Comparative Study1 9312

Friday, 31 July 2009
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT,

HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
IRISH CONCRETE FEDERATION
KAVANAGH MANSFIELD & PARTNERS &

LEE McCULLOUGH
SUMMARY OF EUROCODE 2 STUDY
This report and its comparative designs

were prepared to inform the preparation of
the Irish National Annexes to I.S. EN 1992
They must not be relied upon in substitution
of specific designs or for other purposes.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Kavanagh Mansfield / LeeMcCullough EN 1992 Study Summary Report July 2009
1 of 20
CONTENTS
1.
SCOPE OF STUDY
1.1
1.2
2.
3.
Page
4
PHASE 1
1.1.1
COMPARATIVE STRUCTURAL DESIGN
1.1.2
NDP SELECTION
PHASE 2
1.2.1
PRODUCTION OF A NATIONAL ANNEX FOR IRELAND
1.2.2
REVIEW OF THE BUILDING REGULATIONS
DESIGN INTERPRETATION / ASSUMPTIONS MADE
2.1
EQUATIONS 6.10, 6.10(a) and 6.10(b)
2.2
MOMENT REDISTRIBUTION
2.3
AREAS OF STEEL (REQUIRED AND PROVIDED)
2.4
MOVEMENT JOINTS
2.5
DECIMAL POINTS
2.6
AXIS REFERENCES
CALCULATION DESCRIPTIONS
10
3.1
FLOOR OPTIONS
10
3.2
FOUNDATION OPTIONS
10
3.3
COLUMNS
10
4.
SUMMARISED RESULTS
11
5.
SOME ITEMS OF NOTE
14
5.1
DEFLECTION
14
5.2
SHEAR
14
5.3
CRACK WIDTH
15
5.4
CONCRETE PROPERTIES
15
____________________________________________________________________________________
2 of 20
5.4.1
STRENGTH
15
5.4.2
CONCRETE COVER
16
5.4.3
DENSITY
16
5.5
ROBUSTNESS / ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE
17
5.6
STEEL
17
6.
NATIONAL ANNEX
18
7.
COMMENTS
19
APPENDICES:
ABCDEFGHI-
Calculation Summaries
AS Req and AS Prov Comparisons
BS8110 / EC2 6.10 / EC2 6.10a&b Comparisons
Optimum One Way Slab Summary
Crack Control Comparisons for Beams and Slabs
BS / EC Punching Shear Differences in Pads
Beam Shear Comparison
Comparison for Slabs
cc Comparison for Slabs
____________________________________________________________________________________
3 of 20
1.
SCOPE OF STUDY
Kavanagh Mansfield and Lee McCullough were retained by the Department of the Environment,
Heritage and Local Government to carry out an independent study on Eurocode 2 which
covers the Design of Concrete Structures. This study was jointly funded by the Department of
the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Irish Concrete Federation.
The main objectives of the study project were:
To make a technical evaluation of the implications of EN 1992 for structural design in

Ireland.
To produce a draft National Annex for the first two parts of that code.
The brief required focus on two parts of the Eurocode 2 package:

EN 1992-1-1:
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1-1 General

rules and rules for buildings,
and
EN 1992-1-2:
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1-2 General

rules structural fire design
EN 1992-1-1 gives a general basis for the design of structures in reinforced and pre-stressed
concrete made with normal and lightweight aggregates together with specific rules for buildings.
Lightweight Aggregate Concrete was not considered in the study, as it is not commonly used in
Ireland.
EN 1992-1-2 deals with the design of the same structures for the accidental situation of fire
exposure using passive methods only.
The remaining parts of EN 1992 dealing with the design of Bridges (EN 1992-2), which is being
reviewed by the National Road Authority, and Liquid Retaining structures (EN 1992-3), were not
included in the study scope. However recommendations for the treatment of the Nationally
Determined Parameters for EN 1992-3 were provided.
The brief required comparative structural designs to be carried out and the results were
subsequently used to inform the technical inputs of the draft National Annexes.
The project was structured in phases to address these objectives.
____________________________________________________________________________________
4 of 20

1.1
PHASE 1:
1.1.1
Comparative Structural design
The objective of the comparative structural design exercise was to establish the impact of the
Eurocodes on structural design of buildings in terms of safety and quantities of materials.
A reference building for design purposes was described in the brief.
Details were given in the brief of the loadings and materials to be assumed and the output
figures required.
It incorporated a selection of common structural components (e.g. slabs, beams, columns,
walls, pads, pile caps etc). Most of the member dimensions were defined. The study required
that each of these components be designed using specified design codes:
The existing concrete design codes BS 8110 & IS 326 etc,
EN 1992 using recommended NDP values as given in the Eurocodes, and
EN 1992 using the UK National Annex.
A design check using the decisions made for the NDPs in Ireland was not specifically carried
out.
The UK comparison was used because of the broadly common practice in structural concrete
design that Ireland has heretofore shared with the UK and that the UK National Annex was
available at the commencement of the study.
By comparing the design outcomes, the impact of the Eurocodes on common structural
components was assessed and conclusions were drawn on some general implications for
structural design.
The design incorporated some of the significant Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs) of
EN 1992-1-1 and EN 1992-1-2 and assisted in the choices being made.
1.1.2
NDP Selection
The study team were required to propose NDPs for use in Ireland and incorporation into the
Irish EN 1992 National Annexes. The objective given for NDP selection was to secure an
optimum balance whereby safety margins are reasonable but not excessive; that resulting
capital costs are justified; and are weighed against the benefits of longer useful life (deferred
replacement) and lower annual maintenance costs.
In terms of NDPs the preference directed was to use the recommended values given in the
Eurocodes with departures where deemed necessary and justified, for example to preserve
existing safety margins consistent with reasonable economy. There is further discussion on this
topic in section 6 of this report.
The deliverables for Phase 1 of the study were reviewed by the client subgroup before work
proceeded on Phase 2 of the study.
____________________________________________________________________________________
5 of 20
1.2
PHASE 2:
1.2.1
Production of a draft National Annex for Ireland
The objective of this part of the study was to develop two National Annexes, (one for Eurocode
Part IS EN 1992-1-1 and one for IS EN 1992-1-2), which were to be published for Public
Consultation.
The National Annexes will, when adopted (following consideration of any comments received)
facilitate the use of these Eurocodes in Ireland.
The National Annex contents include:
Values for NDPs,

