british comparison ec3 and ec4 381324
TRANSCRIPT
Steel and Steel and ConcreteComposite Buildings
Companion Document toEN 1993 and EN 1994
On 5th May 2006 the responsibilities of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)
transferred to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
Department for Communities and Local Government
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU
Telephone: 020 7944 4400
Website: www.communities.gov.uk
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and ConcreteComposite Buildings – 2005Whilst this document provides practical guidance on the use of Eurocode BS EN 1993 and 1994– Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Structures. It shall not be used for the design ofactual projects until both the Eurocode and its National Annex are published by the BritishStandards Institution and approved for use by the First Secretary of State for England andWales.It should be noted that the guidance has been based on the latest draft EurocodeBS EN 1993 and 1994 available at the time of writing.
© Crown Copyright, 2007
Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.
This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or mediumfor research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject toit being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must beacknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified.
Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply
for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp,
or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements
House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or email:
If you require this publication in an alternative format please email
DCLG Publications
PO Box 236
Wetherby
West Yorkshire
LS23 7NB
Tel: 08701 226 236
Fax: 08701 226 237
Textphone: 08701 207 405
Email: [email protected]
or online via the DCLG website: www.communities.gov.uk
January 2007
Product Code: 06 BD 04021 (f)
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 Steel Structures 8
1.2 Composite steel and concrete structures 9
1.3 Aim and scope of this publication 9
CHAPTER 2 EUROCODES SYSTEM 10
2.1 Eurocodes Terminology 12
2.1.1 Types of clause used in the Eurocodes 12
CHAPTER 3 GENERAL DESIGN ISSUES 14
3.1 Convention for member axes 14
3.2 The explicit use of γ factors 14
3.2.1 Symbols used in the Eurocodes 15
3.3 Documents required when designing with the Eurocodes 16
CHAPTER 4 EN1993 STEEL STRUCTURES 17
4.1 Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings 17
4.1.1 Material Properties 17
4.1.2 Ductility requirements for structural steel 17
4.1.3 Fracture toughness 18
4.1.4 Structural stability of frames 18
4.1.5 Structural imperfections 19
4.1.6 Buckling – members in compression 19
4.1.7 Buckling – uniform members in bending 20
4.1.8 Buckling – uniform members in bending and axial compression 21
4.2 Part 1-2: General rules – Structural fire design 21
4.2.1 Material properties 21
4.2.2 Structural fire design 23
4.2.3 Members in compression 23
4.2.4 Combined bending and axial compression 23
4.2.5 Structural connections 23
4.3 Part 1-8: Design of joints 23
4.3.1 Definitions 24
4.3.2 Material properties 24
4.3.3 Groups of fasteners 24
4.3.4 Analysis, classification and modelling 24
4.3.5 Structural joints connecting H or I sections 26
4.4 Part 1-10: Material toughness andthrough-thickness properties 27
4.4.1 Fracture toughness 27
4.4.2 Through-thickness properties 28
4.5 Part 5: Steel Piling 29
CHAPTER 5 EN1994 STEEL AND CONCRETECOMPOSITE STRUCTURES 31
5.1 Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings 31
5.1.1 Material Properties 31
5.1.2 Structural stability 32
5.1.3 Structural imperfections 32
5.1.4 Calculation of action (load) effects 32
5.1.5 Beams – Ultimate Limit State 33
5.1.6 Beam serviceability limit state 34
5.1.7 Lateral torsional buckling 35
5.1.8 Members in compression 35
5.1.9 Composite joints in frames for buildings 36
5.1.10Composite slabs with profiled metal sheeting 36
5.2 Part 1-2: Structural fire design 37
5.2.1 Fire exposure 37
5.2.2 Material Partial Factors 37
5.2.3 Structural analysis 37
5.2.4 Design procedures 37
5.2.5 Unprotected Composite Slabs 38
CHAPTER 6 EFFECTS ON UK STRUCTURALDESIGN PROCEDURES 40
5
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN ROUTE MAPS 41
CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES 54
APPENDICES 56
Appendix A – Eurocode clause reference tables 56
WORKED EXAMPLES 61
Anchored Sheet Pile Wall 62
Cantilever 83
Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall 90
Simply Supported Beam with Full Lateral Restraint 104
Simply Supported Beam with Lateral Restraint at the Load Points 111
Steel Driven Pile in Stiff Clay 119
Base Plate without Bending Moment 128
Simply Supported Beam with Full Lateral Restraint – Fire Limit State 134
Simply Supported Composite Beam – Fire Limit State 148
Partial Depth (flexible) End Plate Connection 157
Connections in Fire 176
Column in Simple Construction – Fire Limit State 186
Column with Axial and Bi-Axial Moments (Due to simple connection) 195
Simply Supported Steel and Concrete Composite Beam 210
Concrete Filled CHS Composite Column 223
Continuous Steel and Concrete Composite Beam 235
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
6
Executive Summary
7
Executive Summary
The aim of this Companion Document is to provide UK designers with an overview of the
Eurocodes system, and with detailed information for the principal parts of Eurocode 3 and
Eurocode 4 namely:
Eurocode 3
Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings
Part 1-2 Structural fire design
Part 1-8 Design of joints
Part 1-10 Material toughness and through-thickness properties
Part 5 Piling
Eurocode 4
Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings
Part 1-2 Structural fire design
The scope of this document was developed in consultation with industry. It comprises:
• An overview of the impact that Eurocodes 3 and 4 will have in the UK
• Route maps for the design of building elements to the Eurocodes in the UK
• The major technical differences between the Eurocodes and the UK Standards
The document focuses on guidance for buildings. Design guidance relating to bridges and
other civil engineering works is not considered. Where the Eurocode design guidance is the
same as that currently (late 2004) given in British Standards or there is little change between
the Codes no discussion has been included. To keep this document concise detailed design
guidance is not presented.
BRE and Buro Happold have made every effort to ensure the accuracy and quality of all the
information in this document when first published. However, they can take no responsibility for
the subsequent use of this information, nor for any errors or omissions it may contain.
© Queen's Printer and Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
8
1 Introduction
The objectives of the Eurocodes are
• To establish a common set of design rules for buildings and civil engineering works to be
used across Europe.
• To remove the barriers to ‘free’ movement of products and engineering services between
European countries, by removing the obstacles caused by different nationally codified
practices for the assessment of structural reliability.
The emerging Eurocodes (ENs) have been developed following work undertaken to modify
the European Prestandards (ENVs). The ENVs were published with National Application
Documents in the early 1990s to allow Designers to undertake provisional designs and make
comments on their content. Unlike the Eurocodes the ENVs did not have the status of
European Standards.
Following a period of co-existence the current British Standards will be superseded by the
Eurocodes. These Eurocodes will be denoted as BS EN in the UK.
The Eurocodes can be considered to be divided into codes that provide fundamental
guidance for structural design (Basis of Structural design), guidance that may apply to all
designs (loads, geotechnics and seismic) and detailed guidance for structural materials (steel
concrete etc.).
1.1 Steel Structures
EN 1993 (Eurocode 3) gives structural design rules for steel structures. It is divided into six
main design areas, which are sub-divided into the following parts:
Part 1 General rules and rules for buildings Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings Part 1-2 Structural fire design Part 1-3 General rules Supplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting Part 1-4 Stainless steels Part 1-5 Plated structural elements Part 1-6 Strength and stability of shell elements Part 1-7 Strength and stability of planar plated structures transversely loaded
1
Part 1-8 Design of joints Part 1-9 Fatigue strength of steel structures Part 1-10 Material toughness and through-thickness properties Part 1-11 Design of structures with tension components made of steel Part 1-12 Additional rules for the extension of EN 1993 to steel grades up to S700
Part 2 Steel Bridges
Part 3 Towers, masts and chimneys
Part 3-1 Towers and masts
Part 3-2 Chimneys
Part 4 Silos, tanks and pipelines
1 It should be noted that while there is an ENV version of part 1-7 there may not be an EN
version of this part of Eurocode 3.
Introduction
9
Part 4-1 SilosPart 4-2 TanksPart 4-3 Pipelines
Part 5 Piling
Part 6 Crane supporting structures
1.2 Composite steel and concrete structures
EN1994 (Eurocode 4) gives structural design rules for composite steel and concretestructures. It is divided into two main design areas, which are sub-divided into the followingparts:
Part 1 General rules and rules for buildingsPart 1-1 General rules and rules for buildingsPart 1-2 Structural fire design
Part 2 Bridges
1.3 Aim and scope of this publication
The aim of this Companion Document is to provide UK designers with an overview of theEurocodes system, and with more detail given for parts of Eurocode 3 and Eurocode 4.
This Companion Document focuses on the guidance given for buildings. Design guidancepresented in the Eurocodes relating to bridges and other civil engineering works is notconsidered.
The main differences between the current British Standards (2004) and the Eurocodes 3 and4 are discussed. Where the design guidance is the same or there is little change between theCodes no discussion has been included.
To keep this document concise detailed design guidance is not presented.
The parts of Eurocode 3 and 4 that are covered by this companion document are:
Eurocode 3Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildingsPart 1-2 Structural fire designPart 1-8 Design of jointsPart 1-10 Material toughness and through-thickness propertiesPart 5 Piling
Eurocode 4Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildingsPart 1-2 Structural fire design
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
10
p g
2 Eurocodes System
The numbering system used by the structural Eurocodes is EN199#-#-#: ####. The 199#number is not the publication date, but the number of the Eurocode. The second and third #denote the part of the Eurocode. The year of publication is given after the Eurocode number(####). Eurocode 3 part 1.1 is used here to illustrate the Eurocodes numbering system thatwill be used in the UK, BS EN 1993-1-1:2004. The letters BS are added to the front of theEurocode number to show that it has been published by BSI2 and contains the UK Nationaltitle page, forward and annex.
The structural Eurocode system will contain the following codes:
BS EN 1990 — Basis of Structural DesignBS EN 1991 — Actions on StructuresBS EN 1992 — Design of Concrete StructuresBS EN 1993 — Design of Steel StructuresBS EN 1994 — Design of Composite Steel and Concrete StructuresBS EN 1995 — Design of Timber StructuresBS EN 1996 — Design of Masonry StructuresBS EN 1997 — Geotechnical DesignBS EN 1998 — Design of Structures for Earthquake ResistanceBS EN 1999 — Design of Aluminium Structures
The organisation of design guidance in the Eurocode system is different to the current BritishStandards (BS) system. Safety, serviceability and durability design guidance for differenttypes of structures is presented in BS EN 1990 (Basis of Structural Design), the current BSsystem presents this design guidance within each material code. Therefore a copy of Basisof Structural Design is required for all designs performed using the Eurocodes. For both theEurocodes and current BS systems product standards are used with design codes. The linksbetween the different Eurocodes are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Links between the individual Eurocodes
2 British Standards Institute
EN1990
EN1991
EN1992, EN1993, EN1994
EN1995, EN1996, EN1999
EN1997 EN1998
Structural safety,serviceability & durability
Actions on structures
Design & detailing(material codes)
Geotechnical & Seismicdesign
Product harmonisedtechnical standards
ETAs
Eurocodes System
11
The individual material Eurocodes are divided into parts. Part 1 gives general rules and rules
for buildings, Parts 2, 3 etc. give rules for other applications (bridges etc.). These ‘high level’
parts are divided into sub-parts.
In addition to the ‘inter-action’ between the materials codes and Basis of Structural Design the
parts of each material code may cross-reference each other. This is due to the Eurocodes
presenting guidance in only one place (i.e. rules are not repeated in several parts) and
subsequently referring to that clause in other parts of the Eurocode. In some cases parts of
different material Eurocodes may be referenced e.g. a part of EN 1994 (Composite Steel and
Concrete Structures) may reference a part of EN 1992 (Concrete Structures) or EN 1993
(Steel Structures).
Each part of a Eurocode published by a National Standards Authority will be divided into
distinct sections, these are:
• National title page
• National forward
• EN title page
• EN main text
• EN Annex(es)
o Normative Annexes contain design rules / methods / values to be used when designing
to the Eurocode.
o Informative Annexes contain recommended design rules / methods or informative
values, e.g. snow densities.
• National Annex
The technical content of the EN main text and EN Annex(es) is the same across the whole of
Europe. Those sections and the EN title page make up the 'EN' document published by
CEN3. The National Standards Authority (BSI in the UK) is responsible for developing and
publishing the National title page, National forward and National Annex. The addition of these
National sections in the UK makes the 'EN' document in to a 'BS EN' document.
Each part of a Eurocode will have an accompanying National Annex. These annexes will
contain information that should be referred to when designing a structure to be constructed in
that country. Therefore if a UK designer was designing a building to be constructed in France
they would need to refer to the French National Annexes for all the Eurocodes used during
design and not the UK National Annexes.
The National Annex will contain information on the values / methods that should be used,
where a national choice is allowed in the main text of the Eurocode. The national choices are
collectively referred to as Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs). NDPs may be given for
coefficient values, loads (both applied and self-weight) and where a choice in design
approach is given. The EN main text specifies recommended values / approaches, the
National Annex can either accept the recommendations given or specify different values /
approaches to be used.
The National Annex will state how / if the content of an Informative EN Annex may be used for
the design of structures to be constructed in that country. Information given in a Normative EN
Annex may only be altered by the National Annex if the EN text allows different rules / values
to be given in the National Annex. References may be given to separate documents that give
guidance to help with the design of a structure. Such guidance is known as Non-Conflicting
Complementary Information (NCCI) and may not be presented in the National Annex itself.
