Comparison Between BS8110 and EC2 For Columns

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
PSZ 19:16 (Pind. 1/07)
MALAYSIA
DECLARATION OF THESIS / UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT PAPER AND COPYRIGHT
Authors full name :
LIEW YU HAO
Date of birth
12 DECEMBER 1985
Title
PERBANDINGAN KAEDAH REKABENTUK ELEMEN

TIANG BERDASARKAN
TIANG BERDASARKAN BS8110 EUROCODE 2
I hereby declare that I have read this project report and in my opinion this project
Academic Session: 2008/2009
report is sufficient in terms of scope and quality for the award of the Degree of
I declare that this thesis is classified as :
CONFIDENTIAL
Bachelor in Civil Engineering
(Contains confidential information under the Official

Secret Act 1972)*
RESTRICTED
(Contains restricted information as specified by the

organisation where research was done)*
OPEN ACCESS
I agree that my thesis to be published as online open

access (full text)
: ...................................
Signature
I acknowledged
Malaysia reserves the right as follows :
Name
of Supervisor that
: IRUniversiti
AZHARTeknologi
BIN AHMAD
Date
1. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

: 30 APRIL 2009
2. The Library of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia has the right to make copies for the
purpose of research only.
3. The Library has the right to make copies of the thesis for academic exchange.
Certified by :
SIGNATURE
851213-01-6117
SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR
IR. AZHAR BIN AHMAD
(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.)

Date :
NOTES :
4 MAY 2009
NAME OF SUPERVISOR
Date :
4 MAY 2009
If the thesis is CONFIDENTIAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from
the organisation with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.
PERBANDINGAN KAEDAH REKABENTUK ELEMEN TIANG
ii
PERBANDINGAN KAEDAH REKABENTUK ELEMEN BERDASARKAN

TIANG BERDASARKAN BS8110 EUROCODE 2
LIEW YU HAO
A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Civil Engineering
FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY MALAYSIA
APRIL 2009
iii
I declare that this project report entitled PERBANDINGAN KAEDAH

REKABENTUK ELEMEN TIANG BERDASARKAN BS8110 EUROCODE 2
is the result of my own research except as cited in the references. The report has
not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature of
any other degree.
Signature
Name
: LIEW YU HAO
Date
: 30 APRIL 2009
iv
This study is especially dedicated to my

beloved parents, supervisor, classmates,
and all my friends for continuous support
and care throughout my studies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my

project supervisor, Ir Azhar Ahmad for his enthusiastic effort and concern. Without
his continued support and interest, this thesis would not have been the same as
presented in time here.
Beside that I would also like to thanks to the project panel team for the
recommendation and comment. With the comment and suggestion has improved the
outcome of this project.
Last but not least, I am grateful to my family members and my friends for
their supports and encouragement.
vi
ABSTRACT
The application of Eurocode (EC) getting popular around the world; this is due to the
design by using EC are more economic and technically advanced. However the
usages of EC in structural design are not as popular as expected in Malaysia. This is
because perception and misunderstanding are still exists among the designers.
Designers always think that there is not much difference while design using British
Standard (BS) compared to EC. Furthermore, they claim that design by using EC is
difficult and not easy to understand. Therefore, a study was conducted to review the
design steps and also to explain technically on EC2 design on the column design. For
a better understanding on EC2 design process, a works example of EC2 on column
and comparison of area of reinforcement on several types of column has been done.
In this research the scope of compare are only focus on area of reinforcement
required with varies of dimension and loading. The result has indicated that although
the design process of EC2 is more technical but it is easy to follow and understand.
The result of the research was then show that the area of reinforcement required
while using EC2 is much lesser than BS8110.
vii
ABSTRAK
Pengaplikasian Eurocode (EC) semakin popular di seluruh dunia. Ini kerana reka
bentuk dengan menggunakan EC adalah lebih ekonomik dan lebih teknikal. Akan
tetapi, penggunaan EC dalam reka bentuk struktur di Malaysia tidak begitu popular
seperti yang dijangkakan. Ini kerana persepsi dan salah faham terhadap EC masih
wujud di antara pereka-pereka. Mereka sentiasa berpendapat bahawa tiada banyak
perbezaan mereka bentuk dengan menggunakan British Standard(BS) berbanding
dengan EC . Tambahan pula, mereka mendakwa bahawa penggunaan EC dalam reka
bentuk adalah sukar dan susah difahami. Oleh itu, suatu kajian telah dijalankan untuk
mengkaji langkah-langkah mereka bentuk dan untuk menerangkan reka bentuk EC2
pada reka bentuk tiang dari segi teknik. Untuk member pemahaman yang lebih jelas
terhadap proses mereka bentuk EC2. Satu contoh kerja EC2 pada tiang dan
perbandingan luas tetulang yang dihendaki atas beberapa jenis tiang telah dilakukan.
Dalam kajian ini, skop perbandingan hanya fokus kepada luas tetulang yang
diperlukan dengan dimensi dan daya yang berbeza. Keputusan menunjukkan proses
mereka bentuk EC2 senang dan mudah difahami walaupun proses ini lebih teknikal.
Keputusan juga menunjukkan bahawa luas tetulang yang diperlukan apabila
penggunaan EC2 adalah lebih kurang berbanding dengan BS8110.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iv
ABSTRACT
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
xvi
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
1.2
Problem Statement
1.3
Research Objective
1.4
Scope of study
1.5
Importance of the study
ix
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction of Eurocode
2.1.1
National Annexes
2.1.2
Design life
2.2
Aims and Purposes of Eurocode
2.3
Eurocode 2
2.3.1
Basic Knowledge of Eurocode
2.3.2
Action on Structures
10
2.3.3
Load Arrangements
11
2.3.4
Combination of actions
13
2.3.5
Material Properties
14
2.4
Principle of Design
15
2.4.1
Structural Analysis
15
2.4.2
Minimum concrete cover design
17
2.4.2.1 Minimum cover for safe
17
transmission of bond forces

2.4.2.2 Minimum cover for durability
17
2.4.2.3 Design for fire resistance
20
2.4.3
Stability and imperfections
21
2.4.4
Crack control
22
2.4.5
Design of moment
24
2.4.6
Biaxial bending checking
25
2.5
Procedure of design of column based on EC2
26
2.6
Comparison of Column design based on BS 8110
27
and EC2
2.6.1
Loading and moments
29
2.6.2
Column classification and failure modes
30
2.6.3
Reinforcement details
34
METHODOLOGY
38
3.1
Introduction
38
3.2
Sketching by using AutoCAD
41
3.4
Design method
41
RESULT AND ANALYSIS
43
4.1
Review of Eurocode 2 column design procedure
43
4.2
Comparison of design output
57
4.2.1
57
Comparison short column with

various of column dimension
4.2.2
Comparison short column with
58
various of loading
4.2.3
Comparison slender column with
60
various of dimension of column

4.2.4
Comparison slender column with
61
various of loading
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
64
5.1
Conclusion
64
5.2
Recommendation
65
REFERENCES
66
APPENDICES
68
xi
LIST OF TABLE
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGES
2.1
The structural Eurocodes
2.2
Concrete related Eurocodes and their
equivalent current standards.
2 .3
Indicative design working life
(from UK NA to Eurocode)
2.4
Selected bulk density of material
10
(From EC1, part 1-1 )
2.5
Selected imposed loads for building

(From draft UK NA to EC1, part 1 -1)
10
2.6
Selected concrete properties based on
14
Table 3.1 of EC2, Part 1-1.
2.7
Characteristic tensile properties of

reinforcement
15
2.8
Bending moment and shear co-efficients

for beams
16
2.9
Exposure classes
18
2.10
Selected recommendation for normal-weight
19
reinforced concrete quality for combined

exposure classes and cover reinforcement
for at least a 50 years intended-working life
and 20mm maximum aggregate size.
xii
2.11
Minimum column dimension axis distances
23
for columns with rectangular or circular section method A
2.12
Minimum dimension and axis distances
23
for reinforced concrete slabs.
2.13
Maximum bar size or spacing to limit crack width
26
2.14
Partial Factor for safety for loading (BS)
28
2.15
Combination of actions and load factors at ULS
29
(EC)
2.16
Coefficient () of column in BS8110
31
2.17
The effective length of column in EC2
33
4.1
Percentage of differere on area of reinforcement

required.
47
4.2

required.
48
4.3

required.
49
4.4

required.
50
4.5
Different N-M interaction chart
52
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Title
Page
2.1
Typical Eurocode Layout
2.2
Links between the Eurocodes
2 .3
Alternate Spans Loaded
11
2.4
Adjacent spans loaded
12
2.5
All spans loaded
12
2.6
Sections through structural members,
22
showing nominal axis distance, a
2.7
Examples of the effect of geometric imperfections 25
2.8
Determination of steel stress for crack width
26
control
2.9
Assumption of column ends
33
3.1
Research Flow Chart
39
3.2
Design Procedure of Column based on EC
41
xiv
4.1
Comparison BS and EC with various of
46
Dimension
4.2
47
Loading
4.3
49
Dimension
4.4

Loading
50
xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
Qk
Characteristic value of a variable action
Qk1 (Qki)
Characteristic value of a leading variable action

