaLly detcrmined parameter.
No requirement is givcn for a check on torsion. rvhich will bc produced to some degree in
both longitudinal and transverse directions of the global analysis models allowed by c/arrse
5.1.2.9(3). Neglect of torsion is justified by thc ljmits imposed on gcomctry in r:lause
6.3.1(4). pafiic\Iarly the limil on skew angle, ând by current UK prâctice.

6,3.4. Vertical shear

Thc sir.r.rplest calculation of shear rcsistance involves bâsing the resistance on that of the steel
beam alonc- Claase 6.J,1( I ) indicates that this resistance can be calculated using tl.re plastic Aouse 6.3.4(l )
shear resistânce and so ignoring shear buckling- The clausc docs pcrmit a contribution lrom
the concrete to be tâken. Clauses 6,3.1(2) aîd 6.3.4(3), respectively, cover a method of Clause 6.3 .4(2)
determining lhe shear fbrce that may be carried on the reinforced concrete section and the Aouse 6.3.4(3)
determination of the rcsjstance of this concrete section. a'Lrr,!a 6.3.4f31 applies also to
shear resistance in the transyerse dircclion.

6.3.5. Resistance and stability of steel beams during execution

Cltuse 6.3,5 ( I ) refers to EN 1991- 1- I and EN 1993-2 for the check of the bare steel bearns. Clouse 6.3.5( I)
This covers both cross-section resistance and lateral torsional bucklins. The latter is an
important considerâtion prior to hardening of the concrete.

6.4. Lateral-torsional buckling of composite beams

6.4.l. General
It is assumed in this section lhat in completed bridges, the steel top flanges of all composite
beams will bc stabilized laterâlly by conncctjon to a concrete or composite slab (cluuse Çlouse 6.4.1(t )
6.4,1(I)). The rules on naximurlr spacing of connectors in ckrutie 6.6-5.5(l) and, (2)
relate to the classification of the top flange, and thus only to local buckling. For lateral
torsional buckling, the relevant rule. given in clause 6.6.5.5(31, is lcss rcstrictivc.
Any steel top flânge in comprcssion that is not so stâbilized should be checked for laterâl
buckling (c/azse 6.4,1(2)'1 using clausc 6.3.2 of EN 1993-l-l to determine the reduction Clouse 6.4.1(2)
factor for buckling. For conpleted bridges, this applics to thc hottom {lange adjacenl to
intermediate supports in continuous construction. In a composite beâm. the conclete slab
provides lateral restraint to the steel member, and also restrains its rotatior] abouL a longilu-
dinal axis. Lateral buckling is always associated with distortion (change of shape) of the
cross-section (Fig, 6.1l(b)). This is not true 'lateral torsional' buckling and is often ref'erled
to as 'distortional lateral' buckling. This form ol buckling is covcrcd by <:laus<:.t 6-1.2 and
6..1.J. The general method o1 clause 6.4.2. based on the use of â computed value of the
elastic critical mon.rent M.., is applicabLe. but no detailed guidance on the calculation of
M", is given in either EN 1993-l-1 or EN 1994-2.
For completed bridges, the bottom flange rray be in compression over most of a span
when that span is relatively short ând lightly loadcd and adiacent spars are fully loaded.
Bottom flanges in comprcssion should always be restrained laterally at suppôrts. It shôuld
not be assumed that a point of contrallexure is equivalent to a lateral restraint.
Design methods for composite beâms must take account of rhe hending of the weh.
Fig. 6.ll(b). They differ in detail from the rrethod of clâuse 6.3.2 of EN 1993-l-1. but the
same imperfection factors and buckling curvcs are used, in the absc[ce of any betler-
established alternatives.
Thcreferenceinclause6.4.l(31toENl993-l-lpr.ovidesageneralmethodl'or.usewhere Clouse 6.4.1 (3)
tlre method in clnuse 6.4.2 is inapplicable (e.g. for a Class 4 beam). Clutne 6.4.3 makes a
similar reference but adds a refercnce to a further method available in clause 6.3.4,2 of
EN 1993-2. During unpropped constrlrction, prior Lo thc prcsencc of a hardcncd dcck
slab. the buckling verification can be more complicated and often involves overâll buckling

9l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

P.

Fig.6.ll. (a) U-frame action and (b) distortional lateral buckling

of a blaced pâir of beâms. This situation is discussed further at the end of section 6.4.3.2 of
this guide.

6.4.2. Beams in bridges with uniform cross-sections in Class l, 2 and 3

This general method of design is rvritten with distortional buckling of bottom flânges in
mind. It would not apply, 1'or examplc, to a mid-span cross-section of â beam with the
slab at bottom-flânge level (Fig. 6-12). The reference to 'unifbrm cross-section' in the title
of Lhc clause is not intended to exclude minor changes suqh as rcinforcement details and
effects of cracking of concrete. The method cânnot be used for Class 4 cross-sections,
wlricl.r is a significant limitation lbr largel bridges, in which case thc methods of chuse
6.4.-l should be used- The latter methods are more general.
The method is based closely on clause 6.3.2 of EN 1993- I - l. There is correspondence in the
Clouse 6.4.2(l) dcllnitjors of the reduction làctor 11-1, cl ase 6.4,2(1), and thc relative slenderness, Às1.
clause 6.4.2(4). The reduction factor is applied to the design resistance n.romenl Mp6,
Aause 6.4.2(2) whicl.r is defined in claases 6,4.2(2) and (J). Expressions for Mq6 arc given by references
Clouse 6.4.2(3) to clause 6.2. It should be noted that these include the design yield strength.Âd whjch
should, in this case, be calculated using 1a1 rather than Juo becausc this is â check of
instability. If the beam is lound not Lo be susceptible to lâteral torsional buckling (i.e.
xrr : 1.0), it would be reasonable to replâce ?vr with içn.
The detenlination of M11 fol a Class 3 section differs from that of Mel.R,r tn clause
6.2.I .1(6 ) only in that the limiting stress/11 for concrete in compression need not be consid-
ered. lt is necessary to take account of the method of construotion.
The buckling resistancc momcnt M6.p,1 Eiver 6y equation /6.6i must exceed the highest
applied mornent Mr.t within the unbr'âced length of compression flange considcred.

Fig. 6. | 2. Example of a cômposite beâm with the slab in tension a! mid-span

92
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIIYIT STATES

Loteml buckling for o 6lass 3 cross-section with unprcpped .onstruction

The influence of method of construclion on verification of a Class 3 composite scction lor
lateral buckling is as follows. Frcm equatbn (6.41,
Mna : M.r.ra - M,66 + È,1.1",pa (a)

where subscript c is used for the action ellect on thc composite mcmber-
From,4u,trion (6.6). the \erilicrtion is:
Mrt: Maea * M..ra < XLrMer.Rd 6)
which is:

lr-r à (M",r:a I M.,r:a)/M"t,na : Mpal M a,pa (")

The total hogging bending momcnt MEd may be almost indepenclenl of lhe mcthod ol'
consLruction. However, the stress limit thât determines Mct.Rd may be different for propped
and unpropped construction. If it is bottom-flange cotnpression in both cases, then M"1,a6 is
lower lbr unpropped construction, and the limit on 1Lr lrom equation (c) is more severe.

Elostic criticol buckling moment

Clause 6.4.2(4) requires the determination of thc clastic critical buckling moment, tâking Aouse 6.4.2(4)
accoLrnt of the relcvanl restraints, so their stiffnesses hâve to be calculated. The lateral
restraint fiom the slab can usually bc assumed to be rigid. Where tbe strucLure is such
that a pair of steel beams and a concrete flange attached to them can be modelled as an
inverted-U frame (clause 6.4,2(5) antl Fig.6,10), continuous along the span, the rotational Aause 6.4.2(5)
rcstraining stiffness at top-flange level, À,, can bc lound from clause 6.4.2(6).In the defini- Clouse 6.4.2(6)
tion of stiffness /r,, llcxibiJity arises ll'om two sources:
. bending of thc slab, which may not be negligible: liÈ1 from equation (6.9)
. bending of the steel ['eb, which predominates: I /k2 from equation (6.]0 ) .
A third source offlexibility is potentially the sheâr connection but it hrs been tbund'r thJt
this can be neglected providing thc requirements of rlause 6.4.2(5) are mel.
Therc is a similar 'discrete U-frâme' concept, which appears to be relevânt to composite
beans where the steel sections have vertical web stilTèners. The shear connectors clùsest to
those sliffeners would then hâve to tr:rnsmit almost thc whole of the bending moment l"/r
(Fig. 6.11(a)), where F is now a force on a discrete U-frame. The flexibility of the shear
connection may then not be negligible, nor is it certain that the shear connection and the
adjacent slab would be sulTciently strong.72 Where stifleners are present, the l€sistance of
the connection âbove each stillcner lo repeated transverse bending should be eslablished,
as there is a risk of local shear failure within Lhc slab- Thcre is at present no simple
method ofverification. This is the reason fbr the condition thât the web should be unstiffened
rn clause 6.4.2(51fà1. The restriction nccd not apply if bracings (flexible or rigid) are
attached Lo thc stiffenels, but in this case the model referred to in clause 6.4.3.2 would be
used.
Clsuse 6.4.2(7 ) allows the St Venant torsional sti{Tncss to be included in the calculâtion. Clause 6.4.2(7)
This is often neglcctcd in lateral torsional buckling models bâsed on buckling ofthe bottom
chord. such as thât provided in EN I993-2 clause 6.3.4,2.
No formula is provided fbr the elastic critical buckling moment for the U-frâme model
described above. rllcr could be determined fiom a finite-element model of the beam with a
latcral and torsional restraint âs set out above. ALtcrnativcly, textbook solutions could be
used. One such method was given in Annex B of FNV 1994- 1-1r0 and is now in lhe Desigzers'
Guicle to EN 1994-1-1.'

6.4.3. General methods for buckling of members and frames

6.4.3. l. Generol method
Refèrence is made to EN 1993-2 clause 6.3.4 where the method oT clause 6.4,2 lbr beams or
the nonlineâr method of clause 6.7 for columns does not aonlv.
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

EN 1993-l-1 clause 6.3.4 gives â general method of evaluating the conbincd effect of
axial loa.d ancl mono-axial bending applied in the plane oi Lhc structure, without use of an
interaction expression. The mcthod is valid for asymmetric and non-uniïbrm members
and also for entire plane û'arnes. In principle, this method is more realistic since the structute
or member docs, in reality, buckle il a singlc mode with a single'system slenderness'.
Intelaction formulae assume separate modes under each individual action with different
slendemesses that have to subsequently be combined to givc an overall verificatlon, The
disadvantage is that soltware capable of both elastic critical buckling analysis and second-
order analysis is lequired. Additiônally, shell elenents will be needed to determine elâstic
critical modcs rcsulting from flexural loading.
An altelnâtive method is to use second-order analysis with imperf'ections to covcr hoth in-
plane and out-of-plane buckling eilects as discussed in secLions 5.2 and 5.3 of this guide, but
this has the same dilllcultics as abovc.
The basic veriflcation is performed by determining a single slendemess for out-of-plane
buckling, which can include con.rbined lateral and latcral torsional buckling. This slender-
ness is a slenderness for the whole system and applies to âll members included within jt. It
lakes the usual Eurocode fbrm as fbllows:

i
"'P
: ,'huxr
.\,""
(6.6a) in EN 1993-l - I
V
where: ou1,.ç is the minimum load factor applicd to the design loads required to reach the
chârâcteristic resistance of the most critical cross-section ignoring out-of-plane
buckling but including monents from second-ordcr cllccts and imperfecttons rn-
planc. and
.!.. op is the minimum load factor applied to the design loads requircd to give elastic
critical buckling in an out-of-plane modc, ignoring in-plane buckling.
The first stage of calculation requires an analysis to be performed to dctcrmine au1,1. ln-
pJanc sccond-order eflècts and imperlections must bc included in the ânalysis because they
are not ôtherwise included in the resistance formula used in this method. If lhe structure
is not prone to sigdlicant second-order ellects as discussed in section 5.2 of this guide,
then first-order analysis may bc uscd. Thc flexural stiffness to be used is important in deter-
Clouse 6.4.3.t(l) mining second-older effects and this is recognized by the text ol clause 6.4.3.1(1). It will be
conservatrve to use the crackcd sti[Fncss Eâ12 throughout if the bridge is nodelled rvith beam
elen.rents. If a Iinite-element shell model is used, the reinfbrcen.rent can bc modelled and the
conorete neglected so as to avoid an overestimation Of stiffncss in cracked zones. Out-ol'-
plane second-order effects may need to be suppressed.
Each cross-section is verified using the intel'action expression in clause 6.2 ofEN 1993- 1-1,
but using charactcristic resistances. Effectivç cross-scctions should be used for Class 4 sections.
The loads are all increased by a factor o.,1.L until the characteristic resistanoe is reachcd. The
simplc and conservative verification given in clause 6.2.1(7) of EN 1993-l-l becomes:

{+*ffi< '
o (D6.4)

rvhere À'pç and My.rr include allowance fol any reduction necessary due to shear ând
torsion, if separate checks of cross-scclion resistance are to be avoided in addition to the
buckling check being considered here. Ns6 and M1.r:(] are the axial forces and moments at
a cross-section resulting fiom the design loads. If first-order analysis is allowable, the load
factor is determincd fronr:

Iô (Dô.5)

rvhich is given in a Note to clause 6.3.4(4) of EN 1993-1-1.

If second-order analysis is ncccssary. au11 is found by increasing the imposed loads
progressively until one cross-section reaches firilure according to expression (D6.4)- This is

94
 CHAPTER 6. ULTII'4ATE LIMIT STATES

necessary as the system is no longer linear and results fuom onc analysis cânnot sinply be
lactorcd up when the imposed loacl is increased.
The second stâge is to determine the lowest loâd faclor o",,uo to reach clastic cdticâl
buckling in an out-of-plane mode but ignoring in-plane buckling modes. This will typically
require a linite-element modelwith shell elements to predict adequatell, the laLcral torsionâl
buckling behaviour'. The reinlbrcement can be modelled and the concrete neglected so as to
avoid an ovcrcstinraLion of stilTncss in crackcd zoncs- If the load làctor can ouly be
determined separâtely for axial loads cr.,y ând bending moments a".na, as might be the
case if standard textbook solutions are used, the overall load factor could be determined
from a simnlc intcraction couation such as;

Clcr.on (!cr.N 0cr.À,I

is calculated for the entire system according to equation (6.64)

Next. an overall slenderness
of EN 1993-l-1. This slenderness refers only to out-of-plane effects as discusscd above
because in-plane eflects are separately included in the determination of action effects. A
rcduction factor Xnp for this slcnderness js lhen detcrmincd. This reduction Iactor deperds
in principle on \ryhether the mode of buckling is predominantly flexural or lateral-torsional
as the reducLion curves can sometimes differ. The simnlest solution is to take the lower of the
reduction factors for out-of-plane flexural buckling, tr, and lateral torsional buckling, 1s1,
li'om clauses 6,3.1 and 6.3.2, lespectively, of EN 1993-2. For bridges, the recommended
rcduction lactors arc thc samc but lhc National Anncx could âlter this. This reduclion
fâctor is then âpplied to the cross-sectiôn check performed in stage l. but this time using
design values ofthe maierial properties. Ilthe cross-section is verified using the simple inter-
action cxprcssion (D6.4)- thcn thc vcrification taking lateral and lâtelal torsional buckling
into account becomes:
,!ea Ml ra
(D6.6)
r- :
_ttRk/ïVt _lyl \ Rk/,aMt Àoû
-
It lbllows liom equation (D6.5) and expression (D6.6) that the verjfication is:
XopûùLt.k
> 1.0 (D6.7)
/N4l

Alternatively. separate reduction 1àctors l for axial load ard 111 for bending moment can
be determined for each effect separately using the same slendetness. If the cross-scction is
verified using the sirnple interaction expression (D6.4). then the vcriflcation taking lateral
and lateral Lorsional bucklins into aocount becomes:
Nlr M t.Ed
*U'r- : "
(D6 8)
vtl*r/.,* - t *L1,
It should be noted that this procedure can be conservative where the element go vcrn in g the
cross-section check is not itself significantly allected by the out-of-plane deformations, The
method is illustrated in a qualitativc cxamplc for a stecl-on1y member in the Designers' Guide
to EN 1993-2."

6. 4.3.2. Simolifi ed method

A simplilied method is permitted for compression flanges of composiLe bcams and chords of
conposite trusses by reference to EN 1993-2 clause 6.3.4.2. Its clause D2.4 provides the
stiffness ol U-frames in trusses (and plate girders b1' analogy). The method is based on
representing lateral lorsional buckling by lateral buckling of thc compression flange. All
subsequent discussion rellers to beam llanges but is equally applicable to chords of Lrusses.
The method is primarily intended for U-frame-type bridges but can be used for othel'
typcs of flcxiblc bracing. lt also applies to lengths betwccn rigid restraints of a beam compres-
sion flange, as is found in hogging zones in steel ând côncrete composite construction. The
use ofthe n.rethod fbr l.ralf-through bridges is discussed in Lhe Designers'Guide to EN 1993-2.

95
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Scope: dislortional lateral buckling of a steel flange of a span oi an unhaunched composite

beam, wilh vârying major-âxis bending moment, rigid lateral suppofts at beam venical
supports, intermediêle lateral supports of stiffness Cd (either rigid or flexible) at spacing I
and/or continuous lateral restraint oi slitfness q per !nit lenglh

ls the flange susceptible to lateral buckling, to 6.3.2.4(1) of Neglect torsional

EC3-1-1, via 6.4.3.2(1) 01 EC4-2 and 6.3.4.2(1) of EC3-2? stitlness of the flange-
Simplified analysis lo
6.4.3.2(1)

Elaslic critical analysis âs a

rêstfained strut to lind Nc,ir and
iLr to EC3-2y6.3.4.2(4) Classif y discrele reskainis.
ls Cd > 4NEIL, to
EC3-2/6.3.4.2\6),

Bestraint is flexible, of
L, th€ dislâncê betwêen stifinessCd. Find q = Cd/r.
ligid'restraints = 1 L is span length of beam

ls lhere a continuous reslraint?

Find cc. Then c = cc-
Find ), to
EC3-46.3.4.2\6)
Find n 10 eq. (D6.11).
lsn<1?

Find N" to eq. (D6.12) - conservativê unless |] is an inlegrâl

number. Ëqs (6.14) in EC3-2/6.3.4.2(8) are Iess conservative

This applies for uniform compressive force over lênglh L, to EC3-2/6.3.4.2(6).

ls il required to take account ot variâtion oJ bending moment over this length?

Does the bênding momenl

chânge sign within length L?
Beplace the bendjng
moment that causes
tension in lhe llange
byMz=0
Find m from eqs (6.14) in the
Note ro EC3-2/6.3.4.2(8)

Find N"rr= ûù2E L2 bular2Elt2

Find.4Lrfrom eq. (6.10) in EC3-2l6.3.4.2(4) (END)

Fig. 6, | 3. Flow diagram for slêndêrness fôr lateral buckling of a compressed flange

The method eflccLively ignoles the torsional stiffness of the beam- This may become signifi-
cant fbr lolled steel sections but is generally not signifrcant for deeper fabricated girders.
A flou' diagram for determining the slendcrncsr [11 for a lcngth ofbeam ofuniform depth
between rigid latcral supports is given in Fig. 6.13.
EN 1993-2 clâuse 6.3.4.2 allows the slenderness for latet'al buckling to be determined from
an eigenvalue analysis ofthe compression chord. The flange (with an atlached portion ofweb

96
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LII4IT STATES

Fig. 6.14. Deflnitions for effective compression zone for a Class 3 cross-section

in the compression zone) is modelled as a strut with area ,4cff, supported by springs in the
lateral direction. These represent restraint from bracings (including discrctc U-frames) and
liom any continuous U-fiame action which might be provided by the connÊction to the
dcck slab- Buckling in thc vertical direction is assumed to be prevented by the web in this
model but checks on flange-induced buckling according to Seclion 8 of EN 1993-l-5
should be n.rade to conflnr.r this assumption. Bracirgs can be flexible, as is the casc of
bracing by discrete U-frames, or can be rigid, as is likely to be the case for cross-bracing.
(lther types of bracing, such as horizontal members at mid-height between beams together
with plan bracing or a deck slab, may be rigid or flcxiblc depending on their stiffness as dis-
cussed below.
Elastic critical buckling analysis may be perfomed to calculate the critical buckling load,
1V",1,- The slenderness is then given by EN 1993-2 equâtiôn (6.10):

where 1"6 : ,4r * l*"i 3, as shown in Fig. 6.14. This approximâte delinition of,4"1 (greater
thân the flânge ârea) is necessary to ensure thât the critical stress produced for the strut is the
same as that required to produce buckling in the beam undcr bending moment. For Class 4
cross-scctions, ,{",1 is determincd making allor,r,ance for the reduction in area due to plâte
buckling.
lf smeared springs are used to modcl the sliflncss of discrete restraints such as discrcte U-
frames, the buckling load should not be tâken âs larger than that corresponding to the Euler
load of a strut between discrete bracings. If computer analysis is used, there rvould be no
particular reason to use smeared springs for discrete restraints, This approximatiôn is
generally only made when a math€matical approach is used bascd on the beam-on-elastic-
foundalion analogy, u'hich was uscd lo dcrivc the equations in EN 1993-2.

Spfing stiflnesses for discrete U-frqmes ond olher restroints

Spring sLi{Incsses for discrete U-frames may be calculated using Table D.3 from Annex D of
EN 1993-2, where values of stiffness, Cd, can be câlculâted. (It is noted that the notation C
rather than C6 is used in Table D.3.) A typical casc covcring a pair of plate girrlers with
stiffeners and cross-girders is shown in Fig. 6.15 for which the stiffness (under the unit
applied forces sho',vn) is:

(D6.e)

Section properties for stiffeners should be derived using an attached width ofweb plate in
accordance with Fig. 9.I of EN 1993-l -5 (stiffener width plus 30el*). If the cross-member is
composite. its second moment of area should be based on cracked section properties.
Equation (D6.9) also covers steel and concrete composite bridges ['ithor.rt stiffeners and
cross-girders where the cross-member sliffness is thc short-term cracked stiffness of the
deck slab ând reinforcement. ând the verticâl-member stifln€ss is based on the unstiffened
web. For continuous U-frames. consideration of this stiffness will have little eflcct in

97
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO ÊN I994-2

Neutralaxis ol
cross-g|lder

r- =t-
Fig. 6. | 5. Definitions of properties needed to calculate Cd

raising the buckling resistance, unless the length between rigid restrâints is large, and will
necessitalc an additional check of thc wcb lor the U-frame mom€nts induced. For multiple
girders, the restraint to internal girders may be derived b1' replacing 21o by 31o in the
expression for C6. Equation (D6.9) is then similar to equotion (6.3). That differs only by
the inclusion ol Poisson's ratio in the stiffness of thc web plate and by the assumption
that the point of rotation of the compression flange is ât the underside of the deck slab,
râther than some way within it.
The stiffness of olher restraints, such âs â chânnel section placed bctween membcrs al nid-
height, can be derived from a plane frarre model of the bracing system. For braced pairs of
beams or multiple beans with a common system, it will generally be necessary to consider
unit lbrces applied to the compression flanges such that the displacemenL of the flange is
maximized. For a paired U-frame, Lhc maximum displacerrent occurs with forces in opposite
directiôns as in Fig. 6.15 but this will not âlways be the case- For paired beams braced by a
mid-height channel, forces in the same dilection will probably give greater flange displacement.
A compuler model is useful where, for cxample. the flange section changes or there is a
reversal of axial stress in the length of the flânge being considered. In other simpJcr cases
the lormulae provided in clausc 6.3.4.2 of EN 1993-2 are applicable.

Elostic uitical buckling lood

The formula lbr À1".1 is derived lrom eigenvalue analysis with continuous springs. From
elastic theory (as sel out- for example, in Refs 73 ând 74), the critical load for buckling of
such a strut is:

-- .ft:t ,L2
'\crit 4 L't) ,.)1l
1L'n'
(D6 10)

here: 1is the transverse second moment of area of the c{IccLive flange and web,
Z is the length betwccn 'rigid'braces,
c is thc stiffness of the restrâints smeared per unit length, and
r is the number of half waves in the buckled shape.
By differentiation. this is a minimurr when:
cLa
^ (D6.11)
"-: ffi
which gires:
N.u : 2vÇEt (f)6.12)
Equation (6.12) of EN 1993-2 is:
À'".;, : rzÀ'6

where:

FI .14
),tr t l.(r, : -* fI and t .
n- -
".11, n- (2t -- cn,1
^r L

98
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

where Cd is equal to the restraint sti[Tncss and / js thc djstance between .restraints. Wh€n thesc
lerms are substituted into equâtion (6.12) ofEN 1993-2, equation (D6.12) is produced-
Whcn 1 - ra = 97, then , = no EI I Lo , and ihis model gives lhc results:
N",n - 2T? EI lL2, n - 7.0

It is not valid for lowcr valucs ofc because then a< l, which implies a buckling half-
rvavelergth that exceeds the length Z betrveen rigid restrâints, and a valuc of ivcrj! lower
thân that corresponding to a length l,, In this case, the bucklir.rg load should be taken as:

., iEr
rvcdr: . rL'
r + 1'. (D6.13)
l,'
Equation (D6.10) assumes Lhat the end restraints that define the length Z are'rigid'. The
definition of 'rigid' is discussed below. If intermediâte bracings are not rigid, their stiffness
can bc taken to contribute to'c'but the length Z is then defined by the length between
rigid bracings. Bracings at supports lor typical composite bridges will usually be rigid due
to the need fbr them to provide tolsional restrâint to the beams.

Shon lengths of beam beween rigid brocings

Equation (D6.12) shows that the critical buckling load from equaLion (6.12) of EN 1993-2 is
independent of the length between rigid rcsl.raints. Equation (D6.13) is the basis for the first
of equations (6.14) in EN 1993-2 for short lengths between rigid braces. The half wave length
of buckling is rcstricted Lo the length between braces, and any ilexible restraints included in
this length increâse the buckling load from that for a pin-ended strut of length L. The
formulae provided also allow the elTects of varying end moments and shears to be taken
into âccount, but they are not valid (and arc actually unsafe) where the bending moment
reverses within length Z. They are as follows:

ry : 1 + 0.44(1* p)iD' s + (l + 2ohl(350 50p) or

tn2 : | + 0.44(l + 7-,)oL
5
+ (0. 195 + (0.05 + p/100)o)70 5 if less than above

with:
r.t.: hl4 and Q : 2(1 MzlM))l(.1 i p) lor M, 1 M1 and V2 < V1

The subscripts in the sl.rnbols my end m2 correspond to the number of buckling half-waves
considered, lr. Figure 6.16 enables the equation that gives the lower result to be found, by

1.0
500
450

3s0

300

260

244

0.0
-0.4 1.0
v2tv,

Fig. 6. I 6. Vah.res of 1 (other than zero) at which both equâtions (6. | 4) in EN 1993-2 give the same value
for m. Below each curye, mr governs

99
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994"2

Fig. 6, | 7. Effect of shear ratio on the shape of the moment diagram

giving values oflatwhichn1 : nx2. If the âctuâl value of l for a buckling length rvith ratios
V2f V1 and M2/M1 is lower than that shown in the figure, the equation for arl governs: ifnot.
,nt gOvcrns.

U nifo r mly comp ressed fI o nge

The beneficjal influence of lateral restrâint, represented by 7. is evident for the môst âdverse
case, a uniformly-compresscd flange, for which p = l. 4 : 0. Then,

.2, ' | .00 L '.I 100. m2 | .00 0.lasrn '

*
These ratios n are equal when 1Û : 19.5. or 1 : 180, as shown by the point (1.0, 1.0) in
Fig. 6.16. The change from n : 2 to n - 3 can be found from equation (D6.10) which, in
tems of ^/. is:

N..r,/À,r : 12 + 1 1 1r2 na\

This gives N".1, for n:3 equal to Lhat for n - 2 when 7: 3500 and Ncd,/NF : 13. The
equations for m] and /1?2 âr€ môre complex than equation (D6.10) because their scope
includes non-uniform nloment. Within the range of 1 frorn 380 to 3000, the value m2 fbr
uniform moment cân be uF to 10% higher than lrom equation (D6.10). This'error'is
smâll and is in part compensated for by the neglect of the torsiônâl stiffiress of the beam
in this method. At 1.: 3500 it giv€s À-",it/NE: 12.5, which is more conservative. It then
follows closely the results from equâtion (D6.10) as l increases (and n also increases from
3 to 4). For 1 up to 20 000, the values of rl2 dil1'er liom the predictions of (D6.10) by only
+3.6%.
The shcar ratio. p, in the equâtions for rry and rn2, helps to describe the shape of
the bending moment diagram between points of restrâint. It is liflear if 4. : 1.0. If p < 1.0.
the moments fall quicker than assumed from a linear dislribuLion as shown in Fig- 6.17
and consequently thc flange is less susceptible to buckling.

Change of sign of oxiol force within o length between rigid restraints

The lack ofvalidity for moment reversal ofequations (6,14) in EN 1993-2 is a problem for a
typical composite beam with cross-bracing adjacent to the internal supports, Where the most
distant brace from thc pier is still in a hogging zone. the moment in tlte beam will reverse in
thc span section between braces as shown in Fig- 6.18. ln this region, in should not bc
assumed to be 1.0 as this could lead to over-design of the beâm or unnecessâry provision

(6.14) nol valld (6.14)valid (6.14) not valid

a = bÉcing location

Fig. 6. | 8. Range of validity of equations (6. l4) of EN | 993-2

t00
 CHAPTER 6. ULTII.4ATE LIMIT STATES

Gonservative set of nomenls

wilh v,/'v1 = o, MztM = o
,
_-_-a-

Fig, 6.19. Typical calculation of m where bending moment reverses

ofadditional braces away from the pier, to ensule that the section between innemrost braces
is entirely sagging and the bottom flange is in tension. A Note to clause 6.J.4.2(7) of EN 1993-
2 provides the option of assuming M2 :
0. If benefit from the restraining stiffness of the d€ck
slab is ignored (i.c. c:0), and tr/2 is conserratively tâken equal to tr/1 then this leads to
n=l 88,
Whcre the top flange is braced continuously by â deck. it may be possible to'vary'l.i. to
produce a less conservative noment diagram. For the case in Fig. 6.19, the use ol
V]\ =0, M2lMr:0 achieves the same momcnt gradicnt at end I âs the reâl set of
moments, and a distribution that lies everywhele else âbove the real moments and so is
still conservative. Equations (6.14) of EN 1993-2 then give the value ry : 2.24, again ignoring
any U-lrame restraint. Ploviding the top flânge is continuously brâced, the correct r? would
be greâter.
It is possible to include continuous U-frame action from an unstiffened rveb between rigid
braces in the calculatior.r ofthe spring stiffness c. The beneût is usually small lbr short lengths
between braces. ând the web plate, slab ar.rd shear connection musL bc checked for the forces
inrplicd by suclr action. Fig. 6.20 shows a graph of m against M2f Mr with c : 0, lbr varying
VzlVt'
Itis possible to cômbine equations (6.10) and (6.12) of EN 1993-2 to produce a single
formula for slcr.rderness, taking lr: btf fof the flange area, âs follows:

i
t*
/'.fiJ\ (At + A*"13) l\L2 (1 + A*"13Aù(,Jy/Em)
7t' li" tç

p = Vz/V1= 1o o75

'\*\È'' (t
\}..
1_8
\\ \\-/
\----'-
']l
1.6 -\ :-\---\
È:\
=Ès
1.2
\
1.0

Fig. 6,20. Values of m ( - N-i.l'Ne) between rigid rêstraints with J : 0

t0l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

_L fy
Àrr - 1.103= (D6.14)
b Em JAt

It is still neccssary to evaluate À'cril when checking the strength of the bracings.
The fbrmulae in clâuse 6.3.4.2(7) of EN 1993-2 do not apply directly to haunched girders
as thcy assume that the flange Ibrce is distributed in the same way as the bending moment.
The general method of using an ejgenvalue analysis bascd on thc lorces in the compression
chord is still applicable. Alternâtively, the formulae provided cor.rld be applied using the least
vâlue of the spring stiffness c within the length considerecl. The flangc force ratio F!/il is
used insteâd of the moment ratio M 2/ M t, wrth V2fVl taken as 1-0, when applying equation
(6.14) of EN 1993-2.
EN 1993-2 clause 6.3.4-2(7) allows the buckling verification lo bc pcrformed at â distânce
of 0.2521 :0.25L1\,5n (:'.e.25% ôf the effective length) from the end with the larger
moment- (Thc symbols Zç and { are both used for eflèctive length in 6.3.4-2.) This
appeal's to double-côunt the beneflt from moment shape derived in equâtions (6,14) of
EN 1993-2; bul it does not do so. The check at 0.25tk reflects the làct that the pcak stress
fiom transverse buckling of the l1angc occurs some distance away from the rigid restraint
to the flange, whereas the peak stress from overall bending of the beam occurs at tho
restraint. (In rhjs model, the beam flange is assumed to be pin-ended at the igid transverse
restrâints.) Since these two peak strcsscs do not coexist they are not fully additive, and the
buckling verification can be performed at a 'design' section somewhere between these two
locations. The cross-section resislance must slill be verified at Lhc point of maximum
moment.
There arc cJearly problems rvith applying clause 6.3.4.2(7) of EN 1993-2 where the moment
reverses as the section 0.25L I 10i from an end may be a point of contrâflexure. In this situa-
tion. iL is recommended here that the design section be taken as 25olo ofthe distancc from thc
position of mâximum moment to thc posiLion ofzero moment. In addition- ifbeneût is taken
ofverification at the 0,252ç cross-section, the câlculated slenderness âbove must be nrodilied
so that it rclers to this design section. The critical rnonent value will be less here and thc
slenderness is therefôre increased. This can be done bv definins a new slenderness at the
0.2511 section such that

\ i TM
- ^LTl/;-ryr0.25tl
^ù.25Lk v
where M6 251p is the moment at the 0.252k section. Thls procedure is rllustrated rn Examplc
6.6 below. It should be noted that thc k in ,M6 r5sp docs not imply a characteristic value: this is
a design value.

Str'flness of broces
The tbrmulae in EN 1993-2 discusscd abovc arc only valid wherc thc end restraints that
definc the length Z are'r'igid', It is possible to equate N*;, - Z:IcEI ro rizÉ'1/22 to tiod a
limiting stiffness lhat gives an effective length equal to the distance between rigid restraints.
Z, but this slightly underestimatcs the required stiffness. This is because the formulac assume
that the restraints are continuously smeâred when they are in fact discrete. The former
analysis
^gives
a required value for Co ol ,raEl 14L-, whereas the 'correct' stiflncss is
4r'EI lL' , which is 62% higher.

lnteroction with compressive axial lood

The intcrâction with axial load is covered h clquse 6.4, tn clausa 6.4.3.1 ônly, via the general
method given in EN 1993-2- Axial load has several effects including.
. magnificâtion of the main bcnding moment about the horizontal axis of the beam (thc
sccoud-order eflect)

t02
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LII4IT STATES

. increâse of stress in thc compression flange leading to ân increâsed tendency fof lateral
buckling.
Most bridge cross-sections âre either Class 3 or 4 at suppot'ts so the stresses lrom axial load
can simply be assumed to be applied to the crâcked composite section, and the elastic section
rcsistance can be used. At mid-span, bean.rs are usually Class I or' 2 aDd the calculation of a
modified plastic rnonrent resistance in the prescnce of axial load is rc1ativc11, simple. The
plastic neutrâl axis is so chosen that the totâl compressive force exceeds the total tensile
l-orce by an arnount equâl to the axial load.
Care must however be taken to ensure that the bending resistancc is obtained about an axis
at the height of the applied axial lbrce assumed in the global ânalysis. This is important
lor non-symmetric beams as the elastic and plastic neutlal axes 1br bending alone do not
coincide, whereas they do for a symmetric section. Most o1 r:huse 6.7 is for doubly-symmetdc
sections only, but the general mcthod of clause 6.7,2 may be applied to beams provided that
compressive stresses do not exceed their relcvanl limiting values where Class 3 and 4 cross-
sections are involved.
Altcrnatively, the cross-section can hc designed using a conservative interaction expression
such âs thât in clause 6.2.1(7) of EN 1993-l-1:
,,v., M.,, .,

Nra U' nn -
where \1 and M1,,Rd âre the design resistances lbl axial force and moment acting individu-
alJy hut with reductions for shear where thc shear force is sufficiently large. A similar inter-
action expression can bc used lbl the buckling verification with the terms in the denominâtor
replaced by the relevânt buckling rcsistances:
Àra vro -,nr't' (D6.15)
ù -u :

The value fbt'Ms1 should include additional [loments from in-plane second-order effects
(including lrom in-plane imperfèctions). Such second-order cllects rvill normally be negligible.
The buckling resistance Nb.Rd should bc calculated on the basis of the axial stress required lbr
lateral buckling of the complession flange. This method is illustrated in Example 6.6 below.

