Anda di halaman 1dari 55

Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994

On 5th May 2006 the responsibilities of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) transferred to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings 2005 Whilst this document provides practical guidance on the use of Eurocode BS EN 1993 and 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Structures. It shall not be used for the design of actual projects until both the Eurocode and its National Annex are published by the British Standards Institution and approved for use by the First Secretary of State for England and Wales. It should be noted that the guidance has been based on the latest draft Eurocode BS EN 1993 and 1994 available at the time of writing. Crown Copyright, 2007 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or email: HMSOlicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk If you require this publication in an alternative format please email alternativeformats@communities.gsi.gov.uk DCLG Publications PO Box 236 Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7NB Tel: 08701 226 236 Fax: 08701 226 237 Textphone: 08701 207 405 Email: communities@twoten.com or online via the DCLG website: www.communities.gov.uk January 2007 Product Code: 06 BD 04021 (f)

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 Steel Structures Composite steel and concrete structures Aim and scope of this publication 7 8 8 9 9 10 12 12 14 14 14 15

CHAPTER 2 EUROCODES SYSTEM 2.1 Eurocodes Terminology 2.1.1 Types of clause used in the Eurocodes CHAPTER 3 GENERAL DESIGN ISSUES 3.1 3.2 3.3 Convention for member axes The explicit use of factors 3.2.1 Symbols used in the Eurocodes

Documents required when designing with the Eurocodes 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 21 21 21 23 23 23 23

CHAPTER 4 EN1993 STEEL STRUCTURES 4.1 Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings 4.1.1 Material Properties 4.1.2 Ductility requirements for structural steel 4.1.3 Fracture toughness 4.1.4 Structural stability of frames 4.1.5 Structural imperfections 4.1.6 Buckling members in compression 4.1.7 Buckling uniform members in bending 4.1.8 Buckling uniform members in bending and axial compression 4.2 Part 1-2: General rules Structural fire design 4.2.1 Material properties 4.2.2 Structural fire design 4.2.3 Members in compression 4.2.4 Combined bending and axial compression 4.2.5 Structural connections

4.3

Part 1-8: Design of joints 4.3.1 Definitions 4.3.2 Material properties 4.3.3 Groups of fasteners 4.3.4 Analysis, classification and modelling 4.3.5 Structural joints connecting H or I sections

23 24 24 24 24 26 27 27 28 29

4.4

Part 1-10: Material toughness and through-thickness properties 4.4.1 Fracture toughness 4.4.2 Through-thickness properties

4.5

Part 5: Steel Piling

CHAPTER 5 EN1994 STEEL AND CONCRETE COMPOSITE STRUCTURES 5.1 Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings 5.1.1 Material Properties 5.1.2 Structural stability 5.1.3 Structural imperfections 5.1.4 Calculation of action (load) effects 5.1.5 Beams Ultimate Limit State 5.1.6 Beam serviceability limit state 5.1.7 Lateral torsional buckling 5.1.8 Members in compression 5.1.9 Composite joints in frames for buildings 5.1.10Composite slabs with profiled metal sheeting 5.2 Part 1-2: Structural fire design 5.2.1 Fire exposure 5.2.2 Material Partial Factors 5.2.3 Structural analysis 5.2.4 Design procedures 5.2.5 Unprotected Composite Slabs CHAPTER 6 EFFECTS ON UK STRUCTURAL DESIGN PROCEDURES

31 31 31 32 32 32 33 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 38

40

CHAPTER 7 DESIGN ROUTE MAPS CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix A Eurocode clause reference tables WORKED EXAMPLES Anchored Sheet Pile Wall Cantilever Cantilever Sheet Pile Wall Simply Supported Beam with Full Lateral Restraint Simply Supported Beam with Lateral Restraint at the Load Points Steel Driven Pile in Stiff Clay Base Plate without Bending Moment Simply Supported Beam with Full Lateral Restraint Fire Limit State Simply Supported Composite Beam Fire Limit State Partial Depth (flexible) End Plate Connection Connections in Fire Column in Simple Construction Fire Limit State Column with Axial and Bi-Axial Moments (Due to simple connection) Simply Supported Steel and Concrete Composite Beam Concrete Filled CHS Composite Column Continuous Steel and Concrete Composite Beam

41 54 56 56 61 62 83 90 104 111 119 128 134 148 157 176 186 195 210 223 235

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

Executive Summary

Executive Summary
The aim of this Companion Document is to provide UK designers with an overview of the Eurocodes system, and with detailed information for the principal parts of Eurocode 3 and Eurocode 4 namely: Eurocode 3 Part 1-1 Part 1-2 Part 1-8 Part 1-10 Part 5 Eurocode 4 Part 1-1 Part 1-2

General rules and rules for buildings Structural fire design Design of joints Material toughness and through-thickness properties Piling General rules and rules for buildings Structural fire design

The scope of this document was developed in consultation with industry. It comprises: An overview of the impact that Eurocodes 3 and 4 will have in the UK Route maps for the design of building elements to the Eurocodes in the UK The major technical differences between the Eurocodes and the UK Standards

The document focuses on guidance for buildings. Design guidance relating to bridges and other civil engineering works is not considered. Where the Eurocode design guidance is the same as that currently (late 2004) given in British Standards or there is little change between the Codes no discussion has been included. To keep this document concise detailed design guidance is not presented.

BRE and Buro Happold have made every effort to ensure the accuracy and quality of all the information in this document when first published. However, they can take no responsibility for the subsequent use of this information, nor for any errors or omissions it may contain. Queen's Printer and Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

Introduction

The objectives of the Eurocodes are To establish a common set of design rules for buildings and civil engineering works to be used across Europe. To remove the barriers to free movement of products and engineering services between European countries, by removing the obstacles caused by different nationally codified practices for the assessment of structural reliability.

The emerging Eurocodes (ENs) have been developed following work undertaken to modify the European Prestandards (ENVs). The ENVs were published with National Application Documents in the early 1990s to allow Designers to undertake provisional designs and make comments on their content. Unlike the Eurocodes the ENVs did not have the status of European Standards. Following a period of co-existence the current British Standards will be superseded by the Eurocodes. These Eurocodes will be denoted as BS EN in the UK. The Eurocodes can be considered to be divided into codes that provide fundamental guidance for structural design (Basis of Structural design), guidance that may apply to all designs (loads, geotechnics and seismic) and detailed guidance for structural materials (steel concrete etc.).

1.1

Steel Structures

EN 1993 (Eurocode 3) gives structural design rules for steel structures. It is divided into six main design areas, which are sub-divided into the following parts: Part 1 General rules and rules for buildings Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings Part 1-2 Structural fire design Part 1-3 General rules Supplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting Part 1-4 Stainless steels Part 1-5 Plated structural elements Part 1-6 Strength and stability of shell elements 1 Part 1-7 Strength and stability of planar plated structures transversely loaded Part 1-8 Design of joints Part 1-9 Fatigue strength of steel structures Part 1-10 Material toughness and through-thickness properties Part 1-11 Design of structures with tension components made of steel Part 1-12 Additional rules for the extension of EN 1993 to steel grades up to S700 Part 2 Steel Bridges Part 3 Towers, masts and chimneys Part 3-1 Towers and masts Part 3-2 Chimneys Part 4 Silos, tanks and pipelines
1

It should be noted that while there is an ENV version of part 1-7 there may not be an EN version of this part of Eurocode 3.

Introduction

Part 4-1 Part 4-2 Part 4-3 Part 5 Piling

Silos Tanks Pipelines

Part 6 Crane supporting structures

1.2

Composite steel and concrete structures

EN1994 (Eurocode 4) gives structural design rules for composite steel and concrete structures. It is divided into two main design areas, which are sub-divided into the following parts: Part 1 General rules and rules for buildings Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings Part 1-2 Structural fire design Part 2 Bridges

1.3

Aim and scope of this publication

The aim of this Companion Document is to provide UK designers with an overview of the Eurocodes system, and with more detail given for parts of Eurocode 3 and Eurocode 4. This Companion Document focuses on the guidance given for buildings. Design guidance presented in the Eurocodes relating to bridges and other civil engineering works is not considered. The main differences between the current British Standards (2004) and the Eurocodes 3 and 4 are discussed. Where the design guidance is the same or there is little change between the Codes no discussion has been included. To keep this document concise detailed design guidance is not presented. The parts of Eurocode 3 and 4 that are covered by this companion document are: Eurocode 3 Part 1-1 Part 1-2 Part 1-8 Part 1-10 Part 5 Eurocode 4 Part 1-1 Part 1-2

General rules and rules for buildings Structural fire design Design of joints Material toughness and through-thickness properties Piling General rules and rules for buildings Structural fire design

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

Eurocodes System

The numbering system used by the structural Eurocodes is EN199#-#-#: ####. The 199# number is not the publication date, but the number of the Eurocode. The second and third # denote the part of the Eurocode. The year of publication is given after the Eurocode number (####). Eurocode 3 part 1.1 is used here to illustrate the Eurocodes numbering system that will be used in the UK, BS EN 1993-1-1:2004. The letters BS are added to the front of the 2 Eurocode number to show that it has been published by BSI and contains the UK National title page, forward and annex. The structural Eurocode system will contain the following codes: BS EN 1990 Basis of Structural Design BS EN 1991 Actions on Structures BS EN 1992 Design of Concrete Structures BS EN 1993 Design of Steel Structures BS EN 1994 Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures BS EN 1995 Design of Timber Structures BS EN 1996 Design of Masonry Structures BS EN 1997 Geotechnical Design BS EN 1998 Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance BS EN 1999 Design of Aluminium Structures The organisation of design guidance in the Eurocode system is different to the current British Standards (BS) system. Safety, serviceability and durability design guidance for different types of structures is presented in BS EN 1990 (Basis of Structural Design), the current BS system presents this design guidance within each material code. Therefore a copy of Basis of Structural Design is required for all designs performed using the Eurocodes. For both the Eurocodes and current BS systems product standards are used with design codes. The links between the different Eurocodes are shown in Figure 1.
EN1990 Structural safety, serviceability & durability

EN1991

Actions on structures

EN1992, EN1993, EN1994 EN1995, EN1996, EN1999

Design & detailing (material codes)

EN1997

EN1998

Geotechnical & Seismic design

ETAs

Product harmonised technical standards

Figure 1. Links between the individual Eurocodes


2

British Standards Institute

10

Eurocodes System

The individual material Eurocodes are divided into parts. Part 1 gives general rules and rules for buildings, Parts 2, 3 etc. give rules for other applications (bridges etc.). These high level parts are divided into sub-parts. In addition to the inter-action between the materials codes and Basis of Structural Design the parts of each material code may cross-reference each other. This is due to the Eurocodes presenting guidance in only one place (i.e. rules are not repeated in several parts) and subsequently referring to that clause in other parts of the Eurocode. In some cases parts of different material Eurocodes may be referenced e.g. a part of EN 1994 (Composite Steel and Concrete Structures) may reference a part of EN 1992 (Concrete Structures) or EN 1993 (Steel Structures). Each part of a Eurocode published by a National Standards Authority will be divided into distinct sections, these are: National title page National forward EN title page EN main text EN Annex(es) o Normative Annexes contain design rules / methods / values to be used when designing to the Eurocode. o Informative Annexes contain recommended design rules / methods or informative values, e.g. snow densities. National Annex The technical content of the EN main text and EN Annex(es) is the same across the whole of Europe. Those sections and the EN title page make up the 'EN' document published by 3 CEN . The National Standards Authority (BSI in the UK) is responsible for developing and publishing the National title page, National forward and National Annex. The addition of these National sections in the UK makes the 'EN' document in to a 'BS EN' document. Each part of a Eurocode will have an accompanying National Annex. These annexes will contain information that should be referred to when designing a structure to be constructed in that country. Therefore if a UK designer was designing a building to be constructed in France they would need to refer to the French National Annexes for all the Eurocodes used during design and not the UK National Annexes. The National Annex will contain information on the values / methods that should be used, where a national choice is allowed in the main text of the Eurocode. The national choices are collectively referred to as Nationally Determined Parameters (NDPs). NDPs may be given for coefficient values, loads (both applied and self-weight) and where a choice in design approach is given. The EN main text specifies recommended values / approaches, the National Annex can either accept the recommendations given or specify different values / approaches to be used. The National Annex will state how / if the content of an Informative EN Annex may be used for the design of structures to be constructed in that country. Information given in a Normative EN Annex may only be altered by the National Annex if the EN text allows different rules / values to be given in the National Annex. References may be given to separate documents that give guidance to help with the design of a structure. Such guidance is known as Non-Conflicting Complementary Information (NCCI) and may not be presented in the National Annex itself.