(Characteristic value of an
ccompanying variable action)
Qk
Characteristic value of a
variable action per unit length
r area
qb
Basic wind pressure
qp
Peak wind pressure
Partial factor
Partial factor for accidental actions, A
Partial factor for permanent actions, G
Gk,sup
Partial factor to be applied to Gk,inf
Gk,inf
Partial factor to be applied to Gk,sup
Partial factor for a material property, taking account uncertainties in

the material property itself, in geometric deviation and in the design
model used.
Partial factor for variable actions, Q
Partial factor for concrete
Partial factor for actions,
Partial factor for actions without taking account of model

uncertainties
Partial factor for permanent actions without taking account of model

uncertainties.
Partial factor for reinforcing steel
Gk
Characteristic value of a permanent action
Gk,sup
Upper characteristic value of a permanent action
xvi
Gk,inf
Lower characteristic value of a permanent action
fc
Compressive strength of concrete
fcd
Design value of concrete compressive strength
fctm
Mean value of axial tensile strength of concrete
Ecm
Secant modulus of elasticity of concrete
ft
Tensile strength of reinforcement
ft,k
Characteristic tensile strength of reinforcement
fyk
Characteristic yield strength of reinforcement
uk
Characteristic strain of reinforcement (or prestressing steel) at

maximum load
FEd
Compressive force, designvalue of support reaction
fi
Ratio of the design axial load under fire conditions to the design
resistance of the column at normal temperature but with an
eccentricity applicable to fire conditions
bmin
Minimum width of web on T, I or L beams
leff
Effective span
l0
Distance between points of zero moment
Inclination used to represent imperfections
Angle; Angle of shear links to the longitudinal axis; Ratio
Quasi-permanent value of a variable action (e.g. used when

considering deformation) g Partial factor for permanent actions
without taking account of model uncertainties.
ef
Effective creep factor
As
Cross-sectional area ofreinforcement
As,min
Minimum cross-sectional area of reinforcement
As,prov
Area of steel provided
As,
Area of steel required
xvii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
BS column design steps
67
Structural Analysis
69
Construction Plan (Front view)
71
Construction Plan (Side View)
72
Construction Plan (Plan View)
73
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
Code design is one of the basic and important tools for a structural
designer. There are many existing codes for design are currently using all around the
world, for examples, American code (most recently ACI318-02, and older version
ACI318-99), Unified Arabic Code (UAC), Canadian Code (CSA-A23.3-94),
Standards BS8110 and Eurocode 2 (EC2). Among the existing codes, Standards
BS8110 is the most common code practice that been used in Malaysia currently.
British Standards are produced by BSI British Standards, a division of BSI

Group that is incorporated under a Royal Charter and is formally designated as t he
National Standards Body (NS B) for the UK. In 1901 under the led of James
Mansergh , BSI group had become Engineering Standards Committee, to standardise
the number and type of steel sections, in order to make British manufacturers more
efficient and competitive. Over time the standards developed to cover many aspects
of tangible engineering, and then engineering methodologies including quality
systems, safety and security. Throughout the year BS become more common design
tool all around the world.
Whereby, Eurocodes are produced by European Committee for

Standardization, and the development of the Eurocodes only started in 1975, and
currently it claimed as the most technically advance structural code in the world due
to the significant grow and improvement of the code. Currently there are ten
2
Eurocodes covering all the main structural materials.In this research the main
concern is on column design. Column is one of the main structural where it is a
primary compression member that carries and transfers the load from beams and
slabs to the foundation. The code of practice for column based on British Standard is
included under the BS8110-1:1997 while in Eurocodes is under Eurocode 2. BS 8110
is reinforced concrete design code used all around world since 1985, whereby EC2
was officially published on 2004. Lately Government of Malaysia has decided to
fully implement the Eurocode design in 2010, therefore by knowing the different
between this 2 standard will gives advantages to current engineer to be ready during
changes in Year 2010.
1.2
Problem Statement
Even though government of Malaysia had decided to fully implement the

Eurocodes in 2010, but seem like the preparation of real industry or academician are
still insufficient. Hence it will affect the effectiveness of the plan. In fact, in
construction industry communication between different country and individual are
unavoidable. Currently Eurocodes are widely use around the world, and it slowly
become an important tool of communication in Construction field. Therefore in order
to communicate well between the countries it is necessary to implement the
Eurocode. Based on previous research, not much design method based on real cases
had given whereby the examples of design should be given to enhance the
knowledge of the Eurocodes. Therefore it is necessary to conduct this research.
1.3
Research Objective
In this research paper there are several objectives are aim to be achieve, such as :
1. To outline the design procedure for column design by using Eurocode2.
2. To show the application of Eurocode 2 column design procedures to a selected
case study.
3
3. To compare column design output between British Standard design and Eurocode
design.
1.4
Scope of study
This research will mainly focus on the method of the design of British Standard and
Eurocode on the building column. In order to achieve the objective of the research,
there are a few research scopes are necessary to be revised and followed, such as:
i)
Design is focused on the reinforced concrete biaxial column which

included necessary check, design process and material selection.
ii)
Procedure differences of British standard and Eurocodes design on RC

columns.
iii)
Compare the area of reinforcement required, Asreq of the design by using

EC2 and BS8110.
1.5
Importance of the study
The implementation of Eurocode 2 (EC2) to replace the old standard

currently on going, many countries had used Eurocode to be the design guide now
especially in Europe. Eurocode will slowly become the important communication
tool in construction field around the world. The main reason Eurocodes are chosen
to replace the old codes is because of the new codes are claimed to be most
technically advanced codes in the world. Furthermore, Eurocode 2 will give more
economic result if compare with BS8110. Besides that, Eurocode was less restrictive
and more extensive if compare with BS 8110. Eurocodes are comparatively more
logical and organised than BS 8110. Therefore it is necessary to conduct this study
before Eurocode will fully implement in Malaysia on 2010.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction of Eurocode
In future, the usage of EC will getting common and in 2010 Malaysia are
planning to replace the BS 8110 with EC2. Since 1901, British Standard had
developed throughout the year and currently British standard has covers all the
design parameters and design consideration. For example:
BS8110-1:1997 (Code of practices for design and construction)
BS 5950-1:2000 (Code of practices for design rolled and welded

sections)
BS6399-2:1995(Code of practices for wind loads)
BS6399-3:1988(Code of practices for imposed roof loads), etc.
Whereas for the Eurocodes, the developments started on 1975 and currently
there are ten eurocodes covers all main structural (Table2.1).
5
Table 2.1: The structural Eurocodes
Where all concrete designs are assign under Eurocode 2 (EC2) where EC2 is
abbreviation for BS EN 1992, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Where the
EN 1992 included four parts:
EN 1992-1-1
Common Rules for Building and Civil Engineering

Structures.
EN 1992- 1-2
Structural Fire Design.
EN 1992-2
Bridges
EN 1992-3
Liquid Retaining and Containment Structures
Since the Eurocode are going to widely use therefore a table (Table 2.2) has
been posted by The Concrete Centre in the How to design concrete structure
using Eurocode 2 in order to give clear picture on the relationship between BS and
EC.
6
Table 2.2: Concrete related Eurocodes and their equivalent current standards.
According to The Concrete Centre , during the implementation period user

are recommended to consider the existing standard when the required European
standards have been issued.[8]
2.1.1
National Annexes
The Concrete Centre also allowed National Annex to be added provided

the corresponding country publish the Eurocode with a national title page and
forward but the original text of the Eurocode must appear as produced by CEN as a
main body of the document and follow by adding National Annex (NA) at the back
as shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Typical Eurocode Layout
7
2.1.2
Design life
The structural working life or design life is the very basic step of RC design
to assume the suitable working life of the building structure. Hence it is necessary to
be determining the durability requirement for design of reinforced concrete structures
during the building process. Therefore in Eurocode, the design life is under
Eurocode: Basic of Structural Design. The UK National Annex (NA) to Eurocode
presents UK values for design life; these are given in Table 2.3. [8]
Table 2.3 : Indicative design working life (from UK NA to Eurocode)
Aims and Purposes of Eurocode
EN Eurocodes are recommended to become the mean for structural design

works and parts by the European Commission services and the Member states. In
order to convenient the exchange of construction services or product (Related
engineering services and construction works) and also to improve the functioning of
the internal market.
Furthermore Eurocodes are also intended to be used as reference documents

for Member States to:
I) Prove the compliance of building and civil engineering works or parts

thereof with Essential Requirement n1 Mechanical resistance and stability
8
(including such aspects of Essential Requirement n4 Safety in use, which
relate to mechanical resistance and stability) and a part of Essential
Requirement n2 Safety in case of
fire, including durability.
II) Determine the performance of structural components and kits with regard
to mechanical resistance and stability and resistance to fire, insofar as it is
part of the information accompanying CE marking (e.g. declared values).
III) Provide common design criteria and methods to fulfill the specified
requirements
for mechanical resistance, stability and resistance to fire, including aspects of
durability and economy between owners, operators and users, designers,
contractors and manufacturers of construction products.
IV) Facilitate the marketing and use of materials and constituent products, the
properties of which enter into design calculations, in Members States.
V) Be a common basis for research and development, in the construction

sector,
VI)Allow the preparation of common design aids and software,
VII) Increase the competitiveness of the European civil engineering firms,

contractors, designers and product manufacturers in their world-wide
activities.[8]
9
2.3
Eurocode 2
2.3.1
Basic Knowledge of Eurocode
In order to start design based on Eurocode2 , there are some basic principles
should be clarify such as the philosophy of design codes which is In EN 1992-1-1
only explained the basic of different phenomena (e.g. bending, shear, bond) where
as in BS are tend explained in the types of members (e.g. beam, slabs, columns).
In addition, knowing the relationship or the roles of each eurocodes is

important too. Hence figure 2.2 has been included in the research.
Figure 2.2 : Links between the Eurocodes