Beoms without plon brocing ot decking during construction

During construclion it is comrnon to stâbilize girders in pairs by connecting them with
'torsional' bracing. Such bracing reduces or prevents torsion of individual beams but does
not restdct laleral deflection. Vertical 'torsional' uross-bracing as shown in Fig. 6.21 has
been considered in thc UK for many yeals to act as a rigid support to the compression
llange, thus restricting the effective lcngth to the distance between braces. L)pinion is now
somewhat dividcd on whether such bracing can be considered fully effective and BS

\ç Centre ol rolation

{âl (b)

Fig. 6.2l.
Torsional bracing and shape of buckling mode, for paired beams: (a) plan on braced pair of
beams showing buckling mode shape; (b) cross-secrion through braced pair of beams showing buckling
mooe snâpe

r03
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

5400:Parl 3:2000" introduced a clause to covcr Lhis situation which predicls that such
bracing is not fully cffcctivc.
This situâtion arises because equilibrium of the braccd pair under torsion requircs oppos-
ing vertical foroes to b€ generated in thi: two girders. Consequently one girder moves up, one
moves down and some twist ôf the girder pair is generalcd, albeit much less than lor an
unbraced pair. If the beam span'to-depth ratio is large, the deflections and hence twists
cirn be significant. The Desigaers' Gttùlc to EN 1993-2* suggests a mcthod based on BS
5400 Pârt 3, but in some cases it may lead to the conclusion that plan bracing is neccssary.
A better estimate of slenderness can be madc using a finite-element analysis.
A finitc-clcment model of a non-composite beam, using shcll elements for the paired
main beams and beâm elements to represent the bracings, can be set up relatively quickly
with moclern commercially availablc software. Elastic critical buckling analysis can then
be performed and a value of M". determined directly for use in slenderness calculation to
clause 6.3.2 of EN 1993-2. This approach usually demonstral€s that thc cross-bracing is
not fully effective in limiting the effective lengih of the flange to the distance between
bracings, but that it is more ellèctive than is predicted by BS 5400. For sirnply-
supportcd paircd girdcrs, a typical Lowest buckling urode under dcad load is showu in
Fis. 6.21.

-_r
250 I

4[O x 25

400 x

Cross-seclion for lenglhs BD and EG

Fig. 6.?2. Details for Examples 6.6 and 6.7

t04
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIIYATE LIIYIT STATES

t he tlesign ulrirnlre hoggin-u momcnl\ at inrernrl supporr B are 221I kNm on the ireel
section plus 4814kNm on the composite v:clion, so ,l1po = 7927 ç}.{-. The coexisting
hogging trrôtlrent at thc braced point C in the central span is 4222 kNm. The vertical
shear itt point C is 70ori, of that at- the pier B. The hogging bending momenr rt the
splice, where thc bean.r cross-section changes. is 3000 kNm.
l,atera.l torsionâl buckling adjacenl to the pier and in the main span beyond the brace is
checked and the elièct of a coexisting axial compression of l000kN rpplied to rhe
couposite section is sonsidered. This could ârise in a scmi-intcgral hridgc with screcn
walls at its ends.

Elastic resistonce to bending æ on inte"nal suppor,

Thc clastic section rnoduli for the cross-section at Doint B are siven in Table 6.2. These are
baseel on the cxtreme fibres but it woutd have ieen perm;sible ro base thcm or the
centroids ofthe flanges in accordance with EN 1993-l-1 clause 6,2.1(9). To find M";,p1.
thc factor k (cktuse 6.2.1,4161) is found for the top ând bottom surfâces of the steel
beam, as follows- The result will be used in chccks on buckling, so Âd is found using
1r'1 (- 1 l). Primary shrinkage stresses are neglected because the deck slab is assumed
lo be cracked.

Table 6.2. Section moduli a! Àn iniemal suppor-t, in 106 mml units

Top layer of bars Top of steêl section

Gross steel section r8.28 7t.70

Cracked composke section 34.05 50.3 t

For the top flange-

12ll/18.28 -/r.V"gsl50.31
- 345/l.l so /rM"s6 - gô88k\m
For the h()lrom llit nge.
llll/22.20 ' k.\'t,tdl2q.25 J45/I.IsoÀM.. 1.. - 6258kNm
The elastic resistanse is governed by the bottôm flânge, so that:

M"r.na - 2213 I 6258 : 8471 kl{m

The rnaxrnrum compreisile stress in the bortom llange is;
o:.b,., 22lr/21.2 , 4Sl+/2q.25 264N.mm)

Resrstonce of length BC (Fig. 6.22) m distortionol loterol buckJing

Strictlv, the stiffness of lhe bracing should first be checked (or should latcr bc designed) so
thal the buckling length is confined to the length between brâces. This is done in Example
6.7. The bending-moment distribution is shorvn in .Fig.6.23.
Where no vertical web stilTcncrs are required, the deck slâb provides a small continuous
L,-frame stilTness. This could be included using Table D.3 of EN t99-l-2, case la, to
c.rlcùlate a stiffness. c- This contribution has been ignored to avoid the complexities of
dcsignûrg the deck slab and shcar connection for the forces implied, and because any
need tô stiffen the wcb has not yet been cônsidered. lfhcreforc from clausc 6.3.4.2(6) of
F.\ lee3-2.. -cL"ltl 0.
The compression zone of the beam is dcsigned as a pin-ended srrut wirh continuous
vertical restrâint. and later al restraint at points 3.80 m apart (Fig- 6-22)- Its cross-ss:tional
aleas alc:
. flange: li:400 x 40: 16000mm2

r05
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

web compression zone: A,Nc 735 x 25 - :

18 375 mm'. (Cionservatively bâsed on the
height of the neutral axis for the composite section. It could be based on the actual
depth fôr the acsurnulated stress profile, which is 633 mm.)
The second moment of arija of the conpressed area is calculated for the boLlom
as the contribution lrom the web is neslieible:

I: 40 t 4003 ln: 213.1 x 106 mma

The applied bcnding momcnls at cach end of the equivâlent strut are:

Msn I - 702? kNm: .Vrl .z - 4222 kNnr

From EN 1991-2 clause 6.3.4.2(1J:

M2lMt: 42221',1027 - Q.60 and p - fil\ :0.70
- 2(r M)l nt t)/(t - p) - 2(t 0.60)/(l - 0.70t - 0 46
't'
When 1 : 0, the lirst twû ofequâtions (6.14) in clause 6.3.4.2(8) ofEN 1993-2 both give:

m: I +0.44(1 +p)iD": I +0.44(1 + 0.?0)0.461 5 : 1.23

If the deck slab is considered to provide U-fiame restraint, the value of rn for this length
offlange is found to be still only 1-26, so there is no reâl benefit to lareral stability in con-
sidering U-frame action over such a short length of beam.
From equation (D6.l4):

ÀLr- l;l ;,1, F#i_ r.r "làô'/r,o. Iu" x l.tJ /'-rffi

zlux ;Ti.,rj' v x r J louuu

This exceeds 0.2 so from clause 6.3.2.2(4) ofEN 1993-1-l this length of flange is prone to
latcra t torsional buckling.
The ratio h/b:1225/400:3.1 exceeds 2.0, so from Table 6.4 in clause 6.3.2.2 of
EN 1993-l-l the relevant buckling curve is curve d. Hencc. cr11 : 0-?6 frorn Table 6.3.
From cquatiûn (6.56) in EN 1993-l-1, clause 6.3.2.2:
4,,, = 0.sll +o,,(T,, 0.2) ii"l-o.sf r-r0.76{0.45 -0.2) 0.4511=0.696
tl : 0.81
/*' ,2
\/lPir Ii'
orr + \/oir 0.696 r ,
qrrT ÀrI
Applylng this reduction tàctûr gtves:
M6,xa - 11.1M"1,11,1 :0.81 x 8471 :6862kNm
At the internal support, MEd : 7027 kNm (2olo highÈr). However, clause 6.3.4.2(7) of
EN 1993-2 provicles the option of mrking this ch€ck at a distanee of 0.252/ç3r from
thc support. This distance is:
0.25 x 3800/\./1.23 : 857mm
Using linear inierpolaiion. Fig. 6,23, this gives M6a : 6394kNm. The modified slender-
ness 1s:

25t-t : T
^o ^I

This reduces xl-r from 0.81 to 0.80, so the new resistance is:
lf1,p6 : 1;1M"1.sa : 0.80 x 8471 : 6777klin
This exceeds MLd (6194 kNm t. so this check on lateml buckling is satisficd.

t06
 CHAPTER 6, ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

The fu her condition that the elâstic resistance (8471 kNln) is not cxcccdcd al the noint
of peak moment (702? kNm) is satisfied. This cross-section should âlso be checked
for combined bending and shear, but in rhis case the shear is less than 50% of the
sheâr resistance and thus no interaction occurs.

Reslstonce with a coexisting oxiol compression of t000kN

An axial force of 1000 kN is appliecl at the height of the elastic c€ntroidâl axis of the
cracked cross-sectio ât the internal support. Susceptibility to in-pla[e second-order
effects is first checked. The second moment of area of the cracked composite section al
mid-spân, 1.3262lOlomma, is conservativel5' used to detÈrmine the elâstic criticâl
llcxural buckling load for major-aris buckling.

n, _ ,)EI - zrr , 210 x LJ26 . l0lo

Nc, _28600kN
1:
Frotn r'laur,' 5.2./r J.:

n., -
2R ôOO
-IOOO jlv> l(l

so in-plane second-order effects may be ncglected.

At the internal support, the âreâ of the cracked compositç scction is 74 480 mm2, so the
axial rompressive stress is 1000 x l1t 114480 - ll.4N/mm2. This changes the total
stresses at lhe extreme libres of the steel beam to 204 N,/mm2 tension aÛd 278 N/mm2 com-
pression. This stress dislribution is found to leâve the cross-section ât the pier still in Class
3. The section at the brâce is also in Class 3.
The conservative linear interaction between axial and bending resistances ofexpression
(D6. l5) will be used:
ML.r
-,' Mra . ,"""
nn
V" no -41o.xa
so Nb,Rd must be tound, based on buckling of tl.re web and bottom flange untlcr uniftrrm
colnpression. Since thc cunrbined sttess di5tribLltiôn lead: to a Class J cross-section
throughout the buckling length, th€ gross section will be used in this anrlysis, even for
the calculation of the compression resistance- bclow.
If the sectiôn became Class 4, effective prôperties should be used. These could be
dcrived either separately for moment and ixial forrce or as a unique effective section
under the combined stress field. In either case. the momcnL of the axial force produced
by the shifl of the neu|ral axis should be considered.
For axial force alone, the required areas of the cross-sections are;
lr:400 x 40 : 16000mm2, .4*" = 1160 x.25 :29000mm2
Neglecting U-lrame rcstrain t as belbre. equations (6. l4) in clause 6.3.4.2t 7l of EN lSgl-
2 wiLh .M'-- M2 und r 0 gire m 1.00.
From cquali0n (D6.l4):

,
. iÎ I
,l.l,r- l/-//i. r/l-:-_
)
/, n$. l.lY- lu00 345 /i 2r ooo
u'*
''
^LI - hu E,l' \i tA,- 400 tiûÏtx 1"oo ^ V t * .l r
'o,x,u:
Ftont curve d on Fig. 6-4 of EN 199-l-l-1. \ :0.74. The axial buckling resistance of the
crackcd composite cross-section, based on buckling of the bottom flange. is:
Nr.nt \'{/;d - 0.74 ,.74480 t 345/1.1 l?285k\
It should be noted that Nt,n,r does not represent a rcal resistance to axial load alone as
the cross-section would then be in Class 4 and a reduciion to ihe web J.rea to allow for
local buckling in accordance with EN 1993-1-5 would bc rcquired. ft is however valid

t07
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

7027
6394

2E
7 4222
E
Ê \ ..\- = O'V2= V1
3000 -./,'M2
.9
)>,Jj'. ''=o %='
'\ \.--
0
/' 2't.2
I
Distance trom suppof (m)
SectionrB F

Fig. 6.23. Bending action effects and resistances for an internal span

It is assumecl that maximum imposed loarl acts on the two side spans and that oliy a
short lenglh near mid-span is in sagging bending, as sketched in Fig.6-23. Since the
bending moment teverses, equations (6.14) in EN 1993-2 are not directly applicable. I1'
the suggestion of clause 6.3.4.2t7t of EN l99l-2 is folloued. and ,1/2 is lakcn as rero al
the other brace (cross-seclion F). the bending-moment distribution depends on the
value assumed for I/2, the vertical shear at F- Two possibilities are shorvn in Fig. 6,23.
Their use dôes not follow directly from the disrùssion associated with L'ig. 6. 18. where
the moment was assumed to reverse only once in thc length between rigid restlaints. In
Fig. 6.23, the two llclitious sets of moments do not always lie above the real set and are
therelbre not obviously conservative. However. the intËruction of the hogging nroment
at one cnd of the beam rvith the buckling behaviour at the other end is weak when lhe
nroment reverses twice in this wav.
BS 5400:Part 31r include<l a paramerer 'r7' which was used tô consider the effèct of
rnonrent shape on buckling resistance. For no reversal. n is in principle equiralettr to
| /r7r, although there is not complete numerical equivalence- Figure 6.24 gives comparêtive
values of ni:t/,,f . This shows that lor the worst real moment distribulion, where
the moment just remâins entirely hôgging, the value of ly' is greater (le$s conservâtiYe)
than for the two possibilities in Fig. 6.23. This shows that the less conseruative of these
possibilities (.Vz: A) can be used. It gives rn: 2.24 liom equations (6.14.).

t08
CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

t09
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

23 40û

From equation (D6.5) with ,1r's6 : 0, within Lhe span betweelt btâces, the

0
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

The minimum load factor to cause lateral-torsional buckling is:

disâdvantage that the web, and would have to be designed lbr the result-
ing effects. A better alternative could be the additiûn of another brace adjacent to the
splice location.

l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

based on the cracked section, with the concrete modulus taken as E"-/2 to represent the
fact that some of the loading is short term and somc is long tcrm. Greater accurâcy is not
warranled here as tbe concrete stiffness has little influence on the ûverall stiffness of lhe

Ca > 4n) r.210 x 213.37(3.8rx 1000) ' l2.2kNrmm

2
 CHAPTER 6. ULTII'4ATE LIIYIT STATES

6.5. Transverse forces on webs

The local resistance of an unstillcncd and unencascd r,r,cb to forces (typically, vertical forces)
applied through â steel flange can be âssumed to be the same in a composite mcmber as in a
stccl mcmbcr, so tlause 6,5 consists mainly of references to EN 1993-1-5. High transverse qouse 6-5
loads are relatively uncômmon in bridge design other than during launching operalions or
liom special vehicles 01'heavy construction lôads, such as I'r'om a cranc outrigger. Theoreti-
cally, wheel loads should bc chcckcd buL arc unlikcly cvcr to be signif,cant.
The patch loading rules given in EN 1993-l-5 Section 6 make allowancc for failure by
cithcr plastic lailure ol the rveb, with associated plastic bending deformation of the flange.
or by br.rckling of the web- More detâil on the derivation and use oi the rulcs is given in
lhe Designers'Gui(le to EN 1993-2." ^fhe rules for patch loading can only be used if the
geometric conditions in EN 1993-1-5 clause 2-3 are met; otherrvise EN 1993-1-5 Section 10
should be used, Clause 6.1(1) of EN 1993-1-5 also requires that the compression flange is
'adcquately restr ained' laterally. It is not clear what this means in practice, but the restraint
requirement should be satisfied where the flange is continuously braced by, lbr examplc, a
deck slab or where there are sullicient restratlts to prev€nt lateral lorsional buckling.
Clause 6.5.1(1) states that thc rulcs in EN 1993-l-5 Scction 6 are applicable to the non- Clouse 6.5.1(l)
conposite flange of a composite beam. If load is applied to the oomposite flange, the rules
could still be used by ignoring thc contribution of thc reinforced concrete to the plastic
bending resistance of the flange. No testing is available to validate inclusion of any
contribution. Â spread of load could be taken through the concretc llange to increase the
stiff loaded length on the stecl flangc. Thcrc is limitcd guidance in EN 1992 on what angle
of spread to assume: clause 8.10.3 of EN 1992-1-l recommends a dispcrsion angle of
tàn-t2f3. i-e. 34'. for cor.roentratecl prestressing forces. lt would be reasonable to use 45"
here, which would be consistent with previous bridge design practice in the UK.
Clause 6.5.1(2 ) makes reference to EN 1993- l-5 clause 7.2 for the inLeraction of transverse Aouse 6.5.I(2)
force with axial force and bending. This gives:

t *0.81r { 1.4

where:

,,,. o2,r,a Fz,t Fu

'' fr*l^tv, .Â"z"irt./ruL Fna

3
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

is the usâge factor for transverse load acting alone, and

ux F,1 tvF,l
I
MEd+ NEdcN
I f l^ I / l-
Ji / IMi'J /! n.ill /N10 JrW"nl1.o
is Lhc usage factor for direct stress alone, calculated elastically. Thc calculation of 4y should
take account of thc construction seqùence as discussed in section 6.2.1.5 of this guide. It can
be seen that this interaction exprcssion does not allow for a plastic distribution of stress for
bending and axial forrce. Even if the crôss-sectiôn is Class I or 2, this will not lead to any
discontinuity with thc plastic bending resistance at low transverse load as only 80% of the
clastic bending stress is cônsidered and thc limiting valuc of the interaction is 1.4. The
râtio betwecn the plastic and elastic resistânces to bending for typicâl composite beâms is
less than 1.4.
Aouse 6.5.2 Clause 6.5.2 covers flange-induced buckling of webs by relerencc to EN 1993- l-5 Section 8.
If the flange is sufficicnlly large and t1le web is very slender, it is possible fbr the whole flange
to buckle in the plane of the web by inducing buckling in the web itself. If the comprcssion
flange is continuously curved in elevation, rvhether because ofthe somt profile or because the
whole beam is cambered, the continuous change in direction of the flange force causes a
radial force in the plane of the \r.eb. This force increases the likelihood of flange-induced
buckling into thc web. Discussion on the use of Section 8 of EN 1993-l-5 is provided in
the Desiguer: Guitla n LN t99J-2.4

6.6. Shear connection

6.6.l. General
6.6.1.1. Bosis of design
Qouse 6.6.1 .| (l ) Clause 6.6 rs app\cable to shear connection in composite beams. Clause 6.6,7,1(1) refers also
Lo'other tJ)pes oJ composite memher'. Shear connection in compositc columns is addressed in
clm$e 6.7.1, but reference is made to clause 6.6.3.] for the design resistânce ofheaded stud
connectofs.
Aouse 6.6.1.1(2)P Although tlre uncertain effects of bond are excluded by clause 6.6.1.1(2)P, lriction is not
excluded. Its essential difference liom bond is that there must be compressive Ibrc€ across the
relevant surlàces. This usualll' arises from wedging action. Provisions for shear connection
by friction are givcn in clause 6.7.4.2(1) for columns.
Clouse 6.6.1.1(3)P 'Inelostic redistribution of .\hern' (clause 6,6.1 .l ( 3 ) P) is most relevanL to building design in
the provision s of EN 1994- I - I for pal tial sheâr connection. Inelâstic redistribution of shear is
allowed in a number of placcs for bridges including:
. da.use 6.6.1.2 (which allows redistribution over lengths such thal rhe design resistance is
not excecded by more than l07o)
. dause 6.6.2.2 (which permits assumpLions about the distribution of lhe longitudinal shear
force wiLhin an inelastic length of a member)
. clauses 6.6.2.3 ( 3 ) ar,d 6.6.2.4 ( 3 ) lbr the distribution of shear in studs lionr conc€ntrated
loads.

Clouse 6.6.1.1(4)P Chuse 6.6.L1(1)P

uses the terrn 'ductile' for corTtectors thât have deformation capacity
Clouse 6.6.1.1(5) sumcient lo
assume ideal plastic behaviour of the shear connection. Clause 6,6.L1(5)
quântilies lhis a. a characterirtic slip c;rpaciry of 6mrn. 5
Clouse 6.6.1.l(6)P The need for compatibility ol loadislip properlies, claase 6.6.1.1(6)P, is one reason why
neither bond nor adhesives can be used tô supplement the shear resistânce of studs. The
combined use of studs and block-and-hoop connectors has been discouraged fbr the same
reason. though there is littlc doubt that effectively rigid projections into the concrete slab,
such as boll heads and ends of flange plates, contibute to sheâr connection. This Principle
is particularly important in bridges, where the fatigue loading on individual connectors may
othcrwise be undelestimated. This âpplies also where bridges are to be strengthened by retro-
fitting âdditional shear connectors.

|4
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE L ,IIT STATES

'Separation', tn dause 6,6,1,1(7)P, means separation sufficient for the curvatures of th€ Clause 6.6.1.1(7)P
t\,vo elements to be diflerent at a cross-section. or for there to be â risk of local corrosion.
None of the design rrethods in EN 1994-2 takes account of diffcrcnces of curvâture,
which can arise lrom a vcry smal1 scparation. F,ven wherc most of the load is applied by
or above the slab, âs is usual, tests on beams with unheaded str.rds show separation, cspecially
afLer inelastiq behaviour begins. This arises fi'om local variations in the flexurâl stiffnesses of
the concrete ând steel elements, and from the tendency of the slab to ride up on the weld
collars. The standard heads of stud connectors hâve been found to be large enough to
control separation, and thc rule in clause 6,6.1.1(8) is ir.rtended to ensure that othel'types Qouse 6.6.1 .l (8)
of connectôr, with anchoring devices if necessary, can do so.
Resistance to uplift is much influenced by the reinforcement near the bottom ofthe slab, so
if the resistance of an anchor is to he chcckcd by tcsting, reinforcement in accordance with
clause 6.6.6 should be provided in the test specimens. Anchors âre inevitably subjccted also tô
shear.
Clausc 6.6,1.1(9 ) referc to 'dirccr nnsion' . Loacl ftom a maintenânce cradle hanging from Qouse 6.6.1.1(9)
the steel membef is an example of how tension may arise. It can a]so be caused b]' the
dillcrcntial dcfleclions of adjacent beans under certain patterns of imposed load, although
the resulting tensions are usually small, Greater tension can be produced near bracings as
identified by clatr.te 6.6.1.1(13). Where tension is present in studs, its design magnitude
shonld be determined and checked in accordance with clou.rc 6.6.3.2.
Clause 6.6,L1(10)P is a principle that hâs led_to many application rules. The shear forces CIouse
arc incviLably 'concentrated' . O:ne research study'o iound that 70% of the sheâr on a stud was 6.6.t.t(t0)P
resisted by its rveld collar, and that the local (triaxiaL) strÊss in the concrete was sevçral times
its cube strength. Transverse leinlbrcement performs a dual role. It acts as horizontal shear
reinforcement for the concrctc {langcs- and controls and limits splitting, Its detailing is
particulârly critical where connectors âre close to a free surfâce of the slab or where they
are aligned so as to cause splitting in the direction of the slab thickness. To account for
the lâtter, clsuse 6.6.1.1(11) should also include a reference to clause 6.6.4 for dcsign of Aause 6.6.1.1(l I)
the transverse reinlbrcement.
Larger concentrated forccs occur whcre prccast slabs are used, and connectors are placed
in groups in holes in the slabs. This influences the detâiling of the reinforccment neâr these
bolcs. and is referred to rr Section 3.
Ctausc 6.6.1.1( 12) rs intended to permit the use ofother types ofconnector. ENV 1994- 1- 12Û Clouse 6.6.1.1(12)
included provisions for nany types of connector other than studs: block connectors, anchors,
hoops, angJcs, and lriction-grip bolts. Tl.rey have all been omitted becâuse of their limited use
and to shorten the code.
Clau,se 6.6. | .I ( 12 ) gives scope, for exanple, to develop ways to imprôve culrent detailing
prâctice at the ends of beams in hrllf integral bridges, where forces need to be transferred
abluptly ftom the composite beams into reinforced concrete pjers and âbutments. In
British praclicc, the use of'bars with hoops' is often lavoured in these regions, and design
rules are given in BS 5400-5." The word 'block' rather than'bar'is used in this Guide to
avoid confusion with reinfbrcing bars. It is shown in Exanple 6.8 that the sheal resistance
of a connector of this type can bc dcLcrrnincd in accordance with EN 1992 and EN 1993.
The height of the block should not exceed fbur times its thickncss if the connector is
assumcd to bc rigid as ir Erample 6.8.
CIsuse 6.6.1.1( 13 ) identifies a problem thât occurs âdjâcent to cross-framcs or diaphragms Aouse 6.6.1.1(13)
between beams, For multi-beam decks, beams are oflen braced in pairs such that the bracing
is not continuous transverscly across thc dcck. Thc presence of bracing locally significantly
stiffens the bridge transversely. Moments and shears in the deck slab are attrâcted out of the
concrctc slab and inlo lhe bracing as shown in Fig. 6.27 via the trânsverse stiffeners. This
effect is not modelled in a conventional grillage analysis unless the incrcased stiffness in
thc location of bracings is included using a shear flexible member with inertia and shcar
area chosen to match the deflections obtained from a plane frame analysis of the bracing
system. Three-dimensional space-fiane ol Ïinite-element rellrescntations ôf the bridge can
be used to model these local cffccts morc dircctlv.

5
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Fig. 6.27. Example of bending moments from a deck slab attracted into bracings

The transfer of momcnt causes tension in the shear connectors on one side ofthe flange aud
ûrduces complession between côncrete and flange on the other- Welds at tops ôf stiffeners
must also bc dcsigned for this moment, which oflen leads to throat sizes greaier tiar a
'nominal' 6 mm.
In conposite box girders, similar effects adse over the tops ofthe boxes, pârticulârly ât the
locations of ring frames, bracings or diaphragrns.

6.6. L2. Ulttmate llmit stotes other thon fatigue

Qouse 6.6.1 .2 In detâiling the size and spacing of shear connectors, clause 6.6.1,2 permits thc dcsign
longitudinal shear'flow to be averaged over lengths such that the peak shear flow within
each length does not exceed the design longitudinal shear lesistance per unit length b1,
mole than l0%, and the toLal dcsign longitudinal shcar docs not excccd thc Lotal design
longitudiral shear u'ithin tl s length- This is consistent with previous prâctice in the UK
and sometimes avoids thc need to alter locally the number or spacings of shear conneclors
adiacent to supports. Clausa 6-6.1.2 has little relevance to the inelastic lengths in Class 1
and 2 mcmbers covered by r/.arse 6,6.2.2(2 ) since the longitudinal shear is already averaged
over the inelâstic zone in this method.

lt6
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

bx<b1 +h ànd h2!3bt; d^ < /t. Llt onâ 'l^ < 1i.

nere. rlom f lg. b.16.

l, : 300 - 40 - 26() mm, ôr :2x40:80rnm,r{ -250mm

\,vhere ô, . 240mm. d2 - 5l0mm.

T-
120 |
t t,
44-
f
(a) '-- (b)

Fig. 6.28. Block shear connector wirh hoop. for Example 6.8

From eq ual ion (6.6J).

Je,,la,,t -- v/(510 \ 240/2)/t250.{ 40) - 2.47r<1.0)

and

lnau:Pna-0.250x 40 x2.47 x 20 : 494kN

|7
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

6.6.2. Longitudinal shear force in beams for bridges

6.6.2.1. Beoms in which elostic or non-linear theory is used for resistonces ofcross-sections
Clause 6.6.2.1(l) Clause 6.6.2.1( I ) requires that the design longitudinal shear force per unit length (the 'shcar
flow') at an interlàce between steel and concrete is determined from lhc rate of change of
force in the concrete or thc stccl- The second part ol the clause states. âs a consequence of
this, that where elastic bending resistance is used, the shear flow cal be determincd from
the transverse shear at the cross-section considered. To do Lhis, it is implicit thât the beam
is of uniform cross-section such that thc usual expression for longitudinal shear flow,
y.,EdAa

can be used. where:

I is the effective transfbrmed area on the side of the plane concerned thal docs not include
the centroid of thc scclion, sometimes named thc 'cxcluded area';
; is the distance in the plâne of bending from the member neutlal axis to the centroid of
arca A.
1 is the second moment ol arca of thc c{Tcctive cross-section of the member,

The rele\'ânt shear /..s,1 is that acting on the composite section. Where the cross-section
varies along its length, the shear flow is no longer directly proportional to lhe shear on
the beam and the followinq exoression should be used;
d (M,..çaAz\ VcLdA: ,, d (Az\
,''.-d.\ (D6.18)
I ) I '/Y/.rddx\//
F.quation (D6.18) does not directly cover step changes in the steel cross-section as often
occur ât splices. In such situations, it would be reasonable to âssume that the step change
occurs uniformly over â length of twice the effective depth ofthe cross-section when applying
equation (D6.18)- Where there is a sudden change from bare stccl to a compôsite section,
design for the concentrâted longitudinal shear force from development of composiLc
action should ïollow clquse 6.6.2.4.
The calculatcd elastic longitudinal shear flow is slrongly dcpcndcnt on whether or not the
concrete slâb is cônsidered to be cracked. In reality, the slab will be stiffer than predicted by a
Aouse 6.6.2.1(2) fully cracked analysis due to tension stiflening. Clause 6.6.2.1(2 ) clarifics that the slâb should
therefore be considered to be fully uncracked unless tension stiffening and over-strength ()1'
concrete are considered in both global analysis and section design as discussed under claasc
5.4.2.3(7).
Clouse 6.6.2.1(3) Clause 6.6.2.1(i) requires âccount to be taken of longitudinal slip where concentrated
longitudinal forces arc applied, and refers to c/aasar 6.6.2.3 and 6.6-2.4. ln other cas€s,
clause 6.6.2.1(3) allows slip to be neglected for consistency wrth cleuse 5.1.1.1(8).

Composite box grderc

For box girders u'ith a composite flânge, a shear flow across the shear connection can occur
due to shear from circulatory torsion. torsional warping and distortional warping. These
Clouse 6.6.2.1(4) eflects ale discussed in the Designers' Guitle to EN 1993-2." Clause 6.6,2.1(4) requiLres
them to be included 'if appropriate'. This influences the design longitudinal sheâr stress
Glause 6.6.6.1(5 )). and hence the area of transverse reinforcement, lo clause 6.6.6.2.
Shcar lag and connector slip lead to a non-unifonn distribution ol lbrce in thc shear con-
nectors across the width of the flange. This is <liscussed in section 9.4 of this Guide.

6.6,2.2. Beoms in bridges wlth cross-sections in Class I or 2

Where the bending resistance exceeds the elastic resistance and material behaviour is non-
linear, shear flows can similarly no longer be calculated from Iincar-elastic sectiôn anâlysis.
To do so using equâtion (D6.18) would underestimate the sheâr flow where elastic limits
are exceeded as the lever arm of the cross-section implicit in the calculation woulcl bc
Clause 6.6.2.2(l) overestimated and thus the element lbrces would be underestimaled. Clause 6.6.2.2(1)

8
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Mpt,Rd

M'"
Fig.6.29. Definition of inelâstic lengrhs for Class I and 2 cross-sections wirh the slab in compression

therefbre requires that aÇcount be tâken of inelastic behaviour of the member and its com-
ponent parts in calculation oflongitudinal shear. This differs lrom previous UK practice bul
is more soundly based in theory.
Claase 6.6,2.2(2) gives specific guidânce on how to comply with the above requirements Clouse 6.6.2.2(2)
where thc concrete slab is in compression. For the length of beam where the bending
rnolllent exceeds Mcl.Rd, the longitudinal shear rclationship should be determinÊd liom the
change in slab lbrce. The relevant length is thât between the points A and C in Fig- 6.29-
The longitudinal shear force in the lengtb A B is detennined as the difference between
slab forces N.."1 ât point A and N".,1 at point B. Appropriate shear connectior.r to carry this
force is provided within this length. Similar calculation is performed fôr the length B-C.
The spacing of the shear connectors within these lengths is left to the designer. Normally
for lcngths A B and B-C, and in the absence ofheavy point loads, changcs of cross-section,
etc-, uniform spacing can be used. In a doubtful case, for exâmple within A-8, the slab force
À: at some point within A B should be determined from the bending moment and appropri-
ate numbem ol connectors providcd between A and D, say D, and between D and B.
The actual relationship between slab forcc, iV", and moment, 11s,1, is shown in Fig. 6.30,
together witlr the âpproximate expression iî Fig. 6.6 ol clause 6.2.1.4(6, and the further
simplification of Fig.6.ll.It cân be scen that both the âpp.roximâtions are safe for the
design of shear connection, because for a given bcnding moment, the predicted slab lbrce
exceeds the real slab force.
For inelastic lengths where the slab is in tension, cleuse 6.6.2.2( 3 ) requil.es the calculation Aouse 6.6.2.2(3)
of lougitudinal shear force [o consider the eflects ol'tension stiffening and possible over-
strength of the conclete. Failure to do so could underestimâte the fôrce attraÇted to the
shear connection. resulting in excessive slip- As aî alternative. clause 6.6.2.2(4) permits Clause 6.6.2.2(4)
the shear flow to be determined using elastic cfoss-section anaLysis hased on the uncrackcd
cross-section. Elastic analysis can be justified in this instance because the conservative

1.0
- - -- True behaviour
ldealisalion in Frg. â6
ldeâlisalion in Frg ô /1
- -.-
-

1.0

Fig. 6,30. Variation of longitudinal force in a concrete flange with bending moment

9
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

assumption of fully uncracked concretc offsets the slightly unconservative neglect of

inelasticity.

6.6.2.3. Locol effeas of concentrated longitudinol sheor force due to introduction of longtudinal forces
Where concentrated longitudinal forces are applicd ro a composite sectiol, the stress stâte
can easily be determined some distanr.:c away from the point of application from considera-
Lions of cquilihrium and from the usual assumption that plane sections remain plane. Plane
sectiôns do not, however, remain plane in the vicinity of the force. and accurate determlna-
tion of the length over which longitudinal shear translèrs betwecn concrete slab and stccl
flangc together with the magnitude of the peak longiludinal shear^flolv requires complex
analysis. This clause is based on paran.retric finite-element analyses'n and existing practice,
Clouse 6.6.2.3 Clause 6.6.2.3 provides simplc rules for the deternination of thc design shear flow bclween
steel and concrete where there is â concentratcd longitudinâl force, Fp1, applied to the
Aouse 6.6.2.3(2) concrete slab. Ctause 6.6.2.3(2) distinguishes between fbrces appJied within the length of
the mcmbcr and those applied at ends of the members. [n the former case, the lcngth over
which the force is distributed, 2,, is equal to the effective width for global analysis, ô"x,
plus e1. rvhich is lhe loadcd lcngth plus twice the lateral distance lrom the point ofapplication
of the force to the web centreline: L,:b"rtiea.
For forces applied at an end of a concrete flânge, the distribution length is half of the
abovc. Thc rclcrcnce to effective width for global analysis means thât the simple provisions
of clause 5.4.1.2(4J can be used, rather thal the effective width approPriate to the cross-
section where the lbrce is applied
The lorce cannot, in general, be transl'erred uniformly by the shear connecLion ovel the
above lengths ard Fig.6.12(a) and fb) shows the distribution to be used, leading Io equa'
tions (6.t2 ) and (6.1J ). Where stud sheâr connectors are uscd, these are sufficiently ductile
to permit a uniform distribution of shear flow over the above lengths at the ultimate limit
Aouse 6.6.2.3(j) state. This leads ro equûtions (6.14) and (6-15) ill clause 6,6.2.3(3). For serviceability or
làtigue limit statcs, the distributions of etluations (6.12) ar|iJ' f6./J, should always be used.
The shear force l/1- s6 transf'erled to the shear connection is not Fg6, as can be seen lionl
Fig. 6.31 for the case of a force applied to the end of the concrete slab. Force y'1.s3 is lhe
difference between ,îEd and the force N. in the concrete slâb where dispersal of aEd into
the cross-section is complete.
Aause 6.6.2.3(4) Clause 6.6.2.3(4) allows the dispersal of the lbrce Fs6 [ s6 (which fbr load applied to
the concrete as shown in Fig. 6,3l is equal lo Nc) into either the concretc or steel element to
bebasedonanangleofsprcadof2/iwhereBistan'2l3.Thisisthesamespreadangleused
in EN 1992-1-l clause 8.10,3 for dispersal ofprcstressing force into concreLe- It is slightly less
than the dispersal allowed by clause 3.2.3 of EN 1993-l-5 for the spreâd through steel
elements.

