Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
4 How to calculate anchorage and lap lengths to Eurocode 2
12 Deflection – the spantoeffectivedepth method and Eurocode 2
17 Fire Design of concrete columns and walls to Eurocode 2
23 Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures for vertical loads
29 Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures for lateral loads and other factors
34 Design of posttensioned slabs
40 Guidance on the design of liquidretaining structures
45 An introduction to strutandtie modelling
The Concrete Centre provides material, design and construction guidance with the aim of enabling those involved in the design, use and performance of concrete and masonry to realise the potential of the material.
Through funding from the cement, aggregates, readymixed and precast concrete sectors, The Concrete Centre is able to invest in the development of services and resources that support the design and construction of robust, sustainable, costeffective structures throughout the built environment.
Resources available for structural engineers are highlighted on the inside back cover of this document (page 51) and there is a wealth of material available at www.concretecentre.com.
2 I www.concretecentre.com
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
This compendium includes articles that were first published in the renowned journal ‘The Structural Engineer’ following its invitation to The Concrete Centre to write a series of technical papers on structural design in concrete.
The series includes topics chosen represent topical issues and respond to frequently asked questions that we receive from designers, such as guidance on anchorage and lap lengths, posttensioning and column fire design. The compendium also includes papers on deflections, Eurocode 6, liquid retaining structures and strutandtie.
Acknowledgements
The Concrete Centre would like to thank the authors and peer reviewers for their contribution to these technical papers including:
John Roberts; RS Narayanan; Robert Vollum, Imperial College.
www.concretecentre.com I 3
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Introduction
EC2 provides information about reinforcement detailing in Sections 8 and 9 of Part 11 (BS EN 199211) ^{1} . Section 8 provides information on the general aspects of detailing and this is where the rules for anchorage and lap lengths are given. Section 9 sets out the rules for detailing different types of elements, such as beams, slabs and columns.
The calculation for anchorage and lap lengths is as described in EC2 and is fairly extensive. There are shortcuts to the process, the first being to use one of the tables produced by others ^{2}^{–}^{4} . These are based on the bar being fully stressed and the cover being 25mm or ‘normal’. These assumptions are conservative, particularly the assumption that the bar is fully stressed, as bars are normally anchored or lapped away from the points of high stress. Engineering judgement should be used when applying any of the tables to ensure that the assumptions are reasonable and not overly conservative.
This article discusses how to calculate an anchorage and lap length for steel ribbed reinforcement subjected to predominantly static loading using the information in Section 8. Coated steel bars (e.g. coated with paint, epoxy or zinc) are not considered. The rules are applicable to normal buildings and bridges.
An anchorage length is the length of bar required to transfer the force in the bar into the concrete. A lap length is the length required to transfer the force in one bar to another bar. Anchorage and lap lengths are both calculated slightly differently depending on whether the bar is in compression or tension.
For bars in tension, the anchorage length is measured along the centreline of the bar. Figure 1 shows a tension anchorage for a bar in a pad base. The anchorage length for bars in tension can include bends and hooks (Figure 2), but bends and hooks do not contribute to compression anchorages. For a foundation, such as a pile cap or pad base, this can affect the depth of concrete that has to be provided.
Most tables that have been produced in the UK for anchorage and lap lengths have been based on the assumption that the bar is fully stressed at the start of the anchorage or at the lap length. This is rarely the case, as good detailing principles put laps at locations of low stress and the area of steel provided tends to be greater than the area of steel required.
This article provides guidance on how to calculate anchorage and lap lengths to Eurocode 2.
In EC2, anchorage and lap lengths are proportional to the stress in the bar at the start of the anchorage or lap. Therefore, if the bar is stressed to only half its ultimate capacity, the lap or anchorage length will be half what it would have needed to be if the bar were fully stressed.
Figure 1 Tension Anchorage
Ultimate bond stress
Both anchorage and lap lengths are determined by the ultimate bond stress f _{b}_{d} which depends on the concrete strength and whether the anchorage or lap length is in a ‘good’ or ‘poor’ bond condition. ƒ _{b}_{d} = 2.25η _{1} η _{2} ƒ _{c}_{t}_{d} (Expression 8.2 from BS EN 199211) where:
ƒ
_{c}_{t}_{d}
ƒ _{c}_{t}_{k}_{,}_{0}_{,}_{0}_{5}
ƒ
_{c}_{t}_{m}
ƒ
_{c}_{k}
γ
_{C}
α _{c}_{t}
is the design tensile strength of concrete, ƒ _{c}_{t}_{d} = α _{c}_{t} ƒ _{c}_{t}_{k}_{,}_{0}_{,}_{0}_{5} /γ _{C} is the characteristic tensile strength of concrete,
^{ƒ} ctk,0,05 ^{=} ^{0}^{.}^{7} ^{×} ^{ƒ} ctm
(2/3)
is the mean tensile strength of concrete, ƒ _{c}_{t}_{m} = 0.3 × ƒ _{c}_{k} is the characteristic cylinder strength of concrete is the partial safety factor for concrete (γ _{C} = 1.5 in UK National Annex ^{5} ) is a coefficient taking account of longterm effects on the tensile strength and of unfavourable effects resulting from the way the load is applied (α _{c}_{t} = 1.0 in UK National Annex)
4 I www.concretecentre.com
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
≥5Ø ≥5Ø
≥150 ≥150
a) a) Bend Bend or or ‘L’ ‘L’ bar bar
c) c) Loop Loop or or ‘U’ ‘U’ bar bar
Source: EC211 Figure 8.1, b, c and d.
Figure 2 Typical bends and hooks bent through 90 ^{o} or more
Figure 3 ‘Good’ and ‘Poor’ bond conditions
Table 1 gives the design tensile strengths for structural concretes up to
C50/60.
η _{1}
is the coefficient relating to the bond condition and η _{1} = 1 when the bond condition is ‘good’ and η _{1} = 0.7 when the bond condition is ‘poor’
It has been found by experiment that the top section of a concrete pour provides less bond capacity than the rest of the concrete and therefore the coefficient reduces in the top of a section. Figure 8.2 in BS EN 1992 11 gives the locations where the bond condition can be considered ‘poor’ (Figure 3). Any reinforcement that is vertical or in the bottom of a section can be considered to be in ‘good’ bond condition. Any horizontal reinforcement in a slab 275mm thick or thinner can be considered to be in ‘good’ bond condition. Any horizontal reinforcement in the top of a thicker slab or beam should be considered as being in ‘poor’ bond condition.
η
_{2}
η
_{2}
ø
= 1.0 for bar diameters ø ≤ 32mm = (132–ø)/100 for ø > 32mm (η _{2} = 0.92 for 40mm bars) is the diameter of the bar
where σ _{s}_{d} is the design stress in the bar at the position from where the anchorage is measured. If the design stress σ _{s}_{d} is taken as the maximum allowable design stress:
^{σ} sd ^{=} ^{ƒ} yd ^{=} ^{ƒ} yk ^{/}^{γ} s
= 500/1.15 = 435MPa
This number is used for most of the published anchorage and lap length tables, but the design stress in the bar is seldom the maximum allowable design stress, as bars are normally anchored and lapped away from positions of maximum stress and the A _{s}_{,}_{p}_{r}_{o}_{v} is normally greater than A
.
s,req
The design anchorage length l _{b}_{d} is taken from the basic required anchorage length l _{b}_{,}_{r}_{q}_{d} multiplied by up to five coefficients, α _{1} to α _{5} .
^{l} bd ^{=} ^{α} 1 ^{α} 2 ^{α} 3 ^{α} 4 ^{α} 5 ^{l} b,rqd ^{≥} ^{l} b,min
where the coefficients α _{1} to α _{5} are influenced by:
α _{1} – shape of the bar
www.concretecentre.com I 5
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Figure 4 Flow chart for anchorage lengths
α _{2} – concrete cover α _{3} – confinement by transverse reinforcement α _{4} – confinement by welded transverse reinforcement α _{5} – confinement by transverse pressure The minimum anchorage length l _{b}_{,}_{m}_{i}_{n} is:
max {0.3l _{b}_{,}_{r}_{q}_{d} ; 10ø; 100mm} for a tension anchorage max {0.6l _{b}_{,}_{r}_{q}_{d} ; 10ø; 100mm} for a compression anchorage
The maximum value of all the five alpha coefficients is 1.0. The minimum is never less than 0.7. The value to use is given in Table 8.2 of BS EN 1992 11. In this table there are different values for α _{1} and α _{2} for straight bars and bars called other than straight. The other shapes are bars with a bend of 90° or more in the anchorage length. Any benefit in the α coefficients from the bent bars is often negated by the effects of cover. Note that the product of α _{2} α _{3} and α _{5} has to be ≥ 0.7.
To calculate the values of α _{1} and α _{2} the value of c _{d} is needed. c _{d} is obtained from Figure 8.3 in BS EN 199211 and shown here in Figure 5.
c _{d} is often the nominal cover to the bars. In any published anchorage tables, a conservative value for the nominal bar cover has to be assumed and 25mm is used in the Concrete Centre tables. If the cover is larger than 25mm, the anchorage length may be less than the value quoted in most published tables. For hooked or bent bars in wide elements, such as slabs or walls, c _{d} is governed by the spacing between the bars.
In Table 8.2 of BS EN 199211 anchorage length alpha coefficients are given for bars in tension and compression. The alpha values for a compression anchorage are all 1.0, the maximum value, except for α _{4} which is 0.7, the same as a tension anchorage. Hence, the anchorage length for a compression anchorage can always conservatively be used as the anchorage length for a bar in tension.
6 I www.concretecentre.com
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Alpha values for tension anchorage Alpha values for tension anchorage are provided in Table 8.2 of BS EN
199211.
α _{1} – shape of the bar Straight bar, α _{1} = 1.0 There is no benefit for straight bars; α _{1} is the maximum value of 1.0. Bars other than straight, α _{1} = 0.7 if c _{d} > 3ø; otherwise α _{1} = 1.0
If we assume that the value of c _{d} is 25mm, then the only benefit for bars other than straight is for bars that are 8mm in diameter or less. For bars larger than 8mm, α _{1} = 1.0. However, for hooked or bobbed bars in wide elements, where c _{d} is based on the spacing of the bars, α _{1} will be 0.7 if the spacing of the bars is equal to or greater than 7ø.
α _{2} – concrete cover Straight bar, α _{2} = 1 – 0.15(c _{d} – ø)/ø ≥ 0.7 ≤ 1.0
There is no benefit in the value of α _{2} for straight bars unless (c _{d} – ø) is positive, which it will be for small diameter bars. If c _{d} is 25mm, then there will be some benefit for bars less than 25mm in diameter, i.e. for 20mm diameter bars and smaller, α _{2} will be less than 1.0. Bars other than straight, α _{2} = 1 – 0.15(c _{d} – 3ø)/ø ≥ 0.7 ≤ 1.0
Table 1: Design tensile strength, ƒ _{c}_{t}_{d} 