From the figure 2.2 about, each EN playing different roles and for a complete project
design the design flow will covered all. For any project the design procedure are
started with structural safety, serviceability and durability followed by Action on
Structures and Design detailing lastly continue with Geotechnical and seismic
design. For example, EN 1992-1-1 has to be used with EN 1990 and appropriate part
of EN 1991and EN1997. In BS 8110, material independent information such as
partial factor for load, load combination expression, etc is included. Whereas in
Eurocode system all the material independent information was include in EN
1990.[8]
10
2.3.2
Action on Structures
After knowing basic knowledge of the Eurocode, the next steps is to design
the structural, action on structures or load and imposed deformations we call it in
current practices has to be determine. According on Eurocode 1: actions on structures
consists of 10 parts that gives detail of a wide variety of action. Further information
on the action of structural can be found in Eurocode 1 Part 1-1 Genera; actionsDensities, self weight, imposed loads for building gives the necessary information of
building materials as Table 2.4
Table 2.4 : Selected bulk density of material (from EC1, part 1-1 )
The main changes if compare to the current practices are the bulk density of
reinforced concrete has been increased to 25 KN/m3.
Whereas for the load factor The draft national Annex had give advice to this
Eurocodes in imposed load for UK building and a selection is shown in Table 2.5.
It should be noted that there is no advice for plant rooms.
Table 2.5 : Selected imposed loads for building (from draft UK NA to EC1, part 1 1)
11
* Again it is advised that existing standards are considered for use where European
standards have not yet been issued.[8]
2.3.3
Load Arrangements
Load arrangements are basically refer to the arranging of variable action such
as dead, imposed and wind loads. Where by these arrangements of variable of actions
give the most critical load in a member or structured are described in the Eurocode 2
and its UK NA. For building structures, the UK NA to Eurocode 2, part 1-1 allows
any of the following sets of load arrangements to be used for both the ultimate limit
state and serviceability limit state.[8]
In Eurcode 2, there are 3 phenomena of load arrangement such as:
I)
Load set 1 : Alternate or adjacent spans loaded

The design value can be determine by arranging in such a way
Figure 2 .3 : Alternate Spans Loaded
lternate spans carrying the design variable and permanent loads with other
spans loaded with only the design permanent load as above figure 2.1. The value of
G should be the same throughout.
12
Or
Figure 2.4 : Adjacent spans loaded
Any two adjacent spans carrying the design variable and permanent loads
with other spans loaded with only the design permanent load as above Figure 2.2.
The value of G should be the same throughout.[8]
II)
Load set 2: All or alternate span loaded
The design value can be determine by arranging in such a way
Figure 2.5 All spans loaded
All spans carrying the design variable and permanent loads as above Figure 2.3.
Alternate spans carrying the design variable and permanent loads with other spans
loaded with only the design permanent load as above figure 2.1. The value of G
should be the same throughout.
13
Generally, this type of arrangement will be used for beams and slabs in the UK as it
requires three load arrangements to be considered, while load set 1 will often require
more than three arrangements to be assessed.
II)
Load set 3: Simplified arrangements for slabs
Eurocode 2 allow this type of load arrangements can be simplified for slabs where it
is only necessary to consider the all spans loaded arrangement as Figure 2.3,
provided the following conditions are met:
In a one-way spanning slab the area of each bay exceeds 30 m2

(a bay means a strip across the full width of a structure bounded on the other
sides by lines of support).
The ratio of the variable actions (Qk) to the permanent actions (Gk) does not
exceed 1.25
The magnitude of the variable actions excluding partitions does not exceed 5
KN/m2.
2.3.4
Combination of actions
Combination of actions is referring to the value of action to be used when a

limit state is under the influence of different actions. The partial factors for ultimate
limit states (ULS) can be obtained by referring to Eurocode: Basic of structural
design.
There are three services limit states (SLS) combinations of actions

characteristic, frequent and quasipermanent where the values are given in the
Eurocode: Basis of structural design.[8]
14
2.3.5
Material Properties
During the design of structure, knowing the concrete properties and steel
properties are rather important. In Eurocode 2 the design of reinforced concrete is
based on the characteristic cylinder strength rather than cube strength and it specified
according to BS 8500: Concrete complementary British Standard to BS EN 20617
(e.g. for class C28/35 concrete the cylinder strength is 28 MPa, whereas the cube
strength is 35 MPa). Typical concrete properties are given in Table 5. Concrete up to
class C90/105 can be designed using Eurocode 2. For classes above C50/60,
however, there are additional rules and variations.[8]
Table 2.6 : Selected concrete properties based on Table 3.1 of EC2, Part 1-1.
* It should be noted that designated concretes (e.g. RC30) still refer to the cube
strength.
Reinforcing Steel is main component of the reinforced concrete, where the

main purpose is helps to resist the bending force in the reinforced concrete. In
eurocode2 covered the design of the reinforcement of characteristic strengths ranging
from 400 to 600 MPa. The properties of steel reinforcement that use with Eurocode 2
are given in BS 4449 (2005): Specification for carbon steel bars for the
reinforcement of concrete and are summarised in Table 6. There are three classes of
reinforcement,A, B and C, which provide increasing ductility. Class A is not suitable
when the assume redistribution of 20% or more. There is no guide for the use of
plain bar or mild steel reinforcement, but guidance is given in the background paper
to the National Annex.[8]
15
Table 2.7 : Characteristic tensile properties of reinforcement
2.4
Principle of Design
2.4.1
Structural Analysis
Structural analysis is the beginning step of building design whereby the main
purpose is to determine the distribution of forces and moments that carried along all
the structural members from the top of building to the bottom of building. Beside
structural analysis can also identify the critical design condition from design all the
structural members. In order the simplified the design process, the geometry of the
considering structure always assume to be linear elements or plane two-dimensional
elements. There are several types of analysis that can be use to solve the appropriate
structural problem such as: linear elastic analysis, linear elastic analysis with limited
redistribution, and also plastic analysis.
Linear elastic analysis may be carried out by assuming cross sections are
uncracked (i.e. concrete section properties); using linear stress-strain relationships,
and assuming mean values of elastic modulus. For the ultimate limit state, the
moments derived from elastic analysis may be redistributed (up to a maximum of
30%) provided that the resulting distribution of moments remains in equilibrium with
the applied loads and subject to certain limits and design criteria (e.g. limitations of
16
depth to neutral axis). Regardless of the method of analysis used, the following
principles apply:
Where a beam or slab is monolithic with its supports, the critical design
hogging moment may be taken as that at the face of the support, but should
not be taken as less than 0.65 times the full fixed end moment.
Where a beam or slab is continuous over a support that may be considered

not to provide rotational restraint, the moment calculated at the centre line of
the support may be reduced by (FEd,sup t/8), where FEd,sup is the support
reaction and t is the width of the support.
For the design of columns the elastic moments from the frame action should
be used without any redistribution. [8]
Table 2.8 : Bending moment and shear co-efficients for beams
Bending moment and shear force coefficients for beams are given in above
Table 2.8; the given coefficients are only suitable to use when the situation are
obeying the requirement from the notes in the table.
17
2.4.2
Minimum concrete cover design
The nominal cover can express in such as a way:

Cnom = Cmin + cdev
Cmin should be set to satisfy the requirements below:
Safe transmission of bond forces
(see 2.4.2.1)
Durability
(see 2.4.2.2)
Fire resistance
(see 2.4.2.3)
Where cdev is an allowance has to should be made during design for deviations
from the minimum cover. It should be taken as 10 mm, unless fabrication (i.e.
construction) is subjected to a quality assurance system, in which case it is permitted
to reduce cdev to 5 mm.[8]
2.4.2.1
Minimum cover for safe transmission of bond forces
In order the obtain an optimum bond among the material of reinforced

concrete, the minimum cover should take more than or equal to the bar diameter the
bar dimension, unless the aggregate size larger than 32mm.[8]
2.4.2.2 Minimum cover for durability
In Eurocode 2 the recommendations for durability are mainly based to the BS