European committee for standardization

11

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

The numbering system used in the Eurocodes follows the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) practice i.e. a comma is used in place of a decimal point.

2.1

Eurocodes Terminology

The Eurocode system uses different terminology to that used in the current BS system. An important change that will effect every design approach is the change in terminology for loading. In the Eurocodes the term loads is replaced by the term actions. The Eurocodes also introduce the terms permanent action, variable action and accidental action. Permanent actions include the self-weight of the structural and non-structural elements. These self-weights are combined to form a single value for consideration during design checks. Loads due to prestressing are also considered as permanent actions. Variable actions are defined in Basis of Structural Design as actions for which the variation in magnitude with time is neither negligible nor monotonic. Loads considered as variable actions include: Imposed floor & roof loads Snow loads Wind loads

Variable actions are sub-divided into two groups: Leading variable actions These are variable actions which when acting on a structure cause the most significant structural effects. Accompanying variable actions These are variable actions that act on a structure at the same time as the leading variable action.

Accidental actions are caused by events that usually have a short duration but have a significant effect. It is considered that such events have a low probability of occurrence during the design working life of a structure. Accidental design situations that should be considered include fire and explosion. Some variable actions may be classed as accidental actions for design checks. These are, snow, wind and seismic. The Eurocodes and National Annexes identify when they may be considered as accidental actions. Another difference in the terminology used is that the Eurocodes use the term "resistance" rather than "capacity" when defining the value of the forces that can be resisted by an element before it fails i.e. moment resistance, shear force resistance etc. The term "execution" is used in the Eurocodes to define all the processes associated with the erection of a building or civil engineering works. The term may be applied to both on and off site processes. 2.1.1 Types of clause used in the Eurocodes

The Eurocodes define two types of clause, Principles and Application rules. These terms will be new to UK designers as the current BS system does not contain these clause types. Principles are generally denoted by the letter P following a clause number, e.g. 1.3(2)P. Principles are general statements and definitions for which there is no alternative, as well as,

12

Eurocodes System

requirements and analytical methods for which no alternative is permitted unless specifically stated. Application rules are generally denoted by a clause number without the letter P, e.g. 1.3(2). Application rules are generally recognised rules which comply with the Principles and satisfy their requirements. It is permitted to use alternative design rules in place of those given in Application rules. However, it must be shown that the alternative design rules meet the requirements of any relevant Principles. It must also be shown that the alternative rules provide equivalent structural safety, serviceability and durability to that expected from the Eurocodes. If a design is carried out using an alternative rule to that given in an Application rule the design cannot be said to be wholly in accordance with the Eurocode. However, it can be said that the design is in accordance with the Principles of the Eurocode. This may have implications for CE marking. The Eurocodes also use different terms to identify when a rule must be used or when an alternative to that given can be used. When the term shall is used in a clause the rule must be used (as for a Principle). If a clause contains the word should an alternative to that rule can be used (as for an Application rule). The majority of Eurocodes make the distinction between Principle and Application rules using the notation discussed earlier. However of the Eurocodes considered by this Companion Document, EN1993-1-1 (General rules), EN1993-1-2 (Fire design) and EN1993-1-10 (material toughness and through-thickness properties), do not currently (November 2004) use the letter P to denote a Principle, instead only the term shall identifies a rule as a Principle. EN1993-1-1 does present supplementary guidance for the design of steel buildings, denoted by the letter B after the clause number e.g. 5.1.1(4)B.

13

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

General Design Issues

3.1

Convention for member axes

The Eurocodes define the member axes differently to BS 5950. The Eurocodes system is in keeping with the system generally used in computer software for global structural analysis. It defines the longitudinal axis of the member as x-x, with the major axis of the cross-section as y-y and the minor axis as z-z. The convention used in BS 5950 defines the major axis of the cross-section as x-x, the minor axis as y-y and the longitudinal axis of the member as z-z. The same convention is used for the u-u and v-v axes for angle sections in both Eurocode 3 and BS 5950. Designers unfamiliar with using the Eurocodes should pay particular attention to the difference in axes convention. This is particularly important when using section tables that use the BS 5950 convention. Figure 2 shows the axes convention and notation used for a universal beam section. z tf r y tw z b Figure 2. Member axes convention and dimension symbols used in the Eurocodes y d h

3.2

The explicit use of

factors

In contrast to the current British Standards the Eurocodes do not hide the material partial factors (Mi). This results in expressions appearing more complex, or different property values ( ) compared with those currently used in the UK. An example of expressions with an increase in the number of terms from the British Standard to the Eurocodes is the resistance of a cross-section for uniform compression:

Nc ,Rd =

Af y

M 0

For Class 1, 2 or 3 cross-sections

Where: NcRd is the resistance of the cross-section for uniform compression (N) 2 A is the cross-sectional area (mm ) 2 fy is the yield strength (N/mm ) M0 is the partial material factor for the resistance of the cross-section M0

14

General Design Issues

3.2.1

Symbols used in the Eurocodes

The Eurocodes use different symbols for section properties compared with those used in BS 5950. The section properties with different symbols used in the Eurocode and BS 5950 are given in Table 1 and shown in Figure 2. Section properties not included in Table 1 have the same symbols in both codes. Table 1. Section properties with different symbols used in the Eurocodes and BS 5950 Symbol used in design code BS 5950 Eurocode D h Zeff Weff Z T An D S r r J H t Wel tf Aeff d Wpl i r1 IT Iw tw

Section property Depth of cross-section Effective section modulus Elastic section modulus Flange thickness Net area of cross-section Outer diameter of circular sections Plastic section modulus Radius of gyration Radius of root fillet channel sections* Torsional constant Warping constant Web thickness

Width of cross-section B b * Symbol used for radius of root fillet for other sections does not differ between codes In addition to the section property symbols given in Table 1, symbols for other coefficients and values differ between the Eurocodes and British Standards. Table 2 presents some Latin upper case letters used in the Eurocodes to define actions and forces. The letters given in Table 2 define a number of different terms within the British Standards therefore a direct comparison can not be given. Table 2. Examples of Latin upper case letters used within the Eurocodes to define actions and forces Terms Actions (General) Permanent action Variable action Moment Axial force Shear force Resistance of element (used as the main symbol or as a subscript) Effect of an action (used as a subscript to one of the above) Latin upper case letter used within the Eurocodes system F G Q M N V R E

15

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

The symbols used by the Eurocodes can have long chains of subscripts. This appears cumbersome at first, however with use this system will be found to help interpretation because the subscripts result in symbols that are nearly self defining. The multiple subscripts used in the Eurocodes have been assembled following the guidance given in ISO3898: 1987, commas are used to separate the multiple subscripts. Examples of the use of multiple subscripts in the Eurocodes are given in Table 3. Table 3. Examples of symbols with multiple subscripts used in the Eurocodes Terms Design bending moment about the y-y axis Design resistance to bending moment about the y-y axis Characteristic resistance to bending moment about the y-y axis Plastic design shear resistance Design resistance to tension forces Effective cross-sectional area for local buckling when considering plate buckling Minimum elastic section modulus Eurocode symbol My.Ed My.Rd My,Rk Vpl,Rd Nt,Rd Ac,eff,loc Wel.min

3.3

Documents required when designing with the Eurocodes

The Eurocodes present Principles and Application rules for design rather than design guidance. This approach results in information that is considered to be textbook information being omitted. Therefore the designer must rely on appropriate textbooks/design guides to provide this information. Information that is omitted from Eurocodes 3 and 4 includes: Calculation of buckling lengths for members in compression. Determining the non-dimensional slenderness parameter for later torsional buckling and torsional or flexural torsional buckling. Determining the critical moment for lateral torsional buckling. Tables giving expressions to determine moments in continuous beams.

The above list should not be considered as exhaustive. The structure and the content of the Eurocodes results in the following documents being required for design: Eurocodes o EN1990 Basis of Structural Design o EN1991 Actions on Structures o EN199# - Material codes (normally several parts will be needed) o EN1997 & EN1998 Geotechnical and Seismic design Textbooks, design guides or similar sources of information Product standards / manufacturers information

16

EN 1993 Steel Structures

EN1993 Steel Structures

The following sections highlight the main differences between the guidance given in Eurocode 3 and BS 5950.

4.1

Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings

EN1993-1-1 [1] (hereafter referred to as EC3-1-1) gives general structural design rules for steel structures and buildings. Steel grades from S235 to S460 are covered by the guidance given in EC3-1-1. BS 5950: Part 1 covers steel grades from S275 to S460. Part 1-12 of Eurocode 3 will present guidance that can be used to apply the rules given in part 1-1 to steel grades up to S700. 4.1.1 Material Properties

Clause 3.2.1(1) of EC3-1-1 allows the National Annex to choose between the nominal values for the yield and ultimate strength of structural steel given in the product standard BS EN 10025 and those given in Table 3.1 of EC3-1-1. The material properties for structural steels given in BS 5950: Part 1 [2] are based on the properties given in the product standard BS EN 10025 [3]. The main difference between the properties given in the product standard and those given in EC3-1-1 is that the simplified table in EC3 uses a reduced number of thickness steps. The result is that for steel thickness between 16mm and 40mm and between 63mm and 80mm the values given in Table 3.1 of EC3-1-1 are approximately 4% higher than those values given in both BS 5950:Part 1 and BS EN 10025. Furthermore, Table 3.1 only gives values up to 80mm thick while BS EN 10025 gives values up to 250mm and BS 5950 Part 1 has a maximum thickness of 150mm. The UK National Annex to EC3-1-1 may recommend the use of the nominal values given in BS EN 10025 in place of those given in Table 3.1. 4.1.2 Ductility requirements for structural steel

The ductility requirements given in EC3-1-1 apply to all steels regardless of the method used for global analysis. Whilst EC3-1-1 allows the National Annex to define ductility limits, the Eurocode recommended limits are: fu/fy 1.10 Elongation at failure not less than 15% u 15y

Where: fu is the ultimate strength fy is the yield strength u is the ultimate strain y is the yield strain (fy / E) BS 5950: Part 1 has a different approach. It states that the design strength py should not be greater than Us/1.2 where Us is the minimum tensile strength Rm specified in the relevant product standard (BS EN 10025). This limit applies to all grades of steel regardless of the

17

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

method used for global analysis. However when plastic global analysis is used the steel grades must satisfy the following additional criteria:

ffu/fy 1.20 1.20 u y Elongation at failure not less than 15% u 20y u 20

A comparison of the above limits shows that the EC3-1-1 limits are less onerous that those given in BS 5950: Part 1. The reason for the differences in the two sets of recommendations has been difficult to establish but the following comments on the development of the limits used in both BS 5950 and EC3-1-1 might be helpful in understanding the code writers' thinking. The origin of the BS 5950: Part 1 rules was the old BCSA black book 23 or 29 which extended plastic design from BS15 steels (later grade 43 and now called S275) to BS968 steels (later grade 50 and now called S355). The 1969 amendment extended BS 449 to grade 50 for elastic analysis. For the early draft of BS 5950 the issue of allowing plastic design of grade 50 steel in the UK was considered. On the basis of specific tests it seemed plastic design could be allowed with smaller b/t and d/t limits i.e. for more compact sections. The use of a general rule to avoid having to test every new grade of steel was investigated. Professor Horne was consulted and his view was that the only way to be sure a steel was NOT alright would be if it failed specific tests, but that it was possible to make an informed judgement about parameters that would help decide if a test was even necessary. As a result of these discussions a set of rules specific to plastic global analysis were developed which meant than any steel that satisfied them was satisfactory. A steel that did not meet these criteria might also be satisfactory but specific tests were needed to be certain it could be used for plastic global analysis. The EC3-1-1 drafting panel had a wider definition of plastic analysis than that used in the UK. Their understanding was that plastic analysis or even plastic design means not only plastic global analysis but that using the plastic modulus of a class 1 or class 2 crosssection is also plastic analysis. The wider definition may have contributed to the difference in values given in EC3-1-1 and BS5950: Part 1 for the plastic analysis limits. 4.1.3 Fracture toughness

