Proceedings of ICE

EN1992 Eurocode 2:
Civil Engineering 144 November 2001
Pages 23–28 Paper 12643
Design of concrete structures
Keywords R. S. Narayanan
codes of practice & standards;
concrete structures;
design methods & aids

EN1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures is of

Nary Narayanan
is a consultant to Cadogan Tietz
fundamental importance to civil engineers given the
predominance of concrete in civil engineering construction.The
first part of the code, covering common design rules and design
requirements for fire, is likely to be approved in January 2002
and should be released in EN standard form by 2003.The second
and third parts, covering design of bridges and liquid-retaining
structures respectively, are due for release in 2005.This paper
looks primarily at the two sections that make up the first part.
It explains the principles of ultimate and serviceability limit
state design and the requirements for shear, durability and fire
in particular. It also lists the other European standards to which
concrete designers will need to refer.

The preparation of the first part of • structural analysis

EN1992 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
structures is well advanced. In January
2002, the drafts for the two sections
should be approved by the Comité
Européen de Normalisation (CEN)—the
European standardisation body—as being
technically competent to go forward for
voting by member states. The voting itself
has been programmed for May 2002 for
EN1991-1-1 and July 2002 for EN1991-
1-2. If a positive vote is received, the EN
(EuroNorm) standards are likely to come
into force in spring 2003. Subject to vari-
ous CEN rules for coexistence of codes,
conflicting UK code BS 8110 will be
withdrawn soon after that date.
The first section of the first part of
Eurocode 2 (EN1991-1-1) gives the gener-
al basis for the design of structures in rein-
forced and prestressed concrete made with
normal and lightweight concrete together
with specific rules for building structures.
The application rules given are mainly
aimed at building structures.
When published, EN1992-1-1 will
replace not only the pre-standard
ENV1992-1-1 (ENV stands for EuroNorm
Vornorm) but also the pre-standards for
plain concrete (part 1-2), pre-cast concrete
(part 1-3), use of lightweight concrete
(part 1-4) and the use of unbonded and
external prestressing tendons (part 1-5).
The new code will thus be a more com-
prehensive document than its predecessor.
The scope is similar to many current
national codes in Europe. The main chap-
ters of the first part of the code deal with
• basis of design
• materials
• durability
• ultimate limit state
• serviceability limit state
• detailing of reinforcement
• detailing of members
• additional rules for precast elements
and structures
• lightweight aggregate concrete
• plain concrete.
There are separate parts dealing with
the design of bridges (part 2) (Fig. 1) and
liquid retaining structures (part 3). These
are expected to be released in EN form in
2005.
This second section of the first part of
EN1992 (EN1992-1-2) deals with the
design of concrete structures exposed to
fire. It is concerned with the passive resis-
tance of the structure—active methods of
fire protection are not covered by this
part. The general recommendations are
limited to concrete strength classes up to
C50/60 for normal-weight concrete and
class LC55/60 for lightweight concrete.
There is a separate chapter dealing with
high-strength concrete.
The code starts with basic principles,
followed by material properties at elevat-
ed temperatures, then various design
methods and ends with a chapter on high-
strength concrete.
Related Eurocodes and product
standards
EN1992-1-1 belongs to a family of
Eurocodes for concrete. Other main
codes/standards relevant to practising
concrete design engineers are
• EN1990 Eurocode: Basis of structural
design