EN206-112. In the UK the requirements of BS EN 206 1 are applied through the
complementary standard BS 8500. The UK National Annex (Table 4.3 (N) (BS))
gives durability requirements that comply with BS 8500, but which significantly
modify the approach taken in Eurocode 2. To determine the minimum cover for
durability (and also the strength class and minimum water cement ratio) either the
UK National Annex or BS 8500 can be used. The various exposure classes from BS
8500 are given in Table 2.9. The design process can proceed by referring selected
recommendations to the Table 2.10 for the concrete strength, minimum cement ratio,
18
minimum concrete cover and maximum cement content for various elements in a
structure based on the types of exposure of element. [8]
Table 2.9 : Exposure classes
19
Table 2.10 : Selected recommendation for normal-weight reinforced concrete quality
for combined exposure classes and cover reinforcement for at least a 50 years
intended-working life and 20mm maximum aggregate size.
2.4.2.3 Design for fire resistance
According to Eurocode 2 Part 12: Structural fire design, gives several

methods to determining the fire resistance of concrete elements; detail guidance are
not covered in this research where that be obtained from specialist literature. Design
for fire resistance may still be carried out by referring to tables to determine the
minimum cover and dimensions for various elements, as set out below.
Rather than giving the minimum cover, the tabular method is based on
nominal axis distance, a (see Figure 2.6). Where a is the distance from the centre of
the main reinforcing bar to the surface of the member. Designer has to be aware that
a is nominal dimension but not minimum dimension.
a Cnom + f link + f bar / 2.
Figure
2.6 : Sections through structural members, showing nominal axis distance,

a
20
There are three standard fire exposure conditions that fire resistant design should be
met
R Mechanical resistance for load bearing
E Integrity of separation
I Insulation
Tables 2.11 and 2.12 given the minimum dimensions for columns and slabs
to meet the above conditions. The tables offer more flexibility than BS 8110 in that
there are options available to the designer e.g. section sizes can be reduced by
increasing the axis distance. Further information is given in Eurocode 2, including
design limitations and data for walls and beams.
Tables 2.11 : Minimum column dimension axis distances for columns with
rectangular or circular section - method A
21
Tables 2.12 : Minimum dimension and axis distances for reinforced concrete slabs.
2.4.3
Stability and imperfections
The effects of geometric imperfections are considered in combination with

the effects of wind loads (i.e. not as an alternative load combination). For global
analysis, the imperfections may be represented by an inclination i .
i = (1/200) x h x m
where,
h = (2/Rl), to be taken as not less than 2/3 nor greater than 1.0
m = [0.5 (1 + 1/m)]0.5
l is the height of the building in meters
m is the number of vertical members contributing to the horizontal force in the
bracing system.
The effect of the inclination may be represented by transverse forces at each

level and included in the analysis along with other actions (see Figure 5):
Effect on bracing system: Hi = i (Nb Na)
Effect on floor diaphragm: Hi = i (Nb + Na)/2
Effect on roof diaphragm: v = i Na
Where Na and Nb are longitudinal forces contributing to Hi.
22
In most cases, an allowance for imperfections is made in the partial factors
used in the design of elements. However for columns, the effect of imperfections,
which is similar in principle to the above.
2.4.4
Crack control
Members subject to bending generally exhibit a series of distributed flexural

cracks, even at working loads. These cracks are unobtrusive and harmless unless the
width becomes excessive. Therefore the crack widths should be limited to ensure
appearance and durability is satisfactory. In the absence of specific durability
requirements (e.g. water tightness) the crack widths may be limited to 0.3 mm in all
exposure classes under the quasi-permanent combination. In the absence of
requirements for appearance, this limit may be relaxed (to say 0.4 mm) for exposure
classes X0 and XC1 (refer to Table 2.9). The theoretical size of the crack can be
calculated using the expressions given in Cl 7.3.4 from Eurocode 211 or from the
deemed to satisfy requirements that can be obtained from Table 2.13, which is
based on tables 7.2N and 7.3N of the Eurocode. The limits only apply to either the
bar size or the bar spacing, not both.[8]
Figure
2.7 : Examples of the effect of geometric imperfections
23
Figure 2.8 : Determination of steel stress for crack width control
Table
2.13 : Maximum bar size or spacing to limit crack width
24
2.4.5
Design of Moment
Column sections should be designed axial load N and , in each direction, design
moments as follows :
M = (Mo+Mi)+ M2 Ne0,
eo = h/30 20 mm
Where,
M0 is the first order moment obtained by elastic analysis of the structure.
M1 is an additional first order moment resulting from the imperfections,
M2 is a nominal second order moment resulting from deflection.
Note: In Eurocode, M0 is used to represent the total first order moment including the
effect of imperfections. The approach adopted here is more sensible when using the
following equation for M0e.
In braced columns, differing first order end moment and M01 and M02 maybe
replaced by an equivalent moment :
M0e=0.6M02+0.4M01 0.4 M02
In above equation, M02 is the larger first order end moment and M01 and M02 should
have opposite numerical signs if the columns are bent in double curvature. In
unbraced columns, M0=M02.
Note: The value of M0e should not taken less than M02 + Mi or (M01 + Mi) + 0.5 M2
The additional first order moment resulting from imperfection is given by:
Mi = N (h l0//400),
0.67 h = 2/ 1.0 where l is length of column
The nominal second order moment resulting from deflection is given approximately
by
M2 = N(0.2fyk/Es)( KrK l02/d)
Where, Kr = Correction factor derived from Kr = (Nu- N)/(Nu - Nbal) 1
Nu = 0.567 fck Ac + 0.87 fykAs
Nbal = 0.225 fckAc
Conservatively, Kr = 1
25
K = Creep effect factor derived from K = (1+ef)
= (0.35 + fck/200 -/150)
ef = effective creep ration = (,t0) x (M0qp/M0)
M0qp = first quasi-permanent load combination.
2.4.6
Biaxial bending checking
As first steps, a separate design each principal direction may be made,

ignoring biaxial bending. Imperfections need to be considered only in the direction
where they have to more unfavourable effect. No further checking is needed if the
following two conditions are satisfied :
(a)
0.5 y x 2y ,
where x and y = slenderness ratio
(b)
Mx/h is either 0.2My/b or 5 My/b.
If previous conditions are not satisfied, then the section should be designed as biaxial
bending. A symmetrically reinforced rectangular section may design as being bent
separately about each axis in turn, providing the following criterion is satisfied.
For
1.0
N/Nu < 0.7 :
n = 0.92 + 0.83 (N/Nu) 1.0
N/Nu 0.7 :
n = 0.33 +1.67 (N/Nu) 2.0
Mx, My = Applied moment included second order moments

Mux, Muy = Resistance moments about x-x axes and y-y axes repectively,
corresponding to axial load capacity of the section ignoring all bending, given by
Nu = 0.567 fckAc + 0.87 fykAs.
For circular sections, n = 2, or the section can be designed for the resultant uniaxial
moment :
2 + 2 [14]
26
2.5
Procedure of design of column based on EC2
In general axial loads and first order moments are assumed to be available.
The designs consider slenderness in order to determine design moments, MEd. The
columns are designed and checked for biaxial bending. The effects of allowing for
imperfections are illustrated. [9]
The general method of designing columns based on Eurocode is as follows:
1. Determine design life.
<BS EN 1990 & NA Table NA 2.1>
2. Assess actions on the column.

<BS EN 1991 (10 parts) & UK NAs>
3. Determine which combinations of actions apply.

<BS EN 1990 & NA Tables NA A1.1 & NA A1.2(B)>
4. Assess durability requirements and determine concrete strength.

<BS 85001>
5. Check cover requirements for appropriate fire resistance period.

<Approved Document B BS EN 199212>
6. Determine cover for fire, durability and bond.

<BS EN 199211 Cl. 4.4.1>
7. Analyse structure for critical combination moments and axial forces.

<BS EN 199211 Section 5>
8. Check slenderness and determine design moments.

<BS EN 199211 Section 5.8>
9. Determine area of reinforcement required.

<BS EN 199211 Section 6.1>
27
10. Check spacing of bars and links.
<BS EN 199211 Sections 8 & 9>
2.6
Comparison of Column design procedure of BS 110 and EC2
A comparison between the EC2 and BS braced column design processes is shown in
the flowcharts below.
28
In Eurocode 2, some terminologies in column design are found unfamiliar for

example: Minimum eccentricities have been described as Imperfections, buckling
etcetera as second order effects. Alternative design methods are given, but the
curvature method is similar in approach to current practice. As with BS 8110, the
column design process is quite tedious to perform manually, but is relatively easy to
automate. The simplified method given for carrying out biaxial bending checks is
more logical than in BS 8110, and is simple to apply. [15]
29
2.6.1
Loading and moments
British Standard
Eurocode
Where the Load combination for the ultimate states from above are based on the
table below :[
Table 2.14 : Partial Factor for safety for loading (BS)
Table 2.15 : Combination of actions and load factors at ULS (EC)
30
2.6.2
Column classification and failure modes
According to BS8110 a column classified as short when both lex/h and ley/b are:
Less than 15 (braced column)
Less than 10 (unbraced column)
Where lex and ley are the effective heights that related to the XX and YY axis
; h is the overall depth of the section in the plane of bending about XX axis, meaning
that h is dimension perpendicular to the XX axis.
The effective Height are obtain by equation below:

le= lo,
Where, lo is the clear distance between of column end restrains.
is a coefficient which depends on the degree of end restrains as specified in
table 2.16 [2]
Table 2.16 : Coefficient () of column in BS8110
On the other hand,