3 European committee for standardization
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
12
The numbering system used in the Eurocodes follows the International Organisation for
Standardisation (ISO) practice i.e. a comma is used in place of a decimal point.
2.1 Eurocodes Terminology
The Eurocode system uses different terminology to that used in the current BS system. An
important change that will effect every design approach is the change in terminology for
loading. In the Eurocodes the term “loads” is replaced by the term “actions”. The Eurocodes
also introduce the terms permanent action, variable action and accidental action.
Permanent actions include the self-weight of the structural and non-structural elements.
These self-weights are combined to form a single value for consideration during design
checks. Loads due to prestressing are also considered as permanent actions.
Variable actions are defined in Basis of Structural Design as ‘actions for which the variation in
magnitude with time is neither negligible nor monotonic.’ Loads considered as variable
actions include:
• Imposed floor & roof loads
• Snow loads
• Wind loads
Variable actions are sub-divided into two groups:
• Leading variable actions
These are variable actions which when acting on a structure cause the most significant
structural effects.
• Accompanying variable actions
These are variable actions that act on a structure at the same time as the leading
variable action.
Accidental actions are caused by events that usually have a short duration but have a
significant effect. It is considered that such events have a low probability of occurrence
during the design working life of a structure. Accidental design situations that should be
considered include fire and explosion.
Some variable actions may be classed as accidental actions for design checks. These are,
snow, wind and seismic. The Eurocodes and National Annexes identify when they may be
considered as accidental actions.
Another difference in the terminology used is that the Eurocodes use the term "resistance"
rather than "capacity" when defining the value of the forces that can be resisted by an
element before it fails i.e. moment resistance, shear force resistance etc.
The term "execution" is used in the Eurocodes to define all the processes associated with the
erection of a building or civil engineering works. The term may be applied to both on and off
site processes.
2.1.1 Types of clause used in the Eurocodes
The Eurocodes define two types of clause, Principles and Application rules. These terms will
be new to UK designers as the current BS system does not contain these clause types.
Principles are generally denoted by the letter P following a clause number, e.g. 1.3(2)P.
Principles are ‘general statements and definitions for which there is no alternative, as well as,
Eurocodes System
13
requirements and analytical methods for which no alternative is permitted unless specifically
stated.’
Application rules are generally denoted by a clause number without the letter P, e.g. 1.3(2).
Application rules are ‘generally recognised rules which comply with the Principles and satisfy
their requirements.’ It is permitted to use alternative design rules in place of those given in
Application rules. However, it must be shown that the alternative design rules meet the
requirements of any relevant Principles. It must also be shown that the alternative rules
provide equivalent structural safety, serviceability and durability to that expected from the
Eurocodes. If a design is carried out using an alternative rule to that given in an Application
rule the design cannot be said to be wholly in accordance with the Eurocode. However, it can
be said that the design is in accordance with the Principles of the Eurocode. This may have
implications for CE marking.
The Eurocodes also use different terms to identify when a rule must be used or when an
alternative to that given can be used. When the term shall is used in a clause the rule must
be used (as for a Principle). If a clause contains the word should an alternative to that rule
can be used (as for an Application rule).
The majority of Eurocodes make the distinction between Principle and Application rules using
the notation discussed earlier. However of the Eurocodes considered by this Companion
Document, EN1993-1-1 (General rules), EN1993-1-2 (Fire design) and EN1993-1-10
(material toughness and through-thickness properties), do not currently (November 2004) use
the letter P to denote a Principle, instead only the term shall identifies a rule as a Principle.
EN1993-1-1 does present supplementary guidance for the design of steel buildings, denoted
by the letter B after the clause number e.g. 5.1.1(4)B.
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
14
3 General Design Issues
3.1 Convention for member axes
The Eurocodes define the member axes differently to BS 5950. The Eurocodes system is in
keeping with the system generally used in computer software for global structural analysis. It
defines the longitudinal axis of the member as x-x, with the major axis of the cross-section as
y-y and the minor axis as z-z. The convention used in BS 5950 defines the major axis of the
cross-section as x-x, the minor axis as y-y and the longitudinal axis of the member as z-z.
The same convention is used for the u-u and v-v axes for angle sections in both Eurocode 3
and BS 5950.
Designers unfamiliar with using the Eurocodes should pay particular attention to the
difference in axes convention. This is particularly important when using section tables that
use the BS 5950 convention. Figure 2 shows the axes convention and notation used for a
universal beam section.
Figure 2. Member axes convention and dimension symbols used in the Eurocodes
3.2 The explicit use of factors
In contrast to the current British Standards the Eurocodes do not ‘hide’ the material partial
factors ( Mi). This results in expressions appearing more complex, or different property values
compared with those currently used in the UK.
An example of expressions with an increase in the number of terms from the British Standard
to the Eurocodes is the resistance of a cross-section for uniform compression:
0M
yRd,c
AfN
�= For Class 1, 2 or 3 cross-sections
Where: NcRd is the resistance of the cross-section for uniform compression (N)
A is the cross-sectional area (mm2)
fy is the yield strength (N/mm2)
� M0 is the partial material factor for the resistance of the cross-section
d
tf
r
tw
b
h
z
z
y y
γ
γM0
(γMi)
General Design Issues
15
3.2.1 Symbols used in the Eurocodes
The Eurocodes use different symbols for section properties compared with those used in BS5950. The section properties with different symbols used in the Eurocode and BS 5950 aregiven in Table 1 and shown in Figure 2. Section properties not included in Table 1 have thesame symbols in both codes.
Table 1. Section properties with different symbols used in the Eurocodes and BS 5950
Symbol used in design code
Section property BS 5950 Eurocode
Depth of cross-section D hEffective section modulus Zeff Weff
Elastic section modulus Z Wel
Flange thickness T tf
Net area of cross-section An Aeff
Outer diameter of circularsections
D d
Plastic section modulus S Wpl
Radius of gyration r iRadius of root fillet -channel sections*
r r1
Torsional constant J IT
Warping constant H Iw
Web thickness t tw
Width of cross-section B b* Symbol used for radius of root fillet for other sections does not differ between codes
In addition to the section property symbols given in Table 1, symbols for other coefficients andvalues differ between the Eurocodes and British Standards. Table 2 presents some Latinupper case letters used in the Eurocodes to define actions and forces. The letters given inTable 2 define a number of different terms within the British Standards therefore a directcomparison can not be given.
Table 2. Examples of Latin upper case letters used within the Eurocodes to define actionsand forces
Terms Latin upper case letter used
within the Eurocodes system
Actions (General) FPermanent action G
Variable action Q
Moment M
Axial force N
Shear force VResistance of element (used as themain symbol or as a subscript)
R
Effect of an action (used as a subscriptto one of the above)
E
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
16
The symbols used by the Eurocodes can have long chains of subscripts. This appears
cumbersome at first, however with use this system will be found to help interpretation
because the subscripts result in symbols that are nearly self defining. The multiple subscripts
used in the Eurocodes have been assembled following the guidance given in ISO3898: 1987,
commas are used to separate the multiple subscripts. Examples of the use of multiple
subscripts in the Eurocodes are given in Table 3.
Table 3. Examples of symbols with multiple subscripts used in the Eurocodes
Terms Eurocode symbol
Design bending moment about the y-y axis My.Ed
Design resistance to bending moment about the y-y axis My.Rd
Characteristic resistance to bending moment about the y-y axis My,Rk
Plastic design shear resistance Vpl,Rd
Design resistance to tension forces Nt,Rd
Effective cross-sectional area for local buckling when considering plate buckling
Ac,eff,loc
Minimum elastic section modulus Wel.min
3.3 Documents required when designing with the Eurocodes
The Eurocodes present Principles and Application rules for design rather than design
guidance. This approach results in information that is considered to be ‘textbook’ information
being omitted. Therefore the designer must rely on appropriate textbooks/design guides to
provide this information. Information that is omitted from Eurocodes 3 and 4 includes:
• Calculation of buckling lengths for members in compression.
• Determining the non-dimensional slenderness parameter for later torsional buckling and
torsional or flexural torsional buckling.
• Determining the critical moment for lateral torsional buckling.
• Tables giving expressions to determine moments in continuous beams. The above list should not be considered as exhaustive.
The structure and the content of the Eurocodes results in the following documents being
required for design:
• Eurocodes
o EN1990 – Basis of Structural Design
o EN1991 – Actions on Structures
o EN199# - Material codes (normally several parts will be needed)
o EN1997 & EN1998 – Geotechnical and Seismic design
• Textbooks, design guides or similar sources of information
• Product standards / manufacturers’ information
EN 1993 Steel Structures
17
4 EN1993 Steel Structures
The following sections highlight the main differences between the guidance given in Eurocode3 and BS 5950.
4.1 Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings
EN1993-1-1 [1] (hereafter referred to as EC3-1-1) gives general structural design rules forsteel structures and buildings. Steel grades from S235 to S460 are covered by the guidancegiven in EC3-1-1. BS 5950: Part 1 covers steel grades from S275 to S460. Part 1-12 ofEurocode 3 will present guidance that can be used to apply the rules given in part 1-1 to steelgrades up to S700.
4.1.1 Material Properties
Clause 3.2.1(1) of EC3-1-1 allows the National Annex to choose between the nominal valuesfor the yield and ultimate strength of structural steel given in the product standard BS EN10025 and those given in Table 3.1 of EC3-1-1.
The material properties for structural steels given in BS 5950: Part 1 [2] are based on theproperties given in the product standard BS EN 10025 [3].
The main difference between the properties given in the product standard and those given inEC3-1-1 is that the simplified table in EC3 uses a reduced number of thickness steps. Theresult is that for steel thickness between 16mm and 40mm and between 63mm and 80mm thevalues given in Table 3.1 of EC3-1-1 are approximately 4% higher than those values given inboth BS 5950:Part 1 and BS EN 10025. Furthermore, Table 3.1 only gives values up to80mm thick while BS EN 10025 gives values up to 250mm and BS 5950 Part 1 has amaximum thickness of 150mm. The UK National Annex to EC3-1-1 may recommend the useof the nominal values given in BS EN 10025 in place of those given in Table 3.1.
4.1.2 Ductility requirements for structural steel
The ductility requirements given in EC3-1-1 apply to all steels regardless of the method usedfor global analysis. Whilst EC3-1-1 allows the National Annex to define ductility limits, theEurocode recommended limits are:
• fu/fy≥ 1.10• Elongation at failure not less than 15%• εu ≥ 15εy
Where:fu is the ultimate strengthfy is the yield strengthεu is the ultimate strainεy is the yield strain (fy / E)
BS 5950: Part 1 has a different approach. It states that the design strength py should not begreater than Us/1.2 where Us is the minimum tensile strength Rm specified in the relevantproduct standard (BS EN 10025). This limit applies to all grades of steel regardless of the
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
18
method used for global analysis. However when plastic global analysis is used the steel
grades must satisfy the following additional criteria:
• fu/fy � 1.20
• Elongation at failure not less than 15%
• � u � 20 � y
A comparison of the above limits shows that the EC3-1-1 limits are less onerous that those
given in BS 5950: Part 1.
The reason for the differences in the two sets of recommendations has been difficult to
establish but the following comments on the development of the limits used in both BS 5950
and EC3-1-1 might be helpful in understanding the code writers' thinking.
The origin of the BS 5950: Part 1 rules was the old BCSA ‘black book’ 23 or 29 which
extended plastic design from BS15 steels (later grade 43 and now called S275) to BS968
steels (later grade 50 and now called S355). The 1969 amendment extended BS 449 to
grade 50 for elastic analysis. For the early draft of BS 5950 the issue of allowing plastic
design of grade 50 steel in the UK was considered. On the basis of specific tests it
seemed plastic design could be allowed with smaller b/t and d/t limits i.e. for more
compact sections. The use of a general rule to avoid having to test every new grade of
steel was investigated. Professor Horne was consulted and his view was that the only
way to be sure a steel was NOT alright would be if it failed specific tests, but that it was
possible to make an informed judgement about parameters that would help decide if a test
was even necessary. As a result of these discussions a set of rules specific to plastic
global analysis were developed which meant than any steel that satisfied them was
satisfactory. A steel that did not meet these criteria might also be satisfactory but specific
tests were needed to be certain it could be used for plastic global analysis.
The EC3-1-1 drafting panel had a wider definition of plastic analysis than that used in the
UK. Their understanding was that ‘plastic analysis’ or even ‘plastic design’ means not only
plastic global analysis but that using the plastic modulus of a class 1 or class 2 cross-
section is also ‘plastic analysis’. The wider definition may have contributed to the
difference in values given in EC3-1-1 and BS5950: Part 1 for the plastic analysis limits.
4.1.3 Fracture toughness
EC 3 and BS 5950 use different terminology and different approaches to establish the fracture
toughness of a material to avoid brittle fracture. BS 5950: Part 1 uses the ‘minimum service
temperature’, Tmin, to determine fracture toughness. In the UK Tmin is usually taken as -5°C
for internal steelwork and -15°C for external steelwork. The method used in EC3 is based on
a reference temperature of TEd which is determined from equation 2.2 of EC3-1-10 (see
section 4.4.1 for further details).