6.6-2-4. Locol effects of concentroted longitudinol shear forces ot sudden chonge ofcross-sections
Clouse 6.6.2.4 Clause 6.6.2.4 provides simple rules for the detcrmination of the design shear flow between
steel and concrete at ends of slabs where:

Aouse 6.6.2.4(l ) . Lhe primary ciTccls of shrinkage or differential tempcrature are developed (clau"-e
6.6.2.4(1))

)*

)
Fig. 6.3 l. Determination of V1.ç6 for a concentrated force âpPlied at an end of the slab

120
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIIVIIT STATES

)*

Fig. 6.32. Determination of yL,Ed for primary shrinkage ar an end of a beam

. tlrere is an abrupt change of cross-section (.clause 6.6.2.4(2)), such as that shown jrl Aouse 6.6.2.4(2)
Fig.6.33.
The shear fL Ed transferred across the concrele and steel interlâce due to shrinkâge or
ternperaLure may be assumed to be distributed ôver a lcngth cqual to b"6, as discussed in
section 6.6.2.3 above. Generallv. clause 6.6,2.4(3) requires the distribution of this fôrce to Clouse 6.6.2.4(j)
be triangular as shown in Fig.6.12(c), which leads Lo e(luatiotT (6.16). Where stud shear
connectors are used, these are again sulliciently ductile tô permit a uniform distribution of
shear florv over the length b"rp. This leads to a dcsign shear flow of V7.y,1f b"11.
A calculaLion of primary shrinkage stresses is given in Examplc 5.3 (Fig. 5_ I l). The force
,\ is fbund from these. It equals the shcar force tr/1,,,1, which is trânsferred as shorvn in
fig. h.32.
The detcrmination of I/r,ea caused b1, bending ât a sudden change in eross-se(tion i\
shor,i'n in Fig. 6.33 for the case of proppcd construction, in which the totâl môment at
cross-scction B B is:

MH.s : Mn -r M. + N"z
For unpropped construction, thc s|Iess woùld not vary linearly across the composite
section as shown in Fig. 6.33" but the calculation of longitudinal sheal. from the force in
the slab would fbllow the samc procedure.
The length over which the force is djstributed and the shape of distribution may bc takcn
according to claase 6.6,2.4(5 ) to be the same as that given in clau.se 6.6.2.4 ( 3 ) . Clouse 6.6.2.4(5)

6.6.3. Headed stud €onnectors in solid slabs and concrete encasemenr

ResÈtonce to longitudinol sheor
In BS 5400 Palt 5" and in earlier UK codes. the charactcristic shear resistances ofstuds are
given in a tablc, applicable only when Lhe stud material has particular properties_ Thcre was
n,) Lheoretictl model for thc \hear re)ist:lnce.
The Eurococles must be appLicable to a wider range of products. so design cquatjons are
essential. Those giveln rn clause 6.6.3.1(1) are based on the model that â stud with shank dia- Clouse 6.6.3. | (l)
mctcr d and ultimâte strength.l;. set ill concrete u'ith characteristic strength /lç and n.rean
secant modulus 4m, fhils either in the steel alone or in the concrete alone. The concrctc
failure is fbund in tests to be influenced by both the siiffness and the strength of the concrete.

J I '.."
|.-------
(
Maf)
))/

Fig. 6.33. Determination of /Lg6 caused by bending moment ar a sudden change of cross-secrion

t2l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994,2

PRd (kN) 100

Densily class 1.8

lck (N/mm')

25 3j 50 60 lru (N/mm.)

Fig. 6.34. Design shear resistânces of l9 mm studs with h/d > 4 in solid slâbs

This led to cq,alions ( 6-18 ) to a6.21l, in which the numerical constants and partial safèty
factor 1y have been deduced from analyses of test data. In situations where the resistanccs
trom t:quuti1ns (6.18) and (6.19) àrc similar, tests show that interaction occurs between
the two assumed modes ôf fâilure. An equation based on analyses ol test dâtâ, but llot on
,
a oenne{.l n]()(:Iel
, ,tç
p'.1 : k(,rdz l4).f,,(E. lE^)uo(J"ulJ)u" (D6.le)
gives a curve with a shâpe that âpproximâtes better both to test data and to values tabulated
in BS 5400.
In thc statistical analyses done for EN 1994-1-180'81 both of these methods were studied.
Equâtion (D6.19) gave results with slightly less scatter, but the cquations of clquse
6.6.3.1( I ) were prelèrred because of their clear basis and experience of their use tn some
countries. Here, and elsewhere in Se(tion 6, coefficients from such analyscs were modifled
slightly, to enable a single partial factor, denoted ^1y (V for shcar), 1-25, to be recomnended
for all Lypes ol shear connection. This valuc has been used in draft Eurocodes lor over 20
yeals.
It was concluded from this studyo' that lhc coemcient rû e(luation fd./9) should bc 0.26.
This result was based on push tests. where the mean number of studs per specimen was
only six. and rvhere lateral restraint froln the narrow tcsL slabs was usually less stiff than
in the concrete l.lange ofa composite beam. Strength ofstuds in many beams is also increased
by the presence of hogging transverse bending of the slab. For these reâsons the coemcienl
was increase<l from 0.26 to 0.29. a value that is supported by a subsequent calibration studl'ô0
based on beams with partial shear connection.
Design resistances of 19n.rm stud connectors in solid slabs, glen by clause 6.6.3.1, a're
shown in Fig. 6.34. It is assumed that the penalty fbl short studs, eqlruIion (6.20), does
not apply. For any given values of 1,, and ,{ç, Lhe Êgure shows I'hich failure uode
govcrns. Il can bc used for thjs purpose for studs of other diameters, provided that
>
hld 4. The reference to the slâbs âs 'solid' means that they are not composite slabs cast
on profiled steel sheeting. It does llot nornally excLude haunched slabs.
The 'overerll nominal height' of a stud, used in equations ( 6.20 ) an<i 16.2//, is âbout 5 mm
greater than the 'length alter welding', a lerm which is also in use.

Wdd collors
Clouse 6.6.3.1(2) Claase 6.6,3.1(2) on weld collars refers to EN 13918,"'which gives 'guide values' for the
height and diameter of collars, with the note that these rrray vary in through-deck stud
welding. lt is known that for studs rvith normal weld collars, a high proportion of Lhc
shear is LransmirLed throtLgh lhe collar.'6 lr should not be assumed IhJt Lhe shcar resi}tances
of clau.se 6.6.3.1 are applicable to studs $'ithout collars, as nolcd by c/aa.re 6.6.3.1(4) (e.g.

t22
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

where friction welding by high-speed spinning is used). A norrral collar should be fused to
the shank of the stud. Typical collars in the test specimens from which thc design formulae
rvere deduced had a diameter not less than 1.25l and a minimum heieht not less thân 0.15.1.
whcre d is the diameter of the shank,

Splitting of the slob

Clause 6.6.i,1( 3 ) refers to ' splitting .fbrces' in the dircction of the slab thickness. These occur Aouse 6.6.3. I (3)
u here the axisof a stud lies in a plane parallel to thât of the concrete slab; for examplc, if
studs ale welded to thc web of a steel T-section that projects into a concrete flange. These
are refcrred to as 'lying studs' in published researchs2 on thc local rcinforcenrent needed
to prevent or control splitting. Commcnt on the informât|e Annex C on this subject is
gjven in Chapter 10- A similar problem occurs in composite L-beams rvith studs close to a
free edgc of tl.re slab. This is addrcssed n clause (t.6.5.3 (2 ).
fersion in studs
Pressurc under the head of a stud connectof and friction on thc shank normally causes
the stud weld to hc subjected to vertical tcnsion befbre shear fâilure is reached. This is
why (lquse 6,6,1.1(E) requircs shear connectors to have a resistanoe to tension that is at
Ieâst l0% of the shea.r resistânce. Cluuse 6.6.3.2(2) therefore permits tensile forces thàL Clause 6.6.3.2(2)
are less than this to be ncglected. (The symbol F1",, in tl.ris clause means _Fp1 ,"n.)
Resistance ofstuds to higher tcnsile forces has been found to depend on so many variables,
especiâlly the layout of local reinforcemcnt, that no simple design rules could be given.
Rclevant evidence from about 60 tests on 19 mm and 22 mm studs is nresented in Ref. 74.
vhich gives a best-fit interâction curvc. In design tetms. this becomes
(4"./0.85 PRd)i/r +.(PLdlpR.)5i3 <I (D6.20)
Where the vertical tensile force F,"n :0.lPna,
this gives PEr < 0.93PRd, rvhich is plausible.
Expression (D6.20) sl.rould be used with caution, because sôme studs itr these tests had ratios
hld as hrgh as 9j but on the conservative side. the concrete blocks were unreinforced.

6.6.4. Headed studs that cause splitting in the direction ofthe slab thickness
There is a risk of splitting ol Lhe concrete where the shank of a stud (a 'lying stud') is parallel
ând closc Lo a free surface of thc slab, as shown, for example, in Fig. 6.35. Whcrc thc Clouse 6.6.4(l)
conditions of clause 6,6.4(1) to (3.) are mct, Lhe stud resistances of c/ouse 6.6.3..1 may still to (3)
be rLscd. The geolnetric requircments are shown in Fig. 6-35. in which d is the cliameter of
the stud. A furthcr restriction is that thc stud must not also carry shear in â direction trans-
vr:rse to the slâb thickness. The example shown in Fig. 6.35 rvould not comply in this respect
unless thc steel section were desig[ed to be ]oaded ôn its bottom flange. Claute 6.6.4(3)
requires thât the stirrups shown should bc designed fbr a tensile force equal to 0.3pRd per
stud connector. This is analogous with the design of bursting reinforcen.rent at prestlessing
anchoragcs. Tl.re tlue tensile force dcpends on the slâb thickness and spacing of the sLuds
and the proposed valuc is conservâtive lor a single row of studs. No recommendation is
given hcrc, or rn Annex C, on tbe design of stinups where thcrc arc scvcral rows of studs.

ll

Ss,:18d
v> l4d
(a)

Fig. 6.35. Examples of details susceptible to longitudinal splitring

t23
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Srrme details which do not comply with cluuse 6.6.1 can be designed using the rules in the
informâtive lnnerç C, if its use is permitted by the National Annex. In Fig. 6.35, the effecLs of
locai loading on thc slab and of U-frame action will also cause momeut at lhe shear connec-
tion which could cause stud tensions in excess ofthose allowcd.by clttusc 6.6.3.?. This detail is
therelbre best avoided.
Planes of t1'pe a-a such as section A-A in Fig, 6.35 should be provided with longitudinal
shear leinfbrcement in accordance with clau,se 6.6.6-

6.6.5. Detailing ofthe shear connection and influence of execution

It is rarely possible to prove the general validity of application rules for detailing, becausc
they apply to so great a variety of situations. They are based partly on previous practice.
An adverse experience causes the relevant rule to be made more restrictive. In reseârch, exist-
ing rules are ofien violated when test specimens arc dcsigned, in the hope that extensivc good
cxpcricnce may enable existing rules to be relaxed.
Rules are often expressed in the form of limiting dimensions, even though most behaviour
(excludiug corrosion) is more inllucnced by râtios of dimensions than by a single value,
Minimum dimensions thât would be appropriate fbr an unusually large structural member
could exceed those given in the code. Similarly. code maxima mây be too large for use in
a smalL member. Designers are unwise to follow detailing rules blindly, because no set of
rules can be comprehensive.

Resistonce to seboration
Aouse 6.6.5.1(l ) The obiect ofc/ause 6.6,5.1(1) on resistance to scparation is to ensure that 1àilure surfaces in
thc concrctc cannot pass abovc the connectôrs and below the reinforccment, intersecting
neither. Tests have found that these surlirces may nol hc plane; the problern is threc-
dimensional. A longitudinal section through a possible failure surfaoe ABC is shown in
Fig. 6.36- The studs are at the maximum spacing allowed by clause 6.6.5.5(3).
Clause 6.6-5.1 detnes only the highest level lor the bottom reinforcement. Idcally, its
longitudinal location relative to the studs should also be defined, because the objective is
to prevent failure surfaces where the angle o (Fig. 6.36) is small. It is impracticable to link
delailing rules for reinforcemenl wjth those lor connectors, or to specify a minimum for
angle cr. In Fig. 6.36, it is less than 8', which is much too low.
The anglc ,r obviously depeuds on thc lcvel ofthe bottom bârs, the height ofthc studs, ând the
spâcing ofboth the bars and the studs. Studs in a bridge deck usually have a length after welding
(LAW) that exceeds the 95 mn sholvn. ÂssumingLAW
- 120 mm, maximum spacings of both
bars and studs of 450 mm, and a bottom cover of 50 mm gives cv ) 17", approximately, which is
suggested here as a minimum. Studs may need to be longer than 125 mm where pernanent
formwork is used, as this raises the level of the bottom reinforcement,
Other work reached a similar conclusion in 2004,s3 Relerri:rg to failure surfaces as shown
in Fig. 6.36, it rvas recommended that angle a should be at least 15'. In this paper thc line AB
(Fig. 6.36) is tangential to the top ofthe bâr ât B, rather than the bottom, slightly reducing its
slope.

Concreting
6.6,5.2(l)P rcquircs shcar connectors to be detailed so that the concrete cân be
Clause 6.6.5.2(l )P Clautte
âdeouâtelv comnacted around the base of the conneclor- This necessitates the avoidance

I
L
55

"-t
f

Fig. 6,36. Level of bottom transverse reinforcement (dimension! in mm)

t24
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIIYIT STATES

Fig. 6.37. Longitudinal shear reinforcement in an L-beâm

of cxcessively close spacings of connectors and the use of oonnector gcomcLrics that might
prevent adequatc flow ol the concrete around the connector. The fôrmer could be a consid-
eration at the ends offully integral bridgcs where a very high shear flow has to be Lransferred
into the steel bcam over a relatively short length. Since the resistances of connectôrs other
than studs afe not covered by EN 1994-2, propelties of other types of connector could be
referrcd to lrom a National Annex. The design of a block-and-hoop connector is illustrated
in Example 6.8. A novcl type of connection could be investigâted as part of the testing
requirenents of clause 6.6.1.1( I2 )

Loading of shear connection during execution

Clause 6.6,5.2(3) particularly concerns the stagcrl casting of concrctc flanges for t1'pical Clouse 6.6.5.2(3)
unpropped compositc bridges. Partly matured concrete arôund shear connectors in a
recently cast length of beam could possibly be danaged by the effe-cts of concreLing
nearby. The recon.rmended lorver limit on soncretc strcngth, 20 Ni/mm', in effect sets a
minimum time interval bctween suocessive stages of câsting. The rule b€gins 'lllheretter
po,r,ilôle' because there âppeârs to be no cvidence of damage liom eflects of carly thcrmal
or shrinkage strains. which also apply longitudinâl shear to young concrete.
In propped construction, it would be unusual to remove the plops until the concrete had
achieved a compressive strength of ât least 20 Nimmr, in order to avoid ovetstressing the
beam as a whole. Where the props are removed priol to the concrete attaining the specified
strength, vcdfioations at removal of props should bc based on an aFpropriately reduced
compressive strengLh.

Lecol reinforcement in the s/oô

Where shear connectors are qlose to a longitudinal edge of â concfete flange, use of U-bars is
almost the only way of pror-iding the lull anchorage required by clause 6.6,5,3(11.'fhc Aouse 6.6.5.3(l )
splitti g referred to in ckuse 6.6.5.3(2) is a common môde of fâilure in push-test specimens Aouse 6.6.5.3(2)
with nalrow slabs (e.g. 300mm, which has long been the standard width in British codes). It
wâs âlso found, in full-scale tests, to be the normal failure mode for cornposite L-beams
constructed with precast slabs.sa l)etailing rules are given in clquse 6.6.5.3(2) 1br slabs where
the cdgc distance e in Fig. 6.37 is less than 300 mm- The required arca of bottom transverse re-
inforcement, l5 per unit Jength of beam, should be found lsrng claLrse 6.6.6.In the unhaunched
slab shown in Fig. 6.3?, lailure surlace b b will be critical (unless the slab is very thick) because
the shcar on surface a a is low in ân L-beam r.r'iLh an asymmelrical concrete ilange.
To ensure that the reinforcenent is fully anchored to the left of the line a a, it is recom-
mcnded that U-bars be used. These can be in a horizontal plane or, whcrc lop rcinforccment
is needed, in a vcrlical plane.

Reinforcement ot the end of a contilever

At the end of â composite cantilever. the l'orce on the concrete fiom the connectors acts
towards lhe nearest edge of the slâb. The effects of shrinkagc and temperature can add
further stresses'" that tcnd to cause splitting in region B in Fig. 6.38, so reinfolcement in
this rcgion needs careful detailing. Clause 6.6.5.3(3)P can be satisÊcd by providing 'herring- Clouse 6.6.5.3(3)P
bone' bottom reinforcemcnt (ABC in Fig.6.38) sufficient to anchol the lbrce from the
connectors into the slâb, and ensuring that ths longitudinal bars provided to resist that
forcc arc anchored beyond their intersection with ABC-
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Transverse reinf orcem€nl

Steel beam

Studs

Fig. 6.38. Reinforcement at the end ôf a cantilever

Houn(hes
Haunohes are sometimes provided in composite bridgcs to cater for drainage cross-làlls so
that the thickness of the slab or deck surfacing need not be varied. The detailing rules of
Qouse 6.6.5.4 claase 6,6.5.4 are based on limited test evidence, but are long-estabLished,o' In regions of
high longitudinal shear, deep haunches should be used with câution becâuse there may be
little warning of lailure.

Moximum spocing of connectots

Situations where the stability of a concrete slab is ensured by its connccLion to â steel beâm
arc unlikely to occur because a concrete slab that is adequate to resist local bridge loading is
unlikely to suffer instability from membrane forces. The converse situatiorr, stabilization of
Lhe steel flange, is of interest only where the steel compression flange is not already in Class I
ôr 2. Where the steel beam is a plate girder, its proportions will often be chosen such that it is
in Class 3 for the bâre steel condition during construction. This l.raximjses the lateral buck-
ling rcsistance for a flange of given cross-sectional area.
Qause 6.6.5.5(2) Clnuse 6.6.5.5(2) is not restrictive in practice. As an exâmple. a plate girder is considered,
insteel rvith./" : 355 N/mm2, where the top flange has tr:29-., an overall breadth of
350mm, and an outstand c of l65mm. The ratio e is 0.81 and the slenderness is:
cl trt = 165 I (,20 x 0.81) : 10.2

so from Table 5.2 ol EN 1993- I -1, the flange is in Class 3. From clause 6.6.5.5 ( 2 ) , it can be
assumed to be irl Class 1 ifshear connectors are provided within 146 mm ofeach free edge, at
longitudinal spacing not exceeding 356 rrm, 1'or a solid slab.
The ratio 22 in this clause is based on the assumption that the steel flange cannot buckle
towards the slab. Where there are transverse ribs (c.g. due to the use ôfprofiled sheeting), thc
assumption mây nôt be correct. so the ratio is reduced to 15. The maximum spacing in this
cxample is then 243mm.
Further requiremcnts for composite plates in box girders are given in c/aase 9.4 ( 7 ) . These
also cover limitations ôn lôngitudinâl ând transverse spacings ofconnectors to ensure Class 3
bchaviour- The rule on transverse spacing in Table 9.1 should be applied also to a wide
compression flange of a plate girder.
Aouse 6.6.5.5(3) The naximum longitudinal spacing in bridges, given in clause ,6.6.5.5(3), 4h. bnt
:i800 mm, is more liberal than the equivalent rule of BS 5400 Part 5." It is based mainly
on behaviour observed in tests, ând on practice with precast slabs in some countries.
Aouse 6.6.5.5(4) Clause 6,6,5.5(4) allows the spacing rules for individual connectors to be relaxed if
connectors are placed in groups. This may facilitate the use ofprecast deck units with discrete
pockcfs for the shear connection (clause 8.4.3(3) rcfers) but many of the deetned-to-satisfy
mles elsewhere in EN 1994-2 then no longer apply. The designer should then cxplicitly con-
sider the relevant effects. which rvill make it diflicult in practice to depart frôm the âpplication
rules. The eflccrs ]isted are as follows.
. Non-uniform {low of longiLudinal shcar. If the spacing of the groups of connectors is
Iarge compared to the distânce between points of zero and maximum moment in the
beam, lhen the normal assu[.rption of plane sections remaining plane will not apply
and the calculation of bendine resistance to cleuse 6.2 \NlIl not be valid.

126
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

. Greater risk of slip and vertical separation of concrete and sL€el. The latter cafies a
corrosion risk for Lhe steel flange which rvould be hard to quantify without tesling.
. Buckling ofthe steel flânge. This can be considered by applying clause 4.4(2) of EN 1993-
1-5. The elastic critical buckling stress, oc. can be determined for Lhc discrete supports
ollcrcd by the particular connection provided, either by finilc-element analysis or from
standard texts such as Ref. 86. If the latter method is employed, account needs to be
taken of the beneficial restraint provided by the concrete against buckling. In the
absence of this restrainL, Lhc flange would try to buckle in half wavelengths between
the studs, alternâting towards and away from the concrete. Buckling into thc concrete
is, in reality. prevented and therefore no rotation of the flange can occur âlông the line
of the studs. Discrete supports whicb clamp thc plate at the stud locations may lherefore
usually be assumed in determining the critical stress.
. Local resistance of the slab to the colcentrated force from thc connectors. Groups of
studs apply a force analogous to that lrom an anchorage of a prestressing cable. The
region of transverse tension does not coincide with the location of the group. Both the
quantity and the location of the transverse reinforcement required may differ li'otl
that given by clause 6.6.6.

Dimensions of the steel flonge

The rules of clause 6,6,5.6 are intended to prevent local oyerstress of a steel flange ncar a Clouse 6.6.5.6
shear connector and io avoid problems with stud welding, Application rules for minimum
flange thickncss arc givcn in tlause 6.6.5.7(3) a\d (5). Thc minimum edge distance for
connectors in clause 6.6.5.6(2) is consistent with the reqr.rirements of BS 5400:Part 5-" Qause 6.6.5.6(2)
The limit is also necessary to avoid a reduction in the làtigue dctail category for the flange
ât the stud location. which from EN 1993-l-9 Table 8.4, is 80 for a compliant stud.

Headed stud connectors

Cbuse 6.6.5.7( I ) and (2) is concerned with rcsistance to uplift. Rules Ibr resistance of studs. Aouse 6.6.5.7(l )
minimurn cover and projection of studs âbove bôttom reinforcenent usually lcad Lo the use Qouse 6.6.5.7(2)
ofrtud. of hcighr greaLer than 3/.
The limit 1.5 for the râtio d f 4 in clause 6.6.5.7 ( 3 ) cottld, in principle, influence the dcsign Clouse 6,6.5.7(3)
of shear connection for closed-top box girders in bridges, effectively rcquiring the thickness
ofthe top flange Lo be a minimum ol'lSmm wherc 19mm diameter studs are used. Studs
of this size ale prelèrred by many UK lâbricâtors âs they can be welded manually. It is
unlikcly that a composite box rvould have a flange this thin as it would then require
considerable longitudinâl stiffening to suppofi the plate prior to setting ol the ooncretc.
Clause 6.6.5.7 (3 ) rvould also apply to plate girders adjacent to cross-btaces or transverse
diaphragms, but praclical sizes of lianges for main beams will satisfy this criterion. It
could be a consideration for cross-girders.
ln clause 6.6.5.7(11, the minimum lateral spacing ofstudsin'solid uhls'has been reduced Clause 6.6.5.7(4)
to 2.5d. compared with rhc 4d of BS 5950-3-1. This facilirates the use of precast slabs
supported or the edges of the steel flanges, with projecting U-bars that loop over pairs of
studs. Closely spaccd pairs of studs must be well confined laterally. The words 'solid
slabs' should therefore be understoôd here to exclude haunches.

6.6.6. Longitudinal shear in concrete slabs

The subject of c/anse 6,6.6 is thc avoiclance of local failure of a concrete flange near the shear Aouse 6.6.6
connection, by the provision of appropriate reinforcement. These bars enhance the Iesistance
of a thin concrctc slab lo in-plane shear iu the same way that stirrups strengthen a concrete
web in velticâl shear. Transverse reinforcement is also needed to control and linrit thc Jong-
itudinal splitûng of the slab that can be caused by local lbrces from individual connectors. In
this respect, the detailing problem is morc àcutc than in the flanges of côncrete T-beams,
where the shear liom the u/eb is applied more uniformly.
The principal changc from earlier codes is that the equations for the required area of
transverse reinforcement have been renlaced bv cross-reference to EN 1992-l-1. Its

t27
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

provisions are based on a truss analogy, as beforc, buL a more general version ofiL. in which
the angle bctween members of the truss cân be chosen by the designer. It is ân âpplication of
strut-and-tie modelling, which is widely used in EN 1992.
Therc is. horvever, a significânt difference between the application of EN 1992 and
EN 1994. In the lattcr, [he Lransverse reinlbrcement may be placed according to the distribu-
tion of vertical sheâr force envelopc, or according lo the stud foroes for sections whcrc the
elastic resistancc moment is exceeded. In the foflner, the transverse reinfolcement should
be placed according to the localion of the web compression struts as they intersect the
flangcs ancl their subsequent continuation into the flanges.
Clouse 6.6.6.1(2)P The definitions ofshear surlàces in dause 6,6.6,1(2)P and the basic design method are as
before. The method of presentation retects thc nccd to scparatc thc 'gcncral' pro"isions.
cluu.tcs 6.6.6.1 Lo 3, lrom those restricted to'buildings', in EN 1994-1-1 clause 6.6.6.4.
Aause 6.6.6.1 (4) CIau se 6.6.6.1( 4 ) requircs the design longitudina I shear t o be' consistent witll that used for
the dcsign of the shear connectors. This means that the distdbution along the beâm of
reslstance to in-planc shcar ir the slab should be not less than that assumed for the design
of lhe shear connection. For example, uniform rcsistance to longitudinal shear flow (t.,1)
should be provided where the connectors are uniformly spaced, e\-en if the vertical shear
over the length is not constaû1- lt rloes not mean, for exarlple, that if, lor reasons concerning
detailing, ul- i,1 = L3t'1.1,1 fol the connectors, the transverse reinforcement must provide the
same degree of over-strcngth.
The relèrence to'vu'isrion of longitudinal sht:ur tu:ross th(i width of the concrete flunge'
means that transverse reinfbrcement could be redr.rced away from the beâm centrelines,
where the longitudinal shcar reduces, if flexural requirements pemit.
Aouse 6.6.6.I (5) \n applying claase 6.6.6..1(5,,, it is suliciently accurate to assumc that longitudinal bending
stress in the concrete flange is constant across its effectiye width, ând zero outside it. The
clause is relevant, for example, Lo finding the shear on plane a a in lhe haunchcd bcam
shown in Fig. 6.15, which. fbr a syfirmeticâl flange, is less thân hâlf the sheâr resisted by
the connectors.

Resistdnce of o concrete flonge to longitudinol sheor

Çlouse 6.6.6.2(l) Clause 6.6,6,2(I) refers to clause 6.2.4 of EN 1992-l-1, which is written for a design longi-
tudinal shear stress r)Ed acting on a cross-section of thickness /ri. This must be distinguished
fron.r the design longitudinal shear flor.r' ?rp 66 uscd in F,N 1994 which is cqual to 1t6,1â6. The
clause requircs the area of transverse reinforcement lsf at spâcing sf tô sâtisfy
A,r./"a/sr > L)Edh f co|0r (6.21) in EN 1992- 1-l
and the longitudinal shear stress to satisiy
r.rs,1 < d1 sin dscos 9i (6.22) in EN 1992-l-l
z:0.6(1 _.4k/250), with.[ç in N,/mm, uniLs. (The Greek letter rr (nu) used here in
rvher.e
EN 1992-l-1 should not be confused with the Roman letter ! (vee), which is used for
shear stress.)
The angle dr between the diagonal strut and thc axis of Lhe beam is choscn (within limits)
by the designer. It should be noted that the recommended limits depend on whether the
flange is in tension or compression, and can be varied by a National Annex.
EN 1992-l-l does nol specify the distribution of the required transverse reinforcement
between the upper and lower la1'ers in thc slab- lt was a requirement of carly drafts of
EN 1992-2 that the transverse reinlorcement provided should have the same centre ol
resistance âs the longitudinal force in the slab, This rvas removed. presunably because it
has been common prâctice to consider thc shcar rcsjstance to be lhe sum of thc rcsistances
from the two layers. Clause 6.6.6.2(3 ) refers to .Frg. 6.-15 which clârifles thât the reinforce-
ment to be considered on planc a a for composile beams is the total of the two layers,
Ab + A t. lt sl.rould be noted thât âpplicâtion of Annex MM of EN 1992-2 would necessitate
provision of transvcrse reinforcement with the same centle of resistance as the longitudinal
force in the slab.

t28
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

The use of the method is illustrated in Example 6.9.

The rcfcrcncc rn douse 6.6.6.2(1, is to the whole of clause 6.2.4 of EN 1992-1-1. This
includes clause 6.2.4(5) which requires a check of the interâction with transverse bending
in thc concrete slab on planes oftype a a. This requires the amounl of transverse reinfotce-
ment to be the greatcr of that required for longitudinal shear alone and half thât required fbr
longitudinal shear plus that required for transverse bending.
This rule is illustrated in Fig. 6.39(b), in lvhich ,1."",1 is the total reinforccment required,
and subscripts s and b refcr to thc rcinfrrrccmcrt requirèd lbr shcar and bending, respectively,
The rule is more onerous than that in BS 5400 Part 5, where no interaction is needed to be
considcred on planes of t1,pe a a. This was because a transverse bending moment produces
no net âxiâl fôrce in the slab. Reinlorcemcnt in Lcnsion is Lhen associated with concrete that
has a resistance to shear enhanced by the presence of transvelse corrpression. Test evidence
supported this model.
Consideration of this interâction âccording to EN 1992- 1-1, râther than simple addilion of
bcnding and shear requiren.rents, is lational as the truss angle in the uppcr and lower layers of
the slab cân be varied to account for thc rclativc dcmands imposed on them of shear and
either direct tension or compression. Annex MM of EN 1992-2 reinforces this, although
its use suggcsts that lhe '50% of longitudinal shear' rule is optinistic. The interllction on
surfaces around the studs differs slightly as discusscd below under the heading',9/xear
plunes ctnd surfàces' .

Clause 6.2.4(105) of EN 1992-2 adcls an additional interaqtion condition fol the concrete
struts. rvhich was largely due to the strength of belief in its Project Team that the neglect of
this check was unsalc. It was less to do rvith any inhelent difference bctween the behaviour of
buildings and bridges. Considerations ofequilibrium suggest thât EN 1992-2 is correct. The
rcfcrence in EN 1994-2 to EN 1992-l-l rather than to EN 1992-2 is therel-orc signi{icant as it
excludes the check. No check of thc cIlcct ofnron'rent otr thc concrete struts was required by
BS 5400 Part 5.
Clause 6.2.4(10.5) of EN l992-2 refers to the compression from transverse bending. It is
however equally logical to consider the slab longitudinal compression in the check of the
concrct€ shuts, although this was not intended, Once again. the use of Annex MM of
EN 1992-2 would require this to be considcrcd. lt js rarc in practice for â concrete flange
to be subjected to a severe combination of longitr.rdinal compression and in-plane shear- It
could occur ncar an internal support of a continuous half-through bridge- It is shor.n in
Example 6.11 that the reduction in resistance to hending would usually be negligible. if
this additional interaction were to be considered.
Neither EN 1992 nor EN 1994 deals with the case of longitudinal shear and coexistent
Lransverse lension in the slab. This can occur in the trânsverse beams of laddcr decks near
the intersection with the main bcams in hogging zones wherc lhe main beâm reinfotcelnent
is in global tension, In such cases, there is clearly â net tension in the slab and the reinforcc-
mcnt rcquircments for tl.fs tension should be full-v combined with that for longitudinal shear
on planes a-a.

Sheor Dlones ond surfoces

Clause 6,6,6,1(3 ) lefers to sheâr 'sarfacc.r' because some of them are not plane. Those of
typcs b b, c r and cl din Fig,6.15 are diflelent ti'om the type a a surfacc because they
resist almost the whole longitudinal shcar, not (typica]ly) about half of it. The relevant
reinfbrcement intersects them twice, as shown by the fâctôrs 2 in the table n Fig.6.15.
For a surface of typc c c ir a beam with the steel section near one edge of the concrete
flange, it is clearly wroug to âssume thât half the shear crosses half of the surfacc c c.
However. in this situalion 1he shear on the adiacent plane of typc a a will govern, so the
method is not unsafe.
Claure 6.6.6.2(2) rclcrs to EN 1992-1-l clause 6.2.4(4) for rcsistance to longitudinal Aouse 6.6.6.2(2)
shear for surfaces passing around the shear studs. This does not include a check of the
interaction with transverse bending in the slab. This does not mean that such a check may
be isnored-

t29
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Interaction of lôngitudinal shcar and bending sl.rould be considered for the reinforcen.rent
crossing shear surtàces around the connectors. Slab bottom reinforcement is particularly
lmportânt since most of lhe shear transferred by stud connectors is transferred over the
boltom part of the stud. The bottom reinforcemcnt crossing surfaces passing around the
studs must con|Iol the localized splitting stresses generâted by the high stud pressures- For
sudaces of type b-b and c r in F4q. 6.1J, it is clear that the reinforcement crossing the
surface must provide both the resistance to longitudinal shear and any trans\,erse sagging
moment present. The reinforcement requirements for coexisting shear and sagging
moment should thelefore be fully addcd.
For coexisting shear and hogging moment, there is ttânsverse compressiôn ât the bâse ôf
the connectofs. BS 5400 Part 5 penlritted a corresponding reduction in the bottom reinforce-
ment. fhis could be tlre basis of L'mora æcurdtc calculation' permttted 6y cknse 6-6.6.2 ( 2 ) .
For surfaces of type d d in Fig. 6.15. the haunch reinforcement crôssed by the studs will
not be considered in the sagging bcnding resistance and therefore it need only be desigled lor
longitudinal shear. These recommendâtions âre consistent with those in BS 5400 Pârt 5.

Minimum tronsverse reinforcement

Clause 6.6.6.3 Clause 6.6.6,3 on this subject is discussed under c/dur? 6.6.5.1 on resistance tô separation.

acting on side AB of the rectangle shown. lt is tmnsferred to side CD by a concr€te strut

AC at angle d1 to AB, and with edges that pass through the mid-points of AB, etc., as
shown, so that the width of the strut is sçsin d1.

Ft : I" sin d6 : Iu tan 91

t30
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

so the initial choice for dr is 26.5'. Then. from equation (D6.22),

P' - 0.5F,
From equation (6.22) In EN 1992-l-1. above.
r'1 I < 0.402l..1

20 mm bârs at
150 mm

Fi8. 6.40. Sheâr studs and tmnsverse reinforcemenr adiâcent to an internal support

From Example 5.2, the modular râtio rh is 6.36. From Example 5.4, the area of
longitudinâl reinforcement is ,4" = l9480mml. which is 2.5% of thc efective cross-
sectioll of the concrete flange. Relevant claslic propcrtics of the cross'section are given
in Table 6.3 for lhe uncracked unreinforced section (subscript U) and the uncracked
reinforced section (subscript UR). The cffect on these values of including the leinforee-
menl is not tregligible when the long-term modular ratio is used. However, the significant
reduction in longitudinal shcar caused by cracking is being ignored, so it is âccurâte
enough to use the unreinforced section when calculating longitudinal shear,
The height z to the neutral axis is measured from the bottom of the cross-section. The
ptoperty Àz I I , for the whole of the effective concrete flànge, is appropriate for checking

t3l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

((r37s-rr20)
A2 (*"t) -

short-term, tr'sa - 1076 kN; total. 1903 kN.

From equation (D6. I8).
tr.sa - 1903 r 0.810 = l54l kN/m
Groups of four 19 mm diameter studs with  : 500 N/mm2 are providerl at I 50 mm
centris. Tlreir resistânce is governed by equtttiin /6.19):

critical for the reinforcement check as it has the same reinforcement as the Dlane
through lhe deck (i.e. two ?0mm diarneter bars) but almosr twice the longitudinal
shear. It is assumed here that therc is no significant sagging hending over rhe top ûf the
main beams adjacent lo the intefirâl supp{lrts. From equation
of EN 1992-l-1. assuming a 45 truss anÉtle:

,{sr à l54l x l.\O/(cor45 r 500/1.15) :532rnm2 < 628mm: t

so lhe shear stress is satisfactory.

verse teinfotcemeot is as bÀiorc and lhe cross-sccl ional diÀcn sions ofLhe beam are shown
in Fig. ô.22. In lhe real bridge. the moment ar mid-span was less rhan the elastic resistance

r32
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

lYodular

t33
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

s" : 83.3 x 3/861 :0.290m

to govem.

t34
CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIIYIT STATES

t35
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

6.7. Composite columns and composite compression

members
6.7.1. General
ScoDe
A composite column is defined in clausa 1.5.2.5 as 'tl composite member subjected mainlv to
comprest;ion or lo compression and bending', The title of clause 6.7 includes 'compression
members' to make clear that its scopc is not limited to vertical memhers, but includes, for
cxample, composite members in ûusses.
Composite columns are more widely used in buildings than in bridges, so thcir treatment
here is less detailed than rî The Datigners' Guide to EN 1994-l-1.'> Its Exâmple 6.10 on a
concrete-encascd l-section column is supplemented here by Example 6.12 on a concrctc-
filled steel tube.
In tbis Guide, references to 'columns' include other composite conpression members,
uflless noted otherwise, and 'column' means a lenglh of member betwccn adjacent lateral
restrailrts. The concept of the 'effestive length' of a column is not used tn clause 6,7,
Instead, thc 'relative slenderness' is delined, tn clause 6.7.3.3(2), in tenr.rs of N",., 'l&e
elastit: criticql normal frtrcc for the relevtnt bu<:kling mode'. This use ol N". is explained in
the comtrlents on clawe 6.7.3.3.
Clause 6.7.I (l )P Clause 6.7.1( I )P refers to Frg. 6.77, in which all the cross-sections shown have double
synlretry; but clause 6.7.1(6) makes clear that the scope of the general method of
clau,ve 6.7.2 includes members of non-symmetrical section,o'
not intended for application to members subjecLed mainly to transverse
Clause 6.7 is
Ioading and also resisting longitudinal compression, such âs longitudinal beams in an
integral hridgc. These are treated in this Guide in the comrnents on beams.
The bending moment in a compression member depends on the assumed lôcation of the
line of action of the axial forre, N. Where the cross-section has double syrmetry, as in
most columns, this is taken as the inlersection of lhe axes of symmctry. In other cases the
choice, made in the modelling for global ânâlysis, shôuld be retâined for the analysis of
the cross-sections. A small degree of asymmetry (e.g, due to an embedded pipe) can bc
allowed for by ignoring in calculations concrete areas elsewhere, such that symmetry is
restored.
No shear connilctors are shown in the cross-sections in Ftg. 6.17, because withjn a column
length, the longitudinâl shear is normalll' much lower than in a bearn, and sufficient inter-
âction may bc provided by bond or fi'iction. Sheal connectors are normally required for
load introduction, follo['ing chuse 6.7.4.
Where the design axial compression is less thân No. R,l, shown in Frg, 6.19 anC, Frg. 6.41 , rt
is on the sâle side to ignorc it in verification of cross-sections. Where lhcre is moderate or
high transverse shear, sheâr cônnectors may be needed throughout the member. Exâmple
6.11 of Ref- 5 is rclevant.
Aause 6.7.1 (2)P The strenglhs of mâteriâls in ùaase 6.7.1(2)P are as for beams, except that class C60i 75
and lightwcighraggregate concretes are excluded. For these, additional provisions (e,g. for
creep, shrinkage and strain capacity) would be required.ss'8e
Clouse 6.7.1(3) Clause 6.7.1(3) and clol$e 5.1.1(2) both concern the scope of EN 1994-2. as discussed
âbôve.
Aouse 6.7.I (4) The steel contribution ratio, claase 6.7.1 (4), is the proportion of the squash load of the
section that is provided by the stluctufal steel member. If it is outside the limits given, the
member should be treated as reinforced concrete or as structural steel, as appropriatc.