According to EC2, slenderness ratio, of a column bent about an axis has to
determine first and compare with the limiting slender ratio to determine the class of
the column. Hence the slenderness ratio is given by
31
Where
lo is the effective height of the column

i is the radius of gyration about the axis considered
I is the second moment of area of the section about the axis
A is the cross-sectional area of the column
In additional, lo is the height of a theoretical column of equivalent section but

pinned at the both ends. This depends on the degree of fixity at each end of the
columnm which itself depends on the relative stiffness of the columns and beams
connected to either end of the column under consideration.
Hence, EC2 gives 2 two general formulae for calculating the effective height :
For braced members :
Eqn (1)
For unbraced members the larger of :
.. Eqn (2a)
and
Eqn (2b)
Where k1 and k2 are the relative flexibilities of the rotational restraints at end s 1
and 2 of the column respectively. At each end k1 and k2 can be as :
* Assume the column above or below the column under consideration does not
contribute anything to the rotational restraint of the joint,
*Assume the stiffness of each connecting beam is taken as 2EI/l to considered the
cracking effects in the beam.
32
The stiffness can also formulate as below ,
By assuming typical column in a a symmetrical frame with spans approximately

equal length as figure 2.9
Figure 2.9
Therefore, for typical values of column effective lengths can be tabulated by using
this table 2.17 as below.[1]
Table 2.17 : The effective length of column in EC2
33
Finally, the slenderness ratios are required to compare with the limiting slenderness
ratio. This limit is given by:
lim= 20 X A X B X C/
where :
A = 1/(1+0.2ef)
B= (1 + 2)
C=1.7-rm
ef = effectiv creep ratio
w = Asfyd/(Acfcd) (if not known B can be taken as 1.1)
fyd = the design yield strength of the reinforcement
fcd = the design compressive stregth of the concrete
As = the total area of logistudinal reinforcement
n = NEd/(Acfcd)
NEd = the design ultimate axial load in the column
rm = M01/M02 (if rm not known then C can be 0.7)
* The further explain is not considered in this research.
When the actual slenderness ratio is less than the calculated value of lim
then the column is classified as short column. Otherwise it will classify as slender
column. [16]
While determine the crushing load for the failure modes, the only different
from BS 8110 and EC2 is the load factor of the crushing load are different.
In BS 8110,
Nuz= 0.45fcuAc + 0.95fyAsc
In EC 2,
Nuz= 0.56fcuAc + 0.87fyAsc
34
2.6.3
Reinforcement details
In this topic will talk about the differences of BS8110 and EC2 on
reinforcement detailing. Firstly, the differ in minimum and maximum area for
longitudinal steel :
In BS 8110,
Minimum area,
I)
100As/Acol must not be less than 0.4
II)
100As/Acol must not be greater than 6.0

in vertically cast column.
Or,
100As/Acol, must not greater than 8.0 in a
horizontally cast column.
But at laps
100As/Acol, must not greater than 10.0 for both
types of columns.[2]
In EC 2,
Minimum area
Maximum area
0.10
As=0.87 0.002Ac
As,mazx/Ac <0.08
(at laps)
Maximum area
As,mazx/Ac < 0.04
(always from lap)
* Where
As is the total are of longitudinal steel

Ac is the cross-sectional area of the column.[1]
35
Secondly the differences of Links design,
In BS 8110,
I) Maximum spacing = 12 x size of the smallest compression bar

II) The links should be arrange so that every corner bar and alternate
bar or group in an outer layer of longitudinal steel is supported by a
link passing round the bar and having an included angle not greater
than 135[2]
In EC2,
I) Maximum spacing should not exceed the lesser of 20 x size

of the smallest compression bar or the least lateral dimension
of the column or 400 mm. This spacing should be reduced by a
factor of 0.60
a) For a distance equal to the larger lateral dimension
of the column above and below or slab, and
b) At lapped joints of longitudinal bars > 14mm
diameter
II) Where the direction of the longitudinal reinforcement changes, the

spacing of the links should be calculated, while taking account of the
lateral forces involved. If the change in direction is less than or equal
to 1 in 2 no calculation is necessary. .[1]
38
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
In this chapter will mainly explain about the method and the process that will
go through in order to fulfill the objective of the research. As explained earlier, this
research is mainly about the code different between Eurocode and British standard
on column design. Before the design process started, internet is main source to
gathers relevant information. The research process proceeds to stage reading and
arranging information. This research was then continuing with design process and
comparing research outcome.
Hence in the beginning of the research, information management was taking

part. World Wide Web is the main platform that giving the information for this
research. This is because Eurocode is a new knowledge, where in local source
comparable less and inaccurate. Whereby through internet, more reliable information
can obtained. The information scope is mainly on introduction of the new code and
compares with the current practice in general way in the beginning stage. Next stage
the information getting will focus more on the column design procedures. Lastly the
gathered information had arranged to an appropriate way to meet the purpose of the
research.
39
The research was then continuing with design by using British Standard 8110
. Where the initials design will start with the frame analysis of the structure to
determine the load and moment occurred on the typical column, for a four floors
office plan manually. The calculations by done by excel to avoid repetitive work to
be done. Necessary check such as the shear resistance, moment resistance, fire
resistance and deflection check will conducted manually , and cross section of the
RC column will be draw will the number reinforced bar.
The design process was then continuing with design by Eurocode 2, basically most
of the steps are almost similar just the partial factor are difference from each other.
Further detail could refer to Chapter 2: 2.6 Comparison of Column design based on
BS 8110 and EC2. Necessary check will be conduct and cross section of RC column
will be drawn.
After obtaining the Eurocode design and British standard design, comparison
have to be made and conclusion and recommendation will states during the final part
of this research.
40
For a better understanding a flow chart has been drawn to show the process of
research
START
Preliminary Research
(Internet)
IDENTIFY
Problem Statement and
Objective
REVIEWING -
DESIGN
Literature Review
Column Design by using BS

8110 and EC2
RESULT AND
REPORTING -
DISCCUSION-
Report the result and finding in
Compare the outcome and the
the research project.
procedure differences.
PRESENTING Present the result and finding to
the panel
SUBMISSION OF FINAL YEAR

PROEJECT
Figure 3.1 : Research Flow Chart
41
3.2
Sketching by using AutoCAD
Autocad had been very important tools in design tool now in construction
field nowadays. This is due to user friendly drawing command and interface that
allow the user to draw the construction plan in a short period. Nowadays many
design software had cooperate with AutoCAD and allow the output of AutoCAD
(DWG files) to be import to proceed to the design purpose. In this research, the
AutoCAD uses to drawn the four floors offices architect plan and also structural
plan in order to give clearer picture on the design plan
3.3
Design method
Excel a very common and handy tool to formulated calculations and logic
flows. Excel also provides user friendly interface and function to the user in
mathematical problem. Furthermore excel also help increase the speed of calculation
and avoid human error.
During the research, all the design method and checking will been done
manually by referring to the BS 8110 and EC2. Since the design step could be
repeated and the calculation are many, excel has chosen as a calculation tool to avoid
repetitive steps and gives more accurate answer.
There are not much of differences on the procedure of design based on

BS8110 and EC2. A flow chart has been drawn as to show the design procedure that
will follow during this research. The Column design based on EC will main refer to
three codes:
I)
EC
(EN 1990 : 2002)
II)
EC1
( EN 1991 -1-1 : 2002)
III)
EC2
(EN 1992-1-1 : 2004)
IV)
Concise EC 2
42
Determine design lifeRefer to table 2.1 EN 1990:
2002
Assess the action on the column
Clause 6.2.2 EN1991-1-1 or Local NA or UK NA
Determine the critical combination of action Refer to table A1.1& A1.2 (B) EN1990
Assess the durability requirement and the concrete

strengthRefer to BS 8500 - 1
Check cover requirement for corresponding fire resistance
period
Refer to Approved Document B, EN 199212
Determine cover for fire, durability and bond Refer to Cl 4.4..1, EN 1992-1-1
Analyse structure for critical combination moments and axial

forcesRefer Section 5, EN 1992-1-1
Check Slenderness and determine design moments.
Refer to Section 5.8, EN 199211
Determine the area of reinforcement required.
Refer to Section 6.1 , EN 1992-1-1
Check Spacing of bars and links