4.1.4 Structural stability of frames
In both standards the designer is required to determine if the effects of the deformed
geometry of the structure will significantly affect or modify structural behaviour, for example by
introducing additional (secondary) moments. In EC3-1-1 this is achieved by checking that the
critical load factor, � cr, for the structure under consideration satisfies the following limits:
� cr � 10 for elastic analysis
� cr � 15 for plastic analysis
fu/fy ≥ 1.20
εu ≥ 20εy
αcr1
αcr ≥
αcr ≥
EN 1993 Steel Structures
19
If � cr is above these limits then the effects of deformed geometry (second order effects) can
be neglected and a first order analysis may be used. If � cr is less than 10, or 15, then the
effects of the deformed geometry should be considered. This defines the boundaries, but
unlike BS5950: Part 1 EC3-1-1 does not use the terms ‘non-sway’ and ‘sway’ sensitive to
describe the frames.
The limit used for elastic analysis in BS 5950: Part 1 is identical to that used in EC3-1-1. The
only difference is that the limit in BS 5950: Part 1 is for clad structures where the stiffening
effect of the cladding is not explicitly taken into account when calculating the elastic critical
load factor. No such limitation is placed on the method given in EC3. Consequently, bare
steel frames designed using EC3-1-1 may be less stiff than those designed to BS 5950.
Unlike EC3-1-1, BS 5950: Part 1 includes two simplified methods for taking account of
secondary effects for the plastic design of multi-storey rigid frames and a separate method for
the plastic design of portal frames.
4.1.5 Structural imperfections
A feature of EC3-1-1 is its explicit allowance in the calculation procedures for practical
imperfections that have an influence on the resistance of members or structures. A number
of alternative procedures are given in Section 5.3, some with limited scope. Generally they
consider:
• System imperfections
An initial-bow imperfection is introduced in the design of braced bays and built up
compression members. In the case of bracing systems any additional deflections due
to the action of the bracing system in resisting externally applied forces also have to
be taken into account.
• Frame imperfections
These are introduced into the analysis of all frames in the form of an equivalent initial
sway. For convenience this can be replaced by a closed system of equivalent forces,
except when determining reactions onto foundations. The frame imperfections are
intended to account for the possible effects of other forms of imperfection which may
affect the stability of frames such as lack-of-fit.
• Member imperfections
These are introduced in the design of compression members through a series of
imperfection factors which represent an equivalent lack of straightness. The values of
the imperfection factors also account for the effects of typical residual stress patterns.
Local bow imperfections of members, in addition to global sway imperfections, should
be included in the global analysis of frames that are sensitive to second order effects.
While BS 5950: Part 1 does not disallow this method of analysis system, frame and member
imperfections are not explicitly included in the standard. An allowance is made for them
within the buckling curves given in BS 5950: Part 1.
4.1.6 Buckling – members in compression
BS 5950: Part 1 uses a modified Perry formula to determine member buckling resistance.
This method is described in Annex C of BS 5950: Part 1. In EC3-1-1 the member buckling
resistance is derived from the resistance of the cross-section by applying a reduction factor,
� . Different values of � are determined for flexural buckling ( � y (y-y axis) or � z (z-z axis)),
lateral torsional buckling ( � LT), torsional ( � T) and torsional-flexural buckling ( � TF). The
reduction factor is a function of an imperfection factor ( � ) and the non-dimensional
BS 5950: Part 1 uses a modified Perry formula to determine member buckling resistance.This method is described in Annex C of BS 5950: Part 1. In EC3-1-1 the member bucklingresistance is derived from the resistance of the cross-section by applying a reduction factor,χ. Different values of χ are determined for flexural buckling (χy (y-y axis) or χz (z-z axis)),lateral torsional buckling (χLT), torsional (χT) and torsional-flexural buckling (χTF). Thereduction factor is a function of an imperfection factor (α) and the non-dimensional
θcr
θcr
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
20
slenderness ratio λ of the compression member. λ is a function of the slenderness ratio ofthe member Lcr/i, where Lcr is the buckling length in the plane of buckling. The buckling lengthis similar to the effective length used in BS 5950: Part 1. Unfortunately, unlike BS 5950: Part1, EC3-1-1 does not give guidance on the buckling lengths to be used. Consequently,guidance on the buckling lengths (or effective length) must be obtained from either BS 5950:Part 1, design guides or appropriate textbooks.
Another feature of EC3-1-1 is the introduction of two additional checks for members with opencross-sections subject to compression. These checks are for the torsional and torsional-flexural buckling of members in compression. The methods use the same base equations
used for flexural buckling but with the non-dimensional slenderness λ replaced by either the
non-dimensional slenderness for torsional ( Tλ ) or torsional-flexural buckling ( TFλ ). Theseparameters can be used to determined either χT or χTF and either the elastic torsional flexuralbuckling force or the elastic torsional buckling force of the member. EC3-1-1 does not includeguidance on how to calculate these two parameters and the designer must rely on anappropriate textbook.
4.1.7 Buckling – uniform members in bending
In EC3-1-1 the lateral torsional buckling of a laterally unrestrained beam is determined fromthe resistance of the cross-section by applying a reduction factor, χ. The reduction factor, χLT,is a function of both the imperfection factor ,αLT, and the non-dimensional slenderness ratio,
LTλ , of the beam. This approach is similar to the method used for calculating the bucklingresistance of a column.
The method used in BS 5950: Part 1 is different and is based on a modified Perry-Robertsonexpression. A full description of this method is given in Annex B of BS 5950: Part 1.
The main difference between these two methods is that while BS 5950 is based on thecalculation of the equivalent slenderness , λLT, EC3-1-1 requires the designer to evaluate theelastic critical moment for lateral-torsional buckling (Mcr) as an intermediate step before
calculating the non-dimensional slenderness ratio , LTλ . This is the traditional way of
evaluating LTλ but unfortunately EC3-1-1 does not include data for the evaluation of Mcr.Designers must therefore rely on an appropriate textbook.
Furthermore, EC3-1-1 contains two methods for calculating the lateral torsional buckling of amember. These are:
• The general case, and• A method specifically for rolled sections or equivalent welded sections.
The second method has been calibrated against test data and has been shown to givereasonable results for rolled sections. The calibration also showed the method to beunsatisfactory for welded sections. It is therefore suggested that designers use the generalcase for welded sections and the specific method for rolled sections. However, the UKNational Annex (once published) should be referred to for guidance on which method to use.
The second method includes a correction factor to allow for the shape of the bending momentdiagram. This correction factor is in addition to the equivalent uniform moment factors usedto allow for the differences between a uniform moment and the actual moment distributionalong the beam.
EN 1993 Steel Structures
21
4.1.8 Buckling – uniform members in bending and axial compression
EC3-1-1 introduces two alternative methods for calculating the buckling resistance of a
member subject to combined bending and axial compression. Both approaches use
interaction equations which have a similar general form to those used in BS 5950: Part 1.
However, this is where the similarity ends. The methods in EC3-1-1 include interaction
factors, k, which account for the shape of the bending moment diagram and the class of the
cross-section. The interaction factors have been derived from two alternative approaches
and expressions for each interaction factor are included in Annex A for Method 1 and Annex
B for Method 2. Both methods require the evaluation of complex expressions in order to
determine the interaction factors. However, Method 2 is a little easier. A comparison
between Methods 1 and 2 and BS 5950 has shown that Method 2 is in better agreement with
BS 5950: Part 1 than Method 1. Furthermore, there is some doubt over the applicability of
Method 1 to asymmetric sections. For these reasons the National Annex may allow both
methods to be used but restrict the scope of Method 1 to bi-symmetrical sections.
4.2 Part 1-2: General rules – Structural fire design
The fire part of Eurocode 3 (EN1993-1-2 [4], hereafter referred to as EC3-1-2) is not radically
different from the UK standard for the fire resistant design of steel structures. BS 5950 Part 8
[5] is a performance based code that allows for calculation of fire resistance in addition to the
use of fire test data. The principal difference between the two codes is that the calculation
procedures in BS 5950: Part 8 are limited to a thermal exposure based on the standard fire
curve while EC3-1-2 allows for alternative thermal exposures based on the factors influencing
fire growth and development. The design procedure for EC3-1-2 is illustrated in Figure 3.
Effectively the scope of BS 5950: Part 8 is restricted to the left hand branch of the diagram.
All the fire parts of the structural Eurocodes are designed to be used with the fire part of the
Eurocode for Actions (EN1991-1-2 [6] hereafter referred to as EC1-1-2). The thermal actions
(either nominal or parametric) are taken from this document and the resulting thermal and
mechanical analysis undertaken using the principles and design methods detailed in EC3-1-2.
4.2.1 Material properties
For fire resistant design by calculation the most common method in the Eurocodes is to use a
modified form of the equations for resistance at ambient temperature using reduced material
properties corresponding to the appropriate temperature. For this reason EC3-1-2 contains
detailed guidance on the material properties of carbon and stainless steels. These are
presented as stress-strain relationships and as reduction factors relative to the ambient
temperature strength and elastic modulus. It is important to note that the variation of Young’s
modulus with temperature is different to the variation in steel strength . The information is
presented in the form of strength reduction factors (ky, � ) in EC3-1-2 and strength retention
factors in BS 5950: Part 8. The strength reduction factors given in EC3-1-2 correspond to the
2% strain values in Table 1 of BS 5950: Part 8. Elevated temperature properties are also
presented for thermal elongation, specific heat and thermal conductivity. The relationships
given in EC3-1-2 are identical to those in BS 5950: Part 8. The corresponding properties for
stainless steel may be found in Annex C of EC3-1-2. Annex A of EC3-1-2 presents an
alternative stress-strain relationship for carbon steels allowing for strain hardening.
(kyθ)
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
22
Sim
ple
Cal
cula
tion
Mod
els
Cal
cula
tion
ofM
echa
nica
lA
ctio
ns a
tB
ound
arie
s
Tabu
late
dD
ata
Sim
ple
Cal
cula
tion
Mod
els
(if a
vaila
ble)
Adv
ance
dC
alcu
latio
nM
odel
s
Adv
ance
dC
alcu
latio
nM
odel
s
Sel
ectio
n of
Mec
hani
cal
Act
ions
Cal
cula
tion
ofM
echa
nica
lA
ctio
ns a
tB
ound
arie
s Adv
ance
dC
alcu
latio
nM
odel
s
Adv
ance
dC
alcu
latio
nM
odel
s
Sim
ple
Cal
cula
tion
Mod
els
(if a
vaila
ble)
Adv
ance
dC
alcu
latio
nM
odel
s
Adv
ance
dC
alcu
latio
nM
odel
s
Sel
ectio
n of
Mec
hani
cal
Act
ions
Cal
cula
tion
ofM
echa
nica
lA
ctio
nsat
Bou
ndar
ies
Cal
cula
tion
ofM
echa
nica
lA
ctio
nsat
Bou
ndar
ies
Ana
lysi
s of
Ent
ireS
truc
ture
Ana
lysi
s of
Par
t of
the
Str
uctu
re
Sel
ectio
n of
Sim
ple
or A
dvan
ced
Fire
Dev
elop
men
t M
odel
sM
embe
rA
naly
sis
Ana
lysi
s of
Par
tof
the
Str
uctu
reA
naly
sis
of
Ent
ire S
truc
ture
Per
form
ance
Bas
ed C
ode
(Phy
sica
lly b
ased
The
rmal
Act
ions
)P
resc
riptiv
e R
ules
(The
rmal
Act
ions
giv
en b
y N
omin
al F
ire)
Pro
ject
Des
ign
Mem
ber
Ana
lysi
s
Fig
ure3
: D
esig
n P
roce
dur
e E
N19
93-1
-2
EN 1993 Steel Structures
23
4.2.2 Structural fire design
In EC3-1-2 fire resistance may be determined either by simple calculation models, advancedcalculation models or testing. The current British Standard is based on fire resistance derivedfrom standard fire tests and fire resistance derived from calculations. The main difference inapproach is that BS 5950: Part 8 includes tabulated data for limiting temperatures and designtemperatures based on the results from standard tests while EC3-1-2 does not includetabulated data for design temperatures.
4.2.3 Members in compression
For compression members with Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 cross-sections a non-dimensionalslenderness is calculated based on the buckling length in the fire situation. In general thebuckling length should be determined as for ambient temperature design. However, in abraced frame the buckling length may be determined based on continuity at the connectionsprovided that the fire resistance of the building components that separate the firecompartments is not less than the fire resistance of the column. Thus in a braced framewhere each storey comprises a separate fire compartment, intermediate columns areassumed to be fixed in direction at either end and the effective length is half of the systemlength. In the top storey the buckling length may be taken as 0.7 x the system length. This isdifferent to the approach used in BS 5950: Part 8 where the buckling length is determinedfollowing the guidance given for ambient temperature design i.e. current UK practice is moreconservative. It is anticipated that this issue will be addressed in the UK National Annex forEC3-1-2.
4.2.4 Combined bending and axial compression
For members subject to combined bending and axial compression the calculation method inEC3-1-2 is more complex than the corresponding calculation in BS 5950: Part 8 and differsfrom the method in EC3-1-1. The interaction formula for the combination of axial load andminor and major axis bending is based on the procedure in the original draft for thedevelopment of the Eurocode, ENV 1993-1-1 as the new method in EC3-1-1 has not beenverified for the fire situation at the time of writing.