Decisions on informative annexes given in the Eurocodes, and
References to non contradictory complementary information (NCCI) to assist the
designers.
Technical proposals for each of these areas were based on the findings of the comparative
study carried out in Phase 1 together with a review of some available background and guidance
documentation from abroad.
A separate review on Concrete Bridge design - being carried out by another team,
commissioned by the National Roads Authority (NRA), - addressed the NDPs in the Concrete
Bridge design code IS EN 1992-2 and prepared a draft National Annex for that part of the code.
Designing a concrete bridge in accordance with IS EN 1992-2 requires the use of clauses and
NDPs from IS EN 1992-1-1 and so liaison was required with the Bridge code study team via the
NRA.
1.2.2
Review of the Building Regulations.
This part of the study is to identify issues that need to be addressed in the Irish Building
Regulations and accompanying Technical Guidance Documents (TGD) due to the
implementation of the Eurocodes. Any areas that require attention will be highlighted and a brief
outline of the issues and actions required will be given.
EN 1992-1-1 makes reference to requirements for robustness of structures / resistance to
accidental damage. In doing so it references sections of IS EN 1990 and IS EN 1991-1-7. A
section of the proposed Irish National Annex of IS EN 1992-1-1 deals with this issue pending
future amendments to the Building Regulations and Technical Guidance Document A. EN
1992-1-2 deals with fire and so Schedule B and TGDB were also reviewed.
The Irish National Annex refers to IS EN 206-1, which deals with the specification and
manufacture of concrete, and its National Annex. Alterations may need to be made to clauses
within TGDs A ,C and H which deal with concrete specification so that these are brought in line
with the specification and design of concrete as set out in IS EN 206-1 and IS EN 1992-1-1.
A separate report has been prepared dealing with this issue and should be read in conjunction
with this report.
2.
DESIGN INTERPRETATIONS / ASSUMPTIONS MADE
To use EN 1992, it is necessary to refer to EN 1990 (Basis of Structural Design) and the
various parts of EN 1991 (Actions on structures) as well as to EN 1997 (Geotechnical Design).
____________________________________________________________________________________
6 of 20