In dep end ent a cti o n effects

Qause 6.7.1(7) Clause 6.7.1(7) relates to the ÀI M interaction curve for a cross-section ofa column shown
in Fig.6.19 and as a polygon in Fig- 6.4?. It applies where the factored axial compression
TFNEk is less than À'om,na,i2, so that reduction in À'trd reduces MR1 As this could be
unsâfe where N66 and ME.l result from independent actio[s, the factor.yp for N6p is
reduced. as illustrated in Fis. 6.34 of Rcf. 5.

t36
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

The'bulge'in the interâction curue is oftcn tiny, as shown in Fig. 6.47. A simplcr and morc
conservaLivc rule, that ignores the bulge, was givcn in ENV 1994-l-1. It is that if Mp,1
corresponding to fFNEk is found to exceed M01,s,1, Mp6 should be tâken as Mpr Rd. It is
applicable unless the bending moment Msd is due solely to tie eccentricity of the force N66.
It is douhtful if lhe 20% rule of c/aasc 6-7.1(7 ) was intended to be combined with the
reduction of 1F frôm l -35 to I .0 for a permanent âction with a relieving effect. Whelr that
is donc, use of the simpler rule given abovc is recommended (e.g. in Fig. 6.47, [o replace
boundâry BDC by BC)-

Locol buc4ing
The prûrciple ot clause 6.7.1(8)P is followed by application rules in c/ouse 6.7.1(9).'lhey Clouse 6.7.1(8)P
ensure that the concrete (reinforced in accordance wilh clause 6.2.5) rcstrains the steel and Aause 6.7.1(9)
prevents it from buckling even when yielded. Columns âre, in effect, treâted in clause 6.7
as Class 2sections. Restrâint lrom the concrete enables the slenderness limits for Class 2
to be increased to the values given in Zaôle 6.3. For example, Lhc facror 90 given for a circular
hollow section replaces 70 in EN 1993- l- l. Members in Class 3 or 4 âre outside the scope of
clau,se 6.7.

Fo gue
Verification of columns for fatigue will rarely be needed, but fatigue loading could occur in
composite members in a truss or in composite colunns in integral bridges. Verification, if
required, should be to clause 6.8.

6.7.2. General method of design

The 'general methocl' of clause 6,7.2 is provided for mcmhers outside the scope of the Clouse 6.7.2
simpliïied method of c/zra,re 6.7.3, and. also to enable âdvânced software-based methods to
be used. It is more a set of principles than a design nlethod. Writilg softwàre that satisfics
them is â task for specialists.
Much oI tlause 6.7.-î and the comments on it provide further guidance on design of com-
pression memhcr\ tltut are outside it: scope.
Clause 6.7.2(31P refers to 'internal lbrces', These are the action effects withil the com- Clouse 6.7.2(3)P
pression mcmber, found f'r'om global analysis Lo Sectiou 5 that includes global and local
imperfèctions and second-order effects.
Clause 6.7.2 ( 3 )P also refers to 'e1a,vo -plastic analysis'.This is defined in clause 1.5.6.10 ol
EN 1990 as 'strucLural analysis that uses stress/strain or moment,/cun'ature relationships
consisting of a linear elastic part followed by a plastic part rvith or without hardening'.
As the three materials in a compositc section follow diflerent non-linear relationships,
direct analysis of cross-sections is not possible. One has first to assume the dimensions
and materials of the member, and then detennine the axiâl force N and bending moment
M at a cross-section from assumed values of axial strain and curvaturc p, using the rclevant
materiâl properties- Thc.M N / relationship for eâch section can be found from mâny such
calculations. This becomes more complex wl.rere biaxial bending is present.e0
Integrâtion along the length of the member then leads Lo a non-linear member stiffness
natrix that relates âxiâl force and end n.roments to the âxial change of length and the end
rotations-
Clause 6.7.2(8) on stress strain curves was drafted, as a'General'rule, before clause 5.7 Aouse 6.7.2(8)
oi- EN 1992-2 was available and refers only to the Parts l-1 of Eurocodes 2 and 3. At that
time these rules appeared to be incompatible for use lor composite structures. Hence, no
application rules on non-linear gJobal analysis are given in clause 5.4.3, where further
commenL 1s glven.
In clause 5.7 ôf EN 1992-2, the intention is that reâlistic stiffnesses, not design stiffnesses,
should be used. on the basis that a small amount of material at the critical section witl.r
'design' propertics will not alter the overâll response. For bridges, the recommended stress-
strain curves are based on the characteristic strensths. This is consistent with Informative

137
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Annex C of EN 1993-l-5. for structural steel. Both Eurocodes 2 and 3 refer to their national
annexes for this subjæt. ln lhe absence ofreferenccs in EN 1994-2 to these Parts ofEurocodes
2 and 3, guidance should be sought from the Nâtional Annex.
Where characteristic properties are used in nonlinear global anall'sis, further checks on
cross-sections are required. An attractive prôpositiôn therefore is to use design values of
material properties throughout, so that the nonlinear analysis itself becomes the verificâ-
tion, provided that the resistance found cxceeds the factored loading. This approach is per-
mitted by clause 5.7 of EN 1992-2. However, it may not be conservative for serviceability
limit states if significant internal forces arise from indirect actions such that greater stiffness
attracts greâter internal effects- There is a caveat to this effect in clause 5.7 of EN 1992-2.

6.7.3, Simplified method of design

ScoPe of the simplifred method
Aouse 6.7.3.I Thc methotl lras been calibrated by comparison wiih test results.9r 'e2 lts scopc, claase 6.7.3,1 ,
is limited mainly by the rangc of rcsults availahle, which leads to the restriction À 1 2 in
Qouse 6.7.3.I (l ) claase 6.7.3.1(1). For most columns, the method requires explicit account to be taken of
imperfections and second-order effects. Thc use of strut curves is limited in c/d(Je
6.7.3.5 ( 2 ) to axiallyJoaded members.
The restricfion on unconnected steel s€cl:rors in paragraph flJ is to prevcnt loss ofstiffness
due to slip, that would invalidate thc formulae for Éf ofthe column cross-section. The limits
Aouse 6.7.3. | (2) to concrete cover in c/aase 6,7,3.1(2) arise from concern over strain soflening of concrele
invaLidating the interaction diagram (Frg. 6.19), and from the limited test dâtâ fôr
columns with thicker covers. Thesc provisions normally ensure that for each axis ol'
bending, the flexural stiffness of the steel section makes a significant contribution Lo the
total stiffness. Greater cover can be used by ignoring jn calculation the concrete that
exceeds the stated limits.
Aouse 6.7.3.1(3) The limit of 6% in clause 6.7.3,1(3) on the reinforcement used in calculation is more
liberal than the 47o (except at laps) recommended in EN 1992-1-1. This limit and that on
maximum slenderness are unlikely to be restrictive in practic€.
Aause 6.7.3.1(4) Clause 6.7.3.1(4) is inLcnded to prevent the use of sccl.ions susceptible to lâteral torsional
buckling,

Resistonce of cross-sections
Reference to thc partial safetl, làctors fbr the materials is avoided by specifying resistânces in
terms ofdesign values for strength, rather than chârâcteristic vâlues: for example in eqtntion
Aouse 6.7.3.2(l ) /6.-10J for plastic resistance to compressionin clause 6,7,1.2f1J. This resistance, Nor na, is the
design ultimate axial load llor a short column, assuming that the structural steel and
reinforcement are yielding ând the concrete is crushing.
For concrctc-cncased sections, the crushing stress is taken as 85o/o of the design cylinder
strength, as explained in the comments on clause J.,1. For concrete-filled sections, thc
côncrete componilnt dcvelops a higher strengtb bccausc of the confinement from the steel
section, and the l5yo reductiôn is not mâdej see âlso the comments on c/ame 6.7.3.2(6).

Resistcnce to aombined compression ond bending

The bending resistance of a column cross-section, M01,p,1, is calculated as for a composite
Aouse 6.7.3.2(2) beam in Class I or 2, chuse 6,7,3,2(2). Points on the interaction curve shown rn Figs 6.18
and 6.19 represent limiting combinations of compressive axial load N and moment M
rvhich corrcspond to the plastic resistance of the cross-section.
The resistânce is found using rectangular stress blocks. For simplicity, that fbr the
concrete ertends to the neutral axis, as shown in Fig. 6.43 lbr resistance to bending (point
B in .F4.. 6-79 and Fig. 6.47). As explained in the comments on clau.se 3.1 ( 1 ), this simplifica-
tion is unconselvative in comparison with stressT'strain culves for concrete and the rules of
EN 1992-1-1. To compensate i'or this, the plastic resistance moment for the cross-section
is reduced by a factor o,y1 it clause 6.7 .3 ,6 ( I ) .

t38
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIIYATE LIIYIT STATES

0.85rod

Concrete Steel

Fig. 6.43. Stress distributions for resistance in bending

As axial conpression increases, the neutral axis movcs; for cxample. towards the lower
edge of the section shown in Fig. 6.43, and then outside the section. The interaction curve
is therefore deterÛrined by moving the neutral axis in increments across the section, and
finding pairs of values of M and N fiom the corresponding stress blocks. This requires a
computer progfam, unless the simplilication given in r/aase 6.7.3.2(5) is used. SirupliÊcd
expressions for the coordinates of points B, C and D on the interaction curle lre given in
Appendix C of Rel'. 5- Further comment is given in Examples 6.10 and C,l in that Guide
and in Example 6.12 here.

lnfluence of transverse sheor

Clauses 6.7,3.2(j) and f4). on the influence oftransverse shear on the interaction curve, are Aouse 6.7.3.2(3)
generally the sâme as clnu,ye 6.2.2.4 on l11onlent shear interâction in bearns. One assumesfirst (louse 6.7.3.2(4)
thal the shear I/Ëd âcts on the structural stcel section alone. If it is less than 0.5 tr/pl â Rd, it has
no effect on lhe curve. If it is greater, there is ân option of sharing it between the steel and
reinfbrced concrete sections. uhich may reduce that acting on the steel to below
0.5 t!,".*a. If it does not, then â reduced design yicld strength is used for the shear atea,
âs for the web of a beam. In a column the she âreâ depends on the plane of bending
considered, and may consist of the {langes of the steel section. lt is assumed that shear
buckling docs Dot occur.
Shear high enough for 4 Rd to bc relied on in design is unlikely to occur in a composite
column. so Lhe code does not go into detail here- The rcfcrcnce rn clause 6.7.3.2(3 ) to the
use of EN 1992 docs not include EN 1992-2. rvhere clâuse 6.2 was not drafted with
columns in mind. Equation (6.2.b) in EN 1992-1-1, which gives a minimum shcar strength
for concrcle regar<lless of reinforcement content. is not valid for unreinforced concrete as
rt âssumes that minimum reilforcen.rent will be provided âccording to EN 1992 require-
menls. It can be inferred that for a concretc-Êlled tube with no longitudinal reinforcement
(permitted 6y clau,se 6.7.5.2(1)), the shear resistance Z" pa according to EN 1992 should
be taken as zelo-

SimPlified interoaîon curve

Clause 6.7.3.2( 5 ) explâins the use of thc polygonal diagram BDCIA in Frg. 6. /9 as an approx- Aouse 6.7.3.2(5)
imation to the interaction curve, suitable for hand calculation. The method âpplies to any
cross-section with biaxial symmetry, not iust to encased I-sections,
First, the location of the neutral axis for purc bcnding is found, by equating the longitu-
dinal forces from thc stress blocks on either side of it. Let this be at distance lzn tiom the
centroid of the uncrâcked section. as shown in FE. 6.19( B ) . ll is shown in Appcndix C ol
Rcl 5 that the neutral axis for point C on the intcraction diagram is at distance 1,, on the
other side of the ccntroid, and the neutral axis for point D passes through the centroid.
The values of M and N at eâch point are casily found from thc stress bLocks shown in
Fig.6.19- For concrete-filled steel tubes the fâctor 0.85 may be omitted,

Concrete-filled tubes of circular or rectongu/ar cross-section

Cleuse 6.7.3.2(6) is bascd on the lateral expansion that occurs in concrete under axial Qouse 6.7.3.2(6)
compression. This causes circumferential tension in thc steel tube and
-triaxial cômpressiôn
in the concrete. This increases the crushins strensth of the concrete" to an extent that

Itq
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

outweighs the reduction in the effective yield strength ofthe steel in vertical compression. The
coeficients 4" and 4" givcn in Lhjs clause allow for tbcsc effccts.
This containment effect is not present to the sâme extent in concrete-lilled rectangular
tubes because less circumferential tension can be developed. ln all tubes the effects ôf
containment reduce as bending moments are applied. becâuse the meân compressive strain
in thc concrete and the associated latelal expansion are reduced. With increasing slcnderness,
bowing ofthe member undcr load increases thc bending momenL, and therefore the effective-
ness of containment is further reduced. For these reâsons, 4" and 4. are dependent on the
eccentricity o[ loading and on the slenderness of the member.

the column or compression member

Properti.es of
For composite compression membcrs in a framc, some properties ofeach member are needed
before or during global analysis of the frame:
Aouse 6.7.3.3(l) . the steel contribution rati.o, clause 6.7.3,3(I )
Aouse 6.7.3,3(2) . the relative slenderness i, clause 6.7.3,3(2)
Aouse 6.7.3.3(3) . the eïIective flexural stiffnesses, clauses 6.7.3.3( 3 ) and 6.7.3.4 ( 2 ), and
Clouse 6.7.3.3(4) . the creep coefficient and effective modulus for concrete, clause 6.7,3.3(4).

The stccl contribution ratio is explained in the comments on clause 6.7.1 (4) .
The relative slenderness À is needed to check that the member is within the scope of the
simplified melhod, clause 6.7.3.1(1). Often it will be evident that À < 2. The calculalion
cân then be omitted, as À is not needed again unless the member resists axial load only.
The unfâctored quantities -E', l and -L are used in the câlculation of N.., so À is calculated
:u:singin t:quation f6.J9l the characteristic (unfactored) value of the squash load, No1,p1, and
tlre chârâctedstic flexural stillncss (À'1).6 frorn clause 6.7.3.3(3). This is the only use ofthis
sfiffness in Section 6. The upper limit on À is somewhat rrbitrary and does not justily greal
precision in N"..
Creep of concrete increâses the làterâl deformation of the member. This is allowed for by
repfacing the elastic n.rodulus .8 . (in equation f6.401) by a reduce <l value 8"."6 from equation
(6.41). This depends on the creep cocfiicient ç,- which is a function of the age at which
concrete is stressed and the durâtiôn of the loâd. The effective modulùs depends also on
the proportion of tbe design axial load that is pennanent. The design of the member is
rarely sensitive to the influence of the creep coefficient on -D" so conservative assumptions
can bc made about uncertainties. Normally, a single value ol"6,effective modulus can be used
for all compression members in a slructurc- Further discussion is given under clause 5.4.2,2,
The correction factor K" is to allow for loss of stiffness caused by possible cracking of
concrete.
The condition for ignoring second-order effects within the member is explained in com-
ments on claute 5.2.1(3). Where the ratio o"' (: N".i l/ra) is used, thc critical load iy'". is
the axial fbrce in the member in the lowest buckling mode of the structure that involves
the member. In the rarc cases where both ends of a column are dctailed so as to behave âs
pin-ended (as in Example 6.12). N", : n2\El)*ttL2. The flexural stiffness (81)"rç n is
obtained liom clause 6.7.3.4(2 ).
ln continuous construction, the criliçal buckling modc involvcs adjacent members, which
must be included in the elastic critical analysis.

Anolyses for verification of o compression member

For the compression members of a frame or truss that are within the scope of clouse 6.7.1, a
flow chart for calculation routes is given in Fig. 6.44.
The relationship between the analysis of a frame and the stâbility of individual members
is discussed both in thc comments on clause 5.2.2 and. below. If bending is biaxial, the
procedure rn clause 6.7.3.4 is fbllowed for eâch axis in turn.
Clouse 6.7.3.4(l) Clause 6.7.3.4(I) requircs the use of second-ordcr lincar-clastic global analysis except
where the option ôf clau.se 6.7.3.4(5) applies, or route (c) in Fig.6.44 is chosen and
n". > l0 in accordance wrlh clo&te 6.7.3.4(3). The simplifled method of dl?&se 6.7.3.5(2)

t40
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Flow chart {or global analysis (9.a.) and verification ol a compression member in a composite frame, with reference
to globâl ând member imperleclions (g.imp and m.imp). This is ior a member of doubly symmêt caland unijorm
cross-seciion (ô23. t(1r) and ior a padicular loading. See Notes l and 2.

Find {rcr io 5.2. t{3), using GI)at t lo 6.7.3.4(2) lor all compression members by one of melhods (a) to (c):

{a) 2nd order g.a- for proportional (b) As box (a) (c) Elastic critical analysis with
loading with g.imp and m.imp. Find bul m.imp not proportionâl loâding and vertical
rat,o.r", of asymptotic load to design iôciuded. loads only, with no imp., to Iind.rcr.
Ioad- Is dù: 10? ls lld: 10? See Note 3. ls aq: 10?

1si order g.a. with lJse 2nd ordêr Do 1st order g.â. Go to box (a)
g.imp and m.imp is analysrs as with g.imp, and or (b), âbove,
permitled, but not m.imp to excepl that ,.rô,
needed, as resulls for lst and 2nd 6.7.3.4(4) need nol be
from (a) for the design oroer m.rmp fo!nd again.
loading can be used. To 6.7.3.4(5) See Note 4
(Use of lst order could Do lst order
be more economic) g.a. with g.imp,
and m.imp lo
6.7.3.4(4)

Analysis complete. Verify resistance of cross-sections of each compression

member. to 623-6or 6.23-z {END)

Nole 1. 'Loading' means a particular combination of actions, load case and load arrangement. ln boxes (â) to (c)
the lowêst l1.r for various loadings is found. The chosen loadings should include that for maximum
sidê-sway, and those that are expected to câuse the greatest axial compression in each potentially crilical
compressron member,
Nole 2. Anâlysis (a) includes both P effects from globâl imperfêctions and P-ô effecls trom member
imperfections, ^
Nole 3. For choice of loadings, see Note '1 ând the comments on c/ause 5.2.1(3) and (4).
Nole 4. No need to return to (â) or (b) where (1d < 10 only in a local member modê (pin-ended conditions).
Then, do firsl-order g.a. with amplification to â23-4(5) ând verify cross-sêctions.

Fig, 6.44. Flow chart for analysis and verifrcation for a compression member

is rarely applicable in prâctice because some first-order bcnding moment (other than from
imperfections) will usually be presenu fbr example, due to friction at bearings.
Clause 6.7.3.4(2) gives the design llexural stiffnesses for comprcssion members, for use Aouse 6.7.3.4(2)
in all analyses lor ultimate limit stâtes. The lactor K. y1 allows for macking, as is requir€d
by the reference rn chu.se 5.4.2.3 ( 4 ) Io (:louse 6.7,3.4. the factor (0 is from rcscarch-based
oalibration studies. Long-term effects are aJlowed for, as before. by replacing Lc inequation
(6.42) by fc.cff ftom equation (6.41).
In clause 6.7.3.4(l),'the ekrstir: critical lood' refers to the frame at its Lowest buckling Clouse 6.7.3.4(3)
mode invoh.ing the nember concerned; and 'secontl-order eJTccts' fiexîs those in the member
due to both its own imperfections and global imperfèctions. When deciding ',r'hcthcr
second-order effects of member imFerfections can be neglected, lhc effects ofglobal imperfec-
tions can bc ncglected in an elastic critical analysis (route (c) in Fig. 6.44). A second-order
analysis for the âsymptotic 1oad, rouLe (a), u.ill give the same value for a",. whetber global
imperfections are included or not. They are shown in Fig. 6.44 âs included because the
same analysis can thcn give the design bending moments for the member concerned.
Clause 6.7.J.4(4) gives the equivalent membcr impcrfeclion, for rse in a global analysis, as Clouse 6.7.3.4(4)
an initial how. I I is propofiional to the length L of the member between lateral restraints aDd
is de{ined by e0, the lateral departurc aL midJreight of its axis of symmetry lrom the line
joining the centres of symmetry at its ends. The yalue accounts principally fol truly geometric
imperfections and l'or thc cffecLs of residual st.tesses, It is independent ol the distribution of
bending moment along the membel. The curved shape is usually âssumed to be sinusoidal,
but a circular arc is acccptable. The curve is assumed initially to lie in tl.re plane normal to thc
axes of the bending moments-

t4l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

effect
(a) (cJ

Fig,6,45. Bending moments in a column: (a) end moments from global analysis; (b) initial imperfections
and transverse loâding; and (c) equivalent first-order bending môment

Where nember imperlèctions are not included in the global analysis and .rcr < 10,
Clouse 6.7.3.4(5) clûuse 6.7.J.4(5) enables these imperfections to be allowed for. It is based on the critical
load N".,.ir fbr the isolated pin-ended member even lvhere the critical buckling mode lor
the framc involves sway, such that the effective length of the membcr exceeds its system
length. This is consistent with clause 5.2.2(7Xb) of EN 1993-1-1, which is relèrred to from
ckuse 5.2.2(1) via clause 5.2,2 of EN 1993-2. (This route also leads to clausc 5.2.2(3) of
EN 1993-l-1, which scls ouL these options in detajl and is consistent with Fig- 6.44.)
The reason for this detnition for À.,..11 is that rvhere necessary (e.g. where a". < l0), the
cfTccts of global inperfections and side-sway have been accountetl for in the second-order
global analysis. This can be sccn b1, using as an example a'flagpôle'-type column, with
both out-ol--plumb and initiâl bow.

Determinotjon of design bending moment for a compression member

It is now assumed tl.ut lbr a particular member. with or withoul lateral load within its length,
ân ânalysis in which mcmbcr in.rperfections were not included has provided a design axial force
Np,1 and design end moments fôr one of the principal planes of bending, These are denoled ML
and M2, with Mrl2lMz, as shown in Fig. 6.45(a). Bia-rial bending is considered later. The
axial force is normally almost constant along the length of the member. Where it varies, its
maximum value can conservatively be assumed to be present throughout its lcngth.
The factor À in ckru.re 6.7.3.4(5, is proporlional to /J. For the end moments, from Table
6.4, 3lies between 0.44 and 1.1, but for the member irnperfection it is always L0. These
two values are dcnoted p1 and p2. The calculation of /9r is now explained, âssuming that
the critical bending moment occurs either ât the end where Mr4 : Mr (where no member
imperfcction or resulting second-order effect is assumed) or rvithin lbc central 20% of the
length of the member.
Exqept where therÊ is lateral loading, the maximum first-order bending moment within this
central length is.
Mzo"t, - Mr(o'6 io 4r')

shorvn in Fig. 6.45(a), This is represented by an'equivalent' first-order design value. given by
Table 6.4 as:
Mlsr.Ed - M 1Q.66 + 0.44r)
with a lower limit of 0A4Mt. The ratio Mrcr.Ba/Mn,n is shown in Fig, 6.45(c). lt is generally
1.1. but increases sbarply where r < 0-5, which is whcrc thc lower limit of 0.44M1 is
reached. This range of r represents significant double-curvature bending. The increasc pro-
vides protection against snap-through lo singlc-curvature buckling.
The moment M1,,.s.1 is increased by the fâctor
I
I tr'ra/N",,"n

t42
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

to allow fof second-order ellccts- This lactor is an approximation, as shown in Fig. 2.9 of
Rcf. 93, rvhich is allowed for by the use of the ratio 1 .I sbown in Fig. 6.45(c)-
Basing N"...6 on pin-cnded conditions can be conservative where the column is braced with
end rotational restraints that produce an clTcclive length less than the column height.
Where thcre is lateral loading within the column length, the bending-moment distribution
should be treated as the sum of two distributions, one corresponding to each ofthe two pàrts
ol Table 6.4.In the {irst hâlfofthe table, Ms is then the sum ofcontributions from member
imperfection and lateral load. These are not necessârily in the sâme direction, because the
member imperfection c6 can be in any lateral dir€ction and must be chosen to give lhe
most adverse overall result for the column.
Equatûtn (6.13 ) staLcs that fr must be greater than or equâl to unity, and this is correct for a
single distribution of bending moment. Howev€r, for a combination of tuo distributions, it
could be conscrvalive to adjust both values of k in this wa)' when the two sets of moments are
treated sepârately.
At n]id-length the component due to end moments depends on their ratio, r, and therefore
could be smalL. The appropriate lirst component is:

AtMt

without the condition that it should exceed Mr.

The imperfection e0 câuses a lirsL-order bending moment NEde0 at mid-length- The result-
ing conLribuLion to MEd.m,* is:

iSzN r'aeo
with d, : I

This. plus the contdbution fiom any midJength moment from lateral loading, is âdded tô the
first cômponent. The condition k 2I applies to the sum of the two components, and is
intended to ensure that the design moment is aL least equal to the grcatest iirst-order moment.
In biaxial bending" the initial n.rember imperfection mây be neglected in the less critical
plane (.clause 6.7.3.7 ( 1)).
The definitions of i4s a in clause 6.7.3.1( 5 ) and Tuble 6.4 may appear contradictory. In the
lextbefore equation (6.43 ). M96is referred to as a f,rst-order moment, This is because it does
nof include second-order effects arising wilhin the member. However, Table 6.4 makes clear
that MEd is to be determined by either first-order or second-order global analysis, âs shown
in Fig. 6.44.
The simplified method of c/aase 6.7.3.5 is rarely applicable, as explained in the comment Clouse 6.7.3.5
on clause 6.7.3.4( 1), $o no comrnent on it is given.

V e r ifi coti o n of cross-sectlbns

For uniaxial bending, the final step is to check that the cross-section can resist M'nax,Fd with
compression N6,1. The interaction diagram gives a resistance /idMDt.Rd wjLh axial load Ns6, as
shown in Fig. 6.18. This is unconservâtive, being based on rectângulâr stress-blocks, âs
explained in the comment on clause 3.1( 1 ), so in clause 6.7.3.6(1) it is reduced, by the use Aouse 6.7.3.6(l )
of a factor rrM that depends on the grade of structural steel. This factor allows for the
increase in the compressive strain in the cross-section at yield of the steel (which is adverse
lbr the concrete), when the yield strength of the steel is increased.
Where values of Mn'n".s,1 have been found for both axes.. clause 6.7.3.7 on biaxial bending Qouse 6.7.3.7
applies, in which they are wriltcn as Mu.pa and M".s,1. If one is much greater than the other,
the relevant check for uniaxial bending, equtttion (6.16). will govern. Otherwise. the linear
interaction given by equation (6.47) applies.
If the member fails this biaxial condition by a snall margin, it may be helpful to recalculate
the less crilical bending moment omitting the member imperfection, âs permitted by
clsuse 6.7.3.7 ( I ).

t43
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

6.7.4. Shear connection and load introduction

Load intrcduction
The provisions for the resistance of cross-sections of columns assumc Lhat no signiflcânt slip
Clause 6.7.4.1 ( I )P ôccurs at the interface hetwccn Lhc concrete and structurâl steel components. C/autes
Clouse 6.7.4.1 (2)P 6.7.4.1(1)P and (2)P give the principles fbr limiting slip to an insignificant level in the
critical regions: those where axial load andlor bcnding moments are applied to the member.
For any assumed 'clearly de.finad load path'it is possible to estimate stresses, including
shear at the interface. Shear connection is unlikely to be needed outside regions of load
introduction unless the shear strcngth iRd from '|'uble 6.6 is very low, or the member is
also acting as a beam, or has a high degree of double-curvature bending. C/arrse
Clouse ô.7.4.1(3) 6.7.4.1(3) rcfcrs to the special case of an arially loadcd column.
Where axial load is applied through ajoint attâched ônl), to the steel component, the force
to be lransferred to the concr€te can be estimated liom the relative axial loads in the two
materials given by the rcsistancc modcl. Accurate calculation is rarely practicable where
the cross-section concerned does not govern the desigl of the column. ln this partly-
pLastic situation, Lhe more adverse of the elaslic and fully-plastic models give a safe result
Clause 6.7.4.2(l) (cleuse 6.7.4.2(1),last line)- In practice, it may be simpler lo provide shear connection
based on a conservative (high) estirnate of the lbrce to be transferred.
Where axial force is applicd by a platc bcaring on both materials or on concrete only. the
proportion of the force resisted b,v the concrete gradually decreases, due to creep and
shrinkage. It could be inlèrled fiom dause 6.7.4.2(l) thal shear connection should be
provided for a high proportion of the force applied. However, models based on elastic
theory ilre over-conservative in this inherently stable situation. where large strains âre
acceptablc. Thc application rules that follow are bascd mainly on tests-
Few shear cônnectors reach their design sheâr strength until rhe slip is at least I mm: but
this is not significant slip for a rÊsistance model based on plastic behaviour and rectangular
stress blocks. Holvever. a Long load path implies greater slip, so the âssumed path should not
Clouse 6.7.4.2(2) extend beyond the introduction lenglh given in clause 6.7,4.2(?).
In a concrete-filled tube, shrinkage effet:ts are low, for only the autogenous shrinkage
strâin ôccurs, with a long-term value below l0 ", from clause 3.1.4(6) of EN 1992-1-1.
Radial shrinkage is outweighed by the lateral expansion of concrete in compression, for
its inelastic Poisson's ratio increases at high comprcssive stress, and eventually exceeds
0.5. Friction then provides significânt sheâr connection.
Concrete-lilled tubular columns with bearings at both ends have found application in
bridge design. Where the whole load is applied to the concrete core through an end plate,
Clause 6.7.4.2(3) the conditions oT clause 6,7.4.2(3,) can be satisfied, and no shear conncction is required.
This complete reliance on friction for shear transfer is supported by test evidenceea'es
and by inelastic theory. For columns of circular cross-sectiorl, no plausible failure mechan-
ism has been found for an end region that docs not involve yielding of the steel casing in
hoop tension ând vertical compression. For a large non-circulal column, it would be
prudent to chcck behaviour by finite-element analysis. There is further discussion in
Example 6.12.
FricLion is also the basis for the enhanced resistancc ol stud connectors given in
Clouse 6.7 .4.2(4) clause 6.7.4,2(4 ).
Detailing at points of load introductiôn or change of cross-section is assisted by the high
Clouse 6.7.4.2(5) permissible bcaring slresses given in c lauses 6.7,4,2(5) and (6). An example is given in Ref. 5
Clause 6.7.4.2(6) in wlrich the local design compressive strength of the concrete, oc.Rd in equation ( 6.48 ) . ls
lound to be 260 N/mmr.
Clouse 6.7.4.2(7) Clause 6.7.4.2(7 ) relates to load introduction tô reinforcement in a concrete-tlled tube.
This and some other concessions mâde at the ends of a column length are based mainly
on tests on columns ol sizcs typical of thosc used in buildings- Some caution should be
exercised in applying them to members with much larger cross-sections. Unless a column
is free to sway, a hinge &rrms in its ccntral rcgion before it fails- End regions that are slightly
weaker have little elïect on the failure load, because at that stage their bending mornenLs are
lower than at mid-lentlth.

t44
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

T he absencc from clause 6.7,4.218) of a fetèrence to EN 1992-2 is deliberate, as its clause Clouse 6.7.4.2(8)
9.5,3 gives â rule that is not requircd for composite colutr.rns.
Figure 6.23 illustrates the requirement of clause 6.7.4.2(9) for transverse leinforcement, Aause 6.7.4.2(9)
which must have a resistaûce to tension equal to the force N"r. Illongitudinal reinltrrcement
is ignored, this is given by:

N"t : A"zlQnA)
where I is the tlansfbrmed âreâ of the cross-section 1-l of the column in Frg. 6.23. given by:

A - A" + (A6 - A.)ln

and 1"1 and 1." are the unshaded and shâded areas ofconcrete, respectively. in section l-1.
The modular ratio, n, should usually be taken as the short-temr value.

Tronsyerse sheor
Cluuse 6.7.1.3 givcs application rules (used in Example 6.ll in Ref. 5) relevant to the Aouse 6.7.4.3
principle of clause 6.7.4.1(2), for columns with thc longitudinal shear thât ârises from
transversc sbcar. The design shear strengths TRd in Tqble 6.6 âfe far lower than the tensile
strength of concrete- They rely on friction, not bond. and are rclated to the extent to
separation at the inteface is prevented. For example, in partially-encased I-sections,
"r,hich
lateral expânsiôn of the concrete crcates pressure on the flanges, but not on the web, for
which rp,1 :0; and the highest sheâr strengths are for concrete within steel tubes.
Where small steel l-sections are present within a column that is mainly concrete, c/cu,re
6.7.4.3(4) provides a useful incrcasc to rq,l, lbr covers c, up to 1l5nrm. The enhancement Qouse 6.7.4.3(4)
iaclor is n.rore simply presented xs 0c - 0.2 + czl50 <.2.5
Concern about thc alLachment of concrete to steel in pârtially-encased I-sections appears
again in clause 6.7.4.1(5), because undcr wcak-axis ber.rding, scparation tends to develop ûouse 6.7.4.3(5)
betwecn the çncasenellt and the web.

6.7.S. Detailingprovisions
If a steel l-scction in an environment in class X0 to EN 1992-1-l has links in contact with its
flange (permitted by clttusc 6.7.5.2(3)), the cover to the steel seclion could be as low as
25 mm. For a wide steel flange. this thin la)'er of concrete would have little resistance to
bttckling outwards, so thc minimum thickness is increased to 40rrlm in tlause 6.7.5.1(2). Clouse 6.7 .5 . I (2)
This is a nominal dimension.
Minim unr longitudinal reinfbrcemenl, clnuse 6.7.5.2( 1 ), is needed to conlrol the r,i,idth of Clouse 6.7.5.2(l )
clacks, which can be causcd by shrinkage even in columns with concrete nominally in com-
pression.
Clause 6.7.5.2(2) does not refer to EN 1992-2 because its clause 9.5 introduc€s a nationally- Aouse 6.7.5.2(2)
determined parâmeter, which is not ncedcd ftrr composite columns.
Clause 6,7,5.2(4) refèrs to exposure class X0 ofEN 1992-1-1. This is a'very dry' environ- Aause 6.7.5.2(4)
nent, with 'no risk of corrosion or attack', so this clause is unlikcly to be applicable in
bridses.

t45
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

6 mm cement-sand
bedding

3s --*l f'- 35

Fig. 6.46. Cross-section at each end of concrete-filled tube of Er.ample 6. | 2

t46
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

between +l alrd

E. : E" lIl + (Nc,Ed/I/Ëd)d,l

taken as 'infinity'. as creep reduces the stilïness, and hence the stability, ol'a column.
From clause 3,1.4(5) of EN 1992- I -1, ths 'perimeter exposed to drying' is zero. so that
the notionâl size. /r0 + co. Assuming 'inside conditiols' and the use of normal cement. the

davs.
From equation (6,41 ),

78.62x0.355+363.2x1

6 : 27
a: .9137 .6 :
t1.-r/)/.o - u. r+
0.74

which is r.rithin rhe linlits ol dLruîe 6.7. | | 4) .