Refer to Sections 8 & , EN 19921-1
Figure 3.2 : Design Procedure of Column based on EC
43
CHAPTER 4
RESULT AND ANALYSIS
In this chapter, the result and analysis of the research will . The objective that
had achieve in this research were outlined the different of Eurocode 2 and BS 8110,
the column design example of EC2 based on a real construction case and also
compared the outcome of the of BS design and EC2 design.
4.1
Review of Eurocode 2 column design procedure
Basically the column design sequence of BS8110 and EC2 are almost similar.
In this research the column design of Eurocode 2 will conducted based on a real
construction project which is 3 storey office building. Where by the plan has been
attached in the appendix. The design procedure will follow the sequence on Fig 3.2
(Design Procedure of Column based on EC) in Chapter 3. Therefore in this section a
detail explanation will be given on the real case design.
To begin the design, it is necessary to determine building design life. Same

goes with EC2 design. In this project the design life are 50 years, where the types of
project was under the group of Building and Common structure. The design was then
continue with determine assess the action on the column and also determine the
critical combination of action. Both of these steps are not covered in this research.
But further explanation has been covered under chapter 2.
44
Before begin the construction, the selection of material are one of the
important element. In EC2 the reinforced bar strength are suppose to takes the value
500MPA or 500kN/mm2 which having higher strength than reinforced bar under
BS8110 But due to the common reinforced bar in Malaysia was 460MPa, so in this
paper the value taken as 460 MPa. Due to the project are belong small scales
construction concrete C30/37, and the common high strength steel bar f y = 460MPA
or 460 kN/mm2 will be use as the main reinforcement and also f y=250MPA will be
use as the link for column design. In fact the reinforced bar strength in EC2 are
suppose to take the value 500MPA or 500kN/mm2 which having higher strength than
reinforced bar under BS8110. . But due to the reinforced in Malaysia are always
taking as 460MPA, so in this paper the strength are going to consider is 460 MPA
The detail of material selection on EC2 can be found in Concise Eurocode 2,
Chapter 3: Material.
The design was then continue with design the checking cover requirement for
corresponding fire resistance period. The design of cover in EC2 is much more
complicated than BS8110. For example in EC2 cover design included 2 different
steps, first we need to find the minimum column width for fire resistance. To
determine the minimum column width, there are 2 different methods to determine
which is method A or method B, as a result we will get the minimum dimension
column width bmin/axis distances a of main bar with corresponding fire resistance
duration. In such case, first eccentricity needs to determine to decide which method
that suitable. Besides that , several new term or variable was introduce to get more
precise output for example first order moment under fire condition MoEd,fi , axial load
under fire condition N0ed,fi and also Mechanical ratio, . The detail of the design can
be found in Concise EC2 Chapter 4, 4.6 Cover for fire resistance. After checking for
the minimum column dimension, the design of cover will continue with determine
nominal cover for fire, durability and bond. In order to get the value of cover for
durability, the types of environment need to determine. For example, in Malaysia the
types of environment are more to Dry and permanently wet. The detail of the cover
design can be found Concise EC2 Chapter 4 from 4.1 to 4.5.
45
After decided the minimum cover and suitable dimension of column width,
analysis structure will be conducted. The purpose of have structure analysis is to
obtain the design moment and axial load. The details of structural analysis are not
interest in this research. However, the analysis is taken from previous analysis that
had been done by using British standard approach. In the analysis a most critical
situation will be selected to conduct the design. In such case column A/1 has been
selected and axial force and maximum moment has calculated with combination
analysis value from frame, 1/A-D and A/1-6. .The analysis result had attached in
appendix as a reference.
Determining slenderness of a column is the initial step in column design. It is

important to know that in British standard approach X-X axis has change to Z-Z axis.
In EC2 in order to determine the slenderness a specify column the upper limit on the
slender ratio have to determine first then compare with the actual slenderness ratio.
The used of upper limit is to determine the necessity of considering the second order
effect. While determine limiting slenderness ratio several factor have to consider for
example effective creep ratio (,t0), age of the concrete at time loading, t0,
mechanical reinforcement ratio, , the first order bending moment in the quasipermanent load, MoEqp and many more Details of the limiting slenderness ratio can
be found in Concise EC2 Chapter 5: 5.6.1.4 (Limiting slenderness ration lim.). In
this research a critical braced column had been selected to calculate the slenderness
ratio. The slenderness ratio was then compared with braced column minimum
limiting value of which the C value was taken as 1.7.
After checking the slenderness, design moment can be found. In this research
the column, the slenderness ration is found less than the value of limiting slenderness
ratio. Hence, the column as categories as short column and second order effects or
moment additional in BS approach and EC approach are not considered in to
calculation, M2=0. But when the column is classified as slender column then second
moment effect will take in to consideration. In EC2 approach, curvature method used
to determine the design moment in slender column and nominal second order
moment taking part. Several variables have contributed to nominal second order
moment for example: Curvature, 1/r, Second order deflection, e2 , Effective creep
46
coefficients, ef as and Mechanical reinforcement ratio, . In additional the selected
column also assume experienced biaxial forces, which is the most common case
happen in the construction. In order to determine the design moment, EC2 suggested
to takes the maximum value out of 3 different of moment combination. The details of
design can be found in Concise EC2, Chapter 5:5.6.2(Design of bending moment).
The design process was then continue to find area of reinforcement required
in order sustain the design moment and axial load. In EC2, d2/h need to be found
before refer to the Concise EC2 Chapter 15.9.3 (Column Chart) to find the area of
reinforcement. Whereby d2 is equal to Cnom + /2+link. Unlike in BS 8110, d/h, d is
equal to h- /2+link. In addition, the Asmin and Asmax in EC2 were different from
BS8110. Where Asmin =Max (0.1Ned/fyd ; 0.002Ac), Asmax=0.04Ac outside laps and
0.08Ac at laps. After decided the number of reinforcement, checking of biaxial
bending should be done , where the detail of calculation can be found on Concise
EC2 Chapter 15.9.4 (Biaxial bending) and also BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Section 5:
5.8.9 Biaxial Bending). Lastly, to determine the link size there are 3 situations need
to be compared and the smaller spacing of link will be chosen to tie the main
reinforcement bar.
47
Practise of EC2 on a real construction project

A plan has been attached to explain the construction situation
I)Determine design life
This project is categories under (Building and common structures)
Hence,
Design life
50
year
<EN1990:
2002, table
2.1>
II) Assess the durability requirement and the concrete strength

Concrete,
The concrete class that has been selected are class C30/37 ,
fck
fck,cube
acc
c
fcd
=
=
=
=
=
30
37
1
1.5
accfck/c
MPA
MPA
(Under all phenomena)
=
20
MPA
Steel,
The type of the steel inforcement that widely use in Malaysia ,
fyk
fyd
Es
=
=
=
460
460/1.15
200000
MPA
400
MPA
MPA
<Concise
EC2,table
3.1>
48
III)Check cover requirement for fire resistance period (90mins)

To design a suitable cover required for fire resistance.
Type of method have ro be determine first.
First order eccentrcirty,
Proposed column dimension,
e
=
Med/Ned
=
0.15b
=
0.15*h
=
0.25b
=
0.25*h
=
Hence, Chose Method B
w
=
1
n
=
1
600
173.99
105
175
*
mm
700
<Concise
EC2, Table
4.48>
(conservative value)
(conservative value)
Minumun dimension column

width /axis distance a of main bar
500/50
OK!
IV)Determine cover for fire, durability and bond

Cnom
=
Cmin
+
Cdev
Where
Cmin
Cmin
,
=
=
=
=
<EN1992-1
-1 Eq 4.1>
diameter of the bar

Assume 32mm bar and 8mm link
32-8
=
24
=
25
Minimun Cover due to enviromental
condition.XC1
15
mm
Concise Ec2
Table 4.2
mm
<4.5>
Cmin
Cdev
Hence,
=
=
Max[Cmin.b,Cmin.dur]
=
10 mm (Common value)
Cnom
35
25
49
V)Analyse structure for critical combination moments

and axial forces
In this research the detail of structure analysis was not the
main concern. The value of structure has taken from the
previous calculation.
The design will only conduct according to the higher value
of momentand shear member . Which is happened
on the column A/1
Moment,
Z-Z direction
From frame 1/(A-D),(MAX MIN MAX)
Mzmaxtop =
123.3
kNm
Mzmaxbtm =
0.5*Maxtop
61.65
kNm
y-y direction
From frame A/(1-6), (MAX MIN MAX)
Mymaxtop =
48.54
kNm
Mymaxbtm =
0.5*Maxtop
24.27
kNm
Axial Load/Shear force, at column 1/A

From frame 1/(A-D),
V
=
153.75
kNm
From frame A/(1-6),
V
=
82.47
kNm
Total force,
No of storey,
Total Axial force
=
=
=
=
V+V
=
236.22
3
total force * no storey
708.7 kN
kN
50
VI)Check Slenderness and determine design moments.

For a braced column the minimun limiting value of
Ned
fck
fyk
fcd
=
=
=
=
lim
=
=
708.7
30
460
fcu/1.5
KN
20
26.2/(Ned/Acfcd)^0.5
90.2007
(Conservative Eq. for braced column)
Braced Members
Z - Z axis
Column Size
Icolumn
Acol
Beam Size
Ibeam
Abeam
=
=
=
=
=
=
600
x
1.7E+10
mm^4
420000 mm2
300
x
1.6E+09
mm^4
120000
Icol/lcol
Ibeam/lbeam
=
=
4513158
200000
k1=k2=
lo
i
z
700
lcol
3.8
400
lbeam
5.641
mm^3
mm^3
(Icol/lcol)/2(Ibeam/lbeam)
=
=
=
((1+(k1/(0.45+k1)))*(1+(k2/(0.45+k2))))^0.5
7.32
m
(I/A)^0.5
lo/i
<
lim
4.916
=
=
mm^2
lo/(I/A)^0.5
36.22
Where ,
(Not slender about z

axis)
51
Y-Y Axis
Column Size
Icolumn
Acol
=
=
=
600
x
1.7E+10 mm^4
420000 mm2
700
4
lcol
3.8
Beam Size
Ibeam
Abeam
=
=
=
300
x
1.6E+09 mm^4
120000 mm2
400
lbeam
Icol/lcol
4513158
Ibeam/lbeam
200000
k3=k4=
(Eq
5.15)
(Icol/lcol)/4(Ibeam/lbeam)
5.641
(Eq
5.14)
lo
=
=
=
Where ,
Conclusion,
Design as a
lcol((1+(k3/(0.45+k3)))*(1+(k4/(0.45+k4))))^0.5
7.32
(I/A)^0.5 =
lo/i
4.916
=
=
lo/(I/A)^0.5
36.22
A
<
lim
(Not slender about Y axis)
Short
Column
52
Find design
moment
h
700
b
=
600
where
=
=
=
=
=
=
nu
n
nbal
Kr
Asfyd/(Acfyd)
1 (conservative design, w=1)
1+w
=
2
Ned/(Acfcd)
=
0.08437
0.4
(nu-n)/(nu-nbal)
=
1.19727
<EN19921
-1.Eq
5.36>
<EN19921
-1.Eq
5.37>
Since w=1 >0.25 , =0

