Anda di halaman 1dari 52
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry: A compendium of technical papers

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry:

A compendium of technical papers

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry

Contents

  • 4 How to calculate anchorage and lap lengths to Eurocode 2

    • 12 Deflection – the span-to-effective-depth 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 post-tensioned slabs

    • 40 Guidance on the design of liquid-retaining structures

    • 45 An introduction to strut-and-tie modelling

About The Concrete Centre

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, ready-mixed 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, cost-effective 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

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, post-tensioning and column fire design. The compendium also includes papers on deflections, Eurocode 6, liquid retaining structures and strut-and-tie.

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.

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry

How to calculate anchorage and lap lengths to Eurocode 2

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry How to calculate anchorage and lap lengths to Eurocode 2

Introduction

EC2 provides information about reinforcement detailing in Sections 8 and 9 of Part 1-1 (BS EN 1992-1-1) 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 24 . 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.

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry How to calculate anchorage and lap lengths to Eurocode 2

Figure 1 Tension Anchorage

Ultimate bond stress

Both anchorage and lap lengths are determined by the ultimate bond stress f bd which depends on the concrete strength and whether the anchorage or lap length is in a ‘good’ or ‘poor’ bond condition. ƒ bd = 2.25η 1 η 2 ƒ ctd (Expression 8.2 from BS EN 1992-1-1) where:

ƒ

ctd

ƒ ctk,0,05

ƒ

ctm

ƒ

ck

γ

C

α ct

is the design tensile strength of concrete, ƒ ctd = α ct ƒ ctk,0,05 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 ctm = 0.3 × ƒ ck 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 long-term effects on the tensile strength and of unfavourable effects resulting from the way the load is applied (α ct = 1.0 in UK National Annex)

4 I www.concretecentre.com

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry

≥5Ø ≥5Ø

90° 90° ≤ ≤ a a < < 150° 150° a a
90° 90° ≤ ≤ a a < < 150° 150°
a a

≥150 ≥150

  • a) a) Bend Bend or or ‘L’ ‘L’ bar bar

b) b) Hook Hook ≥5Ø ≥5Ø
b) b) Hook Hook
≥5Ø ≥5Ø
≥5Ø ≥5Ø 90° 90° ≤ ≤ a a < < 150° 150° a a ≥150 ≥150

c) c) Loop Loop or or ‘U’ ‘U’ bar bar

Source: EC2-1-1 Figure 8.1, b, c and d.

Figure 2 Typical bends and hooks bent through 90 o or more

Direction of concreting Direction of concreting Confinement of concrete results in the characteristic compression strength being
Direction of concreting
Direction of concreting
Confinement of concrete results in the characteristic compression
strength being greater than ƒ ck and is known as ƒ ck.c . If the concrete
surrounding a steel reinforcing bar is confined, the characteristic
strength of the concrete is increased and so will be the ultimate bond
a
250
c) h > 250 mm
Direction of concreting
stress between the bar and the concrete. Increasing the ultimate bond
stress will reduce the anchorage length. Concrete can be confined by
external pressure, internal stresses or reinforcement.
a)
45º < a < 90º
Anchorage lengths
Direction of concreting
≥ 300
h
h
Figure 4 gives the basic design procedure for calculating the anchorage
length for a bar. There are various shortcuts, such as making all α
coefficients = 1, that can be made to this procedure in order to ease the
design process, although this will result in a more conservative answer.
b)
h < 250 mm
d) h > 600 mm
Key
Both anchorage and lap lengths are determined from the ultimate bond
strength ƒ bd . The basic required anchorage length l b,rqd can be calculated
from:
‘Good’ bond conditions
‘Poor’ bond conditions
l b,rqd = (ø/4) (σ sd /ƒ bd )

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- 1-1 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 sd is the design stress in the bar at the position from where the anchorage is measured. If the design stress σ sd 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,prov is normally greater than A

.

s,req

The design anchorage length l bd is taken from the basic required anchorage length l b,rqd 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