C20/25 
C25/30 
C28/35 
C30/37 
C32/40 
C35/45 
C40/50 
C50/60 

^{ƒ} ctm 




^{ƒ} ctk, 0.05 





^{ƒ} ctd 




www.concretecentre.com I 7
a) Straight bars c _{d} = min (a/2, c _{1} , c)
Source: EC211, Figure 8.3.
Figure 5 Values of c _{d} (c and c _{1} are taken to be c _{n}_{o}_{m} )
^{A} st
K = 0.1
Source: EC211, Figure 8.4.
K = 0.05
Figure 6 Values of K
Table 2: Anchorage and lap lengths for locations of maximum stress 

Bond 
Reinforcement in tension, bar diameter, Ф (mm) 
Reinforcement 

Condition 
8 
10 
12 
16 
20 
25 
32 
40 
in compression 

Straight 
Good 
230 
600 
780 
1010 
40Ф 

Anchorage 
bars only 
Poor 
330 
850

1120 
1450 
58Ф 

length, l _{b}_{d} 
Other 
Good 
320 
650

810 
1010 
40Ф 

bars only 
Poor 
460 
930

1450 


50% lapped in one 
Good 
320 
830

1420 


location (a _{6} =1.4) 
Poor 
460 
1190

2020 


Lap length, 

l o 
100% lapped 
Good 
340 
890

1520 


in one location (a _{6} =1.5) 
Poor 
490 
1270

2170 

Notes
1) Nominal cover to all sides and distance between bars ≥2mm (i.e. α _{2} <1). At laps, clear distance between bars ≤50mm. 2) α _{1} = α _{3} = α _{4} = α _{5} = 1.0. For the beneficial effects of shape of bar, cover and confinement see Eurocode 2, Table 8.2. 3) Design stress has been taken as 435MPa. Where the design stress in the bar at the position from where the anchorage is measured, σ _{s}_{d} , is less than 435MPa the figures in this table can be factored by σ _{s}_{d} /435. The minimum lap length is given in cl. 8.7.3 of Eurocode 2. 4) The anchorage and lap lengths have been rounded up to the nearest 10mm. 5) Where 33% of bars are lapped in one location, decrease the lap lengths for ‘50% lapped in one location’ by a factor of 0.82. 6) The figures in this table have been prepared for concrete class C25/30.
Concrete class 
C20/25 
C28/35 
C30/37 
C32/40 
C35/45 
C40/50 
C45/55 
C50/60 
Factor 
1.16 
0.93 
0.89 
0.85 
0.80 
0.73 
0.68 
0.63 
8 I www.concretecentre.com
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
For example, if anchoring an H25 bar in a beam with H10 links at 300mm
centres: 