C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G 23
 NARAYANAN
Fig. 1. Specific rules for concrete bridge design will be provided in the second part of Eurocode 2, due out in 2005
• ENV13670 Execution of concrete
structures
• EN206-1-2000 Concrete: perfor-
mance, production, placing and com-
pliance criteria
• BS 8500 (parts 1–4, complementary
British Standard to EN206)
• prEN10080 Reinforcement steels
• prEN10138 Pre-stressing steels.
Of these, EN1990 is fundamental to
designers as it specifies partial factors for
loads and load combinations.1 There will
also be a number of product standards for
particular precast concrete products (Fig.
2). These may provide additional design
rules complementing those in EN1992-1-
1. Product standards currently in prepara-
tion include
• EN1168-1 Pre-stressed hollow-core
elements
• EN1168-2 Reinforced hollow-core ele-
ments
• EN13743 Precast floor plates (parts
1–3)
• EN13224 Ribbed elements
• EN13225 Linear structural elements
• WI 002 290 10 Beams and block
floor systems
• WI 002 290 04 Stairs.
Eurocode 2 along with the other design
Eurocodes 3–9 is generally expected to be
used in conjunction with EN1991
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures.2 Other
loading codes can also be used but the
designer should then be satisfied that
overall reliability of design is adequate.
When published, EN1992-1-1 and 1-2
will contain national annexes, which will
deal with matters such as partial factors
24 C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G
for material to be applied in the nation
concerned. The items to be covered in the
national annex are very limited—six in
1992-1-1 and three in 1992-1-2.
The date of publication of the related
documents cannot be predicted with cer-
tainty. The following is anticipated.
EN1990 together with a number of load-
ing codes are likely to precede the publi-
cation of EN1992-1-1. EN206 has already
been published and the complementary
British Standard is expected to be pub-
lished soon. The product standards will
follow closely after the publication of
EN1992-1-1.
In common with other Eurocodes,
Eurocode 2 adopts limit-state design prin-
ciples and verification by the partial-factor
method. In general, ultimate and service-
ability limit states are considered.
Design expressions based on
cylinder strength of concrete
All the expressions in the code use the
cylinder strength of concrete, the charac-
teristic value of which is represented by
Fig. 2. Structural concrete designers will also
need to refer to EN standards for concrete
products, such as EN1168-2 for reinforced
hollow-core elements
the symbol fck (characteristic values of
parameters are denoted by k and design
values—which are the characteristic val-
ues modified by a partial safety factor—
are denoted by d).
The quality control of concrete can still
be carried out using the conventional
cube test and the code tabulates the rela-
tionship between the cylinder and cube
strengths. For fck values up to 60 MPa the
cube strengths can be approximately
taken as 1⋅25 × cylinder strength. The
code recommendations are valid for fck
values in the range 12 MPa–90 MPa for
normal concrete.
In Eurocode 2 the sign convention for
compressive stress is negative.
For partial factors for loads and actions,
all Eurocodes are required to refer to
EN1990 Eurocode: Basis for structural
design,1 which provides recommended
values. The actual values to be used in
any country will be indicated in their
respective national annex.
The recommended values of partial fac-
tors for ‘permanent’ dead loads (γG) is 1⋅35
(1⋅4 in BS 8110) and for ‘variable’ imposed
loads (γQ) is 1⋅5 (1⋅6 in BS 8110). Wind
load is treated as any other imposed load
and γQ of 1⋅5 applies. The recommended
value for partial factor on pre-stressing
loads (γp) is 1⋅0 when it is favourable and
1⋅3 when it is unfavourable.
Eurocode 2 recommends values for par-
tial factors for materials γM and these are
also to be confirmed by national annexes.
The recommended values are shown in
Table 1. Partial factors for materials for
serviceability limit states is 1⋅0. Annex A
indicates possible methods of reducing
the values of γM on the basis of quality-
control measures.