EN 1990 is the head Eurocode and sets out material independent information in respect of
partial factors, load combination expressions etc.
Two of the authors of UK publications on EC2 were engaged to deliver a seminar for our study
team, to which members of the client team were invited.
Following initial familiarization with the codes and completion of some analysis, it was decided
to make some interpretations / assumptions as to particular design parameters to be used in
the comparative design exercise.
2.1
Expressions 6.10, 6.10(a) and 6.10(b)
(Expressions in Eurocode contexts are essentially the same as Equations in formerly common
parlance)
Expressions 6.10, 6.10(a) and 6.10(b) contained in EN 1990 allow alternative approaches to
the combination of Actions (Eurocode terminology for loads) to be used in design. They
specify combinations of loads to be used in design, with appropriate partial factors ( ),
representative values ( ) and reduction factors ( ) in accordance with IS EN 1990 and its
National Annex. The partial factors given in that document are 1.35 for Permanent Actions i.e.
dead loads and 1.5 for Variable Actions i.e. imposed loads. These are less than those
currently used in the current Irish and UK concrete design codes, 1.4 and 1.6 respectively.
One is permitted to design using the design effects of forces calculated using expression 6.10
or alternatively using the more onerous of the forces calculated using expressions 6.10(a) or
6.10(b). This alternative approach will always give a lower design requirement.
The use of the factors in equation 6.10 of 1.35 for Permanent Actions (e.g. dead loads) and
1.5 for Variable Actions (formerly termed imposed loads) leads to a reduction of about 5-6% in
the calculated design moments and forces for the structures we examined - by comparison with
existing codes.
In the case of expressions 6.10(a) and 6.10 (b), there are further modifying factors which
reduce the 1.35 and 1.5 permanent and variable action (load) factors for situations where
there are combinations of loads. These are either different representative values for load
combinations ( ) in expression 6.10(a) or a reduction value applicable to the permanent actions
( ) in expression 6.10(b). The theory behind this is based on the reliability analysis of structures
as outlined in EN 1990 and its annexes. These two equations aim to reduce the variance in the
Reliability Index for different combinations of loads.
The Reliability Index is a frequently used measure of the reliability of structures and is
equivalent to the probability of failure. Target values have been derived from reliability studies
of structural components in different materials. The target value starts from an accepted
minimum requirement for public safety and is modified for the anticipated life span of the
structure. It has been found that the Reliability Index is higher when using a combination of
permanent and imposed loads than when using either on their own. This gives the theoretical
justification for the use of the alternative expressions 6.10(a) and 6.10(b).
The permanent action factor can reduce to a value of 1.15 using the European and Irish
recommended values for given in EN 1990, and to 1.25 using the UK values. This is because
the Irish National Annex to EN 1990 allows for a value of of 0.85 while the UK National
restricts the reduction to 0.925. The Irish value follows the recommended Eurocode value
given in EN 1990. The basis of this factor is to compensate for the higher Reliability Index
factor
which apply for various combinations of permanent, imposed and accompanying
actions as applicable in certain circumstances.
The consequence of the use of expressions 6.10(a) and 6.10(b) is a further reduction in the
calculated moments and forces leading to a reduction in the reinforcement requirements for the
member being designed.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7 of 20
The design criteria for the reference building specified the permanent and variable actions. The
ratio between these (by chance) caused a significant reduction in calculated moments and
forces if expressions 6.10 (a) and 6.10(b) were used.
We considered the outcomes, and decided that we would generally use only expression 6.10. It
seems to us that the use of the 6.10(a) and 6.10(b) expressions is most appropriate when
designing with combinations of 3 or more loads. The Irish National Annex to EN 1990 states
that expression 6.10 shall normally be used but that expressions 6.10(a) and 6.10(b) may be
used. The designer of particular structures would be responsible for that choice.
CEN/TC250/SC1, which deals with EN 1990 and EN 1991, is looking at this issue.
Consideration may need to be given to subsequent modifications of the text of EN 1990.
However, at this point, we did not utilize the possible (6.10a, 6.10b) reduction in applied loads,
which could have led to a further reduction of c 5% in the forces applied to these elements.
Such a reduction would give additional savings and may be of benefit in some circumstances.
The use of the expressions / equations in manual calculations is quite complex and designers
would need to ensure that the equations are correctly used with the appropriate design case
being applied. Computer analysis may incorporate this automatically but it would be important
that the designer is fully aware of the particular design programmes calculation basis.
Further consideration may need to be given to this topic but this would involve an alteration to
the National Annex of EN 1990. This was deemed to be outside the scope of this study. It is
recommended that this topic be discussed at the next NEAC meeting as it affects all the
material design codes.
2.2
Moment Redistribution
Within EN1992 there is scope for considerable variation in the use of redistribution of moments.
This is allowed, as in current Irish and British codes, both for negative and positive design
moments. Based on our judgement of prudent practice, we have in our EN 1992 designs limited
the redistribution in slabs to 20% of the negative moments and did not allow positive
redistribution. For beams, the maximum redistribution assumed was 15% and again only to
negative moments.
2.3
Areas of Steel (Required and Provided)
We found that the area of reinforcing steel required (Asreq) generally followed the moments and
thus Asreq under EN 1992 was generally 5-6% below that of the present codes. Since the area
of reinforcement provided (Asprov) is a step function i.e. the area provided depends on selection
of particular bar sizes and rational spacings, and cannot always match the design area, this
reduction did not always follow through to the Asprov figure.
There are 3 classes of reinforcing steel allowed in EN1992.
Class A is the least ductile and consequently EC2 permits only 15% moment redistribution;
Class B and Class C are more ductile and the allowable maximum redistribution is 30% when
they are used. In our study, we assumed steels of Class B or C. Class C is suitable for use
where enhanced ductility is required e.g. seismic and very cold areas so Class B will generally
be used in Ireland. This may require a change in the referencing of reinforcement in steel
schedules. Reinforcing of steel is assumed to be carried out in accordance with BS 8666:2005
Scheduling, dimensioning, bending and cutting of steel reinforcement for concrete.
Specification.
As all reinforcing steel is imported into Ireland from different sources, designers, contractors
and other should ensure the quality of the steel used in a project is known by obtaining
certification that the reinforcement complies with IS EN 1992-1-1 and IS EN 10080, Steel for
____________________________________________________________________________________
8 of 20

the reinforcement of concrete. Similar certification should be sought for prestressing steels to
IS EN 10138.
It is recommended that IS EN 10080 and IS EN 10138 and their respective National Annexes
be discussed at the next NEAC meeting.
2.4
Movement Joints
EN1992 recommends 30m as a distance between expansion joints in concrete structures. This
is less than the distances used in common practice in Ireland. The design building provided by
the study group had an overall length in each direction of 38.4m but we consider it is not
necessary (or logical) for an expansion joint to be provided in this structure and so we did not
allow for one. Designers should be aware of the requirement for checking the areas of steel to
ensure thermal expansion does not lead to excessive cracking in structures or structural
members.
2.5
Decimal Points
Despite Eurocode substitution of a comma for a decimal point, we have used decimal points
throughout our calculations and report. We believe this is less likely to be mistaken in Ireland,
and in addition the spreadsheets in common use do not permit the use of a comma in
substitution for a decimal point.
2.6
Axis References
There are changes in the nomenclature of the various axes for structural members. The x-x
axis is along the length of a member while the y-y axis is parallel to the flanges with the z-z axis
perpendicular to the flanges of the section.
____________________________________________________________________________________
9 of 20