4.2.5 Structural connections
The latest version of BS 5950: Part 8 contains guidance on the calculation of the thickness ofprotection required for structural connections and takes into account the relative load ratio ofthe connection compared to that of the connected members. EC3-1-2 in addition to similarguidance includes a more detailed approach in Annex D where the design resistance of boltsin shear and tension, and the design resistance of welds can be calculated using atemperature profile based on the temperature of the bottom flange of the beam at mid-span.This method is mainly applicable for simple connections although potentially could be appliedto all components of the connection using the approach in EN1993-1-8.
4.3 Part 1-8: Design of joints
EN1993-1-8 [7] (hereafter referred to as EC3-1-8) gives guidance for the design of steel jointssubject to predominantly static loads. Steel grades S235, S275, S355 and S460 are coveredby the guidance given.
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
24
4.3.1 Definitions
EC3-1-8 starts by defining the different components that constitute a steel joint and makes a
clear distinction between a connection and a joint. This can be confusing for UK designers
who generally use the words joint and connection interchangeably to describe the junction
between two steel members. In EC3-1-8 the word connection is used to define the location
at which two or more elements meet, while the word joint is used to define the zone where
two or more members are interconnected. Therefore a beam-to-column connection is the
interface between the flange (or web) of the column and the end of the beam, and includes all
the components (bolts, welds, end-plate, column flange etc) required to transfer the internal
forces from the beam to the column. The joint however is the assembly of all the basic
components which play a part in the behaviour of the configuration. For example, a single-
sided beam-to-column joint consists of a connection and a column web panel. It is important
that UK designers recognise this distinction as it is used throughout the standard.
4.3.2 Material properties
In EC3-1-8 the nominal values of the yield strength, fyb, and the ultimate tensile strength, fub,
for grade 8.8 and 10.9 bolts are considerably greater than the equivalent values used in BS
5950: Part 1. This is due to the standards taking account of different effects within the quoted
material property values. EC3-1-1 gives ultimate values and BS5950: Part 1 gives
permissible values. The partial material factors are included in the properties given in BS
5950: Part 1 but are defined separately in EC3-1-8. BS5950 Part 1 material properties may
be used to account for prying actions without the direct calculation of the prying force by
applying a factor to the material properties, EC3 gives a separate check for prying action.
4.3.3 Groups of fasteners
The approach used in EC3-1-8 is different to that used in the BCSA/SCI publications on
Joints in Steel Construction [8, 9 & 10]. In EC3-1-8 the design resistance of a group of
fasteners may be taken as the sum of the design bearing resistances of the individual
fasteners provided the design shear resistance of each individual fastener is greater than or
equal to the design bearing resistance. If this condition is not satisfied then the design
resistance of a group of fasteners should be taken as the number of fasteners multiplied by
the smallest design resistance of any of the individual fasteners.
In the BCSA/SCI publications the design resistance of a group of fasteners is taken as the
sum of the design resistances of the individual fasteners.
This difference in approach may cause problems for flexible end-plates. The current
approach in the UK often means that the top bolts are designed for bearing failure and the
remaining bolts for shear. Because the EC3-1-8 rules do not allow mixed modes of failure the
capacity of the bolt group according to the Eurocode philosophy would often be based on the
number of fasters multiplied by the design bearing resistance of the top bolts. Clearly this
may significantly reduce the apparent shear capacity of flexible end-plate connections and in
some cases may result in an increase in the number of bolts needed.
4.3.4 Analysis, classification and modelling
Joint design depends very much on the designer’s decision regarding the method by which
the structure is to be analysed. Both EC3-1-8 and BS 5950: Part 1 recognise that either
elastic or plastic global analysis may be used, for frames that are simple, semi-continuous or
continuous. When elastic analysis is adopted joint stiffness is relevant, when the analysis is
plastic then strength of the joint is relevant. EC3-1-8 goes a step further than the British
Standard and includes a table that relates the type of framing, method of global analysis and
EN 1993 Steel Structures
25
the joint classification. Table 4 gives details (note that some of the terminology used in the
Eurocode has been slightly modified for clarity).
Table 4. Type of framing, analysis used and joint classification/requirements
Method of global
analysis
Classification/requirements of joint
Elastic Nominally pinned Rigid Semi-rigid
Rigid-plastic Nominally pinned Full-strength Partial-strength
Elastic-plastic Nominally pinned Rigid and
full-strength
Semi-rigid and partial strength or
Semi-rigid and full-strength or
Rigid and partial-strength
Type of framing Simple Continuous Semi-continuous
Although the relationship between type of framing, method of global analysis and joint
requirements (represented by their classification) has been known for some time, its inclusion
in a major structural code is new and some explanation of its use is required.
Simple frame design is based on the assumption that the beams are simply supported and
that the beam-to-column joints are sufficiently flexible and weak to restrict the development of
significant beam end-moments. In continuous framing the type of joint used will depend on
the method of global analysis. When elastic analysis is used the joints are classified
according to their stiffness and rigid joints must be used. When plastic analysis is used the
joints are classified according to their strength and full-strength joints must be used. When
elastic-plastic analysis is adopted then the joints are classified according to both their stiffness
and strength and rigid, full-strength joints must be used.
Semi-continuous frame design recognises the fact that most practical joints possess some
degree of both stiffness and moment resistance. When elastic analysis is used the joints are
classified according to their stiffness and semi-rigid joints should be used. If plastic global
analysis is used the joints are classified according to their strength and partial-strength joints
should be used. When elastic-plastic analysis is used the joints are classified according to
their stiffness and strength, and semi-continuity could be achieved in a number of ways (see
Table 4).
The traditional UK approach of classifying a joint only recognises two types (pinned and rigid)
and it is relatively straightforward to use engineering judgement to choose between these.
For an extended system, such as the one used in EC3-1-8, the structural properties of a joint
may need to be quantified in order to classify it. EC3-1-8 includes methods for doing this, and
it is the inclusion of these methods that constitutes the biggest difference between the design
of joints to the Eurocode and the traditional methods used in the UK.
By comparing the quantified stiffness of a joint against the limits given in EC3-1-8 it can be
classified as pinned, rigid or semi-rigid. Similarly a joint can be classified by comparing its
quantified moment resistance with limits for pinned, full-strength or partial strength joints. A
fuller description of a joint’s behaviour can also be obtained by classifying it using both
stiffness and strength. Such a classification leads to joints which are pinned, rigid/full-
strength, rigid/partial strength and semi-rigid/partial-strength.
One problem that this may cause is that joints which have traditionally been taken as pinned
or rigid may not be pinned or rigid under the new classification system. This situation is
complicated by the fact that the Eurocode not only gives guidance on calculating stiffness and
strength (for some joint types), but clause 5.2.2.1 also allows classification on the basis of
‘experimental evidence’ or ‘experience of previous performance’. Clearly the results of these
three approaches for a given joint may not always agree. This could prove problematical if
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
26
checking authorities require designers to demonstrate that a joint is pinned or rigid, and could
lead to increased design time and/or changes to the UK’s commonly used joints.
To establish the stiffness boundary between rigid and semi-rigid joints the relationship
between joint stiffness and the Euler buckling load for a single-bay, single-storey frame was
investigated [11]. It was decided that a semi-rigid joint can be considered as rigid provided
the difference between the Euler buckling load for a single-bay, single-storey frame with semi-
rigid joints and the Euler buckling load of a similar frame with rigid joints was less than 5%.
By adopting this approach a classification method based on the rigidity of the connected
beam was developed. While such a system is easy to use it has attracted criticism, some of
which is detailed below:
• When compared to the stiffness limits given in some national standards the limits in EC3-
1-8 appear to be conservative.
• The classification system given in EC3-1-8 can be applied to any steel structure but as
the limits have been determined on the basis of a single-bay, single-storey frame the
accuracy of its application to multi-bay, multi-storey frames is questionable.
• The stiffness boundaries between joint types have been determined on the basis of the
ultimate limit state and on the assumption that a difference of 5% between the
performance of a frame with rigid and semi-rigid joints is small and can be neglected.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the differences at serviceability limit states,
where displacements of the structure are more important, are equally small and can be
neglected. Clearly, when deriving classification criteria both serviceability and ultimate
limit states should be considered.
4.3.5 Structural joints connecting H or I sections
The method described in Chapter 6 of EC3-1-8 for the design of joints between H or I
sections is based on the component approach. Explicit guidance is only given for flush and
extended end plate joints, although a designer might need to calculate stiffness and/or
strength for other types of joint in order to classify them. As well as this limitation it is worth
noting that the procedures for calculating the design moment resistance and rotational
stiffness of a joint are complex and time-consuming and are not suitable for hand calculation.
Computer software is recommended for these complex calculations.
4.3.5.1 Design resistance
In the given method for calculating moment resistance the potential resistance of each
component is calculated. These potential resistances are then converted to actual forces by
balancing the forces in the tension components with those in compression. The moment
capacity of the joint is then calculated by summing the product of the forces in the tension
components and their distances from the centre of compression. This approach is very
similar to the method described in the BCSA/SCI publication Joints in Steel Construction:
Moment connections [9] (which was in fact heavily based on the Eurocode). However, the
Eurocode also includes methods for calculating a joint’s rotational stiffness and rotation
capacity. Both of these methods will be new to UK designers and are therefore briefly
described below.
4.3.5.2 Rotational stiffness
Calculating the stiffness of any joint can be a difficult process. For this reason Reference 9
takes a pragmatic approach and gives simple rule-of-thumb detailing guidelines which, if
followed, will in most circumstances ensure an appropriate joint stiffness, so that frame design
assumptions are not invalidated.
EN 1993 Steel Structures
27
EC3-1-8 incorporates a method for calculating the stiffness of a bare steel joint based on work
initially carried out by Zoetemeijer [12] and more recently by Jaspart [13 & 14]. This method
uses the component approach in which the rotational response of the joint is determined from
the mechanical properties of the different components (end-plate, cleat, column flange, bolts
etc.). The advantage of this approach is that the behaviour of any joint can be calculated by
decomposing it into its components.
The stiffness of each joint component is represented by a linear spring with a force-
displacement relationship. Tables are included in EC3-1-8 which give expressions for
evaluating the stiffness of the different components. The combined effect of the components
is determined by considering each spring, with an appropriate lever arm, to give a rotational
stiffness.
4.3.5.3 Rotation capacity
The rotation capacity of a joint is very important (a ‘pin’ or ‘plastic hinge’ must be able to
rotate sufficiently) but this is difficult to calculate accurately. However, numerous researchers
have investigated rotation capacity and have identified many sources of ductility in joints,
some of which are listed below:
• Column web panel in shear
• Column flange in bending
• End plate in bending
• Tension flange cleat in bending
EC3-1-8 gives a number of practical rules for checking the rotation capacity of a joint. These
rules are based on the above sources of ductility for bolted joints and entail checking that the
critical mode of failure is based on one of the above components.
4.4 Part 1-10: Material toughness and through-thickness properties
EN1993-1-10 [15] (here after referred to as EC3-1-10), gives design guidance for the
selection of steel for fracture toughness and through-thickness properties.
4.4.1 Fracture toughness
To determine the maximum permissible thickness of a steel element using EC3-1-10 the
reference temperature, steel grade and stress at the reference temperature are required. The
following expression is used to determine the reference temperature:
TEd = Tmd + � Tr + � T� + � TR + � T� + � T� cf
Where
Tmd is the minimum service temperature with a specific return period, given in EN 1991-1-5
� Tr is an adjustment for radiation loss, obtained from EN 1991-1-5
� T� is the adjustment for stress and yield strength of material, crack imperfections and
member shape and dimensions, given in EN 1993-1-10
� TR is a safety allowance, if required, to reflect different reliability levels for different
applications, obtained from EN 1993-1-10
� T� is the adjustment for a strain rate other than the reference strain rate, obtained from
EN 1993-1-10 � T� cf
is the adjustment for the degree of cold forming, defined in EN 1993-1-10
Elastic analysis should be used to determine the stress at the reference temperature. The
maximum element thicknesses given in Table 2.1 of EC3-1-10 relate to three levels of stress,
TEd = Tmd + ∆Tr + ∆Tσ + ∆TR + ∆Tε + ∆Tεcf
Where Tmd is the minimum service temperature with a specific return period, given in EN 1991-1-5∆Tr is an adjustment for radiation loss, obtained from EN 1991-1-5∆Tσ is the adjustment for stress and yield strength of material, crack imperfections and
member shape and dimensions, given in EN 1993-1-10∆TR is a safety allowance, if required, to reflect different reliability levels for different
applications, obtained from EN 1993-1-10∆Tε is the adjustment for a strain rate other than the reference strain rate, obtained from EN
1993-1-10∆Tεcf
is the adjustment for the degree of cold forming, defined in EN 1993-1-10
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
28
0.25fy(t), 0.5fy(t) and 0.75fy(t). Where fy(t) is the nominal yield strength adjusted for the
thickness of the element.
The current UK guidance gives maximum thickness values for minimum temperatures of
-5°C, -15°C, -25°C, -35°C and -45°C. The minimum temperature of -5°C for internal
steelwork given in BS 5950: Part 1 relates to the temperatures experienced during
construction, when it is vulnerable to brittle fracture. The values given in EC3-1-10 consider a
wider range of temperatures, +10°C to -50°C in 10°C intervals. Interpolation between the
values is allowed, but extrapolation beyond the extreme values given in the table is not
permitted.