For .\ to c/az,se 6.7.3.3(2), with 7 : l.J,

Npr,nr = 27.9 + 1.5 x 9.70 - 42.46MN
Frc''rn rlnlcp 6 7 I ?t1)

ILI )-n : Z,l . + I\-L- -ffl^

= 210 v 5016 . 0.6 . 15.7 x 10500 1.156 / i06kNm2
Hence,

N", :i ( E r')$ I L2 : r.156 x 103 êI 12.12 : 70,74 MN

147
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994.2

02
Fig. 6.47. Interacrion polygon for concrete-filled ube

t48
CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

t49
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

i4roûld
môment. Shrinkage efects.are
mômsnt. eâects.are very small-

-v/ -v \,- \\\\

t/-- /
/F-*-/ \\*-'i\
225N/nm'
û*1":yg.]1
I rl l'^
I I II II rll , ^
I r'^ I l2251'umm'
r
1 680 1

6.8. Fatigue
6.8.l. General
The only complete set of provisions on fatigue in EN 1994-2 is [or stud sheâr connectors.
Fatigue in rcinforcement, concretc and structural steel is covered mainly by cross-reference
to EN 1992 and EN 1993. Commentary will_be found in the guides to thosc codes.''* Further
cross-reference is necessary to EN 1993-1-9,"' 'Fatigue', which gives supplementary guidance
and fatigue detail classifications which are not speciflc to bridges.
The fatigue lif'e of stËel components subjected to varying Jevels of repetitive stress can be
checked with the use ol Miner's summation. This is a linear cumulative damase calculation
rol /, slless fanqes:

f 19< r.o (D6,32)

where ns is the number ofloading cycles ofa particular stress range and ly'Rr is the number of
loading cycles to cause fatigue failure at that particular stress range. F-or most bridges, the
above is a complex calculation bccause the stress in each steel component usually varies
due to the random passage of vehicles from a spectrurn. Details on a road or rail bridge
can bc assessed using the above procedure if rhe loading regime is known at design. This
includes the rveight and number of every type of vehicle that will use each lane or track of
the bridge throughout its design lifè, and the correlation between loading in each lane or
track. In generâI, this will produce â lengthy calculation.
As an alternative, clause 9.2 of EN 1993-2 allows the use of simplified Fatigue Load
Models 3 and 71, from EN 1991-2, for road and rail bridges respectively. This reduces the
complexity of the fatigue assessment calculation. It is assumed that the llctitious vehicle
(or train) alone causes the fatigue darrage. The qalculaied stress ftom the vehicle is then
adjusted by fâctors to give a single stress range which, for N' cycles (2 million cycles for
structural steel), causes the same damage as the actual traffic during the bridge's lifetime.
This is called the'damagc equivalent stress range' and is discussed in section 6,8.4 below.
Comments here are limited to the use of the damage equivalent stress method and, hence,
a singlc strcss range.

r50
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

The term'equivalent constant-amplitude stress range'. defined in clause 1.2.2.11 of

EN 1993-l-9, has the same meaning as 'damagc cquivalent stress rangc', uscd hcrc and in
clause 6.8.5 of EN 1992-l-l and clause 9.4.1 of EN 1991-2.
Fatigue damage is related mainly to lhe numbel and amplitude ofthe stress ranges as seen
in expression (D6.32). The peâk ofthe stress range has a secondary influence that can be, and
usually is, ignored in practice lor peak stresses below about 60% of the chârâcteristic
streugth. Ultimate loads are higher Lhan peak fatigue loads, and the use of partial safety
factors for ultimate-load design normally ensurcs that peak latiguc strcsscs arc bclow Lhjs
limit. This mây not be thc case lor long-span bridges with a high percentage of dead load,
so clause 6.8.1(J,) specifles a limit to the longitudinal shear force per connector, rvith a Clause 6.8.1(3)
recommended vaLue 0-75P11, or 0.6Ppç for ?v: 1-25. As fatigue dâmage to studs may
no1 be evident, some continental coun[ries are understood to be specifying a lo$'er limit,
0.6Pp3, in thcir national anneres. (For welded structural steel, thc cflcct of peak strcss is
effectively covered in the detail olassifications in EN 1993-1-9, where residual stresses from
welding, typically reaching yield locally, are catered for in the detail categories.)
Most bridgcs will require a fatigue âssessment. Clazse,r 6.8.1 (4) and fJ) rclcr to EN 1993-2 Clouse 6.8. I (4)
and EN 1992-2 for guidancc on the types of bddges ând bridge elements where fatigr.le Aouse 6.8.1(5)
assessment may not be required. Those relevant lo colrposite bridge superstructures of steel
and concrete includc:

(t) pedestrian fooLbridges not susceptible to pedestrian-induced vibration

(ii) bridges carrying canaLs
(iii) bridges which are predominantly statically loadcd
(iv) parts of railway or road bridges that are neither stressed by trâfic loads nor likely to be
cxcited by wind loads
(v) prestressing and reinforcing steel in regions where. under the frequent combination of
actions and the châracte slic prestress Pr. only compressive stresses occuf at the
extrcme concrete fibres. (The strain and hence the stress range in the steel is typically
smâll while the concrete remains in compression,)

Fatigue assessments arc slill required in the cases above (with the possible exception of (v)),
iÎ bridges are found to be susceptible to rvind-induced excitation. The main cause of
rvind-induced fatigue, vortex shedding, is covered in EN 1991-l-4 and is not considered
further here.

6.8.2. Partial factors for fatigue assessment of bridges

Resistance factors 1ç1 may bc given in National Annexes, so only the recommended values
can be discussed here, For fatigue strength of concrete and reinforcement , clause 6,8.2( 1) Clouse 6.8.2(l )
lelèrs to EN 1992-l-1, which recommends the pârtial lactors 1.5 and 1.15, respectively,
for both persistent ând transicnl design situations, For structural steel, EN 1993-l-9,
Table 3.1 rccon.rn.rends values ranging from 1.0 to 1.35, depending on the design concept
and consequence of lailure. These apply, âs âpproFriate- for a fatigue failure of a steel
flange caused by a stud r.veld. Thc choice of design concept and the uncertainties covered
by 1p1; are discussed in Ref. 4,
Fatigue làilure ofâ stud shear connector, not involving the flânge, is covered by EN 1994-2.
The recommended value of 1ra1, for fatigue of headed studs is given as 1.0 in a Note to
clause 2.4.1.2(6) in the gcnerâl rules ofEN 1994. This is the value in EN 1993-1-9 for the
'damage tolerant' assessment method with 'low consequence of failure'. From clause 3(2)
of EN 1993-l-9, the usc of the damage tolerânt method should be sâtisfactory, provided
that'a prescribed inspection and maintcnanc€ regime for detecting and correcting fatigue
damage is implcmented. . ,'. A Note to this clause staLcs that thc damage tolerant method
rray be applied where 'in thc event of fatigue damage occurring a load redistribution
between components of structutâl elements can oÇcur'.
The flrst condition docs not apply to stud connectors, as lack of access preyents detection
of small cracks by any simple method ol inspection. For that situation, EN 1993-l-9

t5l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

lecormends use of thÊ'sa1è lifè'nlethod, with lg6 - 1.15 for'low consequence of lailure'.
'fhc sccond condition docs apply to stud connectors, and the value iyr,, : 1.0 is considered
to be âppropriâte for studs in bridges. Relevant considerations are as follows.
Fatigue failure results fron a complex intcraction between steel ând concrete, commencing
with povdering of the highly stressed concrete adjacent to Lhc wcld collar. This displaces
upwards the line of action of the shear force. increasing the bending and sheat il lhc shank
just above the weld collar. and probabll' also altering the tension. Initial fatigue cracking
further alters the relâtive stifinesses and the local strcsscs. Research has fbund thal thc
exponenl that relates the cumulative damage to the stress range may be bigher than the
value. 5. for other welds in shear. The value chosen lbr EN 1994-2, 8, is côntroversial, as
discussed later,
As may be cxpectcd from lhc iuvolvcment of a tin! volume of concrete, tcsts show â wide
scatter in fatigue lives, which is allowed for in the design resisLances- Studs âre provided in
large numbers, an<l are well able to redistribute shear between themselves.
One reason for not recommending a pârtiâl fâctor more conservaLivc Lhan 1.0 comes fiotl
experience with bridges, where stud connectors have bccn used for almost 50 years. Whcn-
ever occasion has arisen in print or at a conference, the second author has stated that
there is no knol.n instance of fatigue failure of a stud in a bridge, other than â few clearly
attributable to errors in design. This has lot bcen challenged. Research has identificd, but
not yet quantified, many reasons for this remarkable experience.gl'98 Most of them (e.g,
slip" shear lag, pelmanent set, partial interacLion, adventitious connection froru bolt
hcads, fricLion) lcad to prcdictcd stress ranges on studs lower than lhose assurned in
design. With an eighth-porver law, a 107o reduction in slress range more than doubles the
fàtigue lif'e.

6.8.3. Fatigue strength

Clause 6.8.3(3) The formât of cluuse 6.8.3(3) for shear studs, as in EN 1993-l-9. uses a relèrence value ol
range of shear stress at 2 million cycles, Arc : 90 N,imm'/. It delines the slope m of the
line through this point on the log-log plot of l'ange of stress Arp against number of
Aouse 6.8.3(4) constant-range stress cycles to fâilure, N1, Frg. 6.25. Clause 6.8.3(4) modifies the exprcssion
slightly for lightweight-aggregate concrete-
It is a complex matter to d€duce a value for nr lrom the mass of test data, which are often
inconsistcnt. Many typcs of tcst specimen have been used, and the resulting scatter of results
must be disentangled from that due to inherent variability. Values for nr recomrnended in Lhc
literature range from i to 12, nostly based on linear-regression analyse^s. The mcthod of
rcgrcssion uscd (r on I, or ] on r) can alter the value found by up to 3-''
The value 8, which was also used in BS 5400 Part 10, may be too high. In design for a
loading spccLrum, its practical cllcct is that the cumulative damage is govemed by the
highest-range compônents of the spectrum (e,g. by the small number of very heavy lorries
in the traffic spectrum). A lower valuc, such as 5, would give more weighl to the much
higher number of average-weight vehicles. This is illustrated in Example 6.13.
Wrile fatigue design methods lbl stud connectors continue to be conselrative (for bridges
and probably for huildings too) the precise value for n is of academic interest. Any future
ploposals lbr more accurate methods lbr predicLion of stress ranges should be associatcd
with re-examination of the value for m. Anne.r C gives a dilTerent design rule for fatigue of
lying studs, rvhich is discussed in Chapter 10.

6.8.4. lnternal forces and fatigue loadings

For fatigue assessment, it is necessary to f.nd the range or ranges of stress in a given material
at a chosen cross-section. caused by the passage of a vehiclc along the bridge. Loading other
than the vehicle inllucnces thc extcnt ofcracking in the conctete, and hence, the stiffnesses of
members and the calculated stresses. Cracking depends mainly on the heaviest previous
Clouse 6.8.4( l) loirding, and so tends to increase with ttne. Clause 6.8.4(1) rclers to clause 6.8-3 of
EN 1992-t-1. This defines the non-cyclic loading assumed to coexist with the design value

t52
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Strêss range from cyclic loads

Slress in (e.9. passage of faligue load model)
€inforcing bar

Reduced siress range lor

Compression

Fig. 6.49. Stress ranges for fatigue veriflcation of reinforcement caused by the same cyclic action at
different mean stress levels

of the cyclic load, Q1n,; it is the 'frequent' combination, represented by

I c.,, + l' +.,1,.,ep,1 + f gz,igr,;

j>l
where the p's are non-cyclic variable âctions.
Traffic will usually be the lcading non-cyclic âction since the p2 value for traflic recom-
mended in Annex A2 of EN 1990 is zcro. With tralTic as the leâding âction, only thermâl
actions hâve a non-zero value of ry'2 and therefore need to be considered.
The non-cyclic combination givcs a r.Dean stress level upon which the cyclic part of the
action effect is superinposed, The importance ol mean stress is illustrated in Fig, 6.49 fbr
the calculation of stress range in reintbrcement in concrete- lL shows thal the stress change
in the reinforcenent fbr âny part of the loading cycle thât induces compression in the
concrete is much less than the stress chânge where the slab remains in tension throughout
the cyclc-
Clause 6.8.4(2) defines symbols thât are used for bending mornents in clause 6.8.5.4.The Clause 6.8.4(2)
sign convention is evident lrom Flg. 6.?6, which shows that MEd,,nâx,r is thc bending moment
thât causcs the greatest tension in thc slub, and is positire. Ctause 6.8.4(2) âlsô refers tô
internal forces. but does not give symbols. Analogous use of calculated tensile forces in a
concrcte slab (e.9. Nea,.*.ù may sometimes be necessary.
Clause 6.8.4(3) relers to Annex A.l of EN 1993-l-9 for a general treatment of fatigue Clouse 6.8.4(3)
based on summing the damage liom a loading spectrum- As discusscd in section 6.8.1
above, this would be a lengthy and complex calculâtion for môst bridges ând therefore
claases 6.8.4(4) to (6) provide the ôption of using simpler load models from EN l99l-2. Clouses 6.8.4
The damage equivâlent strcss nethod for road bridges is bascd on F'atiguc Load Model 3 to (6)
defined in EN 1991-2 clause 4.6.4, rvhile for rail br.idges it is based on Load Model 71.
Clause 6.8.4(5) sâys that the additional factors given in EN 1992-2 clause NN.2.l "sl?oald'
be applied to Load Model 3 whcre a road bridge is prestressed by tendons or imposed
deformâtions. As Annex NN is Informative, the situation is unclear.in a country where
the National Annex does not rnake it available-
The load models and their application are discussed in the other guides in this series.2 a

6.8.5. Stresses
Clause 6.8,5.1( 1 ) refers to â list of action efTècts in
c/ar.rs e 7.2.1( I )P to be taken into acÇount Clouse 6.8.5.1(l )
'where relevant'- They arc all relevant, in theory, to the extent ofcracking. However, this can
usually be represented by the same simplilied model, chosen from clause 5.4.2.3, that is used
for other global analyses. They also influencc Lhe maximum value ofthe I'atigu€ stress range,
which is limited for eâch maLcrjal (e.g. the limit for shear connecto rs in clause 6.8. | ( 3 )1.
The provisions for fatigue are based on the assumption that the stress range caused by â
given fluctuatiôn of loading, such as the passage of a vehicle ol known weight, remains
approximately constânt âfter an initial shakedown Detiod. 'Shakedown'here includes the

t53
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

changes due to cracking, shrinkage, and creep of concrete, thât occur mainly wilhin the first
year or two.
For bridges, most fatigue cycles occur over very short durations as the stress ranges are
produced either by the passage of vehiclcs or b1' wind-induced oscillations. Cycles of stress
from thermâl actions âlso occur but over greater durations. The magnitude and small
number of these cycles do not generally cause any significant fatigr:e damage. The short-
Lerm modular ratio should therefore be used when finding stress ranges from the cyclic
action Qru,. Where a peak stress is being checked. creep from permanent loading should
be allowed for, if it increases the relevanl strcss.
Clouse 6.8.5.1 (2)P The effect of tension stiffening on the calculation of stress in reinforcement, c/azse
Aouse 6.8.5.1(3) 6.8,5,1(2)P and (3/, is illustrated in Example 6.13 and discussed tnder clause 6.8.5.4
below. It is not conservative to neglect tensiôn stiffening in this calculatjon for a composite
beam âs the increased sliffness attracts more stress lo thc concrete slab and hence to the
reinforcement between cracks. For stresses in structurâl steel, the eflects of tension stiffening
Qouse 6.8.5.I (4) may be included or neglected in accordance wrth clause 6.8.5.1(4). Tension stiffening here
has a benelicial effect in reducing the stresses in the structural steel. Tension stiffening
Çlouse 6.8.5.1(5) should also be considered in deriving stresses for presttessing steel clause 6.8.5.1(5).
For analysis, the lineâr-elâstic method of Sec/ior .5 is used, Trom ckuse 6.8.4( l1 . Clause
7.2.-1l8J requires consideration oflocal and global effects in deck slabs. This is also reflected
rn clausa 6.8.6.1(3J. When checking fâtigue, it is important to bear in mind thât the most
critical areas lbr tàtigue may not be the same as lhose for other ultimate limit state calcula-
tions. For example, the critical section for shcar connection may be near mid-span, since its
provision is usually based on the stâtic design, and the contribution to the stâtic shear from
dead load is zero there.

Concrete
Qouse 6.8.5.2(l ) For concrete, clause 6.8,5.2(1) refers to clause 6.8 of EN 1992-1-1, where clausc 6.8-5(2)
refers to EN 1992-2. EN 1992-2 clause 6.8.7(101) provides a damage equivalent stress
range method presented as lbr a spectrurn. The method of its Annex NN is not applicable
to composite members. As a sinpler alLcrnative, EN 1992-1-1 clause 6.8.7(2) gives a cônser-
vative veritcation based on the non-cyclic loading used lor the stalic design. It w-ill usually be
sufficient to apply this verification to composit{r bridges as it is unlikely to govern deslgn
other thân possibly for short spans where most of the compressive force in concrete is pro-
duced by live load.

Structurot steel
Qouse 6.8.5.3(l ) Clause 6,8.5.3( 1 ) rcpeats, in effecl, the concession in c/aa,r e 6.8.5.1 (1 ).Where lhe words 'or oi'rl-1,
Aouse 6.8.5.i(2) Msa,.6s'in clquse 6.8.5.3(2) apply, Msa,-",i'causes tension in Lhe slab. The use ol the
uncracked section for Mp1.-"*.1 would tllen underestimate the stress ranges in steel flanges, so
that Çracked section properties should be used for the calculation of this part of the stress rânge.

Reinforcemenl
For reinforcement, clause 6.8.3(2) ref€rs to EN 1992-l-1, where clâuse 6.8.4 gives the
verification procedure. Ils rccommended value N* for strâight bars is 106. This should not
be confused with the corresponding value fbr structural steel in EN 1993-1-9, 2 x 106,
denoted Nç, which is used also for shear connectors, clause 6.8.6.2( 1) .
Using the l values recommcnded in EN 1992-1-1, its expression (6.71) for veriflcation of
reinfbrcement becomes:

4o6."0,,(N-) < Aop,p(N.)/ 1.15 (D.6.33)

with Aoq"ç : 162.5Nimm2 for N' :

106, from Table 6.3N.
Where a range Ao6(Ns) has been determined, the resistance Aaq.k(NË) can be found from
the S N curve lbr reinforcement. and the verilicalion is:

Aop(Np) < Aop.ç (,V1)/ l.l5 (D6 34)

t54
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

Fig.6.50. Stress ranges in reinforcement in cracked regions

Clause 6.8,5.4( I ) permits the use ôf the approximation to the effects of tension stiflèning Clouse 6.8.5.4(l )
that js uscd for other lin.rit states. It consists of adding to the maximum tensile stress in the
'fully cracked' section, .rs,o, an amount Lhat is independenL of o, o. The value of Ao, for
^o" the factôr of 0.4 in .,qaatio (7.5 ) by 0.2. This is
fatigue verification is modified by replacing
to âllow for the reduction in tension sliffening caused by repeated cycles of tensile stress."
Clauses 6,8.5,4(2) and fi) give simplified rules for caLculating stresses, with reference to Qouse 6.8.5.4(2)
Fig.6.26, which is cliscussed using Fig. 6.50. This has the sarne axes, and also shows a Clouse 6.8.5.4(3)
minimum bending moment that causes compression in the slab- A calculated value for the
stress o. in reinforcemelt. that assumes concrete tô be effective, would lie on line A0D.
On initial cracking, the stress .r. jumps from B to point E. Lines OBE are not shown in
Ftg, 6.?6 because clause 7.2.1(5)P requires thc tcnsilc slrcngth of concrete to be neglected
in calculatiolrs for rr,. This gives line 0E. For môments exceeding M"., tlle stress a" follows
route EFC on first loading. Calculation of o, using section propcrty .12 gives line 0C. At
bending moment rYp1."*,r the stress as.o thus found is increased by Ao,, ftom eqtntion
(7.51, as shown by line HJ.
Clause 6.3.5.4 defines the unloâding route from point J as JOA, on rvhich the stress os.mi,,,r
lies. Points K and L give two examples, fbr M6.1.6. i causing tension and compression,
respectively, in the slab. The fatiguc strcss ranges Ad" r for thesc two cases are shown.

Sheor connection
The interpretation of clause 6.8.5.5(I)P is complex when tensjon stiffening is allowed fbr. Aouse 6.8.5.5(l )P
Spacing of shear connectors near internâl suppôrts is unlikely to be govelned by fatigue,
so it is simplest to use uncracked section properties when caloulaling range of shear flow
liom lange of vertical sbear, clause 6.8.5.5(?). These points are illustrâted in Example 6.13. Qouse 6.8.5.5(2)

Reinforcement and prestressing steel in memberc prestressed by bonded tendons

Where bonded prestress is present, stresses should be determined in a similar manner to
the above for reinforccment alone. but account needs to be taken of thc difference of
bond behavioul belween prestressing steel and reinforcement - clause 6.8.5,6(I). Clause Clause 6.8.5.6(l )
6.8,5.6(2) makes reference to clause 7.4.3(4) which in turn relèrs to clause 7.3 ol Aouse 6.8.5.6(2)
EN 1992-l-1 for the câlculation of stresscs 'o.'. This is a generic symbol here, and so
applies to the stress a".u".p referred lo rn clause 6.8.5.6 ( 2 ).

6.8.6. Stress ranges

Clquse 6,8.6,1 is most relevant to the dâmâge equivalent stress method where the conlplex Clouse 6.8.6.1
cyclic loadings from a spectrun.r of vehicles are condensed into one singlc stress range
which, lbr N. cycles, is intended to give thÊ same damage during the bridge's lifetime as

t55
DESIGNERS' GUIDÊ TO EN I994-2

the real trafÏc- This stress range is detennined by applying the relevant fatigue load modcl
discussed in section 6.8.4 and by multiplying it by the damage equivalent factôr ), according
Clouse 6.8.6.1Q) to clause 6,8.6.1(2). The factor À is a property ofthe spectrum and the €xponent m, which is
the slope of the fatigue curve as noLed in clause6.8.6.l(4).
Dcck slabs of composite bridge beârns are usuâlly subjected to combined global and local
fatigue loading events, duc to the presence of local rvheel loads. The effects ol'local and
global loading are particularly significânt in reinforcement design in slâbs adjacent to
cross-beams supporting the deck slab, in zones where the slab is in global tension. Herc,
Qouse 6.8.6.t (3) wheel loads câuse âdditional local hogging moments. Clause 6.8.6,1(3) provides a conserva-
tivc interaction where the damage equivalent stress rânge is determined separately for the
global and local actions and then summed to give an overall damage equivalent stress range.
In combining the stress rânges in clau.te 6.8.6.1(31, it is important to cônsider the âctual
transverse location being checked within the slab, The peak local elïect usually occurs
some distânce from the web of a main beam, while lhe global dircct stress reduces away
from Lhe web due to shear lag. The reduction may be determined using c/arse 5.4.1.2(8),
even thôugh that clause refers to EN 1993-l-5, which is for steel flanges.
Clouse 6.8.6.2(l) A similar damage equivalent fâctor, )v. is used in clouse 6.8.6.2(1) to convert the shear
stress range in the studs from the làtigue load model into a damage equivalent stress range.
Clouse 6.8.6.2(2) For other types of shear connection clause 6.8.6.2(2) rel'ers to Section 6 of EN 1993-l-9.
This requires the damage equivalent stress to be determined from its Annex A usiug the
actuâl trâfrc spectrum ànd Miner's summation. This approach could also be used lor
shear studs as an âlternâtive, provided that nr is taken as 8, rather than 3.
For connectors other than studs. the authors recommend that the method of Annex A be
used only where the following conditions are satisficd:

. the cônnecton are al.Lached to the steel flange by welds that are within the scope of
EN 1993- I -9
. the fatiguc strcss ranges in the welds can be delermined realistically
. the stresses applied to concrete by the connectors are not high enough for fatigue failure
of the concrete to influence the fatigue life.

The exponent z should then have the value given in EN 1993-l-9 m: 8 should not be used.
In other situations, fatigue damage to concrete could jnfluence thc value of m. The
National Annex may relèr to guidânce, as permitted by the Note to clause 1.1.3(3).
Aouses 6.8.6.2(3) Clauses 6.8.6.2(3) to (5.) provide a nethod of calculating the damage equivalent factors
to (s) for studs. With the exception of )u.1. those for road bridges are based on thôse in EN 1993-2
clause 9.5.2, but with the exponents modified to 8 or { as discussed in section 6.8.3.
In EN 1993-2, an upper limit to À is defined in clausc 9.5.2, in paragraphs that EN 1994-2
does not relèr to. This is becâuse the upper limit is not required for stud shear connectors.

6,8.7. Fatigue assêssmênt based on nominal stress rânges

Qouse 6.8.7.1 Comment on the methods retèrred to from c/arse 6.8.7.1rvillbe fbund in other guides in this
series. The term'nominal strcss range' in the heading oI clause 6.8.7 is defined in Section 6 of
EN 1993-l-9 fbr structurâl steel. It is the stress range that can be compared directly with the
detail categories iu EN 1993-l-9. It is not th€ stress range belbre the damage equivalent
factors are âpplied.It is intended to allow for all stress concentration factors implicit
within the particular detail category selected. If additional stress concentrating details
exist adjâcent to the detail to be checked which are not present in the dctail category selected
(e.g. a hole), these additional effects need tô be inchrded via an appropriate stress concentra-
tion factor. This lactored stress range then becorles a 'modilied nominal stress range' as
defined in clâuse 6.3 of EN 1993-l-,.
Clouse 6.8.7.2(l ) For shear conncct<trs, clause 6.8.7.2(,1) introduces the partial làctors. The recommcnded
value of 11a1. is L0 (clause 2.1.1 .2 (61). For 61, EN 1990 refers to the other Eurocodes. The
recommended value in EN 1992-l-1, clause 6.8.4(l), is 1.0. Clause 9.3(l) of EN 1993-2
recommends 1.0 for steel bridges.

t56
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIIYATE LIMIT STATES

Chuse 6.8.7.2(2) covers interaction between the fatigue tàilures of a stud and rl1'the steel Clouse 6.8.7.2(2)
flange to which it is vrlded, where the llangc is in tension. The first of ex2rc.rsroirs f6.571 is
lhe verification lbr the flange, fiom clause 8(2) of EN 1993- 1-9. and the second is for the stud,
copied from c4adlion (6.55 ). The linear interaction condition is givcn in expression (6.56 ).
It is necessaly to calculate the longitudinal stress range in the steel flânge that coexists with
the stress range for lh€ connectors. The load cycle that gives the rlzxinlun value of Aos." in
the flânge will not, in general. he that which gives the maximum va)ue of Àrs 2 in a shear
connector, because the first is caused b1' flexure and the second by shear, AIso, both Àop.2
and Ars.2 may bc influenced by rvhether the concrete is cracked, or not.
It tlrus appeârs thât cxprc.rtio /6.561 may havc tobecheckcd four times. In p.ractice, itis
best to check first the conditions iî expre.\sion (6.57).lt should be obvious, for these,
whether the'cracked' or thc 'uncracked' model is the more adverse. Usually, one or both
of the left-hand sides is so far below 1.0 that no check to e:rprcsslor /6.56) is needed,

0.810 x 330 \ 0.150/l - l3.4kN

t57
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

ISGTH
ISGTM
9TT.H
9TI-M
7GT.H
7GT.M
7A.H 7
5A-H 630
5A.M 360 r4500
5A-L t5 000
4A.H 90 000
4A.M 2& 90 000
4A.L t45 90 000
4R-H 280 r5 000
4R.M 240 r5 000
4R-L t5 000
3A.H 2r5
3A.M t.|()
3A-L 90
3R-H 240
3R-f4 t95
3R-L
?R-H
2R-M 1.972 x lota 5.417 x lore
?R-L 4.374 l0r2
x l.l8l x lorT
106 8.05t x tors 3-384 r tozt

r58
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

"shown
The cross-section ai an intermediate support is in Fig. 6.22. For these ctoss-
sections, th€ axle loads of Fatigue Load Model 3 should be multiplied by 1.75 according
lo clause NN.?.1(101). The maxinium hôgging moment from the latigue vehicle was
1.75 x 593 : i038 kNrn and the minimum was 1.75 x (-47) : -82kNm-
the same lane. P
ditrèrent
Ctause 4.6.4(2) of EN 1991-2 however implies that the mâximum stress range should k
calculaied as the greatest stless range produced by the passage of the vehicle along any
one lane. The UK's draii National Annex currently requires the former interpretation
(he safer of the two) to be used, but there is no
this to
Lo be done.
done-

t59
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

tion. 'Traffic type' is defined in Note 3 of EN 1991-2 cltruse 4.6,5(l). The definitions given
are not DarticularlvJ lwryrur.
heloful:
. 'long distance' means hundreds of kilometres
. .'meditm distânce' meâns 50-100 km

= \tt t2vltw = t.ut

,l
/0.5 +

r60
 CHAPTER 6. ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

surfaces.l00) Crackcd secrion propenies were used for the slab ln accordance with

6.9. Tension members in composite bridges

The terms 'concrete te siotl mentber' and'composite tension member' used in this clause are
deflned in c/aarc J.4-2.8. Global anaJysis for action effects in these members and deterlnina-
tion ol longitudinal shear is discussed in comments on that clause.
Clause 6.9(I ) conccrns members thal have tensile force inlroduccd only neâr thefu ends. It Aouse 6.9(l)
rel'ers to their design to EN 1992, as does c/arsz 6.9(2), with reference to sin.rplifications Aause 6.9(2)

t6t
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994.2

t+ T --*lal--
T+
,{ ,"I

BG
r+
I

<1.5' <1 5b
LAJ

Fig. 6.5 | . Shear connection to the deck of a bowsrring arch bridge

gi\en r\ clûuse 5.4.2.8. Cluuse 6.9( 2) applies also to composite tension members, which have
sheâr connectors throughout their length. The subsequent paragraphs concern the distribu-
tion of the connectors along the membcr.
A plan of the steel members at deck level near one end ofa bowstring arch bridge is shown
in Fig. 6.51(a). The arch applies conoentrated forces f at points A and B. The force at A is
shared between the steel tie AC and the composite deck, shown shaded. The deck has steel
edge members such as DE. and spans longitudinally between composite cross-beams FG, etc.
The proportion ofeach force 7 that is resisted by the deck structure, T3 say, depends on the
extent to whioh its stiflness is reduced by cracking of the concrete. The force Zd is applied to
the deck by diagonal members such as FH. The stiffness ofthese members also influences thc
magnitude of 2.1. Details of bridges of this type are available elsewhere.l0l
In some bridges, the deck is shear-connected directly to the main tie member, as shown in
Aouse 6.9(3) Fig. 6.51(b). CLtusc 6.9(3) requircs lhe shear connection for the force Z6 to be provided
within the lengths L5à shown.
The precise distribulion of the connectors along a length such as JK has been studied,
using the rules of EN 1994-2 for tension stiffening-Io2 In this bridge, Newark Dyke, the
arch is tbe top chord of a truss of span 77 m with diagonals thât âpply longitudinal force
also at points such as L in Fig. 6.51(b). Nerlher paragraph (3) nor (6)defines the length
a over which shear connection neâr point L should be provided. bLrL clausa 6.6.2.3 provides
guidance.
The number of connectors to be provided over a length such as JK can be conservatively
found by assuming the deck to be uncracked. In this bridge, the design ultimate force 7 was
about 18 MN, and 'uncrackcd' analysis gave Z1 = 9 MN at mid-span. Fully cracked analysis
gave this force as about 5 MN. Accurâte ânalysis found the deck to be in â state of single
cracking (explained in comments on clause 5.4.2.8(61), with a tensile lbrce of about 8 MN.
Lower levels of shear connection are, of course, required along the whole length of the
deck for other combinations and arrangements of variable actions.
Clouse 6.9(4)P Clause 6.9(4)P, a principlc that corresponds lo cluuse 6.7.4.1(l)P lor compression
members, is followed by application rules. For laterally loaded tension members, shear
Aouse 6.9(5) colrnection within the length is related Lo thc transverse shear in c/az.re 6.9(5), exactly as
for composite beams.
'Where
axial tension is applied to the erds of a member through only one material, steel or
concrete, the length over which part ol the lcnsion should be lransferred to the other material
Clouse 6.9(6) (typically by shear connection), is limited by clausc 6.9(6).'fhis corresponds to clause
6.7.4.2 ( 2 ) for compression members. Other provisions of c/.azse 6.7.4.2 may be relevant here.

t62
CHAPTER 7

Serviceability limit states

This chapter corresponds lo Section 7 of EN 1994-2, which has the following clauses:
. General Clause 7.1
. Stresses Clause 7.2
. Deformations in bridges Clause 7.3
. Cracking of concrete C lause 7 .4
. Filler beam decks Clause 7.5

7. 1. General
Sectioz 7 of EN 1994-2 is limited to provisions on serviceability thal are specific to composite
struÇtures and are not rn Sections 1, 2, 4 or 5 (for global analysis), or in Eurocodes 1990,
1991, I99Z or 1993. Some of these other provisions are briefly referred to here. Further
commenls on them are in other chapters of this book, or in other guides in this series.
The initiâl concept for a composite bridge is mainly influenced by the intended method
of construction, durability. easeof maintenance, and the requirements fôr ultimate limit
stâtes. SeNiceability criteria that should be considered at an eâdy stage are stress limits
in cross-sections in Class I or 2 and susceptibility to excessive vibration- It shôuld not
howevcr be assumed that Class 3 and 4 cross-sections require no checks of stress limits
at serviceability. For example, if torsional warping or St Venant torsional effects have
been neglected at ultimate limit state (ULS), as allowed by a reference in clause
6.2.1.2(l) of EN 1993-2, thcn thc scrviceabi]ity limit state (SLS) stresses should be
checked taking these torsional effects into accor.lnt. Considerations of shear lag at SLS
may also cause unacceptable yielding as the effective widths of steel elements are greater
ât ULS.
Control ofcrack width can usually be achieved by appropriate detailing of reinforcement.
Provision offire resistancc and limiting of deformations have less influence at this stage Lhan
in structures for buildings. The impôrtant deformâtions âre those caused by imposed load.
Limils to these influence the design of railway bridges. but generally, stiffness is governed
more by vibration criteria than by limits to dellection.
The dralting of the serviceability provisions in the Eurocodes is less prescriptive than Ibr
other limit states. IL is intcnded to give designers and clients greater freedom to take account
of factors specific to the project,
The content of s'.action 7 was also inlluenced by thc need to minimize calculations. Rcsults
already obtained lbr ultimâte limit stâtes are scaled or reused wherever possible. Experienced
dcsigncrs knorv thât many structural elements satisfy serviceability criteria by wide margins.
For these, design checks should be simple, and it does not mâtter ifthey are conseryative. For
other elements, a longer but more accurate calculation may be justilied. Some application
n es therefore include alternative methods.
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994.2

Clause 7.1(l)P Clause 7.1 ( I ) P and (?,) relèr to clause 3,4 of EN 1990. This gives criteria lbr placing a lin.rit
Clouse 7.1(2) state within the 'serviceabilitl,' group, u'ith rcfcrcncc lo dcformatjons (including vibration),
durabiliLy, and the functioning of the structure. The relevance of EN 1990 is not limited to
the clauses referred to- becausc clause 2.1( 1lP requires clesign to be in accordancc with thc
gcncral rules of EN 1990. This rneans all of it except annexes that are either informative or
not for bridges.

Serviceobility verificoti on on d ariterio

The requirement for a scrviceability verification is given in clause 6.5.1(1)P ofEN 1990 as:

Ea!Ca
where ,Cd is the design value of the effects of the specified actions and the 'relevant' combina-
lion, and C,1 is the limiting design value of the 'relevant' criterion,
From clause 6.5.3 of EN 1990, the relevant combination is 'normalll,' the characteristic,
fiequent, or quasi-permanent combination, for scrviccability limit statcs that are respectively
irreversible, reversible, or a consequence of long-term effects. The quasi-permanËnt
combinâtion is also relevant for the appearance of the structure.
For bddges, rules on combinations of actions are given in clause A2.2 of EN 1990. Its
clâuse A2.2.2(l ) defines a fourth combination, 'infrequent', lbr use fbr concrete bddges. It
is not used in EN 1994-2, but may be invoked by a reference to EN 1992, or found in a
Nalional Annex.
Qouse 7.1 (3) Clause 7.1( 3 ) refers to 'cnvironnental classes'. These are the 'exposure classes' of EN 1992,
and are discussed in Chapter 4. The exposure class influences the cover to reinforcing bars,
and thc choice of concrete grade ând hence the stress limits.
Clouse 7.1(4) Clause 7.1(4) on serviceabiliLy verjfication gives no detailed guidancc on the extent to
which construction phases should be checked. The avoidance of excessive stress is one
erâmple. Yielding of steel can cause irreversible defomation. and handling of precasl
components can cause yielding ol rcinforccnrcnt or cxccssivc crack width. Bridges can also
be more susceptible to aerodynamic oscillâtion during erection. In extreme cases, this can
lead to achievement of an ultimate limit state.
Clouse 7.1(5) Clause 7.1(5) refers to the eight-page clause A2.4 of EN 1990. It covers pârtial factors.
serviceability critcria, design situations. comfbrt criteria, defonnations of railway bridges
and criteria for the safety of râil tramc. Few of its provisions are quântified. Recommended
in NoLes. as guidance for National Annexes.
vâlues are given
Clouse 7.1(6) The meaning of clause 7.1(6) on compositc plarcs is that accounL should be tâken of
Section 9 when applying ,Sectio, 7. There are no serr,-iceability provisions in Section 9.
No serviceability limil state of 'excessive slip of shear connection' is defined. Generally, it
is assumed Ihal clause 6.8.1(31. whrch limits the shear force per connector under the
characteristic combination, and other rules for ultimate limit stâtes, will ensure satisfactory
pelfbrmance in service.
No serviceability criteria are specified fôr composite columns, so from here on, this
châpter is referring to cornposite beams or plates or, in a 1èw places, to composjtc
lrames.