, (clause 5.8.4)
1+
K
=
=
d
=
effective depth
=
fyd
=
400 MPA
Es
=
200000 MPA
1
550
yd
fyd/Es
0.002
1/r
1/r
=
=
yd/(0.45d)
l
=
=
8.1E-06
9.7E-06
e
M
Where ,
M
=
=
(1/r)l^2/c
eNed
=
=
The norminal second order moment,

when short column , M=0
51.83 mm
36.73 kNm
<EN19921
-1.Eq
5.34>
53
Z-Z Direction
Mzz =
123.3
KNm
Mzz =
61.7
KNm
Determine Design Moment (Clauses 5.8.8.2 EC2 : Design of Concrete)

<EN19921
-1>
Medz
Where
e
e
eNed
M
Max [ M, Med + M , M +
0.5M ]
l/400
=
max( h/30 ; 20 )
=
16.53633 KNm
(Mzz+eNed eNed)
74.66793 KNm
=
=
=
=
( 5.8.8.2)
0
0
(5.8.8.2 )
I)
0 KNm
=
hence,
II)
Med
=
=
=
Med+M
hence,
III)
Hence,
Medz
=
=
M+0.5M =
(Mzz+eNed eNed)
136.2679 >=
16.5363
136.27 KNm
(0.6M+0.4M) 0.4M
51.89359
<
54.51 KNm
74.67 Knm
Max [ M, Med + M , M + 0.5M ]

kNm
136.27
55
54
Y-Y Direction
Myy
48.54
Myy
24.3
Determine Design Moment (Clauses 5.8.8.2 EC2 : Design of Concrete)

Medy
= Max [ M, Med + M , M + 0.5M ]
Where
e
e
eNed
M
=
=
=
=
=
I)
II)
(Myy+eNed eNed)
61.50793 >=
14.174
61.51
Med
=
=
=
(0.6M+0.4M) 0.4M
21.99759
<
24.60
Med+M
hence,
III) M+0.5M =
Hence,
Medy
=
=
0
0
(5.8.8.2
(1))
=
hence,
l/400
=
max(b/30 ; 20 )
=
14.174
(Myy+eNed eNed)
37.26793
( 5.8.8.2)
37.27
Max [ M, Med + M , M + 0.5M ]

61.51
kNm
25
55
Find As by using charts

d
d/h
= Cnom + /2+link
=
0.086
60
Use figure 15.5,

Ned/bhfck
Med
Med/bh^2fck
=
=
=
0.056
136.27
0.015
From Figure <concise EC2 figs 15.5>,

Asfyk/bhfck
As
840.00
Use Asmin = 0.002Ac

Chose Section :
4H32
Asprov=
3220
<Concise
EC2,
Fig15>
Check for Biaxial Bending

No further check needed if y/z and z/y 2
Hence y/z
=
1
z/y
=
1
and
the relative eccentricities satisfy

one the equation
(ey/heq)/(ez/beq) or (ez/beq)/(ey/heq) 0.2
ez
= Medy/Ned
=
192.279
ey
= Medz/Ned
=
86.7898
iz
= h/12^0.5 = 4.916457
iy
= d/12^0.5 = 4.916457
heq
beq
Else
= iz*12
= iy*12
(ey/heq)/(ez/beq) =
(ez/beq)/(ey/heq) =
=
=
17.03111
17.03111
0.45137
not ok
2.21545
not ok
Biaxial check required
5.8.9 (3)
56
Check whether
(Medz/Mrdz)â + (Medy/Mrdy)â 1.0
Interpolating the value of Med/bh^2fck from fig 15.5
and By using,
Asfy/bhfck
=
0.118
Ned/bh^2fck
=
0.056
Find Med/bh^2fck
=
0.04
Med=Mrz=Mry =
352.8
kNm
a
Nrd
fcd
fyd
hence,
Nrd
Ned/Nrd
=
=
=
=
Ned/Nrd
Acfcd+Asfyd
0.85*fck =
fyk/1.15 =
=
=
11998.0
0.05907
<Concise
EC2,
Fig15>
25.5
400
<EN19921
-Pg75>
interpolate the value a from table,

Clause 5.8.9(4), Notes to Exp 5.39
Check,
(Medz/Mrdz)â + (Medy/Mrdy)â
1.4
0.350693 <
Ok
Use:
4H32
3220
mm^2 )
Link design
Minimun diameter of links
/4
=
= 32/4
Spacing : either,
0.6*20*
a)
b)
0.6*h
c)
0.6*400
=
=
=
144
420
240
Use H8@125mm
Concise
EC2
12.5.2
57
4.2
Comparison of design output
Eurocode 2 designs are always claim to produce more economic result of

compare with BS 8110 designs. In this research the comparison on the column
design have been done to justify the claim. Theoretically direct comparison between
2 different codes is difficult to be made because 2 codes are differs from each other
from very beginning of the design process. For example: Characteristic concrete
strength, stress block, ways of load combination and partial load factor (G, Q).
Hence in order to compare the both codes assumptions need to be made and checking
on the biaxial bending will ignore. In this research will only compare the design
output of Short Biaxial column and Slender Biaxial column with varies of column
size and loading applied.
As Required/mm^2
4.2.1
Comparison short column with various of column dimension

9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
8400
Ec column
design
6600
5040
4565
4480
BS column
design
3600
3521
2739
1826
1440
Types of Dimension
Fig 4.1 Comparison BS and EC with various of Dimension
In this comparison several assumption has been done in both code of pratice in other
to show the significant change between EC2 and BS8110 column design, for
example :
58
1)
Lenght of column and length of beam are fixed to be 3m and 5m.
2)
Beam dimension are fixed to 300mm*500mm.
3)
The axial load are equal to 1000kN.
4)
The moment on top and bottom of column are 500kNm and 250kNm.
5)
The column are assumse to be in a symmetrical frame with equal span length.
The result and data has been collected to form a table as below :
Types of
dimension
Dimension(mm^2)
Asreq(EC2)
Asreq(BS8110)
% of different
1
400*500
4565
8400
45.65
2
500*600
3521
6600
46.65
3
600*700
2739
5040
45.65
4
700*800
1826
4480
59.24
5
800*900
1440
3600
60
Average
51.44
Table 4.1 : Percentage of differere on area of reinforcement required.

The average of differences among all the dimension is equal to 51.44%
4.2.2
Comparison short column with various of loading
As Required/mm^2
10000
8400
8000
8400
7140
EC Column
Design
7140
6000
5880
4000
3287
2739
2191
2000
BS Column
Design
1643
1370
Types of Loading
Fig 4.2 Comparison BS and EC with various loading
59
In this comparison several assumption has been done in both code of pratice
in other to show the significant change between EC2 and BS8110 column design, for
example :
1)
2)
3)
Column dimension are fixed to 600mm*700mm
4)
The moment on top and bottom of column are 700kNm and 350Nm in both
direction.
5)
Types of
Loading
Load(kN)
Asreq(EC)
Asreq(BS)
% of different
1
1000
3287
8400
60.87
2
2000
2191
7140
69.31
3
3000
1643
5880
72.06
4
4000
1370
7140
80.81
5
5000
2739
8400
67.39
Average
70.09
The average of differences among all the dimension is equal to 70.09 %
60
4.2.3
Comparison slender column with various of dimension of column
AS required/mm^2
20000
15600
15000
EC Column
Design
10000
9000
7826
5000
BS Column
Design
4620
3522
0
0
2880
1440
2240
1120
840
4
6
Types of Dimension
Fig 4.3 Comparison of BS and EC with various of

Dimension
example :
1)
2)
3)
The axial load are equal to 3000kN.
4)
The moment on top and bottom of column are 500kNm and 250kNm.
5)
Types of
dimension
Dimension(mm^2
)
Asreq (EC)
Asreq (BS)
% of different
1
400*50
0
7826
15600
49.83
2
500*60
0
3522
9000
60.87
3
600*70
0
840
4620
81.82
4
700*80
0
1120
2240
50
5
800*90
0
1440
2880
50
Averag
e
58.5