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry

Start α 1 , α 2 , α 3 and α 5 =1.0 No Determine f
Start
α 1 , α 2 , α 3 and
α 5 =1.0
No
Determine f ctd from Table 1
Yes
Is the bar in
compression?
No
Is the bar in ‘good’
position?
η 1 = 0.7
α 4 = 0.7
α 4 = 1.0
Yes
No
η 1 = 1.0
Yes
No
Does the bar have
transverse reinforcement
welded to it?
Is bar diameter
ø ≤ 32mm
η 2 = (132‐ø)/100
Take l bd = l b,rqd
Yes
Determine the coe cients α 1 to α 5 (see Table 2)
η 2 = 1.0
No
Determine ultimate bond stress
f bd = 2.25 η 1 η 2 f ctd
Yes
Can l b,rqd be used as the design
anchorage length l bd ?
Determine A s,req and A s,prov where the anchorage starts
Determine ultimate design stress in bar
σ sd = 435 A
/ A
Determine basic anchorage length
l b,rqd = (ø/4) (σ sd /f bd )
(This can be conservatively used as the design anchorage length, l bd )
s,req
s,prov

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,min is:

max {0.3l b,rqd ; 10ø; 100mm} for a tension anchorage max {0.6l b,rqd ; 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- 1-1. 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 1992-1-1 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 1992-1-1 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

Yes Is the bar straight? α 1 = 1.0 α 2 =1‐0.15(c d ‐ø)/ø 0.7≤ α
Yes
Is the bar
straight?
α 1 = 1.0
α 2 =1‐0.15(c d ‐ø)/ø
0.7≤ α 2 ≤1.0
No
END
α 1 = 0.7 if c d > 3ø
α 1 =1.0 if c d ≤ 3ø
α 2 =1 ‐ 0.15 (c d ‐3ø)/ø
0.7≤ α 2 ≤1.0
Check l bd >
max{0.3l b,rqd ;10ø;100mm}
l bd = α 1 ∙α 2 ·α 3 ·α 4 ∙α 5 ·l b,rqd
Yes
Does the bar have
another bar between the
surface of the concrete
and itself?
Take α 2 ·α 3 ·α 5 = 0.7
Yes
α 3 = 1 – Kλ
0.7≤ α 3 ≤1.0
No
No
Is α 2 ∙α 3 ∙α 5 < 0.7
α 3 = 1.0
α 5 =1– 0.04p
0.7≤ α 5 ≤1.0
Is the bar con ned
by transverse
pressure?
α 5 =1.0
Yes
No

Alpha values for tension anchorage Alpha values for tension anchorage are provided in Table 8.2 of BS EN

1992-1-1.

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 ctd

 
 

C20/25

C25/30

C28/35

C30/37

C32/40

C35/45

C40/50

C50/60

ƒ ctm

 
  • 2.21 2.77

  • 2.56 2.90

   
  • 3.02 4.07

    • 3.21 3.51

   

ƒ ctk, 0.05

 
  • 1.55 1.94

  • 1.80 2.03

   
  • 2.12 2.85

  • 2.25 2.46

 

ƒ ctd

 
  • 1.03 1.29

  • 1.20 1.35

   
  • 1.41 1.90

  • 1.50 1.64

 
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry C 1 a C
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry
C
1
a
C

a) Straight bars c d = min (a/2, c 1 , c)

b) Bent or hooked bars c d = min (a/2, c 1 ) C 1 a
b) Bent or hooked bars
c d = min (a/2, c 1 )
C 1
a
c) Looped bars c d = c C
c) Looped bars
c d = c
C

Source: EC2-1-1, Figure 8.3.

Figure 5 Values of c d (c and c 1 are taken to be c nom )

Ø t , A s
Ø t ,
A s

A st

K = 0.1

Source: EC2-1-1, Figure 8.4.