3.
CALCULATION DESCRIPTIONS
The items to be designed to the various specified codes were:

3.1
Floor Options:
3.1.1A
3.1.1B
3.1.2A
3.1.2B
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.2
Foundation Options:
3.2.1A
Pad Foundations
3.2.1B
Pad Foundations
3.2.1C
Pad Foundations
3.2.2A
Pile Foundations
3.2.2B
Pile Foundations
3.2.2C
Pile Foundations
Internal
Corner
Perimeter
Internal
Corner
Perimeter
3.3
Column Options:
3.3.1A
Square Columns
3.3.1B
Square Columns
3.3.2A
Circular Columns
3.3.2B
Circular Columns
with less than 2% reinforcement

Between 2% and 4% reinforcement
Less than 2% reinforcement
Between 2% and 4% reinforcement
Flat Slab 300mm Deep

Flat Slab 275mm Deep
RC Beam and 250mm Deep One Way Slab
RC Beam and 275mm Deep One Way Slab
RC Beam and Rib Slab
RC Beam and Waffle Slab
We also ran calculations for comparisons and sensitivity analysis on items such as:
Optimising One-Way Slabs

Comparing Cl.6.10 with Cl.6.10a and Cl.6.10b, and with BS8110
Deflection
Crack Control
The study comparisons were to EN 1992-1-1 using the recommended values and the UK
values for the various Nationally Determined Parameters. A comparison was not made with the
values eventually selected for Ireland. The results will be similar to those of the UK as many of
the critical parameters ( cc and redistribution values) were chosen to be the same as the UK.
____________________________________________________________________________________
10 of 20

4.
SUMMARISED RESULTS
In the summaries below, the results of calculations to EN 1992-1-1 are given by comparison
with the outcome of the same designs under IS 326 / BS 8110.
The RFT specified the structural concrete sizes of the elements to be designed in the study,
and also gave unit costs for concrete, and reinforcement.
Hence the only difference in cost which can be evaluated arising from the study arises from
differences in reinforcement content, which represents only a small portion of the cost of the
structure.
As a consequence the differences are small, as shown in the summaries.
Using EN 1992-1-1 or BS 8110, it would be necessary to investigate alternative structural sizes
for a given loading and span condition to arrive at the optimum under each code. By carrying
one particular exercise along those lines we found that Eurocode allowed a reduction in
concrete element size in comparison to BS 8110 (See comments under 250mm one way slab
on the next page).
Please note that the results are from our design on the RFT specified building using European
and UK NDP recommendations. They are valid for the given spans, loads, etc and may not
necessarily be paralleled in other cases. Irish NDPs were not used but similar results to those
of the UK are expected.
A.
Flat Slabs
300mm Flat Slab
6% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 1.46% decrease in the cost of a

7.5m x 7.5m x 300mm Deep Flat Slab.
275mm Flat Slab
13% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 3.65% decrease in the cost of

a 7.5m x 7.5m x 275mm Deep Flat Slab.
B.
One Way Slabs and Beams
250mm One Way Slab

a 7.5m long x 1m wide x 250mm Deep One Way Slab.
However, when we designed the slab at a selection of different depths seeking optimal
cost we found that EN 1992-1-1 would, with no increase in the reinforcement, permit use of
a 225mm deep concrete slab. This 10% reduction in concrete volume resulted in an overall
8% reduction in costs.
Internal Beam There was no change in reinforcement requirements for a 7.5m

long 750mm x 450mm deep internal rectangular beam.
Edge Beam There was no change in reinforcement requirements for a 7.5m

long 700mm x 450mm deep edge rectangular beam.
275mm One Way Slab
There was no change in reinforcement, thus no cost difference for the 275mm Deep 7.5m
span Slab. The reinforcement area required, Asreq, was slightly less, but as noted before,
the step changes in reinforcement meant there was no change in reinforcement area
provided.
____________________________________________________________________________________
11 of 20

Internal Beam 14% decrease in reinforcement requirements using the Eurocode
recommended values, resulting in an 8.87% decrease in the cost of a 7.5m long
750mm x 500mm deep internal rectangular beam.
Eurocode 2 using the UK value provides a 7% decrease in reinforcement
requirements, resulting in a 4.44% reduction in costs. We have followed UK
practice so would anticipate the 7% saving in Ireland.
Edge Beam 12% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 5.70%

decrease in the cost of a 7.5m long 700mm x 450mm deep edge rectangular
beam.
Eurocode 2 using the UK value provides a 7% decrease in reinforcement

requirements, resulting in a 3.47% reduction in costs. This again applies in Ireland.
The reason for the difference in reinforcement requirements is the value of cc. In
the UK and now in Ireland this is 0.85 and in Europe 1.00. The beam design
selected is less efficient for this reason. This effect generally will not apply to slabs
and lightly loaded beams which are less heavily stressed in compression. The
same comment applies to ribbed slabs below. A further discussion on cc takes
place in Section 5.4.1 below.
Ribbed Slab
a 7.5m long Ribbed Slab.
Internal Beam 5% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 2.91%

decrease in the cost of a 7.5m long 1350mm x 375mm deep internal rectangular
beam.
Eurocode 2 (UK) provides a 3% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting
in a 1.46% reduction in costs. Again we would expect these results to apply in
Ireland.
Edge Beam There was no reduction in reinforcement requirement for a 7.5m
long 1125mm x 375mm deep edge rectangular beam.
Waffle Slab
There was no change in price or reinforcement requirements for the waffle slab.
C.
Pile Caps
Internal Pile Cap
8% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 1.54% decrease in the cost of a