EC 3 and BS 5950 use different terminology and different approaches to establish the fracture toughness of a material to avoid brittle fracture. BS 5950: Part 1 uses the minimum service temperature, Tmin, to determine fracture toughness. In the UK Tmin is usually taken as -5C for internal steelwork and -15C for external steelwork. The method used in EC3 is based on a reference temperature of TEd which is determined from equation 2.2 of EC3-1-10 (see section 4.4.1 for further details). 4.1.4 Structural stability of frames

In both standards the designer is required to determine if the effects of the deformed geometry of the structure will significantly affect or modify structural behaviour, for example by introducing additional (secondary) moments. In EC3-1-1 this is achieved by checking that the critical load factor, cr1 for the structure under consideration satisfies the following limits: cr,

cr 10 for elastic analysis cr cr 15 for plastic analysis cr

18

EN 1993 Steel Structures

If cr is above these limits then the effects of deformed geometry (second order effects) can be neglected and a first order analysis may be used. If cr is less than 10, or 15, then the effects of the deformed geometry should be considered. This defines the boundaries, but unlike BS5950: Part 1 EC3-1-1 does not use the terms non-sway and sway sensitive to describe the frames. The limit used for elastic analysis in BS 5950: Part 1 is identical to that used in EC3-1-1. The only difference is that the limit in BS 5950: Part 1 is for clad structures where the stiffening effect of the cladding is not explicitly taken into account when calculating the elastic critical load factor. No such limitation is placed on the method given in EC3. Consequently, bare steel frames designed using EC3-1-1 may be less stiff than those designed to BS 5950. Unlike EC3-1-1, BS 5950: Part 1 includes two simplified methods for taking account of secondary effects for the plastic design of multi-storey rigid frames and a separate method for the plastic design of portal frames. 4.1.5 Structural imperfections

A feature of EC3-1-1 is its explicit allowance in the calculation procedures for practical imperfections that have an influence on the resistance of members or structures. A number of alternative procedures are given in Section 5.3, some with limited scope. Generally they consider: System imperfections An initial-bow imperfection is introduced in the design of braced bays and built up compression members. In the case of bracing systems any additional deflections due to the action of the bracing system in resisting externally applied forces also have to be taken into account. Frame imperfections These are introduced into the analysis of all frames in the form of an equivalent initial sway. For convenience this can be replaced by a closed system of equivalent forces, except when determining reactions onto foundations. The frame imperfections are intended to account for the possible effects of other forms of imperfection which may affect the stability of frames such as lack-of-fit. Member imperfections These are introduced in the design of compression members through a series of imperfection factors which represent an equivalent lack of straightness. The values of the imperfection factors also account for the effects of typical residual stress patterns. Local bow imperfections of members, in addition to global sway imperfections, should be included in the global analysis of frames that are sensitive to second order effects.

While BS 5950: Part 1 does not disallow this method of analysis system, frame and member imperfections are not explicitly included in the standard. An allowance is made for them within the buckling curves given in BS 5950: Part 1. 4.1.6 Buckling members in compression BS 5950: Part 11uses aa modified Perry formula to determine member buckling resistance. BS 5950: Part uses modified Perry formula to determine member buckling resistance. This method is described inin Annex C of BS 5950: Part 1. EC3-1-1 the the member buckling This method is described Annex C of BS 5950: Part 1. In In EC3-1-1 member buckling resistance is derived from the resistance of of the cross-section applying a reduction factor, resistance is derived from the resistance the cross-section by by applying a reduction factor, .. Different values ofof are determined forfor flexural buckling (y-y(y-y axis) or z (z-z axis)), Different values are determined flexural buckling (y ( y axis) or z (z-z axis)), lateral torsional buckling (LTLT), torsional T) T) and torsional-flexural buckling ( TF). The lateral torsional buckling ( ), torsional ( ( and torsional-flexural buckling (TF). The reduction factor is aa function of an imperfection factor (and thethe non-dimensional reduction factor is function of an imperfection factor () ) and non-dimensional

19

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

slenderness ratio of the compression member. is a function of the slenderness ratio of the member Lcr/i, where Lcr is the buckling length in the plane of buckling. The buckling length is similar to the effective length used in BS 5950: Part 1. Unfortunately, unlike BS 5950: Part 1, EC3-1-1 does not give guidance on the buckling lengths to be used. Consequently, guidance on the buckling lengths (or effective length) must be obtained from either BS 5950: Part 1, design guides or appropriate textbooks.

Another feature of EC3-1-1 is the introduction of two additional checks for members with open cross-sections subject to compression. These checks are for the torsional and torsionalflexural buckling of members in compression. The methods use the same base equations used for flexural buckling but with the non-dimensional slenderness replaced by either the non-dimensional slenderness for torsional ( T ) or torsional-flexural buckling ( TF ). These parameters can be used to determined either T or TF and either the elastic torsional flexural buckling force or the elastic torsional buckling force of the member. EC3-1-1 does not include guidance on how to calculate these two parameters and the designer must rely on an appropriate textbook. 4.1.7 Buckling uniform members in bending

In EC3-1-1 the lateral torsional buckling of a laterally unrestrained beam is determined from the resistance of the cross-section by applying a reduction factor, . The reduction factor, LT, is a function of both the imperfection factor ,LT, and the non-dimensional slenderness ratio,

LT , of the beam. This approach is similar to the method used for calculating the buckling resistance of a column.
The method used in BS 5950: Part 1 is different and is based on a modified Perry-Robertson expression. A full description of this method is given in Annex B of BS 5950: Part 1. The main difference between these two methods is that while BS 5950 is based on the calculation of the equivalent slenderness , LT, EC3-1-1 requires the designer to evaluate the elastic critical moment for lateral-torsional buckling (Mcr) as an intermediate step before calculating the non-dimensional slenderness ratio , LT . This is the traditional way of evaluating LT but unfortunately EC3-1-1 does not include data for the evaluation of Mcr. Designers must therefore rely on an appropriate textbook. Furthermore, EC3-1-1 contains two methods for calculating the lateral torsional buckling of a member. These are: The general case, and A method specifically for rolled sections or equivalent welded sections.

The second method has been calibrated against test data and has been shown to give reasonable results for rolled sections. The calibration also showed the method to be unsatisfactory for welded sections. It is therefore suggested that designers use the general case for welded sections and the specific method for rolled sections. However, the UK National Annex (once published) should be referred to for guidance on which method to use. The second method includes a correction factor to allow for the shape of the bending moment diagram. This correction factor is in addition to the equivalent uniform moment factors used to allow for the differences between a uniform moment and the actual moment distribution along the beam.

20

EN 1993 Steel Structures

4.1.8

Buckling uniform members in bending and axial compression

EC3-1-1 introduces two alternative methods for calculating the buckling resistance of a member subject to combined bending and axial compression. Both approaches use interaction equations which have a similar general form to those used in BS 5950: Part 1. However, this is where the similarity ends. The methods in EC3-1-1 include interaction factors, k, which account for the shape of the bending moment diagram and the class of the cross-section. The interaction factors have been derived from two alternative approaches and expressions for each interaction factor are included in Annex A for Method 1 and Annex B for Method 2. Both methods require the evaluation of complex expressions in order to determine the interaction factors. However, Method 2 is a little easier. A comparison between Methods 1 and 2 and BS 5950 has shown that Method 2 is in better agreement with BS 5950: Part 1 than Method 1. Furthermore, there is some doubt over the applicability of Method 1 to asymmetric sections. For these reasons the National Annex may allow both methods to be used but restrict the scope of Method 1 to bi-symmetrical sections.

4.2

Part 1-2: General rules Structural fire design

The fire part of Eurocode 3 (EN1993-1-2 [4], hereafter referred to as EC3-1-2) is not radically different from the UK standard for the fire resistant design of steel structures. BS 5950 Part 8 [5] is a performance based code that allows for calculation of fire resistance in addition to the use of fire test data. The principal difference between the two codes is that the calculation procedures in BS 5950: Part 8 are limited to a thermal exposure based on the standard fire curve while EC3-1-2 allows for alternative thermal exposures based on the factors influencing fire growth and development. The design procedure for EC3-1-2 is illustrated in Figure 3. Effectively the scope of BS 5950: Part 8 is restricted to the left hand branch of the diagram. All the fire parts of the structural Eurocodes are designed to be used with the fire part of the Eurocode for Actions (EN1991-1-2 [6] hereafter referred to as EC1-1-2). The thermal actions (either nominal or parametric) are taken from this document and the resulting thermal and mechanical analysis undertaken using the principles and design methods detailed in EC3-1-2. 4.2.1 Material properties

For fire resistant design by calculation the most common method in the Eurocodes is to use a modified form of the equations for resistance at ambient temperature using reduced material properties corresponding to the appropriate temperature. For this reason EC3-1-2 contains detailed guidance on the material properties of carbon and stainless steels. These are presented as stress-strain relationships and as reduction factors relative to the ambient temperature strength and elastic modulus. It is important to note that the variation of Youngs modulus with temperature is different to the variation in steel strength . The information is presented in the form of strength reduction factors (ky,) in EC3-1-2 and strength retention (ky factors in BS 5950: Part 8. The strength reduction factors given in EC3-1-2 correspond to the 2% strain values in Table 1 of BS 5950: Part 8. Elevated temperature properties are also presented for thermal elongation, specific heat and thermal conductivity. The relationships given in EC3-1-2 are identical to those in BS 5950: Part 8. The corresponding properties for stainless steel may be found in Annex C of EC3-1-2. Annex A of EC3-1-2 presents an alternative stress-strain relationship for carbon steels allowing for strain hardening.

21

Figure3: Design Procedure EN1993-1-2

22
Project Design Performance Based Code (Physically based Thermal Actions) Analysis of Part of the Structure Analysis of Entire Structure Selection of Simple or Advanced Fire Development Models Calculation of Mechanical Actions at Boundaries Selection of Mechanical Actions Member Analysis Analysis of Part of the Structure Analysis of Entire Structure

Prescriptive Rules (Thermal Actions given by Nominal Fire)

Member Analysis

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

Calculation of Mechanical Actions at Boundaries

Tabulated Data

Simple Calculation Models

Advanced Calculation Models Simple Calculation Models (if available) Advanced Calculation Models

Advanced Calculation Models

Calculation of Mechanical Actions at Boundaries

Calculation of Mechanical Actions at Boundaries

Selection of Mechanical Actions

Simple Calculation Models (if available)

Advanced Calculation Models

Advanced Calculation Models

Advanced Calculation Models

EN 1993 Steel Structures

4.2.2

Structural fire design

In EC3-1-2 fire resistance may be determined either by simple calculation models, advanced calculation models or testing. The current British Standard is based on fire resistance derived from standard fire tests and fire resistance derived from calculations. The main difference in approach is that BS 5950: Part 8 includes tabulated data for limiting temperatures and design temperatures based on the results from standard tests while EC3-1-2 does not include tabulated data for design temperatures. 4.2.3 Members in compression

For compression members with Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 cross-sections a non-dimensional slenderness is calculated based on the buckling length in the fire situation. In general the buckling length should be determined as for ambient temperature design. However, in a braced frame the buckling length may be determined based on continuity at the connections provided that the fire resistance of the building components that separate the fire compartments is not less than the fire resistance of the column. Thus in a braced frame where each storey comprises a separate fire compartment, intermediate columns are assumed to be fixed in direction at either end and the effective length is half of the system length. In the top storey the buckling length may be taken as 0.7 x the system length. This is different to the approach used in BS 5950: Part 8 where the buckling length is determined following the guidance given for ambient temperature design i.e. current UK practice is more conservative. It is anticipated that this issue will be addressed in the UK National Annex for EC3-1-2. 4.2.4 Combined bending and axial compression

For members subject to combined bending and axial compression the calculation method in EC3-1-2 is more complex than the corresponding calculation in BS 5950: Part 8 and differs from the method in EC3-1-1. The interaction formula for the combination of axial load and minor and major axis bending is based on the procedure in the original draft for the development of the Eurocode, ENV 1993-1-1 as the new method in EC3-1-1 has not been verified for the fire situation at the time of writing. 4.2.5 Structural connections

The latest version of BS 5950: Part 8 contains guidance on the calculation of the thickness of protection required for structural connections and takes into account the relative load ratio of the connection compared to that of the connected members. EC3-1-2 in addition to similar guidance includes a more detailed approach in Annex D where the design resistance of bolts in shear and tension, and the design resistance of welds can be calculated using a temperature profile based on the temperature of the bottom flange of the beam at mid-span. This method is mainly applicable for simple connections although potentially could be applied to all components of the connection using the approach in EN1993-1-8.