, s A A st Ø t
,
s
A
A st
Ø t

K = 0.05

s A A st Ø t , K = 0
s
A
A st
Ø t
,
K = 0

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

   
  • 320 1300

    • 410 1760

600

780

1010

   

40Ф

Anchorage

bars only

Poor

330

   
  • 450 1850

850

  • 580 2510

1120

1450

   

58Ф

length, l bd

Other

Good

320

   
  • 410 1300

650

  • 490 1760

810

1010

   

40Ф

bars only

Poor

460

   
  • 580 1850

930

  • 700 2510

 

1450

 
  • 1160 58Ф

 
 

50% lapped in one

Good

320

   
  • 440 1810

830

  • 570 2460

 

1420

 
  • 1090 57Ф

 

location (a 6 =1.4)

Poor

460

   
  • 630 2590

1190

  • 820 3520

 

2020

 
  • 1560 81Ф

 

Lap length,

                     

l

o

100%

lapped

Good

340

  • 470 1940

890

  • 610 2640

1520

  • 1170 61Ф

in one location (a 6 =1.5)

Poor

490

   
  • 680 2770

1270

  • 870 3770

 

2170

 
  • 1670 87Ф

 

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 sd , is less than 435MPa the figures in this table can be factored by σ sd /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

l bd
l bd

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 st,min = 0.25 × 491 = 123mm 2

Source: EC2-1-1, Figure 9.3. Figure 7 Anchorage of bottom reinforcement at end supports in beams and
Source: EC2-1-1, Figure 9.3.
Figure 7 Anchorage of bottom reinforcement at end supports in beams and slabs where
directly supported by wall or column

ΣA st = 4 × 78.5 = 314mm 2 , assuming links will provide at least four 10mm diameter transverse bars in the anchorage length

λ = (ΣA st – ΣA st,min )/ 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

st

ΣA

st,min

depends on the position of the confining reinforcement. The value of K is given in Figure 8.4 of BS EN 1991-1-1 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 st – ΣA st,min ) / A

s

is the cross-sectional area of the transverse reinforcement with diameter øt along the design anchorage length

  • l bd

is the cross-sectional 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 1992-1-1. 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 bd .

One place where the benefit of α 5 can be used is when calculating the design anchorage length l bd of bottom bars at end supports. This benefit is given in BS EN 1992-1-1 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 1992-1-1 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

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry

END l 0 = α 1 ∙α 2 ∙α 3 ∙α 5 ∙α 6 ∙l b,rqd
END
l 0 = α 1 ∙α 2 ∙α 3 ∙α 5 ∙α 6 ∙l b,rqd
Take α 2 ·α 3 ∙α 5 = 0.7
another bar between the
satisfactory as the
Is α 2 ·α 3 ∙α 5 < 0.7
Does the bar have
σ sd = 435 A
lap length?
pressure?
η 1 = 0.7
α 3 =1.0
α 5 =1.0
l b,rqd ·
Start
α 3 = 1 – Kλ
0.7≤ α 3 ≤1.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
/ A
No
No
No
No
No
α 6
s,prov
s,req
Is
straight?
No
Yes
η 1 = 1.0
Is smaller bar diameter
ø ≤ 32mm
Yes
η 2 = 1.0
Determine ultimate bond stress
f bd = 2.25 η 1 η 2 f ctd
η 2 = (132-ø)/100
Yes
Take l 0 = l b,rqd ·α 6
No
Yes
Is the bar
α 1 , α 2 , α 3 and
α 5 =1.0
Is the bar in
‘good’ position?
α 1 =1.0
α 2 = 1-0.15(c d ‐ø)/ø
0.7≤ α 2 ≤1.0
No
Determine α 6
α 6 = 1.4 for 50% lapped at a section
α 6 = 1.5 for 100% lapped at a section
α 1 = 0.7 if c d > 3ø
α 1 = 1.0 if c d ≤ 3ø
α 2 = 1‐ 0.15(c d ‐3ø)/ø
0.7≤ α 2 ≤1.0
Determine the coe cients α 1 , α 2 , α 3 and α 5
(see Table 2)
Determine basic anchorage length
l b,rqd = (ø/4) (σ sd /f bd )
Check l 0 >
max{0.3α 6 ∙l b,rqd ; 15ø; 200mm}
Determine A s,req and A s,prov where the lap starts
surface of the concrete
and itself?
Is the bar con ned
by transverse
Determine ultimate design stress in bar
α 5 = 1 – 0.04p
0.7≤α 5 ≤1.0
Is the bar in
compression?
Determine f ctd from Table 1

Figure 9 Flow chart for lap lengths

10 I www.concretecentre.com

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry

“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.”