2.3m x 2.3m x 950mm Deep Internal Pile Cap.
External Pile Cap
10% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 2.14% difference in the cost of

a 4.16m2 x 750mm Deep External Pile Cap.
Edge Pile Cap
There was no change in price or reinforcement requirements for the edge pile cap.
____________________________________________________________________________________
12 of 20
D.
Pad Foundations
Punching shear requirements mean that the depth projection ratios for equivalent loads and
allowable bearing pressures are more onerous under EC2 than under IS 326 / BS 8110. For
example a base with a depth/projection (d/a) ratio of 0.5 is limited to an allowable ground
2
2
pressure of 200 kN/m to EC2 rather than 400 kN/m to BS 8110. The equivalent reinforcement
over a certain threshold value is also higher so it seems that EC2 design will require more
reinforcement and concrete to EC2 than older codes.
This is clearly illustrated in a comparison of Table 5.23 of the Manual for the Design of
Concrete Building Structures to Eurocode 2 published by IStructE with Table 39 of the Manual
for the Design of Reinforced Concrete Building Structure (BS 8110) also published by IStructE.
Internal Pad Foundation 1 (depth specified in study brief)
35% increase in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 6.07% increase in the cost of a

3.5m x 3.5m x 800mm deep Internal Pad Foundation.
Edge Pad Foundation 1(depth specified in study brief)

3 m x 3m x 650mm deep Edge Pad Foundation.
Corner Pad Foundation 1 (depth specified in study brief)

2.5m x 2.5m x 500mm deep Corner Pad Foundation.
We ran further calculations removing punching shear as the critical factor by increasing the
depth of the pad foundations. These results are:.
Internal Pad Foundation 2

a 3.5m x 3.5m x 1200mm Deep Internal Pad Foundation.
Edge Pad Foundation 2

a 3 m x 3m x 1000mm Deep Edge Pad Foundation.
Corner Pad Foundation 2

a 2.5m x 2.5m x 750mm Deep Corner Pad Foundation.
E.
Columns
Based on the designs we carried out, we do not see any significant changes in cost of
columns designed for the same load to either EC2 or the old codes.
____________________________________________________________________________________
13 of 20

5
SOME ITEMS OF NOTE IN EC2
5.1
DEFLECTION
While the deflection rules are slightly different, it would appear at first that the permitted span /
depth ratios are more generous in EN 1992 than in BS 8110.
An EC2 analysis was carried out where simply supported slabs (under the same variable ie
imposed load) varied in depth for specific spans or where the span varied for a specific slab
depth.
This showed that the minimum permissible slab depth limits were similar for both codes but that
the reinforcement required to justify thinner slabs was substantially less for EN 1992 than for
BS 8110.
This is because the EN 1992 deflection analysis method calls (per EN 1990) for the use of a
Quasi-permanent combination of Actions (loads) with reduced partial factors for Variable
actions. The reduction factor (for example) in the case of offices is 0.3. There will therefore be
economies in reinforcement in thin slabs designed to the Eurocode for office type loading. The
Quasi-permanent reduction factor for warehouse loading is 0.8, so the reinforcement
difference would be less, if indeed applicable.
IN EN1992 there are limitations in the allowable increase in reinforcement percentage
(maximum 50%) which can be considered effective in reducing slab thickness. The use of
thinner slabs will require careful consideration of possible problems with early age loading
during construction when these may be heavily loaded from overhead floors while at low
strength and stiffness values
5.2
SHEAR
Shear resistance is determined by concrete strength, effective depth of concrete element and
tension steel ratio. The expressions for determining shear reinforcement are different in
EN1992 by comparison with the other codes used, but this may not affect the overall shear
reinforcement provided for normal ranges of concrete elements and loads.
EN 1992-1-1 requires the determination of shear steel ignoring the contribution of the concrete
unlike BS 8110. The model for shear is a variable strut inclination method and is based on a
notional truss within the concrete. The angle is the angle between the main tension chord and
the compression strut. This should be chosen so that the value of cot minimises the number
of stirrups. A maximum shear resistance is given which in EN 1992-1-1 is dependent on cot .
A higher maximum shear resistance is permitted with EN 1992-1-1 compared with the other
code but similar values for size, number and spacing of links may be expected.
The second area of shear of particular note is punching shear. As discussed earlier under pad
foundations, this can cause differences in steel design in those elements. There may also be
consequent differences in design of flat slab column heads for shear.
____________________________________________________________________________________
14 of 20