7.2. Stresses
Excessive stress is not itselfâ serviceability limit state. Stresses in bridges are limited to ensure
thât under normal conclitions of use, assumptions made in design models (e.g. linear-elastic
behaviour) remain vâlid, and to avoid detcrjoration such as Lhc spalling of concrete or
disrLrption of the corrosion protection system.
The stress rânges in a composite slructure caused by a particular level of imposed Joading
takc ycars to stabilise, mainly becâuse of the crâcking, shrinkage ând creep of concrete.
Stress limits arc also intended to ensule that aller this initial period, liveload behaviour is
reversible.

t64
 CHAPTER 7, SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

For the calculation of stresses, the principlc of clause 7.2.1(1)P sâys, in eflèct, 'take Clouse 7.2.1(l )P
account of everything that is relevânt'. It is thus open tô interpretation, subject to thc
guidance in the rest of c/aa.çe 7.2.1.Fo|j of its paragraphs are worded'may'.
For persistent design situations, it is usual to chcck strcsses soon âfter the opening ol the
bridge to trafTic, ignoring creep. and also ât â time when further effects ofcreep and shrinkage
have hecomc ncgligible. Their values are usually l'ound by letting /
- rx, when applying the
dâtâ on creep and shrinkage in clausc 3.1-4 and Annex B of EN 1992-1-1. Assuming that
l: l0 years, for exarrple, gives only about 907o of the long-term shrinkage strain and
creep coefl.icient- It may be necessary to include part ol the long-Lernr shrinkage effects in
the first check, because up to half of the long-term shrinkage cân ôccur in the lirst three
months after the end of curing of the concrete.
Clause 7.2.1(4) refers to the primary cffects of shrinkagc. These are calculated tbr Clouse 7.2.1(4)
uncracked cross-sections (Example 5.3). After cracking, these effects remain in the concrclc
between cracks. bul have negligible influence on stresses at the orackcd cross-sections, ât
which stresses are verified.
Clauses 7,2.1(6 ) and (7,1 refer to tension stifiening. At â crôss-section analysed as cracked, Clause 7.2.l (6)
its effect is to incrcase the tensile stress in the reinforcement, as discusscd uncler clausa 7.4.3. Clouse 7.2.1(7)
It has negligible effect on the stress in thc stccl flangc adjacent to the slab, and slightly reduces
the compressive stress in the other steel flânge.
CIsusc 7.2.1(8) refers to thc ellccls ollocal actions on the concrcLc slab. presumâbly a deck Clouse 7.2.1(8)
slab. In highway bridges, these effects are mainly the sagging and hogging moments caused
by a single whccl. a pair of wheels. or a four-wheel tanden system, whichcver is the most
adverse. In Load Model I these are combined with thc cffects of disffibuted loading and
thc global effects in the plane of the slab. This combination is more adverse whcrc the
slab spâns longitudinalty bctuccn cross-beams than for transversc spanning. Longitudinal
spanning can also occur ât intermediate supports at the face of diaphrâgms. In combining
Lhc sLress ranges, it is important to consider the actual transverse location being
checked within the slab- The peak local cffccL usually occurs some distance from the
web of a main beam, while the global direct stress reduces a\ray from the web due to
shear lag. The g1oba1 stress distribution allorving fol shear lag may be deterrnined using
tlarce 5.4.1.2(8 ), even though this refers to EN 1993-1-5 which is for steel flanges.
For serviceability stress limits, clnuse 7.2.2 refers to EN 1992 ard EN 1993. Both codes Clause 7.2.2
allow choice in the National Annex- EN 1992 does so by mear.rs of coefficients À1, whereas
EN 1993 permits national values for a partial factor 1M ser. If any National Annex uses
other than thc recommended value, 1.0, this could be a source of crror in practice,
because partial factors for seniceabilit.v checks are alruost invariably 1.0, and so tend to
be forgottcn.

Combinotions of octions for setyiceobihty checks

(llaule 7.2 defines these combinations only by cross-reference, so the following summary is
given. The limiting stresses can he altcrcd by National Alnexes.
Clause 7.2.2(2) leads to the follou.ing recommendations for concrete. Qouse 7.2.2(2)
. Where creep coelîicients are based on clâuse 3. 1 .4(2) of EN 1992- I - I , as is usual, its clause
7.2(3) gives thc strcss limit for the quasi-permanent combination as 0.45ik.
. In areas where the exposure class is XD. XF or XS. clause 7.2( 102) of EN 1992-2 gives the
stress limit lor the characteristic combination as 0.601:k. Con.rment on cluusc 4.1( l )
refers tô the XD class in bridgcs.
From clause 7.2.2(4), tbe recommended limit for reinforcement is 0.8/;k under the Aouse 7.2.2(4)
characleristic combinaiion, increased to 1.0/sk for imposed deformations.
Clsuse 7.2.2 ( 5 ) refers Lo clausc 7.3 of EN 1993-2, where the stress limits for structurâl steel Clause 7.2.2(5)
and the force limits fbr bolts are based on the chârâcteristic combination, with a limit on
stress range under thc lrcquent combination.
Fot' service loading of sheâr conneators generally. c1ar"-e 7.2.2(6) rcfers to clause 6.8.1 ( 3 ) . Clouse 7 .2.2(6)

That clause refers only to stud connÊctors under the characteristic combination, and uses a

r65
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

lactor  that cân be chosen nationally. EN 1994-2 envisages the use of othef types of
connecfor (for example, in clause 6.6.1.1(6lP). Rules for the use of these. rvhich may be
given in â National Annex- Trom clause 1.1.J/31, should include a service load limit-
To sun up, most stress checks âre bâsed on chârâcteristic combinations, as are th€ deter-
mination ol'cracked regions, c/ause 5. 4.2.3 ( 2 ), and lhe provision of minimum reinforcement,
clause 7.4.2 ( 5 ) . However, limiting crack widths are given, in clause 7-3.1(105) of EN 1992-2,
for the quari-pcrmanent cotnbinat ion.

Web breothing
Clause 7.2.3(l ) EN 1993-2 for 'breathing' of slender steel web plates. The ellect on a
Clause 7.2.3 ( I ) rcfers lo
slender plate of in-plane shear or compressive stress is to magnify its initiâl out-of-plane
imperfection. This induces cyclic bending moments at its welded edges about axes parallel
to the welds. If excessive, it can lead to fatigue fajlure in these regions. Further comment
is given in the Guide to EN 1993-2.4

7.3. Deformations in bridges

7.3.l. Deflections
Clouse 7.3.I (l) Clause 7.3.1(1) refcrs to clauses in EN 1993-2 that cover clearances, visual impression,
precambering, slip ât connections, performance criteria and drainage. For precambering,
'the effects of shcar deformation , , , should be considered', This applies to verlical shear in
steel webs, nôt tô the shear connection.
Aouse 7.3. | (2) Clause 7.3.1(2) refers to Seclion i for câlculâtiôn ofdeflections. Rules for the effects ofslip
are given in c/aa.r'e.5.4.1-1. They permit deformations caused by slip ofshear conneclion to be
neglected, except in nonlinear analysis. C1ar.r,re 5.1.2.1(l) relers to the sequence of
conslruction, which affects deflections. When the sequence is unknown, an estimate on the
high side can be obtained by assuming unpropped construction and that the adverse areas
of the influence line, with respect to deflection at the point being considered, âre concreled
first, followcd by the relieving areas. Suficient accuracy should usually be obtained by
assuming that the whôle of the concrcLe dcck is cast aL onc timc, on unpropped steelwôrk.
Thc casting ofan area ofdeck slab may increase the curvâture ofadjacent beams where the
shear connectors are surrounded by concrete that is too young for full composite action to
occur. lt is possible that subsequent performânce of these connectors could be impaired by
Qouse 7.3,I (3) what is, in effect. an imposed slip. Clause 7.3,1(3) relèrs to this, but not to the detailed
guidance given in clawe 6.6.5.2(31, which follows.

'llhereter possible, deformetion should not be imposed on ar shedr conlection until the contrete hus
rcached u tylinder strength ol at least 20 Nlmm' .'

The words 'Wherever possible' arc necessary bccause shrinkage effects apply iorce to shear
connection from a very early age without, so far as is known, any âdverse effect.

7.3.2. Vibrations
Çlouse 7 .3 .2( I ) The limit state of vibration is covered rn clause 7.3.2(1) by reference to other Eurocodcs.
Composite bridges are refered to only in clause 6.4.6.3- 1(3) of EN 1991-2. which covers reso-
nance under railway loading. This gives 'lower bound' vâlues fôr dâmping thât afe the same
for composite bridges as for steel bridges, except thât those for f,ller-beam decks are nuch
higher, and the same as fôr concrete bridges. Alternative values may be gilen in the Nationtrl
Annex- The spccialized literature generally gives dâmping values for composite floor or deck
systems thât âre between thosc for steel and for concrete members, as would be expected- In
railway bridges, the presence or âbsence of ballast is a relevant factor.
The reference to EN 1993-2 requires consideration of pedestrian discomfort ancl fatigue
under wind-induced motiôn. usually vortex shedding- The relevant reference is then to
EN 1991-1-4.103 Its Annex E providis guidance on the-calculrtion of amplitudes of oscilla-
tion while its Annex F provides guidance on the determination of natural frequencies and

t66
 CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

damping. The damping values fbr steel-composiLe bridges in its Table F,2 this time do lie
between the values for steel bridges and reinforoed concrete bridges.

7.4. Cracking of concrete

7.4. | . General
In the early 1980s it was foundoa,rua that for composite beams in hogging bending, the long-
established British mcthods lbl control of crack width rvere unreliable for initial cracks.
which were wider than predictcd. Before this. it had been lound lor reinlorccd concrete
that the appropriate theoreticâl model lor cracking caused by restrâint of imposed defor-
mation was different from that lbr cracking causcd by applied loading. This has led to the
presentation ol design rules for control of- cracking âs two distinct procedurcs:

. fbr minimnm reinforcemeut. in c lausc 7.1.2, for all cross-sections that could be sr.rbjected
to significant tension by imposed deformations (c-g. by effccLs of shrinkage, which
cause higher stresses than in reinforced concrete, because of restrâint frôm the steel
oeam)
. for reinlorcenent to control cracking due to direct loading, clut$c 7.4.3.

The rules given in EN 1994-2 a,re based on an cxtensiv€ and quite complex theory.
supported by testing on hogging regions of composite beams.104'105 Much of the original
literature is either in German or not widely availableLo6 so a detailed account of the
thcory has been published in English"r0T with comparisons with results of tests on con.rposite
beams, additional to those used originally. The paper includes derivâtiôns of the equations
glen in clause 7.4. comments on their scope and underlying assumptions, aud plocedures for
estimating the mean width and spacing of cracks. Thesc arc Lcdious, and so arc not in
EN 1994-2. Its methods are simple: Tables 7.1 and,7.? give maximum diameters and spacings
of rcinforcing bars for threc design crack widths: 0_2, 0.3 ar.rd 0.4 mm.
These tablcs are for 'high-bond' bars only. This means ribbed bars rvith properties relerred
to ir clause 3.2.2(2)P o I EN 1992- I - I . The use of reinforcenent other than r.ibbed is ou tside
the scope of the Eurocodes-
The references to E N I 992 in daase 7.4.1( I ) give the surf'ace crack-width limits required Clouse 7.4.1( I)
for dcsign. Typical exposure classes fbr composite bridge dccks arc cliscusscd in section 4.1 of
this guide.
Claase 7.4.1(2) refers to 'estimâtion' ofcrack width, using EN 1992-l-1. This rather long Clouse 7.4. | (2)
procedure is rarely needed. and cloes not take full account of thc lollowing djfferences
between the behaviours of composite bcams and reinforced concrete T-beâms. The steel
mcmber in a composite bcam does not shrink or crccp and has much greater flexural stillness
than the reinforcement in â concretc beam. Also, the steel member is attached to the concrcLc
flange only by discrcte connectors that are not effective until there is longitudinal slip,
whereas in reinlbrced concretc there is monolithic connection. Thcrc is no nccd here for a
relereflce to EN 1992-2.
Clause 7,4,1(3) refers to the methods developed for composite members. which are easier. Qause 7.4.1(3)
to âpply than the methods for reinforccd concr.ete members.
Clause 7.4.1(4) relers to lilliting calculated crack widths $1, with a Note on recommended Clause 7.4.1 (4)
values. Those lbr all XC, XD and XS exposure classes are gjvcn in a Notc to clause 7.3.1(105)
of EN 1992-2 as 0.3 mm. This is for thc quasi-permanent loâd cômbinâtion. and excludes
prestressed members with bonded tendons. Both thc crack width and the load combination
may be changed in the National Anncr. It is expected thât the UK's National Annex to
EN 1992-2 will confirm these recommendations and give further guidance fbr. combinations
that include temperature difference.
Claase 7.4.1(5) and (6) draws âttention to the need to control cracking caused by Clouse 7.4.1(5)
early thelrrral shrinkage. Thc problem is thât the heat of hydrâtjon causes expansion of Clouse 7.4.I (6)
the concrete before it is stiff enough for restraint liom steel to câuse much compressive
stress in it. When it cools, it is stiflèr, so tension dcvclops. This can occur in regions that

167
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994.2

are in permanent compression in the finishcd bridge. They may tequire crack-control
reinforcenent for this pl.rasc only.
The check is made âssuning that the temperalurcs of the steel ând the concrete are both
unifbrm. The concrete is oolder. to àn extent thât may be given in tht: National Annex. Tbis
causcs tcnsion, and possibly cracking. Further comnrent is given in Example 7.1 .

7.4.2, Minimum reinforcement

The only rlaLa necded whcn using 'l'ablcs 7.1 and 7.2 are the dcsign crack width and lhe tensile
stress in the reinforcement, o,. For tliuimum rcinforcement, a. is the stress inrmediâtely
after initial cracking. It is assuled that cracking does not change thc curvature of the sleel
bea[r, so all of thc tcnsile lorce in the concretejust beforc cracking is transferred to the rcinforce-
Aouse 7.4.2(l) ment, ofarea l.. Ifthe slab were in uliform tension, e4aa tion (7.1) in clause 7,4.2( 1) wotrld be:

I,o. - 1"11"1."11

rvhere rf,."p is an estimate ofthe mean tensile strength ôfthe concrete at thc time of c-r-ackiug.
The three correclion factors in equation (7.1 )ire based on calibration work.106 These
allow for the non-uniform stress distribution in the area '4cr of conclete assumed to ctack.
'Non-uni;form sel:equilibrat tg s/resses' arise from primary shrinkage and temperature
ellècts, which cause ourvaturc of the composite member. Slip of the shear connection also
causes curvature and reduces the tensile lbrce ilr thc slab.
The magnitude of these effects depcnds on the geometry of thc uncracked composile
seclion, as givcn by equation (7.2). With experiencc, calculation of À. can often be
omitted. becâuse it is less than 1,0 only whcre zn <1.2h.. (These symbols are shown in
Fig. 7.5.) The depth of lhc 'uncracked' neutrâl axis below the bottom of lhe slab normalLy
exceeds about 70% of the slab thickness, and lhen, /.c : l.
The method of dause 7.4.2 ( t I is noL intended for the control of carly thermal cracking,
which can occur in concrete a few days old, if the tcmperature rise caused by heat of
hydrâtion is excessive. The flanges of composite beams are usually loo thin for this to
occur. It would not be corrcct, Lherefore,lo assume a very low value for /o,"11.
Thc suggested va)ue of /1,,"n, 3 Nimm', was probably rounded from the mcan 28-day
tensile strength of glade C30i 37 concrete, given in EN 1992-l-l as 2.9 N,imm' the value
Aouse 7.4.2(2) used as lhc basis for the optional côrrection given in clause 7.4.2(2). The maximum bar
diameter may be increased fbr stronger ooncrete becâuse the higher bond strength of the
concrete compensates for the lowcr total perimet€r of a sel of bars with given area per
unit width of slab. The difference between 2.9 and 3.0 is obviously negligiblc. It may be an
error in drafling, because in EN 1992, the value 2.9N/mmr is used in both places.
If lhcrc is good reason 1{) assume â value fbr .Âr.eff such that the correction is not negligible,
a suitable procedure is to assume a standard bar diameter, ry', calculate {*, and then find o, by
interpolation in Table 7.1 .
The reinforcement in a deck slab rvill usually be in two layers in each direction, with at least
Clause 7 .4.2(3) half of it adiacent to thc surface of greater tensile strain, The relevant mle, in clause 7.4.2( 3 ),
refers not to lhc actual reinforcement, but to the minin.rum rcquired. The reference to '1oca1
Aouse 7.4.2(4) depth' rn clause 7.4.2(4) mears the depth at the arôss-section considered-
Aouse 7.4.2(5) The rule olclaz"-e 7.4.2(5) on placing of minimum reinforccment refers to its horizontal
extent, not to its depth within the slab. Analysis of the structure fbr ultimate Ioad combina-
tions of variable actions will normally lind regions in tension that are more extensive than
those for the characteristic combination specified herc. The regions so lbund may need to
be extended for early thermal el1ècts (c/aa,se 7.4.I ( 5 )).

Design of minimum reinforcement for o concrete slob

F-or design. thc design crack width and thickness ofthe slab, h", will be known For a chosen
bâr diameter ç, Table 7.l gives o., the maximum permitted stress in the rcinforcement, and
equûtiot1 (7.1) alloq,s the bar spacing to be determined, If this is too high or low, o is
chan{ed.

t68
 CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

56 8 10 12 16 20

E \mm)
Fig,7.l. Bar diameter ând spacingfor minimum reinforcemenr in rwo equal lâyers, for wk : 0,3 mm and
f.,."t : 3.0 N/mm'

A typical relationship between slab thickness 1", bar spacing,r and bar diameter ,y' is shown
in Fig. 7.1. It is for two similar layers of bars, wirh kc = I and ./",,"n :3.0Nlmm2. Equatiott
( 7.1 ) thelr' gives, for a fully cracked slab of breadth É:

6ô'Z l4)(.2b1î) :0.12 x 3bh"lo"

FIence,

h"s:0.72792o" (with o, inN,/mm2 units) (D7.1)

For each bar diarreter and a given crack width, Table 7.1 gives rl,2o", sô the product /rc.r is
known. This is plotted in Fig. 7,1, fôr nk:0.3mm, as curves ofbar spacing fbr four
given slah thicknesses, which can of course also be read as maximum slab thjckness size
and for bar spacing. The shape of the curves results partly from the use of rounded vâlues
of o. in Taâle 2.1. The correction to minimum reinforcement given in clause 7.4.2(2) ts
negligible here, and has not been madc.
The weight ôf minimum reinforcement, per unit area ofslab, is proportional to /2/s, which
is proportional to o, I, from equation (D7,l). The value of o;r increases rvith bar diameter,
from Tqblc 7.I , so the use of smaller bars reduces the weight of minimum reinforcement- This
is because their gfeâter surface area provides more bond strensth.

7.4.3. Control of cracking due to direct loading

Clause 7,4.3(2) specilies elastic global analysis to Section 5. allowing for the effects of Qouse 7.4.3(2)
cracking- The preceding commcnts on global analysis for deformations apply also to this
analysis for bending moments in regions with concrete in tension.
Front clause 7.4.1 (4 ) , the combination of actions will be given in the National Annex.
There is no need to reduce the cxtent of the cracked regions below that assumed for
global analysis for ultimate limit stâtes. so Lhe new bending moments for the composite
men.rbers can be found b1, scaling values found previously. At each cross-section, the area
of reinforcemcnt will already be known: that required for ultimâte loading or the specified
minirrunr, if greater; so tlte stresses o".o, claun^e 7.4.3(3),can be found. Clouse 7.4.3(3)

Tension stifèni,rg
A corrcction 1br tension stiffening is now required. At onc limc, lhcsc cllects were not well
understood. It
was thought that, for a given tensile strain ât the level of the reinforcement,
the lotal extension must bc the ertension ofthe concreLe plus the rvidti of the cracks, so that
allowing for the former reduced thc latter. The true behaviour is more complex.
The upper part of Fig. 7.2 shows a single crack in a concrete membel with a centlal
reinforcing bar. At the crack, thc external tensile force N causes strain e,2 - NlA,E"itr
the bar. ând the strain in the concrete is the free shrinkage strâin €.s, which is shown âs

t69
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

o
Joi""J

Tensile strâin

r*---r-r---r----*l
Fig. 7.2. Strain distributions near a crack in a reinforced concrcte tensiôn member

nÊgative here. There is a transmission length I" each sidc of the crack, within which there is
transfer of shear bctu'een the bar and the concrete. Outside this length, the strain in both the
steel and the concrete is a.q, and the stress in ihe concrete is fractionally below its tensile
strength. Within the length 2I", the curves e,(x) and e"(x) give the strains in the two
materiaLs, rvith mean strains €sm in the bar and e.. in the concrÊte.
It is now supposed that the graph represents the typical bchaviour of a reinforcing bar in a
cracked concrete flange of a compositc beam, in a region of constant bending moment such
thât the crack spacing is 2Ze. The curvâture of the steel beam is detcrmined by the mean
stiffness ofthe slab, not the fully cracked stiffness. and is compatible with the mean longitu-
djnal :trarn in the reinforcement. e,-.
Midway between the cracks, the strain is the cracking strain of Lhe concrete, corresponding
to a stress less than 30 Nimm2 in the bar. Its peak strain, at the crâck, is much greater than e'o,
but less than the yield strain of the reinforcement, ifcrack widths are not to exceed 0.3 mm. The
crack width corresponds to this higher strain, not to thc strain €sln that is compatible with the
curvature, so a corrcction to the strain is needed- It is presented in c lause 7.4.3 ( 3 ) as a correc-
tion to the stress .'s o because that is easily calculated, and Table.s 7.1 and 7.2 are based on
strcss. Thc strain coficction cannot bc shown in Fig. 7.2 because the stress ds.o is calculated
using the'fully cracked' stiffness, and so relates to a curvature greatcr than the true cuflature.
The derivation of the correctionl0T takcs account of crack spacings less than 21", the bond
properties of reinforcement, and other factors omitted f}om this simplified outline.
The section properties needed lbr the calculatjon ol the correction Ào, will usually be
known. For the cracked composite cross-section, the transfbnned area I is needed to flnd
1, wliich is used in calculating o,.o, and A,, and Iu are standard properties of the steel
section. The result is independent of the moclular ratio. For simplicity, clsr may conserva-
t.ively be tâken âs 1.0, because AI > A,I^.
When the stress o. at a crack has been found, the maximum bâr diâmeter or the maximum
spacing are found from 'I-ablq 7.1 and, 7 -2. Only one of these is needed, as thc known area of
reinfbrcement then gives the other. The correction ol clause 7.4.2 (2) does not apply,

General comments on clouse 7.4, and flow charts

The design actions for checking cracking will always be less than those for the ultimate limit
state due to the use of lower load factors. The difference is greâtest where unpropped con-
struction is used for a continuous beam with hogging regions in Class 1 or 2 and with
lateral torsional buckling prevented, This is becausc the entire design hogging moment is
carried by the composite section for Class 1 and 2 composite sections at ULS, but at SLS,
reinforcement stresses âre derived only from actions applied to the composite section in
the construction sequence. lt is also permissible in such cases to neglect the effects ofindireot
actions at ULS. The quantity of reinforcement provided fbr resistance to load sbould be

t70
 CHAPTER 7, SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

See the Nolês in the section Flow charls tor crack-width control'

Exposure classes. Fot each concrelê surface in tension, find the exposure
class to clause 4.2 of EN 1992-1-1 and EN 1992-2 teletrcd 10 Ircm 7.4.1(1))

Crack widths. FindlhelimilinO crack widths |44 and the combination of aclions
for verification irom the National Annex (from the Note to 24. tf4/)

Do global anâlyses forthis combinatian to find bending

momenls in reolons where lhe slab rs in lension

For areâs of rêinforcement iound previously, A, determine iensile stresses os.o in

bars adjacenl to surfaces to be checkêd, nêglecting pimary shrinkage, to 22.1(4/.
Calculate tensilê slr€sses for tension siiffening, from 24.3(3). Deiermine lhe
^os local actions,,rs.|æ, and find
tensile stress due to coexisting
os e = .rs o + + os ô., kom 7.2.1(8)
^.rs

Do you want lo iind crack widlhs Recommêndêd only for cross-seclions

from EN 1992-1-1, 7.3.4?
(7.4.1(2))

No
trf with longiludinal prestress by tendons.
Outsidê the scopê of lhis chaft (END)

From 7.4.1(3), use wRând os,E to find e,thermax. bar spacing s. fromlatr/e Z2 and
calculate bar diameterC from A" or'(less convenienl) {ind diamêter d'fromTable 7.1,
then 0ltom 7.4.2(2), aîd lind bar spacing irom Ag

Beduce C and E a: --------.:-r lncrease s"

NO

Only possible by increasing A. and

Fleduce C, at hence reducing os,E. This may permit a
Effect is to re duce bar spacing small increase in 4- lt is inefficient and
not recommended

Go to llow chart for minimum reinlorcêment {Fio. 7.4J

Fig. 7.3. Flow chart for control of cracking due to direct loading

sumcient to control cracking. The maintse of clause 7.4.,t is then to check that the spacing of
the bars is not excessive.
Where propped construction is used, the dispârity between the design loadings lbr the
two limit states is smaller. A check to ck se 7.4.3 is then lnore likelv to influcncc the
leinfbrcement required.

FIow chons for Uack-width contol

The check to clause 7.4.3 ts \kely to be done first, so its flow chart, Fig. 7.3, precedes Fig, 7,4
for minimum reinforcement, to c/4rJe 7.4.2. The regions where the sJab is in tension depend
on the load combination. and three mây be relevant, as follows.
. Most reinlbrcenent areas âre found initially for the ultimate cômbination.
. Load-induced cracking is checked for a combination to be specified in Lhe National
Annex, to tlause 7.4.1(4).It may be the quàsi-pcrmancnt or frequent combination.
. Minimum reinforoement is reouired in resions in tension under the characleristic
combination. clau.se 7.1.215 ).

t7l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Miûimum rcinforcemenl Find âll regions where concrétê can be in llexurâllension

under the characte stic combination of permanenl and \/aiable aclions. 7.4.2(5),
taking account of shrinkage ot concrete and etfecls of temperaturê and settlemenl,
il any, 7.4.2(l).These rcgions may be more extensive than those where crack control
for effects ol loading is requked

For eâch reqion, propose detaiis of minimum longitudinal reinforcement: bâr size d
and spacing ssj usually in two layers. with at leasl half neaa lhe sudace with the
greatêr lênsil€ slrârn tZ 4.2(A). FiguÊ7.1is uselul wherê /d.- - 3 Nhm2

Choose fd ér, delined in z4-2(t).

Use N/mm'units

For the design crâck widlh la4, find oq.â* for4'from lable 27, using
interpolalion if necessary. Ohis roule is used because d must be a
standard bêa diameter. bul d' need not be)

Do you wish to detemine minimum reinlorcement by a 'more âccurâle

method', following clause 7.3.2(1)P of EN 1992-1'1 (tron 7.4.2(1))?

Approprjate for Câlculate,k" trom eq. fZ2). Considerwhether the

seclions prestressed recommended values for k and ks are
by Iendons, 7.4.2(1). appropfiatê, ând chanqe lhem if not (unlikely).
Outs;de the scope of For unit width ol the tensile zone considerec,
this flow chart (END) tind ,4r. Find 4s hin ffom eq. (7.1) using os,M

For the proposed reintorcemênt,

Reduce su or incrêâse C
(or combinalion of both) lind À3 per unit width of slab.
ls As à,4,minz

The chosen bar size and spacing are salisfactory as minimum reinforcemenl,
llul mây not be sutficient lo control cracking due to direcl loadiôg at lhe section
considered [ENDI

Fig. 7.4. Flow chan for minimum reinforcement for control of cracking

The following notes apply to these charts.

lvole .1. Creep and shrinkâge of concrete both increase stress in reinforcement ât internâl
supports of beams. so crack widths are usuâlly verifled using the long-term
modulâr ratio for pcrmanent actions. This is assunecl here.
Note 2- The flow charts âpply to a tension flange of a continuous longitudinâl beâm. It is
assumcd (for brevitv) that:
. areas of ieinforcement required for uhimatc limit stalcs have been found
. the flexural stillnesses tull are known for the uncracked cross-sectionsr using
relevant modular ratios (inclusion of reinforcel.rent optional)
. the cracked flexural stiffnesses Euô are known- For thcse. modular ratios are
usually irrelevant. unless double composite âction is being used
. the deck slab is above the steel beam, and at cross-sections considered,
na-ximum tensile strâin occurs ât the top surfâce of the slab
. there is no double composite action
. early thermal crâcking does not govern
. the symbols ls (area of reinforcement) âre for â unit widlh of slab.

t72
 CHAPTËR 7. SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

Nole J- A second subscript, / for loading. is used in this note to indicate quantities found in
the check to c/arse 7.4.3. Area A".1is usually that required for resistance to ultimate
loads. lt is assumed, lbr simplicity, thât minimum reinlbrcement consish of
two identical laycrs ol- bars, one near each surface of thc slab. Area ,4r.7 should
be compared with the minimum reinforcement area l, required when bars of
diameLer o1 are used. If,4r.7 < 1,, minimum reinforcement governs.

7.5. Filler beam decks

This clause is applicable to silnply-supported or continuous decks of tht: type shown in
fig. d.8, spânning longitudinalty. The Note Io r:lause 6.3.1(1) pcrmits the use of transverse
filler beans according to the Nâtionâl Annex, which should refer also to seniceability
requirements, if any-
From clause 7.5.1( 1 ). the methods ol global analysis 1'or scrviceability limit stâtes ale the Clouse 7.5.1(l )
same as for ultinate limit states, clarse 5.4.2.9, except thât no redistlibution of momenls is
permitted.
Tlre rvord 'considered' is used in clause 7.5.2(1) because some of the clauses may not be Clouse 7 .5 .2( I
)
applicahLe. For example. the thickness of the concrete in a liller-bean deck will cxcced
that in a conventional composite heam, so the effeÇls of heal of hydration will be greater.
Tbc temperature dillèrence recommended in the Note Io clause 7.4.1(6) mny lnol be
appropriate. Tension stillcning is also different (clause 7.5.4(2)).
The objective oT cluuse 7.5.3(1) is to ensure that cracking of côncrete does not cause its Qouse 7.5.3(l )
reinforcement to yicld- lt applies above an internal support of a continuous llller-beam
deck, and can be illustrâted as follows.
It is assumed that all the concrete above the top flânges ofthe steel beans reaches its mcan
tensile strength, 71,,,.,, and thcn cracks. Tl.fs releases a tensile force of ,{ceff.,f.o' per beam,
wlrere .l"."11 :s,c,, as rn clause 7 .5 .3 ( I ) . 'fhc noLation is shown in Frg.6.8.
Thc required condition. lvith partial factors 7M tâken âs 1.0, is:

l,-r".Âr à 1.."n/",- (D1.2)

For concretes permitted by clause 3.1 (2 ) ..[,. ! 4.4 N/mm2.

If, to satisfy e-xpression(7,7), A'^r" > 0.01,4.,"tî, then expl€ssion (D7.2) is satisficd il
/;k > 440 N/mm2- In design to EN 1994, normally fç : 500 N/mm2, so the objective is met.
Clause 7.5.4( 1) applies to longitudinal bottôm reinforcement in mid-span regions. Widths Clouse 7.5.4(l )
of cracks in the concrcte somt between the steel beams should be controlled unless the
formwork used (shown rn Fig. 6.8'1 provides permancnt protection. Otherwise, wide
transvcrsc cracks could form under the bottom transverse bars specified n cltuse 6.3.1 (4) ,
putting them at risk ofcorrosion.
Clause 7,5.1(2) sâys, in effect, that the stress in the rcinforcement may be taken as os,o, Aouse 7.5.4(2)
defined in claute 7.4.3(3). Thus, there is no need to consider tension stiffening in liller-
bean decks.

t73
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

I
20 mm bars al 1 50 mm

From c/arse 2.2.-118J, stresses in reinfûrcement câused by simultaneous global

âctions should bc atldecl. Load Model I is considered here. The tardem system
UDL produce a smaller loeal effecf than does Load Model 2, but Load Model 1
thr: greatest combjned tocat plus global effect. Local mornents are caused here by h

t74
CHAPTER 7- SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

t75
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

s* (t : ll - exp(0.210'

Fôr temperature, clause 3.1.3(5) of EN 1992-l-1 gives the thermal coeffi

soncrete as l0 x l0 6, so a difference of 25K causes a strain of250 x 10-6.

r'luus( 5.4.2.J(2).lL is suggested here that heal of hydration sh,

above. Lo dutcrmine the regions in Lension. in which at least

cracks,

fft. *iri-"ii r"itrf"rcement required by clause 7.4.2 is tsually far less than that required
ât an internâl support. The rules apply to any regiôn subjected to significant tension and

t76
 CHAPTER 7. SERVICEABILITY LIIYIT STATES

modular ratio rxg (6.16 here). it makes little difference whether reinlorcement is inclutled

Foralm

177
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

e.

t78
CHAPTER 8

Precast concrete slabs in

composite bridges

This chapter corresponds to Sectlon 8 in EN 1994-2, which has the following clauses:

. General Clause 8.1

. Actrons Clause 8.2
. Design, analysis and detailing ofthe bridge slab Cknse 8.3
. lnterface between steel beâm and concrete slab Clause 8.4

8. 1. General
Claase 8.1(l) states the scope of Section 8: precast deck slabs of reinforced or prestressed Clause 8.1(l)
concrete which are either:
. partial thickness, acling as pernanent participating formwork to the ir-rit, concrete
topping, or
. full thickness, where only a small quântity ofcôncrete needs to be cast r? Jita to join lhe
precast units together. l.'jgure 8.1 illustrates a typical deck of this lype.

Precast slabs within the scoFe of Sectior 8 should be fully composite with the steel beam
tlaase 8.1(2). Non-participâting permânent formwork is not covered, fbr it is difficult Aouse 8.1(2)
both tô prevent such formwork from being stressed by imposed loading. and to ensure its
durabilitv.