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 mid-span. Examples where bars are fully stressed and laps are needed are in raft foundations and in long-span 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,rqd l 0,min (Eq. 8.10 in BS EN 1992-1-1) 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 st,min = A s sd /f yd ), 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 bd l 0,min Minimum anchorage length, l 0,min = max {0.3 α 6 l b,rqd ; 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 1992-1-1:2004 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 1992-1-1:2004 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

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry

Deflection – the span-to-effective-depth method and EC2

The span-to-effective-depth (L/d) method is a very popular way of verifying the limit state of deformation
The span-to-effective-depth (L/d) method is a very
popular way of verifying the limit state of deformation
(i.e. deflection) of concrete slabs and beams.
Introduction
F1
w
Essentially, the span-to-effective-depth method is a hand method
based on experience, justified by various reports 1,2 . The L/d method also
serves as a very useful and valuable hand check on computer outputs.
According to Section 7.4.2 of BS EN 1992-1-1 3 (Eurocode 2) and fib Model
Code 2010 4 , its use “will be adequate for avoiding deflection problems
in normal circumstances”. The main attraction of the method is that it
avoids the need to undertake laborious calculations.
= factor to account for flanged sections. When b eff /b w = 1.0, factor
F1 = 1.0. When b eff /b w > 3.0, factor F1 = 0.80. For values of b eff /b
between 1.0 and 3.0, interpolation may be used
F2
= factor to account for brittle partitions in association with long
spans. Generally F2 = 1.0 but if brittle partitions are liable to be
damaged by excessive deflection, F2 should be determined as
follows:
a)
in flat slabs in which the longer span is greater than 8.5m,
F2 = 8.5/l eff
While according to Eurocode 0 5 , deflection limits should be agreed with
clients, generally the limits implicit in the L/d verification of deflection
of concrete structures are L/250 overall and L/500 post partitions (i.e. for
deflection affecting partitions, brittle finishes, etc.).
b)
in beams and other slabs with spans in excess of 7.0m,
F2 = 7.0/l eff
F3
The current L/d method
= factor to account for service stress in tensile reinforcement =
310/σ . It is considered conservative to assume that
310/σ s = 500A s,prov /(ƒ yk A s,req ) where:
s

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 span-to-effective-depth ratio derived for K = 1.0 from the formulae:

if ρ ρ 0

N = L/d = K[11 + 1.5ƒ ck 0.5 ρ 0 /ρ + 3.2ƒ ck 0.5 (ρ 0 / ρ – 1) 1.5 ]

(2a)

or if ρ > ρ 0

N = L/d = K[11 + 1.5ƒ ck 0.5 ρ 0 /(ρ – ρ’) + ƒ ck 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 ck 0.5 /1000

ƒ

ck

ρ

0

ρ

ρ’

K

= A

/bd

s,req

= A s2req /bd = factor to account for structural system (Table 1)

σ s = tensile stress in reinforcement at mid-span (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 1992-1-1. 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 1992-1-1 (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 /bd )

Percentage of tension reinforcement (A s,req /bd)

Figure 1 Basic span-to-effective-depth ratios, N, for K = 1, ρ’ = 0

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry Percentage of tension reinforcement (A /bd ) Figure 1 Basic
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry Percentage of tension reinforcement (A /bd ) Figure 1 Basic

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 ctm,ƒl (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 28-day 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

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry Percentage of tension reinforcement (A /bd ) Figure 1 Basic

Figure 2 Typical loading and deflection history for slab in multistorey building

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry Percentage of tension reinforcement (A /bd ) Figure 1 Basic
Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry Percentage of tension reinforcement (A /bd ) Figure 1 Basic

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,eff (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 span-to- depth ratios derived by calculating deflections rigorously under quasi-permanent 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 10 . The significant

reductions in slab thickness initially allowed by BS EN 1992-1-1,

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 span-to-depth 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.