‘‘ ’’
The durability requirements of Eurocode 2 are related to the exposure classes
defined in EN206
Table 1. Partial factors to be used for concrete materials in verifying ultimate limit state
Design situation Partial safety factors
Concrete (γc)
Permanent and variable 1⋅5
Accidental 1⋅2
BS 8110 comparison 1⋅5 (but 1⋅25 for shear,
1⋅4 for bond)
Table 2. Minimum cover requirements for Eurocode 2 exposure classes and how these compare
with BS8110 (without allowance for tolerances)
Exposure class XO XC1 XC2 XC3 XC4 XD1 XD2 XD3 XS1 XS2 XS3
Cover requirement (mm) Eurocode 2 10
BS 8110
comparison 15–20
The code lists many relevant design
parameters in Table 3.1. Values for creep
and shrinkage are given but these need
only be used in the absence of better data
for particular concretes. In addition to
drying shrinkage, it is now required to
consider autogenous shrinkage, which
occurs during the hardening of the con-
crete. It is proportional to the strength of
concrete and is therefore significant for
high strength concrete.
Stress-strain relationships for structural
analysis and section design are provided.
For the latter there are three choices
• parabolic rectangular
• bilinear
• rectangular.
Most practical designs will be carried out
using the simplified rectangular stress block
as shown in Fig. 3. The value of λ is 0⋅8 for
fck up to and including 50 MPa and 0⋅9 –
(fck/500) for fck over 50 MPa. The value of
the compressive stress is fcd = fck/γc. The
resulting stresses will be considerably high-
er than currently used in the UK, so the UK
national annex is likely to reduce them.
εcu3 fcd
Ac x λx
d
As Fc
εs
Fig. 3. The simplified rectangular stress block is
likely to be the most frequently used of the three
stress-strain methods provided in Eurocode 2
Steel reinforcement (γs) Prestressing tendons (γs)
1⋅15 1⋅15
1⋅0 1⋅0
1⋅05 1⋅05
15 25 30 45 45
15–30 25–45 45
Many designers will find EN10080, the
standard for reinforcement steel, very
unusual as it only specifies general require-
ments and definitions for the essential
properties. It also only specifies the tests
to be carried out to verify the properties
declared by the manufacturer and does
not specify any properties itself. Eurocode
2 has thus been compelled to provide the
data necessary for designers. These are
listed in Table 3.4 of the code and they
include yield strength, ductility parameters
(three classes), bendability requirements
and bond characteristics. Three ductility
classes are included, namely classes
A(least ductile), B and C (most ductile).
The code is valid for steels, covered by
EN10080, with yield strength up to 600
MPa. By implication plain bars are not
recognised by Eurocode 2 as they are not
covered by EN10080.
Durability to meet one of six
categories of exposure
The durability requirements of Eurocode
2 are related to the exposure classes defined
in EN206. Six classes are designated
• no risk of corrosion (XO)
• corrosion induced by carbonation
(XC1 to XC4)
Fc
• corrosion induced by chlorides (XD1
to XD3)
• corrosion induced by chlorides from
sea water (XS1 to XS3)
• freeze-thaw attack (XF1 toXF4)
• chemical attack (XA1 to XA3).
The idea of this elaborate classification
is to clarify the risks to concrete and rein-
EN1992 EUROCODE 2:
DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
forcement. It will also allow the selection
of the best concrete for each situation.
EN206 specifies in appendix F the mini-
mum cement content, maximum
water–cement ratio, minimum air content
and other requirements. Indicative
strength classes which are likely to satisfy
the requirements of minimum cement con-
tent and maximum water-cement ratios
are given in annex C of EN1992-1-1.
Table 4.3 of Eurocode 2 gives the mini-
mum cover requirements for various expo-
sure classes. The cover shown in
construction drawings should include an
additional allowance for tolerance. A value
of 10 mm has been recommended in
EN13670 Execution of concrete structures.
There are only approximate compar-
isons of the exposure classes in Eurocode
2 and in BS 8110 (Table 2). Unlike the
British Standard, Eurocode 2 provides no
explicit guidance on the trade-off between
cover and concrete strength.
All proven methods of structural
analysis acceptable
Any proven method of structural analy-
sis appropriate to the problem being con-
sidered is acceptable. Thus linear elastic
methods, with and without redistribution,
and plastic methods (static methods such
as strip and strut-and-tie and kinematic
methods such as yield-line) can be used.
The redistribution formula currently in
the draft is
δ ≥ 0⋅4 + [0⋅6 + (0⋅0014/εcu)] (χ/d)
≥ 0⋅7 for class B and C reinforcement
≥ 0⋅8 for class A reinforcement
In this expression δ is the ratio of the
redistributed moment to the elastic bend-
ing moment, χ is the depth of the neutral
axis after redistribution, d is the effective
depth and εcu is the ultimate strain. This
formula is the subject of further discus-
sion and may change.
Unlike the pre-standard ENV version,
the EN version of Eurocode 2 now deals
with the second-order effects (such as
slender columns) under analysis, which is
logical. For individual members, three
methods are given
• general
• nominal stiffness
• curvature.
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G 25
 NARAYANAN

Compression chord Strut Shear to be checked by variable

V cot θ strut inclination method
Fcd
1 z
The shear checks are now to be carried
α M
d 2 N out using only the variable strut inclina-
θ z = 0.9d
1 z tion method. The basic model is shown in
2 V
V Fig. 4. The resistance of members without
Ftd shear reinforcement is given by
s Tensile chord Shear reinforcement

VRd,ct = [(018/γc) κ (100ρl fck)0⋅333 – 0⋅15σcp]bwd

where κ is a size factor with values

between 1⋅0 and 2⋅0, ρl is the area of lon-
gitudinal reinforcement expressed as a
fraction of (bwd) and σcp is the axial stress
bw if any. Fig. 5 shows the values of VRd, ct
bw = (b1 + b2)/2 for different values of ρl and three values
of member depth for fck = 20 MPa.
If shear reinforcement is required it is
b1 bw obtained from the following for vertical
b2
links