A 
= 491mm ^{2} for a 25mm diameter bar 

s 
ΣA _{s}_{t}_{,}_{m}_{i}_{n} = 0.25 × 491 = 123mm ^{2}
ΣA _{s}_{t} = 4 × 78.5 = 314mm ^{2} , assuming links will provide at least four 10mm diameter transverse bars in the anchorage length
λ = (ΣA _{s}_{t} – ΣA _{s}_{t}_{,}_{m}_{i}_{n} )/ A _{s} = (314 – 123)/491 = 0.38 α _{3} = 1 – Kλ = 1 – 0.1 × 0.38 = 0.96
Figure 8 Plan view of slab illustrating transverse tension
There is no benefit in the value of α _{2} for bars other than straight unless (c _{d} – 3ø) is positive. If we assume that the value of c _{d} is 25mm, then the only benefit for bars other than straight is for bars that are 8mm in diameter or less. For bars larger than 8mm α _{2} = 1.0. Again, for hooked or bobbed bars in wide elements, where c _{d} is based on the spacing of the bars, α _{2} will be less than 1.0 if the spacing of the bars is equal to or greater than 7ø.
α _{3} – confinement by transverse reinforcement
All bar types, α _{3} = 1 – Kλ ≥ 0.7 ≤ 1.0 where:
K
λ
ΣA
_{s}_{t}
ΣA
_{s}_{t}_{,}_{m}_{i}_{n}
depends on the position of the confining reinforcement. The value of K is given in Figure 8.4 of BS EN 199111 and shown here in Figure 6. A corner bar in a beam has the highest value for K of 0.1. Bars which are in the outermost layer in a slab are not confined and the K value is zero
is the amount of transverse reinforcement providing confinement to a single anchored bar of area A _{s} = (ΣA _{s}_{t} – ΣA _{s}_{t}_{,}_{m}_{i}_{n} ) / A
s
is the crosssectional area of the transverse reinforcement with diameter øt along the design anchorage length
^{l} bd
is the crosssectional area of the minimum transverse
reinforcement = 0.25 A
for beams and zero for slabs
s
α _{4} – confinement by welded transverse reinforcement α _{4} = 0.7 if the welded transverse reinforcement satisfies the requirements given in Figure 8.1e of BS EN 199211. Otherwise α _{4} = 1.0.
α _{5} – confinement by transverse pressure All bar types, α _{5} = 1 – 0.04p ≥ 0.7 ≤ 1.0 where p is the transverse pressure (MPa) at the ultimate limit state along the design anchorage length, l _{b}_{d} .
One place where the benefit of α _{5} can be used is when calculating the design anchorage length l _{b}_{d} of bottom bars at end supports. This benefit is given in BS EN 199211 cl. 9.2.1.4(3) and Figure 9.3, and is shown here in Figure 7. It applies to beams and slabs.
Lap lengths
A lap length is the length two bars need to overlap each other to transfer a force F from one bar to the other. If the bars are of different diameter, the lap length is based on the smaller bar. The bars are typically placed next to each other with no gap between them. There can be a gap, but if the gap is greater than 50mm or four times the bar diameter, the gap distance is added to the lap length.
Lapping bars, transferring a force from one bar to another via concrete, results in transverse tension and this is illustrated in Figure 8 which is a plan view of a slab. Cl.8.7.4.1 of BS EN 199211 gives guidance on the amount and position of the transverse reinforcement that should be provided. Following these rules can cause practical detailing issues if you have to lap bars where the stress in the bar is at its maximum. If possible, lapping bars where they are fully stressed should be avoided and, in
www.concretecentre.com I 9
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Figure 9 Flow chart for lap lengths
10 I www.concretecentre.com
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
typical building structures, there is usually no need to lap bars where they are fully stressed, e.g lapping bars in the bottom of a beam or slab near midspan. Examples where bars are fully stressed and laps are needed are in raft foundations and in longspan bridges.
The wording of this clause regarding guidance on the provision of transverse reinforcement is that it should be followed rather than it must be followed. This may allow the designer some scope to use engineering judgement when detailing the transverse reinforcement, e.g increasing the lap length may reduce the amount of transverse reinforcement.
All the bars in a section can be lapped at one location if the bars are in one layer. If more than one layer is required, then the laps should be staggered.
A design procedure to determine a lap length is given in Figure 9 and, as can be seen in the flow chart, the initial steps are the same as for the calculation of an anchorage length.
Design lap length, l _{0} = α _{1} α _{2} α _{3} α _{5} α _{6} l _{b}_{,}_{r}_{q}_{d} ≥l _{0}_{,}_{m}_{i}_{n} (Eq. 8.10 in BS EN 199211) The coefficients α _{1} , α _{2} , and α _{5} are calculated in the same way as for anchorage lengths and, again, all the coefficients can be taken as = 1.0 as a simplification. α _{3} is calculated slightly differently. When calculating α _{3} for a lap length ΣA _{s}_{t}_{,}_{m}_{i}_{n} = A _{s} (σ _{s}_{d} /f _{y}_{d} ), with A _{s} = area of one lapped bar. The design lap length can therefore be determined by multiplying the design anchorage length by one more alpha coefficient α _{6} , provided α _{3} has been calculated for a lap rather than an anchorage. Design lap length, l _{0} = α _{6} l _{b}_{d} ≥ l _{0}_{,}_{m}_{i}_{n} Minimum anchorage length, l _{0}_{,}_{m}_{i}_{n} = max {0.3 α _{6} l _{b}_{,}_{r}_{q}_{d} ; 15ø; 200mm} α _{6} – coefficient based on the percentage of lapped bars in one lapped section, ρ _{1} α _{6} = (ρ _{1} /25) ^{0}^{.}^{5} ≥ 1.0 ≤ 1.5 where:
ρ _{1}
is the percentage of reinforcement lapped within 0.65l _{0} from the centre of the lap length considered
In most cases either the laps will all occur at the same location, which is 100% lapped and where α _{6} = 1.5, or the laps will be staggered, which is 50% lapped and where α _{6} = 1.4.
For vertically cast columns, good bond conditions exist at laps.
Recommendations
The largest possible savings in lap and anchorage length can be obtained by considering the stress in the bar where it is lapped or anchored.
For most locations, the old rule of thumb of lap lengths being equal to 40ø should be sufficient. For this to be the case, the engineer should use their judgement and should satisfy themselves that the lap and anchorage locations are away from locations of high stress for the bars being lapped or anchored. Where it is not possible to lap or anchor away from those areas of high stress, the lengths will need to be up to the values given in Table 2.
This article presents the rules currently set out in EC2. However, there has been significant recent research which may find its way into the next revision of the Eurocode. For example, research into the effect of staggering on the strength of the lap (α _{6} ) was discussed by John Cairns in Structural Concrete (the fib journal) in 2014 ^{6} . In the review of the Eurocodes, the detailing rules have been the subject of 208 comments (18% of the total for EC2) and it is acknowledged that the rules need to be simplified in the next revision.
References:
1) British Standards Institution (2004) BS EN 199211:2004 Design of concrete structures. General rules and rules for buildings, London, UK: BSI
2) Bond A. J., Brooker O., Harris A. J. et al. (2011) How to Design Concrete Structures using Eurocode 2, Camberley, UK: MPA The Concrete Centre
3) The Institution of Structural Engineers and the Concrete Society (2006) Standard method of detailing structural concrete: A manual for best practice. (3rd ed.), London, UK: The Institution of Structural Engineers
4) The Institution of Structural Engineers (2006) Manual for the design of concrete building structures to Eurocode 2, London, UK: The Institution of Structural Engineers
5) British Standards Institution (2005) NA to BS EN 199211:2004 UK National Annex to Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures. General rules and rules for buildings, London, UK: BSI
6) Cairns J. (2014) ‘Staggered lap joints for tension reinforcement’, Structural Concrete, 15 (1), pp 45–54
www.concretecentre.com I 11
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
In simple terms, the current BS EN 1992 L/d method means verifying that:
Allowable L/d = N x K x F1 x F2 x F3 ≥ actual L/d
(1)
where: 

N = basic spantoeffectivedepth ratio derived for K = 1.0 from the formulae: 