The minimum temperature used in BS 5950: Part 1 and the reference temperature (TEd) of
EC3-1-10 are not equivalent to each other. The minimum temperature used in BS 5950: Part
1 is similar to the minimum service temperature with a specific return period (Tmd).
Maximum element thickness values are given for different steel grades in both codes,
although more steel grades/types are considered in BS 5950: Part 1. Table 5 gives the steel
grades/types considered in both standards. Comparing the steel grades covered by BS 5950:
Part 1 and EC3-1-10 it appears that no allowance has been made in Table 2.1 of EC3-1-10
for the steel grades used for hollow sections. EC3-1-10 allows the use of fracture mechanics
for a numerical evaluation. Therefore this method may be used for the steel grades used for
hollow sections.
Table 5. Material property standards for which maximum element thicknesses are given in
BS 5950: Part 1 and EN 1993-1-1
Material property standards for which maximum element thicknesses are given in standards
BS 5950: Part 1 S275 to S460 steel grades
EN 1993-1-1 S275 to S690 steel grades
BS EN 10025 BS EN 10025
BS EN 10113 BS EN 10113
BS EN 10137 BS EN 10137
BS EN 10166
BS EN 10210
BS EN 10219
BS7668
A note to clause 2.2(5) of EC3-1-10 allows the National Annex to ‘give maximum values of the
range between TEd and the test temperature and also the range of � Ed, to which the validity of
values for permissible thickness in Table 2.1 may be restricted.’ A further note to this clause
allows the National Annex to limit the use of Table 2.1 for steel grades up to S460. The UK
National Annex to EC3-1-10 is currently under development and no comment can be made at
this time on the values that may be included in it.
4.4.2 Through-thickness properties
Section 3 of EC3-1-10 gives a method for determining the susceptibility of steel to lamellar
tearing. Lamellar tearing is a weld induced flaw and is usually detected during ultrasonic
inspection of welds. The main risk of lamellar tearing is with cruciform joints, T-joints, corner
joints and when full penetration welds are used.
σEd,
EN 1993 Steel Structures
29
To check if lamellar tearing may be ignored EC3-1-10 requires the ‘available design’ and
‘required design’ Z-values4 to be compared. The available design Z-value is given in BS EN
10164 [16]. The required design Z-value is obtained from coefficients given in EC3-1-10
relating to weld depth, shape and position of welds, material thickness, restraint of shrinkage
and influence of preheating. BS 5950: Part 2 [17] states that ‘the material shall be tested for
through-thickness properties to the specified quality class in accordance with BS EN 10164.
The inclusion of the Z-value check in EC3-1-10 may result in designers having to perform this
check for every welded joint in a structure. Currently in the UK only joints identified as being
at risk from lamellar tearing are checked. EC3-1-10 allows the National Annex to limit the
scope of section 3 to ‘certain steel products’. This may be used in the UK National Annex to
limit the Z-value checks to specific types of welded joints.
4.5 Part 5: Steel Piling
EN1993-5 [18] (hereafter referred to as EC3-5) gives guidance for the design of all types of
steel piles including hot and cold formed sheet piles, bearing piles and piling systems built up
from component parts. It gives guidance for different shapes, sizes and arrangements of
steel piles. Although some of these are not common in the UK at present they may find future
application.
The fields of application considered by the Eurocode are:
• Steel piled foundations of civil engineering works on land and over water
• Temporary or permanent structures necessary for the execution of steel piling
• Temporary or permanent retaining structures composed of steel sheet piles, including all
kinds of combined walls.
Guidance for steel piles filled with concrete is also included in EC3-5.
EC3-5 contains an annex giving detailed rules for the design of cold formed pile sections and
combined walls. These areas have not previously been dealt with in UK guidance.
Current UK standards do not contain an equivalent code to EC3-5. BS 8002 [19] is basically
a geotechnical code that requires input from BS 5950: Part 1 to allow the design of steel piles.
Current SCI documents cover some aspects of UK steel pile design. However, the guidance
given in these documents does not give the detail required for a ‘full’ design, and it only
applies to simple structures.
EC3-5 introduces some new concepts to the traditional UK design process, these include:
• The use of plastic design for piling
• Four classes for sheet piling and the resultant different design approaches
• A more formal system for assessing the structural performance of piling structures
The checks on shear in a sheet pile wall, which are perhaps covered ‘by inspection’ in current
practice need to be formally assessed, as do shear buckling and combined moments, shear
and axial loading. Many of these checks will require section data and it is likely that either
data sheets giving member capacities or the basic geometric information will be provided by
the sheet pile manufacturers. The effects of water pressures on the structural design are also
to be taken into account (which is a new concept for UK designers), and specific rules for the
transfer of shear in the interlocks of piles and its effect on the strength and stiffness of pile
4 Z-value is the transverse reduction of area in a tensile test of the through-thickness ductility
of a specimen, measured as a percentage
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
30
sections are included. This issue is addressed qualitatively in BS 8002 but is covered in moredepth in EC3-5, as it has a much higher profile outside the UK. Compared with current UKpractice EC3-5 deals more formally with combined-walls and cellular structures, as well ashigh modulus walls.
Conflicting views have emerged within the UK industry on the implementation of EC3-5.These views have emerged because of the significant differences in scope and approachbetween current UK practice and the Eurocode system. One of the major areas for concern isthe effect that a move from lumped factor design to a partial factor approach will have ondesign requirements. This is compounded by changes in the specific calculations that arerequired to satisfy the new code. There are situations where formal calculations are nowrequired which would previously have been dealt with by inspection in the UK. There is alsoconcern that these design changes may make designs less efficient, or effective, comparedwith current UK practice.
One of the most difficult areas to assess is the effect that the plastic design rules will have onthe design process as there is little or no experience with these design rules within the UK.The design calculations need to consider the situation at all stages in the life of the structureand if the proposed section has appropriate parameters, the wall can be designed on thebasis of plastic section properties and moment redistribution. This assumes that the pilesection is capable of sustaining a moment of resistance as the pile rotates plastically and thisability may change with the amount of corrosion that the section has sustained. This may beaccepted practice in structural designs but the response of soil when the system is at orapproaching plastic conditions is not understood.
There is reference made to EN 12063, the standard covering site activities which goes intosignificantly more detail than current British Standards on some aspects of site work (i.e.welding).
One potential area of conflict with current UK methods is the fact that there is no overtdifference between the requirements for temporary and permanent construction. This waspreviously dealt with by allowing increased stress levels in temporary works piling (BS8002:1994 [19]) and not considering corrosion on the section properties. Under the new rules therewill be no change in stress, which may be a retrograde step in some minds.
EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures
31
5 EN1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures
The main differences between the design guidance given in Eurocode 4 and BS 5950 arediscussed in this section.
5.1 Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
Eurocode 4 applies to the design of composite structures and members for building and civilengineering works. The Eurocode is concerned only with the requirements for the resistance,serviceability and durability of composite steel and concrete structures. EN1994-1-1 [20](hereafter referred to as EC4-1-1) gives a general basis for the design of composite structuresalong with specific rules for buildings.
EC4-1-1 provides design guidance for some types of element not common in the UK, such aspartially encased concrete beams, composite columns in buildings, high strength structuralsteels and composite joints together with various methods of continuous beam design and thedetailing of the continuous joints.
5.1.1 Material Properties
5.1.1.1 Concrete
Unless given in EC4-1-1, concrete material properties must be obtained from EN1992-1-1[21] (hereafter referred to as EC2-1-1) for both normal weight and lightweight concrete.However, EC4-1-1 does not cover the design of composite structures with concrete gradeslower than C20/25 or higher than C60/75. EC4-1-1 therefore extends the range of concretestrengths compared to those available in BS 5950.
The classification for normal weight concrete used in the Eurocodes system (Cx/y) gives thecylinder strength (x) and the cube strength (y) in N/mm2. The design strengths used in theEurocodes are based on the cylinder strengths and not the cube strengths, so care should betaken by designers to use the correct value.
5.1.1.2 Structural steel
Reference should be made to EC3-1-1, clauses 3.1 and 3.2 for the properties of structuralsteel, however, EC4-1-1 does not cover steel grades with a characteristic strength greaterthan 460N/mm2. This is in common with BS 5950: Part 3 where the design strength ofstructural steel is obtained by reference to BS 5950: Part 1. However, a comment is made inBS 5950 that due to a lack of test evidence, the design strength should not be taken asgreater than 355N/mm2. This limit is lower than that given in EC4-1-1.
Research has shown that to prevent premature concrete crushing some design rules shouldbe modified for steels with strength greater than 355N/mm2. Such modifications have beenincorporated into EC4-1-1 so that it can cover steels with strengths up to 460N/mm2.
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
32
5.1.2 Structural stability
The effects of the deformed geometry of the structure must be considered and an importantdesign Principle outlined states that second-order effects should be considered if theyincrease the action effects significantly or modify significantly the structural behaviour.
It is suggested that this increase in internal forces may be neglected if the increase in forcesdue to second-order effects is less than 10% of the forces determined in first-order analysis.
The Eurocode also states that if second-order effects in individual members and relevantmember imperfections are fully accounted for in the global analysis of the structure, individualstability checks on the members (such as lateral torsional buckling presumably) are notnecessary.
This is in contrast to BS5950 where there is no specific requirement to consider the increasein internal forces due to second-order effects but individual stability checks are required.
An additional Principle stated is that appropriate allowances must be made for creep andcracking of concrete and for the behaviour of joints when determining the stiffness of thestructure.
Part 3, BS5950, uses a slightly different approach where the specific effects of concrete creepdo not have to be considered provided that material values given are used when calculatingthe modular ratio.
The effects of concrete cracking are considered in BS5950, where the cracked sectionmethod is used to determine member stiffness for elastic analysis, although the un-crackedsection is used to calculate deflections.
5.1.3 Structural imperfections
When using EC4-1-1 appropriate allowances must be made to cover the effects ofimperfections, including residual stresses and geometrical imperfections present even in theunloaded structure, such as lack of verticality, out of straightness and the unavoidable minoreccentricities present in joints. The assumed shape of any imperfections must take intoaccount the elastic buckling mode of the structure or member in the most unfavourabledirection and form, in the plane of buckling considered.
Equivalent geometric imperfections should be used unless the effects of local imperfectionsare included in the member resistance design formulae. EC4-1-1 gives values of initial bowimperfections for composite columns and whilst there are no specific imperfectionrequirements for beams, EC4-1-1 incorporates the effects of imperfections within the formulaefor the buckling resistance moment of laterally unrestrained composite beams. A similarapproach is adopted in the current British Standard. The designer should refer to EC3-1-1 forthe effects of global imperfections and for the formulae for buckling resistance of steelmembers, which also incorporate the effects of member imperfections.
No specific requirements for dealing with member or global imperfections are outlined withinBS 5950: Part 3.
5.1.4 Calculation of action (load) effects
Action effects are generally calculated by elastic global analysis even where the capacity of across-section is based on its plastic or non-linear resistance. Elastic global analysis shouldalso be used for serviceability limit states, with, where appropriate, corrections for non-lineareffects.
EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures
33
Allowance must also be made for shear lag. This is achieved for continuous beams by using
an effective width of slab. In much the same way as in BS 5950: Part 3, EC4-1-1 outlines a
number of provisions for determining the effective width of concrete slab, with the total
effective width for the sagging portion of a beam (noted as beff1 in EC4-1-1) being the familiar
Le/4 but no greater than the geometric distance between the beam centres.
EC4-1-1 does not give separate values of effective slab width for slabs spanning
perpendicular to and parallel to the supporting beam. A subtle distinction between the two
cases is given in BS 5950: Part 3, where the effective width of a slab spanning parallel to the
beam is limited to 0.8 times the beam spacing.
In contrast to BS 5950: Part 3, EC4-1-1 makes allowance for the shrinkage of concrete, in the
serviceability limit state, as well as cracking of concrete, creep, the sequence of construction
and any pre-stressing.
The effects of creep are dealt with using the modular ratio for short-term loading modified by a
creep coefficient depending upon the age of the concrete at the moment considered, t, and
the age at loading, t0, and a creep multiplier which can be used to account for the effects of
concrete shrinkage. In practice, the effects of curvature due to shrinkage of normal weight
concrete may often be ignored (see clause 7.3.1(8), EC4-1-1 for details). This is a little
different to the approach used in BS 5950: Part 3, where the modular ratio is determined
considering the proportion of long-term to short-term loading.
In common with BS 5950: Part 3, EC4-1-1 considers the effects of cracking on the flexural
stiffness of composite beams in two ways.
Involved Method – An initial “un-cracked analysis” is carried out assuming the un-cracked
stiffness, EaI1, throughout. In areas where the extreme fibre tensile stress
in the concrete is twice the concrete strength, the stiffness of the section is
reduced to the cracked flexural stiffness, EaI2. An updated distribution of
internal forces is then determined by re-analysis, termed the “cracked
analysis”.
Simple Method – The effect of cracking can be modelled by taking a reduced flexural
stiffness over 15% of the span on each side of each internal support, with
the un-cracked flexural stiffness taken elsewhere. This method may be
used for continuous beams where the ratio of the adjacent spans
(shorter/longer) is greater than or equal to 0.6.
The more complicated method given in BS 5950: Part 3, is basically the same as the simple
method given in EC4-1-1, where a cracked section is assumed over 15% of the span on each
side of each internal support, with the un-cracked section assumed elsewhere.