4.3

Part 1-8: Design of joints

EN1993-1-8 [7] (hereafter referred to as EC3-1-8) gives guidance for the design of steel joints subject to predominantly static loads. Steel grades S235, S275, S355 and S460 are covered by the guidance given.

23

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

4.3.1

Definitions

EC3-1-8 starts by defining the different components that constitute a steel joint and makes a clear distinction between a connection and a joint. This can be confusing for UK designers who generally use the words joint and connection interchangeably to describe the junction between two steel members. In EC3-1-8 the word connection is used to define the location at which two or more elements meet, while the word joint is used to define the zone where two or more members are interconnected. Therefore a beam-to-column connection is the interface between the flange (or web) of the column and the end of the beam, and includes all the components (bolts, welds, end-plate, column flange etc) required to transfer the internal forces from the beam to the column. The joint however is the assembly of all the basic components which play a part in the behaviour of the configuration. For example, a singlesided beam-to-column joint consists of a connection and a column web panel. It is important that UK designers recognise this distinction as it is used throughout the standard. 4.3.2 Material properties

In EC3-1-8 the nominal values of the yield strength, fyb, and the ultimate tensile strength, fub, for grade 8.8 and 10.9 bolts are considerably greater than the equivalent values used in BS 5950: Part 1. This is due to the standards taking account of different effects within the quoted material property values. EC3-1-1 gives ultimate values and BS5950: Part 1 gives permissible values. The partial material factors are included in the properties given in BS 5950: Part 1 but are defined separately in EC3-1-8. BS5950 Part 1 material properties may be used to account for prying actions without the direct calculation of the prying force by applying a factor to the material properties, EC3 gives a separate check for prying action. 4.3.3 Groups of fasteners

The approach used in EC3-1-8 is different to that used in the BCSA/SCI publications on Joints in Steel Construction [8, 9 & 10]. In EC3-1-8 the design resistance of a group of fasteners may be taken as the sum of the design bearing resistances of the individual fasteners provided the design shear resistance of each individual fastener is greater than or equal to the design bearing resistance. If this condition is not satisfied then the design resistance of a group of fasteners should be taken as the number of fasteners multiplied by the smallest design resistance of any of the individual fasteners. In the BCSA/SCI publications the design resistance of a group of fasteners is taken as the sum of the design resistances of the individual fasteners. This difference in approach may cause problems for flexible end-plates. The current approach in the UK often means that the top bolts are designed for bearing failure and the remaining bolts for shear. Because the EC3-1-8 rules do not allow mixed modes of failure the capacity of the bolt group according to the Eurocode philosophy would often be based on the number of fasters multiplied by the design bearing resistance of the top bolts. Clearly this may significantly reduce the apparent shear capacity of flexible end-plate connections and in some cases may result in an increase in the number of bolts needed. 4.3.4 Analysis, classification and modelling

Joint design depends very much on the designers decision regarding the method by which the structure is to be analysed. Both EC3-1-8 and BS 5950: Part 1 recognise that either elastic or plastic global analysis may be used, for frames that are simple, semi-continuous or continuous. When elastic analysis is adopted joint stiffness is relevant, when the analysis is plastic then strength of the joint is relevant. EC3-1-8 goes a step further than the British Standard and includes a table that relates the type of framing, method of global analysis and

24

EN 1993 Steel Structures

the joint classification. Table 4 gives details (note that some of the terminology used in the Eurocode has been slightly modified for clarity). Table 4. Type of framing, analysis used and joint classification/requirements Method of global analysis Elastic Rigid-plastic Elastic-plastic Classification/requirements of joint Nominally pinned Nominally pinned Nominally pinned Rigid Full-strength Rigid and full-strength Continuous Semi-rigid Partial-strength Semi-rigid and partial strength or Semi-rigid and full-strength or Rigid and partial-strength Semi-continuous

Type of framing

Simple

Although the relationship between type of framing, method of global analysis and joint requirements (represented by their classification) has been known for some time, its inclusion in a major structural code is new and some explanation of its use is required. Simple frame design is based on the assumption that the beams are simply supported and that the beam-to-column joints are sufficiently flexible and weak to restrict the development of significant beam end-moments. In continuous framing the type of joint used will depend on the method of global analysis. When elastic analysis is used the joints are classified according to their stiffness and rigid joints must be used. When plastic analysis is used the joints are classified according to their strength and full-strength joints must be used. When elastic-plastic analysis is adopted then the joints are classified according to both their stiffness and strength and rigid, full-strength joints must be used. Semi-continuous frame design recognises the fact that most practical joints possess some degree of both stiffness and moment resistance. When elastic analysis is used the joints are classified according to their stiffness and semi-rigid joints should be used. If plastic global analysis is used the joints are classified according to their strength and partial-strength joints should be used. When elastic-plastic analysis is used the joints are classified according to their stiffness and strength, and semi-continuity could be achieved in a number of ways (see Table 4). The traditional UK approach of classifying a joint only recognises two types (pinned and rigid) and it is relatively straightforward to use engineering judgement to choose between these. For an extended system, such as the one used in EC3-1-8, the structural properties of a joint may need to be quantified in order to classify it. EC3-1-8 includes methods for doing this, and it is the inclusion of these methods that constitutes the biggest difference between the design of joints to the Eurocode and the traditional methods used in the UK. By comparing the quantified stiffness of a joint against the limits given in EC3-1-8 it can be classified as pinned, rigid or semi-rigid. Similarly a joint can be classified by comparing its quantified moment resistance with limits for pinned, full-strength or partial strength joints. A fuller description of a joints behaviour can also be obtained by classifying it using both stiffness and strength. Such a classification leads to joints which are pinned, rigid/fullstrength, rigid/partial strength and semi-rigid/partial-strength. One problem that this may cause is that joints which have traditionally been taken as pinned or rigid may not be pinned or rigid under the new classification system. This situation is complicated by the fact that the Eurocode not only gives guidance on calculating stiffness and strength (for some joint types), but clause 5.2.2.1 also allows classification on the basis of experimental evidence or experience of previous performance. Clearly the results of these three approaches for a given joint may not always agree. This could prove problematical if

25

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

checking authorities require designers to demonstrate that a joint is pinned or rigid, and could lead to increased design time and/or changes to the UKs commonly used joints. To establish the stiffness boundary between rigid and semi-rigid joints the relationship between joint stiffness and the Euler buckling load for a single-bay, single-storey frame was investigated [11]. It was decided that a semi-rigid joint can be considered as rigid provided the difference between the Euler buckling load for a single-bay, single-storey frame with semirigid joints and the Euler buckling load of a similar frame with rigid joints was less than 5%. By adopting this approach a classification method based on the rigidity of the connected beam was developed. While such a system is easy to use it has attracted criticism, some of which is detailed below: When compared to the stiffness limits given in some national standards the limits in EC31-8 appear to be conservative. The classification system given in EC3-1-8 can be applied to any steel structure but as the limits have been determined on the basis of a single-bay, single-storey frame the accuracy of its application to multi-bay, multi-storey frames is questionable. The stiffness boundaries between joint types have been determined on the basis of the ultimate limit state and on the assumption that a difference of 5% between the performance of a frame with rigid and semi-rigid joints is small and can be neglected. However, this does not necessarily mean that the differences at serviceability limit states, where displacements of the structure are more important, are equally small and can be neglected. Clearly, when deriving classification criteria both serviceability and ultimate limit states should be considered. Structural joints connecting H or I sections

4.3.5

The method described in Chapter 6 of EC3-1-8 for the design of joints between H or I sections is based on the component approach. Explicit guidance is only given for flush and extended end plate joints, although a designer might need to calculate stiffness and/or strength for other types of joint in order to classify them. As well as this limitation it is worth noting that the procedures for calculating the design moment resistance and rotational stiffness of a joint are complex and time-consuming and are not suitable for hand calculation. Computer software is recommended for these complex calculations. 4.3.5.1 Design resistance

In the given method for calculating moment resistance the potential resistance of each component is calculated. These potential resistances are then converted to actual forces by balancing the forces in the tension components with those in compression. The moment capacity of the joint is then calculated by summing the product of the forces in the tension components and their distances from the centre of compression. This approach is very similar to the method described in the BCSA/SCI publication Joints in Steel Construction: Moment connections [9] (which was in fact heavily based on the Eurocode). However, the Eurocode also includes methods for calculating a joints rotational stiffness and rotation capacity. Both of these methods will be new to UK designers and are therefore briefly described below.

4.3.5.2

Rotational stiffness

Calculating the stiffness of any joint can be a difficult process. For this reason Reference 9 takes a pragmatic approach and gives simple rule-of-thumb detailing guidelines which, if followed, will in most circumstances ensure an appropriate joint stiffness, so that frame design assumptions are not invalidated.

26

EN 1993 Steel Structures

EC3-1-8 incorporates a method for calculating the stiffness of a bare steel joint based on work initially carried out by Zoetemeijer [12] and more recently by Jaspart [13 & 14]. This method uses the component approach in which the rotational response of the joint is determined from the mechanical properties of the different components (end-plate, cleat, column flange, bolts etc.). The advantage of this approach is that the behaviour of any joint can be calculated by decomposing it into its components. The stiffness of each joint component is represented by a linear spring with a forcedisplacement relationship. Tables are included in EC3-1-8 which give expressions for evaluating the stiffness of the different components. The combined effect of the components is determined by considering each spring, with an appropriate lever arm, to give a rotational stiffness.

4.3.5.3

Rotation capacity

The rotation capacity of a joint is very important (a pin or plastic hinge must be able to rotate sufficiently) but this is difficult to calculate accurately. However, numerous researchers have investigated rotation capacity and have identified many sources of ductility in joints, some of which are listed below: Column web panel in shear Column flange in bending End plate in bending Tension flange cleat in bending

EC3-1-8 gives a number of practical rules for checking the rotation capacity of a joint. These rules are based on the above sources of ductility for bolted joints and entail checking that the critical mode of failure is based on one of the above components.

4.4

Part 1-10: Material toughness and through-thickness properties

EN1993-1-10 [15] (here after referred to as EC3-1-10), gives design guidance for the selection of steel for fracture toughness and through-thickness properties. 4.4.1 Fracture toughness

To determine the maximum permissible thickness of a steel element using EC3-1-10 the reference temperature, steel grade and stress at the reference temperature are required. The following expression is used to determine the reference temperature:

+ R+ TEd = Tmd + T++ T T +TTR +TT + Tcf + T cf Ed = Tmd + Tr r


Where Tmd is the minimum service temperature with aaspecific return period, given in EN 1991-1-5 Tmd is the minimum service temperature with specific return period, given in EN 1991-1-5 Trr isis anadjustment for radiation loss, obtained from EN 1991-1-5 T an adjustment for radiation loss, obtained from EN 1991-1-5 T is the adjustment for stress and yield strength ofof material, crack imperfections and T is the adjustment stress and yield strength material, crack imperfections and member shape and dimensions, given EN 1993-1-10 member shape and dimensions, given inin EN 1993-1-10 TR is a safety allowance, if required, to reflect different reliability levels for for different TR is a safety allowance, if required, to reflect different reliability levels different applications, obtained from EN 1993-1-10 applications, obtained from EN 1993-1-10 T is the adjustment for a strain rate other than the reference strain rate, obtained from EN T is the adjustment for a strain rate other than the reference strain rate, obtained from 1993-1-10 EN 1993-1-10 T is the adjustment for the degree of cold forming, defined in EN 1993-1-10 T cf is the adjustment for the degree of cold forming, defined in EN 1993-1-10 cf Elastic analysis should be used to determine the stress at the reference temperature. The maximum element thicknesses given in Table 2.1 of EC3-1-10 relate to three levels of stress,