Pockel for sheâr

Transverse ioinl

eoge Deam

Projecling
reinforcemenl

Fig. 8.l. Typical full-thickness precast concrete deck

DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Clouse 8.1(3) Clause 8.1 ( 3 ) ts a reminder that the designer should check the sensitivity of Lhe dcLaiUng to
tolerances ând specify stdcter vàlucs than thosc rcquired by EN 1992 (through EN 13670) if
[ecessary. Key issues to consider include:
. detailing of the precast slabs at pockets to ensule that each pocket is con'ectly located
over the steel hcam, lhat projecting transverse reinforoemenl will not clash with the
sheal connection, and that there is sufficient space for concreting (cleuse 8.4.3(2))
. delailing o[stitch reinforcement between adjacent precast slabs to ensure that bars do not
clash and to satisfy cktuse 8-311) on continuity
. tolcrances on overall geometq/ of each precast unit so that. where required, abutting
units are sufficiently parallcl Lo each othcr to avoid the nccd for additional sealing
liom underneath, The tolerânces for steelwork are also important, and are refened to
tn cktus<: 8.4. L

8.2. Actions
Qouse 8.2(l) Ckuse 8.2(1) warns that thc design of prccast dcck slabs should consider the âctions
arisilg fron.r the ploposed construction method âs well as the actions given in FN l99l- I -6.r0

8.3. Design, analysis and detailing of the bridge slab

Evcn where full-thickness slabs are used. some interaction wilh ilx-situ concrete ocqurs at
Qouse 8.3(l) joints, so clausc 8.3( I ) is rclcvant to boLh types of prccast concrctc slab. Its requirement
fbr the deck to be designed as continuous in both directions applies to the finished structure.
It does nol mean that the reinfbrcement in partiâl-thickness precast slabs or planks must bc
contlnuous. That would cxclude lhe use of 'Omnialtype planks, shown in Fig. 8.2. Precâst
planks of this sort spân simply-supported betwee âd.jâcent steel beams ând are joined with
r?-,!11, concrcte over the tops of the bealrs. The main reinforcement in the planks is not
continuous âcross these joints, hut the rcinforcement in the m-.rill concrete is. In the other
direction, the planks abut as shown, so thât only a small part of the thickness of the slab
is discontinuous in compression. Continuity of reinforcemenl is again achieved in the slab
buf not in the planks. The resulting slâb (part precast, part in sitt) is continuous in both
directions.
EN 1992-l-l clause 6.2.5 is relevant for the horizontal interfâce between the precast and
in situ concrcte- Examples of bridges of this type are given in Ref. 108.
To allow precast slab units to be laid continuously across thc stccl bcams, shear cônnectiôn
usually needs to be concentrated in groups with appropriate positioning of pockets in the
Clouse 8.j(2) precast slab as illustralcd in Fig. 8.1. Clause 8.J(2) lherefore refcrs to clnuse 6.6.5.5(41
Ciouse 8.3(3) fbr the use of stud connectors in groups. Clause 8.3(3) makes reference lo clause 6.6.1.2.
This allows some degree of averaging of the shear flow over a length, which facilitates
standaldisâtion of the details of thc shcar connection and the nockets-

Flange ol steel beam

Fig. 8.2, Typical partial-thicknês! precast concrere plank

t80
 CHAPTER 8. PRECAST CONCRETE SLABS IN COI'4POSITE BRIDGES

8.4. Interface between steel beam and concrete slab

Clause 8.1.1(l) refers to bedding, such âs the placing of the slabs on a layer of mortar. Aouse 8.4.1(l)
Sealing of the interlace bctween steel beam and precast beam is needed both to pl'otect the
steel flange from corrosion and to prevcnt leakage of grout when the pockets are qoncreted.
Where a precast unit is supported by more than two beams. bedding may also be needed to
ensure that load is shared betwccn lhe beams as intended.
'Bcdrling' in clause 3.4.1 ( I ) âppears to mcan a gap-filling maLerial capable of transferring
vertical compression. Where it is intended not tô use it, the clâuse requires special tolerances
to be specified for the steelwork to minimise the ellècts of uneven contact betrveen slab and
steel llang€.
This does not solvc thc problerrs ofcorrosion ând grout leakage, for which a compressible
sealing strip could be applied to thc cdges of the flange and around the pocket. There would
then still bc no clirect protection of the top flange by in-.rlra concrete (other than at a pocket)
and so clause 8.4.2 f/J rcquires that a top flange without bedding be given the sarne corrosion Clouse 8.4.2(l)
proteotion as the rest of the beam, apart from the site-applied top coat.
If a non-loadbcaring anti-corrosion bedding is provided, then the slâb should be designed
Ibr the transfer ofvertical loads only al the positions of the pockets. It would be prudent also
to assumc lhat clause 8.4.1( 17 on special toleranccs still applies.
Clause 8.4.3 gives provisions for the shear connection and transverse reinforcement, sup- Aouse 8.4.3
plenrenting Sertrons 6 and 7. Chuse 8.4.3(2) emphasises the need for boLh suitable concrete Clouse 8.4.3(2)
mix design and appropriate clearance between shear conncctors and precast concrete, allow-
ing Tor tolerances. in order to cnable ra-Jiftr concrete to be fully compactÊd. Clause 8.4,3(3) Clouse 8.4.j(3)
highlights the need to detail reinforcemenL appropriately adiacent to groups of connccLors.
This is discussed with the comments on clause 6.6.5.5 (4 ).
EN 1994-2 gives no specific guidance on the detailing of the transverse and longitudinal
joints betwccn precast deck units. Transverse joints bctwecn full-depth precast slabs at the
intermediâte supports ofcontinuous bridges are particularly critical. Here, the slab reinforce-
mcnl nust transmit the tension caused by both global hogging monents and the bending
moment ftom loca] Joading. To allow for full laps in the reinforcement, â cleâr gâp
between units would need to bc large and a problem arises as to how to form the soflit to
the joint- One potential solution is to reducc rhc gap by using intcrlocking looped bars
protruding from each end ol adjoining slab units. Such a splicing detail is not coveled in
EN 1992-2, other than in the struL-and-tie rules. Expedence has shown that even if
satisfactory ultimate perfonnance can be established by calculation, tests may be required
to demonstrâte âcceptablc performance at the serviceâbility limit state and under thtigue
loading.
The publication Preurst Concrete Decks Jor Compositc Highwul: BritlgastÙe gives further
guidance on the detâiling of longitudiral and transverse joints lbr a vadety of bridge types.

t8l
CHAPTER 9

Composite plates in bridges

This chapter corresponds to Section 9 of EN 1994-2, which has the following clauses:

. General Clause 9.1

. Design for local eflects Clause 9.2
. Design lbr global effects Clause 9.3
. Design ol'shear connectors C'lause 9.4

9. 1. General
A composile plate comprises â steel plate actjng compositely with a concrete slab in both
longitudinal and transverse directions. The fequirements oî Seûion I âpply to composite
top flanges of box girders, which resist local wheel loads in addition to performing the func-
tion of a flange in the global system. C/arse 9.1(l) clarifies that this scction of EN 1994-2 Clouse 9.1(l)
does not cover composite plales with shear connectors other thân headed studs, or sandwich
construction where the concrete is enclosed by a top and bottom steel plate. Composite plales
caD also be used âs bottom flanges of box girders in hogging zones. This reduces the âmôunt
of stiffcning required to prevent buckling. Composite bottom flanges have been used both in
new bridges"" "' and lor strengthening older srruclurcs.
Clause 9,1(21 imposes a deflection limit on the steel flânge under the weight of wet Clause 9.1(2)
concretc, unless the additional weight of concrete due to the deflection is included in the
calculation. In most bddges where this deflection limit would be approached, the steel top
plate would probably require stiflening to resist the global compression during construction,
Clouse 9.1(3) gives a modified definition lor bn in clause 5.4.1.2 ott shcar lag. Its effect Clause 9.1(3)
is that where the composite plate has no projection beyond an outet web, the vâlue of
ô6 for that web is zero. For global analysis, the effects of staged construction, cracking,
creep and shrinkage, and shear lag all apply. Clause 9.1(4) therefore makes reference to Aause 9.1(4)
clause 5.4, together with clause 5.1 on structural modelling.

9.2. Design for local effects

Local effects arise lrom vertical loading, usually from wheels or bâllâst, âcting on the
composite plate. For flanges without longiLudinal stiffeners, most of the load is usually
carried by transversc spanning between webs, but longitudinai spanning also occurs in the
vicinity of any cross-beams and diaphragms. For flanges with longitudinal stiffeners, the
direction of spanning depends on the flânge geometry and the relative stiffnesses of
the vadous components. It is important io consider local loading for the fâtigue check of
the studs as the longitudinâl shear from wheel loads can be as significant as that fron the
global loading in low-shear regions of the rnain member.
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

Aouse 9.2(l) Clause 9.2(I) permits the local analysis to be cârried out using elastic analysis with
uncracked concrete properties thloùghout, This is reasonable because the concrete is
likely to be oracked in flexure regardless of thc sign ofthe bending rnoment. There is Lherefore
no need to distinguish between unmacked and cracked behaviour, although where the steel
flange is in tension, the cracked stiffhess is likcly to be signitcantly higher for sagging
moments than for hogging moments. The same âssumption is rrade in the design of
reinforced concrete and is justified ât ultimate lin.rit staLes by the lower-bound theorem of
plasticity. Clause 9.2( 1) also clarifies tbat the provisions of ,Seclirtn 9 need not he applied
to the Çomposite flange of a discrete steel I-girder, since the flange wiJl not usually be wide
enough for sigritcant composite action to develop across its width.
A small amount of s]ip can bc crpccted between the steel plate and concrete slab, as
discussed in the comments under clquse 9.4(4),but as in beams its effect on cotlposite
Ciause 9 .2(2) action is snrall. C/aase 9.2(2) thereiore allou's slip to be ignored when determining
resistances. Excessive slip could however cause premature fàilure. This needs to be prevented
by following the applicable provisions of cktuse 6.6 on shcar connection in conjunction with
t:kru.se 9.4.
Providing the sheâ1 studs are designed as above, the steel deck plate mây be tâken to act
Aause 9.2(3) fully con.rpositely with the slab. Clause 9.2(3) Lhen permits the section to be designcd for
flexure as if the steel flange plate were reinfotcentent, The requiremenrs of EN 1992-2
clause 6.1 should then be followed. The shear resistanoe may similarly be derived by treating
the composite plate as a reinforce<l concrelc section rvithout links according to EN 1992-2
clause 6.2.2 (as modified by clduse 6.2.2.5(3J), provided that the spacing ofthe studs trans-
versely and longitudinally is less than three times the Lhickness of the composite plate. Thc
studs should also bc dcsigncd lor thc longitudinâl shear flow from local loading for ultimâte
limit stâtes, other thân fâtigue, and for the shear flow fi'om conbined global and local efl-ects
at serviceability and fatigue limit states.
Both punching and flcxural shcar should be checked. Checks on flexural shcar for unstif-
fened parts ofthe composite plate should lbllow the usual procedures for reinforced concrete
design. An effective width of slab, similar to that shown below in Fig. 9, l, could be assumed
when determining the width of slab resisting flexural shear, Checks on punching shear could
consider any support provided by longitudinal stiffeners, although this could conservatively
be ignored.

9.3. Design for global effects

Aouse 9.3(l) Claase 9.3( I ) requircs the composiLe pLate to be designed for the eflects induced in it by axial
force, bending moment ând torsion acting on the main girder. ln thc longitudinâl direction,
lhe composite plate will therefore resist direct compression ôr tension. Most bridge box
girders will be in Class 3 or Class 4 and therefore the elastic stresses derivcd in the côncrete
and steel elements should be limited to the values in ckuse 6.2.1.5 for ultimate limil slates.
Torsion âcting on the box will induce in-plane shear in both steel and concrete elements of
the flange. These shear flows can be determined using a transformed section lbr the concretc
as givcn in clauses 5.4.2.2(11) and 5.4.2.3(6). Checks ofthe steel flange under combined
direct stress and in-plane shear are discussed under the comments on clau,te 6.2.2,4(3).
The concrete flange should be checked for in-plane shear in accordance with EN 1992-2
clause 6.2.
Distofiion ofa box girder will cause warping ofthe box walls, and thus in-plane bending in
the composite plate. The direct stresses from warping will need to be added to those from
global bending and axial force. Distortion will also cause transverse bending of the compo-
site plate.
Once â steel flânge in compression is connected to lhe concrete slab, il is usually âssumed
that lhe sLeel flange panels are prevenled from buckling (providing the shear studs are spaced
suficiently closely - clause 9.4 (7 ) refers). It is still possible, although vt;ry unlikely, that the
Qouse 9.3(2) conposite plate might buckle as a whole. C/anse 9.-l(2J acknowledges this possibility and

t84
 CHAPTER 9. COIYPOSITE PLATES IN BRIDGES

requires relerence to be mâde to clausc 5-8 ofEN 1992-l-l for the calculation ofthe second-
order cIlccts. None of the simple methods of accountilg for sccond-order elTects in this
clause apply to platcs so a general second-order nonlinear analysis with imperfèctions
would be required in accordance with EN 1992-1-1 clause 5.8.6. No guidance is given in
EN 1992-l-1 on imperfections in plate elements. The imperfection shape could be based
on the elâstic critical buckling mode shape fbr the composite plate, The magnitude of
imperlecLion could be estimâted as the sum of the plate imperfection given in EN 1090
and the deflection caused by wet concrete, less an1' specified aâmber of the plâte.
EN 1992-l-l clause 5-8.2(6) provides a criterion for ignoring second-order effects which
requircs then first be calculated- This is unhclpful. A sinlpler alLernativc would be to use
the criteriôn in clau,se 5.2.1(3 ) based on an elastic criticâl buckling ânâlysis ofthe composite
plate.
Wherc account should be taken of significant shear force acting on th(r studs in both
Iongitudinàl and transverse directions simultâneously, clause 9.3(4) requiles the force on Clouse 9.3(4)
Lhe connectors to be based ôn the vector sum. Hence-

2 tDl
l,EdT'rË.1

where PrEd and P,.s6 are the shear forces per stud in the longitudinal ând Îrânsverse
directions respectively. This can influence the spacing of th€ studs nearest to the webs
becausc they are the most heavily stressed from global effccts (scc section 9-4 below) and
also tend tô be thc most heavily loaded fiom local effects in the ttânsverse direction.

9.4. Design of shear connectors

The effect of chase 9.4( I ) arld clause 9.3(4 ) ts tbat local and global effects need only be Clause 9.4(l)
combined in calculations for serviceability and fatigue limit states, but not for other ultimate
limit states. Sevcral justilications can be mâde for this concession. The main ones âte âs
lollows.
. The effects oflocal loading are usually high only ovef a relatively small width compared
with the total width providing the glohal resistance.
. The composite pJate will have signilicant reserves in local bending resistance above that
obtained from elastic analysis.
. Complete lailule requires the deformation of a mechanism of yield lines, which is resisted
by arching action. This action can be developed âlmôst eyerywhere in the longitudinal
direction and in many areas in thc transverse direction also.
There is no similar relaxaLion in EN 1993-2 fbr bare steel flanges so a steel flange should, in
principle. be checked for any local loading in combination with globai loading- tt will not
normâlly be difficult Lo satisfy this check. even using elastiÇ anâlysis.
For serviceability câlculâtions. elastic analysis is applopdate. This greatly simplifies the
addition of g]obal and local efiects. For the serviceabiiitt' limit state. the relevant limiting
fbrce per connectôr is that in ckruse 6.8.1(3), referred to ftom clause 7 .2.2 ( 6 ) . 'fhe f orce
per cornector should be derived according to clause 9.Jl4l. Whcn chccking the Von
Mises equivalent stress ir the steel flange plate, the weight of wet concrete carried by it
should be included.
No guidance is given on the câlculâtion of stud shear flow from local wheel loads, other
than that in clamc 9.2f1J. Longitudinally stiffened pârts ofcomposite plates can be designed
as beams spanning between transverse members. where present. The rulcs for e[Iective width
oï clause 5.4.l.2vlould apply in determining the pârts of the cômposite plâte âcting with each
longitudinal stifl'ener. For unstiffened parts of the composite plate, spanning transverscly
between webs or longitudinally between cross-beams, a simplified câlculâtion of sheâr
llow could be based on ân equivalent simply-supported beam. A reasonable assumption
for beam width, as recomn.rended in Ref. 112, would be the width ôf the loâd, !r), plus
fbur-thilds of the distânce to the ncarest support, r, as shown in Fig. 9.l.

t85
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

t-
Fig.9.l. Effective beam width for the determination of shear flow in a compolite Dlate

At cross-sections where there is ân âbrupt change ftom composite plate to reinforced

concrete s€ction, such as at the web of the box in Fig. 9.2, thc methôd of clause 6.6.2.4
can be used to dcLcrmine the transversc shear on the studs near the edge of the plate.
Although the compôsite section fôrmed by a steel flange and concreLe slab might provide
adequate strengti against local sagging moments wilbout additionâl transverse reinforce-
ment. transverse reinforcement is still required in the bottom of the slab to control cracking
Aouse 9.4(2) and prevent splitting of the concrete ahead of the studs. Ckwse 9.4(2) requires a fairly
modcst quaûtity of bottom reinforcement to be provided in two orthogonal directions- It
implies that in the âbsence of such reinforcement, the static design resistances of studs
given n c lause 6.6.3.1 / 1J cannot be used as they assume that splitting is prevented. The limit-
ing fatigue stress range for studs provided in c/arlse 6.8.-? is also inappropriate vithout some
transvers€ reinfbrcement as splitting will increase the flexural strcsses in the stud.
Clouse 9 .4(3) Claase 9.4(3) refers to the detailing rules of chuse 6.6.5. The minimum steel ffange
thickness it clause 6.6.5-713J is onll' likely to become relevant wh€re thc top flânge is
heavily stiffened as discussed in the comments on that clausc-
The force on shear conneclors in u'ide composite flanges is influenced both by shear lag in
the concrete and steel flanges and also slip ofthe shear connection. At the serviceability limit
state. these lead to a non-uniform distribuLion of connector force across the flange wjdth-
Aouse 9.4(4) This distribr.rtion can be approximated by equation (9.1 ) in claase 9,4(4):

pro _,'fl,",
n, ,. ' . \2 I
' f(l
L\
as( )-"
\tr,o,,/
3I tI
/ \
-b/I +o.tsll (.e 1)

Errwtion (9.1) was derived from a finiLe-element study by Moffar and Dowling.rr3 The
study considered only simply-supported beams with ratios of flange half-breadth betwe€n
webs (à in equation (9.1)) to span in the ràngc 0.05 and 0.20. The stud stiffness was taken
as 400 kN/mm.
The studs nearest the web can pick up a signitcantly greater force than that obtained by
dividing the tolal longitudinal shear by the total number of connectors. This is illustraled in
Example 9.1 and in Ref.74. Connectors within a distance ofthe greater of l0r1 and 200mm
are assumed to carry the same shear fbrce. This resulL js obtained by using x : 0 rn equation
f9.1J when calculating the stud force and it is necessâry to âvoid underestimating the force,
compared to the finite-element results, in the studs nearest the web. The rule is consistent
with practice for flanges of plate girders, where all shear connectors at a cross-section arc
assumed to be equally loaded.
The assumed valuc ol stud stilTness has a significant effect ôn the transvËrse distribution ol
stud force as greater slip leâds to a more uniform distribution. Recent sLudies, such as that in
Ref. 98, have concluded that stud stiffnesses are significantly lower than 400 kNimm, The
samc value of sLiffness is probably not appropriate for both fatigue câlculation and seryice-
ability calculations under the châraçteristic loâd combination, due to the greater slip, ând

t86
 CHAPTER 9. COMPOSITE PLATES IN BRIDGES

therel'ore flexibility, possible in the latter case. Nevertheless, the assumed stiffnes of 400 kN/
mm is ân upper bound and therefore the transverse distribution is conservative.
Clause 9.4(5) permits a relaxation of the requirements of clause 9.4(4) lor composite Qouse 9.4(5)
bottom flanges of box girders, provided that at least half of the shear conneclors required
ale concentrated near the web flange junction, 'Near' means either on the rveb or within
the delined adjacent width Àr of the flange. The rule is based on extensive practice in
Germany, and assumes that there is no significant local loading.
At the ultimâte limit statc, plasticity in the flange and increased slip lead to a much more
uniform distribution of stud forces across thc box, which is allowed lor in clause 9.4(6). Aouse 9.4(6)
Tô prevent buckJing of the steel compression flânge in half waves between studs,
clause 9.4 (7 ) refers to Tahle 9.1 lor limiting stud spacings in both longitudinal and transverse Aouse 9.4(7)
directions. These could, in principle, be relaxed if account is taken of âny longitudinâl
stiffening provided to stabilise the compression flange prior to hard€ning of the concrete.
Most bridge box girders will have webs in Class 3 or Class 4, so it will usually only be neces-
sary to comply with the stud spacings fot a Class 3 flange; thÊre is however little difference
between the spacing requiremcnLs for Class 2 and Class 3.

The shear connection for rhe bor girder shown in Fig. 9.2 is Lo be designed using lgmm
slud connectors. For reasons to be explained, it may be governed by serviceability, for
which the longirudina) shcar per v,'eb at SLS (determined from elasrjc atralysis of the
'ùù-ùçrrJuu
making d
cross-section rudrçrrrB {Jwarlcs rur
allowance for shear
sflç4l titg,l
lag) was
was tounu
found [o
ro og kN/m.
800 llit\/Il1,
be ôuu

, *" ,l
| , A50 mm thick
ioo
1200,580,580,605,
-----{ l+i_]**l*-|
|| / ,/
r52R3FaF F R 1fi

tflt
It

ta7
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

r88
CHAPTER IO

Annex C (lnformative).
Headed studs that cause
splitting forces in the direction
of the slab thickness

This chapter cofesponds to Annex C of EN 1994-2, which has the following clauses:

. Design resistance and dctailing Clquse C.l

. Fatigue strength Clause C.2

Annex A ofEN 1994-1-l is for buildings only, Annex B ofEN 1994-l-1, 'Standard resrs',
for shear connccLors and composite floor slabs, is not repeated in EN 1994-2. Comment on
Lhese annexes is given in Ref. 5.
Attncx C gles a set of design rules for the detailing and resistance of shear studs that are
embedded in an cdge of a concrete slab, as shown in -Fr.ç 6.13 and (.'. / of EN 1994-2 and
in Fig. 6,35. Details of this type can occur at an edge of a composite deck in a tied arch
or half-through bridge, or where doublc composite action is used in a box girder. The
same problem, prematurc splitting, could occur in a steep-sided narrow haunch. The use
of such haunclres is now discouragcd by the 45' rrùe in clause 6.6. 5.4 ( l ).
The rules in Annex C were developed from research at the University of Stultgart
that has been available in English only since 2001.82 lla,lli These extensive push tests
and finiLc-element analyses showed thaL to avoid premature failure by splitting of the
slab and tô ensure ductile behaviour, special detailing rules are needed. Clarise
6.6.3.1(3) therefbre warns that thc usual rules fbr resistânce of studs do not apply.
The new rulcs, in lnrer Ç are necessarily o[ limited scope, because there are so
many relevant pârâmeters- The rules are partly based on elâborâte strut-ând-tie model-
ling- lt was not possible to find rules that are dimensioflally consistent, so the units to
be used are speciEocl the only occasion in EN 1994 Parts 1-l and 2 whcrc this has
been necessaLy. For these reasons, llnel C is Informative, even though its guidance
is the best available. The simplified and gcnerally more conservative rules given in
clause 6,6,4 do not cover inleraction with transverse (e.g- vertical) sheât ôr resistânce tô
latigue.
It will be found Lhat these'lying studs'have to be much longer than usual, and that the
minimum slab thickness to avoid a reduction in the sheal. resistance per stud can exceed
250 mm. The comnrents that lbllou are illustrated in Example 10.I , and in Fig. 10.1 whcrc
thc longitudinal shear acts normal to Lhe plane of the figure and vertical sheal. acts down-
rvards from the slab to the steel web.
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

C. l. Design resistance and detailing

AauseC.l(l) Clause C.1( 1) gives the static resistance of a stud to lôngitudinal shear in the absence of
vertical shear, which should not be tâken âs greater than that from cLnse 6.6.3.l ( I ) . The
minimum length h of the stud and the reinforcement details are intended to be such that
splitting of the slab is followed by fracture or pulling out of the stud, giving a ductile
mode of failure. The importânt dimensions are a!,,o and t, from the stud to the centrelines
ofthe stirrup reinforcenent, as shown in Fig- 10.1.
Equation (C,1), repeated in the Exâmple, uses factor k, to disLinguish between two
situations, The more làr,ourable, where ku : Ll4, applies where the slab is connected to
both sides of the web and resists hogging bending a 'middle position'. This requires re-
inforcement to pâss continuously above the web, as shown in Fa. C.1. Sôme shear is then
transferred by friction at the face of the web- Where this does not occur, an 'edge position',
ftu has the lower value 1.0. Details in bridge decks are usually edge positions, so further
comment is lirnited to these. The geometries considercd in the Stuttgârt tests, however,
covered composite girders where the steel top flange was omitted altogether, with the web
projecting into the slab.
The general symbol for distance from a stud to the nearest free surface is a,. but noLation
a..o is used for the upper surface, from the German oàen,'above'. Its use is relevânt where
there is vertical shear, acting dorvnwards fron the slab to the studs. Allowing lbr cover
and thc stirrups. the importanl dimcnsion i':
a',." - a,," c' +'"12

If the lower free surl'ace is closer to the stud, its dimension a'. should be used in place of /,.".
Clause 6.6.4 appears to cover only this 'edge position' lâyout, and uses the symbol c" in
place of ai." or ai.
Although /lç in equation /C.17 is delined as the sùength 'at the age considered', the
specified 28-day value should be used, unless a check is being made at a younger âge.
The longitudinal spacing of the stirrups, .r, should bc related to that of the studs, d, and
should ideally be uniform.

r [.=to

L
,T/
+
T
I
Centr€Jine

Fig. | 0.l. Notation and dimensions for lying studs in Example 10. I

r90
 CHAPTER r0. ANNEX C 0NFORMATTVE)

For concretes of grade C35i45 and above, the resistance Pqa from clause 6.6.3.1 rs
independent of thc concrete grade. Then, equation (C.l) can be used to lind a minimum
valuc for af such thât Pna.l 2 Pna.
For example, let a: s, d: l9mm. /; = 35Nimmr, h - l, and lv - 1.25. Then,
Pra:90.7kN from etluotion (6.18) ar'd Pp61 from equotion (C.1) does not govern
unless af < 89 rnm, say 90mm- With 40mrn cover ând l0mm stirups, the minimum slab
thickness is thcn 2(90 + 40 + 5) : 270 mm if the studs al.e centrally placed, but gl.eâter if
they aIe off centre- If a lhinner slab is required. thc ratio a/,i can be increased or n]ore
studs provided, to compensate for a value Pna.l { Pna.
The limits on u in clause C.l(2) are more convenient for use in practice than the linits on Aouse C.l (2)
B, because the angle p is defined by the position of the longitudinal corner bar within the
bend of the stirrup (Fig. 10.1), which is difticult to control on site.
It lbllows from clause C.l(3) that the minimum stirrup diameter /. is roughly propor- Clouse C.l (3)
tional to the stud diâmeter d. Where ais: 1.0, e"rt di2.
The expression for interaction between longitudinal and vertical shear, d/a.rse C.1(4), is Clouse C.l (4)
only slightly convex. The vertical shear resistance givcn ir.r Example 10.1, equation (C.4),
is typically less than 407o of the longitudinal shear resistance, being governed mâinly by
the upper edge dislance a,.o. Application of vcrtical shear to lying studs is best avoided,
and can be minimized by spanning the concrete slab longitudinally between cross-beams-

C.2. Fatigue strength

Equation (C.5 ) in clause C.2(11, (ApR)* N = (Ap")- N", differs ïrom equation (6.50) in Aouse C.2(l)
clause 6.8.3(3) (for tht: fatigue strength of studs in a nonJying position) only in that
symbols AP in equation ( C.5 ) appear âs Ar in equation f6.50J. Both methôds use ln : 8.
In Annex C, ÀP" is a function of dimension al, eig. C.l, Fig. l0.l), and is 35.6kN at
2 million cycles, for d > I00 nlm. With typicâl covers to rcinforccment, this corresponcls
to a lying stud at mid-depth of a slab at least 280 mm thick, where the splitting eflect is
probably minimal. This value 35.6 kN should therefore correspond to the value given in
clause 6.8.3 for Ar at 2 million cycles, 90N/mm2. It does so when the stud diameter is
22,4 mm. This is as expected, because in the fatigue tests, only 22 mm diameter studs were
used. Horvever, the method t:,f Annex C is provided for studs of diameter 19 mm to
25 mm, for which: 'nurrerous FE-calculations show. that the fatigue strength curve should
be based on the absolutc range ol shear force per stud rathcr than on the rangc o[ shear
stress' (p. 9 of Ref. I l5).
The value of ÀPa given by the rule in ckru.se 6.8.3 is proportional to the square of the
shank dianeter ofthe stud- I.'or 19mm studs, it is only 25.6kN at 2 x l0o cycles, which is
only ?2% of the resistance 35.6kN given inTableC.l. This iswhy clause C.2(l)rcq\ffes
the lower of the two values from clause 6-8.3 and Annex C to be used.
Clause C.2(2) refers to the recomn.rended upper limit for the lôngitudinal shear force Clause C2(2)
per connector, which is 0,75Ps. The word longitudinal' reveals that the rule for f'atigue
'

resistance does not âpply where vertical sheâr is present, which is not clear in clnase
C.2 ( I ) . There were no fatigue tests in combined longitudinal and vefiical shear ânother
reason why application ol vertical sheâr to lying studs is best avoided.

Appficability of Annex C
The definition of a'lying stud'. givcn in the titles oï clause 6.6.4 and Annex C, dôes not state
how far from a frce surfàce a stud must be, for thc norrnal rules for its resistance and the
detailing to apply.
Clau.ye 6.6.5.3 retèrs to a 'longitudinal edge', not a top surface, but appears to deal with
the same problem of splitting parallel to a free surfacc ncarby. Wherc the erige distance
(i.e. a.. in Fig. l0.l) is less than 300mm, it specifies 'U-bars' (i.e. stirrups) of diâmeter
ct" > 0.5d and an cdge distance d, ) 6d. These Jimits correspoml closely with the results of

t9l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

125
c
-[ 125

50
I
I
+ 50
50
1 125
125
+

Fig. 10.2. Cross-sections ât ân edge of a slab: (a) edge studs; (b) lying studs in an edge Position; and
(c) three rows of lying studs

Example 10.1, ç0, : 0.53di àîd. t4 :6.6d, but the sLirrups are required to pass ar')und the
studs, whereas in lrrr.'.x C they pass bcl$'cen them. The diffelence is thal the surface parallel
to the Flane of splitting, AB in Fig. 10.2, is normal to the planc of the slab in one case, not in
the other, The minirrurr height of the stud, about 90 mm tô clause 6,6.5.1( | ) and 191 mm in
Examplc 10.1, is lcss significant in the detail in Fig, 10.2(a) than in detail (b). Details may
occnt rvhete clause 6.6.5.3 is also applicable, but iL does not clarify the scope oÏ Anncx C.
Let us consider the options, as the local thickness À" of the slab iu Fig. l0.l is increased
(e.g. by the addition of ân upstand haunch) without changc to other details. ll the top
cover is maintained, length n'..., must increase, so from clau.re C.l(2) fot o, the studs hâ\€
to be longer. An alternalivc is to kccp a!,.o ald u unchanged, by inoreasing the cover to the
legs of the stirrups. When à. exceeds 300mm (using data from Example 10.1), two ro$'s
of studs are possible, Fig. 10.2(b), becausc the minimum vertical spacing ol studs is 2 5d,
lrom r:lause 6.6-5.7(4).In the absence of vertical shear, the shear resistance is doubled, as
is the potential splitting force. For two t'ows of lying studs, the force Z1 giverr by equation
fC.2l should be 0.3 tines the sum of thcir resistânces.
Limits to the applicabilitl' of Anne-x C âre lùrther discussed at the end of Exanple l0 l.

t92
 CHAPTER r0. ANNEX C (TNFORMATTVE)

This gives E, > 8.9mm, so [0mm srirrups are assumed for finding ai.".
With cover of 40mm.
a,," = l2s0 - 2(4(, + s)llz: 80 mm

tsrom equ&tion (C.1 ) wiLh k, :

pRd,L : r.4k"(.f.kdd1)0.*(o7.q0 37ru -

lntero(tion with veftical shear

t93
References

European Standards listed as EN, . . are being published in cach Member State ofthe Comité
Européen de Normalisation (CEN) by its Narional Standards organisation betweon 2002
and 2007. In Lhe UK. publication is by the British Standards lnstitution, London, as BS
EN....
The Eurocodes. EN 1990 to EN 1999, are aocompanied by National Annexes. These
UK are expected to be completed by the end of 2007-
anneres for the

l. Gulvanessian, H., Calgaro, J.-A. and Holickj,, M. (2002) Designers' Guitle t<t EN 1990.
Eurocode: Botis of Structural Deslgr. Thomas Telford, London.
2- Calgaro, J--A., Tschumi, M., Gulvanessian, H. and Sh€tty, N. Designers'Guide to EN
1991-1-1, l99l-l-3, 1991-l-5 to I-7 arul 1991-2, Eurocotle l: Actions on Structures.
(.TralJic loads and ctther attions on bridge.r). Thomas Telford, London (in pleparailon).
3, Smirh. D. and Hendy, C. R. De.vgzers'Guide to EN 1992-2. Eurocode 2: Design o/
Loncrele Slru,:tuter. Port 2; Brridges. Thomas Telford, London (in prepâration).
4. Murphy. C. J. M. and Hendy, C. R. Designers'Guîde to EN 1993-2. Eurocode 3:
Design (t Steel Structure.t. Part 2: Bri-dges. Thomas Telford, London (to be published,
2007).
5. Johnson, R. P. and Anderson, D. (2004) Designers' Guide to EN 1994-l-1. Euror:ode 1:
Design of Composite Steel ond Concrete Structurcs- Part l-l: General Rules and Rules
for Buildings. Thomas Telford. London.
6. Beeby, A. W. and Narayanan, R. S. (2005) Designers'Guide to EN 1992. Eurocode 2,
Design of Concrete Structures. Part I-l; General Rules and Rules Jôr Buildings.
Thomas Tellbrd, London.
7. Gardner, L. and Nethercot, D. (2005) Dcsigners' Guide ro EN 1993- Eurocotle 3,
Design oJ Steel Structures. Pqrt l-1: General Rules and Rules Jor Br.illdlngs, Thomas
Telford- London.
8. British Standards Institution. Design oJ Composite Steel and Concrete Structures. Part
l- l: General Rules and Rules fr Buiklings. BSI, London, EN 1S94.
9. British Standards lnstitution, Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures- Pqrt
2; General Rule.s and Rule; .for Bridges. BSI, London, EN 1994.
10. The European Commission (2002) Guitlance Paper L (Conceming the Construction
Products Directive 89il06lEEC). Application and Llsa of Eurocodes. EC, Brussels.
11. llritish Standards Institution. Steel, Concrete and Cornposite Britlges. (lnmanyParts.)
BSI, London, BS 5400.
12. Hanswille, G. (2006) The new German design code for composite bridges. In: Leon,
R. T. and Lange, J. (eds), Composite Constructien in Steel arul Cc.ncrete V. American
Society of Civil Engineers" New York, pp. 13 24.
13. British Standards Institutiôn. Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. (Including
Annexes for Buildings, Bridges, etc.). BSI, London, EN 1990.
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

14. Brilish Standarcls Institution. lcrion-s on Strur:turt:s.I}SI, London, EN 1991, (In many
Parts.) See also Refs 26. 30. 53 and 103.
15. British Standards Institution. Design of Concrete Stru(ture,\. BSI, London, EN 1992.
(In several Parts.) See also Ref. 27.
16. British Standards Institution. Design of Steel Stractr.rres- BSI, London, EN 1993. (In
nany Parts.) See also Rcfs I9. 28, 38, 41, and 42.
t7. British Standards Institution. Desig ol Struttures .lbr Earthquahe Re,\ili|ancc. BSl,
London. EN 1998. (In several Parts.)
18. Niehaus, H. and .Ierling, W. (2006) The Nelson Mandela bridge as an example of thc
use of composite materials in bridge coDstruction in South Africa. In: Leon, R- T. and
Langc, J. (cds), Composite Cott,rtruction in Stcel und Concr?1., I/. AmericaI Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 487 500,
19. Ilritish Standards lnstitution. Design ol'Steel Strur:turt:s. P.ùt l-8: Design oJ Joînts.
BSI. London. EN 1993.
20. Blitish Standards Institution (1994) Desien ol Composite Stecl anel Concrete
Structures. Pdrt l-1, (jeneral Ruk:s and Rules lor Buildittgs. BSI. London. BS DD
ENV 1994.
21. Hosain, M. U. and Pashan, A. (2006) Channcl shear connectors in composite
beams: push-out tests. In: Leon. R- T. and Lange, J. (ed$, Composite
ConstrLtction în Steel and Co crcte V. An.rerican Society of Civil Engineers, Nelv
York, pp. 501 510.
22. Veljkovic, M. and Johansson, B, (2006) Residual stâtic resistance olwelded stud shear
connectors. In: Leon. R. T. and Lange. J. (eds), Composite Cont;tructiott in Steel and
Concrete V. American Socicry of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 524-533.
23. Andrâ, H.-P. (1990) Econornical shear connection '.r'ith high latigue strength. Pro-
rx:eding,s of a Syruposium on Mixed Struttur(is, int:luding Ne+; ifalerlah, Brussels.
IABSE, Zurich. Reports 6O, 167-172.
24. Mareoek, J., Samec, J. and Studnicka, J. (2005) Pcrfobond shear connector behaviour.
In: Hoffmeister, B. and Hechler, O. (eds), Eurosteel 2005, t'ol. -8. Druck und
Verlagshaus Mainz, Aachen, pp, 4.3- I to 4.3-8.
25. Haukc, ts- (2005) Shear conDectors for composite members of high strength
materials. In: Hoffmeister, B. and Hechler, O. (eds), Eurosteel 2005" vol. B. Druck
urcl Verlagshaus Mainz. Aachen, pp.4.2-51 l<t 4.2-64.
26. British Standards Institution. Aclions on Strucllrres. Part 2; TrriTic Loads on Bridges.
BSl, London, EN 1991.
21. British Standards Institution. D^ign ol Concrete Stfuctures, Part 2: Brîdges. BSI,
London, EN 1992.
British Standards Institulion. f)esign of Srcel Structurai. Part 2: Bridges. BSl,
London. EN 1991.
29. lnternationirl Organisation for Standardization (1997) Burit of DesignJot Strutturcs -
Notatiotl Generul Svmbols.ISO, Geneva, ISO 3898.
30. British Standards InslituLion. ,4ctions on Structure.r. Pqrt l-6: Actions durinp
Execution. BSI. London, EN 1991.
31. The European Conrmission (1.989) Construt:tion Ptodutt; Diraclive 89i106lEEC,
OJL.C No. L40 of 11 Februarv. EC. llrusscls.
British Standârds Institution. Geotechnical Desigr. BSI, London. EN 1997. (ln several
Parls.)
33. Anderson, D-, Aribert, J.-M., Bode, H. and Kronenburger, H, J. (2000) Design
rotation capacitv of composite joints, SÛuctural Engitleer, 78. No. 6,25-29.
Working Commission 2 (2005) Usc and application of high-performance steels for
steel structures. Struclut'.ll Etryineeritlg Docutne ts 3,IABSE, Zurich.
35. Morino, S- (2002) Recent developmenls on concrete-filled steel tube members in
Japan, In: Hajjar, J. F.. Flosain, M., Easterling, W. S. and Shal.rrooz, B. M. (ed$,
C'oml,o,\ite ConstrLtction in Stee/ qnd Concrete I V. American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, pp. 644 655.

t96
 REFERENCES

Hegger, J. and Dôinghaus, P. (2002) High performance stccl and high performance
cOncrcte in composite structures. In: Haj.jar, J. F., Hôsâin, M.. Easterling, W, S.
and Shahrooz. B. M. (eds). Composite Constructio in Steel and Concrete [V.
Americal Society of Civil Engineers, Ncw York, pp. 891-902.
37. Hoffmeister, 8., Sedlacek, G., Mùller, C. and Kùhn, B. (2002) High strength materials
in composite structures. In: Hajjar, J. F., Hosain, M., Easterling, W. S. and Shahrooz,
Il. M. (eds), Conlposile Construcliotr in Steel and Concrele IV. American Society of
Civil Enginccrs, Nerv York, pp. 903 914.
38. British Stândâfds Institution. De.sign of Steel Structures. Part l-3: Cold Formed T hin
Guuge Members and Sheeting. BSI, London, EN 1993.
39. Sedlacek, G. and Trumpf, H. (2006) Composite design lbr small and medium spans.
ln: Leon, R, T, and Lange, J. (eds). Compositt Conltt'ut:tion in Sleel end Concrete V.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Nerv York, pp. 105 I13,
40. British Standards Institution. (1998) Welding - Studs nnd Cerumic Fernies ftn Arc
Stud Weldi g. BSI, London, EN 13918.
41. British Standards Institution. Design oJ Steel Structures. Part l-5: Phted Structural
Elemertrt. BSI, London, E.N lqq:I.
British Sfandirrds Institution, Design o/ Steel Sttuttures. Pqrt l-9. F.lti1ue Strcngth oJ
Steel Strucluret. BSI, London. EN 1993.
Trahair, N. S.. Bradtbrd, M. A. and Nethercot, D. A. (2001) The Behuviour otd
Design oJ Steel Stru(lLtres to BS 5950.3rC, edn. Spon, London.
44. Johnson, R. P. and Cafolla, J. (1977) Stiftness and strcngth of lateral restrâints to
comprcssed flanges. Journal oJ ConstrLtctionol Steel Research,42, No. 2, 73 93.
4)_ Johnson^ R. P. and Chen. S. (1991) Local buckling and moment rcdistribution in
Class 2 composite beams. Structaral Etrgineering Internaltonal.l, No. 4, 27 34.
46. Johnson, R. P. and Fan, C. K. R. (1988) Strength of continuous beams designed to
Eurocode 4. Proceedîngs of IABSE, Periodicct 2i88, P-I25i88, May, pp. 33-44.
47. Johnson, R. P. and Huang, D. J. (1995) Composite bridge bearns of mixed-class
cross-sectiôn. S tructural Engineering Inletnotionû\. 5. No. 2, 96 I 01.
48. tsritish Stirndards Institution (1990) Code of Prtrtice for Da.rign of Simple qncl Con-
tinuoas Compo.\ite Bearzs. BSI, London" BS 5950-3- l.
49. Haensel, J. (1975) EIJëcts of Crecp and Shrinlcuge in Compo;ite Cons tt'uction. ItsLltLrte
for Structural Engineering, Ruhr'-Universitât, Bochum, Report 75- 12,
50. Johnson, R. P. and Hanswillc, G. (1998) Analyses for creep of cortinuous stcel and
composite blidge beâms, according to EC4:Parl 2. Strur:tural Engincu,76, No. 15,
294-298.
51. Johnson. R, P. (1987) Shrinkage-induced curvaturc in cracked concrete flânges of
compositc beams. S t ru c tur al Eng ine e r, 65B, Dec., 1 2 -'7'7 .
52. Guezouli, S. and Aribert, J.-M. (2006) Nun.rerical investigation ofmoûrcnt redistribu-
tion in continuous beams of composite bridges- In: Leon, R. T. ând Lange. J. (eds),
Composite Construction in Steel and Coucrete I/. American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, pp. 47-56.
53. British Standards Institution. Actic,ns on Structures. Purt l-5. Thermul Actions. BSI.
London. EN 1991.
54. Ilritislr Standards Institution (1991) De gn of (.-omposite Structures oJ Steel and
Concrete. Purt 2: Bridges. BSl, London, BS DD ENV 1994.
55. Johnson, R. P. (2003) Cracking iu concrete tension flanges of compositc T-bcams -
tests and Eurocode 4. Structural Engiaeer, Sl, No. 4. Feb., 29-34.
56. Johnson, R. P. (2003) Analyses of a composite bowstring truss with lcnsion stillening.
Proceedings ol the I stitution of Ciril Engineer.s, Bridge Engincering, 156, June,
63-70.
5',7 . Way. J. A, and Biddle, A. R. (1998) Integrol Steel Bridge.t: Design of a Multi-span
Bridge Worked Exantple. Steel Constfuction lnstitute, Ascot, Publication 180.
58. Lâwson. R. M. (1987) Design for Openiugs in the Webs of Compoltitc Bearn.r. Steel
Construction lnstitute. Ascot. Publication 068.

t97
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994.2

59. Lawson, R. M., Chung, K. F. and Price, A. M. (1992) Tests on composite beams with
large web openings. Stucturdl Engîneer,70, Jan., 1 7 .