Fig. 4. Basic model for checking shear resistance of reinforced concrete sections
Criteria for neglecting the second-order
effects are the same as before
λ ≤ 25(2- (M01/M02))
where the slenderness ratio λ = effec-
tive length/radius of gyration and M01
and M02 are the first-order moments in
non-sway frames.
Limited calibration suggests that the
proposals for the curvature method give
similar results to the ENV version and
BS 8110. The nominal stiffness method
appears to be more conservative.
At the request of the UK, a section on
flat slabs is now included. The provisions
As,w V 1
= b ED
bss w.d 0.9fywdcotθ
are similar to those in BS 8110.
The ultimate limit-state requirements
for the design of members in bending where VED is the applied shear force,
with or without axial forces have not fywd is the design yield strength of shear
changed. However, the value of the con- reinforcement, bw is the web width and s
crete stress in the ENV pre-standard was is the spacing of links. The value of cot θ
α fcd, with a general value of α = 0⋅85. should lie between 2⋅5 and 1⋅0.
Now α = 1⋅0. This means that the Maximum value of the applied shear
moment of resistance of sections (based stress is limited to
on concrete strength) will be higher than
in the pre-standard. Similarly, there will
VED 0.9 υ fcd
be some enhancement in the axial load [ ] max =
bw.d (cotθ + tanθ )
capacity of columns when controlled by
compression—that is for combinations of
axial load and bending moment above the where υ = 0⋅6[1–fck/250]. There are
balance point in the interaction diagram. requirements for minimum and maximum

VRd,ct 0⋅9 VEd 0⋅8

d=200mm
bc*d 0⋅8 bc*d 0⋅7
fck = 50 N 2
[ mm2 ] 0⋅6 mm
[ ]
N 0⋅7
mm2
0⋅6
d=500mm
0⋅5
0⋅5 d=1000mm 0⋅4
fd = 20 N 2 d = 500mm
0⋅4 0⋅3 mm
fck = 20 N 2 ρ1 = 1⋅00%
0⋅3 mm 0⋅2
0⋅2 Act 0⋅1 fywd = 460 = 400 N 2
1⋅15 mm
pe =
0⋅08

0⋅12

0⋅1 bc*d 0⋅0

0⋅0 0⋅2 0⋅4 0⋅6 0⋅8 1⋅0 1⋅2 1⋅4 1⋅6 1⋅8 2⋅0
0⋅0 Asw[%]
0⋅0 0⋅2 0⋅4 0⋅6 0⋅8 1⋅0 1⋅2 1⋅4 1⋅6 1⋅8 2⋅0
cot
2⋅5 1⋅0 ρw = *
cot s bw
100ρ1 2⋅5 1⋅0

Fig. 6. Determining relationship between shear reinforcement (rw) and

Fig. 5. How shear resistance (VRd,ct) of concrete elements without shear
applied shear force (VED) for two different concrete strengths (fck) using
reinforcement varies with longitudinal reinforcement (rl) and depth (d)
the variable strut inclination metho