27

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

0.25fy(t), 0.5fy(t) and 0.75fy(t). Where fy(t) is the nominal yield strength adjusted for the thickness of the element. The current UK guidance gives maximum thickness values for minimum temperatures of -5C, -15C, -25C, -35C and -45C. The minimum temperature of -5C for internal steelwork given in BS 5950: Part 1 relates to the temperatures experienced during construction, when it is vulnerable to brittle fracture. The values given in EC3-1-10 consider a wider range of temperatures, +10C to -50C in 10C intervals. Interpolation between the values is allowed, but extrapolation beyond the extreme values given in the table is not permitted. The minimum temperature used in BS 5950: Part 1 and the reference temperature (TEd) of EC3-1-10 are not equivalent to each other. The minimum temperature used in BS 5950: Part 1 is similar to the minimum service temperature with a specific return period (Tmd). Maximum element thickness values are given for different steel grades in both codes, although more steel grades/types are considered in BS 5950: Part 1. Table 5 gives the steel grades/types considered in both standards. Comparing the steel grades covered by BS 5950: Part 1 and EC3-1-10 it appears that no allowance has been made in Table 2.1 of EC3-1-10 for the steel grades used for hollow sections. EC3-1-10 allows the use of fracture mechanics for a numerical evaluation. Therefore this method may be used for the steel grades used for hollow sections. Table 5. Material property standards for which maximum element thicknesses are given in BS 5950: Part 1 and EN 1993-1-1 Material property standards for which maximum element thicknesses are given in standards BS 5950: Part 1 EN 1993-1-1 S275 to S460 steel grades S275 to S690 steel grades BS EN 10025 BS EN 10025 BS EN 10113 BS EN 10113 BS EN 10137 BS EN 10137 BS EN 10166 BS EN 10210 BS EN 10219 BS7668

A note to clause 2.2(5) of EC3-1-10 allows the National Annex to give maximum values of the range between TEd and the test temperature and also the range of Ed,, to which the validity of Ed values for permissible thickness in Table 2.1 may be restricted. A further note to this clause allows the National Annex to limit the use of Table 2.1 for steel grades up to S460. The UK National Annex to EC3-1-10 is currently under development and no comment can be made at this time on the values that may be included in it. 4.4.2 Through-thickness properties

Section 3 of EC3-1-10 gives a method for determining the susceptibility of steel to lamellar tearing. Lamellar tearing is a weld induced flaw and is usually detected during ultrasonic inspection of welds. The main risk of lamellar tearing is with cruciform joints, T-joints, corner joints and when full penetration welds are used.

28

EN 1993 Steel Structures

To check if lamellar tearing may be ignored EC3-1-10 requires the available design and 4 required design Z-values to be compared. The available design Z-value is given in BS EN 10164 [16]. The required design Z-value is obtained from coefficients given in EC3-1-10 relating to weld depth, shape and position of welds, material thickness, restraint of shrinkage and influence of preheating. BS 5950: Part 2 [17] states that the material shall be tested for through-thickness properties to the specified quality class in accordance with BS EN 10164. The inclusion of the Z-value check in EC3-1-10 may result in designers having to perform this check for every welded joint in a structure. Currently in the UK only joints identified as being at risk from lamellar tearing are checked. EC3-1-10 allows the National Annex to limit the scope of section 3 to certain steel products. This may be used in the UK National Annex to limit the Z-value checks to specific types of welded joints.

4.5

Part 5: Steel Piling

EN1993-5 [18] (hereafter referred to as EC3-5) gives guidance for the design of all types of steel piles including hot and cold formed sheet piles, bearing piles and piling systems built up from component parts. It gives guidance for different shapes, sizes and arrangements of steel piles. Although some of these are not common in the UK at present they may find future application. The fields of application considered by the Eurocode are: Steel piled foundations of civil engineering works on land and over water Temporary or permanent structures necessary for the execution of steel piling Temporary or permanent retaining structures composed of steel sheet piles, including all kinds of combined walls.

Guidance for steel piles filled with concrete is also included in EC3-5. EC3-5 contains an annex giving detailed rules for the design of cold formed pile sections and combined walls. These areas have not previously been dealt with in UK guidance. Current UK standards do not contain an equivalent code to EC3-5. BS 8002 [19] is basically a geotechnical code that requires input from BS 5950: Part 1 to allow the design of steel piles. Current SCI documents cover some aspects of UK steel pile design. However, the guidance given in these documents does not give the detail required for a full design, and it only applies to simple structures. EC3-5 introduces some new concepts to the traditional UK design process, these include: The use of plastic design for piling Four classes for sheet piling and the resultant different design approaches A more formal system for assessing the structural performance of piling structures

The checks on shear in a sheet pile wall, which are perhaps covered by inspection in current practice need to be formally assessed, as do shear buckling and combined moments, shear and axial loading. Many of these checks will require section data and it is likely that either data sheets giving member capacities or the basic geometric information will be provided by the sheet pile manufacturers. The effects of water pressures on the structural design are also to be taken into account (which is a new concept for UK designers), and specific rules for the transfer of shear in the interlocks of piles and its effect on the strength and stiffness of pile
4

Z-value is the transverse reduction of area in a tensile test of the through-thickness ductility of a specimen, measured as a percentage

29

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

sections are included. This issue is addressed qualitatively in BS 8002 but is covered in more depth in EC3-5, as it has a much higher profile outside the UK. Compared with current UK practice EC3-5 deals more formally with combined-walls and cellular structures, as well as high modulus walls. Conflicting views have emerged within the UK industry on the implementation of EC3-5. These views have emerged because of the significant differences in scope and approach between current UK practice and the Eurocode system. One of the major areas for concern is the effect that a move from lumped factor design to a partial factor approach will have on design requirements. This is compounded by changes in the specific calculations that are required to satisfy the new code. There are situations where formal calculations are now required which would previously have been dealt with by inspection in the UK. There is also concern that these design changes may make designs less efficient, or effective, compared with current UK practice. One of the most difficult areas to assess is the effect that the plastic design rules will have on the design process as there is little or no experience with these design rules within the UK. The design calculations need to consider the situation at all stages in the life of the structure and if the proposed section has appropriate parameters, the wall can be designed on the basis of plastic section properties and moment redistribution. This assumes that the pile section is capable of sustaining a moment of resistance as the pile rotates plastically and this ability may change with the amount of corrosion that the section has sustained. This may be accepted practice in structural designs but the response of soil when the system is at or approaching plastic conditions is not understood. There is reference made to EN 12063, the standard covering site activities which goes into significantly more detail than current British Standards on some aspects of site work (i.e. welding). One potential area of conflict with current UK methods is the fact that there is no overt difference between the requirements for temporary and permanent construction. This was previously dealt with by allowing increased stress levels in temporary works piling (BS8002: 1994 [19]) and not considering corrosion on the section properties. Under the new rules there will be no change in stress, which may be a retrograde step in some minds.

30

EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures

EN1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures

The main differences between the design guidance given in Eurocode 4 and BS 5950 are discussed in this section.

5.1

Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings

Eurocode 4 applies to the design of composite structures and members for building and civil engineering works. The Eurocode is concerned only with the requirements for the resistance, serviceability and durability of composite steel and concrete structures. EN1994-1-1 [20] (hereafter referred to as EC4-1-1) gives a general basis for the design of composite structures along with specific rules for buildings. EC4-1-1 provides design guidance for some types of element not common in the UK, such as partially encased concrete beams, composite columns in buildings, high strength structural steels and composite joints together with various methods of continuous beam design and the detailing of the continuous joints. 5.1.1 5.1.1.1 Material Properties Concrete

Unless given in EC4-1-1, concrete material properties must be obtained from EN1992-1-1 [21] (hereafter referred to as EC2-1-1) for both normal weight and lightweight concrete. However, EC4-1-1 does not cover the design of composite structures with concrete grades lower than C20/25 or higher than C60/75. EC4-1-1 therefore extends the range of concrete strengths compared to those available in BS 5950. The classification for normal weight concrete used in the Eurocodes system (Cx/y) gives the 2 cylinder strength (x) and the cube strength (y) in N/mm . The design strengths used in the Eurocodes are based on the cylinder strengths and not the cube strengths, so care should be taken by designers to use the correct value. 5.1.1.2 Structural steel

Reference should be made to EC3-1-1, clauses 3.1 and 3.2 for the properties of structural steel, however, EC4-1-1 does not cover steel grades with a characteristic strength greater 2 than 460N/mm . This is in common with BS 5950: Part 3 where the design strength of structural steel is obtained by reference to BS 5950: Part 1. However, a comment is made in BS 5950 that due to a lack of test evidence, the design strength should not be taken as 2 greater than 355N/mm . This limit is lower than that given in EC4-1-1. Research has shown that to prevent premature concrete crushing some design rules should 2 be modified for steels with strength greater than 355N/mm . Such modifications have been 2 incorporated into EC4-1-1 so that it can cover steels with strengths up to 460N/mm .

31

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

5.1.2

Structural stability

The effects of the deformed geometry of the structure must be considered and an important design Principle outlined states that second-order effects should be considered if they increase the action effects significantly or modify significantly the structural behaviour. It is suggested that this increase in internal forces may be neglected if the increase in forces due to second-order effects is less than 10% of the forces determined in first-order analysis. The Eurocode also states that if second-order effects in individual members and relevant member imperfections are fully accounted for in the global analysis of the structure, individual stability checks on the members (such as lateral torsional buckling presumably) are not necessary. This is in contrast to BS5950 where there is no specific requirement to consider the increase in internal forces due to second-order effects but individual stability checks are required. An additional Principle stated is that appropriate allowances must be made for creep and cracking of concrete and for the behaviour of joints when determining the stiffness of the structure. Part 3, BS5950, uses a slightly different approach where the specific effects of concrete creep do not have to be considered provided that material values given are used when calculating the modular ratio. The effects of concrete cracking are considered in BS5950, where the cracked section method is used to determine member stiffness for elastic analysis, although the un-cracked section is used to calculate deflections. 5.1.3 Structural imperfections

When using EC4-1-1 appropriate allowances must be made to cover the effects of imperfections, including residual stresses and geometrical imperfections present even in the unloaded structure, such as lack of verticality, out of straightness and the unavoidable minor eccentricities present in joints. The assumed shape of any imperfections must take into account the elastic buckling mode of the structure or member in the most unfavourable direction and form, in the plane of buckling considered. Equivalent geometric imperfections should be used unless the effects of local imperfections are included in the member resistance design formulae. EC4-1-1 gives values of initial bow imperfections for composite columns and whilst there are no specific imperfection requirements for beams, EC4-1-1 incorporates the effects of imperfections within the formulae for the buckling resistance moment of laterally unrestrained composite beams. A similar approach is adopted in the current British Standard. The designer should refer to EC3-1-1 for the effects of global imperfections and for the formulae for buckling resistance of steel members, which also incorporate the effects of member imperfections. No specific requirements for dealing with member or global imperfections are outlined within BS 5950: Part 3. 5.1.4 Calculation of action (load) effects

Action effects are generally calculated by elastic global analysis even where the capacity of a cross-section is based on its plastic or non-linear resistance. Elastic global analysis should also be used for serviceability limit states, with, where appropriate, corrections for non-linear effects.

32

EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures

Allowance must also be made for shear lag. This is achieved for continuous beams by using an effective width of slab. In much the same way as in BS 5950: Part 3, EC4-1-1 outlines a number of provisions for determining the effective width of concrete slab, with the total effective width for the sagging portion of a beam (noted as beff1 in EC4-1-1) being the familiar Le/4 but no greater than the geometric distance between the beam centres. EC4-1-1 does not give separate values of effective slab width for slabs spanning perpendicular to and parallel to the supporting beam. A subtle distinction between the two cases is given in BS 5950: Part 3, where the effective width of a slab spanning parallel to the beam is limited to 0.8 times the beam spacing. In contrast to BS 5950: Part 3, EC4-1-1 makes allowance for the shrinkage of concrete, in the serviceability limit state, as well as cracking of concrete, creep, the sequence of construction and any pre-stressing. The effects of creep are dealt with using the modular ratio for short-term loading modified by a creep coefficient depending upon the age of the concrete at the moment considered, t, and the age at loading, t0, and a creep multiplier which can be used to account for the effects of concrete shrinkage. In practice, the effects of curvature due to shrinkage of normal weight concrete may often be ignored (see clause 7.3.1(8), EC4-1-1 for details). This is a little different to the approach used in BS 5950: Part 3, where the modular ratio is determined considering the proportion of long-term to short-term loading. In common with BS 5950: Part 3, EC4-1-1 considers the effects of cracking on the flexural stiffness of composite beams in two ways. Involved Method An initial un-cracked analysis is carried out assuming the un-cracked stiffness, EaI1, throughout. In areas where the extreme fibre tensile stress in the concrete is twice the concrete strength, the stiffness of the section is reduced to the cracked flexural stiffness, EaI2. An updated distribution of internal forces is then determined by re-analysis, termed the cracked analysis. Simple Method The effect of cracking can be modelled by taking a reduced flexural stiffness over 15% of the span on each side of each internal support, with the un-cracked flexural stiffness taken elsewhere. This method may be used for continuous beams where the ratio of the adjacent spans (shorter/longer) is greater than or equal to 0.6.