if ρ ≤ ρ _{0} 

N = L/d = K[11 + 1.5ƒ _{c}_{k} ^{0}^{.}^{5} ρ _{0} /ρ + 3.2ƒ _{c}_{k} ^{0}^{.}^{5} (ρ _{0} / ρ – 1) ^{1}^{.}^{5} ] 
(2a) 
or if ρ > ρ _{0} 
N = L/d = K[11 + 1.5ƒ _{c}_{k} ^{0}^{.}^{5} ρ _{0} /(ρ – ρ’) + ƒ _{c}_{k} ^{0}^{.}^{5} (ρ’ / ρ _{0} ) ^{0}^{.}^{5} /12] (2b)
for ρ’ = 0, N may be determined from Figure 1 where:
L = span
d = effective depth = characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days = f _{c}_{k} ^{0}^{.}^{5} /1000
ƒ
_{c}_{k}
ρ
_{0}
ρ
ρ’
K
= A
/bd
s,req
= A _{s}_{2}_{r}_{e}_{q} /bd = factor to account for structural system (Table 1)
σ _{s} = tensile stress in reinforcement at midspan (at support for cantilevers) under design load at serviceability limit state (SLS) calculated using the characteristic value of serviceability load ^{6} F3 is restricted to ≤1.5 ^{6}
Notes
Factors F1, F2 and F3 have been used here for convenience, they are not symbols used in BS EN 199211. According to the notes to Table NA.5 of the UK National Annex (NA) ^{6} warnings are given that the values of K may not be appropriate when formwork is struck at an early age. L/d may not exceed 40K
Basis and current issues
The L/d method is outlined in Eurocode 2 Commentary ^{7} . The method is based on parametric studies by Corres et al. ^{2} , rather than theory. There have been many comments relating to the soundness of the method, which is now acknowledged to have some limitations and deficiencies ^{8}^{,}^{9} :
•
The expressions (7.16a) and (7.16b) in BS EN 199211 (Equations 2a and 2b) assume a certain ratio between total load and dead load, superimposed dead load (SDL) and imposed load (IL). It would be desirable to introduce different possibilities for these ratios in order to widen the application field of these formulae
12 I www.concretecentre.com
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Percentage of tension reinforcement (A _{s}_{,}_{r}_{e}_{q} /bd)
Figure 1 Basic spantoeffectivedepth ratios, N, for K = 1, ρ’ = 0
Figure 3 L/d for simply supported slabs
• 
The expressions do not account for excess reinforcement in tension or compression. (UK practice allowed up to 100% additional reinforcement.) This parameter should be included 
• 
The expressions do not account for peak loading during construction and the cracking induced during that process (Figure 2). This parameter should also be introduced 
• 
The effects of ƒ _{c}_{t}_{m}_{,}_{ƒ}_{l} (mean flexural tensile strength of concrete) were ignored in the background document, whereas the effects are very noticeable for sections with <0.6% reinforcement, i.e. they are very noticeable in slabs. The mean 28day direct concrete tensile strength was used in deflection calculations 
Table 1: K factors to be applied to basic ratios of span to effective depth for different structural systems 

Element 
K 
Simply supported beams or slabs 
1.0 
End span of continuous beams or slabs 
1.3 
Interior spans of continuous beams or slabs 
1.5 
Flat slabs (based on longer span) 
1.2 
Cantilevers 
0.4 
Figure 2 Typical loading and deflection history for slab in multistorey building
Figure 4 L/d for simply supported slabs supporting imposed load of 2.5kN/m ^{2}
•
•
•
•
•
•
The analysis of the section to determine whether the section was cracked or not looked at the “centre span of the beam only”, and conservatively used those properties throughout
The assessment of E _{c}_{,}_{e}_{ff} (effective modulus) was questionable
The relative humidity (RH) was taken as 70%. In the UK, RH is often taken as being 50% internally and 80% or 85% externally
Results using this method do not give a good match with spanto depth ratios derived by calculating deflections rigorously under quasipermanent loading (Figures 3 and 4)
No allowance appears to have been made for the use of loading expressions (6.10a) and (6.10b) in BS EN 1990
The method for adjustment when providing more reinforcement than required for flexure (based on steel service stress) is not conservative
The most substantiated comments came from Vollum ^{1}^{0} . The significant
reductions in slab thickness initially allowed by BS EN 199211,
compared to those allowed by BS 8110, were met with some scepticism
in the UK and modifications were made via the UK NA to EC2 ^{6} (as
outlined earlier). Vollum showed that the EC2 spantodepth rules do not account for cracking during construction; variations in effective depth over thickness (d/h), varying serviceability/ultimate loading ratio (w/w _{u} ) or the effect of restraint at the external supports.
www.concretecentre.com I 13
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
These issues have led some to suggest that the L/d method should be deleted from standards. However, to do so would be to deny designers a valuable tool and ‘feel’ for their designs, although there is clearly room for improvement.
Rigorous method of assessing deflection
Here, it is worth explaining the rigorous method according to BS EN 199211, Cl. 7.4.3. A section will crack if it experiences a serviceability moment exceeding its moment capacity at the time M _{c}_{r}_{(}_{t}_{)} . If a section is cracked, then its inertia is much less than that of the uncracked section and so curvature is much greater in cracked sections. Cracked sections and greater degrees of cracking lead to larger curvatures and deflections (Figure 5).
Economically designed horizontal elements act somewhere between wholly uncracked and wholly cracked. Slabs tend to be less highly stressed and are cracked along only part of their spans. Beams tend to be more highly stressed and crack along much more of their spans. Actions are applied at different times and these actions may or may not cause cracking depending upon the flexural tensile strength of the concrete at the time. Once cracked, a section is assumed to stay cracked but some tensile stiffening occurs in the concrete between cracks. So the mean inertia of the segment is somewhere between those for wholly uncracked or wholly cracked sections. When considering curvatures, these different actions incur different creep coefficients, which affect the applicable effective modulus of the concrete used in assessing curvatures.
BS EN 199211 (and MC2010) state that an adequate prediction of behaviour and the mean curvature in a discreet element (Figure 6) is given by:
1/r _{m} = ζ(ψ _{2} + ψ _{2}_{c}_{s} ) + (1 – ζ)(ψ _{1} + ψ _{1}_{c}_{s} )
where: 

r = mean radius m ζ 

= 1 – β(M _{c}_{r} /M) ^{2} 

where: 

β 

M 

_{c}_{r} 

M 
= SLS moment 

ψ _{1} 

ψ _{2} 
= 1.0 for shortterm and β = 0.5 for longterm loading. For construction loads, conservatively ^{1}^{0} β = 0.70
= cracking moment
= M/E _{c}_{e}_{ff} I _{1} = curvature of uncracked section = M/E _{c}_{e}_{ff} I _{2} = curvature of cracked section
where: 

E _{c}_{e}_{ff} = E _{c}_{m} /(1 + φ) 

where: 