5.3
CRACK WIDTH
For Exposure Classes X0 and XCI (defined in EN 206) the Eurocode recommends allowable
design crack widths in reinforced concrete up to 0.4mm; for other RC exposures the limit is
0.3mm.
The UK EN 1992 NA sets a 0.3mm limit for all exposure classes. (Both permit
relaxation of the maximum in X0 and XC1 conditions where appearance is not important.) The
0.3mm limit is consistent with current IS 326 / BS 8110 limits and so we have recommended it
in the draft National Annex.
However, a more significant aspect of crack control requirements in EN 1992 (by comparison
with previous codes) is its effect on selection of bar diameter and spacing.
In design of the 250mm thick one way slab, from above, we found that the Eurocode limited the
size of the bars to 12mm , which in turn required a spacing of 125mm. The BS 8110 design
does not impose any size limit and we were free to choose 16mm at 200mm. The use of
smaller diameter bars than heretofore permissible does not necessarily mean more
reinforcement weight but we believe it is likely to have some effect on the economics of slab
and beam construction, because of the increased labour cost of placing and fixing more bars.
(As against that, there will be some trade off because the area of steel required will be slightly
less as referenced in various sections above).
5.4
CONCRETE PROPERTIES
5.4.1
Strength
EN 1992-1-1 refers to EN 206-1 in respect of concrete specification, leading to a requirement to

coordinate the National Annexes of the two code IS EN 206 and its National Annex have been
published for some time though the National Annex is currently (July 2009) revised and out for
public comment.
There was in any event the need to review some aspects of the current IS EN 206 NA in the
light of changing cement properties and availability.
We have been involved in discussions in the Irish Concrete Society Task Force set up to draft
updates to that National Annex. These discussions have also taken into account specific input
from NRA in respect of the particular requirements for long life durability of bridges. The results
are that Irish guidance on concrete will be somewhat different both from the European
recommendations and UK practice. These changes have been incorporated into the Draft Irish
National Annexes for both EN 1992-1-1 and EN 206-1. However for buildings with a 50 year
design life in normal conditions there will be little change in concrete strength requirements
compared to the IS 326 / BS 8110 designs for durability.
One distinct difference between the old standard and the Eurocodes is that concrete strength
will be based on the cylinder strength rather than the cube strength, though there is a
relationship between the two. There are also differences in the stress blocks allowed between
the two codes.
In EC2, a factor cc used in determining the design compressive strength takes account of long
term effects on the compressive strength and of unfavourable effects resulting from the way the
load is applied. We have suggested, in the draft Irish National Annex, following the UK in
adopting a value for this of 0.85 rather than 1.00 as recommended in the Eurocode text. This
is within the range permitted in the Eurocode.
The background document to the UK EN 1992 National Annex published by BSI as PD 66872006, discusses the reasons for changing from EC recommended factors including cc. We
found the rationale for the selection of 0.85 to be convincing. Design compressive strength is
expressed in equation 3.15 in Clause 3.1.6 of the Eurocode as
____________________________________________________________________________________
15 of 20
fcd =
cc fck / c
where cc is a coefficient taking account of long term effects on the compressive strengths and
of unfavourable effects resulting from the way the load us applied. There is an equivalent
coefficient ct for design tensile strength.
The Eurocode recommended value is 1.00 but PD 6687 recommends a value of 0.85 as had
been previously accepted in the draft of the Eurocode and the model code produced by
CEB/FIP. This is because comparison of predicted and experimental results of tests carried out
at Imperial College and elsewhere show that a value of cc of 0.85 gives a better fit mean result
to the tests.
cc strictly only needs to be applied to concrete compressive strength related to the stress block
used for flexure and axial loading (including strut and tie models and bearing stresses for
precast elements). It also, however, is used in other resistance models (shear, tension, web
compression) where a value of 1.0 might be used. The Irish recommendation follows UK
practice of recommending a value of 0.85 for flexure and axial loading and allowing a value of
1.00 elsewhere. However 0.85 may be used throughout.
As an example for highly stressed beams, the use of cc = 0.85 will mean an increase in
compression steel with a slight decrease in tension steel. The change reduces somewhat the
possible savings in reinforcement for heavily stressed beams as discussed in the summary of
results above.
5.4.2
Concrete Cover
Durability of reinforced concrete elements is covered in some detail in EN 1992, (referencing

exposure classes set out first in EN 206) and allows for some parameters to be varied in
National Annexes. In general terms, for a given exposure condition, it depends on cover to
reinforcement, concrete strength / cement content / and water cement ratio.
In the UK, instead of covering the NDPs relating to durability etc comprehensively in the EN
1992 National Annex, a separate code - BS 8500 - has been prepared dealing with
Specification of concrete including durability matters, and this has a somewhat different
approach to IS EN 206-1 and its National Annex. In our study calculations we have utilised the
EN 1992 recommended cover values.
As a parallel exercise, a Committee of the Irish Concrete Society has been considering an
updating / revision of the Irish National Annex to IS EN 206-1. This is being done in the context
of the wider range of cements now available in Ireland, and questions raised in our drafting of
IS EN 1992 National Annex.
Table 5 in the Irish NA to EN 1992-1-1 which we have drafted reflects the outcome of that ICS
committees work. For particular circumstances our draft EN 1992-1-1 NA makes reference to
the (forthcoming) IS EN 206-1 revised National Annex. This allows for further combinations of
cover to reinforcement and concrete strength / water cement ratio. Cement types which can be
used to achieve durable concrete structures in each of the Exposure Classes. IS EN 206-1 and
its revised National Annex is out for Public Consultation since early May 2009. In the interests
of simplicity only limited combinations are specified in the National Annex to IS EN 1992-1-1.
Wider choice is available by referencing IS EN 206-1 for different cement types, combinations
and the balancing of strength against cover.
The other issue which can determine cover is the fire resistance requirement. This is dealt with
in EN 1992-1-2. Specifically for the reference building the criteria are such that fire is not the
major determining influence. For the reference building there was no significant change from
current practice. Tabulated data is given in EN 1992-1-2 through more advanced calculation
models can also be used.
____________________________________________________________________________________
16 of 20
5.4.3
Density
The density of reinforced concrete to be used in design to EN 1992 is 25kN/m3 by comparison