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 1992-1-1, Cl. 7.4.3. A section will crack if it experiences a serviceability moment exceeding its moment capacity at the time M cr(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 1992-1-1 (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 2cs ) + (1 – ζ)(ψ 1 + ψ 1cs )

where:

r = mean radius

m

ζ

= 1 – β(M cr /M) 2

where:

 

β

M

 

cr

M

= SLS moment

ψ

1

ψ

2

= 1.0 for short-term and β = 0.5 for long-term loading. For construction loads, conservatively 10 β = 0.70

= cracking moment

= M/E ceff I 1 = curvature of uncracked section = M/E ceff I 2 = curvature of cracked section

where:

E ceff = E cm /(1 + φ)

 

where:

E cm = modulus at 28 days

φ

= creep coefficient

I 1 , I 2 = inertias of the uncracked and cracked sections

ψ 1cs , ψ 2cs = shrinkage curvature

This ‘rigorous’ method is described in greater detail elsewhere 11,12 and is supported by site-based research 10,13,14 .

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 10 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 peak 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 perm 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 freq – ω

perm

load in the calculation of E LT where:

should be treated as an instantaneous

ω freq = the frequent UDL action for the SLS and ω perm = the permanent UDL action, including quasi-permanent variable actions, for the SLS E LT = the equivalent long-term modulus of the concrete, dependant on loading and age at time of loading 11,12

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, back-analysis 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 span-to-depth 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 15 to determine outcome L/d ratios using the rigorous method (Section 7.4.3 of BS EN 1992-1-1) and the default values described earlier, and

spreadsheet TCC31 15 to determine those using the L/d method in Section 7.4.2 of BS EN 1992-1-1

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

Tension stiffening Fully cracked response Uncracked response =0.5 u M Moment Curvature cs2 cs1
Tension stiffening
Fully cracked
response
Uncracked
response
=0.5
u
M
Moment
Curvature
cs2
cs1

Figure 5 Typical moment–curvature response

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry EC2 Moment curvature response Tension stiffening Fully cracked response Uncracked

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 long-term deflection of 42mm or L/190 in a 340mm thick simply supported slab (d = 308mm). Post- construction deflection would be L/487. For non-brittle 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 span-to-depth 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’, fib-Congress, Mumbai, India

Table 2: Basic’ L/d ratios

Span (m)

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

   
  • 10.0 14.0

    • 11.0 13.0

12.0

   

L/d ratio using rigorous analysis:

Imposed load = 2.5kN/m 2

 
  • 37.8 24.3

30.7

27.1

 
  • 22.2 20.7

     
  • 19.6 16.7

    • 18.4 17.2

17.8

   

Imposed load = 5kN/m 2

 
  • 37.8 25.0

31.2

27.6

   
  • 22.9 21.4

   
  • 20.1 17.2

    • 18.9 17.6

18.2

   

Imposed load = 7.5kN/m 2

 
  • 30.3 23.6

27.5

25.4

 
  • 22.0 20.5

     
  • 19.4 16.8

    • 18.4 17.2

17.7

   

Imposed load = 10kN/m 2

 
  • 24.6 21.5

23.

22.5

 
  • 20.4 19.5

     
  • 18.6 16.3

    • 17.8 16.7

17.2

   

L/d ratio using Cl 7.4.2(2):

Imposed load = 2.5kN/m 2

 
  • 31.9 28.2

30.6

29.3

   
  • 26.0 23.9

   
  • 22.2 17.3

    • 20.8 18.3

19.5

   

Imposed load = 5kN/m 2

 
  • 28.3 25.6

27.3

26.5

 
  • 23.8 22.3

     
  • 20.9 16.4

    • 19.6 17.5

18.5

   

Imposed load = 7.5kN/m 2

 
  • 25.9 23.9

25.2

24.5

   
  • 22.3 20.9

   
  • 19.7 15.9

    • 18.6 16.7

17.6

   