E _{c}_{m} = modulus at 28 days 

φ 
= creep coefficient 
I _{1} , I _{2} = inertias of the uncracked and cracked sections
ψ _{1}_{c}_{s} , ψ _{2}_{c}_{s} = shrinkage curvature
This ‘rigorous’ method is described in greater detail elsewhere ^{1}^{1}^{,}^{1}^{2} and is supported by sitebased research ^{1}^{0}^{,}^{1}^{3}^{,}^{1}^{4} .
Greater accuracy may be achieved by considering small increments of span and computing relevant curvatures and thus overall deflections. The method involves numerical integration, which is tedious by hand but can, of course, be undertaken by computer, notably by spreadsheet software.
Default assumptions for rigorous analysis
Deflections depend significantly on cracking, material properties and loading: all of which makes for difficulties and uncertainties at the design stage.
However, Vollum ^{1}^{0} suggested that in the absence of better information, the following assumptions should be made in deflection calculations of slabs in multistorey construction:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The slab is struck at seven days; the superimposed dead load is applied at 60 days
Creep and shrinkage strains are calculated with a relative humidity of 50% (internal environment assumed)
Two levels of backprops are used
The floor above is cast after 10 days
When slabs are supported by slabs below during construction, the peak construction load ω _{p}_{e}_{a}_{k} is the peak UDL action for the SLS, which should be taken as 0.04h kN/m ^{2} where h is the slab thickness in mm
The permanent load ω _{p}_{e}_{r}_{m} should be taken as the quasi permanent load combination and be applied at one year
Peak deflections are calculated under the frequent load case; the
increment in load ω _{f}_{r}_{e}_{q} – ω
perm
load in the calculation of E _{L}_{T} where:
should be treated as an instantaneous
ω _{f}_{r}_{e}_{q} = the frequent UDL action for the SLS and ω _{p}_{e}_{r}_{m} = the permanent UDL action, including quasipermanent variable actions, for the SLS E _{L}_{T} = the equivalent longterm modulus of the concrete, dependant on loading and age at time of loading ^{1}^{1}^{,}^{1}^{2}
•
It is difficult to assess the effective tensile strength of concrete in slabs due to its inherent variability, and there are uncertainties in the tensile stress induced by internal and external restraint and shrinkage. However, backanalysis of deflection data showed that the effective flexural strength of concrete in reinforced concrete slabs typically lies somewhere between the indirect and flexural strengths
Using these default values, rigorous methods of calculating deflection can be applied in order to judge the spantodepth method. The differences between the L/d and the rigorous methods can then be compared.
Differences in values between methods
The data in Table 2 were derived for simply supported slabs by using:
• 
spreadsheet TCC31R ^{1}^{5} to determine outcome L/d ratios using the rigorous method (Section 7.4.3 of BS EN 199211) and the default values described earlier, and 
• 
spreadsheet TCC31 ^{1}^{5} to determine those using the L/d method in Section 7.4.2 of BS EN 199211 
For each span and imposed load the depth of the slab was iterated
such that all design criteria were met and A
s,prov
= A
.
s,req
14 I www.concretecentre.com
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
EC2 Moment curvature response
Figure 5 Typical moment–curvature response
Figure 6 Curvature in simply supported slab
As may been seen from Fig. 3, the agreement between the current L/d method and the current rigorous analysis method is not good at low spans or low imposed loads. As may be seen from Fig. 4, the current Cl. 7.4.2(2) method appears to underestimate the L/d required by as much as 15% for an imposed load of 2.5kN/m ^{2} at about 8m.
Using this case as a worse case and using the L/d = 26 indicated by Cl. 7.4.2(2) would lead theoretically to longterm deflection of 42mm or L/190 in a 340mm thick simply supported slab (d = 308mm). Post construction deflection would be L/487. For nonbrittle finishes, L/190 compares with limits of L/200 for variable actions for steel beams and L/150 for timber. L/487 would appear acceptable. Actual deflections are often moderated by end restraints, stronger concrete, lower loads, etc.
The data and graphs show an apparent anomaly. The L/d required for 2.5kN/m ^{2} is smaller than for 5.0kN/m ^{2} (Fig. 4). Close examination revealed that, in line with Vollum, construction load was critical. If the slabs were the same thickness, cracking during construction would be the same, but the effect of lower cracked inertia of the 2.5kN/m ^{2} slab is greater than the additional creep in the more heavily reinforced and loaded slab.
With respect to continuity, rigorous analysis showed good correlation with the K factors in Table 1.
Conclusion
Given the complexity and variability of concrete as a material, loading and the environment, it is perhaps unsurprising that the current L/d method is inaccurate. Nonetheless, as discussed, it appears that the use of L/d methods “will be adequate for avoiding deflection problems in normal circumstances”. Compliance with spantodepth ratios means that deflections in members may be considered not to exceed the implicit limits stated.
However, more rigorous methods are necessary in unusual circumstances or where deflection limits other than those implicit in the simplified methods are appropriate.
Work continues to provide a more accurate L/d method – particularly at low imposed loads. Part of that process is to consider the harmonisation of deflection limits across all materials.
Acknowledgement
Parts of this paper were included in: Goodchild C., Vollum R. and Webster R. (2014) ‘Improving the L/d method’, fibCongress, Mumbai, India
Table 2: Basic’ L/d ratios 

Span (m) 
4.0 
5.0 
6.0 
7.0 
8.0 
9.0 
12.0 

L/d ratio using rigorous analysis: 

Imposed load = 2.5kN/m ^{2} 
30.7 
27.1 

17.8 

Imposed load = 5kN/m ^{2} 
31.2 
27.6 

18.2 

Imposed load = 7.5kN/m ^{2} 
27.5 
25.4 

17.7 

Imposed load = 10kN/m ^{2} 
23. 
22.5 

17.2 

L/d ratio using Cl 7.4.2(2): 