The simplified method given in the BS 5950: Part 3 involves carrying out an elastic analysis,
assuming all members are un-cracked. The resulting negative moments over the supports
and at mid-span can then be re-distributed in accordance with guidance given in Table 4 of
BS 5950: Part 3, which effectively models the reduced stiffness of the member over the
supports. EC4-1-1 also allows some limited redistribution, in accordance with Table 5.1, with
both cracked and uncracked analysis for buildings, for the verification of all limit states other
than fatigue.
5.1.5 Beams – Ultimate Limit State
In EC4-1-1 the resistance moment of a composite cross-section with full interaction between
the structural steel, reinforcement and concrete is given by plastic theory. It is assumed that
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
34
the effective area of the structural steel is stressed to its design yield stress, fyd, in eithertension or compression and the effective area of concrete in compression resists a stress of0.85fcd (which is constant over the whole depth between the plastic neutral axis and the mostcompressed fibre of concrete). The value fcd is the design cylinder compressive stress whichis determined according to the following expression (given in EC2-1-1):
fcd = αcc fck / γC
Where: αcc is a coefficient that takes account of long term effects on compressive stress andunfavourable effects due to the way the load is appliedfck is the cylinder compressive stressγC is the concrete partial factor
EC2-1-1 allows the relevant National Annex to specify a value for αcc, however, the guidancegiven in EC4-1-1 has been developed using αcc equal to one. Therefore where fcd is given inEC4-1-1 it represents fck / γC. See reference [23] for further discussion on this topic. Inprinciple, this is exactly the same approach as that taken in BS 5950: Part 3. However, theconcrete cube compressive stress is used with the material safety factor included in BS 5950:Part 3. Therefore in BS 5950: Part 3 the concrete is assumed to resist a stress of 0.45fcu overthe whole depth between the plastic neutral axis and the most compressed fibre of concrete.
In keeping with the other Eurocodes, EC4-1-1 does not give any guidance for thedetermination of the effective or equivalent span, LE.
EC4-1-1 outlines limits on the degree of shear interaction required, including the requirementthat full shear interaction is attained when the effective span is greater then 25m. Theminimum degree of shear interaction for spans less than 25m is determined based upon theyield stress of the steel section and effective span and should always be greater than 0.4.
BS 5950: Part 3 gives similar guidance, but stipulates that full shear interaction is requiredwhen the span is greater than 16m, and shear interaction must be greater than 0.4 for spansup to 10m. For intermediate spans the minimum degree of shear interaction is given by thesimple equation (L-6)/10 ≥ 0.4.
The vertical shear strength is based on that of the bare steel section in exactly the same wayas BS 5950: Part 3.
5.1.6 Beam serviceability limit state
Serviceability requirements are specified in relation to limiting deflections and concretecracking. Elastic analysis must be used for the serviceability limit state and the effective widthof the concrete flange, considered in beam design, is as defined for the ultimate limit state.
EC4-1-1 refers the user to EN1990 A1.4.4 for criteria reflecting to the dynamic properties offloor beams. Unlike BS5950, stress limits under construction loading are not given (theseneed only be checked if fatigue is a consideration).
EC4-1-1 states that the effect of cracking of concrete in regions subject to hogging momentsshould be taken into account by adopting appropriate global analysis methods. This is incontrast to BS 5950: Part 3, where the gross uncracked section is used when calculatingdeflections.
Although no specific procedures are stated in EC4-1-1, the effects of creep must be includedwhen calculating deflections. It is therefore necessary to consider relevant values of themodular ratio when calculating the equivalent second moment of area of the gross sectionand distinguishing between shorter term and long term loading. This effect is covered in BS
EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures
35
5950: Part 3, by the use of an effective modular ratio, for the proportion of total loading that is
long term.
EC4-1-1 does not make allowance for increased deflections in beams with partial shear
interaction (provided the degree of shear interaction is above 0.5). This is in contrast to BS
5950: Part 3, where the deflection of a beam with partial shear interaction is increased from
that with full interaction, based upon the degree of shear interaction provided. EC4-1-1 does
not provide any guidance on the procedure to be used if the shear interaction is between 0.4
and 0.5.
5.1.7 Lateral torsional buckling
The possibility of the onset of lateral torsional buckling is covered in more depth in EC4-1-1
than in BS 5950: Part 3.
In general, the methods outlined in EC3-1-1 (discussed in section 4.1.8) can be adopted
when checking the lateral torsional buckling resistance of the steel section during
construction, and EC4-1-1 outlines a method applicable to composite beams with uniform
cross-sections classified as Class 1, 2 or 3. This method basically decreases the composite
moment resistance of the section using a reduction factor based on the relative slenderness
of the section, � LT.
EC4-1-1 also outlines some detailing rules which can be used to prevent lateral torsional
buckling. These include ensuring that adjacent spans do not differ in length by more than
20%, the top flange of the steel section is connected to a reinforced concrete or composite
slab which is in turn connected to another member approximately parallel to form an inverted
U frame, and by laterally restraining the bottom flange of each member and stiffening the web
at each support. No such advice is presented in BS 5950: Part 3.
5.1.8 Members in compression
The first point to note is that at present there is no specific British Standard that covers the
design of composite columns in building structures. Whilst BS 5950: Part 3 Section 3.1 refers
to BS 5950 Part 3 Section 3.2, Code of Practice for the Design of Composite Columns and
Frames, it has never been published. BS 5400: Part 5 ‘Code of practice for the design of
composite bridges’ [24], does, however, cover the design of concrete encased sections and
concrete filled circular and square hollow sections, although clearly this is for use with bridge
structures.
EC4-1-1 covers the design of composite columns and composite compression members with
concrete encased sections, partially encased sections and concrete filled rectangular and
circular tubes. It should be noted that EC4-1-1 only covers isolated non-sway columns in
frames where all other structural members within the frame are also composite or steel. The
Eurocode considers elements constructed with grade S235 to S460 steel and with normal
weight concrete with grades between C20/25 and C50/60. It should be noted that the upper
concrete strength limit is less than that for other design guidance contained within EC4-1-1.
EC4-1-1 provides two methods for the calculation of the resistance of composite columns; the
General Method and the Simplified Method.
General Method – This takes explicit account of both second-order effects and
imperfections. The method is relatively complex and requires the use of
numerical computational tools. Whilst EC4-1-1 includes a description of
the processes to be considered it does not include detailed rules for the
general method. It is not covered at all in BS 5400.
λLT.
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
36
Simplified Method – This can be applied to a doubly symmetric member with a uniform cross-
section over its height. The method makes use of the European buckling
curves for steel columns, which implicitly take account of imperfections.
Both methods assume the following:
1. There is full interaction between the steel and concrete sections until failure occurs
2. Geometric imperfections and residual stresses are taken into account in the calculation
3. Plane sections remain plane whilst the column deforms.
5.1.9 Composite joints in frames for buildings
BS 5950: Part 3 does not cover the design of composite joints. The design guidance given in
EC4-1-1 will be completely new to the majority of UK designers.
EC4-1-1 defines a composite connection as ‘a joint between a composite member and
another composite, steel or reinforced concrete member, in which reinforcement is taken into
account in design for the resistance and stiffness of the joint’.
The guidance given in EC4-1-1 applies principally to moment-resisting beam-column
connections and relates to ultimate resistance, rotational stiffness and rotation capacity.
Joints are classified as rigid, nominally pinned, or semi-rigid for stiffness, and as full strength,
nominally pinned or partial strength in relation to moment resistance.
In summary, the vertical shear resistance of the joint is assumed to come solely from the steel
components and is therefore calculated in accordance with the guidelines outlined in EC3-1-
8. The design moment resistance (with full shear connection) is calculated using the
provisions of EC3-1-8 but taking account of the contribution of the slab reinforcement in
tension (where the top row of reinforcing bars in tension may be treated in a similar manner to
a bolt-row in tension in a plain steel joint).
The moment capacity of the joint is calculated assuming the effective area of longitudinal
reinforcement in tension is stressed to its design yield stress, fsd, and the effective area of the
bottom flange of the beam and part of the web etc. in compression to its design yield strength,
fyd.
5.1.10 Composite slabs with profiled metal sheeting
Section 9 of EC4-1-1 covers the design of single span composite floor systems, including
cantilevered floors, in building applications. The scope is limited to in-situ concrete used with
sheets with narrowly spaced webs.
As with the design of a composite beam the effective area of concrete in compression resists
a stress of 0.85fcd, constant over the whole depth between the plastic neutral axis and the
most compressed fibre of concrete.
A similar approach is adopted in BS 5950: Part 3, with the concrete cube compressive stress
being used. The concrete is assumed to resist a stress of 0.45fcu over the whole depth
between the plastic neutral axis and the most compressed fibre of concrete. BS 5950: Part 3
recommends that the lever arm should not exceed 0.9 times the effective depth of the slab to
the centroid of the steel sheet. In addition, the concrete stress block should not exceed 0.45
times the effective depth of the slab to the centroid of the steel sheet. There is no such
limitation outlined in EC4-1-1.
An important point to note is that the most usual mode of failure of a composite slab is by
longitudinal shear, which can be difficult to predict theoretically. As such, composite slab
EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures
37
design in the UK is generally based on manufacturers’ load capacity tables/software which
are based on experimental testing (the semi-empirical m-k method). Informative Annex B of
EC4-1-1 outlines testing procedures on composite slabs, which are not the same as
traditionally used in the UK. The national annex may comment on this difference. Please
refer to Johnson and Anderson [19] for more details. In addition, EC4-1-1 allows the design
longitudinal shear resistance to be determined using both the m-k method and the partial
interaction method. This is in contrast to BS 5950: Part 3.
5.2 Part 1-2: Structural fire design
EN1994-1-2 [25] (hereafter referred to as EC4-1-2) covers the fire design of composite steel
and concrete structures. In essence, it identifies the differences between the fire design and
the ambient design methods and provides supplementary information for the design for fire.
This is similar to the scope of BS 5950 Part 8, except that the current British Standard covers
both bare steel and composite construction in fire.
EC4-1-2 is not applicable to uncommon material grades, such as concrete grades lower than
C20/25 and higher than C60/75 and LC60/75. EC4-1-2 provides design guidance for some
types of element that are not common in the UK, such as partially encased concrete beams
and composite columns.
5.2.1 Fire exposure
The nominal fire exposure given in EC4-1-2 is similar to BS 5950: Part 8, where the exposure
to standard and hydro carbon fire curves is adopted. However, EC4-1-2 also allows the
consideration of parametric fire exposure, which considers real behaviour (as discussed in
section 4.2).
5.2.2 Material Partial Factors
The recommended material partial factors given in EC4-1-2 are the same as those given in
BS 5950: Part 8 except for concrete. EC4-1-2 recommends a value of 1.0 for concrete
compared with 1.1 given in BS 5950 Part 8. However, it should be noted that the Eurocodes
consider cylindrical compressive stress compared with cube compressive stress used in the
British Standards. The resulting difference between the concrete design values is small, with
the Eurocode value being approximately 2% greater than the BS5950 Part 8 value.
5.2.3 Structural analysis
While the assessment methods given in both EC4-1-2 and BS 5950: Part 8 assume that the
structural members are individual elements, EC4-1-2 also provides brief guidance on global
structural analysis and the use of an analytical model which takes into account secondary
effects and whole building behaviour. Recommendations on the validation of these advanced
calculation models are also given. Such guidance promotes the use of performance design
for structural fire design.
5.2.4 Design procedures
EC4-1-2 provides three design methods:
• Tabulated data
• Simple calculation models
• Advanced calculation models
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
38
The tabulated design data is provided for some structural types which are not easilyaddressed by simplified calculation methods. They are not common types of construction inthe UK. The following elements are included:
Simply supported beams
• Composite beams comprising a steel section and concrete upper flange.• Composite beams comprising a steel beam with partial concrete encasement.• Encased steel beams, for which the concrete has only an insulating function.
Columns
• Composite columns comprising totally encased steel sections• Composite columns comprising partially encased steel sections• Composite columns comprising concrete filled hollow sections.Note: The tables only cover the case where columns at the level under consideration are fullycontinuous with the columns above and below, and the fire is limited to only a single storey.
The simple calculation models provided in EC4-1-2 are more akin to the concept adopted forBS 5950 Part 8. However, EC4-1-2 recommends additional checks which include verticalshear resistance, combined bending and vertical shear and longitudinal shear resistance oncomposite beam design. Similar checks for other elements such as column and slabmembers are also given.
EC4-1-2 provides recommendations for size, arrangement and detail of composite beamswith concrete encasement, composite columns and beam to column joints, to achieve variousfire resistance. This is to ensure composite action during fire exposure and the transmissionof the applied forces and moments in the beam to column joints. The recommendations fallinto the following categories:
• Minimum cover to steel section• Minimum axis distance to the main bar reinforcement• Minimum percentage and size of reinforcement• Minimum size and maximum spacing of links• Details at connections
Such recommendations are not given in BS 5950: Part 8 although many of them are goodpractice and can be accommodated within typical construction details in the UK. Onerecommendation which does not fall into this category is clause 5.2 (2) which relates topartially encased composite beams and recommends a maximum cover of 35mm. It is notunusual to have 40mm cover in reinforced concrete design in the UK. However, concreteencased composite beams are not a common form of construction in the UK.