The more complicated method given in BS 5950: Part 3, is basically the same as the simple method given in EC4-1-1, where a cracked section is assumed over 15% of the span on each side of each internal support, with the un-cracked section assumed elsewhere. The simplified method given in the BS 5950: Part 3 involves carrying out an elastic analysis, assuming all members are un-cracked. The resulting negative moments over the supports and at mid-span can then be re-distributed in accordance with guidance given in Table 4 of BS 5950: Part 3, which effectively models the reduced stiffness of the member over the supports. EC4-1-1 also allows some limited redistribution, in accordance with Table 5.1, with both cracked and uncracked analysis for buildings, for the verification of all limit states other than fatigue. 5.1.5 Beams Ultimate Limit State

In EC4-1-1 the resistance moment of a composite cross-section with full interaction between the structural steel, reinforcement and concrete is given by plastic theory. It is assumed that

33

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

the effective area of the structural steel is stressed to its design yield stress, fyd, in either tension or compression and the effective area of concrete in compression resists a stress of 0.85fcd (which is constant over the whole depth between the plastic neutral axis and the most compressed fibre of concrete). The value fcd is the design cylinder compressive stress which is determined according to the following expression (given in EC2-1-1): fcd = cc fck / C Where: cc is a coefficient that takes account of long term effects on compressive stress and unfavourable effects due to the way the load is applied fck is the cylinder compressive stress C is the concrete partial factor EC2-1-1 allows the relevant National Annex to specify a value for cc, however, the guidance given in EC4-1-1 has been developed using cc equal to one. Therefore where fcd is given in EC4-1-1 it represents fck / C. See reference [23] for further discussion on this topic. In principle, this is exactly the same approach as that taken in BS 5950: Part 3. However, the concrete cube compressive stress is used with the material safety factor included in BS 5950: Part 3. Therefore in BS 5950: Part 3 the concrete is assumed to resist a stress of 0.45fcu over the whole depth between the plastic neutral axis and the most compressed fibre of concrete. In keeping with the other Eurocodes, EC4-1-1 does not give any guidance for the determination of the effective or equivalent span, LE. EC4-1-1 outlines limits on the degree of shear interaction required, including the requirement that full shear interaction is attained when the effective span is greater then 25m. The minimum degree of shear interaction for spans less than 25m is determined based upon the yield stress of the steel section and effective span and should always be greater than 0.4. BS 5950: Part 3 gives similar guidance, but stipulates that full shear interaction is required when the span is greater than 16m, and shear interaction must be greater than 0.4 for spans up to 10m. For intermediate spans the minimum degree of shear interaction is given by the simple equation (L-6)/10 0.4. The vertical shear strength is based on that of the bare steel section in exactly the same way as BS 5950: Part 3. 5.1.6 Beam serviceability limit state

Serviceability requirements are specified in relation to limiting deflections and concrete cracking. Elastic analysis must be used for the serviceability limit state and the effective width of the concrete flange, considered in beam design, is as defined for the ultimate limit state. EC4-1-1 refers the user to EN1990 A1.4.4 for criteria reflecting to the dynamic properties of floor beams. Unlike BS5950, stress limits under construction loading are not given (these need only be checked if fatigue is a consideration). EC4-1-1 states that the effect of cracking of concrete in regions subject to hogging moments should be taken into account by adopting appropriate global analysis methods. This is in contrast to BS 5950: Part 3, where the gross uncracked section is used when calculating deflections. Although no specific procedures are stated in EC4-1-1, the effects of creep must be included when calculating deflections. It is therefore necessary to consider relevant values of the modular ratio when calculating the equivalent second moment of area of the gross section and distinguishing between shorter term and long term loading. This effect is covered in BS

34

EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures

5950: Part 3, by the use of an effective modular ratio, for the proportion of total loading that is long term. EC4-1-1 does not make allowance for increased deflections in beams with partial shear interaction (provided the degree of shear interaction is above 0.5). This is in contrast to BS 5950: Part 3, where the deflection of a beam with partial shear interaction is increased from that with full interaction, based upon the degree of shear interaction provided. EC4-1-1 does not provide any guidance on the procedure to be used if the shear interaction is between 0.4 and 0.5. 5.1.7 Lateral torsional buckling

The possibility of the onset of lateral torsional buckling is covered in more depth in EC4-1-1 than in BS 5950: Part 3. In general, the methods outlined in EC3-1-1 (discussed in section 4.1.8) can be adopted when checking the lateral torsional buckling resistance of the steel section during construction, and EC4-1-1 outlines a method applicable to composite beams with uniform cross-sections classified as Class 1, 2 or 3. This method basically decreases the composite moment resistance of the section using a reduction factor based on the relative slenderness of the section, LT.. LT EC4-1-1 also outlines some detailing rules which can be used to prevent lateral torsional buckling. These include ensuring that adjacent spans do not differ in length by more than 20%, the top flange of the steel section is connected to a reinforced concrete or composite slab which is in turn connected to another member approximately parallel to form an inverted U frame, and by laterally restraining the bottom flange of each member and stiffening the web at each support. No such advice is presented in BS 5950: Part 3. 5.1.8 Members in compression

The first point to note is that at present there is no specific British Standard that covers the design of composite columns in building structures. Whilst BS 5950: Part 3 Section 3.1 refers to BS 5950 Part 3 Section 3.2, Code of Practice for the Design of Composite Columns and Frames, it has never been published. BS 5400: Part 5 Code of practice for the design of composite bridges [24], does, however, cover the design of concrete encased sections and concrete filled circular and square hollow sections, although clearly this is for use with bridge structures. EC4-1-1 covers the design of composite columns and composite compression members with concrete encased sections, partially encased sections and concrete filled rectangular and circular tubes. It should be noted that EC4-1-1 only covers isolated non-sway columns in frames where all other structural members within the frame are also composite or steel. The Eurocode considers elements constructed with grade S235 to S460 steel and with normal weight concrete with grades between C20/25 and C50/60. It should be noted that the upper concrete strength limit is less than that for other design guidance contained within EC4-1-1. EC4-1-1 provides two methods for the calculation of the resistance of composite columns; the General Method and the Simplified Method. General Method This takes explicit account of both second-order effects and imperfections. The method is relatively complex and requires the use of numerical computational tools. Whilst EC4-1-1 includes a description of the processes to be considered it does not include detailed rules for the general method. It is not covered at all in BS 5400.

35

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

Simplified Method This can be applied to a doubly symmetric member with a uniform crosssection over its height. The method makes use of the European buckling curves for steel columns, which implicitly take account of imperfections. Both methods assume the following: 1. There is full interaction between the steel and concrete sections until failure occurs 2. Geometric imperfections and residual stresses are taken into account in the calculation 3. Plane sections remain plane whilst the column deforms. 5.1.9 Composite joints in frames for buildings

BS 5950: Part 3 does not cover the design of composite joints. The design guidance given in EC4-1-1 will be completely new to the majority of UK designers. EC4-1-1 defines a composite connection as a joint between a composite member and another composite, steel or reinforced concrete member, in which reinforcement is taken into account in design for the resistance and stiffness of the joint. The guidance given in EC4-1-1 applies principally to moment-resisting beam-column connections and relates to ultimate resistance, rotational stiffness and rotation capacity. Joints are classified as rigid, nominally pinned, or semi-rigid for stiffness, and as full strength, nominally pinned or partial strength in relation to moment resistance. In summary, the vertical shear resistance of the joint is assumed to come solely from the steel components and is therefore calculated in accordance with the guidelines outlined in EC3-18. The design moment resistance (with full shear connection) is calculated using the provisions of EC3-1-8 but taking account of the contribution of the slab reinforcement in tension (where the top row of reinforcing bars in tension may be treated in a similar manner to a bolt-row in tension in a plain steel joint). The moment capacity of the joint is calculated assuming the effective area of longitudinal reinforcement in tension is stressed to its design yield stress, fsd, and the effective area of the bottom flange of the beam and part of the web etc. in compression to its design yield strength, fyd. 5.1.10 Composite slabs with profiled metal sheeting

Section 9 of EC4-1-1 covers the design of single span composite floor systems, including cantilevered floors, in building applications. The scope is limited to in-situ concrete used with sheets with narrowly spaced webs. As with the design of a composite beam the effective area of concrete in compression resists a stress of 0.85fcd, constant over the whole depth between the plastic neutral axis and the most compressed fibre of concrete. A similar approach is adopted in BS 5950: Part 3, with the concrete cube compressive stress being used. The concrete is assumed to resist a stress of 0.45fcu over the whole depth between the plastic neutral axis and the most compressed fibre of concrete. BS 5950: Part 3 recommends that the lever arm should not exceed 0.9 times the effective depth of the slab to the centroid of the steel sheet. In addition, the concrete stress block should not exceed 0.45 times the effective depth of the slab to the centroid of the steel sheet. There is no such limitation outlined in EC4-1-1. An important point to note is that the most usual mode of failure of a composite slab is by longitudinal shear, which can be difficult to predict theoretically. As such, composite slab

36

EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures

design in the UK is generally based on manufacturers load capacity tables/software which are based on experimental testing (the semi-empirical m-k method). Informative Annex B of EC4-1-1 outlines testing procedures on composite slabs, which are not the same as traditionally used in the UK. The national annex may comment on this difference. Please refer to Johnson and Anderson [19] for more details. In addition, EC4-1-1 allows the design longitudinal shear resistance to be determined using both the m-k method and the partial interaction method. This is in contrast to BS 5950: Part 3.

5.2

Part 1-2: Structural fire design

EN1994-1-2 [25] (hereafter referred to as EC4-1-2) covers the fire design of composite steel and concrete structures. In essence, it identifies the differences between the fire design and the ambient design methods and provides supplementary information for the design for fire. This is similar to the scope of BS 5950 Part 8, except that the current British Standard covers both bare steel and composite construction in fire. EC4-1-2 is not applicable to uncommon material grades, such as concrete grades lower than C20/25 and higher than C60/75 and LC60/75. EC4-1-2 provides design guidance for some types of element that are not common in the UK, such as partially encased concrete beams and composite columns. 5.2.1 Fire exposure

The nominal fire exposure given in EC4-1-2 is similar to BS 5950: Part 8, where the exposure to standard and hydro carbon fire curves is adopted. However, EC4-1-2 also allows the consideration of parametric fire exposure, which considers real behaviour (as discussed in section 4.2). 5.2.2 Material Partial Factors

The recommended material partial factors given in EC4-1-2 are the same as those given in BS 5950: Part 8 except for concrete. EC4-1-2 recommends a value of 1.0 for concrete compared with 1.1 given in BS 5950 Part 8. However, it should be noted that the Eurocodes consider cylindrical compressive stress compared with cube compressive stress used in the British Standards. The resulting difference between the concrete design values is small, with the Eurocode value being approximately 2% greater than the BS5950 Part 8 value. 5.2.3 Structural analysis

While the assessment methods given in both EC4-1-2 and BS 5950: Part 8 assume that the structural members are individual elements, EC4-1-2 also provides brief guidance on global structural analysis and the use of an analytical model which takes into account secondary effects and whole building behaviour. Recommendations on the validation of these advanced calculation models are also given. Such guidance promotes the use of performance design for structural fire design. 5.2.4 Design procedures

EC4-1-2 provides three design methods: Tabulated data Simple calculation models Advanced calculation models