60. Johnson, R- P. and H uang, D. J. (1994) Calibration of safety fâctors 1M for composite
sieel and concrete beams in bending. Proceedings o.f the Instituti.on of Ci|il Engtneers,
Struttures and Bui.ldizgi, 1(M, May, I93 203.
6L Johnson, R. P. and Fluang, D. J. (1997) Statistical caliblation of safety lactors for
encased composite colunns. In: Buckner. Cl. D. and Sharooz, B. M. (eds), Composite
Constractioil in Steel and Concrete IIl, American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, pp, 380 391,
British Standarrls lnstitution (1991') Structural Ll,se of C'oncrete. Part l: Code o.f
Pructice -tor Design a d ContvLlction. BSI, London, BS 8l10.
6-1. Stark, J. W. B. (1984) Rer:tangular Stress Block for Concrete. Technical paper Sl6,
June. Drafting Committcc for Eurocode 4 (unpublished).
64. Johnson, R. P. and Anderson, D. (1993) Designers' Handbook to Eurocode 4. Thomas
Telford, London. [This handbook is for ENV 1994-l-1.]
65. Lââne, A. ând Lebet, J.-P. (2005) Available rotation capacity of compositc bridge
plate girders with negative û1oû1ent and shear. Journal of Conrtructional Steelwork
Rel;attrch. 61. 305 327.
66. Johnson, R. P. and Willmington, R. T. (1972) Vertical shear in continuous cumposite
beams. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineer,s,53, Sept., 189-205.
67. Allison, R. W., Johnson, R. P. and May, L M. (1982) Tension-field action in
conrposite plate girders. Proceedings o.f the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2,
Retiearch and Theory,73, June, 255 276.
68. Veljkovic, M. and Johansson, B. (2001) Design for buckling of plates due lo djrect
stress. ln: Mâkelâinen, P,, Kesti. J., Jutila, A. and Kaitila, O. (ed.s) Proceedings oJ
lhe 9th Nordic Steel Confërem:e, Helsinki,'721-129.
69. Lebet. J,-P. and Lââne, A. (2005) Comparison ofshear resistance models with slender
composite beam test results. In: Hoffmeister, B. and Hechler, O. (eds), Eurosteel 2005,
vo1. .8. Druck und Verlagshaus Mainz, Aachen, pp.4,3-33 to 4.3-40.
70. Ehnann. J. and Kuhlmann, U, (2006) Shear resistance of concrete bridge decks in
tension. In; Leon, R. T. and Lange, J. (.ed.s'1, Composite Conitruction in Steel and
Co crete v. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp.67 76.
'11 . .Iohnson. R- P. and Fan, C. K. R. (1991) Djstortional Lateral buckling of continuous
composite beams. Procaeclings of the Instltution ol Civil Engineers, Part 2,91, Mar.,
131 161.
72. Johnson, R. P. and Molenstra, N. {1990) Strength ând stiffness of shear connections
for disclete U-frame action in conposite plate girdels. Snuctural Engineer,68, Oct.,
3 86 -3 92.
13. Trahair, N, S. (1993) Flexurel Torsional Buckling o.f Stuctures. E & FN Spon, London.
1^ -lohnson. R- P. and Buckby, R. J. (191J6) Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete,
Vol. 2, Bridges,2nd edn. Collins, London.
75. Jobnson, R. P. and Molenstra, N. ( 1991) Partial shear connection in composite beams
for buildings. Proceedings of the Institutiott of Civil Enginears, Parl 2, Research and
Theor1,.9l,679 704.
'16. Johnson. R. P. and Oehlers, D. J. (l9li1) Analysis and design for longitudinal shear in
composite T-beâms. Procaaclings of the I stitution oJ Civil Engineers, Part 2, Research
and Theory.7l, Dec.. 989 1021.
77. Menzies, J. B. ( 1971) CP I l7 and shear connectors in steel-concrete composite b€ams.
Stucnral Engineer, 49, March, 137-153.
78. Johnson, R. P. and lvanov. R. L (2001) Local cffccts of concentrated longitudinal
shear in composite bridge beams. Structural Engineer,79, No. 5, 19 23.
'79. Oehlers. D. .I. and .Iohnson. R. P. (l987) The strength of stud shear connections in
conrposite beams. Structursl Engineer,65B, June, 44 48.
80. Roik. K., Hanswille, G, and Cunze-O. Lanna, A. (1989) Eurocode 4, Clau.se 6.3.2:
Stud Connectors. University of Bochum, Rcport EC4/8i88, March.

r98
 REFERENCES

81. Stark, J. W. B. and van Hove, B. W. E. M. (1991) Statistical An&l))sis oJ Pushout Tests
on Sttul Connectors in Compo,tile Steel and Concrcte Stnctutes. TNO Building and
Construction Research, Delft, Report lll-91-163, Sept.
82. Kuhlmann. U. and Breuninger, U. (2002) Behaviour of horizontally lying studs with
longitudinal shear force. In: Hajjar, J. F,, Hosain, M., Easterling, W. S. and Shahrooz,
B. M. (ed$, Composite Conslruction in Steel antl Concrete IV. American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York. pp, 438 449.
83. Bridge, R. Q., Ernst, S., Pat ck, M. and Wheeler, A. T. (2006) Thc behaviour and
design of haunches in composite beams and their reinl'orcement. In: Leon, R. T.
and Langc, J. (.eds), Composite Constructiotl in Steel qnd ConÛete V. American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 282-292.
84. Johnson, R. P. and Oehlers, D. J. (1982) Design l'or longitudinâl sheâr in composite
L-beams. Proceedings of the Institution oJ Ciyil Engineers, Part 2, Research and
Theory,73, March, 14?- 170.
85. Johnson, R. P. (2004) Composite Structures of Steel and Concrete.3rd edn. Blackwell,
Oxford.
86. Bulson, P. S. (1910') The Srability of l-lat Pldte,\. Chatro & Windus, London.
8'7 . Roik, K. and Bcrgmann, R. (1990) Design methods for composite columns with
unslmmetricâl cross-sections- Journal of Constructional Steelwork Retsecvch. 15,
153 168.
88. Wheeler, A. T. and tsridge, R. Q. (2002) Thin-walled steel tubes filled with high
strength concrete in bending. In: Hajjar. -T- F., Hosain. M., Easterling, W. S. and
Shahrooz, ts. M- (eds), Composite Construction in Steel und Concrete IV. American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 584-595.
89. Kilpatrick, A. and Rangan, V. (1999) Tests on high-strength conuete-filled tubular
steel columns. AC I Strucnral Journal, Mar. Apr., Title No, 96-529. 268-274. Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Detroit.
90. May, I. M. and Johnson, R, P. (1978) Inelastic analysis of biaxially restrained
colrmrs. PrcceedingJ of the Institution of Ci],il Engineers, Part 2, Research ttnd
Theory,65, June, 323 337.
91, Roik, K- and Bergmann, R. (1992) Composite columns. In: Dowling, P. J., Harding,
J. L. and Bjorhovde, R. (eds), Con.rrrzc tional Steel De,sign - ttn International Guide.
Elsevier, London and New York, pp. 443-469.
92. Bergmann, R. and Hanswille, G. (2006) New design method for oompositc columns
including high strength steel. In: Leon, R. T. and Lange, J. (eds). Composite Con-
struction in Steel and Conuete V. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,
pp. 381 389,
93. Chen, W. F. and Lui, E. M. (1991) Slaàilit), Design ol Steel -Frarnes, CRC Press, Boca
Raton. Florida.
94. Bondale, D, S, and Clark, P. J. (1967) Compositc construction in the Almondsbury
interchange- Proceedings ol a Conlèrence on Structural SteelworÀ, British Construc-
tional Steelwork Association, London, pp. 9l 100.
95. Virdi. K. S. and Dowling. P. J. (1980) Bond strength in conffete-filled tùbes. Proceed-
ings oJ IABSE, Peri<tdica 3i80, P-33l80, Aug., 125 139.
Kerensky, O. A, and Dallard, N. J. (1968) The four-level interchange between M4 ând
M5 motorways a1 Almondsbury. Proceecli.ngs of the Institutiott of Civil Engineerc,40,
295 321.
9',7 . .Iohnson, R. P. (2000) Resistance of stud shear connectôrs to fatigue. Journal o.f
Constructional Steel Rescttrch.56, l0l 116.
98. Oehlcrs, D. J. and Bradfbrd, M. (1995) Compotite Steel and Concrete Structural
Members - Fundamentnl Behayiour. Elseyier Science, Oxford.
99. Gomez Navarro. M. (2002) Influence of concretc cracking on the serviceability limit
stâte design of steel-reinforced concrete composite bridges: tests and models. hr;
J. Martinez Calzon (ed.), Compouite Bridge.t Proceedings of the 3rtl Intcrnqlionsl
Meeting, Spanish Society of Civil Engineers, Madrid, pp. 261-2'78.

199
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

100. Puclrer, A,. (1917) Influence SurJàces o.f Elastic P/ares. Springer-Vcrlag Wien, New
York.
l0l. Kuhlmann, U. (1997) Design, calculation and details oftied-arch bridges in composite
consLructions. In: Buckner, Cl. D. and Sharooz. ll. M. (.cds), Composila Constraction in
Steel qnd Concrete 111 American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 359 369-
102. Monnickendam. A. (2003) The design, construction and performance of Newark
Dyke railway brid.gc. Pror:eedings of a Sympotium on Structures Jor High-speed
Railwal- Transportation, Antwerp- IABSE, Zurich. Reports, 87, 42 43.
103- British Standards Institution. Actions on Stru(ture,\. P{trt I-4: General Actions lltind
acllozr- BSI. London. EN 1991-
104. Randl, E. and Johnson, R. P. (1982) Widths of initial cracks in concrete tensiôn
flanges of composite beâms. Proceeding,s of IABSE, Periodica 4182, P-54182. Nov.,
69 80.
105- Johnson, R. P. ald Allison, R. W. (1983) Cracking in concrete tension flanges of
composite T-beams. Stru(tLlr.rl Engineer, 618, Mar., 9-16.
106. Roik, K., Hanswille, G. and Cunze-O. Lanna, A. (1989) Report on Eurocode 4, Clause
5.3, Cracking of Corcrele. University of Bochum, Report EC4/4i 88.
107. Johnson, R. P. (2003) Cracking in concrete flânges ofcomposite T-beams tests and
Eurocode 4. Structural Engineer, 81, No. 4,29-34.
108. Schmitt, V., Seidl, G. and Hever, M. (2005) Composile bridges with VFT-WIB
construction method, In: Hoffmeister, B. and Hechler, O. (eds), Eurostecl 2005,
ro1. B. Druck und Verlagshaus Mainz, Aachen, pp. 4.6-79 to 4-6-83.
109. Yandzio, E. and Iles, D. C. (2004) Precast Concrete Decks.for Composite Highwuy
-Brld.ges. Steel Construction Institute, Ascot. Publication 316.
ll0. Calzon, J- M. (2005). Practicc in present-day steel and composite structures. ln:
Hoffmeister, B. and Hechler, O. (eds). Eurosteel 2005, vol. A. Druck und Verlagshaus
Mainz. Aachen, pp. 0-11 to 0-18.
lll. Doeinghaus, P., Dudek, M. and Sprinke, P. (2004) Innovative hybrid double-
composite bridge with prestressing. In: Pre-Conference Proceedings, Composite
Coastruction in Steel und Concrete V, United Engineering Fôundation, New York,
Session E4. paper l.
ll2. Department ofTransport (now Higbways Agency) DoT (1987) Use oJ BS 5400;Part
5 : 1979. London, Departmentâl Standard BD l6/82.
ll3. Moflat, K. R. and Dowling, P. J. (1978) The longitudinal bending behaviour of
conposite box girder bridges having incomplete interaction. Structural Enginecr,
568, No. l, 53 60.
I14. Kuhlmann. U. and Kùrschner, K. (2001) Behavior of lying shear studs in reinforced
concrete slabs. In: Eligehausen, R, (ed.), Conneaions between Steel nnd Concrete.
RILEM Pubtications S.A.R.L., Bagneux, France, pp. 1076-1085.
ll5. Kuhlmann, U. and Ktirschner, K. (2006) Structural behavior of horizontally lying
shear studs. fn: Leon, R. T. and Lange, J. (ed.s), Composite Constructiôn in Steel
and Conuate Z American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 534-543.

200
Index

Notes: references to'beams' and to 'columns' are to composite nembers; closs-refelences to EN 1992
and EN 1993 are too numerous to be indexed

action efect .tee actions, effècts of of frames 29

actions 6, 8 rigid'plastic I
accidental 56 s€cond-order 8,31 4,38,64 5,94, 140 I
ârrangement of 62-4 uncracked 50 I
combinations of 3, 6, I l, 15, 31, 62 4 sce also cracking of concrete; loading, elastic
characteristic 46 critical
for serviceability 164-6, 171 analysis. local 183 4
irequenL 48, 64. 153 analysis, rigorous l9
inliequent 164 Anne\, National lee National Annex
qLrasl-permane11t 48 anncxcs, informative 2, 4-5, 19l-2
effects of 8 application rules 7
de-composition of 51-2 arches ,ree bridges, tied-arch
envelopes o1 63 assumptions in Eurocodes 7
global with local axes 8-9
and fatigùe 156, l6l
and serviceability 165, 174-5, 177-8 beams
at failure i6-7, 72 axial force in 81,83 4,86 9, 105, 111,
in composite platcs 184 5 161 2
independcnt 136 7 bending resistance of 67 84
local 161, 165, 183-4 hogging 73-4, ?7-9.83
Primar], 12,48, 168 sagging 72-1,83
secondzry 12.48 cantilever 68, 125
second-ordcr ll.3J 4. l0l, 107.141 ), Class of 12, 57-60
149, t85 concrete-encascd 4, 52, 59, 68. 89
indirect 12, 44. 60, 118, 170-l concrete flange of 13, 71, 109
permanent 15 16 cross-sections of 6?-89
temperalure 48, 120 Cllass Ior 2 118 20
sec a/so fatigue load models; forces, and axial [brce 83
concentratedi loading and flllcr bcams 53
analysis, elastic, of cross-seclions ice bcams; and global analysis 36
columnsi etc, and indirect actions 44-5
analysis, global 8,29 66 aûd reiûlbrcement 20
cracked 50- I and resislance to bending 69
clastic 30, 36-?, 40, 42 5l and serviccability 163, 170
elasto-plastic I37 and vertical shear 80
{inite-element 31, 34, 39, 93, I I I Class 3 3?, 108
first-ôrder 31-3, 38 Class 3 and 4 20, 80 2, 103, 163
grillage 52-3 Class 4 77-9. 85 9. 94.97, 107
nonlinear 8, 36.56. 72, 138, 185 classiflcatior of 29, 37. 57-61, 71, 82
of filler-beam decks 52-3 elastic analysis of58 9,69, 75 l
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

bcams - Çross-sectiots of (co tinued) latcral-torsional 3 l, 34, 45, 6'7,'1 6 7, 90 104,

plastic analysis of l6 11 1, 138
suddeô change in 120 l, 186 local 37 8, 57 9,16, l2'7, 137
curved in plan 4, 68-9. 89 see also beams, Class of
curved in elevation 69, I 14 of plales 29,37-8, 184-5
llexural stiffncss of 46 of webs in shcar 68, 80, 82
haunclred 102, l1'7, 122, 126-'7 . 189 see also bending nomcnts, elastic critical;
of non-uniform section 4 liller bealns
shear connection lor J?e shear conncc!lorr
shear resislancc of 6?, 79 83 cablcs 4, 23
scc a/so analysis; buckling; cântilevefsj camber 166
crâcking of concrete; deflections; liller cement, hydration of 175 6
beams; flange, ellective width ol; .ree dÀo cracking ol-concrete
imperlèctions; intcraction; shcar. . ,; CEN(Comité Européen Normalisatiot) 1 2
siabs, concreLe; vrbration; wehs Class of section see beams, cross-sectiots of
bearings 11, 15,62,64. 141, 145 class, structural 26-7
bedding iee slabs. precast concrete codes of Practice, .!ee British Standards;
bending, bi-axial 71 8N,.,
beIIding moments columns 64-6, 136-50, 164
accumulatiofl of 12 analysis of 29, 140 3
and axial force 59,68, 102 3 axially Loaded 144
sLrstic critical 93 bending resistance of 7l
in columns 142-3 bi-axial bending in 140. 143, 146
rcdistribution of 18, 37, 53 concrete-encased 4, 138, 145
bolts, holes for 68 concrete-filted,1, 144 50
bolts, stitrness of 30, 37-8 cross-sections of
bond ree shear connection inleraclion diagram for 138 9
bor girders 82 ron-symmct cal 33, 47, 136
distortion of 68-9 design methods for 31, 137 43
shear coûnection fof 116, 118 eflèctive stilTness ol 33, 137, 140, 149
torsioû in 45-6, 72 moment-shear interaction in 139. 148
iec a/,ro coûrpositc plates out-of-plumb 65-6
braciûg, lateml 35 6, 69, 91, I ll-3, I 15 second-order efects in 138
and buckling 97 shear in 139. 145
and slip of bolts 38-9 squash load of 138, 140. 147
stiffness of96-9, 102-4 sLeel contributior râtio for l16, 140, 147
breadth of nange, cffcctivc .ree flange, effective transvcrsc loading on 143
width of .see a/so buckling; bending moments; cracking
Bridge Code (BS 5400) 1, 39,56, 59,70, 89, of coDcrete; creep of concrete; lcngth,
104 effèctivel imperfections; loading, elastic
bridges crilical; load introcluctionl
cablc-supported 4, 23, 40 reinforcement; shcar connectioti
durability of ,see corrosion; durability slenderness, relative; strcsscs, rosidual
for pedestriâns 151 composite action, doùbLe 4, 183, 189
integral 31,33, 16,68,72, 105, 115 composite bridges, see bridges; Bridge Code
railwây l5l composite plates 4, 181 ll
strengthening ol 114 compression members 136 50
tied-arch 35, l6l-2, 189 .re? 4/.ro columns
U-frarne 30 concr€te
ree a/so box girders; filler beams compactioû of 124 5
British Standards lightwcight-aggregale 17, 19,22, l16, 152
BS 5400, sec Bridge Code over-strength of 4?. 50, I l8-9
BS 5950 39, 59 pârtial factors for 13 14
BS 8110 70 precast 27 8, 62
buckling properlies ol 17- 19
distortional lateral 35, 91, 105 ? spalling of 4
flange-induccd 68, 114 strength classes for 17 18, 26
flexural 77, 89, 184-5 sftength of 13, l?-18,70
in colùnns 34, 136, 140 2 stress block for 18,70-1, 138
lateral 95 thermal expansion of 22

202
 INDEX

iee r./A-, cracking ol co[crctcj crcep of durability 25 8, 179

r'uncrLlci clasticity. Inodulus ol
prestress; shrinkago of concretel slâbs ellective length ree length, eflective
connecting devices 20 I cffcctivc rvidth see beams; llanges; slabs.
connections, .r?., joints composite
conllector modulusj .ree shear connectors, effect of action see actions. effects of
stiffness of eigenvalue see loading, elastic critical
construction 3,41 I, l0l 4. 164, 166 elasticity, modulus ol
loads 6. 12 for concrete 18, 33, 140
melhods of 12, 180 for shear 45
propped 121, l7l EN 1090 7. r85
unpropped 12,'76. 9I-3, l2l EN 10025 60, 72, 146
-ree ../A-., erection of Steelwork EN t3670 5, 7, 180
Constructioll Products Directive ]4 EN I l9l8 23, 122
contraflexurc, points of 32, 35 EN 1990 v,2,6, 14 15,25.29.48.56,164
corrocton l), l/ EN l99l v, 2, 6, 12,48, 151, 166
at steel-concrete interlâce 27-8, 127, l8l EN 1992 v, 2, 5
of reinforcement 25-7 EN 1993 v, 2, 6
cover 25 7,89 90. 138, 145 EN 1994- l-1 v, 2
crackirg of concrete 46. 152 4, 161 '73 EN 1994-2 v, 2
and global analysis 29, 32,36, 46-7 , 50, EN 1998 3, 7
52-3 ENl/ 1994,1- 5, 137 l
and longitudinal shcar 47, 118 environmental clâss Jee exposr.lrc class
control of 163, 1?3 equilibrium, static 15 16
load-iûduced 169 70. 175 erection of steehvork 7, 39
r€straint-iirduced 168-9" I 75-7 European Standard ,rce EN. . .

early thermal 167-8, 172 3,175 6 examples

in columns 47, 140, 141, 145 bending and vertical shear 104 1l
creep coemcient 19,42 3,53 4, 140 block connector with hoop 116 8
cre€p multiplier 42 l compositc bcam, contiûùous 60 2, 104 ll
creep of concrete 12, l'7, 19, 32, 42-5, 53 composite colùmr 136, 145-50
ir columns 45, 140, 147 concrete-filled tube 145 50
secondary effccts of 44 control ofcrack width 175 7
.iee d1s.rmodùlar ratio; elasticity, modulus of cross bracing Ill 3
cross-sectjoDs s?e beams, cross-seÇliolls of; distortional lateral buckling 105 8
columns, cross-sections of effective width 41 2
curves, buckling rcsistance 34 elastic resistaoce to bending 77-9
làtigue 157-61
damage, cumulative 15 3, 155-6 in-plane shcar in a concrete flange 130 I
.rde a/,rd factors. damage equivalcût longitudinal shear l3l -4
damping lâctor 166-7 lying studs 192 4
definitions 8 modulâr ratios 53 4
deflections,see deformations plastio resista[ce lo bending 72 3
deformations 166 resistance to bending and shear 85 6, 104 ll
limits to 163 with axial compression 86-9, 107-8
delbrmation, imposed 12, 44, 49, 90 serviceability sftesses 173 5, 177-8
dcsign, basis of 11 16 shear çomection for box girder 187 8
design, methods ofsee beams; columns; slabs; etc. shrinkage ellects 54-6
design, mixed-class 36-7 transverse reinforccment I 30-l
Desigrers' guides v, 2 execution "9ee construction
to EN 1990 14 er(posure classes 26 '7.164 5,16'7,l'75
to EN1993 2 35,58,68 9,'72,7'1,79,82.95,
104, 1 13, 114, 118 factors, combiration 6,48 9, 56 7
to EN 1994-1-1 60,73,93, 136 factors, damage equivalent 156, 161
diaphragms ll5 6 factors, pânial see partial factors
dimcnsions 14 Iactors, reduction 92 3, 95
dispelsion, angle of 113, 120 fatiguc l5-16, 137, 150-61
distortion of cross secliors 68, '72,82, 184 analysis for 37
ductility -!ee reinlbrcement, fracture of; Load models for 150, 153, 157-61
structural stecls ofjoints 30

203
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

latrgue (contirtued) limit states

of rcinforceinent 19 20, 154 5, 159-61 sen,iceahiLity 6, 37, 56, 163 ?8
of shear connectors 47, 150, 155-6, 183, 191 STR (structural failure) 67
of structu.al steel 27, 90, 127. 150-1. 154, ultimâte 56,67-162
157 loading 12
partial iâctors for 14, 151 2 arrangement of 3l
tllcr berLms 29,52 3.60,89 91, 166, l7l construction l2
finite-eiement methods 68,91 4, 104, 115 elastic critical 3l l
rea a/ro analysis, global lor beams 97-102
Iire, resistancc to 25, 163 for columns 140, 147-8
flangcs for composite plates 185
concrete Jee bearrrs; slabs wheel 56 7,84, 165, 183, 185
efective width of 39-41, 68. lll J-a,c 4lso actlons
plastic bendiûg resistance of 82 load introdrLclion
sreel 104. 186 in colunns 136, 144-5, 149-50
llow charts v in tension memhers 161 2
for classification of sections 57 lying studs -iee studs, lying
lor compression members 141
for coirlrol of cracking l7l 2 materials, propcrtics of l7-23
for global analysis 46, 62-6 see d1.sr'r concrete: steel; etc.
for latelal buckiing 96 mesh, welded .ree reinforcement, \'i'elded
forces, concentrated I 14, 120- I mesh
forces, inlernal 137 modular ratio 42-3. 53-4
formwork, permancnt 62, 179 8l modulus of elasticity ,rc? clasticity, mocllllùs
formwork, re-usable 76 of
foundations 7, l6 moment of areâ, torsional second 46
fractùre toughûess 12 momenLs ,ter be[dlng moments; torsioD
liame, inverted-U 35. 93, 95 8, 101. 106,
109 1r nationally determined parumeter | 2,62,84,
frames, composite 8, 15, 64 6, 141 91
braced 47 Nalional Anneres 1, 3, 11, 56
,re a/so analysis, global; bucklfug; and actions 48, 56, 153. 158-9, 164, 169
imperfections and analysis, global 56, 58
and beams l8
geometrical dala 15 and columns 138
ree a/.ro imperl'eclions and combination fàctors 48
girdçrs ,tPr bcams: box girders and materials 13, 20, 22, 59, 61, 70, 146
groùnd-structure mteraction 30 and partiâl factors I16. 151
.ree aLlo bridges, integral ând resistances 95, 124, 128, 156-7
and serviceabilify 2'7.164,166 'l,l'73 5
haunches ser beams. haunchcd and shcar con[cctors 125, 166
Highrvays Agency I national choice 2
holc-in-web method 58, 59-60, 73, 80 national stândârds I
NDPS I 2
impact fâctor 160 normatir€ rules 2 3
imperfections 7, 14.29,3l-2,33 6 notation .ree symbols
and lateral buckling 91 notes, in Eurocodes 1. l2
in colùmns 65, 138, l4l, 143
in plates 185 pafiial lacto$ 2, 3,9 16
interaction, partial and full 69 lbr fatigue 14, 151-2, 156
ISO standards 5, 8 JF, for actions 6, 15, 19,45. 51,55
italic type, use of v vi iM, for materials and rcsistanccs 13-15,92,
165, 192
jâcking,.tee prestress plastic lheory -rse analysis, global. rigid-plastic;
Joints 22, 30 beams. cross-scçtions of, Class I and 2
between precast slâbs l8l plate girders sce beams
stillness of 38 plates, buckling of rce buckling
plares, composite 41, 72, 126. 164, 183-8
length, effecti\,€ 34, 64, 136, 143 plates, odhotropic 52
sec a/so slenderncss, rclative Poisson's ratio 46. 144

204
 INDEX

pfestress 4, 8 fatigue: load introduction;

.ree a/sr:
by jacking at sùpports 4, 8. 12, 49 reinforccment, in beams, transverse;
by tenclons 49, 7'7, 155, 167 sheâr connectors; slip, longitudinal
transve$e 4 shear connectors 115, 156
ptinciples 4, 7, 12 and splilLi[g rse studs, lyrng
propping jee construction, methods of angle 5. 115
provisions. general 2 bi-axiaL loading of 185, 188
push tcsts iea sheâr conlectors, tests on block with hoop 5, 114, 116 7
channel 5
quaLit], control oi 26 ductility of 114
fatigue strength of l5l, 19l
redistribution see beùding moments; shear, flexibility of see stiffness of
longitudinal lbrce limits for 151, 165 6
references. normative 5-7 in young concrete 166
reference standards 3, 5-7 pa.tial lactors for 14
regulatory bodics l2 perlorated plate 22
rcinforcement 9, l9-21, 22 spaciûgof59,91, 119, 124 5, 162, 180, 184 5.
and lying studs 190 I 187-8
ductility of20,59.71 stiffûess of 18,69, 164, 186-7
liacture of 21-2, 59 tension in I l5
in bcams tests on 5, 189
ror cracK co tfot tô/ / J types of 5, 22
for shrinkage l9 see also studs, wclded
minimum area of 59, 168-9, 176 7 shear flow I 16, 1 18
fransverse ll5, t24, l2'7 30 shear lag see width, effective
in colLrmns 138, 145-6 shear, longitùdinal 47, 68, 114. ll8-21, 127-30
in composite plates 186 sec dlso columns, shear in; composite plates;
jn compressior 70 shear conncction; shear l'low
in tller-beam decks 90 sheûr, punching 84, 184
in haunchcs see beanrs, haunched shear râtio 100
yielding of 39 shear, vertical 29
weLded mesh (fabric) 19-21.59,71 and bending momcnt 80-3, 87
see a/.so cover; latigue and lying stùds 191, 193
resistances l4 in deck slabs 84, 184
stle d/so beams, bending r€sistance of; etc. in Iillcr-beam decks 91
restraints, late.al .rde bracing, lateral sce also buckling
rotâtio1l capacity 12, 22. 58 shrinkage of corcrctc 19,53
Jee .//.r.r joints aDd crackiûg 169-10, l'74 5
aùlogerous 19,55, 144, 147
safety facto$ ,îee partiaL factors effects of 35, 45, 165-6. 172
scope of ENl994-2 4 5, 36, 136, 138 in tension mcmbers 50
sectiolr modulus 8 rnodilied by creep 43 4, 54 6
sections Jra, beams; columls; etc. primary 12, 54 6.'76,120,133 4
separation 8. 115, 124 secondary 12, 114
seNiceability .îee limjt states .tee 41,ro cmcking of concrcte
settlement 12, 30 situations, design 165
shakedown 153-4 skew 89
shçlu ,re? colùmns, shear in: sheaf, longitudiûal; slabs, conçrete 53
shear, verticali etc. rcinforccmcnt in 125
shear connection 2, 8, 6ll, 114-35 splitting in 115, 123-4, 189-93
and execution 124-5 .ree also plales, composlte
and U-framc action 93, 1 ll slabs, preçast coûcrete 115, 125 ?, 179 8l
by adhcsivcs 23, I 14 slenderùess, relative
by bond or friction 23, 114, 136, 144, 149-50. for bcams 92, 94,97.l0l-2
190 fol columns 136, 140, 147-8
design of 82, 155 slip capacity 114
detailing of 124-7, 180, 189 93 sljp, longitudjnâl 8, 38 9,69, 166
lbr box girdcrs 185 8 iû calumns 138. 144
full or partjal 69 in compositc plates 184, 186-7
in columns 144 5, 149-50 software for EN 1994 32-3. 75, 94

205
DESIGNERS' GUIDE TO EN I994-2

splicas 38, I 18 subscripts 8 9

squash load see columns, squash load of superposition, principle of 31
stability.ree equilibrium, static support, lateral ree braci[g, Iatera]
standards see British Standards; EN. sway 142
standards, harmonised l4 synbols 8 9, 13-14,20
steel ,r?e rcillforcing steel; stmctural steel;
yielding of steel temperature, ellects of48 9, 53, 153
steel contfibution ratio "tee columns tempomry structures I I
steelwork, protection 01 ,t?l] durabilitl tendons .ree prestress
stifleners, longitudinal 59, 82, 185 tension freld ?9 80
stifleners, transvcrsc web 35, 68 9, 93. 97, I l6 tension members 23, 49 52, 16l-2
stiflness, effective, of reinforcement 5l rension stifening
stiffness, flexural -!eÉ beams: columns; etc. aûd craÇkirg 47, 169-70
stifness, torsional 45-d and longitudinal shear 118-9, 162
strenglh oi a matcrial 13 14 and stresses 154 5, 160, 165, 173-5
characteristic 13, l5 and tension members 50- l
see dÀo resistance testing see shear conûectors
stress block for concrete 13 lolerances 14, 49, 180-l
sTresses torsion 45 6,68,'72,91, 163, 184
accumulation of 12. 81,84, 86 traffic, road, type of 160
bcaring 144 truss analogy 128
design, at serviceability limit stale 164-6 lrusses, members in 49, 136 7, 140
in concrete 26, 165, 177-B and buckling 95
in reinlbrcement 165 and effective widths 41
in steel 165. 177 tubes, steeL .çee columns, cotrcrete-ûlled
cquivalent, in steel 72, 185
excessive 164 U-frame see frame, inverted-U
fatigue 150 I units 189
mid-planc, in steel 76 7 uplift .iee separation
residual, in steel 31,34 5, l4l
shrinkage .iee shrinkage of concrete variables, basic 12
temperature rez temperature. effects of vibration 163, 166-?
stress range, damage equivalent 155 7
SLress resultant .ree actions, effects of warpiûg, resistance to 72, 118, 163, 184
structrrfal steels 20 2
partial factors for 9, 14 15 breathing of 166
thermal expansior of 22 çllective area of 37-8
st.ut, piû-ended 32 holcs in 68, 90
stùds, lyirg ll5, 123-4, 189 93 transveme forces on 113-4
sluds. wcldod 3,22 3,l2), 3 çee a/ço hole-in-rveb method; shcar.
dctailing of 127. 189-93 vertrcal
ductility of 120 web sliiTeners s?e slilfeners, tÉnsverse web
length after welding 122 width, effective 29, 183-4
resistance of 12l 2, 189, 191 see a/so beams; flanges, eflective width of
tcnsron in 123 worked examples sde exaûples
weld collar of23, 115, 122 3
see also fatigue; shear comection, detailing liielding of steel 37
of; shear connectors

206
ilffiuilililliluluil