with 24kN/m3 currently used. This modifies to some extent the reduction in the partial factor for
permanent loads.
5.5
ROBUSTNESS / ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE
This issue is treated in a different fashion in EN 1992-1-1 by comparison with the current
version of BS 8110 to which reference is made in IS 326 in respect of vertical ties and
anchorage of precast floor, roof and stair members. The differences are covered in an
additional Non Contradictory Complementary Information section of the Irish National Annex as
drafted. This refers to EN 1990 and EN 1991-1-7. See also comments in Section 6 below.
5.6
STEEL
Reference is made in EC2 to a number of EN standards for reinforcement steel. The status of
Irish versions of these together with any Irish National Annexes needs to be confirmed. We
have assumed that the European versions may be used in Ireland without modification.
The steel material partial factor in EC2 design is 1.15 but this is based on the use of steel with a
characteristic strength of 500 mPa rather than the 460 mPa previously used. However this
gives the same strength value for use in design since the older codes use a partial factor for
steel of 1.05.
As noted in section 2.3, there are 3 ductility classes for steel specified in the code, requiring
selection in design.
These ductility classes are specified in normative Annex C of the Code itself with reference to
testing being to IS EN 10080. Prestressing steel is to be in accordance with IS EN 10138. We
have looked at IS EN 10080 and there are no NDPs but there are a number of informative
annexes in that code. We would suggest the NEAC discuss the content of all referenced codes
at its next meeting and determine whether any specific Irish National Annex are required.
____________________________________________________________________________________
17 of 20

6.
NATIONAL ANNEX
The National Annex includes values for the 122 Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs) and
also recommendations in terms of the use of the various informative Annexes.
We have proposed values for all NDPs in a draft National Annexes for Ireland for EN1992-1-1
and EN1992-1-2.
The study brief required us to liaise with the National Roads Authority in order to coordinate
with their parallel review of EN 1992-2 the Bridge design section of EN 1992. To a large
extent EN 19922 relies on references back to EN 1992-1-1 for guidance on the basic
parameters of design.
Of the 122 Nationally Determined Parameters in EN 19921-1, we have, in the Draft National
Annex, proposed following the Eurocode recommendations in 77 cases. In 26 other cases we
propose values as selected in the UK NA. There are 19 values for which we propose values
different from both the UK and the Eurocode recommendations. These are mainly to align
better with current Irish practice, particularly in respect of concrete specification and
robustness, as discussed later.
Some areas where we propose adoption of UK selected values were:
Limitation of concrete strength particularly for shear for high strength concrete.
Choice of an 0.85 value for the compressive strength coefficient cc
Load arrangement redistribution limits and some shear and prestressing rules
The implications of this mean that some of the possible savings in reinforcement are not
achieved to the maximum extent.
The proposed Annex E covering concrete specification and durability in various exposure
conditions is significantly revised from the EN version to include indicative concrete strengths
and covers and alternative concrete mixes considered more appropriate to Irish practice and
experience. There is further and more comprehensive guidance on this topic in IS EN 206-1
and its National Annex.
Another change to align with Irish practice is proposed in the EN 1992 Draft National Annex
concerning the robustness / accidental damage limitation, where the code is to be read in
accordance with Technical Guidance Document A of the Building Regulations. (TGD A itself will
need some amendments to bring it into line with the Eurocodes.) The proposed EN 1992 NA
rules are intended to preserve current practice in this area as set out in BS 8110 and TGD A.
However, the area of localised collapse allowed following accidental damage has been
2
increased to 100m from 70m2 to align with Eurocode practice.
The complementary report dealing with implications arising from IS EN 1992 on the Building
Regulations and the Technical Guidance Documents should be read in conjunction with this
report.
____________________________________________________________________________________
18 of 20
COMMENTS
7.1
Economies
Based on our calculations for this study we believe that use of EC2 will result in somewhat
more economical designs than IS 326 / BS 8110. The choice of the NDPs will give values
slightly less economical than had the Eurocode design values been adopted. However, our
practice is largely in line with that of the UK.
7.2
Expressions 6.10 & 6.10a/b
Use of Expressions 6.10(a) and (b) as opposed to 6.10 may lead to a further reduction in the
amount of steel required but it does involve more complex calculations with greater scope for
error We have not used these expressions in our calculations and we understand that there is
still ongoing and incomplete discussion in Europe about this issue. We believe they are more
appropriate for use where there are three or more actions (loads) eg permanent and two
variable actions. Refer Section 2.1 above.
7.3
Deflection
It seems that EN 1992-1-1 will be slightly more economic especially for slabs but the designer
needs to be aware of all execution circumstances (eg early age loading) under EN 1992.
7.4
More reliance on computers and technical aids
When designing to EN 1992 there will be more reliance than before on computer software as a
design aid.
The structure of the code, dealing with principles rather than design of elements, and the
interlocking relationship with the material independent codes means that the designer is faced
with acquiring a knowledge of a wider range of documentation prior to carrying out a design in
concrete. The philosophic basis for this may be more rational but the designer is likely to find
the extent of research required more onerous and thus tend to rely more on computer analysis.
The software used must therefore be very robust and well tested.
In particular it is important that the values in the Irish National Annexes are utilised as these are
in some instances different not only to the European recommended values but also to the UK
values.
7.5
Use of National Annexes
Just as it is essential that designers of buildings in Ireland should use the values of the Irish
National Annex, Irish designers should be aware, that if designing structures in the UK
(including Northern Ireland) or the European mainland that the National Annex appropriate to
the country of construction must be used. This is something which clients, specifiers,
contractors and other parties should be aware of. Similarly, it is important that manufacturers,
exporters and importers of products, which may be used either here or abroad use the relevant
nationally determined parameters as set out in the National Annex of the country of use.
7.7
CPD directive / CE marking
The Eurocodes relate to various European regulations including the Construction Products
Directive and users, manufacturers, suppliers and specifiers of products need to be aware of
the requirements of this.
____________________________________________________________________________________
19 of 20