Imposed load = 10kN/m 2

 
  • 24.1 22.4

23.5

23.0

 
  • 21.0 19.7

     
  • 18.6 15.1

    • 17.6 15.9

16.7

   

Notes: ƒ ck = 30MPa; ƒ yk = 500MPa; A s,prov = A s,req ; SDL = 1.5kN/m 2 and long-term deflection limit L/250, post-construction deflection limit L/500

 

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry Reinforced concrete frame residential building. Courtesy of Coinford Construction. References:

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 1992-1-1:2004+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 1992-1-1:2004+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/114-commentarytoeurocode2 (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 1992-1-1 with respect to span:depth (L/d) ratios (Unpublished)

10) Vollum R. L. (2009) ‘Comparison of deflection calculations and span-to-depth 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 in-situ 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

Fire design of concrete columns and walls to Eurocode 2

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry Fire design of concrete columns and walls to Eurocode 2

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 1-2 (BS EN 1992-1-2) 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 1-2, 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 width-to-thickness ratio of 4:1 (h:b). At this point, EC2 part 1-1 (BS EN 1992-1-1) 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 6687-1 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.

0.3 k k,1 Q / G 0 1.5 1.0 0.5 2.5 3.0 2.0 Reduction factor fi
0.3
k
k,1
Q
/ G
0
1.5
1.0
0.5
2.5
3.0
2.0
Reduction factor
fi
0.2
G
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.7
fi = 0.9
= 1.35
= 1.50
Q

Figure 1 Reduction factor η fi when Exp. 6.10 of EC2 has been used

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry

Previous codes did not distinguish between braced and unbraced columns and the tabulated data from BS EN 1992-1-2 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, = η 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

=

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

=

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, ≤ 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, ≤ 0.7l, i.e. l ≤ 4.2m for top floors, where l is the actual length of the column

500 C o
500 C
o
b b fi
b
b fi
h fi h
h fi
h

Figure 2 Reduced concrete section for column exposed on four sides

the first order eccentricity M 0Ed, / N 0Ed, ≤ 0.15h or 0.15b, where M 0Ed, is the first order bending moment for the fire condition and N 0Ed, 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 = N Ed, / N Rd and the table gives values for μ = 0.2, 0.5 and 0.7. Table

5.2a in BS EN 1992-1-2 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 1992-1-2 Expression 5.7, and this expression and method can be used for rectangular columns:

R = 120((R η + 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 1992-1-2

 