26 C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G

‘‘
Generally the results of Eurocode 2 and BS8110 will be comparable
reinforcement. Fig. 6 shows a typical rela-
tionship between the various parameters
discussed above for concrete strengths
fck = 20 MPa and 50 MPa, for a beam
with d = 500 mm and ρl = 1%.
Torsion is treated exactly in the same
way as it was in the ENV pre-standard,
that is all cross sections are transformed
into hollow sections and the shear flow in
the hollow section is then considered.
Expressions are given for shear and longi-
tudinal reinforcement.
The capacity of a member subject to
shear and torsion simultaneously, is gov-
erned by the following interaction rela-
tionships
2 2
( )( )
TED
TRd,max
+
VED
VRd,max
for solid
≤ 1 cross
sections
( )( )
TED
TRd,max
+
VED
VRd,max
for hollow
≤ 1 cross
sections
TEd and VEd are the applied torsion and
shear respectively and TRd,max and VRd,max
are the maximum capacities controlled by
the failure of struts in the model.
Punching shear is checked at the basic
control perimeter 2d from the face of the
load. For rectangular loaded areas, the
perimeter is rounded at the corners.
Expressions are given for shear reinforce-
ment when the resistance at the basic
control perimeter exceeds that of con-
crete. This formula is still under debate.
EN1992-1-1 gives better guidance for
design using strut-and-tie models. These
models are powerful design tools in dis-
continuity regions where plane sections
cannot be assumed to be plane. Members
with holes and notches can also be
designed using these models.
Generally the results of Eurocode 2 and
BS 8110 will be comparable. If the UK
national annex allows higher values for
compression stress blocks, some members
now reinforced for compression will not
need to be. However, the status quo is like-
ly to prevail. The shear design in Eurocode
2 will be more economic, particularly for
high strengths of concrete. There will be
very little difference in column design.
Serviceability stresses need to be
checked
In verifying serviceability limit states,
the three aspects covered are
•
•
stress checks
crack control
• deflection control.
The clauses dealing with stress checks
are now reduced to two principles leaving
the limiting values for stresses to national
annexes. Historically, the UK has not
checked stresses at serviceability in rein-
forced concrete.
There are differences to the clauses
dealing with cracking compared to the
ENV pre-standard. These relate to the
strain in the reinforcement to be used and
the formula for maximum crack spacing.
The final shape of these are yet to be
agreed. The provisions for control of
cracking without direct calculations are
given by way of tables for maximum bar
diameters and some spacing for various
levels of steel stress.
The most significant difference in the
section dealing with deflection is the inclu-
sion of a formula for span/depth ratios.
The UK always felt that the table in the
ENV pre-standard was too simplistic and
unduly conservative. The use of the for-
mulae is likely to result in span-depth
ratios comparable to current UK practice.
Requirements for spacing of bars,
bends, laps and anchorages are similar to
those in the ENV pre-standard. Minimum
and maximum amounts of reinforcement
for various member types are also given.
For flexural members, minimum steel is
0⋅13% and the maximum is 4%.
Minimum shear reinforcement is related
to the steel and concrete strengths. For
commonly used grades of concrete, it is
around 0⋅10% for high-tensile links and
0⋅18% for mild steel links. For columns
the minimum and maximum steel per-
centages are 0⋅2% and 4% respectively
Additional requirements are given for
lightweight concrete, which the code
defines as concrete having a closed struc-
ture and air oven-dry density not exceed-
ing 2200 kg/m3. The strength range is
from fck = 12 MPa to 80 MPa. The
strength class designations for lightweight
concrete are prefixed with LC. The value
of α for the stress block for lightweight
concrete is 0⋅85.
The design provisions for plain concrete
do not differ significantly from the ENV
EN1992 EUROCODE 2:
DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
’’
pre-standard. The partial factor for concrete
is 1⋅8 instead of 1⋅5 for reinforced concrete
Designing for accidental fire
This second section of the first part of
Eurocode 2 (EN1992-1-2) deals with the
design of concrete structures exposed to
fire. It is supplementary to the first sec-
tion for normal-temperature design. The
recommendations apply to design situa-
tions in which fire is an accidental
action—that is, it does not apply to struc-
tures permanently exposed to elevated
temperatures. The methods given are
applicable to concrete grades up to 50
MPa for normal concrete and 55 MPa for
lightweight concrete. For higher-strength
concretes, guidance is given in chapter 5
but with some limitations.
The aim of fire design is to provide the
structure with
• adequate load-bearing capacity for the
duration
• adequate insulation to limit the tem-
perature rise on the far side of the
structure not exposed to fire
• adequate integrity to prevent the for-
mation of cracks that will allow the
passage of fire and gases.
The time-temperature relationship to be
used is the curve defined in EN13501-1
for fully developed fire in a compartment.
Three types of structural analysis are per-
mitted
• member
• part of the structure
• global.
Design using tabulated data comes
under member analysis although this
approach does not involve any structural
analysis.
When calculations are undertaken,
EN1990 recommends the following load
combination
Gk + ψ1Qk + Ad
where Gk is the characteristic dead load,
Qk is the characteristic imposed load, ψ1
is the combination factor (with value less
than 1⋅0) and Ad is the accidental action.