7.8
Construction Products Directive
In order to address the problem of technical barriers to international trade caused by varying
national standards, the EU adopted the Construction Products Directive (CPD) (89/106/EEC)
for the harmonisation of construction product standards. Its primary objective is to facilitate
the free movement of construction products between Member States. Member States must
ensure that such products may only be placed on the market if they are fit for their intended
use.
Further information can be obtained from the following web-site
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/single_market_for_goods/construction/l
21184_en.htm
7.9
CE Marking
CE marking of construction products should provide assurance to regulators, clients and all
parties in the construction chain that a product with CE marking, if properly used and installed,
will enable a building to comply with the essential requirements laid down by the CPD. The
publication Marking of Construction Products
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLo
ad,1659,en.pdf seeks to explain in as simple terms as possible the requirements for the affixing
of the CE Marking to construction products.
____________________________________________________________________________________
20 of 20

Comparative Study1 9312

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Comparative Study1 9312

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Friday, 31 July 2009

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT,

KAVANAGH MANSFIELD & PARTNERS &

SUMMARY OF EUROCODE 2 STUDY

This report and its comparative designs

Friday, 31 July 2009

COMPARATIVE STRUCTURAL DESIGN

PRODUCTION OF A NATIONAL ANNEX FOR IRELAND

REVIEW OF THE BUILDING REGULATIONS

DESIGN INTERPRETATION / ASSUMPTIONS MADE

EQUATIONS 6.10, 6.10(a) and 6.10(b)

AREAS OF STEEL (REQUIRED AND PROVIDED)

SOME ITEMS OF NOTE

Friday, 31 July 2009

ROBUSTNESS / ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE

Friday, 31 July 2009

To make a technical evaluation of the implications of EN 1992 for structural design in

The brief required focus on two parts of the Eurocode 2 package:

Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1-1 General

Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 1-2 General

Friday, 31 July 2009

Comparative Structural design

Friday, 31 July 2009

Production of a draft National Annex for Ireland

Values for NDPs,

DESIGN INTERPRETATIONS / ASSUMPTIONS MADE

Friday, 31 July 2009

Expressions 6.10, 6.10(a) and 6.10(b)

Friday, 31 July 2009

Areas of Steel (Required and Provided)

Friday, 31 July 2009

Friday, 31 July 2009

The items to be designed to the various specified codes were:

with less than 2% reinforcement

Flat Slab 300mm Deep

Optimising One-Way Slabs

Friday, 31 July 2009

300mm Flat Slab

6% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 1.46% decrease in the cost of a

13% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 3.65% decrease in the cost of

One Way Slabs and Beams

250mm One Way Slab

Internal Beam There was no change in reinforcement requirements for a 7.5m

Edge Beam There was no change in reinforcement requirements for a 7.5m

275mm One Way Slab

Friday, 31 July 2009

Edge Beam 12% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 5.70%

Eurocode 2 using the UK value provides a 7% decrease in reinforcement

Internal Beam 5% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 2.91%

Internal Pile Cap

8% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 1.54% decrease in the cost of a

10% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 2.14% difference in the cost of

Friday, 31 July 2009

35% increase in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 6.07% increase in the cost of a

28% increase in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 5.04% increase in the cost of a

33% increase in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 6.59% increase in the cost of a

29% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 3.69% decrease in the cost of

31% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 4.01% decrease in the cost of

22% decrease in reinforcement requirements, resulting in a 2.91% decrease in the cost of

Friday, 31 July 2009

SOME ITEMS OF NOTE IN EC2

Friday, 31 July 2009

EN 1992-1-1 refers to EN 206-1 in respect of concrete specification, leading to a requirement to