Imposed load = 2.5kN/m ^{2} 
30.6 
29.3 

19.5 

Imposed load = 5kN/m ^{2} 
27.3 
26.5 

18.5 

Imposed load = 7.5kN/m ^{2} 
25.2 
24.5 

17.6 

Imposed load = 10kN/m ^{2} 
23.5 
23.0 

16.7 

Notes: ƒ _{c}_{k} = 30MPa; ƒ _{y}_{k} = 500MPa; A _{s}_{,}_{p}_{r}_{o}_{v} = A _{s}_{,}_{r}_{e}_{q} ; SDL = 1.5kN/m ^{2} and longterm deflection limit L/250, postconstruction deflection limit L/500 
www.concretecentre.com I 15
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Reinforced concrete frame residential building. Courtesy of Coinford Construction.
References:
1) Beeby A. W. (1971) TR456: Modified Proposals for Controlling Deflections by Means of Ratios of Span to Effective Depth, Wexham Springs, UK: Cement and Concrete Association
2) Corres Peiretti H., Pérez Caldentey A., López Agüí J. C. and Edtbauer J. (2002) EC2 serviceability limit states: deflections. Supporting document: first draft, 15 June 2002, Madrid, Spain: Grupo de Hormigón Estructural – ETSICCP – UPM
3) British Standards Institution (2004) BS EN 199211:2004+A1:2014 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. General rules and rules for buildings, London, UK: BSI
4) fib (2013) Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010, Berlin, Germany:
Ernst & Sohn
5) British Standards Institution (2002) BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005 Eurocode 0. Basis of structural design, London, UK: BSI
6) British Standards Institution (2004) BS EN 199211:2004+A1:2014 UK National Annex to Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures. General rules and rules for buildings, London, UK: BSI
7) European Concrete Platform (2008) Eurocode 2 Commentary [Online] Available at: www.europeanconcrete.eu/publications/ eurocodes/114commentarytoeurocode2 (Accessed: June 2015)
8) Beal A. N. (2009) ‘Eurocode 2: Span/depth ratios for RC slabs and beams’, The Structural Engineer, 87 (20), pp. 35–40
9) Goodchild C. and Webster R. (2012) BSI Committee B525/2 paper:
Interpretation of BS EN 199211 with respect to span:depth (L/d) ratios (Unpublished)
10) Vollum R. L. (2009) ‘Comparison of deflection calculations and spantodepth ratios in BS 8110 and Eurocode 2’, Magazine of Concrete Research, 61 (6), pp. 465–476
11) The Concrete Society (2005) TR58: Deflections in concrete slabs and beams, Camberley, UK: Concrete Society
12) Webster R. and Brooker O. (2006) How to design concrete structures using Eurocode 2: No. 8. Deflection calculations, Camberley, UK: The Concrete Centre
13) Vollum R. L., Moss R. M. and Hossain T. R. (2002) ‘Slab deflections in the Cardington insitu concrete frame building’, Magazine of Concrete Research, 54 (1), pp. 23–34
14) Vollum R. L. (2003) ‘Investigation into backprop forces and deflections at St George Wharf’, Magazine of Concrete Research, 55 (5), pp. 449–460
15) Goodchild C. H. and Webster R. M. (2006) User Guide to RC Spreadsheets: v3, Camberley, UK: The Concrete Centre
16 I www.concretecentre.com
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Introduction
Concrete does not normally need any further protection against fire due to its thermal conductivity properties and the fact that it does not burn. The design of concrete slabs and beams is not generally affected by fire design requirements. However, fire design requirements can be a governing factor in the sizing of columns, particularly in multistorey buildings. This article therefore concentrates on the guidance given in Eurocode 2 on the sizing of concrete columns for different fire resistance periods.
Methods
Guidance on fire design to EC2 is given in part 12 (BS EN 199212) ^{1} and is much more extensive than in the previous codes. For the design of columns and walls there are basically three design methods available to the engineer:
• 
tabular data 
• 
simplified calculation methods 
• 
advanced calculation methods 
This article covers some of the tabular methods and simplified calculation methods for columns and walls. Table 1 shows limitations on the different tabulated data for columns. Outside these limitations the simplified calculation methods can be used.
The tabulated data for columns are given in Chapter 5 of part 12, split into Method A and Method B. Both methods are based on tests and either can be used for the design of columns, but they have slightly different limitations on their use.
The two simplified methods given in Annex B are the 500°C isotherm method and the zone method. The zone method gives a more accurate analysis of the effect of the fire on the element than the 500°C isotherm method, but both can provide savings to the sizing of columns compared to the tabulated data in Methods A and B.
For all the different method types, the axial load on the element compared to the capacity of the column or wall is key to the design. A lightly loaded column will be able to resist a fire for a much longer period than the same column when fully loaded.
In fire, concrete does not burn and performs well, both as an engineered structure and as a material.
Most of the columns that have been tested have been square columns; therefore, the tabulated data for columns assume square or circular columns. Rectangular columns are not covered in Method B, but can be modelled, to a certain extent, in Method A.
Fin or blade columns are not covered by the tabulated data until they are greater than a widthtothickness ratio of 4:1 (h:b). At this point, EC2 part 11 (BS EN 199211) ^{2} states that they are walls, and the column should be designed as a wall at both normal temperatures and in a fire. If a column needs to be designed to fit into a partition, the use of blade columns with a ratio of 4:1 or greater has been common for many years, as by definition these are walls.
The tabulated data are given for braced structures only. However, the background document for the UK, PD 66871 ^{3} , states that the tabulated data can be used to size unbraced columns, at the discretion of the designer. In critical cases it recommends that Annex B, which details the simplified methods, be used. It justifies the use of tabulated data for both braced and unbraced columns on historical grounds.
Figure 1 Reduction factor η _{fi} when Exp. 6.10 of EC2 has been used
www.concretecentre.com I 17
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Previous codes did not distinguish between braced and unbraced columns and the tabulated data from BS EN 199212 give larger column sizes than those from previous codes. There is also an argument that, in most unbraced structures, the fire will only affect a few of the columns at any one time. The columns in the fire can therefore be said to be braced by the columns unaffected by the fire.
Loading
The load under fire conditions can be reduced from the loads taken for normal temperature design. Generally, the effect of the loads E _{d}_{,}_{ﬁ} = η _{ﬁ} E _{d} where E _{d} is the design moment, axial load, shear force, etc. under normal temperature loads.
The factor can simply be taken as 0.7, or can be calculated:
i) If Expression 6.10 of EC0 ^{4} has been used in the normal temperature design (Figure 1)
^{η} ﬁ
=
^{G} k ^{+} ^{ψ} 1,1 ^{Q} k,1
1.35G _{k} + 1.5 Q _{k}_{,}_{1}
ii) If Expression 6.10b of EC0 has been used in the normal temperature design
^{η} ﬁ
=
^{G} k ^{+} ^{ψ} 1,1 ^{Q} k,1
1.25G _{k} + 1.5 Q _{k}_{,}_{1}
where:
Q
_{k}_{,}_{1}
ψ
_{1}_{,}_{1}
is the main variable action under consideration. Only one variable action need be considered in the fire design is the appropriate factor for the frequent value of the main variable action
Tabular methods
Columns: Method A Method A has the more stringent limitations of the two tabulated data methods:
• the effective length of column under fire conditions l _{0}_{,}_{ﬁ} ≤ 3m. For a braced structure, the effective length can be taken as 0.5l, i.e. l ≤ 6m for intermediate floors and 0.5l ≤ l _{0}_{,}_{ﬁ} ≤ 0.7l, i.e. l ≤ 4.2m for top floors, where l is the actual length of the column
Figure 2 Reduced concrete section for column exposed on four sides
•
•
the first order eccentricity M _{0}_{E}_{d}_{,}_{ﬁ} / N _{0}_{E}_{d}_{,}_{ﬁ} ≤ 0.15h or 0.15b, where M _{0}_{E}_{d}_{,}_{ﬁ} is the first order bending moment for the fire condition and N _{0}_{E}_{d}_{,}_{ﬁ} is the axial load under the fire condition
the amount of reinforcement A
< 0.04A
s
c
The fire resistance period is based on the degree of utilisation
μ _{ﬁ} = N _{E}_{d}_{,}_{ﬁ} / N _{R}_{d} and the table gives values for μ _{ﬁ} = 0.2, 0.5 and 0.7. Table
5.2a in BS EN 199212 assumes that α
cc
= 1.0. In the UK a value of α
cc
=
0.85 for bending and compression has been chosen ^{5} . However, the values in the table are conservative for the UK so can be used. Table 2 gives values for the UK.
Other values can be calculated from BS EN 199212 Expression 5.7, and this expression and method can be used for rectangular columns:
R = _{1}_{2}_{0}_{(}_{(}_{R} _{η}_{ﬁ} + R _{a} + R _{l} + R _{b} + R _{n} ) / 120) ^{1}^{.}^{8}
where R is the fire resistance period in minutes
Table 1: Summary of the tabulated data for columns in BS EN 199212 

Slenderness ratio 
Effective length ≤ 3m 
λ ≤ 30 
30 ≤ λ ≤ 80 
30 ≤ λ ≤ 80 
30 ≤ λ ≤ 80 

Minimum dimensions 
200 ≤ b ≤ 450 
150 ≤ b ≤ 600 
150 ≤ b ≤ 600 
150 ≤ b ≤ 600 
150 ≤ b ≤ 600 

Eccentricity 
e ≤ 0.15b 
e ≤ 0.25b 
e ≤ 0.025b but e ≥ 10mm 
e ≤ 0.25b but e ≤ 100mm 
e ≤ 0.5b but e ≤ 200mm 

ω = 0.1 
Table C1 
Table C2 
Table C3 

ω = 0.5 
Table 5.2a* 
Table 5.2b 
Table C4 
Table C5 
Table C6 

ω = 1.0 
Table C7 
Table C8 
Table C9 

Note * ≤ 4% reinforcement All columns must be braced b is the smallest dimension of a rectangular column, or the diameter of the column 

Mechanical reinforcement ratio 
ω = 
^{A} s ^{f} yd 

Slenderness ratio 
λ = 
^{L} 
o ^{f} i 
^{A} c ^{f} cd 

i 
18 I www.concretecentre.com
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Columns: Method B
Method B provides a more comprehensive method for the design of columns in that the restrictions on eccentricity of the first order moments are less onerous. For most columns Table 5.2b will be adequate, but there are tables in Annex C of EC2 which give more options where the limitations of Table 5.2b are exceeded.
Walls
Tabulated data for loadbearing walls are given in Table 5.4 of BS EN 199212 (Table 4). The degree of utilisation μ _{ﬁ} is the same as that for Method A for columns. Another restriction is that:
clear wall height 
wall thickness 
≤ 40
www.concretecentre.com I 19
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Simplified calculation methods
500°C isotherm method
In the isotherm method, concrete at a temperature above 500°C is neglected in the calculation of section resistance, while concrete at or below 500°C is assumed to retain its full, ambient temperature strength. In BS EN 199212 the method is illustrated with reference to rectangular sections. Thus, the calculation process is to first check that the section meets the minimum crosssectional width requirements in Table 5.
If the minimum requirements are met, the area not damaged by heat, i.e. within the 500°C isotherm, is determined to give a reduced section size (b _{ﬁ}_{,} d _{ﬁ} ) where the concrete retains its original properties. All the reinforcement can be taken as acting with the section, including the reinforcement in the zone outside the 500°C isotherm, but the strength of the bars is reduced. The strength can be taken from Figure 4.2a of BS EN 199212.
While the temperature gradient through a section denoted by isotherms may be determined from testing, BS EN 199212 provides temperature profiles for a number of typical member types and crosssections in Annex A.
The rounded corners of the residual section reflect the real profile of the isotherm and may be approximated to a rectangle (Figure 2); some interpretation may be required.
Figure 4 Reduction of crosssection when using zone method
The section resistance may then be determined using conventional calculation methods (Figure 3) and compared against the design load in the fire situation in this figure, where:
Table 2: Minimum column dimensions and axis distances for square and circular columns 