There is a debate at present whether a
lower factor than ψ1 should be used.
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G 27
 NARAYANAN
The code permits simplifications for the
various analyses. It is also stated that
member analysis is sufficient to establish
the resistance with respect to standard
fire. Partial factors for materials are to be
confirmed in national annexes but the rec-
ommended value is 1⋅0 for both concrete
and reinforcement.
Using tabular data for fire design
In practice the majority of structures are
designed using tabular data. The informa-
tion given is similar to that found in
BS 8110 but considerably greater empha-
sis is given to detailing requirements.
Good detailing is essential for structures
to survive fire conditions. The data have
been assembled on the basis of tests con-
ducted in various countries in Europe.
Minimum dimensions and axis distance
(the distance from the face of a member
to the centre of the reinforcement) are
given for slabs, beams, columns and walls
for fire periods from 30 minutes to 240
minutes. Where the reinforcement is in
several layers, the concept of weighted
average is accepted to determine the axis
distance. The critical temperature
assumed is 500°C for reinforcement,
400°C for pre-stressing bars 300°C for
strands and wires. The values of axis-dis-
tance are given on the basis of the critical
temperature being just reached to support
the loading under fire conditions.
The table for columns now introduces
the combinations of mechanical reinforce-
ment ratio and load levels on the column
(indicative of the reserve strength) in the
normal temperature designed to arrive at
minimum dimensions. The current
requirements could result in larger
columns for the higher fire resistance peri-
ods. This matter is still under discussion.
The tabular data apply to normal weight
concrete made with siliceous aggregates.
Where calcareous aggregates are used in
beams and slabs the axis distance in the
tables should be reduced by 10%.
Reductions are also allowed for light-
weight concrete depending on the density.
Some advice on the risk of explosive
spalling is given. The risk is a function of
moisture content, aggregate type, perme-
ability of concrete and the heating rate.
When the moisture content of the con-
crete is less than 3% by weight spalling is
unlikely to occur. The code states that
28 C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G
allowance for the risk of spalling is built
into the tabulated data, where the mois-
ture content is less than 3%. In the interi-
or of most buildings with low humidity
this is likely to be the case. Where neces-
sary the local loss of cover concrete could
be taken into account and a reduced load
bearing capacity arrived at. In general sur-
face reinforcement should be provided
when the cover is 50 mm or more.
Chapter 5 gives guidance for high-
strength concrete. A number of anti-
spalling measures are recommended and
at least one of these is required to be
incorporated in the design. These include
• surface reinforcement
• protective layers
• addition of propylene fibres
• testing to demonstrate that the risk is
acceptable.
The general verification procedure for
normal-strength concrete can also be used
for high-strength concrete. The tabular
method for columns will be valid if the
axis distance is increased by 35%. For
beams and slabs the tabulated axis dis-
tance values are required to be increased
by 10%.
Other information is provided in annexes
• annex A provides temperature profiles
for beams, slabs and columns
• annex B is concerned with simplified
calculation methods. Two alternatives
are given—500°C isotherm and zone
methods
• annex C gives the details of proce-
dures for assessing the buckling
strength of columns—it includes a
number of tables for minimum dimen-
sions related to slenderness ratio and
load levels
• annex D provides a simplified practi-
cal procedure for designing beams
and slabs.
Conclusions
Designers who had familiarised them-
selves with the ENV version of Eurocode
2 will find that there are some significant
changes in a number of areas. However,
the general process remains the same.
Those familiar with the methods in
BS 8110 will find the Eurocode proce-
dures not too dissimilar to current prac-
tice but inevitably they will need to go
through a learning curve. On the whole
the designs resulting from the two codes
are likely to be reasonably comparable.
A number of initiatives are already
afoot to produce design aids, manuals and
books on Eurocode 2 and these should
assist the practitioner. It is hoped that the
above summary is also helpful.
References
1. GULVANESSIAN H. EN1990 Eurocode:
Basis for structural design (this issue).
2. ENV13670 Execution of concrete struc-
tures, CEN, Brussels.
3. EN206-1-2000 Concrete: performance,
production, placing and compliance crite-
ria, CEN, Brussels.
4. BS 8500 (parts 1–4, complementary
British Standard to EN206), BSI, 2000.
5. prEN10080 Reinforcement steels, CEN,
Brussels.
6. prEN10138 Pre-stressing steels, CEN,
Brussels.
7. EN1168-1 Pre-stressed hollow-core ele-
ments, CEN, Brussels.
8. EN1168-2 Reinforced hollow-core ele-
ments, CEN, Brussels.
9. EN13743 Pre-cast floor plates (parts
1–3), CEN, Brussels.
10. EN13224 Ribbed elements, CEN,
Brussels.
12. EN13225 Linear structural elements,
CEN, Brussels.
13. WI002 290 10 Beams and block floor
systems.
14. WI002 290 04 Stairs.
15. GULVANESSIAN H. EN1991 Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures (this issue).
What do you
think?
If you would like to comment on
this paper, please email up to
500 words to the editor at
simon.fullalove@ice.org.uk.
If you would like to write a paper up
to 2000 words about your own
experience in this or any related
area of civil engineering, the
editor will be happy to
provide any help or advice
you need.