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

Table 2: Minimum column dimensions and axis distances for square and circular columns Exposed condition Load
Table 2: Minimum column dimensions and axis distances for square and circular columns
Exposed condition
Load level μ fi
Fire resistance period (minutes)
R 30
R 60
R 90
R 120
R 180
R 240
More than one side
exposed
0.2
200/25
200/25
200/30
250/38
350/52
350/68
300/25
350/33
450/47
0.5
200/25
200/32
300/40
350/49
350/68
450/78
300/27
400/35
450/43
450/62
0.7
200/26
250/40
350/48
350/59
450/75
300/25
350/35
450/43
450/54
450/73
Only one side
exposed
0.7
155/25
155/25
155/25
175/35
230/55
295/70
f cd,fi (20)
83
1 – µ fi
R η,fi =
(1 + ω)
(0.85 / a cc ) + ω
F
=
A f
(
)
s
s
scd,fi
m
xb f
fi
cd,fi (20)
x
x
This simplifies to R η,fi =83(1–µ fi ) in the UK as α
= 0.85.
A
s
cc
R a =
R l =
R n =
1.6(a–30), where a is the axis distance
9.6(5–l 0,fi ) where 2.0m ≤ l 0,fi ≤ 6.0m
0 for columns with four longitudinal bars and R
d
(
z
fi
z
z
= 12 for columns
A
s
n
R b =
b’ =
with more than four bars
0.09b’ where b’ is the modified column width
2A c /(b + h) for rectangular sections and the diameter for circular
sections
is limited to h ≤ 1.5b and 200mm ≤ b’ ≤ 450mm
F
=
A f
)
A f
)
s
s2 sd,fi
m
s1
sd,fi (
m
b fi
M
=
M
+
M
u
u1
u2
h
A
=
A
+
A
s
s1
s2
However, as proved by tests, blade columns have a longer period
of fire resistance than columns of the same thickness but less width.
It therefore seems reasonable to use Exp. 5.7 for columns where
h > 1.5b, but to limit b’ in this expression. If h > 1.5b then b’ should
be limited to 2b × 1.5b/(b + 1.5b) = 1.2b. This will give a conservative
answer for the fire resistance.
Figure 3 Stress distribution at ultimate limit state for rectangular concrete cross-section
with compression reinforcement
The restrictions on the use of Table 5.2b are that:
Example: Blade column design
• the slenderness of the column under fire conditions should be
λ fi = l 0,fi / i ≤ 30, where i is the minimum radius of inertia
the first order eccentricity under fire conditions should satisfy the
limit: e = M 0Ed,fi / N 0Ed,fi ≤ e max , where e max = 100mm, e/b ≤ 0.25 and
b = minimum column dimension
Assume a 600 × 200 column, fully loaded in the normal
temperature design condition, designed in the UK (α cc = 0.85)
with an effective length in fire of 2m (4m floor-to-floor height).
The load level at normal temperature conditions, n, is used in the
determination of the minimum values (Table 3).
μ fi = 0.7 as the column is fully loaded ➝ R ηfi = 83(1–μ fi ) = 24.9
Axis distance a = 25mm cover + 10mm link + 8mm (H16 bar) =
n = N 0Ed,fi / [0.7(A c ƒ cd + A s ƒ yd )]
43mm
Note that in the table the mechanical reinforcement ratio, ω, is one
of the required parameters:
➝ R a = 1.6(a–30) = 20.8
l 0,fi = 2m ➝ R l = 9.6(5–l 0,fi ) = 28.8
b’ is kept to 1.2b = 240mm ➝ R b = 0.09b’ = 21.6
ω = A S ƒ yd / A c ƒ cd
R
= 12 as there are more than four bars in the column
n
R = 120 ((R ηfi + R a + R l + R b + R n )/120) 1.8
R = 120((24.9 + 20.8 + 28.8 + 21.6 + 12)/120) 1.8 = 99min
In BS EN 1992-1-1, a conservative value in the determination of
limiting slenderness for the column takes ω = 0.1. For a class C30/37
concrete, this represents approximately 0.4% reinforcement,
whereas when ω = 1.0, the column would require approximately 4%
reinforcement.

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 load-bearing walls are given in Table 5.4 of BS EN 1992-1-2 (Table 4). The degree of utilisation μ is the same as that for Method A for columns. Another restriction is that:

clear wall height

wall thickness

≤ 40

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 1992-1-2 the method is illustrated with reference to rectangular sections. Thus, the calculation process is to first check that the section meets the minimum cross-sectional 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 , d ) 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 1992-1-2.

While the temperature gradient through a section denoted by isotherms may be determined from testing, BS EN 1992-1-2 provides temperature profiles for a number of typical member types and cross-sections 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.

W 1 W 1 a z1 ) m1 ( Wall end W 1 k c (
W 1
W 1
a z1
)
m1
(
Wall end
W 1
k c
(
k c
1
W
W 1
m1
W 1
)
a z1
a z1
a z1
a z1
a z1
a z1
a z1
Column
Wall
M
1

Figure 4 Reduction of cross-section 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

 
  • 0.3 150/25

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

 
  • 0.5 200/30

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

 
  • 0.7 300/30

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

80 70 FRR 60 240 min 50 180 min 40 120 min 30 90 min 20
80
70
FRR
60
240
min
50
180
min
40
120
min
30
90
min
20
60
min
30
min
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
w (mm)
a
z

Figure 5 Fire damaged zone a z

0.4 min 240 min 180 min 120 min 90 min 60 min 30 FRR 0.2 0
0.4
min
240
min
180
min
120
min
90
min
60
min
30
FRR
0.2
0 0
k
c
(
m
)
0.6
0.8
1.0
250
200
150
100
50

w (mm)