5.2.5 Unprotected Composite Slabs
Informative Annex D of EC4-1-2 presents design rules for determining the fire resistance ofunprotected composite slabs exposed to fire beneath the slab. It is worth noting that EC4-1-2considers a concrete slab thickness and determines a fire resistance period, where the UKmethod considers a fire resistance period and determines the concrete slab thickness.
When determining the sagging moment resistance the contribution of the steel deck isincluded in the EC4-1-2 method. This design philosophy differs from that currently used inthe UK’s Fire Engineering approach, where the contribution of the steel deck is not includedwhen determining the sagging moment resistance of a composite floor at elevatedtemperatures. The steel deck contribution is excluded from the UK method as it is fullyexposed to the fire which causes the strength of the deck to decrease as it becomes hot.Observations from real fires in the UK (Broadgate, Basingstoke, etc) and observations from
EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures
39
standard fire tests show that considering the deck and concrete to act compositely during afire may be unconservative. However, the simple method currently used in the UK is basedon tests and will therefore include a component representing the deck.
Annex D of EC4-1-2 is an Informative Annex this allows each National Annex to specify how itshould be used within that country. It is envisaged that the UK National Annex may not allowthe use of Annex D in the UK.
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
40
6 Effects on UK structural design procedures
An initial difference UK designers will find when using the Eurocodes (in comparison with the
current British Standards) is that the Eurocodes set out Principles and Application rules for
design rather than providing detailed calculation procedures. Due to this approach
information that is considered to be ‘textbook’ information is not included in the Eurocodes.
Currently the British Standards include this type of information, therefore UK designers will
need to be prepared for this change.
UK designers will find that when designing to the Eurocodes an increased number of design
standards are required. This is due to the Eurocode system not reproducing guidance once
it has been presented in another part of a Eurocode, it only refers back to earlier guidance.
This issue was discussed in section 2.
For some design checks / approaches UK designers will have to become familiar with new
calculation methods. Initially this may lead to increased design time whilst designers become
familiar with the new checks. Areas where new design checks / approaches are given in
Eurocodes include:
• Fire design of steel members subjected to combined bending and axial compression
The Eurocode method is more complex than the current British Standard.
• Determination of the design resistance of bolts in shear and tension, and the design
resistance of welds at elevated temperatures.
Not currently covered in British Standard.
• Steel and concrete composite columns.
The current British standards do not include guidance for composite columns in
buildings.
• Steel and concrete composite connections.
The current British standards do not include guidance for composite connections.
However, there is a BCSA/SCI composite connections publication [10].
• Classification of connections.
More complex system in Eurocodes than current British Standard.
• Through-thickness checks at welded connections.
Eurocode requires more checks to be undertaken than current British Standard.
It is considered that the more complex design checks in EC3-1-8 for connections may result
in designers placing more reliance on computer software. This is due to the checks for
design moment resistance and rotational stiffness of a connection being complex and time
consuming and not suitable for hand calculations.
The Eurocodes, unlike the current British Standards, permit the adoption of novel forms of
construction provided that the design principles of the Eurocodes are maintained. This gives
UK designers greater structural design ‘freedom’ compared with the British Standards.
However, current Building Regulations do not require structural designs to be fully compliant
with British Standards, but they must show how the Building Regulation requirements are
meet. Any designs to the emerging Eurocodes would need to demonstrate compliance with
the requirements of the Building Regulations.
Whilst there might be an increase in design effort in the initial years, the development of
design aids and designers' familiarity with the Eurocodes will reduce this in the future.
Design Route Maps
41
7 Design Route Maps
This section presents route maps for the design of some structural elements to assist the
designer in becoming familiar with the layout of the guidance given in the Eurocodes. The
route maps do not consider all types of structural elements, as it is considered such guidance
will be provided in design guides.
The route maps given in this section are:
High level design overview Page 42
Simply supported beam Page 43
Column Page 44
Composite simply supported beam Page 46
Composite continuous beam Page 47
Composite Column Page 48
Fire Engineering design of Steel Structures – General Page 50
Summary of Structural Fire Engineering Design to the Eurocodes Page 51
Fire limit state design – simply supported beam Page 52
Steel sheet pile Page 53
To supplement the information given in the route maps Appendix A contains tables that
reference clause numbers within the Eurocodes for the design topics considered in this
Companion Document.
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
42
Fir
e l
imit
sta
te d
es
ign
Ro
bu
stn
es
s d
es
ign
ch
ec
ks
Fo
un
da
tio
n d
es
ign
Am
bie
nt
tem
pe
ratu
re d
es
ign
De
sig
n o
f s
tru
ctu
ral
me
mb
ers
/ e
lem
en
ts f
or
a f
ram
ed
bu
ild
ing
Ac
tio
ns
EN
1990
— C
ombi
natio
ns o
fac
tions
EN
1991
-1-1
— D
ead
and
impo
sed
actio
nsE
N19
91-1
-3 —
Sno
wE
N19
91-1
-4 —
Win
dE
N19
91-1
-6 —
Act
ions
dur
ing
exec
utio
n
Ac
tio
ns
EN
1990
— C
ombi
natio
ns o
fac
tions
EN
1991
-1-1
— D
ead
and
impo
sed
actio
nsE
N19
91-1
-2 —
Fire
EN
1991
-1-4
— W
ind
Gu
ida
nc
e o
n t
he
ty
pe
of
an
aly
sis
re
qu
ire
d f
or
the
str
uc
ture
EN
1991
-1-7
— A
ccid
enta
lac
tions
Tex
tboo
k in
form
atio
n
Ac
tio
ns
EN
1990
— C
ombi
natio
ns o
fac
tions
EN
1991
-1-1
— D
ead
and
impo
sed
actio
nsE
N19
91-1
-3 —
Sno
wE
N19
91-1
-4 —
Win
dE
N19
97 —
Geo
tech
nica
lac
tions
Me
mb
er
de
sig
n
Ste
elE
N19
93-1
-1 —
Gen
eral
rul
esE
N19
93-1
-5 —
Pla
ted
elem
ents
EN
1993
-1-8
— J
oint
sE
N19
93-1
-10
— F
ract
ure
toug
hnes
sE
N19
91-1
-5 —
The
rmal
act
ions
Com
posi
te s
teel
and
con
cret
eE
N19
94-1
-1 —
Gen
eral
rul
esE
N19
92 —
Con
cret
e st
ruct
ures
Tex
tboo
k in
form
atio
n
Me
mb
er
de
sig
n
EN
1993
-1-2
— S
teel
, Fire
EN
1994
-1-2
— C
ompo
site
ste
el&
con
cret
e, F
ireE
N19
92 -
1-2
— C
oncr
ete,
Fire
Oth
er p
arts
of E
C2,
3, &
4(a
s fo
r am
bien
t tem
pera
ture
desi
gn)
Tex
tboo
k in
form
atio
n
Me
mb
er
de
sig
n
EN
1997
— G
eote
chni
cal (
sizi
ngof
mem
bers
)E
N19
93-5
— P
iling
EN
1992
— C
oncr
ete
Tex
tboo
k in
form
atio
n
Hig
h level d
esig
n o
verv
iew
ro
ute
map
Design Route Maps
43
Simply supported beam route map – Full lateral support provided
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
No
Web Checks refer to BS EN 1993-1-5 Clause6.2(1), 6.4(1) & (2), 6.5(1) (2) & (3)
Check Moment resistance Clause 6.2.5
Values for Permanent (G) andVariable (Q) Actions BS EN 1991-1-1
Partial Factors γG & γQ BSEN 1990 Table A1.2(3)
Combination of actionsBS EN 1990 Table A1.2(B)
Yes
No
Combination coefficients (ψi)BS EN 1990 Table A1.1
Section ClassificationTable 5.2
Material strength prEN10025-3(Product standard)
Does shear buckling need to bechecked? Clause 6.2.6(6)
Yes
No
Undertake checks given inSection 5 of BS EN 1993-1-5
Shear resistance Plastic designClause 6.2.6(1), 6.2.6(2) & 6.2.6(3)
Material partial factors γMi Clause 6.1(1)
YesReduced material strengthClause 6.2.8(3)
More than onevariable action?
Serviceability limit state checks BS EN 1990 Clause 6.5& A1.4, and BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause 7.2 & National
Undertakechecks formaximummomentplus shearandmaximumshear plusmoment
Does the shear reduce the momentcapacity? Clause 6.2.8(2)
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
44
Column route map – Axial load only
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
Values for Permanent (G) and Variable (Q) Actions BS EN 1991-1-1
Partial Factors G & Q BS
EN 1990 Table A1.2(3)
Combination of actions BS EN 1990 Table A1.2(B)
Yes
No
Combination coefficients ( i)
BS EN 1990 Table A1.1
Section Classification Table 5.2
Material strength prEN10025-3 (Product standard)
Material partial factors Mi Clause 6.1(1)
More than one variable action?
Check thickness of cross-section Clause 3.2.3 and BS EN 1993-1-10 Table 2.1
Calculate effective cross-section properties Clause 6.2.2.5
Calculate MEd due to any change
in centroid location. Change in centroid location determined following method given in BS EN 1993-1-5
Class 4
Calculate effective web properties Clause 6.2.2.4
Class 3 web, with class 1 or 2 flanges.
Calculate the buckling length Textbook information (no values given in BS EN 1993-1-1)
Continued on page 45 Continued on page 45
Partial Factors γG & γQ BSEN 1990 Table A1.2(3)
Combination coefficients (ψi)BS EN 1990 Table A1.1
Material partial factors ψMi Clause 6.1(1)
Design Route Maps
45
Column route map – Axial load only (continued)
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
Flexural buckling check
From page 44
Calculate slenderness for flexural buckling ( ) Clause 6.3.1.3
Is 2.0 or
04.0N
N
cr
Ed
Yes
No
Select buckling curve from Table 6.2
Calculate reduction factor Clause 6.3.1.2
Obtain imperfection factor from Table 6.1
Calculate buckling resistance Nb,Rd Clause 6.3.1.1
Class 4
Account for MEd using interaction
given in Clause 6.3.4 or 6.3.3
Calculate Slenderness for torsional and flexural-
torsional buckling ( TFT or ) Clause 6.3.1.4
Textbook required to determine Ncr,T and Ncr,TF
to calculate ( TFT or )
Repeat flexural buckling checks, replacing with T or TF and with T or TF
Check compressive resistance Clause 6.2.4
Account for MEd Clause 6.2.9.3(2)
Unsymmetrical Class 4 sections
Is the cross-section open?
Yes
No
From page 45From page 44
Calculate slenderness for flexural buckling (λ) Clause 6.3.1.3–
λ–
λ–
λ–
λ– λ–
λ– λ–
λ– λ– λ– χ χ
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
46
Composite simply supported beam route map
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1994-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
No
Yes
Values for Permanent (G) and Variable (Q) Actions BS EN 1991-1-1
Combination of actions BS EN 1990 Table A1.2(B)
Combination coefficients ( i)
BS EN 1990 Table A1.1 More than one
variable action?
Material partial factors Mi from BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause 6.1(1) and BS EN 1992-1-1.
Determine non-composite moment resistance, Mpl,a,Rd, and lateral-torsional buckling resistance Mb,Rd of steel section to BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.5 and 6.3.2 respectively.
Determine the vertical resistance to shear, VRd, of the steel section to BS EN1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6
Yes
No
No Yes
Check composite and non-composite deflections to Clause 7.3.1 and check the dynamic property of floor beams to BS EN1994-1-1, 7.3.2
Material strengths to prEN10025-3 (Product standard) and BS EN 1992-1-1.
Calculate moment resistance of composite cross-section with partial shear connection, MRd. Clause 6.2.1.3
Moment resistance of composite cross-section, MRd is moment resistance for full shear interaction, Mpl,Rd.
Calculate Composite moment resistance, Mpl,Rd, of cross-section at supports and at mid-span to Clause 6.2.1.2, assuming full shear interaction between the structural steel and concrete.
Calculate the shear connector resistance to Clause 6.6.3.1 and determine the actual degree of shear connection, , to Clause 6.6.1.
Sufficient shear studs to ensure full shear interaction?
Determine effective breadth of slab, beff, to Clause 5.4.1.2
Vertical shear, VEd greater than half shear
resistance VRd? Adopt a reduced design steel strength for bending in accordance with Clause 6.2.2.4(2)
steel section to BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6
Combination coefficients (ψi)BS EN 1990 Table A1.1
η
Design Route Maps
47
Composite continuous beam route map
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
No
Yes Combination coefficients ( i) BSEN1990 Table A1.1 More than one
variable action?
Material partial factors Mi from BSEN1993-1-1 Clause 6.1(1) and BS EN 1992-1-1.
Determine non-composite moment resistance, Mpl,a,Rd, and lateral-torsional buckling resistance Mb,Rd of steel section to BS EN1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.5 and 6.3.2 respectively.
Determine the vertical resistance to shear, VRd, of the steel section to BS EN1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6
Yes
No
No Yes
Check composite and non-composite deflections to Clause 7.3.1 and check the dynamic property of floor beams to BS EN1994-1-1, 7.3.2
Material strengths to prEN10025-3 (Product standard) and BS EN1992-1-1.
Calculate moment resistance of composite cross-section with partial shear connection, MRd. Clause 6.2.1.3
Moment resistance of composite cross-section, MRd is moment resistance for full shear interaction, Mpl,Rd.
Check the lateral-torsional buckling capacity, Mb,Rd, of the composite section to Clause 6.4.