61
4.2.4
Comparison slender column with various of loading
As required/mm^2
20000
15900
15000
EC Column
Design
BS Column
Design
13500
10200
10000
5000
10200
8400
4891
5870
4500
9587
7435
Types of loading
0
Fig 4.4 Comparison EC and BS with various Loading
example :
1)
2)
3)
Column dimension are fixed to 500mm*600mm
4)
The moment on top and bottom of column are 700kNm and 350Nm in both
direction.
5)
Type
Load(kN)
Asreq(EC)
Asreq(BS)
% of
different
1
1000
4891
10200
2
2000
4500
8400
3
3000
5870
10200
4
4000
7435
13500
5
5000
9587
15900
Average
52.05
46.43
42.45
44.93
39.7
45.11
62
4.3
Analysis of the output of comparison
From the result above, the percentage of differences generally is is more than
40%. The cause of the differences on both codes is the way to determine the design
moment are different from each other. For example, in EC 2 the design moment
taken from the highest value of Z-Z and X-X direction was then select a suitable
reinforced area required. The sufficient of reinforcement will check with the biaxial
bending with trial and error method. For the purpose of comparison the biaxial
bending checking are not perform in this paper. Where as in BS the bending toward
major or minor direction need to figure out first then design moment will be taken as
moment experienced plus with certain percentage() of moment from the other
direction. Therefore , it is found that the design moment of EC2 are far more lesser
than BS. Beside N-M interaction chart is also another factor that cause the different
in the result above. Direct comparison on N-M interaction chart are not applicable
this is because different approach are using in both codes. But some other research
has been done and shown the effect.
From Dr R M Moss BSc PhD CEng MICE MIStructE, Building Research

Establishment Rod Webster CEng FIStructE, Concrete Innovation & Design.
N-M interaction charts for a 300mmx300mm section with these assumptions have
been produced taking a value of cc= 0.85 and give close agreement between EC2
and BS8110 as illustrated in Figure 2. The horizontal cut-off line on the EC2 curve
has little practical effect, as it will normally fall within the zone of minimum applied
moment.
63
Figure 4.5 : Different N-M interaction chart
64
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1
Conclusion
With the aid of Microsoft Excel the design step of EC2 on column design and
the comparison on both codes of practice have been done. The Microsoft Excel helps
in eliminate the repetitive and help shorten the time of design and comparison.
Beside the calculation with condition and graph plotting also been done more
accurately if compare with manual design.
After design of both codes, the design steps on EC2 are found to be more
tedious if compare with BS 8110. BS 8110 design are more conservative, where by
the EC2 considered more variable. During the research the design moment of EC 2 is
found much lesser than BS 8110. This is because of the biaxial bending check on
EC2 are not been performance for the purpose of comparison. The nominal cover is
found to be different from each other. In BS 8110 the nominal cover is conservative
assumption no calculation suggested, whereby in EC2 a detail calculation are
required.
As a conclusion this research had achieve the objective that states before.
Which is included outlined the design procedure of column design of EC2, shown
the application of EC2 on a given project and compared the design output.
65
5.2
Recommendations
Even though this research has done, but the improvement still needed in order
to obtain a more accurate and more reliable design outcome. There are several
recommendations as below:
1)
In this research the columns are assumed to experience biaxial moment.
Other types of behavior could be use in the future.

2)
Due to the short of data the design of nominal cover and second order effect
are using conservative value. A more economic nominal cover and moment can be
obtained with sufficient data in the future.
3)
Comparison on varies of loading and column have been done. It is suggest to
try on varies loading and varies column height in the future.

4)
Simply Excel sheet had built during this research. Users are required to
manually input several data. Therefore, it is recommend to upgrade the excel sheet to
more user friendly interface.
5)
The comparison on the design outcome on EC2 show consider the Biaxial
bending checking.
In order to use the excel that built, user has to know the input shall be insert
on the yellow box in the excel sheet. The input included some result of manual
calculation for example effective depth. The input also included some values from
graph.
Generally, the excel sheet has built from lots of simple coding and formulas.
Therefore, users are advices to be carefully when inputting required data. This is due
to the chain effect of the formulas in the excel sheet.
66
REFERENCES
1.
Bill Mosley,John Bungey and Ray Hulse . Reinforced Concrete Design to

Eurocode 2(Sixth Edition. New York : PALGRAVE
2.
Bill Mosley,John Bungey and Ray Hulse . Reinforced Concrete Design. New
York : PALGRAVE
3.
BSI British Standard.BS EN 1990:2002 Eurocode: Basis of structural design
4.
BSI British Standard. BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 Eurocode 1 : Actions on
Structurs
(Part 1-1 : General actions - Densities self-weight, imposed loads for
buildings)
5.
BSI British Standard ,BS EN 1992-1-1: 2004 Eurocode 2 : Design of
concrete
6.
strucutures (Part 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings.
BSI British Standard. BS 8110 -1:1997 Structural Use of Concrete (Part 1 :

Code of Practice for 2 design and construction)
7.
O Brooke .How to design Concrete Structures using Eurocode 2. Chapter 2

Getting Started. Published by The Concrete Center.
8.
O Brooke . How to design Concrete Structures using Eurocode 2. Chapter 1

Introduction to Eurocdes. Published by The Concrete Cente.
9.
Worked Examples for Eurocodes Draft Version : Column. Published by The

Concrete Center.
10.
Concrete Structure 05 Published by The Concrete Center.
67
11.
Dr. Usama Zakout Ministry of Public Works and Housing, Arab States
League St,
Gaza, Palestine .Comparison of Different Codes for Analysis and
Design of RC Sections to/24 Flexural Moments .
12
Companion Document (EN1992-1-1 : Eurocode 2 :Design of Concrete

Structures - Part 1 : General rules and rules for building. London :
Department
for Communities and Local Government.
13
Mohd Asfanani Bin Sukiman. Computerized Design of Reinforced Elements
to
Eurocode 2, UTM 2006/2007
14
Chales E. Reynolds (2006) .Reynoldss Reinforced Concrete Designers

Handbook Eleventh edition. Publish by Taylor & Francis Group
15
Dr R M Moss BSc PhD CEng MICE MIStructE, EC2 and BS8110 compared.
16
R S Narayanan. Concise Eurocode 2.Publish The Concrete Centre
68
APPENDIX A
BS Column design
Effective
height
X-X Direction
b
h
Acolumn
Slab thickness,d
Floor to Floor height,l
lo
=
=
=
=
=
=
500
600
300000
150
9000
l-d
Find from table 3.19 BS8119
1.5
lex
lo
mm
mm
mm^2
mm
mm
=
8850
13275 mm
69
Design moment and Asreq for a Short Column
Checking the direction of bending

Mx
=
700
N
My
=
700
fcu
b'
=
550 , b'/b
h'
=
650 , h'/h
Mx/h'
=
1.08
My/b'
=
1.27
Mx/h'
5000 kN
30
1.10
1.08
Chose,
d/h=
1.08
> My/b'
Column Bend toward

Where
=
=
=
=
Major
axis
find by using Value of N/bhfcu based

on table 3.22 is BS8110
N/bhfcu =
0.556
0.53
Mx'
= Mx
+ (b'/h') *
=
700 +
0.45 *
= 1013.92
kNm
As required
Find 100As/bh Chat 3.22 base on value below
N/bh
M/bh^2
=
=
16.67
5.63
100As/bh =
As
=
2
6000
My
700
70
APPENDIX B
Structural Analysis
71
72
APPENDIX C
Construction Plan (Front)
73
APPENDIX D
Construction Plan (Side view)
74
APPENDIX E
Construction plan ( Plan view)

Comparison Between BS8110 and EC2 For Columns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparison Between BS8110 and EC2 For Columns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

PSZ 19:16 (Pind. 1/07)

DECLARATION OF THESIS / UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT PAPER AND COPYRIGHT

Authors full name :

PERBANDINGAN KAEDAH REKABENTUK ELEMEN

Bachelor in Civil Engineering

(Contains confidential information under the Official

(Contains restricted information as specified by the

I agree that my thesis to be published as online open

1. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

IR. AZHAR BIN AHMAD

(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.)

PERBANDINGAN KAEDAH REKABENTUK ELEMEN TIANG

PERBANDINGAN KAEDAH REKABENTUK ELEMEN BERDASARKAN

A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

FACULTY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

I declare that this project report entitled PERBANDINGAN KAEDAH

This study is especially dedicated to my

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my

Importance of the study

Aims and Purposes of Eurocode

Basic Knowledge of Eurocode

Minimum concrete cover design

2.4.2.1 Minimum cover for safe

transmission of bond forces

2.4.2.3 Design for fire resistance

Stability and imperfections

Biaxial bending checking

Procedure of design of column based on EC2

Comparison of Column design based on BS 8110

Loading and moments

Column classification and failure modes

Sketching by using AutoCAD

RESULT AND ANALYSIS

Review of Eurocode 2 column design procedure

Comparison of design output

Comparison short column with

Comparison short column with

Comparison slender column with

various of dimension of column

Comparison slender column with

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The structural Eurocodes

Concrete related Eurocodes and their

equivalent current standards.

Indicative design working life

Selected bulk density of material

(From EC1, part 1-1 )

Selected imposed loads for building

Selected concrete properties based on

Table 3.1 of EC2, Part 1-1.

Characteristic tensile properties of

Bending moment and shear co-efficients

Selected recommendation for normal-weight

reinforced concrete quality for combined

Minimum column dimension axis distances

for columns with rectangular or circular section method A

Minimum dimension and axis distances

for reinforced concrete slabs.

Maximum bar size or spacing to limit crack width

Partial Factor for safety for loading (BS)

Combination of actions and load factors at ULS

Coefficient () of column in BS8110