Load level at normal 
Reinforcement ratio 
Fire resistance period (minutes) 

temperature conditions 
R 30 
R 60 
R 90 
R 120 
R 180 
R 240 

(n) 

0.15 
0.1% 
150/25 
150/30 
200/40 
250/50 
400/50 
500/60 
200/25 
250/25 
350/25 
500/25 
550/25 

0.5% 
150/25 
150/25 
150/35 
200/45 
300/45 
450/45 

200/25 
300/25 
450/25 
500/25 

1.0% 
150/25 
150/25 
200/25 
200/40 
300/35 
400/45 

250/25 
400/25 
500/25 

0.1% 
200/40 
300/40 
400/50 
500/60 
550/40 

300/25 
400/25 
550/25 
550/25 
600/25 

0.5% 
150/25 
150/35 
200/45 
300/45 
450/50 
550/55 

200/25 
300/25 
550/25 
600/25 
600/25 

1.0% 
150/25 
150/30 
200/40 
250/50 
450/50 
500/40 

200/25 
300/25 
400/25 
550/25 
600/30 

0.1% 
300/40 
500/50 
550/25 
550/60 
600/75 

250/25 
500/25 
550/25 
600/30 

0.5% 
150/25 
250/35 
300/45 
450/50 
500/60 
600/70 

350/25 
550/25 
600/25 
600/50 

1.0% 
150/25 
250/40 
250/40 
450/45 
500/60 
600/60 

400/25 
550/25 
600/30 
600/45 

0.1% 
500/25 
550/40 
550/60 
>600 
>600 

350/25 
600/25 
600/45 

0.5% 
200/30 
350/40 
500/50 
500/60 
600/75 
>600 

250/25 
550/25 
600/40 
600/50 

1.0% 
200/30 
300/50 
500/50 
600/60 
>600 
>600 

300/25 
600/30 
600/45 
20 I www.concretecentre.com
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Figure 5 Fire damaged zone a _{z}
w (mm)
Figure 6 Reduction of compression strength
Table 4: Tabulated data for loadbearing walls 

Exposed condition 
Load level μ _{fi} 
Fire resistance period (minutes) 

REI 30 
REI 60 
REI 90 
REI 120 
REI 180 
REI 240 

One side exposed 
0.35 
100/10* 
110/10* 
120/20* 
150/25 
180/40 
230/55 
0.7 
120/10* 
130/10* 
140/25 
160/35 
210/50 
270/60 

Both sides exposed 
0.35 
120/10* 
120/10* 
140/10* 
160/25 
200/45 
250/55 
0.7 
120/10* 
140/10* 
170/25 
220/35 
270/55 
350/60 

Note * Normally the cover required by BE EN 199211 will control Design notes according to 5.4.2 of BS EN 199212: 






b _{ﬁ} =
d _{ﬁ} = z =
width of reduced crosssection
effective depth of reduced crosssection
lever arm between tension reinforcement and concrete
z’ =
A
s
=
A _{s}_{1} =
A _{s}_{2} =
lever arm between tension and compression reinforcement
area of tension reinforcement
part of tension reinforcement in equilibrium with concrete compression block
part of tension reinforcement in equilibrium with compression reinforcement
A _{s} ’ =
area of compression reinforcement
ƒ _{c}_{d}_{,}_{ﬁ}_{(}_{2}_{0}_{)} =
design value of compression strength concrete in the fire situation at normal temperature = ƒ _{c}_{k} /γ _{c}_{,}_{ﬁ}
ƒ _{s}_{d}_{,}_{ﬁ} (θ _{m} ) =
design value of tension reinforcement strength in the fire situation at mean temperature θ _{m} in that layer
ƒ _{s}_{c}_{d}_{,}_{ﬁ} (θ _{m} ) = design value of compression reinforcement strength in the fire situation at mean temperature θ _{m} in that layer
F _{s} =
total force in compression reinforcement in the fire situation, and is equal to part of the total force in the tension reinforcement
For UK design: λ = 0.8 for f _{c}_{k} ≤ 50MPa, or λ = 0.8 – (f _{c}_{k} – 50)/400 for
50 < f _{c}_{k} ≤ 90MPa, η = 1.0 for f _{c}_{k} ≤ 50MPa, or η = 1.0 – (f _{c}_{k} – 50)/200 for
50 < f _{c}_{k} ≤ 90MPa, x is as defined for normal temperature design and
γ _{c}_{,}_{ﬁ} = 1.0.
Zone method
In the zone method, the crosssection is divided up into several zones which are ascribed different temperatures. The strength of each zone is assessed and the strengths are aggregated to give an assessment of the strength of the whole section. The zone method is more accurate than the 500°C isotherm method, but is more complicated.
The design procedure for the zone method can be summarised as follows:
www.concretecentre.com I 21
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Table 5: Minimum crosssectional width of columns or walls 