Figure 6 Reduction of compression strength

Table 4: Tabulated data for load-bearing 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 1992-1-1 will control Design notes according to 5.4.2 of BS EN 1992-1-2:

 
  • A. The tabular data can be used for plain concrete walls

  • B. For calcareous aggregates, the minimum wall thickness can be reduced by 10%

 
  • C. To prevent excessive thermal deformation and subsequent integrity failure between wall and slab, the ratio of clear wall height to wall thickness should not exceed 40

 

b =

d = z =

width of reduced cross-section

effective depth of reduced cross-section

lever arm between tension reinforcement and concrete

z’ =

A

s

=

A s1 =

A s2 =

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 cd,(20) =

design value of compression strength concrete in the fire situation at normal temperature = ƒ ck c,

ƒ sd, m ) =

design value of tension reinforcement strength in the fire situation at mean temperature θ m in that layer

ƒ scd, 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 ck ≤ 50MPa, or λ = 0.8 – (f ck – 50)/400 for

  • 50 < f ck ≤ 90MPa, η = 1.0 for f ck ≤ 50MPa, or η = 1.0 – (f ck – 50)/200 for

  • 50 < f ck ≤ 90MPa, x is as defined for normal temperature design and

γ c, = 1.0.

Zone method

In the zone method, the cross-section 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:

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry

Table 5: Minimum cross-sectional 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 cross-section 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 1992-1-2 AnnexA, and the corresponding concrete compressive strength f cd (θ) and elastic modulus (if applicable) of each zone is calculated.

  • 3. The fire-damaged zone a z (Figures 4 and 5) is calculated; this will be ignored in the strength and stiff ness calculation. When calculating the fire-damaged 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 two-sided exposed wall or column, or half the smallest dimension of a four-sided exposed column.

  • 4. All the reinforcement, including that in the fire-damaged 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 1992-1-2.

  • 5. The load-bearing capacity and stiffness are determined based on the reduced cross-section and strength (Figure 6), using normal temperature design procedures.

References:

1) British Standards Institution (2010) BS EN 1992-1-2:2004 Eurocode 2.

Design of concrete structures. General rules. Structural fire design, London, UK: BSI

2) British Standards Institution (2014) BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Eurocode 2:

Design of concrete structures. General rules and rules for buildings, London, UK: BSI

3) British Standards Institution (2010) PD 6687-1:2010 Background paper to the National Annexes to BS EN 1992-1 and BS EN 1992-3, 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 1992-1-1:2004 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

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry Table 5: Minimum cross-sectional width of columns or walls Fire

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

Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures for vertical loads

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures for vertical loads Introduction

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 1-1 covers the structural design rules 1 and Part 1-2 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 58 .

BS EN 1996-1-1 was first published in 2005 along with BS EN 1996-1-2. BS EN 1996-2 and 1996-3 were published in 2006. The corresponding National Annexes bear the same dates. Corrigenda were issued to Part 1-1 in 2006 and 2009, and in 2012 a new version was published incorporating Amendment 1. While the 2012 changes to BS EN 1996- 1-1 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 1996-1-1.

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 1996-1-1 and BS EN 1996-2 and encompasses the useful design information previously contained in BS 5628 1012 , 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 storey-height panels to much smaller masonry wallette specimens.

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures for vertical loads Introduction

Figure 1 Modifications to K for units laid with general purpose mortar

Structural Design of Concrete and Masonry

Ancillary components are dealt with in a coherent way within the standards and in BS EN 1996-1-1 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 1996-1-1 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 845-2 13

See NA to BS EN 845-2

See NA to BS EN 845-2

* 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:

  • i) the specification, supervision and control ensure that the construction is compatible with the use of the

appropriate partial safety factors given in BS EN 1996–1–1 ii) the mortar conforms to BS EN 998-2, if it is factory made mortar. If the mortar is site mixed, preliminary compressive strength tests, in accordance with BS EN 1015-2 and 1015-11, 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:

  • i) to enhance the lateral strength of the masonry panel or

 

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

all stiff ened gure 2
all stiff ened
gure 2

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