Calculate composite moment resistance, Mpl,Rd, of cross-section at supports and at mid-span to Clause 6.2.1.2, assuming full shear interaction between the structural steel, reinforcement and concrete.
Calculate the shear connector resistance to Clause 6.6.3.1 and determine the actual degree of shear connection, , to Clause 6.6.1.
Sufficient shear studs to ensure full shear interaction?
Determine effective breadth(s) of slab, beff, to Clause 5.4.1.2
Vertical shear, VEd greater than half shear
resistance VRd?
Adopt a reduced design steel strength for bending in accordance with Clause 6.2.2.4(2)
Values for Permanent (G) and Variable (Q) Actions BSEN1991-1-1
Combination of actions BSEN1990 Table A1.2(B)
steel section to BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6
η
Combination coefficients (ψi)BS EN 1990 Table A1.1
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
48
Composite column route map
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1994-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
No
Yes
Values for Permanent (G) and Variable (Q) Actions BSEN1991-1-1
Combination of actions BSEN1990 Table A1.2(B)
Check the minimum wall thickness of section to prevent local buckling of the section, Clause 6.7.1(9)
Material strengths to prEN10025-3 (Product standard) and BS EN1992-1-1.
No
Yes
Steel section fully encased in accordance with Clause 6.7.5.1(2)?
Select column type (concrete encased or infilled hollow section) and use an appropriate approximate method to determine a trial column section.
Determine the effective flexural stiffness, (EI)eff, of the composite cross-section in accordance with Clause 6.7.3.3(3).
Calculate the plastic resistance to compression, Npl,Rd, of the composite cross section, as the sum of the plastic resistances of the steel section, concrete and reinforcement, in accordance with Clause 6.7.3.2 and equation (6.30).
Calculate the elastic critical buckling force, Ncr, for the relevant buckling mode and buckling length. Assuming an Euler buckling mode, the
critical buckling force can be calculated using: ( ) 2
e
2
Cr lEIN = , where
le is the effective length of the column.
Continued on page 49
Check that the steel contribution ratio to the plastic resistance to
compression, defined as , in Clause 6.7.3.3(1) is between 0.2 and 0.9.
Select an appropriate steel section if not.
Calculate the characteristic plastic resistance to compression, Npl,Rk, of the composite cross section.
Material partial factors Mi from BS EN1993-1-1, 6.1(1) and BS EN 1992-1-1.
Combination coefficients ( i) BSEN1990 Table A1.1
More than one variable action?
Continued on page 49
Combination coefficients (ψi)BS EN 1990 Table A1.1
γMi
σ
π
Design Route Maps
49
Composite column route map (continued)
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1994-1-1 unless otherwise stated.
Determine the vertical resistance to shear, Vpl,Rd, of the composite section to BS EN1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6
Yes
No
Vertical shear, VEd greater than half shear
resistance Vpl,Rd?
Adopt a reduced design steel strength for bending in accordance with Clause 6.2.2.4(2)
Check for long term creep effects on the effective elastic flexural stiffness in accordance with Clause 6.7.3.3(4) and re-evaluate the relative slenderness. Note: this revised slenderness value may mean that the section is no longer within the
slenderness limit of 2.0 (clause 6.7.3.1(1)), or it may mean that no enhancement due to any concrete confinement within a tubular section is possible.
Determine the relative slenderness, , of the composite section in
accordance with equation (6.39), Clause 6.7.3.3(2), using the characteristic plastic resistance and the critical buckling force.
Determine the maximum plastic moment resistance in the presence of compressive normal force, Mmax,Rd.
Calculate Composite moment resistance, Mpl,Rd, of the cross-section to Clause 6.2.1.2, assuming full shear interaction between the structural steel, reinforcement and concrete.
Check that equation (6.44): 0.1,Rdpl
Ed
xNN
is satisfied.
Where x is the reduction factor for the relevant buckling mode given in
BS EN1993-1-1, 6.3.1.2 in terms of the relative slenderness .
Check that equation (6.45): M
Rdpld
Ed
RdNpl
Ed
M
M
M
M
µ=
,,,
is satisfied
Where MEd is the maximum design moment and Mpl,N,Rd is the plastic bending resistance taking into account the normal force NEd (taken from Figure 6.18, and is basically the value of moment resistance at the relevant applied normal force, NEd, determined using the interaction curve produced above). Note: For steel grades between S235 and S355 inclusive, the coefficient
M should be taken as 0.9 and for
steel grades S40 and S460 it should be taken as 0.8.
From page 48
Using the values for moment resistance, the plastic resistance of the concrete, Npm,Rd and the maximum plastic moment resistance, Mmax,Rd, produce the interaction curve described in Clause 6.7.3.2(5).
Assess whether specific provisions are needed in order to achieve adequate load interaction, Clause 6.7.4.
From page 48
λ–
λ–
≥ α
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
50
Fire engineering design of steel structures – General route map
Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-2 unless otherwise stated.
Define performance criteria – National Regulations (AD-B), time equivalence (EN1991-1-2), Fire engineering design
Consider relevant design fire scenarios
Nominal fire curves (standard fire, external fire curve, hydrocarbon fire – EN1991-1-2
Natural fires – parametric curves, advanced methods
Determine temperature profile – by calculation (4.2.5.1(1), 4.2.5.2 (1)), from test data or using advanced methods
Calculation of mechanical actions using modified procedure based on ambient temperature design (4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.3.3, 4.2.3.4, 4.2.3.5)
Design Route Maps
51
Su
mm
ary
of s
truc
tura
l fire e
ng
ine
erin
g d
esig
n to
the
Eu
roc
od
es
No
te: C
lau
se
/ Ta
ble
nu
mb
ers
giv
en
refe
r to B
S E
N 1
99
3-1
-2 u
nle
ss o
the
rwis
e s
tate
d.
De
term
ine
fire re
sis
tan
ce
req
uire
me
nts
from
Bu
ildin
g R
eg
ula
tion
s o
r fire e
ng
ine
erin
g
ca
lcu
latio
ns
Asse
ss p
erfo
rma
nce
by c
alc
ula
tion
acco
rdin
g to
typ
e o
f me
mb
er
Te
nsio
n
me
mb
ers
4
.2.3
.1
Co
mp
ressio
n
me
mb
ers
cla
ss
1,2
,or 3
cro
ss
se
ctio
ns 4
.2.3
.2
Be
am
s in
be
nd
ing
cla
ss 1
or 2
cro
ss
se
ctio
ns 4
.2.3
.3
Cla
ss 3
be
am
s
4.2
.3.4
C
om
bin
ed
be
nd
ing
an
d a
xia
l co
mp
ressio
n 4
.2.3
.5
Nfi,t,R
d >
Nfi,E
d
Nb
,fi,t,Rd
> N
fi,Ed
Mfi,
,Rd
> M
fi,Ed
Mfi,
,Rd
> M
fi,Ed
Rfi,
,Rd >
Rfi,E
d
Mfl ,θ
,Rd >
Mfi,E
dM
fl ,θ,R
d >M
fi,Ed
Rfl ,θ
,Rd >
Rfi,E
d
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
52
Fir
e l
imit
sta
te d
es
ign
– S
imp
ly s
up
po
rte
d b
ea
m r
ou
te m
ap
(assu
me
s k
no
wle
dg
e o
f m
axim
um
ste
el te
mp
era
ture
)
No
te: C
lau
se
/ T
ab
le n
um
be
rs g
ive
n r
efe
r to
BS
EN
19
93
-1-2
un
less o
the
rwis
e s
tate
d.
De
term
ine
fir
e r
esis
tan
ce
re
qu
ire
me
nts
fro
m B
uild
ing
Re
gu
latio
ns o
r fire
en
gin
ee
rin
g c
alc
ula
tio
ns
Ca
lcu
latio
n 4
.2
Ta
bu
late
d d
ata
ro
ute
Cla
ss 1
or
2
4.2
.3.3
C
lass 3
4.2
.3.4
Un
ifo
rm
tem
pe
ratu
re
4.2
.3.3
(1
)
No
n-u
nifo
rm
tem
pe
ratu
re
4.2
.3.3
(2
)
Un
ifo
rm
tem
pe
ratu
re
4.2
.3.4
(1
)
No
n-u
nifo
rm
tem
pe
ratu
re
4.2
.3.4
(2
)
Mfi
,t,R
d >
Mfi
,t,E
d
pla
stic
ela
stic
Asse
ss p
erf
orm
an
ce
fro
m t
est
or
ma
nu
factu
rers
da
ta
De
term
ine
se
ctio
n f
acto
r A
/V
Co
nsu
lt p
rote
ctio
n m
an
ufa
ctu
rers
da
ta
sh
ee
t (Y
ello
w B
oo
k*)
Ap
ply
pro
tectio
n t
hic
kn
ess d
eri
ve
d
fro
m t
est
or
asse
ssm
en
t
An
aly
sis
ro
ute
Design Route Maps
53
Steel sheet pile route map
Values of permanent and variable actions from EN1997-1 and EN1991
Combination of actions from EN1990 Table A1.2(B) & A1.2(C)
Combination coefficientsEN1990 Table A1.1
Material strengths to EN10248 and EN10249(product standards)
Material partial factors γmi from EN1993-5, 5.1.1
Select sheet pile section on the basis ofexperience and manufacturers data
Determine the design moment resistance for the chosen section taking intoaccount:
• Class of section (EN1993-5, 5.2.1 and Table 5.1)• Rotation capability (Annex C)• Shear force transfer factors βB and βD (EN1993-5, 5.2.2 and 6.4(3))• Reductions due to water pressure (EN1993-5, 5.2.4 and Table 5.2)• Design bending moment and shear force (EN1993-5, 5.2.2)• Design axial load and Elastic critical load and effective buckling
length for the chosen section (EN1993-5, 5.2.3)
More than onevariable action?
Check section capability to resist concentrated loads from wallings etc(EN1993-5, 7.4.3)
Determine reduced section properties in respect ofcorrosion over the life of the structure
Check structural requirements for crimping or welding if necessary(EN1993-5, 5.2.2 and 6.4)
Confirm capability of selected sheet pile section for the specified conditions
Assess installation of the selected section (EN1993-5, 2.7 and EN12063)
Yes
No
Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 – Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings
54
8 References
1. BS EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)
2. BS 5950-1: 2000 Structural use of steelwork in building – Part 1: Code of practice for design – Rolled and welded sections, British Standards Institution, London, May 2001
3. BS EN 10025: 1993, Hot rolled products of non-alloy structural steels. Technical delivery conditions, British Standards Institution, London, November 1993
4. BS EN 1993-1-2, Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1.2: General rules – Structural fire design, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)
5. BS 5950-8: 2003, Structural use of steelwork in building – Part 8: Code of practice for fire resistant design, British Standards Institution, London, 2003
6. BS EN1991-1-2: 2002, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 1.2: General actions – Actions on structures exposed to fire, British Standards Institution, London, November 2002
7. BS EN 1993-1-8, Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1.8: Design of joints, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)
8. BCSA and SCI, Joints in Steel Construction – Simple Connections, SCI, 2002
9. BCSA and SCI, Joints in Steel Construction – Moment Connections, SCI, 1995
10. BCSA and SCI, Joints in Steel Construction – Composite connections, SCI, 1998
11. Stark, J. W. B & Bijlaard, F. S. K. Design rules for beam-column connections in Europe. TNO Report number BI-83-60, Delft, The Netherlands, 1983.
12. Zoetemeijer, P. A. Design method for the tension side of statically loaded beam-column connections. Heron 20, Number 1, Delft University, Delft, The Netherlands, 1974.
13. Jaspart, J.P. Etude de la semi-rigidét des noeuds pouter-colomme et son influence sur la résistance et la staibility des ossatures ne acier. PhD Thesis University Liege, Belgium, 1991.
14. Weynand, K, Jaspart, J. P & Steenhuis, M. The stiffness model of revised Annex J of Eurocode 3. Connections in Steel Structures III behaviour strength and design, Proceedings of the 3rd International workshop on connections, Pages 441-452, Trento, Italy, May 1995.
15. BS EN 1993-1-10, Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 1.10: Material toughness and through-thickness properties, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)
16. BS EN 10164: 1993, Steel products with improved deformation properties perpendicular to the surface of the product. Technical delivery conditions, British Standards Institution, London, August 1993
References
55
17. BSI, BS 5950-2: 2001: Structural use of steelwork in building Part 2: Specification for materials, fabrication and erection – Rolled and welded sections, British Standards Institution, London, August 2001
18. BS EN 1993-5, Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Part 5: Piling, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)
19. BS 8002: 1994, Code of practice for earth retaining structures, British Standards Institution, London, April 1994
20. BS EN 1994-1-1, Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)
21. BS EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete structures – Part 1.1 General rules and rules for buildings, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)
22. BS 5950-3.1: 1990, Structural use of steelwork in building Part 3 Section 3.1 Code of practice for design of simple and continuous composite beams, British Standards Institution, London, February 1999.
23. Johnson R P and Anderson D, Designers’ Guide to EN 1994-1-1 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. ISBN: 0 7277 3151 3. Thomas Telford 2004.
24. BS 5400-5: 1979, Steel, concrete and composite bridges Part 5: Code for practice for design of composite bridges, British Standards Institution, London, October 1999.
25. BS EN 1994-1-2, Eurocode 4 – Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 1.2: General rules – Structural fire design,, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)