Fire resistance 
R 60 
R 90 
R 120 
R 180 
R 240 
Minimum width of cross section (mm) 
90 
120 
160 
200 
280 
1. The crosssection is divided into three or more parallel zones of equal thickness.
2. The corresponding mean temperature of each of the zones is checked, using the temperature graphs in BS EN 199212 AnnexA, and the corresponding concrete compressive strength f _{c}_{d} (θ) and elastic modulus (if applicable) of each zone is calculated.
3. The firedamaged zone a _{z} (Figures 4 and 5) is calculated; this will be ignored in the strength and stiff ness calculation. When calculating the firedamaged zone, the width w is taken as either the thickness of a wall or column that is exposed on one side, half the thickness of a twosided exposed wall or column, or half the smallest dimension of a foursided exposed column.
4. All the reinforcement, including that in the firedamaged zone, can be taken into account in the analysis of the section, but with a reduced strength calculated using Figure 4.2a of BS EN 199212.
5. The loadbearing capacity and stiffness are determined based on the reduced crosssection and strength (Figure 6), using normal temperature design procedures.
References:
1) British Standards Institution (2010) BS EN 199212:2004 Eurocode 2.
Design of concrete structures. General rules. Structural fire design, London, UK: BSI
2) British Standards Institution (2014) BS EN 199211:2004 Eurocode 2:
Design of concrete structures. General rules and rules for buildings, London, UK: BSI
3) British Standards Institution (2010) PD 66871:2010 Background paper to the National Annexes to BS EN 19921 and BS EN 19923, London, UK: BSI
4) British Standards Institution (2010) BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005 Eurocode. Basis of structural design, London, UK: BSI
5) British Standards Institution (2009) NA to BS EN 199211:2004 UK National Annex to Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures. General rules and rules for buildings, London, UK, BSI
Further reading The Concrete Centre (2011) How to design concrete structures using Eurocode 2, Camberley, UK: MPA The Concrete Centre
Bailey C. G. and Khoury G. A. (2011) Performance of concrete structures in fire, Camberley, UK: MPA The Concrete Centre
The impact of a major fire at Tytherington County High School, Cheshire was limited due to the fire resistance of the concrete structure.
22 I www.concretecentre.com
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Introduction
BS EN 1996 (Eurocode 6) covers the design of masonry for buildings and civil engineering works and is organised into four parts. In common with the other material Eurocodes, Part 11 covers the structural design rules ^{1} and Part 12 covers structural fire design ^{2} . Thereafter, there is some divergence from other Eurocodes in that Part 2 covers aspects of design, materials and workmanship ^{3} while Part 3 looks after the German need for simplified calculation methods ^{4} . Masonry bridges are not covered by EC6. Each part has a corresponding UK national annex ^{5}^{–}^{8} .
BS EN 199611 was first published in 2005 along with BS EN 199612. BS EN 19962 and 19963 were published in 2006. The corresponding National Annexes bear the same dates. Corrigenda were issued to Part 11 in 2006 and 2009, and in 2012 a new version was published incorporating Amendment 1. While the 2012 changes to BS EN 1996 11 are relatively small, the opportunity was taken to update the corresponding UK National Annex based on feedback from use and recalibration of some of the outcomes. The discussion and observations that follow are therefore related to the 2012 version of the UK National Annex to BS EN 199611.
A further British Standards Institution (BSI) publication, PD 6697 ^{9} , was published in 2010. This covers recommendations for the design of masonry structures to BS EN 199611 and BS EN 19962 and encompasses the useful design information previously contained in BS 5628 ^{1}^{0}^{–}^{1}^{2} , which does not conflict with the principles contained in EC6.
EC6 has been developed to enable the designer to use the following types of masonry unit: clay, calcium silicate, aggregate concrete, autoclaved aerated concrete (aircrete), manufactured stone and natural stone. European Standards for these materials have been published by the BSI and form part of an array of standards relating to masonry related products and the associated test methods.
The standards supporting EC6 were developed within a common framework but it did not prove possible to standardise all the test methods used by the different materials from which masonry
The design of masonry, whether blockwork or brickwork, is covered in Eurocode 6.
units are made. Words like ‘brick’ and ‘block’ have disappeared from the European vocabulary and they are all referred to as masonry units.
New methods were introduced for determining the compressive strength of masonry units and the method of determining the characteristic compressive strength of masonry changed from testing storeyheight panels to much smaller masonry wallette specimens.
Figure 1 Modifications to K for units laid with general purpose mortar
www.concretecentre.com I 23
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Ancillary components are dealt with in a coherent way within the standards and in BS EN 199611 suitable values of partial factors have been introduced. The partial factors for use with masonry are given in National Annex Table NA.1 and shown here in Table 1. Two levels of attestation of conformity are recognised: Category I and Category II. This forms part of the declaration made by the manufacturer of the masonry units. Two classes of execution control are also recognised: 1 and 2.
Vertical load design
Strength
During the drafting of EC6, a way had to be found to deal with the wide
range of masonry units used across Europe. This range not only includes different materials such as clay, concrete and stone, but also a variety of configurations based upon the proportion and direction of any holes or perforations, web thickness etc. This has resulted in four groupings of masonry units according to the percentage size and orientation of holes in the units when laid. The UK only has experience of Group 1 and Group 2 masonry units, but no doubt Group 3 and Group 4 units will find their way to the UK. In the UK National Annex, information is only provided for Group 1 and Group 2 units because of this lack of a UK national database for Groups 3 and 4. Properties for Groups 3 and 4 would normally be established by testing. Two levels of quality assurance for the manufacture of masonry units are specified:
• 
Category I masonry units, which have a declared compressive strength with a probability of failure to reach it not exceeding 5% 
• 
Category II masonry units, which are not intended to comply with the level of confidence of Category I units 
In addition the UK National Annex requires that the coefficient of variation for the compressive strength of masonry units should not exceed 25%.
The characteristic compressive strength of masonry is presented in BS EN 199611 as Equation 3.1. This equation includes the normalised strength of the masonry unit ƒ _{b} and the strength of the mortar ƒ _{m} . The UK National Annex places limits on the use of this equation for general purpose mortar as follows:
• 
ƒ _{b} is not to be taken to be greater than 110N/mm ^{2} 
• 
ƒ _{m} is not to be taken to be greater than ƒ _{b} or 12N/mm ^{2} 
• 
the coefficient of variation of the strength of the masonry units is not more than 25% 
24 I www.concretecentre.com
Table 1: Value of partial factors for materials for ultimate limit states 

Material 
Class of execution control γ _{M} 

1 
^{*} 
2 
^{*} 

Masonry 

When in a state of direct of flexural compression 

Unreinforced masonry made with: 

Units of category I 
2.3 
^{†} 
2.7 
^{†} 

Units of category II 
2.6 
^{†} 
3.0 
^{†} 

Reinforced masonry made with mortar M6 or M12: 

Units of category I 
2.0 
^{†} 
_‡ 

Units of category II 
2.3 
^{†} 
_‡ 

When in a state of flexural tension 

Units of category I and II but in laterally loaded wall panels when removal of the panel would not affect 
2.3 
^{†} 
2.7 
^{†} 

the overall stability of the building 
2.0 
^{†} 
2.4 
^{†} 

When in a state of shear 

Unreinforced masonry made with: 

Units of category I and II 
2.5 
^{†} 
2.5 
^{†} 

Reinforced masonry made with mortar M6 or M12: 

Units of category I and II 
2.0 
^{†} 
_‡ 

Steel and other components 

Anchorage of reinforcing steel 
1.5 
^{§} 
_‡ 

Reinforcing steel and prestressing steel 
2.0 
^{§} 
_‡ 

Ancillary components – wall ties 
3.0 
^{†} 
3.0 
^{†} 

Ancillary components – straps 
1.5 
^{*}^{*} 
1.5 
^{*}^{*} 

Lintels in accordance with EN 8452 ^{1}^{3} 
See NA to BS EN 8452 
See NA to BS EN 8452 

^{*} Class 1 of execution control should be assumed whenever the work is carried out following the recommendations for workmanship in BS EN 1996–2, including appropriate supervision and inspection, and in addition: 



appropriate partial safety factors given in BS EN 1996–1–1 ii) the mortar conforms to BS EN 9982, if it is factory made mortar. If the mortar is site mixed, preliminary compressive strength tests, in accordance with BS EN 10152 and 101511, are carried on the mixture of sand, lime (if any) and cement that is intended to be used (the proportions given in Table NA.2 may be used initially for the tests) in order to confirm that the strength requirements of the specification can be met; the proportions may need to be changed to achieve the required strengths and the new proportions are then to be used for the work on site. Regular compressive strength testing is carried out on samples from the site mortar to check that the required strengths are being achieved. 

Class 2 of execution control should be assumed whenever the work is carried out following the recommendations for workmanship in BS EN 1996–2, including appropriate supervision. 

^{†} When considering the effects of misuse or accident these values may be halved. 

^{‡} Class 2 of execution control is not considered appropriate for reinforced masonry and should not be used. However, masonry wall panels reinforced with bed joint reinforcement used: 



ii) to limit or control shrinkage or expansion of the masonry can be considered to be unreinforced masonry for 

the purpose of class of execution control and the unreinforced masonry direct or flexural compression γ _{M} values are appropriate for use. 

^{§} When considering the effects of misuse or accident these values should be taken as 1.0. 

^{*}^{*} For horizontal restraint straps, unless otherwise specified, the declared ultimate load capacity depends on there being a design compressive stress in the masonry of at least 0.4N/mm ^{2} . When a lower stress due to design loads may be acting, for example when autoclaved aerated concrete or lightweight aggregate concrete masonry is used, the manufacturer’s advice should be sought and a partial safety factor of 3 should be used. 
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
Figure 2 Wall stiffened by piers
Table 2: Values of K to be used with Equation 3.1 

Masonry unit 
General 
Thin layer 
Lightweight mortar of density ρ _{d} 

purpose mortar 
mortar (bed 
(kg/m ^{3} ) 

joint ≥0.5mm 
600≤ ρ _{d} ≤800 
800< ρ _{d} ≤1300 

and ≤3mm) 

Clay 

Group 1 
0.50 
0.75 
0.30 
0.40 

Group 2 
0.40 
0.70 
0.25 
0.30 

Group 3 and 4 
* 
* 
* 
* 

– 
– 
– 
– 

Calcium silicate 