37

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

The tabulated design data is provided for some structural types which are not easily addressed by simplified calculation methods. They are not common types of construction in the UK. The following elements are included: Simply supported beams Composite beams comprising a steel section and concrete upper flange. Composite beams comprising a steel beam with partial concrete encasement. Encased steel beams, for which the concrete has only an insulating function. Columns Composite columns comprising totally encased steel sections Composite columns comprising partially encased steel sections Composite columns comprising concrete filled hollow sections. Note: The tables only cover the case where columns at the level under consideration are fully continuous with the columns above and below, and the fire is limited to only a single storey. The simple calculation models provided in EC4-1-2 are more akin to the concept adopted for BS 5950 Part 8. However, EC4-1-2 recommends additional checks which include vertical shear resistance, combined bending and vertical shear and longitudinal shear resistance on composite beam design. Similar checks for other elements such as column and slab members are also given. EC4-1-2 provides recommendations for size, arrangement and detail of composite beams with concrete encasement, composite columns and beam to column joints, to achieve various fire resistance. This is to ensure composite action during fire exposure and the transmission of the applied forces and moments in the beam to column joints. The recommendations fall into the following categories: Minimum cover to steel section Minimum axis distance to the main bar reinforcement Minimum percentage and size of reinforcement Minimum size and maximum spacing of links Details at connections

Such recommendations are not given in BS 5950: Part 8 although many of them are good practice and can be accommodated within typical construction details in the UK. One recommendation which does not fall into this category is clause 5.2 (2) which relates to partially encased composite beams and recommends a maximum cover of 35mm. It is not unusual to have 40mm cover in reinforced concrete design in the UK. However, concrete encased composite beams are not a common form of construction in the UK. 5.2.5 Unprotected Composite Slabs

Informative Annex D of EC4-1-2 presents design rules for determining the fire resistance of unprotected composite slabs exposed to fire beneath the slab. It is worth noting that EC4-1-2 considers a concrete slab thickness and determines a fire resistance period, where the UK method considers a fire resistance period and determines the concrete slab thickness. When determining the sagging moment resistance the contribution of the steel deck is included in the EC4-1-2 method. This design philosophy differs from that currently used in the UKs Fire Engineering approach, where the contribution of the steel deck is not included when determining the sagging moment resistance of a composite floor at elevated temperatures. The steel deck contribution is excluded from the UK method as it is fully exposed to the fire which causes the strength of the deck to decrease as it becomes hot. Observations from real fires in the UK (Broadgate, Basingstoke, etc) and observations from

38

EN 1994 Steel and Concrete Composite Structures

standard fire tests show that considering the deck and concrete to act compositely during a fire may be unconservative. However, the simple method currently used in the UK is based on tests and will therefore include a component representing the deck. Annex D of EC4-1-2 is an Informative Annex this allows each National Annex to specify how it should be used within that country. It is envisaged that the UK National Annex may not allow the use of Annex D in the UK.

39

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

Effects on UK structural design procedures

An initial difference UK designers will find when using the Eurocodes (in comparison with the current British Standards) is that the Eurocodes set out Principles and Application rules for design rather than providing detailed calculation procedures. Due to this approach information that is considered to be textbook information is not included in the Eurocodes. Currently the British Standards include this type of information, therefore UK designers will need to be prepared for this change. UK designers will find that when designing to the Eurocodes an increased number of design standards are required. This is due to the Eurocode system not reproducing guidance once it has been presented in another part of a Eurocode, it only refers back to earlier guidance. This issue was discussed in section 2. For some design checks / approaches UK designers will have to become familiar with new calculation methods. Initially this may lead to increased design time whilst designers become familiar with the new checks. Areas where new design checks / approaches are given in Eurocodes include: Fire design of steel members subjected to combined bending and axial compression The Eurocode method is more complex than the current British Standard. Determination of the design resistance of bolts in shear and tension, and the design resistance of welds at elevated temperatures. Not currently covered in British Standard. Steel and concrete composite columns. The current British standards do not include guidance for composite columns in buildings. Steel and concrete composite connections. The current British standards do not include guidance for composite connections. However, there is a BCSA/SCI composite connections publication [10]. Classification of connections. More complex system in Eurocodes than current British Standard. Through-thickness checks at welded connections. Eurocode requires more checks to be undertaken than current British Standard.

It is considered that the more complex design checks in EC3-1-8 for connections may result in designers placing more reliance on computer software. This is due to the checks for design moment resistance and rotational stiffness of a connection being complex and time consuming and not suitable for hand calculations. The Eurocodes, unlike the current British Standards, permit the adoption of novel forms of construction provided that the design principles of the Eurocodes are maintained. This gives UK designers greater structural design freedom compared with the British Standards. However, current Building Regulations do not require structural designs to be fully compliant with British Standards, but they must show how the Building Regulation requirements are meet. Any designs to the emerging Eurocodes would need to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Building Regulations. Whilst there might be an increase in design effort in the initial years, the development of design aids and designers' familiarity with the Eurocodes will reduce this in the future.

40

Design Route Maps

Design Route Maps

This section presents route maps for the design of some structural elements to assist the designer in becoming familiar with the layout of the guidance given in the Eurocodes. The route maps do not consider all types of structural elements, as it is considered such guidance will be provided in design guides. The route maps given in this section are: High level design overview Simply supported beam Column Composite simply supported beam Composite continuous beam Composite Column Fire Engineering design of Steel Structures General Summary of Structural Fire Engineering Design to the Eurocodes Fire limit state design simply supported beam Steel sheet pile Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53

To supplement the information given in the route maps Appendix A contains tables that reference clause numbers within the Eurocodes for the design topics considered in this Companion Document.

41

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

42

High level design overview route map


Design of structural members / elements for a framed building Fire limit state design Actions EN1990 Combinations of actions EN1991-1-1 Dead and imposed actions EN1991-1-2 Fire EN1991-1-4 Wind Guidance on the type of analysis required for the structure EN1991-1-7 Accidental actions Textbook information Robustness design checks Foundation design Actions EN1990 Combinations of actions EN1991-1-1 Dead and imposed actions EN1991-1-3 Snow EN1991-1-4 Wind EN1997 Geotechnical actions Member design EN1997 Geotechnical (sizing of members) EN1993-5 Piling EN1992 Concrete Textbook information

Ambient temperature design

Actions EN1990 Combinations of actions EN1991-1-1 Dead and imposed actions EN1991-1-3 Snow EN1991-1-4 Wind EN1991-1-6 Actions during execution Member design EN1993-1-2 Steel, Fire EN1994-1-2 Composite steel & concrete, Fire EN1992 -1-2 Concrete, Fire Other parts of EC2, 3, & 4 (as for ambient temperature design) Textbook information

Member design Steel EN1993-1-1 General rules EN1993-1-5 Plated elements EN1993-1-8 Joints EN1993-1-10 Fracture toughness EN1991-1-5 Thermal actions

Composite steel and concrete EN1994-1-1 General rules EN1992 Concrete structures

Textbook information

Design Route Maps

Simply supported beam route map Full lateral support provided


Values for Permanent (G) and Variable (Q) Actions BS EN 1991-1-1 Partial Factors G & Q BS EN 1990 Table A1.2(3) Combination of actions BS EN 1990 Table A1.2(B)

More than one variable action? No

Yes

Combination coefficients (i) BS EN 1990 Table A1.1

Material strength prEN10025-3 (Product standard) Section Classification Table 5.2 Material partial factors Mi Clause 6.1(1) Yes Undertake checks given in Section 5 of BS EN 1993-1-5

Does shear buckling need to be checked? Clause 6.2.6(6) No

Shear resistance Plastic design Clause 6.2.6(1), 6.2.6(2) & 6.2.6(3) Undertake checks for maximum moment plus shear and maximum shear plus moment Yes

Does the shear reduce the moment capacity? Clause 6.2.8(2) No

Reduced material strength Clause 6.2.8(3)

Check Moment resistance Clause 6.2.5

Serviceability limit state checks BS EN 1990 Clause 6.5 & A1.4, and BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause 7.2 & National Web Checks refer to BS EN 1993-1-5 Clause 6.2(1), 6.4(1) & (2), 6.5(1) (2) & (3) Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-1 unless otherwise stated.

43

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

Column route map Axial load only


Values for Permanent (G) and Variable (Q) Actions BS EN 1991-1-1 Partial Factors G & QQ BS Factors G & BS EN 1990 Table A1.2(3) Table A1.2(3) Combination of actions BS EN 1990 Table A1.2(B)

More than one variable action? No

Yes

Combination coefficients (i) i) Combination coefficients ( BS EN 1990 Table A1.1 BS EN 1990 Table A1.1

Material strength prEN10025-3 (Product standard) Check thickness of cross-section Clause 3.2.3 and BS EN 1993-1-10 Table 2.1 Section Classification Table 5.2
Material partial factors Mi Clause 6.1(1) Material partial factors Mi Clause 6.1(1)

Class 4

Class 3 web, with class 1 or 2 flanges. Calculate effective web properties Clause 6.2.2.4

Calculate effective cross-section properties Clause 6.2.2.5 Calculate MEd due to any change in centroid location. Change in centroid location determined following method given in BS EN 1993-1-5

Calculate the buckling length Textbook information (no values given in BS EN 1993-1-1)

Continued on page 45 Continued on page 45

Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-1 unless otherwise stated.

44

Design Route Maps

Column route map Axial load only (continued)


From page 44 From From page 45 44 Calculate slenderness for flexural buckling ( ) Clause 6.3.1.3 Calculate slenderness for flexural buckling () Clause 6.3.1.3

Is 0.2 or

Yes

NEd 0.04 Ncr


No Flexural buckling check Select buckling curve from Table 6.2 Obtain imperfection factor from Table 6.1 Calculate reduction factor Clause 6.3.1.2

Calculate buckling resistance Nb,Rd Clause 6.3.1.1 Class 4


Account for MEd using interaction given in Clause 6.3.4 or 6.3.3

Is the crosssection open?

No

Yes Calculate Slenderness for torsional and flexural torsional buckling ( T or TF ) Clause 6.3.1.4 Textbook required to determine Ncr,T and Ncr,TF to calculate ( T or TF )

Repeat flexural buckling checks, replacing with T or TF and

with T or TF

Check compressive resistance Clause 6.2.4 Unsymmetrical Class 4 sections Account for MEd Clause 6.2.9.3(2)

Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-1 unless otherwise stated.

45

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

Composite simply supported beam route map


Values for Permanent (G) and Variable (Q) Actions BS EN 1991-1-1 Combination of actions BS EN 1990 Table A1.2(B) Yes More than one variable action? No

Combination coefficients (i) i) Combination coefficients ( BS EN 1990 Table A1.1 BS EN 1990 Table A1.1

Material strengths to prEN10025-3 (Product standard) and BS EN 1992-1-1. Material partial factors
Mi

from BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause 6.1(1) and BS EN 1992-1-1.

Determine non-composite moment resistance, Mpl,a,Rd, and lateral-torsional buckling resistance Mb,Rd of steel section to BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.5 and 6.3.2 respectively. Determine the vertical resistance to shear, VRd, of the section to BS EN1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6 steel section to BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6

Vertical shear, VEd greater than half shear resistance VRd? No

Yes

Adopt a reduced design steel strength for bending in accordance with Clause 6.2.2.4(2)

Determine effective breadth of slab, beff, to Clause 5.4.1.2 Calculate Composite moment resistance, Mpl,Rd, of cross-section at supports and at mid-span to Clause 6.2.1.2, assuming full shear interaction between the structural steel and concrete. Calculate the shear connector resistance to Clause 6.6.3.1 and determine the actual degree of shear connection, , to Clause 6.6.1.

Yes

Sufficient shear studs to ensure full shear interaction?

No

Moment resistance of composite cross-section, MRd is moment resistance for full shear interaction, Mpl,Rd.

Calculate moment resistance of composite cross-section with partial shear connection, MRd. Clause 6.2.1.3

Check composite and non-composite deflections to Clause 7.3.1 and check the dynamic property of floor beams to BS EN1994-1-1, 7.3.2

Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1994-1-1 unless otherwise stated.

46

Design Route Maps

Composite continuous beam route map


Values for Permanent (G) and Variable (Q) Actions BSEN1991-1-1 Combination of actions BSEN1990 Table A1.2(B) Yes More than one variable action? No
Combination coefficients (i) Combination coefficients BSi)EN 1990 Table A1.1A1.1 ( BSEN1990 Table

Material strengths to prEN10025-3 (Product standard) and BS EN1992-1-1. Material partial factors
Mi

from BSEN1993-1-1 Clause 6.1(1) and BS EN 1992-1-1.

Determine non-composite moment resistance, Mpl,a,Rd, and lateral-torsional buckling resistance Mb,Rd of steel section to BS EN1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.5 and 6.3.2 respectively. Determine the vertical resistance to shear, VRd, of the steel section to BS EN 1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6 section to BS EN1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6

Vertical shear, VEd greater than half shear resistance VRd?

Yes

Adopt a reduced design steel strength for bending in accordance with Clause 6.2.2.4(2)

No Determine effective breadth(s) of slab, beff, to Clause 5.4.1.2 Calculate composite moment resistance, Mpl,Rd, of cross-section at supports and at mid-span to Clause 6.2.1.2, assuming full shear interaction between the structural steel, reinforcement and concrete. Calculate the shear connector resistance to Clause 6.6.3.1 and determine the actual degree of shear connection, , to Clause 6.6.1.

Yes

Sufficient shear studs to ensure full shear interaction?

No

Moment resistance of composite cross-section, MRd is moment resistance for full shear interaction, Mpl,Rd.

Calculate moment resistance of composite cross-section with partial shear connection, MRd. Clause 6.2.1.3

Check the lateral-torsional buckling capacity, Mb,Rd, of the composite section to Clause 6.4. Check composite and non-composite deflections to Clause 7.3.1 and check the dynamic property of floor beams to BS EN1994-1-1, 7.3.2 Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-1 unless otherwise stated.

47

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

Composite column route map


Values for Permanent (G) and Variable (Q) Actions BSEN1991-1-1 Combination of actions BSEN1990 Table A1.2(B) Yes More than one variable action? No Material strengths to prEN10025-3 (Product standard) and BS EN1992-1-1. Material partial factors Mi from BS EN1993-1-1, 6.1(1) and BS EN 1992-1-1. Select column type (concrete encased or infilled hollow section) and use an appropriate approximate method to determine a trial column section.

Combination coefficients (i) Combination coefficients BS iEN 1990 Table A1.1 A1.1 ( ) BSEN1990 Table

Steel section fully encased in accordance with Clause 6.7.5.1(2)? Yes

No

Check the minimum wall thickness of section to prevent local buckling of the section, Clause 6.7.1(9)

Calculate the plastic resistance to compression, Npl,Rd, of the composite cross section, as the sum of the plastic resistances of the steel section, concrete and reinforcement, in accordance with Clause 6.7.3.2 and equation (6.30).

Check that the steel contribution ratio to the plastic resistance to compression, defined as , in Clause 6.7.3.3(1) is between 0.2 and 0.9. Select an appropriate steel section if not. Calculate the characteristic plastic resistance to compression, Npl,Rk, of the composite cross section. Determine the effective flexural stiffness, (EI)eff, of the composite crosssection in accordance with Clause 6.7.3.3(3). Calculate the elastic critical buckling force, Ncr, for the relevant buckling mode and buckling length. Assuming an Euler buckling mode, the 2 critical buckling force can be calculated using: NCr = 2 (EI ) l e , where le is the effective length of the column.
Continued on page 49 Continued on page 49

Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1994-1-1 unless otherwise stated.

48

Design Route Maps

Composite column route map (continued)


From page 48 From page 48

Determine the relative slenderness, , of the composite section in accordance with equation (6.39), Clause 6.7.3.3(2), using the characteristic plastic resistance and the critical buckling force.

Check for long term creep effects on the effective elastic flexural stiffness in accordance with Clause 6.7.3.3(4) and re-evaluate the relative slenderness.
Note: this revised slenderness value may mean that the section is no longer within the slenderness limit of 2.0 (clause 6.7.3.1(1)), or it may mean that no enhancement due to any concrete confinement within a tubular section is possible.

Determine the vertical resistance to shear, Vpl,Rd, of the composite section to BS EN1993-1-1 Clause 6.2.6

Vertical shear, VEd greater than half shear resistance Vpl,Rd? No

Yes

Adopt a reduced design steel strength for bending in accordance with Clause 6.2.2.4(2)

Calculate Composite moment resistance, Mpl,Rd, of the cross-section to Clause 6.2.1.2, assuming full shear interaction between the structural steel, reinforcement and concrete. Determine the maximum plastic moment resistance in the presence of compressive normal force, Mmax,Rd. Using the values for moment resistance, the plastic resistance of the concrete, Npm,Rd and the maximum plastic moment resistance, Mmax,Rd, produce the interaction curve described in Clause 6.7.3.2(5).

Check that equation (6.44):

N Ed

Where x is the reduction factor for the relevant buckling mode given in BS EN1993-1-1, 6.3.1.2 in terms of the relative slenderness .

xN pl ,Rd

1.0 is satisfied.

Check that equation (6.45):

M Ed M Ed M is satisfied = M pl , N , Rd d M pl , Rd

Where MEd is the maximum design moment and Mpl,N,Rd is the plastic bending resistance taking into account the normal force NEd (taken from Figure 6.18, and is basically the value of moment resistance at the relevant applied normal force, NEd, determined using the interaction curve produced above).
Note: For steel grades between S235 and S355 inclusive, the coefficient steel grades S40 and S460 it should be taken as 0.8.
M

should be taken as 0.9 and for

Assess whether specific provisions are needed in order to achieve adequate load interaction, Clause 6.7.4. Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1994-1-1 unless otherwise stated.

49

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

Fire engineering design of steel structures General route map


Define performance criteria National Regulations (AD-B), time equivalence (EN1991-1-2), Fire engineering design

Consider relevant design fire scenarios

Nominal fire curves (standard fire, external fire curve, hydrocarbon fire EN1991-1-2

Natural fires parametric curves, advanced methods

Determine temperature profile by calculation (4.2.5.1(1), 4.2.5.2 (1)), from test data or using advanced methods

Calculation of mechanical actions using modified procedure based on ambient temperature design (4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.3.3, 4.2.3.4, 4.2.3.5)

Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-2 unless otherwise stated.

50

Design Route Maps

Summary of structural fire engineering design to the Eurocodes

Determine fire resistance requirements from Building Regulations or fire engineering calculations

Assess performance by calculation according to type of member

Tension members 4.2.3.1

Compression members class 1,2,or 3 cross sections 4.2.3.2

Beams in bending class 1 or 2 cross sections 4.2.3.3

Class 3 beams 4.2.3.4

Combined bending and axial compression 4.2.3.5

Nfi,t,Rd >Nfi,Ed

Nb,fi,t,Rd > Nfi,Ed

MMfl, ,Rd>Mfi,Ed fi, ,Rd > Mfi,Ed

M , > Mfi,Ed Mfi,fl,,Rd Rd>Mfi,Ed

Rfi,fl,,Rd Rd>Rfi,Ed R , > Rfi,Ed

Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-2 unless otherwise stated.

51

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

52

Fire limit state design Simply supported beam route map

(assumes knowledge of maximum steel temperature)

Determine fire resistance requirements from Building Regulations or fire engineering calculations

Analysis route

Tabulated data route

Assess performance from test or manufacturers data

Calculation 4.2 Determine section factor A/V

Class 1 or 2 4.2.3.3
elastic

Class 3 4.2.3.4

Consult protection manufacturers data sheet (Yellow Book*)

plastic

Uniform temperature 4.2.3.3 (1)

Non-uniform temperature 4.2.3.3 (2)

Uniform temperature 4.2.3.4 (1)

Non-uniform temperature 4.2.3.4 (2)

Apply protection thickness derived from test or assessment

Mfi,t,Rd > Mfi,t,Ed

Note: Clause / Table numbers given refer to BS EN 1993-1-2 unless otherwise stated.

Design Route Maps

Steel sheet pile route map


Values of permanent and variable actions from EN1997-1 and EN1991

Combination of actions from EN1990 Table A1.2(B) & A1.2(C)

More than one variable action?

Yes

Combination coefficients EN1990 Table A1.1

No

Material strengths to EN10248 and EN10249 (product standards)

Material partial factors mi from EN1993-5, 5.1.1

Select sheet pile section on the basis of experience and manufacturers data

Determine reduced section properties in respect of corrosion over the life of the structure

Determine the design moment resistance for the chosen section taking into account: Class of section (EN1993-5, 5.2.1 and Table 5.1) Rotation capability (Annex C) Shear force transfer factors B and D (EN1993-5, 5.2.2 and 6.4(3)) Reductions due to water pressure (EN1993-5, 5.2.4 and Table 5.2) Design bending moment and shear force (EN1993-5, 5.2.2) Design axial load and Elastic critical load and effective buckling length for the chosen section (EN1993-5, 5.2.3)

Check section capability to resist concentrated loads from wallings etc (EN1993-5, 7.4.3) Check structural requirements for crimping or welding if necessary (EN1993-5, 5.2.2 and 6.4)

Assess installation of the selected section (EN1993-5, 2.7 and EN12063)

Confirm capability of selected sheet pile section for the specified conditions

53

Companion Document to EN 1993 and EN 1994 Steel and Steel and Concrete Composite Buildings

References

1. BS EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation) 2. BS 5950-1: 2000 Structural use of steelwork in building Part 1: Code of practice for design Rolled and welded sections, British Standards Institution, London, May 2001 3. BS EN 10025: 1993, Hot rolled products of non-alloy structural steels. Technical delivery conditions, British Standards Institution, London, November 1993 4. BS EN 1993-1-2, Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 1.2: General rules Structural fire design, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation) 5. BS 5950-8: 2003, Structural use of steelwork in building Part 8: Code of practice for fire resistant design, British Standards Institution, London, 2003 6. BS EN1991-1-2: 2002, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures Part 1.2: General actions Actions on structures exposed to fire, British Standards Institution, London, November 2002 7. BS EN 1993-1-8, Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 1.8: Design of joints, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation) 8. BCSA and SCI, Joints in Steel Construction Simple Connections, SCI, 2002 9. BCSA and SCI, Joints in Steel Construction Moment Connections, SCI, 1995 10. BCSA and SCI, Joints in Steel Construction Composite connections, SCI, 1998 11. Stark, J. W. B & Bijlaard, F. S. K. Design rules for beam-column connections in Europe. TNO Report number BI-83-60, Delft, The Netherlands, 1983. 12. Zoetemeijer, P. A. Design method for the tension side of statically loaded beam-column connections. Heron 20, Number 1, Delft University, Delft, The Netherlands, 1974. 13. Jaspart, J.P. Etude de la semi-rigidt des noeuds pouter-colomme et son influence sur la rsistance et la staibility des ossatures ne acier. PhD Thesis University Liege, Belgium, 1991. 14. Weynand, K, Jaspart, J. P & Steenhuis, M. The stiffness model of revised Annex J of Eurocode 3. Connections in Steel Structures III behaviour strength and design, rd Proceedings of the 3 International workshop on connections, Pages 441-452, Trento, Italy, May 1995. 15. BS EN 1993-1-10, Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 1.10: Material toughness and through-thickness properties, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation) 16. BS EN 10164: 1993, Steel products with improved deformation properties perpendicular to the surface of the product. Technical delivery conditions, British Standards Institution, London, August 1993

54

References

17. BSI, BS 5950-2: 2001: Structural use of steelwork in building Part 2: Specification for materials, fabrication and erection Rolled and welded sections, British Standards Institution, London, August 2001 18. BS EN 1993-5, Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures Part 5: Piling, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation) 19. BS 8002: 1994, Code of practice for earth retaining structures, British Standards Institution, London, April 1994 20. BS EN 1994-1-1, Eurocode 4 Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation) 21. BS EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures Part 1.1 General rules and rules for buildings, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation) 22. BS 5950-3.1: 1990, Structural use of steelwork in building Part 3 Section 3.1 Code of practice for design of simple and continuous composite beams, British Standards Institution, London, February 1999. 23. Johnson R P and Anderson D, Designers Guide to EN 1994-1-1 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. ISBN: 0 7277 3151 3. Thomas Telford 2004. 24. BS 5400-5: 1979, Steel, concrete and composite bridges Part 5: Code for practice for design of composite bridges, British Standards Institution, London, October 1999. 25. BS EN 1994-1-2, Eurocode 4 Design of composite steel and concrete structures Part 1.2: General rules Structural fire design,, British Standards Institution, London, (In preparation)

55